mccaulay, the ideal monotheist
harmony
M. Ranjit Mathews
> here is missionary mecca ole confiding to his fellow thugs:
It is a quote invented by thugs and quoted by thugs to other thugs.
harmony
"M. Ranjit Mathews" <ranjit_...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:de01848e-5491-47c4...@z11g2000prl.googlegroups.com...
certainly missionaries are capable of worse thing to say - and incorrectly
so. you have been keeping good company that is rubbin off on ya. give it a
try mattie.
Wanderer
> here is missionary mecca ole confiding to his fellow thugs:
>
> http://bp3.blogger.com/_5q7DIsGBCjw/R5hvnLqF85I/AAAAAAAAABc/J2SyTQQ4BFI/s1600-h/INDIA_1835-780841.JPG
Saffron propaganda never allowed for the truth. Macaulay never made such
a speech. Evidence was posted to show that he was in India at the time
of the alleged speech. Furthermore, there is no evidence even for the
words, bar the saffron propaganda machine. That's what you saffron
shitheads are known for, lies and spin.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> harmony aka pradipshit parekh, the anti-hindu, wrote:
>
> > here is missionary mecca ole confiding to his fellow thugs:
>
>
> Saffron propaganda never allowed for the truth. Macaulay never made such
> a speech. Evidence was posted to show that he was in India at the time
> of the alleged speech.
Perhaps it was a video-conference using ancient Hindu video
conferencing technology:-)
kuri...@gmail.com
> here is missionary mecca ole confiding to his fellow thugs:
>
Part 1
They think they are championing Hindus, Hinduism and India which for
these liars (Harmony, his mentor Jai Maharaj and many like them) is a
country of Hindus, and for Hindus only. They keep defecating the news
groups with fabricated “historical facts”. One such story is what is
attributed to Lord Macaulay. This lie was given much prominence by
these liars.
For some reason we Indians seem to crave for praise from foreigners.
I can understand when genuine appreciation is expressed and we have
witnessed many appreciatory gestures before. It is sickening to see
that words are put in the mouth of well known persons of the past .
Harmony and his henchmen keep repeating what is attributed to Lord
Macaulay in a speech to the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835.
Those who do not know who Lord Macaulay was, he was a member of the
British parliament and he was instrumental in recommending to the
government that as medium of instruction in schools and centers of
higher learning in India English would be a better medium than
Sanskrit or Arabic. His speech (also known as Macaulay minute) was
delivered to the parliament on 2nd February 1935 the same day what
Harmony said Macaulay gave the speech he cites. Raja Ram Mohun Roy
supported Macaulay’s view point. With hindsight we may feel that
Macaulay was patronizing and his disposition was one of
condescension.. But let us not forget that this was in 1835. Where
our educational system would have been without implementing Macaulays’
recommendations.
Compare the Macaulay minute speech that I quote and what Harmony
quotes. Macaulay’s minute was a lengthy speech and I quote only
part of it. I arbitrarily divided into sections. Here is part 1
_______________________________________________________________________________--
We now come to the gist of the matter. We have a fund to be employed
as Government shall direct for the intellectual improvement of the
people of this country. The simple question is, what is the most
useful way of employing it?
All parties seem to be agreed on one point, that the dialects commonly
spoken among the natives of this part of India contain neither
literary nor scientific information, and are moreover so poor and rude
that, until they are enriched from some other quarter, it will not be
easy to translate any valuable work into them. It seems to be admitted
on all sides, that the intellectual improvement of those classes of
the people who have the means of pursuing higher studies can at
present be effected only by means of some language not vernacular
amongst them.
What then shall that language be? One-half of the committee maintain
that it should be the English. The other half strongly recommend the
Arabic and Sanscrit. The whole question seems to me to be - which
language is the best worth knowing?
I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic. But I have done what
I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read
translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have
conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their
proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the
oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I
have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of
a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India
and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is
indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support
the oriental plan of education.
It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of
literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I
certainly never met with any orientalist who ventured to maintain that
the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great
European nations. But when we pass from works of immagination to
works in which facts are recorded and general principles investigated,
the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It
is, I believe, no exaggeration to say that all the historical
information which has been collected from all the books written in the
Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most
paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every
branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the
two nations is nearly the same.
