Macaulay continues to rankle the Sanskritists

It appears that Mr JG Arora in his essay "Revive Sanskrit" (in the Central Chronicle, Madhya Pradesh, 3 March 2006) is assigning an overly exaggerated role to Sanskrit in the practice and survival of Hinduism by claiming as follows:

“..... But death of Sanskrit means death of Hindu religion, Hindu Sanskriti (culture), Hindu heritage and Hindu identity……..Sanskrit must be revived and taught in schools and colleges since its survival is a must for survival of Hinduism and for rediscovery of hidden treasures of Bharat Varsha.....”

Sanskrit can keep the scholars and priests occupied. But it is in AND by the “languages of the people” that (popular) Hinduism lives AND will live.

It is these “languages of the people”, e.g. Tamil, that have to now play a much greater role in education, in the governance of the Indian States, and in the lives of the people, IF India were to be able to maintain its cultural distinctiveness and vibrancy on the world stage.


The Macaulayan plan for Indian education (1835) was appropriate under the circumstances then:

a) Macaulay was thinking in terms of mass education, though it had to be taken forward in stages in view of the sheer immensity of the task and the needs of Empire-building. This was understandably contrary to the thinking of the exclusivist Sankritists (or Brahmanists) who had always sought to restrict education to the upper castes.

b) Macaulay judged correctly that Sanskrit (or Arabic) would NOT help the people of India to develop intellectually AND operate effectively in a world that would be shaped and driven by modern science and technology. This corresponded closely to the thinking of leading social reformers of India like Raja Rammohun Roy who was already (in 1823) calling for the end of the domination of Sanskrit in Indian education.

c) Macaulay also judged correctly that the “vernaculars” (or languages spoken by the people) were also not as yet ready for the task. These vernaculars were indeed in varying degrees of impoverishment as a result of centuries of marginalization and subversion by Sanskrit(ists). (Note 1) (Note 2) (Note 3)


In post-Independence India that prides itself being the world's largest democracy, it is the languages of the people that have to be restored to their rightful place. The resurgence of these languages will also lead to Hinduism being retrieved from the suffocating grips of Brahmanism / Varnashramam and eventually regenerated.

To link the revival of Sanskrit to the survival of Hinduism is akin to linking the revival of Latin to the survival of Christianity.

The Sanskritists / Brahmanists, who have appropriated much from the people of India over the ages, should get real. They should now work for the resurgence of the languages of the people. If not, they should at least NOT block the way.


Note 1:

1. Macaulay was certainly NOT worrying about India for altruistic reasons. Instead he was seeking to turn India into a more governable and profitable part of the British Empire, hopefully for all time to come. Fortunately, India was not situated in a region of the world where the Europeans would have had sought to establish white settler communities. In which case they would have proceeded by decimating - NOT educating - the native population, as it had happened in the New World (Americas) where 30 million natives (Amerindians) were eliminated within 30 years (at the rate of 1 million per year).

2. Macaulay was a brilliant son of Victorian England. He knew how Europe emerged from its medieval stagnation to conquer / colonize large parts of the rest of the world. That happened largely because of the production and diffusion of new knowledge: knowledge about the practical world (not of the how-many-angels-can-dance-on-the-pinhead variety!). It was all about the understanding and mastery of NATURE so as to improve the human condition in this world (something that was clearly NOT happening for a long time through the agency of religion).

3. The spread of such knowledge did not have to wait for formal education in schools and universities. The production and diffusion of knowledge was facilitated by the invention of the printing press (remember Gutenberg). This in turn paved the way for intellectual work to break out from the confines of Latin (through which the Church maintained its influence / control) to the vernaculars (e.g. English, German, French, etc.). The ascendance of vernaculars, in turn, led to a situation whereby much of the early inventions / innovations would emerge from practical people, the ’tinkerers’ of society like the artisans, craftsmen, etc. It was a case of PRACTICE leading the way, often leaving behind THEORY.

(What a contrast was the holy India of Vedic chants and elaborate yajnas?!
Here, ordinary but productive people - people doing productive or practically useful work - like all others, were trapped by their respective karmic Dharma, and it was only at the risk of violating their caste Dharma could they seek out better ways of doing their work OR seek doing some different work.)

