Saturday, 18 May 2013

Opinion: Lord Macauley did not address the British Parliament in 1835

Comments are open again
I have decided not to allow the irritation of one person to spoil the open forum for interaction on my blog. I have removed all trace of his views and blacklisted him.
We are strangers here and the least that we can expect of each other regardless of our views, is respect, courtesy and dignified expression. You fall short; you fall out.
Closing Comments Update - 1st November 2013: In view of certain recent developments in the comments section of this blog, I have decided to close this blog to any new comments.
A more comprehensive note appears below the text of the blog.
Update – 26th July 2013: Having had so much traffic to this blog, it has become necessary to add more information and references about the quote, the context, the person and the somewhat ulterior motives that seem to govern the release of what I might refer to as "Internet Apocrypha".
I will advise anyone who is thinking of commenting on this opinion piece to first exhaustively go through the links provided within and below the article and appreciate the import of each submission, and then, if there is any desire to debunk any of the claims, please provide reference, attribution and accessible sources to support your views.
Thanks.
Akin Akintayo – 26th July 2013
Shared on Facebook
A few hours ago, I came upon a picture taken of a supposed speech made to the British Parliament on Facebook and the healthy sceptic that I am had to review the content to determine if this was true or not.
A quick search, though inconclusive proved my doubts and though I left a comment on the feature, soon afterwards the posting was removed in its entirety along with all the opinions expressed about it.
My control
That is probably what I fear the most about participating in the many forums on the Internet outside my control, the sudden disappearance of an opinion, a view or a comment so succinctly made at a moment in time representing my contemporaneous thinking which I may never be able to reproduce if it is lost.
This informs the reason why I mainly stick to writing on my blog where my views cannot be tampered with by editors or syndicators – my cubicle serves its purpose well.
The speech