How then stands the case? We have to educate a people who cannot at
present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We must teach
them some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is
hardly necessary to recapitulate. It stands pre-eminent even among the
languages of the West. It abounds with works of imagination not
inferior to the noblest which Greece has bequeathed to us - with
models of every species of eloquence, - with historical compositions
which, considered merely as narratives, have seldom been surpassed,
and which, considered as vehicles of ethical and political
instruction, have never been equalled, - with just and lively
representations of human life and human nature, with the most profound
speculations on metaphysics, morals, government, jurisprudence, trade,
- with full and correct information respecting every experimental
science which tends to preserve the health, to increase the comfort,
or to expand the intellect of man. Whoever knows that language has
already access to all the vast intellectual wealth which all the
wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the course of
ninety generations. It may safely be said that the literature now
extant in that language is of greater value than all the literature
which three hundred years ago was extant in all the languages of the
world together. Nor is this a11. In India, English is the language
spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by the higher class of
natives at the seats of Government. It is likely to become the
language of commerce throughout the seas of the East. It is the
language of two great European communities which are rising, the one
in the south of Africa, the other in Australasia, - communities which
are every year becoming more important and more closely connected with
our Indian empire. Whether we look at the intrinsic value of our
literature, or at the particular situation of this country, we shall
see the strongest reason to think that, of all foreign tongues, the
English tongue is that which would be the most useful to our native
subjects.
The Deep
wrote:
> On Aug 27, 12:54 pm, Wanderer <n...@there.yet> wrote:
>
> > harmony aka pradipshit parekh, the anti-hindu, wrote:
>
> > > here is missionary mecca ole confiding to his fellow thugs:
>
> > >http://bp3.blogger.com/_5q7DIsGBCjw/R5hvnLqF85I/AAAAAAAAABc/J2SyTQQ4B...
>
> > Saffron propaganda never allowed for the truth. Macaulay never made such
> > a speech. Evidence was posted to show that he was in India at the time
> > of the alleged speech.
>
> Perhaps it was a video-conference using ancient Hindu video
> conferencing technology:-)
>
Sheesh, no! Y'all got this absolutely wrong, and are unnecessarily
harassing a pure soul (rhymes with something derogatory) and channeler
of visionaries.
Couple of things that y'all don't know - (i) Macaulay was originally
desi (last name Mahakaale was anglicized - this from an unpublished
book of P N Ash, who is P N Oak's twin brother); and (ii) Macaulay had
a twin brother, apparently of the same first name (go figure!), but
truly "evil". This latter fact was a well kept secret in Manmohan
Desai's family for over a hundred years. Before his death, Manmohan-ji
accidently blurted it out to me. Man, that was devastating - not the
secret, but Manmohan-ji's death, but I digress. Manmohan-ji hastened
to add that the twins hadn't been separated at birth, but in their
teens, and mercifully, there wasn't a secret song to reunite them.
Anyways, one twin delivered a nice spicy dish laced with saffron to
the British Parliament in 1835. It turned out that the saffron used in
the dish was high quality stuff, and acted as an amazing preservative.
The leftover dish is still edible, and tiny portions of it are used in
initiation ceremonies of nationalist groups in the West (mostly ex-pat
desis). Now, the other twin was in India in 1835 and was scheming up
devilish new ways of screwing generations of Indian kids in their ISC
exams. This "desi" twin was the evil guy (for obvious reasons).
Dinesh
kuri...@gmail.com
>
Part 2
They think they are championing Hindus, Hinduism and India which for
these liars (Harmony, his mentor Jai Maharaj and many like them) is a
country of Hindus, and for Hindus only. They keep defecating the news
groups with fabricated “historical facts”. One such story is what is
attributed to Lord Macaulay. That was given much prominence by these
liars.
For some reason we Indians seem to crave for praise from foreigners.
I can understand when genuine appreciation is expressed and we have
witnessed many appreciatory gestures before. It is sickening to see
that words are put in the mouth of well known persons of the past .
