In praise of Thomas Macaulay
| In praise of Thomas Macaulay | ||
| He was not perfect, but don’t forget that he’s central to modern India | ||
| Jaithirth Rao | ||
 As an English historian of the virulently Whig persuasion his reputation has not stood the test of time well. He is not remembered as a great parliamentarian in the company of the Burkes and Churchills. He is considered at best a mediocre poet. You ask anyone in Britain about Macaulay — those who have come through New Labour’s comprehensives with several A levels and those who have attended universities, ancient and modern — and all you get is a blank stare. Such indeed are the ironies of history. A person who oddly enough is central to the history of the conquered is quite irrelevant in the annals of the conquerors. Macaulay is central to modern India. You can be a Nirad Chaudhuri and have the courage to render praise where it is due or you can be a Swadeshi chauvinist or a dim-witted leftist and blindly criticise Macaulay. But in any event you cannot ignore Macaulay and his enduring decisive intervention in India’s history . Macaulay was not even a governor-general or viceroy. He was a humble “member of the governor-general’s council”. He came here primarily attracted by the salary, not by professional challenges. He was appalled by Calcutta’s hot humid weather. He did have nice things to say though about Ootacamund and the spectacular landscape of the Nilgiris. He was not a racist in the modern sense. He thought of Indians as primitive, childish people. The closest comparison he had was to untutored Russians before Peter the Great transformed them. Macaulay was asked by Lord William Bentinck, the governor-general (yes, the same one who banned sati), to give his views as to whether education in India should be imparted in the “traditional” mode with Sanskrit and Persian as the foundation and mediums or whether a “modern/non-traditional” method with English as the medium and as the source of knowledge should be adopted. Macaulay’s famous (or infamous, depending on your point of view) minute was the result. He favoured the latter and his view prevailed. At one stroke, he became the most important founding father of modern India. Irrespective of one’s views, to think of India without the English language is pretty much like thinking of India without the monsoons. It may not touch everyone, but its influence touches everyone. It is trite to state that not only R.K. Narayan and Salman Rushdie, but the very constitution of the Republic of India and the landmark judgments of its jurists are all a direct fallout of Macaulay’s historic minute. Ambedkar, Naoroji and Nehru wrote in English. Gandhi was a master of the telling phrase. He referred to Sir Stafford Cripps’ proposal as “a post-dated cheque drawn on a crashing bank”. No one without a feel for the idiom of English could have said that. I, for one, am grateful to Macaulay. Without his gift to us, so many of us would be lesser individuals, not just different individuals. I use the word “lesser” quite deliberately. English is not just a medium or a means to an end; it is part of our very consciousness. The interesting thing is even while writing on completely Indian subjects, this consciousness has been a powerful force. Just consider the individuals and their writings: Vivekananda on Vedanta, Coomaraswamy on Indian Art, Aurobindo Ghose on Vedic Mysticism, Radhakrishnan on the Hindu View of Life, Krishnan on Indian Wildlife, Srinivas on Caste, Zakaria on Indian Muslims, Sircar on Indian History, Guha on Indian Cricket, Nandy on Indian Science, Kakkar on Indian Sexuality, Khushwant Singh on Indian Gossip. The list is endless. Interestingly, Macaulay is objected to not just by the usual coterie of leftists (who are congenitally against anything or anyone with a constructive impulse) or by nativist fanatics, but by thoughtful persons who span a wide range of intellectual positions. There was opposition to Macaulay and his minute in his own times even from members within the colonial establishment. Macaulay ridiculed traditional Indian knowledge as useless, deluded and shallow. He alleged that Indian histories talked about reigns of kings that were forty-thousand years long and geographies made reference to seas of treacle and whey. He dismissed our traditional schools of medicine as nothing but quackery. While there may have been some justification in these doubtless exaggerated criticisms, his dismissal of Indian literature is certainly beyond comprehension. It can only be attributed to stupid Whig smugness. This gratuitous harsh criticism has alienated many who otherwise may have admired him. Others accuse Macaulay of having “deracinated” Indians. The expression is a loaded one. It assumes the existence of an “Indian race or volk”. It is not in keeping with the spirit of the classical Tamil “Yaadum Oorey Yaavarum Keyleer” (every country is my country; every human, my kin”) or the classical Sanskrit “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” (the world is one family). The argument that the idealised Indian race has been assaulted should be dismissed as a worthless form of chauvinism. Macaulay may have used insensitive expressions when he talked about his hope that a race of “brown Englishmen” would emerge. We may be brown. We may speak and write English, but with names like Radhakrishnan and Khushwant, we are very Indian, thank you! Neither Macaulay nor the Raj was perfect. I would argue that 58 years after the British departure, we need to get beyond our sense of grievance. There is a case for balance and selective praise. In short, a revisionist view of our British imperial legacy is overdue. Indira Gandhi can be our Dalhousie-putri (they both impoverished maharajas and nawabs); Jaswant Singh can be our Curzon-putra (they both worried about our security in a dangerous neighbourhood); and we can all be proud Macaulay-putras!