I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in the country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.” [Wikipedia]
Intent unexpressed
Now, with regards to the picture above and the words transcribed there is probable cause to believe that there was intent by the British Empire as it spread its tentacles in the 19th Century; I had my doubts that they were expressed as such, especially in Parliament.
Sensational and inflammatory as it definitely is, it can be used to whip up nationalist fervour and jingoism for the ways in which colonialism and imperialism raped the colonies but if we are historically incorrect in attempting to harness a sentiment for polemics and so political gain, eventually the truth of such manipulation will be revealed, but long after the mob has been excited to wreak havoc on our peace.
Quite improbable
Now, this speech was said to have been made by Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay on the 2nd of February 1835 to the British Parliament. This would have been difficult, if he left for India in 1834 and returned in 1838 serving on the Supreme Council of India.
The fastest ships of that time managed 5 to 6 knots and this was before the time of the Clippers, Suez Canal did not open until 1869, so with a basic calculation of London to Bombay via Cape Town, a distance of 10,721 nautical miles with no days spent at port, an average one-way trip to India will take just over 74 days. [Using Sea Distances – Voyage Calculator]
This was not a journey to be taken lightly if you were based in India in the 19th Century; it is quite unlikely that T. B. Macaulay made a speech to the British Parliament in 1935.
Minutes
Then one might ask how this got attributed to him. He did take minutes on the 2nd of February 1835 on the issue of Indian Education but those minutes do not contain the said words, it is suggested that the words might well have been an embellished paraphrase of a number of opinions that the man might have expressed in different documents and letters.
Apparently, the East India Company had been given the monopoly to trade with India and was instructed by the British Parliament to spend 100,000 Rupees on promoting the education of Indian natives. [Source - Doc]
The Company officials were divided on the kind of education to be promoted – will it be the indigenous system of education, or a new education system patterned along the British system of education.” The context of T. B. Macaulay’s minutes a subject of the English Education Act of 1835 were implemented in India in 1854 was advocating the promotion of European style education over the indigenous system.
The reprehensible thinking of those times
There are other words that are apparently attributed to Lord Macaulay and this follows the thinking of colonialists of that time; on page 325 in Essays, Critical and Miscellaneous, by Thomas Babington Macaulay, Baron Macaulay, we find the paragraph below as also corroborated in Callaloo Nation, by Aisha Khan.
There never, perhaps, existed a people so thoroughly fitted by nature and by habit for a foreign yoke.
This reads no different in context and understanding that Lord Lugard proffered of Africans in his book, The Dual Mandate in British Tropical Africa in 1922, where he said, “In character and temperament, the typical African of this race-type is a happy, thriftless, excitable person; lacking in self control, discipline, and foresight ...” I covered this in my Apes Obey Series.
Debunk the fallacies, always
I expect the picture to go viral as it gets shared and commented on by readers on Facebook, Twitter and other Social Media forums, it might even catch the eye of some newspapers on its way to becoming a meme, many not bothering to verify the information and ascertain its provenance, veracity and correctness with historical fact.
As to the exact words spoken or written by Baron Macaulay, many of which might be in dispute, one can only end on the damning excoriation of taking things at face value exemplified in these words authored by someone who did not sign their contributions to this debate. “Available in the archives to genuine researchers. Not for followers of the ‘If it cannot be Googled it did not happen’ doctrine.” I hear you.
Other notes added 26th July 2013
In response to a comment that was posted recently, this piece was attributed to Lord Macaulay in 1835, well, in 1835, he was Mr Thomas Macaulay, he did not become Lord Macaulay until August 1857, which would suggest this was an attribution as a reported event rather than diary event, else, the postscript would say Mr Thomas Macaulay who became Lord Macaulay.
There is no reference in the Hansard of any speech, address, opinion, bill or comment by Mr Thomas Macaulay in the years from 1834 to 1838 inclusive.
Mr Thomas Macaulay apparently took up an appointment on the Supreme Council of India between 1834 and 1838 for which he was paid £50,000 to help pay off debts his father had accrued. [Spartacus Educational Biography]
There is another view that the real documented quote made by Mr Thomas Macaulay, though again unproven is below - the research continues:
I accept catholic beyond the across and across of India and I accept not apparent one getting who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such abundance I accept apparent in this country, such top moral values, humans of such caliber, that I do not anticipate we would anytime beat this country, unless we breach the actual courage of this nation, which is her airy and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I adduce that we alter her old and age-old apprenticeship system, her culture, for if the Indians anticipate that all that is adopted and English is acceptable and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their built-in self-culture and they will become what we ambition them, a absolutely bedeviled nation.” [WikiQuote]
Pertinent References
(These must be reviewed before posting a comment challenging the opinions stated here.)
Talk:Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay – The WikiQuote analysis of this purported speech.
Biography of Thomas Babington Macaulay – From Spartacus Educational, here, it noted that he was ennobled in August 1857, that is when he became Lord Macaulay.
Minute by the Hon'ble T. B. Macaulay, dated the 2nd February 1835. – From Bureau of Education. Selections from Educational Records, Part I (1781-1839). Edited by H. Sharp.  Calcutta: Superintendent, Government Printing, 1920. Reprint. Delhi: National Archives of India, 1965, 107-117.
A dubious quotation, a controversial reputation: the merits of Lord Macaulay – An exhaustive study of Lord Macaulay by Koenraad Elst – This must be read.
Macaulay's Minute revisited - Ramachandra Guha – The Hindu
Lord MacAulay’s Speech to British Parliament 1835 – Robert Lindsay on whipping up nationalist sentiment with contrived and false quotes.

Finally to put this all in context - The Curse of the Internet: Fake Historical Quotes

Dear Reader,
After almost 6 months of having written this blog with over 6,000 reads and all together 39 comments, I have decided to close this blog to new comments.
I appreciate everyone who has found time to read what I have written and have left comments either in support of or against the views expressed here.
Many, times, I have reiterated that the purpose of this blog is to dispute the letter of quote attributed to Lord Macaulay; at no time, I have suggested that colonialists have not practiced the spirit of the forgery attributed to the man.
My basic premise has been, if we are to be beacons of truth and justice, our activism and agitation must be based on the truth and the facts, never on fabricated quotes to suit our sentiments and subjective views. See - The Curse of the Internet: Fake Historical Quotes
Recently, the comments have digressed from the purpose and context of this blog; they have become unhelpful and do nothing to further the debate. I did not write this blog to entertain idle retired trolls.
I have suffered his views for long enough that I have decided to close this blog to new comments.
Everyone has a forum in the greater, bigger world of the Internet to publish their concurrence or disagreement and link back to this blog, if they so wish.
Thank you for reading and visiting my blog, I am honoured if providence has led you here whether you have gain anything or not from reading my blog.
With the kindest regards,
Akin Akintayo - 1st November 2013


42 comments:

Gagandeep Singh said...

