December 24, 2025 06:29 AM IST First published on: Dec 24, 2025 at 06:29 AM ISTMacaulay is a shorthand for at least three things — the English language, modern education and an un-Indian mentality. The beauty of invoking Macaulay’s ghost is that its mention puts defenders of English or modern education on the defensive and any self-criticism is discredited as un-Indian. It is therefore useful to exorcise the ghost by being a devil’s, or the ghost’s, advocate. Let us not get blinkered by Macaulay’s colonial intentions — because, after all, if we want to decolonise our thinking, then should we not see the effects of the Minute through our decolonised wisdom?Take the case of the English language. For the vast majority, it is never their first language. India’s many languages have happily — sometimes grudgingly — accommodated many English words precisely because users of those languages can’t speak “proper English”. From the early 19th century, the influence of English only alerted speakers of other Indian languages to the need to reorganise, modernise or sharpen their respective traditions. If we look at the vocabulary, idioms and ideas that writers in India’s many languages are producing, we shall realise the diversity and richness of these languages.AdvertisementThese developments are not hindered by the pragmatic and superficial use of the English language. Early social revolutionaries like Jyotirao Phule or EV Ramasamy Naicker resorted to languages such as Marathi or Tamil for their political projects ,and even as the conservative Bal Gangadhar Tilak started an English periodical, his politics as also his original thinking took place in a powerful and artful Marathi. Therefore, if one looks at the issue beyond polemics and beyond the blinkered objective of making Hindi the national language, one would realise the meaning of considerably rich two-way interaction: English-language writings getting translated into Indian languages and Indian-language resources getting translated, by Indians themselves, into English.Easy politics happens around the modern system of formal education that emerged during the colonial period — something that was effectively utilised for and on behalf of the masses by, again, visionaries like Phule. The idea of modern education introduced in the 19th century represents the issue of access.The controversies over modern education in those initial years were about whether all persons were entitled to learn whatever they chose to learn or whether differential curricula would fit different social sections. If Rajaji’s scheme of education was vehemently opposed in the then Madras province, it was because backward sections resisted the possibility of imprisonment in so-called traditional occupations. If Jyotirao Phule andAdvertisementSavitribai Phule were attacked with stones, mud and cow dung, it was because they insisted on education for women and “lower” castes.Modern education is accused of making us less invested in “our” traditions. Leaving aside larger debates about whose traditions one is talking about, as someone who studied in the local language in a Congress-dominated state, this writer can vouch that schools never instilled a sense of inferiority about India’s past, India’s culture or its own heroes.The caste matrix did make a difference in that the traditions and histories were unselfconsciously and deeply tuned to the tastes and preferences — and fantasies — of upper castes. Let us not blame Macaulay for this caste bias unless we are saying that the upper castes colluded with Macaulay to make their ideologies secure under the new circumstances.Perhaps the most attractive criticism of the Macaulay manasikata (mentality) is that it produced an Indian elite with un-Indian characteristics and outlooks. Fiction and fascination with the lives of army and civilian elites have always been fodder for this accusation. The caricaturing of the idea of the sahib resonated with the images of powerful Indian elites both during and after British rule. Curiously, however, fiction and filmdom often implicitly critiqued (remember the song, saala mein toh sahab ban gaya) or rejected this slave mentality. More interestingly, there is scanty evidence to show that the Indian elites, and much less the Indian masses, really gave up Indianness in mundane, good or bad things; whether it be the deep affinity to the Ramayana or Mahabharata, the engagement with the Bhagavad Gita, the search for the eternal in Indian philosophy or the crass belonging to caste and casteism. Brown sahibs did emerge just as every system produces power asymmetries and symbols of inequality. But did that result in India selling its soul?Nearly two centuries since his Minute, if Macaulay were to revisit India, he would be mostly disappointed to find that major sections of elites and masses from India have responded to his plea for colonising the mind in more complex ways than those who resurrect him imagine. Indeed, there was introspection to begin with. This did not, however, lead to imitation. Instead, it led to a quiet determination to rediscover — leading to critique and reform, an assertion of human agency and human goodness and a craving for making our own destiny without the pomp of claiming false superiority of our past.most readThis India was not shy of critiquing or reinterpreting the Gita or burning the Manusmriti; it was proud to educate, agitate and organise; it was not worried about appearances of similarity with Western constitutions when dreaming its collective destiny because, transcending spatial and temporal ideas of tradition and modernity, India could confidently turn to Buddha for ideals of equality, liberty and fraternity.As a result, over the past two centuries, India witnessed a search for its modern soul without giving up its anchor in the past. The fight against colonialism, the difficult war on caste, the tougher challenge over women’s dignity, and the even more detested conversations over material exploitation, are all dimensions of a modern sensibility. The easy equation between tradition and culture on the one hand, and tradition and religion on the other, has often come in handy for those who see the real modern as a threat while adopting everything that is problematic in it.Macaulay is only a useful punching bag. As the battle over the meaning of Indianness continues, ghosts are resurrected to bury inconvenient ideas and aspirations.The writer, based in Pune, taught political science