How British destroyed India?

Thursday, 15. June 2006, 15:42:37

India

Lord Macaulay’s address to the British Parliament in 2 February, 1835.

"I have traveled 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 this
country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think
we would ever 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".

Comments from readers of the above Macaulay quote

Yup, these British have really bad attitudes when they mess with other
people's countries. Being my country(Greece) also a victim of these
attitudes, we have made equivalent myths too, like that here famous
Kissingers one:
“The Greek people are anarchic and difficult to tame. For this reason we must
strike deep into their cultural roots: perhaps then we can force them to
conform. I mean, of course, to strike at their language, their religion, their
cultural and historical reserves, so that we can neutralize their ability to
develop, to distinguish themselves, or to prevail; thereby removing them as
an obstacle to our strategically vital plans in the Balkans, the Mediterranean,
and the Middle East"

Tamil, I don't now if your quote was really true(it may was), but, afterall, its
your(indians) responsibility if the Britains made your country another colony
of them. Its yours responsibility to build defences, and by defences I mean
politcal conscience. British just do their job, they wouldnt have hundreds of
colonies if they did it wrong.

alamandrax # 24. June 2006, 19:40

its your(indians) responsibility if the Britains made your country another
colony of them. Its yours responisbility to biuld defences, and by defences I
mean politcal conscience. British just do their job, they wouldnt have
hundreds of colonies if they did it wrong. that is hardly any excuse. it's not
that they occupied countries, if they meant to develop them and provide
peace and security for those people and maybe explore
their culture, that would have been fine. a ruler is a ruler. but being
motivated by
a need to break a people's spirit just for domination and subjugation is what
is appalling. (all this assuming there is some truth to the quote in question -
it might, like you said, be an urban myth - but the evidence to the contrary is
quite apparent)

Anonymous # 14. July 2006, 01:36

Anonymous writes:
This remark,
"Tamil, I don't now if your quote was really true(it may was), but, afterall, its
your(indians) responsibility if the Britains made your country another colony
of them. Its yours responisbility to biuld defences, and by defences I mean
politcal conscience. British just do their job, they wouldnt have hundreds of
colonies if they did it wrong."

is typical of the moral idiocy or moral bankruptcy so typical of our times,

which features "the lowest common denominator" sort of mentality of our
"mass culture," in which every fool has an opinion about everything and the
"right" to such an opinion. Always a non-thought thinking and a simple
inability to see ugliness and plain indecency when it stares one in the face,
not to mention an invincible cultural ignorance and prejudice. The same sort
of stupidity is in evidence in remarks defending American soldiers in the
teeth of the evidence of their atrocities. Objectivity is a rare virtue.

The ancient Hindu culture failed to "protect" itself largely because it lacked
guns. That it harbored human failings that could be exploited by a maximum
of cunning and ill will goes without saying. The fact remains, "the East bowed
before the West in deep and patient disdain," with very good reason.
Unfortunately, now tht it has lost its traditional mentality, and has become
another "third world" area, those in the "first world" can smugly wallow in a
sense of superiority, all the more so in that we can witness the pitiful sight
of India and other Asian countries trying to "develop" like the West. How
wonderful it will be when everybody thinks and acts like a proletarian
European or a yokel from Texas or Indiana, and the landscape is uniformly
one of malls and franchises from one end of the earth to the other: "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."

Anonymous # 14. July 2006, 01:48

Anonymous writes:
Good points. The fact that the quote is spurious, as it almost certainly is, is
not relevant to the moral ugliness of the person's attitude towards it, not to
mention the fact that technical superiority has nothing to do with the intrinsic
worth of a culture. The Hindu concept of "dharma" is the true gauge, and not
that of "homo economicus."

Anonymous # 14. July 2006, 03:29

Chocolate Brownie with vanilla scoops writes:
DeadHarlequin:
Tamil, I don't now if your quote was really true(it may was), but, afterall, its
your(indians) responsibility if the Britains made your country another colony
of them.I like the deep, scientific reasoning behind your analysis. eanwhile, a
few words on how we Indians should protect the dying art of eating dosas as
well?

Anon #2:
The ancient Hindu culture failed to "protect" itself largely because it lacked
gunsQuotes like this make me both angry and sad. Angry, because being so
simplistic, because it incorporates such a deeply flawed reading military of
(what the Honourable W. would call as) strategery in general, and sad,
because it is next to impossible to convince people that it is so.