Dude the pic and topic you have mentioned above were part of Lord Macaulay's personal diary. So correct your statistics first !

Sarma Kssn said...

Why you have not responded to Shri Gagandeep Singh's observations Mr. Why Don't you correct your statistics as advised by Shri Singh.

Akin Akintayo said...

This might have been collated to put in Lord Macaulay's diaries, but a diary will have hand-written text, not a cut-out annotated with a date and a personal photograph as seen in that picture - that is at best an attribution to the man, it does prove that he said it or wrote it.

Mr Thomas Macaulay did not become Baron Macaulay until 1857, so this is a reported event rather than a diary event, probably something added to the archive of the man after his death.

The Hansard, the record of British parliamentary activities does not have entries for Mr Thomas Macaulay in 1835 http://goo.gl/2CjY8H

I stand by my assertions, Lord Macaulay was not in the UK before the British Parliament in February 1835, he was in India. That is what this title of this blog avers with clear indications as to why.

If you want to proffer a new argument, provide more authoritative sources to debunk the view.

Thank you, there is nothing to correct here.

Dhrupad Gupta said...

what do you think about Indian act of education of 1835........your ans in this question

Malhotra Ashok said...

You are right the address by Lord Macaulay is a cheap fake. The font used is a modern computer font that did not exist in 1800's or even most of 1900's. The forger has tried to make his note look genuine by using antique paper background and red lines etc. but forgot the most basic of things the font. The fact is that India has been low on moral character much before the British came, for more than a thousand years, perhaps since the decline of the Buddhist empires and destruction of Institutions like Nalanda University (the first university in the world that has recently been revived) Just the fact of forgery speaks volumes for the moral character of those who did it.

Akin Akintayo said...

Hello,


I have no particular opinion on the English Education Act of 1835, however, the implementation of that act did not come about in India until 1854.


The main focus of this opinion is to demonstrate that the said address did not happen, other experts can address your question if the references I have provided do not.

Akin Akintayo said...

Hello,


Thanks for your comment. The main purpose of this opinion was to suggest very strongly that this address did not take place.


Knowing the sentiment that the piece has attracted, I have refrained from using strong words but provided as much evidence with the hope that a clear and open mind will come to the determination that the provenance of the said speech is suspect and thereby possibly a forgery.


Commentary about the political, social and economic consequences of what the British did in India, I will leave to others.

Malhotra Ashok said...

Very well spoken Akin. What was the impact of the British on India is a vast matter for debate but probably as with everything else of this world it is a mix of good and bad perhaps. my personal opinion though is that the good outweighed the bad,but as I said it is a matter of debate and opinions will differ. However forgeries like this one distort the debate as did some assumptions about ancient history by European historians. We need contributions such as yours to sift out the falsehoods. Great contribution. Thanks.

TORGBI said...

I STAND TO BE CORRECTED THOUGH , BUT YOU FORGOTTEN YOU CAN ADDRESS PARLIAMENT WITHOUT YOUR FISCAL PRESENCE AND HOW ARE YOU SURE UR SOURCE THAT MACAULAY WAS IN FACT IN INDIA AT THAT TIME ? AGAIN ARE YOU SAYING HE DID NOT SAY THAT?

kk said...

Well the fact that Macaulay was not in India until 1834, which
is by the way true, is silly as an argument against his making a speech
in the Parliament, because the Parliament in reference is not Indian
Parliament, but the British Parliament. As a matter of fact, Macaulay
gave a speech on India Bill on 10th July 1833, which he thought was "the
best speech, by general agreement, and in my own opinion, that I ever
made in my life" [his first-ever speech in the British Parliament came
as an address on 5th April 1830 on the question of "Removal of Jewish
Disabilities"]. And he did make a speech on Feb. 2, 1835, now famously
known as Minutes on Education.

However, all these facts do not detract from the fact that the quote doing rounds here is NOT Macaulay's.

Hope this helps.

Akin Akintayo said...

It is best to follow logic rather than sentiment, in addition to that, it is important to have some comprehension of the detail before you comment or the lesser will be thought of you and your views.

Addresses made to parliament will be referenced in the Hansard, but in this case for the date mentioned, minutes were taken in India, no address was made to parliament.