Harmony and his henchmen keep repeating what is attributed to Lord
Macaulay in a speech to the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835.
Those who do not know who Lord Macaulay was, he was a member of the
British parliament and he was instrumental in recommending to the
government that as medium of instruction in schools and centers of
higher learning in India English would be a better medium than
Sanskrit or Arabic. His speech (also known as Macaulay minute) was
delivered to the parliament on 2nd February 1935 the same day what
Harmony said Macaulay gave the speech he cites. Raja Ram Mohun Roy
supported Macaulay’s view point. With hindsight we may feel that
Macaulay was patronizing and his disposition was one of
condescension.. But let us not forget that this was in 1835. Where
our educational system would have been without implementing Macaulays’
recommendations.
Compare the Macaulay minute speech that I quote and what Harmony
quotes. Macaulay’s minute was a lengthy speech and I quote only
part of it. I arbitrarily divided into sections. Here is part 2
__________________________________________________________________________
The question now before us is simply whether, when it is in our power
to teach this language, we shall teach languages in which, by
universal confession, there are no books on any subject which deserve
to be compared to our own, whether, when we can teach European
science, we shall teach systems which, by universal confession,
wherever they differ from those of Europe differ for the worse, and
whether, when we can patronize sound philosophy and true history, we
shall countenance at the public expense, medical doctrines which would
disgrace an English farrier, astronomy which would move laughter in
girls at an English boarding school, history abounding with kings
thirty feet high and reigns thirty thousand years long, and geography
made of seas of treacle and seas of butter.
We are not without experience to guide us. History furnishes several
analogous cases, and they all teach the same lesson. There are, in
modern times, to go no fiuther, two memorable instanses of a great
impulse given to the mind of a whole society, of prejudices
overthrown, of knowledge diffused, of taste purified, of arts and
sciences planted in countries which had recently been ignorant and
barbarous.
The first instance to which I refer is the great revival of letters
among the Western nations at the close of the fifteenth and the
beginning of the sixteenth century. At that time almost everything
that was worth reading was contained in the writings of the ancient
Greeks and Romans. Had our ancestors acted as the Committee of Public
Instruction has hitherto acted, - had they negected the language of
Thucydides and Plato, and the languages of Cicero and Tacitus, had
they confined their attention to the old dialects of our own island,
had they printed nothing and taught nothing at the universities but
chronicles in Anglo-Saxon and romances in Norman French, - would
England ever have been what she now is? What the Greek and Latin were
to the contemporaries of More and Ascham, our tongue is to the people
of India The literature of England is now more valuable than that of
classical antiquity. I doubt whether the 5anscrit literature be as
valuable as that of our Saxon and Norman progenitors. In some
departments - in history for example - I am certain that it is much
less so.
Another instance may be said to be still before our eyes. Within the
last hundred and twenty years, a nation which had previously been in
state as barbarous as that in which our ancestors were before the
Crusades has gradually emerged from the ignorance in which it was
sunk, and has taken its place among civilised communities. I speak of
Russia There is now in that country a large educated class abounding
with persons fit to serve the State in the highest functions, and in
nowise inferior to the most accomplished men who adorn the best
circles of Paris and London There is reason to hope that this vast
empire which, in the time of our grand-fathers, was probably behind
the Punjab, may in the time of our grand-children, be pressing close
on France and Britain in the career of improvement. And how was this
change effected? Not by flattering national prejudices; not by feeding
the mind of the young Muscovite with the old women's stories which his
rude fathers had believed; not by filling his head with lying legends
about St. Nicholas; not by encouraging him to study the great
question, whether the world was or not created on the 13th of
September; not by calling him "a learned native" when he bad mastered
all these points of knowledge; but by teaching him those foreign
languages in which the greatest mass of information had been laid up,
and thus putting all that information within his reach. The languages
of western Europe civilised Russia I cannot doubt that they will do
for the Hindoo what they have done for the Tartar.