I shall therefore surmise by saying the following: -

Please read up on medieval Indian military history before coming up with
nonsense such as this. Start with "White Mughals" if you need romance to
hold your attention.

Anonymous # 15. July 2006, 04:47

Anonymous writes:
Re: Quotes like this make me both angry and sad. Angry, because being so
simplistic.

"Guns" here obviously was shorthand for technological superiority. The West
had machinery and outgunned their enemies, the East did not. That did
largely account for their military victories. The rapid colonization of the world
by the Europeans is largely a phenomenon of a technolgically more
developed people militarily overcoming technologically weaker ones. What do
you think the chief factor was? At any rate, the colonization by the
Europeans does not form part of Indian medieval history, but of modern
Indian history. Unfortunately, the average man is such that he is awed by
material superiority, and takes it for essential superiority. A man in a
business suit getting out of a jet plane strikes him as intrinsically superior to
a the Jagadguru in his dhoti. That is a true tragedy, because it is an almost
invincible spiritual blindness--clearly foretold in the Puranas.

deadHarlequin # 15. July 2006, 07:22

I like the deep, scientific reasoning behind your analysis. meanwhile, a few
words on how we Indians should protect the dying art of eating dosas as
well?

To be honest, I prefer my plain reasoning from opinions that simulate such

events into physical disasters...
There isn't only the issue of guns, it's rather the issue of political and
economical influence.

What I am saying is that seeking for the responsibilities of others its

completely useless and nonsense. It wasn't my intention to justify such
tactics.

Anyway it's true I only know very very few things about indian history.

Anonymous # 2. August 2006, 14:50

velvetlight writes:

supposedly macaulay never said this. he was in india in 1835. for detailed
info about why this is a hoax quote go to
http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html

also he must have been blind to say he never saw a beggar or a thief
considering that the famous gang of 'thugs' ran amok in central india.

Anonymous # 26. August 2006, 07:17

Balaji writes:
Whatever the past was, now again India is falling victim to the western
culture. Wherever you go, you can only see advertisements and notices in
English only, not in local language. In most of the provinces in India, English
is the communication language, not local language. Politicians like
Karunanidhi are still opposing Hindi, our national language and they promote
English more than Tamil. They say to promote tamil they oppose hindi, but
they inject English. Agony...........!!!!!!

Anonymous # 9. December 2006, 20:46

Anonymous writes:

How do you know that statement above were Lord Macaulay’s address to the
British Parliament in 2 February, 1835. Do you have any sources to prove
this comment? If you do please advise.....

Anonymous # 11. December 2006, 02:48

Anonymous writes:

part XVII of the constitution:

defines OFFICIAL language (NOT national lang)
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~sk4zw/india-const/p17.html

Article 345: This gives the State govt., power to decide its own "OFFICIAL
LANGUAGE"
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~sk4zw/india-const/p17345.html
Article 343: This defines hindi and english to be the "OFFICIAL LANGUAGES"
of union govt.
http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~sk4zw/india-const/p17343.html

DIFFERENCE:
NATIONAL LANGUAGE: defines the people of the nation, culture, history.
OFFICIAL LANGUAGE: used for official communication While a National
language by default can become the Official langauge, an Official language
has to be APPROVED legally to become the National language.

India has NO NATIONAL LANGUAGES ONLY 23 OFFICIAL languages

alamandrax # 11. December 2006, 17:31

to anon:
like the comments above suggest, there are a few webpages dedicated to
why these quotes attributed to Lord Macaulay are nothing but mere fiction. a
simple google search should pull those up.

also, as an interesting read, a simple book search about missionary work in

india in the 1880's should bring up a lot of lectures and books dedicated to a
study of the indian people. the search string i used was "telugu language"
and it turned out to be books on the missionary work done in south india.
ymmv. point is, i don't think it's important whether this quote can be
attributed to Lord Macaulay. what is is trying to understand why it should
matter in the context of the world we live in right now.
thoughts?

XaHyMaH # 23. March 2007, 01:56

Same s#it happens between USA and USSR...

Metlin # 23. March 2007, 04:45

You know, culture is not a single thing that stays the same. The only culture
that stays the same is the culture that stays dead.

So what if we borrow something from other cultures? Indian culture has

borrowed several things from the British and it's worked both ways.

