While delivering the sixth Ramnath Goenka lecture on November 17, Prime Minister Narendra Modi called upon the nation to entirely shed the mindset of slavery by 2035. He came back to this theme at the flag-hoisting ceremony of the Ram mandir eight days later. Modi emphasised, at the lecture, that Thomas Babington Macaulay had destroyed the Indian education system in 1835. He also threw Indian civilisational achievements into the dustbin. That began the process of Indians developing an inferiority complex and a lack of confidence in their cultural inheritance. This led them to deprecate whatever was indigenous and to think that if India had to achieve greatness it would have to be through foreign means and methods. Consequently, Indians began to look abroad for ideas for governance and innovation. They considered foreign goods and services as superior. This process, the prime minister argued, became strengthened after Independence with India associating its educational system, economy and social aspirations with those abroad.
It is true that Macaulay considered India’s culture and position to be far inferior to those of the West. It is equally true that he wanted to create a class of “interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern”. These “interpreters” were to “be Indians in blood and colour but English in taste, in opinions, in morals and in intellect”. Macaulay thought that these “interpreters” would “enrich” Indian languages so that they would become the vehicles of conveying modern ideas to the Indian masses. The question whether vernacular languages were important to Macaulay’s famous ‘Minute on Indian Education’ rose from the question whether the East India Company should continue to spend funds for maintaining institutions of Arabic and Sanskrit education. He advocated for the establishment of English-language-teaching education.
Significantly, Macaulay had noted, “Indeed it is unusual to find, even in the literary circles of the Continent [Europe], any foreigner who can, express himself in English with so much facility and correctness, as we find in many Hindoos.” This demonstrates that Indians, who had their initial education in their own languages, took to learning English and, through it, gained an understanding of the ideas prevailing in Europe before Macaulay’s initiative.
Far from succeeding, Macaulay failed spectacularly in his endeavour to create a group of “interpreters” who would forever remain subservient to the British or turn their back on their traditions and inheritance. They may have learnt English and even admired many characteristics of the West. They may have also wanted — and correctly — to reform pernicious social customs but only a handful left their spiritual fold. Indeed, these “interpreters” led the national renaissance, which began in Bengal and spread to other parts of the country. The renaissance, in turn, led to a flowering of culture — in arts, music and dance forms, and literature in Indian languages. It also led to the rise of a spirit of nationalism. Surely these are not attributes of mental slavery?
Some of the “interpreters” also turned their attention to the reasons that had led to India’s colonisation. This was not an unnatural question for it flowed from the consciousness of a great society with intellectual prowess sinking so low as to be conquered by a resurgent, post-Industrial Revolution Europe. It led to the realisation that the true strength of a country lay in remaining at the forefront of scientific and technological knowledge and in social cohesion based on an egalitarian society. India had fallen behind in both these areas. Hence, they contended that if it became necessary to acquire these aspects of knowledge from foreign sources, so be it.
An injection of new ideas did not mean that Indian traditions were considered as low and unworthy or that Indian civilisational heritage had to be rejected. In fact, they were deemed as necessary for the country’s rejuvenation so that it could take its rightful place in the comity of nations.
That could only be if India became free from foreign rule so that it could determine its destiny. That led to the freedom movement. Macaulay could not have, in his wildest imagination, ever considered that one day the “interpreters” class he wanted to create would become the vehicle for India’s decolonisation. Even less could he have visualised that after India became independent, it would inspire other colonised peoples to break their shackles. Could such “interpreters” suffer from mental slavery?
Independent India chose the Westminster system of governance. It is now being asserted that ideas for political democracy originated in India. There may have been a few ‘proto-republics’ in the course of Indian history but no major ancient text in India advocated political democracy. Instead, the ideal political organisation in ancient India was based on dharmic, hereditary kingship. This was also the popular notion which included the belief that a king should be conscious of and responsive to the views of his subjects. Thus, the notion of constitutional democracy based on universal adult franchise which was adopted by the Republic grew out of the values which the “interpreters” and others embraced during the freedom movement. These values also placed an emphasis on affirmative action for sections of Hindu society which had suffered thousands of years of atrocious discrimination. It is here that some Indian sages and seers had, from time to time, sought to reform society but, truth be told, they had met with limited success. Can an acknowledgement of this fact be considered as an aspect of mental slavery?
Modi needs to elaborate on what he considers as elements of mental slavery, which the nation has to shed in the coming decade. Generalisations will be confusing. Hence, specifics would be useful. And, these specifics, may, for instance, include the benefits of traditional medical knowledge (which are many) but they should also be subject to audit.
One specific Modi has mentioned is language. Giving the examples of Japan, China and Korea, he stated that they held on to their language even while looking abroad for ideas and practices. In this context, he said that he is not against English but is in favour of India’s regional languages. There can be no quarrel with such an approach. The problem lies with what will be India’s link language. Herein, India differs from the countries Modi mentioned. In the next 10 years, when India needs to compete with an established China, it can ill afford a weakening of social cohesion on any ground, including language or faith.
All Indians should be proud of their heritage as of their secular, constitutional traditions. To be simultaneously so cannot be said to be being victims of a slavish mentality.
Vivek Katju is a retired Indian Foreign Service officer