And what are the arguments against that course which seems to be alike
recommended by theory and by experience? It is said that we ought to
secure the co-operation of the native public, and that we can do this
only by teaching Sanscrit and Arabic.
kuri...@gmail.com
>
Part 3
part of it. I arbitrarily divided into sections. Here is part 3
_________________________________________________________________________________
I can by no means admit that, when a nation of high intellectual
attainments undertakes to superintend the education of a nation
comparatively ignorant, the learners are absolutely to prescribe the
course which is to be taken by the teachers. It is not necessary
however to say anything on this subject. For it is proved by
unanswerable evidence, that we are not at present securing the co-
operation of the natives. It would be bad enough to consult their
intellectual taste at the expense of their intellectual health. But we
are consulting neither. We are withholding from them the learning
which is palatable to them. We are forcing on them the mock learning
which they nauseate.
This is proved by the fact that we are forced to pay our Arabic and
Sanscrit students while those who learn English are willing to pay us.
All the declamations in the world about the love and reverence of the
natives for their sacred dialects will never, in the mind of any
impartial person, outweigh this undisputed fact, that we cannot find
in all our vast empire a single student who will let us teach him
those dialects unless we will pay him.
I have now before me the accounts of the Mudrassa for one month, the
month of December, 1833. The Arabic students appear to have been
seventy-seven in number. All receive stipends from the public. The
whole amount paid to them is above 500 rupees a month. On the other
side of the account stands the following item: Deduct amount realized
from the out-students of English for the months of May, June, July
last - 103 rupees.
I have been told that it is merely from want of local experience that
I am surprised at these phenomena, and that it is not the fashion for
students in India to study at their own charges. This only confirms me
in my opinions. Nothing is more certain than that it never can in any
part of the world be necessary to pay men for doing what they think
pleasant or profitable. India is no exception to this rule. The people
of India do not require to be paid for eating rice when they are
hungry, or for wearing woolen cloth in the cold season. To come nearer
to the case before us: - The children who learn their letters and a
little elementary arithmetic from the village schoolmaster are not
paid by him. He is paid for teaching them. Why then is it necessary to
pay people to learn Sanscrit and Arabic? Evidently because it is
universally felt that the Sanscrit and Arabic are languages the
knowledge of which does not compensate for the trouble of acquiring
them. On all such subjects the state of the market is the decisive
test.
Other evidence is not wanting, if other evidence were required. A
petition was presented last year to the committee by several ex-
¬students of the Sanscrit College. The petitioners stated that they
had studied in the college ten or twelve years, that they had made
themselves acquainted with Hindoo literature and science, that they
had received certificates of proficiency. And what is the fruit of all
this? "Notwithstanding such testimonials," they say, "we have but
little prospect of bettering our condition without the kind assistance
of your honourable committee, the indifference with which we are
generally looked upon by our countrymen leaving no hope of
encouragement and assistance from them." They therefore beg that they
may be recommended to the Governor-General for places under the
Government - not places of high dignity or emolument, but such as may
just enable them to exist. "We want means,” they say “for a decent
living, and for our progressive improvement, which, however, we cannot
obtain without the assistance of Government by whom we have been
educated and maintained from childhood.” They conclude by resenting
very pathetically that they are sure that it was never the intention
of Government, after behaving so liberally to them during their
education, to abandon them to destitution and neglect.
kuri...@gmail.com
>
Macaulay minute (part 4)
I have been used to see[ing] petitions to Government for compensation.
All those petitions, even the most unreasonable of them, proceeded on
the supposition that some loss had been sustained, that some wrong had
been inflicted. These are surely the first petitioners who ever
demanded compensation for having been educated gratis, for having been
supported by the public during twelve years, and then sent forth into
the world well furnished with literature and science. They represent
their education as an injury which gives them a claim on the
Government for redress, as an injury for which the stipends paid to
them during the infliction were a very inadequate compensation. And I
doubt not that they are in the right. They have wasted the best years
of life in learning what procures for them neither bread nor respect.
Surely we might with advantage have saved the cost of making these
persons useless and miserable. Surely men may be brought up to be
burdens to the public and objects of contempt to their neighbours at a
somewhat smaller charge to the State. But such is our policy. We do
not even stand neuter in the contest between truth and falsehood. We
are not content to leave the natives to the influence of their own
hereditary prejudices. To the natural difficulties which obstruct the
progress of sound science in the East, we add great difficulties of
our own making. Bounties and premiums, such as ought not to be given
even for the propagation of truth, we lavish on false texts and false
philosophy.
