.gif)
A much-needed rescue act
Of all the aulaads and putras that Indians of a saffron hue regularly demonise, “Babur ki aulaad” and “Macaulay putras” have been the most reviled. And while the former have been subjected to death and destruction, the latter have been let off with mere lampooning.
Zareer Masani’s ‘Macaulay: Pioneer of India’s Modernisation’ is an attempt to delve into the little known world of that subject of scorn – Thomas Macaulay. Considering Macaulay’s impact on Indian social and political changes, it is surprising that pretty little scholarly work has been done on this man. Apart from Arthur Bryant’s scholarship in the early 1930s, historians and researchers have neglected Macaulay. And considering he himself was a historian of great calibre, the snub appears more pronounced.
For most Indians, the name is limited to debates that explore whether or not he did the right thing by introducing English as the language for administrative, economic and scientific activities by replacing Persian, Hindi and Sanskrit. The more informed ones also debate about his contribution to the formation of Indian Penal Code. However, Thomas Babington Macaulay was much more than that. And this book is an endeavour towards knowing the man and his time.
Once, in her rare light moments, when Macaulay was described to Queen Victoria as a “book in breeches”, she is supposed to have laughed. But the description was not off the mark. For the uninitiated, Macaulay was a Whig ideologue and politician who was also, by every measure, one of the best linguists and historians of his time. Macaulay believed in the emancipation of the masses and fought to abolish slavery in the UK.
He was also a qualified reviewer and essayist, and naturally had a huge appetite for books. In fact, The Lays of Ancient Rome, his scholarly work of poetry exploring the history of Rome, is considered by many a masterpiece. His reviews, often scathing, used to feature, among other places, at the Edinburgh Review at regular intervals.
The author drives home the point that it was his training as a Whig politician that prompted him to work towards the emancipation of Indians as well. What also comes out from this study is that Macaulay believed in practicality and was essentially a utilitarian. When he realised that the conflicting laws of different castes and religions was proving a hindrance to governance, he proposed the a common law that was adapted some two decades later as the Indian Penal Code. Although Macaulay did not live to see it implemented, he can feel satisfied that even in the 21st century, the law remains surprisingly relevant and practical. The problem lies in its implementation and for that we must point a finger inwards. Similarly, the Indian Civil Service (ICS) was a product of his endeavour.
The author has tried to put Macaulay’s actions and thoughts in the context of the immediate environment in which he operated. And more than anything else, this act alone is the greatest service that anyone could have done to him. His biases are laid bare, but never without putting it in perspective. For example, when purists debated about the superior nature of Sanskrit and Persian grammar, especially as compared to English, Macaulay is supposed to have quipped, “Does it matter in what grammar a man talks nonsense?” The idea was not to belittle the language but drive home that much of the new ideas, whether political, philosophical, scientific or otherwise were being either penned or translated in English. It was but logical and practical that English became the new language of the masses.
One must nor forget here that unlike the Orientalists of his time or even later, Macaulay never questioned the intelligence of the native or doubted their capability to grasp modern ideas. He only disapproved of the way and language through which he was supposed to introduce these ideas to the natives.
Of all the aulaads and putras that Indians of a saffron hue regularly demonise, “Babur ki aulaad” and “Macaulay putras” have been the most reviled. And while the former have been subjected to death and destruction, the latter have been let off with mere lampooning.
Zareer Masani’s ‘Macaulay: Pioneer of India’s Modernisation’ is an attempt to delve into the little known world of that subject of scorn – Thomas Macaulay. Considering Macaulay’s impact on Indian social and political changes, it is surprising that pretty little scholarly work has been done on this man. Apart from Arthur Bryant’s scholarship in the early 1930s, historians and researchers have neglected Macaulay. And considering he himself was a historian of great calibre, the snub appears more pronounced.
For most Indians, the name is limited to debates that explore whether or not he did the right thing by introducing English as the language for administrative, economic and scientific activities by replacing Persian, Hindi and Sanskrit. The more informed ones also debate about his contribution to the formation of Indian Penal Code. However, Thomas Babington Macaulay was much more than that. And this book is an endeavour towards knowing the man and his time.
Once, in her rare light moments, when Macaulay was described to Queen Victoria as a “book in breeches”, she is supposed to have laughed. But the description was not off the mark. For the uninitiated, Macaulay was a Whig ideologue and politician who was also, by every measure, one of the best linguists and historians of his time. Macaulay believed in the emancipation of the masses and fought to abolish slavery in the UK.
He was also a qualified reviewer and essayist, and naturally had a huge appetite for books. In fact, The Lays of Ancient Rome, his scholarly work of poetry exploring the history of Rome, is considered by many a masterpiece. His reviews, often scathing, used to feature, among other places, at the Edinburgh Review at regular intervals.
The author drives home the point that it was his training as a Whig politician that prompted him to work towards the emancipation of Indians as well. What also comes out from this study is that Macaulay believed in practicality and was essentially a utilitarian. When he realised that the conflicting laws of different castes and religions was proving a hindrance to governance, he proposed the a common law that was adapted some two decades later as the Indian Penal Code. Although Macaulay did not live to see it implemented, he can feel satisfied that even in the 21st century, the law remains surprisingly relevant and practical. The problem lies in its implementation and for that we must point a finger inwards. Similarly, the Indian Civil Service (ICS) was a product of his endeavour.
The author has tried to put Macaulay’s actions and thoughts in the context of the immediate environment in which he operated. And more than anything else, this act alone is the greatest service that anyone could have done to him. His biases are laid bare, but never without putting it in perspective. For example, when purists debated about the superior nature of Sanskrit and Persian grammar, especially as compared to English, Macaulay is supposed to have quipped, “Does it matter in what grammar a man talks nonsense?” The idea was not to belittle the language but drive home that much of the new ideas, whether political, philosophical, scientific or otherwise were being either penned or translated in English. It was but logical and practical that English became the new language of the masses.
One must nor forget here that unlike the Orientalists of his time or even later, Macaulay never questioned the intelligence of the native or doubted their capability to grasp modern ideas. He only disapproved of the way and language through which he was supposed to introduce these ideas to the natives.
For More IIPM Info, Visit below mentioned IIPM articles
.gif)