I mean, at the end of the day, nothing is set in stone - I'd rather have a shot
at interacting easily with the rest of the world at the expense of annoying our
"cultural elite" than not.

*shakes head*

deadHarlequin # 30. March 2007, 14:23

It turns out Macaulay never said the quoted text. As with Kissinger's case...
I will repeat my opinion that although for sure British exploited India in a
way, India owes her development to the British, as does owe any
misdevelopment even until today, to its own state, and furthermore to Indian
people themselves.

The greatest enemy for India, as with any other country, is its
introversion.that is hardly any excuse. it's not that they occupied countries, if
they meant to develop them and provide peace and security for those people
and maybe explore their culture, that would have been fine. a ruler is a ruler.
but being motivated by a need to break a people's spirit just for domination
and subjugation is what is appalling. (all this assuming there is some truth to
the quote in question - it might, like you said, be an urban myth - but the
evidence to the contrary is quite apparent)

It's not an excuse, its a fact. The development comes with an exchange,
is not a charity of course!What was the progress of India after its
independence? There wasnt any! Only the last years india has started gaining
potential for development.

Anonymous # 23. May 2007, 09:18

Anonymous writes:
it was unsophisticated on british's part to rule india like that.
they are the biggest hypocritc i have ever seen

Anonymous # 30. May 2007, 10:38

Anonymous writes:

This is a hoax. Indologist Koenraad Elst had written a nice peace on this: A
dubious quotation, a controversial reputation: the merits of Lord Macaulay .
Lord Macaulay never said or wrote anything like that.

Anonymous # 28. October 2007, 01:35

Anonymous writes:

The main intention behind introducing English education at Bharat was to

conquer its rich culture and heritage by not allowing them to disseminate to
the next generation. Even Max Muller had the same view about the education
system at Bharath and wanted that to predominated by English education.

Check this article on Max Muller:

http://www.hindunet.org/srh_home/1997_2/0088.html

Anonymous # 5. December 2007, 08:06

Parasara Suta Dasa writes:

Just read the Mahabaratha and Ramyana as the history speaks for itself and
read the Srimad Bhagavatam as the past, present and future is already
predicted”

Anonymous # 1. January 2008, 11:05

Proud to be INDIAN writes:

Hey.. whether the "Lord..." statement is true or not.. the main thing is that,
even though after being ruled by couple of communities/kings/Britishers for
hundreds/thousands years, IT IS WORTH NOTING THAT: Every time we were
able to break the bonds of slavery & Now we represent one the biggest
democracies of the world.

Though there are still flaws in our country, but everyone has it... but the
great thing is that We are going towards development like anything. All we
have to do is stick to our moral values & nobody/ no country in the whole
world can rule us, that way.

Anonymous # 25. January 2008, 15:23

Anonymous writes:

A question to All of you who have posted here... ? could you tell me the map
of so called Bharat in 1835? I have been a student of Indian History and can
say that what we call as OUR India today or Hindustan was non existent.
You had diverse states all ruled by independent monarchs - whether it be the
Wonderful Rani of Jhansi ( I belong to her land) or Tantya Tope Or the
Kingdom of Mysore or the Old Bahadursha Zafar - or for that matter the
traitors Scindia, all rules their respective pieces of land, and the unity. I am
not sure The Map of India as we know today or even before partition was
what the British Rule gave us. So before being proud of India and criticising
British please realise that the British rule also gave us unity - because that
was the ONLY time when we Indians rose as one against the Rule. The India
that was in 1947 is already standing on the brink of falling apart. the states
are in chaos, and all the Central government has done is break states into
smaller states thereby creating smaller factions.

Before we criticise the Brits for their rule tell me what did the Mughals gave
India? or for that Matter what have the Hindus done for India. I am proud to
be a Hindu and I know that probably my ancestors went through a bad time
during the Muslim rule of the country to retain their faith.

But the fact is what the Brits did to India in about 70 odd years of their rule ,
we have not been able to undo in 60 years of Independence. Look back over
the past 60 years and tell me what has been done to improve our cultural
heritage and history? Nothing. We still run on the rail Infrastructure laid by
the Brits, and some of the most well planned cities were developed by the
Brits ( Bangalore and Chennai for Example which have both gone to the
dogs) . It is really nice to be anonymous and criticise the whole world and its
ancestors for destroying India, but I strongly believe that this is India. It is
the people who build it and develop it.