By acting thus we create the very evil which we fear. We are making
that opposition which we do not find. What we spend on the Arabic and
Sanscrit Colleges is not merely a dead loss to the cause of truth. It
is bounty-money paid to raise up champions of error. It goes to form a
nest not merely of helpless place-hunters but of bigots prompted alike
by passion and by interest to raise a cry against every useful scheme
of education. If there should be any opposition among the natives to
the change which I recommend that opposition will be the effect of our
own system. It will be headed by persons supported by our stipends and
trained in our colleges. The longer we persevere in our present
course, the more formidable will that opposition be. It will every
year reinforced by recruits whom we are paying. From the native
society, left to itself, we have not difficulties to apprehend. All
the murmurings will come from that oriental interest which we have, by
artificial means, called into being and nursed into strength.
There is yet another fact which is alone sufficient to prove that the
feeling of the native public, when left to itself, is not such as the
supporters of the old system represent it to be. The committee have
thought fit to lay out above a lakh of rupees in printing Arabic and
Sanscrit books. Those books find no purchasers. It is very rarely that
a single copy is disposed of. Twenty-three thousand volumes, - most of
them folios and quartos, fill the libraries or rather the lumber-rooms
of this body. The committee contrive to get rid of some portion of
their vast stock of oriental literature by giving books away. But they
cannot give so fast as they print. About twenty thousand rupees a year
are spent in adding fresh masses of waste paper to a hoard which, one
should think, is already sufficiently ample. During the last three
years about sixty thousand rupees have been expended in this manner.
The sale of Arabic and Sanscrit books during those three years has not
yielded quite one thousand rupees. In the meantime, the School Book
Society is selling seven or eight thousand English volumes every year,
and not only pays the expenses of printing but realizes a profit of
twenty percent on its outlay.
kuri...@gmail.com
>
Macaulay minute (part 5)
The fact that the Hindoo law is to be learned chiefly from Sanscrit
books, and the Mahometan law from Arabic books, has been much insisted
on, but seems not to bear at all on the question. We are commanded by
Parliament to ascertain and digest the laws of India The assistance of
a Law Commission has been given to us for that purpose. As soon as the
Code is promulgated the Shasters and the Hedaya will be useless to a
moonsiff or a Sudder Ameen. I hope and trust that, before the boys who
are now entering at the Mudrassa and the Sanscrit College have
completed their studies, this great work will be finished It would be
manifestly absurd to educate the rising generation with a view to a
state of things which we mean to alter before they reach manhood.
But there is yet another argument which seems even more untenable. It
is said that the Sanscrit and the Arabic are the languages in which
the sacred books of a hundred millions of people are written, and that
they are on that account entitled to peculiar encouragement. Assuredly
it is the duty of the British Government in India to be not only
tolerant but neutral on all religious questions. But to encourage the
study of a literature, admitted to be of small intrinsic value, only
because that literature inculcates the most serious errors on the most
important subjects, is a course hardly reconcilable with reason, with
morality, or even with that very neutrality which ought, as we all
agree, to be sacredly preserved It is confessed that a language is
barren of useful knowledge. We are to teach it because it is fruitful
of monstrous superstitions. We are to teach false history, false
astronomy, false medicine, because we find them in company with a
false religion. We abstain, and I trust shall always abstain, from
giving any public encouragement to those who are engaged in the work
of converting the natives to Christianity. And while we act thus, can
we reasonably or decently bribe men, out of the revenues of the State,
to waste their youth in learning how they are to purify themselves
after touching an ass or what texts of the Vedas they are to repeat to
expiate the crime of killing a goat?