Akin Akintayo said...

No, it does not help, the reasoning is muddled if not convoluted.


The premise of this blog is to assert that the excerpted quote as appears in the graphic is a forgery, that the said words were never recorded as spoken in that way, that no address was made to the British Parliament either in Britain or in India on the 2nd of February 1935 and that any other related speeches are archived for referencing for those willing to search for the truth rather than be carried away by sentiment.


Thanks you.

Vijay said...

Good Job. Well researched.

I keep seeing lot of crap (for want of other words) shared on facebook these days. i tried to do a research myself and found that somebody has done it already :). Good to know there are people have a healthy scepticism to investigate before believing anything and everything just because it was on facebook

Akin Akintayo said...

Thank you, you are too kind.

Akin Akintayo said...

Dear Torgbi or KK (Depending on the moniker you choose),

There is nothing wrong in leaving two separate comments, but to pretend to be two separate people is a bit foolish, except if two of you decided to share the same computer with the same email and IP address and Discus identification, 14 minutes apart.

Frankly, one is not impressed, but something always compels people to display some silliness eventually.


Thanks for your comments.

Raj Hudek said...

I'm gonna agree with you on this. I found the initial post on facebook a bit far-fetched to begin with, but I went ahead a researched it in my online University library. According Catherine Haul in Macaulay's Nation, not only was Macaulay still in Calcutta during 1835, but he had know such view of India. He believed Indians to be barbarians that were religiously fanatical and had no ability to self-govern themselves, at least not anytime in the near future. He didn't understand India, the culture or the people and believed them to be backwards and very easy to rule. Either way, thanks for reminding me Akin that the internet can be dangerous if we just accept what we see without proper research... and by proper research, I mean Google is not involved in the process.

vetiarvind said...

Off the tangent, I find it interesting that you link Robert Lindsay in your sources instead of just Koenraad Elst. Not for being biased but he has written a lot of anti-african posts and by linking someone, are you not indirectly endorsing his views? (if you are aware of it in the first place)

Akin Akintayo said...

Dear Vetiarvind,

If anything, the purpose of this blog is collate all commentary about the address and event regardless of whether the commentary is positive or negative.

Robert Lindsay for his supposed anti-African views has every right to be heard and read as much as those with pro-African views.

For instance, I referenced Lord Lugard who said the most reprehensible things about Africans, but within what he said are some uncomfortable truths - truths we must never be afraid to face.

Fundamentally, I am not here to whip up or promote sentimentality, but to offer a forum for an honest exchange of the broadest range of views.

With kind regards,

Akin Akintayo

karma said...

oye kadu, jale hue baingan ke bharte.... tu sala bahut jaan gaya hai tukke baaz.. ja ja kar halla hullu wala dance kar africa ke junglon main.. jo tere baap dada karte the.. wohi tujh par suit karega

Akin Akintayo said...

I have no idea what this language is and it is not detectable by Google. Sorry.

kaml said...

It is not a proper language but a frustrated and racist Indian man abusing you (in Hindi language but writing it in English), cause he's feeling weak with his limited knowledge to defend the views in the viral message. Your honest and straightforward approach seems to be the best way to address such Issues. Thank you!

Kaml said...

Torgbi (or KK) How are you so sure about the existence of this document/speech having presented no proof whatsoever? You are questioning a combination of approx 80% proof and 20% logic. If you just want it to be true, you'll anyways believe it, why waste your sorry life on this useful blog.

kaml said...

'Shri Singh' made a statement supported by no proof and then you supported him, this mentality is the very reason a non-Indian had to prove this to you (in today's globalisation even that is to be appreciated), and now since Akin found an answer to his 'observation' neither he nor you had the modesty to thank him for his efforts.

kaml said...

Your name should be a ringing reminder of where you are heading with your kind words. Shame on you!

Akin Akintayo said...

Thank you for translating this, whatever he said, it does not take away from the facts and the truth.
Regards. :-)

Guruji_89 said...

@karma Learn to respect others a little atleast. And don't try to loose your own self-respect.

Team_Indishell_ForIndiaAnythin said...

They stole our cultures and left their nonsense to us and we feel proud for it. The present generation doesn't know the cultural lesson and their values. We need gurus not teachers.

Akin Akintayo said...