The writer is chairman/CEO of Mphasis | ||
| URL: http://www.indianexpress.com/full_story.php?content_id=71045 |
posted by vetris at 8:52 PM
|
0 comments
orget the phenomenon—it changed forever the way movies are marketed. Forget the endlessly hyped sequels. Try to recall the rushing joy in your heart when Harrison Ford first threw the Millennium Falcon into hyperspace. Remember the innocence (and technological inventiveness) of the film, the fun of the dialogue, the astonishment of the creatures we encountered, the propulsive dash of the editing. One suspects that the peppy force of the thing will always be with us, preventing our surrender to the Force's Dark Side.—R.S.
onceived and executed as one gigantic, 9hr. 18min. film, this faithful, innovative adaptation of the J.R.R. Tolkien trilogy kept children and everyone else hanging on to the grand story, though it was released over three consecutive Decembers. By disdaining the facetiousness that informed nearly every other fantasy (and most other kinds of Hollywood-type movies), LOTR located a narrative and emotional grandeur that had been missing nearly as long as the ring that carries Middle Earth's destiny and Frodo the Hobbit's doom. The digital effects work, however imposing, built on the achievements of generations of Hollywood technicians. What remains amazing about the enterprise is that, over seven years of planning, production and digital effects work, Jackson kept his eye on the prize, never losing the epic heft or stinting on the telling visual or character detail. It's wonderful when moviemakers dream this big, and make their dreams ours. —R.C.
he gangster movie transformed into dark epic—and, more important, into a metaphor for every family's dysfunction, and a lot of America's, too. The burnished darkness of Gordon Willis's cinematography sets an unforgettable tone. The grandeur of the acting (Brando, Pacino, DeNiro among others) gives it a curious nobility and the multigenerational narrative has the power to move us to terror, pity and, occasionally, bitter laughter. Maybe it is, as some have said, only a pop masterpiece. But a masterpiece it surely is.—R.S.
efore the war, Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson) was the Playboy of the Eastern World, a hard-drinking, womanizing wastrel. After the war, he was essentially a failure. But during the Holocaust a mysterious grace fell upon him and he bravely, cleverly schemed to save the Jews working in his factory from the Nazi death camps. From this true story Steven Spielberg created a film that is an austere act of historical witness, a powerful and suspenseful drama, a high moral act and, finally, a movie that escapes the bounds of conventional criticism.—R.S.
ike a Christmas fruitcake that by New Year's has become a doorstop, or a paperweight in the trash bin, this fable risked being a major Yuletide ordeal, thanks to endless TV showings for a couple of decades when it was in the public domain. It's hard to see the thing fresh, but try. Like a dozen or more films on this list, Capra's traces the decline of a man driven to the edge of madness. George Bailey's life is not, in worldly terms, wonderful; he is Bedford Falls' designated saint, a suburban Job, for his fellow townsfolks' use as a friend or generous banker, through which they can exercise their weakness or meanness. It's a noir portrait with holly stuck in the frame, a sanity hearing in the form of a greeting card. Capra briskly, artfully piles the misfortunes on James Stewart's slim frame; Stewart bears that load with spectacular range and grace. —R.C.
ed Alert, the novel on which this movie was based, is a standard technothriller of its time: Cracked soldier launches H-bomb attack on Russia, with everyone pulling back from the brink in the nick of time. In Kubrick’s version, one last bomber plows through to Armageddon, a food fight takes place in the U.S. War Room and crippled scientist is moved by the thrill of it all to lurch to his feet, raise his arm in the Nazi salute and cry out, “Mein Fuhrer, I can walk.” Kubrick’s remains perhaps the blackest comedy ever put on screen, and with Peter Sellers brilliantly playing multiple roles, the blackest, funniest movie of the post-war era.—R.S.
t the time it was called a "revisionist" western. Now it seems like a return to classicism—a bad man who thinks he has reformed returns to his old ways in order to revenge the death of his best friend. "Clintessence" TIME called it, and the actor-director achieved his masterpiece with this dark, brooding tale of souls seeking redemption but doomed by their flawed natures to a tragic outcome.—R.S.
et against the background of innocent, sun-splashed Los Angeles in the 1930s, this may be the movies' most resonant study of personal and political corruption. Robert Towne's great script is a high romantic tragedy, impeccably directed by Polanski and heart-breakingly played by Jack Nicholson as the private eye who falls and Faye Dunaway as the rich, mysterious and doomed dark lady with whom he falls in love in this perfect summary of the film noir spirit.—R.S.
hat Sergei Eisenstein and other art-film pioneers said of the Walt Disney studio in the 1930s —that it was making the best movies on earth, by finding exciting new ways to perfect the art of visual story-telling —directors and reviewers say today of Pixar. John Lasseter and his team are bringing the same care and genius to computer-generated animation that Walt did with handmade drawings. Finding Nemo is, so far, the apotheosis of the Pixar style: the ultimate fish-out-of-water story, with a fretful dad (voiced by Albert Brooks) enlisting a forgetful friend (Ellen DeGeneres) to find his lost son. But all the Pixar features (Toy Story and its sequel, A Bug's Life, Monsters Inc., The Incredibles) have the means of enthrallment. Pixar doesn't make cute movies for kids. It tells universal stories through a graphic language so persuasive that children and adults respond with the same pleasure and awe. It's as if the Pixar people have the first clue to the next, higher form of popular movie art. —R.C.
t's despicable." My distinguished colleague practically spat on learning that I had deemed Cronenberg's remake of a mediocre s.f. movie as worthy of inclusion in a 100-best-of-anything list. Well, I love it. Yes, The Fly is about a scientist, Seth Brundle (Jeff Goldblum), who slowly and irrevocably morphs into a giant insect, much to his horror and that of his girlfriend (Geena Davis). But I see, and resee, the film as a profound parable on love and loss. Brundle might be the victim of any degenerative disease—cancer, AIDS, Alzheimer's—who struggles to retain his humanity even as he decays into something ... monstrous. The scientist in him wants to study, understand and extend his metamorphosis into Brundlefly; the lover wants to protect his beloved from the danger he represents. Mixing self-aware wit with gross-out special effects, Cronenberg elicits a creepy unease, at least for those of us who think of middle age as the dress rehearsal for senility, or worse. —R.C.