It is taken for granted by the advocates of oriental learning that no
native of this country can possibly attain more than a mere smattering
of English. They do not attempt to prove this. But they perpetually
insinuate it. They designate the education which their opponents
recommend as a mere spelling book education. They assume it as
undeniable that the question is between a profound knowledge of Hindoo
and Arabian literature and science on the one side, and superficial
knowledge of the rudiments of English on the other. This is not merely
an assumption, but an assumption contrary to all reason and
experience. We know that foreigners of all nations do learn our
language sufficiently to have access to all the most abstruse
knowledge which it contains sufficiently to relish even the more
delicate graces of our most idiomatic writers. There are in this very
town natives who are quite competent to discuss political or
scientific questions with fluency and precision in the English
language. I have heard the very question on which I am now writing
discussed by native gentlemen with a liberality and an intelligence
which would do credit to any member of the Committee of Public
Instruction. Indeed it is unusual to find, even in the literary
circles of the Continent, any foreigner who can express himself in
English with so much facility and correctness as we find in many
Hindoos. Nobody, I suppose, will contend that English is so difficult
to a Hindoo as Greek to an Englishman. Yet an intelligent English
youth, in a much smaller number of years than our unfortunate pupils
pass at the Sanscrit College, becomes able to read, to enjoy, and even
to imitate not unhappily the compositions of the best Greek authors.
Less than half the time which enables an English youth to read
Herodotus and Sophocles ought to enable a Hindoo to read Hume and
Milton.
To sum up what I have said. I think it clear that we are not fettered
by the Act of Parliament of 1813, that we are not fettered by any
pledge expressed or implied, that we are free to employ our funds as
we choose, that we ought to employ them in teaching what is best worth
knowing, that English is better worth knowing than Sanscrit or Arabic,
that the natives are desirous to be taught English, and are not
desirous to be taught Sanscrit or Arabic, that neither as the
languages of law nor as the languages of religion have the Sanscrit
and Arabic any peculiar claim to our encouragement, that it is
possible to make natives of this country thoroughly good English
scholars, and that to this end our efforts ought to be directed
In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I
am opposed I feel with them that it is impossible for us, with our
limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must
at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between
us and the millions whom we govern - class of persons Indian in blood
and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in
intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular
dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of
science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by
degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the
population.
I would strictly respect all existing interests. 1 would deal even
generously with all individuals who have had fair reason to expect a
pecuniary provision. But I would strike at the root of the bad system
which has hitherto been fostered by us. I would at once stop the
printing of Arabic and Sanscrit books. I would abolish the Mudrassa
and the Sanscrit College at Calcutta. Benares is the great seat of
Brahminical learning; Delhi of Arabic learning. If we retain the
Sanscrit College at Benares and the Mahometan College at Delhi we do
enough and much more than enough in my opinion, for the Eastern
languages. If the Benares and Delhi Colleges should be retained, I
would at least recommend that no stipends shall be given to any
students who may hereafter repair thither, but that the people shall
be left to make their own choice between the rival systems of
education without being bribed by us to learn what they have no desire
to know. The fund which would thus be placed at our disposal would
enable us to give larger encouragement to the Hindoo College at
Calcutta, and establish in the principal cities throughout the
Presidencies of Fort William and Agra schools in which the English
language might be well and thoroughly taught.
If the decision of His Lordship in Council should be such as I
anticipate, I shall enter on the performance of my duties- with the
greatest zeal and alacrity. If, on the other hand, it be the pinion of
the Government that the present system ought to remain unchanged, I
beg that I may be permitted to retire from the chair of the Committee.
I feel that I could not be of the smallest use there. I feel also that
I should be lending my countenance to what I firmly believe to be mere
delusion. I believe that the present system tends not to accelerate
the progress of truth but to delay the natural death of expiring
errors. I conceive that we have at present no right to the respectable
name of a Board of Public Instruction. We are a Board for wasting the
public money, for printing books which are of less value than the
paper on which they are printed was while it was blank - for giving
artificial encouragement to absurd history, absurd metaphysics, absurd
physics, absurd theology - for raising up a breed of scholars who find
their scholarship an incumbrance and blemish, who live on the public
while they are receiving their education, and whose
education is so utterly useless to them that, when they have received
it, they must either starve or live on the public all the rest of
their lives. Entertaining these opinions, I am naturally desirous to
decline a11 share in the responsibility of a body which, unless it
alters its whole mode of proceedings, I must consider, not merely as
useless, but as positively noxious.
