As a nation we look for reasons to self-flagellate. Over the past generation or so, as India has shown signs of moving forward as a society and an economy, we have decided to beat ourselves up for being “Macaulay-putras” i.e. brown offspring of Macaulay who are actually British at heart. Therefore, it is important to ask – and to understand – “how sinful is it to be a Macaulay-putra?” PA Krishnan’s article provides clarity on three points.
Firstly, before Macaulay came into the picture it wasn’t as if Indians were studying the native language. Mr Krishnan writes: “Before indicting Macaulay, it is essential to understand the state of indigenous education in early nineteenth-century India. The observations of the collector of Bellary, recorded in the 1820s and often cited approvingly by scholars such as Dharampal, are instructive. He noted that Telugu and Kannada instruction depended heavily on literary forms of the language that bore little resemblance to the vernaculars actually spoken:
“The natives therefore read these (to them unintelligible) books to acquire the power of reading letters… but the poetical is quite different from the prose dialect… Few teachers can explain, and still fewer scholars understand… Every schoolboy can repeat verbatim a vast number of verses of the meaning of which he knows no more than the parrot which has been taught to utter certain words.””
Secondly, thanks to the wonders of the caste system, education (before Macaulay came into the picture) was confined to the upper castes; even the less privileged ‘clean castes’ did not have access to education:
“…hereditary occupations, the sacralised exclusivity of high-caste learning, and the financial burden of even modest fees made education virtually inaccessible to the majority. A fee of three annas a month was beyond the reach of many “clean caste” families, let alone the “unclean” – Paraiyar, Pallar, Chakriyar, Mala, Madiga and other communities who constituted close to half the population. Even within the classroom, caste segregation was strictly maintained.
If this was the state of affairs in the comparatively less feudal, ryotwari regions of South India, the situation in North India –dominated by zamindari and entrenched feudal relations – can only be imagined. The conclusion is unavoidable: before the advent of British rule, formal education was functionally restricted to privileged groups.”
Thirdly, Mr Krishnan says that Indians themselves wanted to be trained in English because that was the path then (as it is today) to superior career opportunities:
“It is also historically erroneous to claim that English education was imposed against the wishes of the populace. In the Madras Presidency particularly, demand for English education was strong. The 1839 petition signed by seventy thousand individuals, including Gazulu Lakshminarasu Chetty, Narayanaswami Naidu, and Srinivasa Pillai, explicitly requested that English education be introduced without delay. Their petition asserted:
“If diffusion of Education be among the highest benefits and duties of a Government, we, the people, petition for our share… We ask advancement through those means which will best enable us… to promote the general interests of our native land.””
Finally, our rulers in independent India, should know that thanks to Macaulay Indians’ access to education improved. The evidence, on this front, says Mr Krishnan is clear: “The British educational system, however limited in intent, did expand opportunities for groups previously excluded from formal learning. The evidence is overwhelming: literacy and access to education grew significantly during colonial rule, whereas pre-colonial systems were highly restricted. But this expansion was an unintended byproduct of administrative rationalisation and economic modernisation – not a deliberate project of social justice.”
And, so we Macaulay-putras continue to speak, write, read and think in English 190 years after the infamous Macaulay-minute was recorded. Mr Krishnan ends his article with a rhetorical question for our leaders: “The real question is not whether Macaulay failed India, but whether India’s own elites failed to fulfil even the limited emancipatory possibilities that colonial modernity, however imperfectly, made available.”
If you want to read our other published material, please visit https://marcellus.in/blog/
Note: The above material is neither investment research, nor financial advice. Marcellus does not seek payment for or business from this publication in any shape or form. The information provided is intended for educational purposes only. Marcellus Investment Managers is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and is also an FME (Non-Retail) with the International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) as a provider of Portfolio Management Services. Additionally, Marcellus is also registered with US Securities and Exchange Commission (“US SEC”) as an Investment Advisor.