OK I am starting to sound as if I support the rule of the British, NO I DO

NOT.
but they came , and they ruled because we Indians unfortunately have
always lacked the spirit to stand up and claim our rights whether it is the
Muslim rule from yr 1000 AD onwards , or the British Empire. We were
always slaves and we still are to the politicians who rule. The likes of
Mayawati and Mulayam singh or Jayalalitha have crores in property and
money... where does that come from and WHO amongst you couch critics
has the guts to stand up to them and tell them not to break the cultural and
econolmical backbone of India? Have you stopped watching Hindi or Enslish
movies because they have western Influence? How many of you wear Dhoti
Kurta, Lungi or Pyjama Kurta ? At least women still wear sarees and salwars
kameez, I do not see men in traditional wear!

That is a long diatribe , but in nutshell it is the people who make or break a
nation , the power is in their hands and rulers can always be removed if
there is will enough to do it. For a land which has been a slave for the last
almost 1000 years , that mentality has seeped in and I doubt if much can be
changes. There is so much of in fighting within state wamongst politicians
that it is frustrating ! and the nation is almost at the same state where the
Brits found it... breaking up and ready to be conquered again...

Yes and I am a couch critic too that's all that I have learnt being an Indian...
But I am proud of my nations heritage and culture, but am too busy earning
money and following the west ( I speak English too as I need to interact with
my British and American bosses for my fat salary) to really spend time in
saving the country. Aren't you all?

XaHyMaH # 24. February 2008, 01:59

"tell me what did the Mughals gave India?"

Much more than you think. (I was asked to pay 700Rs to visit Taj!)

"But the fact is what the Brits did to India in about 70 odd years of their rule"

They gathered huge collection of indian rarities in their museums.

"Look back over the past 60 years and tell me what has been done to
improve our cultural heritage and history?"

Nothing. You just build a cosmodrome and make an A-Bomb.

Anonymous # 5. July 2008, 06:53

Anonymous writes:

For all the folks that started talking bout British bringing peace to India by
colonizing it?!?..

Am I missing something? Weren't we the ones with the Ahimsa- nonviolence

movement while you
folks ran amok with guns. You guys took everything from a country that was
full of wealth. Split people up into castes and sects and caused havoc to
control the country. The point is, it doesn't matter if the "Lord" guy said it or
not. That IS what the British did. And if you say the British did what they had
to, I agree. But if you say the British did it to help India, well thanks a lot but
robbing us and killing our people does not make us happy. I have heard this
talk about the British colonization for the better of people before. And I still
say it is BULL SHIT!. And one more thing, the only thing you guys are good
for, is being cocky. British folks did what they had to for their own good. And
we got rid of you after 400 years. In my opinion and I speak for almost every
Indian citizen, you guys were no better than the tyrants Saddam Hussein or
Adolph Hitler.

Also to the guy above talking bout India. It doesn't matter what you read or
whose land you come from.
Just because you came from the birth place of someone who died for our
country doesn't make you anything.
Especially when you are talking bullshit bout your own country and doing the
exact opposite to what they did. I don't give a shit what your opinion bout
India is even if you are an Indian. Talk about your country when you do
something for it or else stfu and earn your money. the British: Quit wasting
your time trying to read Indian blogs and reasoning with us when we drove
you out of our country decades ago. Kthnxbye.

Anonymous # 7. July 2008, 17:46

ily mcr writes:
britan rules, so does india yay

Somnath4ever # 6. September 2008, 03:52

I agree with Lord Macaulay..... :frown:

ben2talk # 6. September 2009, 09:23

We did nearly as good a job with Burma as the French did with Laos too. I
believe less in the concept of Nationality now than I do in Individuals - so
when you talk about British and Indians I don't think you're really talking
about people at all.

XaHyMaH # 7. September 2009, 10:58

Revenge fron Indians: Tata bought LandRover :D

ben2talk # 7. September 2009, 11:58

Don't forget Jaguar. If you look at the number of innovators from Europe,
and then look at the numbers of people in India struggling to survive, you'll
see that although India is becoming very strong in the international market -
the sheer number of brilliant people could change the balance of power. All it
needs is for them to be relieved poverty so they're not too busy trawling
through piles of rubbish...