Lord Macaulay ‘our benefactor’ or… ?

Pakistan has truly become a Chastan. The fight between the politicians has not ended and the conflict between the judiciary and the establishment has arisen. Today we will talk about education leaving political issues. Ever since I became conscious and came into contact with the education system of Pakistan, I have been hearing one thing continuously that the reason for our backwardness is the education system imposed by Lord Macaulay.

Many times the question arose in the mind that who was Lord Macaulay and what conspiracy did he make to keep our nation backward? Was this conspiracy so strong that even after the establishment of Pakistan, we could not put an end to this conspiracy and bring a better education system. They were not as guilty as they are accused of. It has become our national habit that the Jews and the Hindus continue to pay attention to their mistakes. Trying to exonerate himself by covering his head, let’s analyze Mr. Mikale and his “sins”.

The British Empire ruled India for nearly two hundred years, during which time four British personalities became infamous: Lord Clive, who in 1757 fought decisively against the ruler of Bengal, Nawab Siraj-udullah, and his French allies in the plains of Plassey. By conquering’ he founded the East India Company’s rule in India.

General Dyer, who killed hundreds of Indians by ordering firing in Jallianwala Bagh in Amritsar in 1919, General Dyer was shot dead by Sardar Uttam Singh after going to Britain. Mountbatten, during whose tenure India was partitioned. and Lord Thomas Macaulay, who, in 1835, is said to have ‘laid the foundations of a system of education in India’ through his ‘Educational Treatise’, which produced an educated class of Indians loyal to the British government. And continued to play the role of an agent. If these characters are examined, General Dyer and Mountbatten can be called criminals.

It may be said of Lord Macaulay that ‘he has been falsely accused.’ Not to be given Two paragraphs from Macaulay’s “Essay on Education among Common Indians” are highly highlighted. “There is better knowledge in India than all the literature written in Arabic, Persian, Hindi, Urdu and Sanskrit” in just one shelf of any good library in Europe. ‘We must endeavor to create a class which can act as ‘intermediary between us and the millions of people whom we rule, a class of persons who are Indian in color and race but in character’. “Be English in thought and morals.”

Based on these statements, his opponents accused him of destroying India’s education system and widening the gap between the rich and the poor in India. Very few South Asians have tried to know what ‘Minutes on Indian Education’ written by Lord Macaulay was and what it was about. If we look at this document, one thing is clear that despite the above statements, Macaulay was a very intelligent educationist and a far-sighted analyst and he was able to present his most “infamous opinion”. I didn’t feel any pain. Lord Macaulay’s ‘Minutes on Education’ dealt with a fund ‘which the Government of British India had set aside for the purpose of raising the intellectual capacity of its people’. The problem was how best to use the fund. What can be done? And especially what language (medium of instruction) should be used for education? Here, people immediately conclude that ‘Macaulay, like a stubborn and proud imperialist ruler, used the English language instead of the local languages. It was recommended to adopt as a medium of education.

It is wrong to conclude that because the problem was not ‘When Macaulay came to India, he was made the President of the ‘Council for Education’ ‘The Council had ten members and they were divided about the system of education for a united India’. 5 members were of the opinion that ‘for the method of education, these classical languages ​​like Sanskrit, Arabic and Persian should be adopted’ which were already prevalent in India’ but these were not the languages ​​of the people, these languages ​​were used by the royal family, courtiers and royal servants. spoke or the religious elite used these languages, the other 5 members believed that the medium of education should be the English language to develop because the language of the new rulers was English.

There was no mention of the local languages, Punjabi, Pashto, Sindhi, Gujarati, Tamil, Bengali, Maharashtrian, etc. Macaulay’s vote was a casting vote and he used his vote in favor of the English language. The issue was debated at great length and the sentences attributed to Macaulay quoted above ‘may have been spoken during this debate’ one thing is clear that the basis of his argument is very clear and his analysis is on a dispassionate and concrete basis. It is clear that this argument is not based on prejudice or dishonesty.

Macaulay believed that the languages ​​spoken in India were ‘not sufficiently developed to provide a higher scientific education’ and the languages ​​being debated for medium of instruction were Arabic, Persian and Sanskrit on the one hand and English on the other. was Macaulay only recommended that these languages ​​should not be given assistance from government funds because these languages ​​were understood and not desired by the people of India.

He was of the opinion that “instead of forcing the people to adopt a particular mode of education through financial assistance and encouragement from us, the choice of the medium of education should be left to their own will”. Macaulay was in favor of maintaining the Sanskrit College of Benares and the Islamic College of Delhi. He himself shed light on the history of the language in England. He wrote that!

“The first thing I will mention” is the Revival of words in the late fifteenth and early sixteenth centuries in Western nations, “everything that was readable at that time.” was in the ancient Greek language or in the ancient Roman language’ if our forefathers and forefathers’ thought and acted in the same way’ as the Indian committee is doing today’ if they were Cicero (Roman statesman ‘lawyer’ political intellectual and philosopher)106 BC-43 BC) and Tacitus (Roman senator and historian 56 AD-117 AD)) would have ignored the language if they had focused only on the old language of their homeland if they had taught something in the universities. If they did not learn and print anything new, but limited their knowledge only to Anglo-Saxon stories and Norman French romance stories, would England have been in the form it is today? Greek and Latin were to the Indians what the English language is to the Indians today. The rest of Macaulay’s story to come.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Most Recent Posts


Your Guide to WordPress, Shopify, WooCommerce, and Beyond.

Affiliate Links

© 2024 Created By Tahir Murad