4. It was this vernacular English (after more than 300 years of rapid development, including Shakespeare) that Macaulay was bringing to India as an imperial language. Such was the rapidity of the rise of vernacular English in status. The vernacular that displaced Latin in England was seen by eminent Indian reformists like Raja Rammohun Roy as a suitable replacement for Sanskrit in Indian education. It was a crucial first step towards liberating India from the age-old Sanskritic stranglehold (India's internal colonization). Without lifting the Sanskritic lid, the revival of the non-Sanskritic languages (or vernaculars) and traditions would be difficult to imagine. Without sweeping aside the stifling social order imposed by the Sanskritists / Brahmanists, India's huge human potential would remain forever grossly underdeveloped.


Note 2: (inserted 10 March 2006)

Dr K Ponmudy’s The Dravidian Movement and The Black Movement (1998) is packed with interesting perspectives on the British role in social change in India, but inexplicably omits any explicit mention or evaluation of Macaulay’s part. This seems to confirm how much of a hot potato Macaulay has proven to be for scholars for a long time. It is time that Macaulay’s role in India gets to be seen in an altogether new light.

Relevant excerpts (without the associated Notes and References / citations, but the headings and emphases are mine) from Dr Ponmudy’s remarkable book that is well-researched and packed with statistics (tables and charts):

Systems of education in India: Traditional vs Modern

“…… Two differences between the traditional and modern system of education, according to M N Srinivas (a noted anthropologist in India) were that the traditional schools had been restricted to upper caste children and transmitted mostly traditional knowledge. There were Hindu Patashalas, Buddhist monasteries and Muslim Madarasas. In all these schools, the curriculum was predominantly religious. They discouraged the spirit of free inquiry and resisted change. They taught in a language or languages foreign to the people at large. In the Hindu schools Sanskrit served as the medium of instruction and in the Muslim schools Arabic. One essential difference between the Hindu schools, and the Buddhist and the Muslim schools was that the former were designed for one favoured class or the community, and the latter were opened for all irrespective of their castes. Education in the Hindu schools was a means of training the pupil in accepting the existing caste structure of the Hindu society, in believing in the infallibility of the Vedas, and of the Brahmins in interpreting the Vedas. In the Manusmirithi it is stated that not only is the Sudra to be disgraced, in his body, but the caste law forbids him to read, or hear, the sacred Vedas. It is narrated in the Mahabharata, when Ekalaiva a person born in a lower caste, learnt archery secretly was caught and his right thumb was cut off. Valmiki’s Ramayana also narrates the story of Shambuka. Shambuka, a Sudra by birth went into deep meditation for twelve years. As the Sudras were not allowed to do meditation, the act of Shambuka was considered as a violation of caste rules and Rama himself marched against Shambuka and beheaded him for his temerity……” (p.29-30)


British rule as a prime mover of social change in India

“….. In India, the establishment of the British rule served as a prime mover of social change. In the USA, the emancipation of slavery in 1863 was the prime mover of social change. These two events caused or increased various other forces of modernization, particularly, affecting the hitherto oppressed or static groups of the society. The new factors introduced by the British rule in India, such as western education, jobs in the administration, urban sources of income, modern means of communication like railways, posts and telegraphs, printing press, adult franchise and local self governments affected the traditional group relations. “One obvious result” of the British rule as M N Srinivas explains, “was that books and journals, along with schools, made possible the transmission of modern as well as traditional knowledge to large numbers of Indians – knowledge which could no longer be the privilege of a few, hereditary groups – while the newspapers made people in different parts of the far-flung country realize they had common bonds, and that events happening in the world outside influenced their lives, for good or ill.” These forces gave a new sense of self-respect and power to low castes. Further, these forces increased social mobility…..