Nobody stole our culture, else, that culture will be practiced by those who stole it.

We abandoned our culture and forgot the fundamentals of what bound us together as people, our underpinnings were weak.

Read of The Pirahã of Brazil who could not be changed because the core elements of their culture does not include guilt and conscience that gets exploited in the clash of cultures. [ http://goo.gl/b0zwgI ]

We don't need gurus where we lose the ability to think, debate, question and understand in the blind followership of demigods prone to error and demagoguery, we need teachers, people who encourage us to reach to reach beyond ourselves to be greater than we ever thought possible.

We must start with understanding who we are and then appreciating where we came from.

Team_Indishell_ForIndiaAnythin said...

Do you know what dies "Guru" means ? :) @Akin Akintayo

Akin Akintayo said...

My friend,

"Guru" means "Spiritual teacher", the problem with spiritual teachers is already defined in my original comment about Gurus, they are answerable to no one, accountable to no one but some higher authority and can act with impunity, the victims getting no justice for offence.

I stand by the original statement, we need no gurus, we need teachers of spiritual and cultural truth, not cultural spiritual teachers - I hope you understand the subtle but obvious differences.

:-)

Narotam Lathia said...

Most commentators miss the reason for the 'quote' (true or false). A great deal of harm has been done and is presently going on as a result of the policy described in Macaulay's actual speech. The present system, a legacy of the British Raj, does not impart education but only raw knowledge for better employment prospects. This in turn is for material gains. House, car, wife, wealth, etc.etc. These leave a human, anywhere in the world, half fulfilled. Real education produces broadminded good citizens of the land. The complaint of the people circulating the 'false' speech appears to be true. The present education system of Europe is not that old and is based on Greek, Roman & German systems. These again were developed from the Indian system over 3 thousand years ago. Taxashila, now in present day Pakistan, was the first University in the world with students from Greece & Rome. Lord Jesus himself is deemed to have attended this place of learning during the 'lost' years when he is supposed to have 'gone to the east'. Do we not, all, detect a hint of Eastern philosophy in the Bible itself? History (His Story) will never show this picture as it does nothing to raise the esteem of the European/Christian culture. Only the few Europeans like Einstein and Oppenheimer, who had deep learning of Sanskrit, have managed to decode the Hindoo 'mythology'. The rest wallow in the false ego created by King Constantine, for selfish reasons and redacted the Bible. Emperor Constantine, who was Roman Emperor from 306 CE until his death in 337 CE, used what motivates many to action -MONEY! He
offered the various Church leaders money to agree upon a single canon
that would be used by all Christians as the word of God. The Church leaders gathered together at the Council of Nicaea and voted the "word of God" into existence. The final version of the Christian Bible was not voted on at the Council of Nicaea, per se. The Church leaders didn't finish editing the "holy" scriptures until the Council of Trent when the Catholic Church pronounced the Canon closed. However, it seems the real approving editor of the Bible was not God but Constantine!

Narotam Lathia said...

OK so WHY does Macaulay utter this nonsense: " I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But ............a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support the oriental plan of education." These words are from his published speech.

Akin Akintayo said...

India soon after independence adopted a socialist/self-sufficient slant for decades before you began to open up your systems and economy to globalisation.


The fact is the extremes don't work, you have to find an accommodation for what is essentially cultural (Indian) and what is 'foreign' (global) to progress.


The issue here, regardless of the history that we try to latch our nationalism and jingoism on is, since 1947 you had determination and purpose for the direction you want for India, to arrive in 2013 looking for excuses is unfortunate - the rest is just argumentative and it does not change the premise of this blog (facts are paramount) nor the responsibilities we have to ourselves once we understand where things when wrong.


Thanks

Akin Akintayo said...

Macaulay said a lot of things, but we must know exactly what he said rather than manufacture what we hope he said to further some atrocious or nationalist cause on falsehood.

Narotam Lathia said...

I used argue like you do till I was 45. I was born and brought up in Kenya. Came to the UK at the age of 18 (in 1968). I have seen a bit of life on both sides, as it were! You gain true knowledge only by traveling to and returning from. Hope you are able to get the meaning of this. I
have read your replies to a lot of comments and it sounds like you are
on an outwards journey! You will gain further knowledge on the return
journey, I'm sure! Good luck with the Blog!

Narotam Lathia said...

Apologies if you felt patronized. Older does not, necessarily, always, mean wiser but false ego certainly misleads. I firmly believe, simply based on his accepted/recorded, speeches that Macaulay was grossly misguided indeed. Evil comes in many forms, often pretending to do good. In my view this is clear when I read published speeches by Macaulay. I believe he he came from a culture with false ego leading him to behave the way he did. BTW 'Globalisation' just means 'I'll have the goods you have at a price I'll dictate'. My beliefs are based on far more solid grounds.

Akin Akintayo said...

I never disputed that Macaulay had views dissimilar to those expressed in the cutout and my blog clearly states that whilst comparing him to another colonialist, Lord Lugard with similarly odious views.

The contention is, the words in that cutout attributed to him are fabricated and manufactured to push a possibly ulterior or sinister nationalist motive.

I did not put up this blog to argue the views, acts or writings of Lord Macaulay, I wrote this to dispute some very basic premises.

1. Historical quotes must be verified and certified to be the truth and correct.

2. The person quoted must not be misquoted.

3. The setting of that quote, if material, must be historically correct.

This cutout failed those premises. Any other argument digresses from the primary purpose of this blog and is fundamentally unnecessary.

The facts once ascertained should be argued in another forum, NOT here.

Thank you.

Narotam Lathia said...

You, my friend, claim to be travelled and a Christian. Yet you say "......and manufactured to push a possibly ulterior or sinister nationalist motive." The British thought the same about KANU (Kenya African NATIONAL Union) and ANC (African NATIONAL Congress) in South Africa. Nationalist movement are always 'SINISTER' in the eye of the OPPRESSOR. Glad to learn where you stand on this. England, Nigeria and the Netherlands is hardly 'travelled', in my view. Distance travelled does not equate to informed judgement. Your judgement on 'the cutout' also has a gross lack of Christian CHARITY. In my view the wording used in the quote/'cut out' is TRUE, in essence & spirit, considering the intentions & policies of the rulers of India at the time.

Akin Akintayo said...

When presumably learned people like you prefer to alter facts for your convenience and for expediency in the face of manifest truth, we all suffer unnecessary carnage, you revel in corruption and can never be a beacon for justice.

For all the good knowledge that might have come from your wealth of experience, you sacrifice it for sentiment and subjectivity, and that is a shame unmitigated, evil and atrocious.

It is refuge of propaganda and what props up the most reprehensible dictators who feast day and night on the blood of the innocents feigning righteous causes for their bellies.


If you feel so strongly about what I have written, go and write your own blog and stop trolling my space.


I will no more entertain your ilk on my blog and I am of the mind to write a blog to expose people like you and you in particular in view if the comments you have written here.


This will form the basis of that blog.


So much absorbed of the world and yet impervious to the reforming qualities of tutelage and experience - you are the face of the injustices you portend to attack - shame on you.

Mandii said...

I think it is interesting that this speech by is very similar in essence to the Willie Lynch speech known by many black people which is now also believed to be an urban legend/hoax. Hmmm. To me it does not matter whether MCaualey & Willie Lynch were real speeches - to me those speeches absolutely reflect the deliberate psychological and spiritual breaking of non-white people to dominate them. The British definitely practice these things deliberately which is why the where able to subjugate so many people around the world. After seeing the movie 12 years a slave - i am absolutely convinced they knew what they were doing -there was no denying the evil in which they were spiritually breaking people. As someone who walks a shamanic path where we MUST deal and encounter evil in its most incarnate forms including demons, I am convinced that they were deliberately breaking the individual and the soul of a people. One of the things we very rarely do in a modern secular society is to address the nature of evil.

Jaswanth Nani said...

i got to this page when i saw a post on facebook about lord macauley and started researching on my own.......and i am happy to see that someone has done it and i just wanted to add that the person in the picture is "lord william bentinck"..

Fugstar said...

Hi there, He did make such remarks, only not in Parliament. I think that was a bad guess that has got caught up in the social media churn. I disagree that you haveto be a 'nativist' to dislike the chap as Guha writes though. Those of us who value, civilisationally, the intellectual , spiritual sources in S Asia that existed before the onset of British Occupation note his contribution to the discourse.

Post a comment

Comments are accepted if in context are polite and hopefully without expletives and should show a name, anonymous, would not do. Thanks.