In the field of education in India, the Christian missionaries, the East India Company and the British Government played vital role in modernizing education. Though the primary object of the missionary schools was to spread Christianity, the people in the Sudra and untouchable castes were made to understand the value of education and thus it paved the way for increasing socialization of the lower groups. The minutes of Lord Auckland and Elphinstone written in 1838, states that there were (156) one hundred and fifty six missionary schools and 4944 pupils in the Tamil districts. As stated earlier, the East India Company and the British government in India also took interest in spreading modern education. One essential difference in the objectives of these prime movers is that the missionaries tried to spread education in order to spread Christianity, whereas the latter intended to produce more indigenous servants for the company and the government, ‘a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and intellect.’ After a long controversy between the Anglicists and the Orientalists over the system of education the government during Bentinck’s Governor-Generalship decided to implement the Western system of education in India. This was a death knell to the hitherto existed traditional system of education based on Hindu religious principles embodied in the Vedas and Upanishads and also to the progress of Sanskrit and Arabic learning. Another event, ‘the famous resolution of 7th March 1853, which stated that the promotion of European Literature and Science was to be the aim of British educational efforts’ henceforth paved the way for rapid advancement in the field of education. The Woods Despatch of 1854 and the subsequent encouragement given by the British government increased the number of schools and colleges in India which turned out tens of thousands of educated Indians versed in modern knowledge…..” (p.52–55)

Note 3: (inserted 10 March 2006)

Vedic conception of education

O.P.Sharma provides a glimpse of the Vedic conception of education in his INDIAN CULTURE: Ancient Glory and Present Gloom (1992):

“….. Adequate arrangements were made to impart education. Kautilya (click here) says, “Brahmans shall be provided with forests for religious learning, such forests being rendered safe from the dangers from animate and inanimate objects”. Education was the responsibility of the State is stated by Yajnavalkya thus: “Having made suitable houses in his city, the King should make the Brahmans settle there and having granted them stipends for learning the three Vedas, he should say “Follow your own Vocation”. To quote Kautilya again, “Those learned in the Vedas shall be granted Brahmadeya lands yielding sufficient produce and exempted from taxes and fines.”

Evidently teachers were held in high esteem by the society and their mundane needs were taken care of by the public and the State. The acquisition of knowledge and its dissemination involved self-restraint, suffering and sacrifice – a sort of penance. No wonder wealth and power paid homage to wisdom of which teaches were embodiment……. By and large, Brahmans adopted teaching as a profession because they had aptitude for this vocation. But here it is worth while to point out that teaching was not the exclusive preserve of Brahmans. Non-Brahmans too who had excelled in intellectual accomplishments could take to teaching. Among non-Brahmans teachers, names of Janak, Ajatasatru and Jaivali are shining examples. These non-Brahman teachers enjoyed no less veneration from their students.

While imparting education to students no discrimination was made on the grounds of sex and Varna. For poor students provision of scholarships and stipends was made…… While imparting instruction to the pupil the teacher took into account his caliber and aptitude. It was not considered worthwhile to waste time and energy on those students who had no appetite for intellectual pursuits. It was the considered view of educationists that heredity was more important than environment. A saying goes: “A bamboo tree cannot blossom into a sandal plant simply because it is assiduously watered and manured”…..” (p.27-28)

The above clearly bears out the discrimination that existed in matters of education, as in all else, in a society organized according to the Brahmanist doctrine of Varnashrama (as extensively codified in the Manusmrti). As education was meant (according to ManuDharma) for the Brahmans, all facilities and amenities were to be provided by the State (or King) to the Brahmans for that purpose. The non-Brahmans were left to their own means to seek cultivation / education in a society where, as stated above, “heredity was more important than environment”, i.e. nature (birth) was more important than nurture. This is diametrically opposite to the Dravidian ideal of society as expounded by the saint Thiruvalluvar (ஐயன் திருவள்ளுவர்) in his Thirukkural (திருக்குறள்). It was the misfortune of Indian society that Manu's Dharma sidelined Kural’s ARam (அறம்) more than 2,000 years ago.


Related blogs:

'Sanskritisation': Definition or Deflection? (28 Feb 2006)

Dumbing down of Hindu society (1): 'Mother of All (Open) Secrets' (14 Aug 2005)

Hinduism: its caste system & priesthood (18 June 2005)

Jayankanthan and Tamil language sentiments (09 June 2005)


Comments may be forwarded to: anbarul@yahoo.com