T. B. MACAULAY
2nd February 1835.
M. Ranjit Mathews
> On Aug 26, 10:17 am, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > here is missionary mecca ole confiding to his fellow thugs:
>
> >http://bp3.blogger.com/_5q7DIsGBCjw/R5hvnLqF85I/AAAAAAAAABc/J2SyTQQ4B...
>
> Macaulay minute (part 4)
>
> years about sixty thousand rupees have been expended in this manner.
> The sale of Arabic and Sanscrit books during those three years has not
> yielded quite one thousand rupees. In the meantime, the School Book
> Society is selling seven or eight thousand English volumes every year,
> and not only pays the expenses of printing but realizes a profit of
> twenty percent on its outlay.
Most illuminating; thanks for the information.
Arindam Banerjee
never read it. Some comments within.
On Aug 28, 2:12 pm, kurian...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Aug 26, 10:17 am, "harmony" <a...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > here is missionary mecca ole confiding to his fellow thugs:
>
> >http://bp3.blogger.com/_5q7DIsGBCjw/R5hvnLqF85I/AAAAAAAAABc/J2SyTQQ4B...
>
> Part 1
>
> They think they are championing Hindus, Hinduism and India which for
> these liars (Harmony, his mentor Jai Maharaj and many like them) is a
> country of Hindus, and for Hindus only. They keep defecating the news
> groups with fabricated “historical facts”. One such story is what is
> attributed to Lord Macaulay. This lie was given much prominence by
> these liars.
They have learnt well from old Macaulay, then.
> For some reason we Indians seem to crave for praise from foreigners.
You are perfectly correct. They also crave to be ruled by foreigners,
the whiter the better.
> I can understand when genuine appreciation is expressed and we have
> witnessed many appreciatory gestures before. It is sickening to see
> that words are put in the mouth of well known persons of the past .
> Harmony and his henchmen keep repeating what is attributed to Lord
> Macaulay in a speech to the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835.
> Those who do not know who Lord Macaulay was, he was a member of the
> British parliament and he was instrumental in recommending to the
> government that as medium of instruction in schools and centers of
> higher learning in India English would be a better medium than
> Sanskrit or Arabic. His speech (also known as Macaulay minute) was
> delivered to the parliament on 2nd February 1935 the same day what
> Harmony said Macaulay gave the speech he cites. Raja Ram Mohun Roy
> supported Macaulay’s view point. With hindsight we may feel that
> Macaulay was patronizing and his disposition was one of
> condescension.. But let us not forget that this was in 1835. Where
> our educational system would have been without implementing Macaulays’
> recommendations.
Maybe something like they now have in Japan, Korea, China, Thailand,
Israel, Russia, France etc. ?
> Compare the Macaulay minute speech that I quote and what Harmony
> quotes. Macaulay’s minute was a lengthy speech and I quote only
> part of it. I arbitrarily divided into sections. Here is part 1
> _______________________________________________________________________________--
>
> We now come to the gist of the matter. We have a fund to be employed
> as Government shall direct for the intellectual improvement of the
> people of this country. The simple question is, what is the most
> useful way of employing it?
> All parties seem to be agreed on one point, that the dialects commonly
> spoken among the natives of this part of India contain neither
> literary nor scientific information, and are moreover so poor and rude
> that, until they are enriched from some other quarter, it will not be
> easy to translate any valuable work into them. It seems to be admitted
> on all sides, that the intellectual improvement of those classes of
> the people who have the means of pursuing higher studies can at
> present be effected only by means of some language not vernacular
> amongst them.
All parties do not include non-white parties, evidently.
> What then shall that language be? One-half of the committee maintain
> that it should be the English. The other half strongly recommend the
> Arabic and Sanscrit. The whole question seems to me to be - which
> language is the best worth knowing?
>
> I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic.
Heh-heh-heh-heh-heh.
But I have done what
> I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read
> translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works.
By whom?
I have
> conversed, both here and at home, with men distinguished by their
> proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the
> oriental learning at the valuation of the orientalists themselves. I
> have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of
> a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India
> and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is
> indeed fully admitted by those members of the committee who support
> the oriental plan of education.
Who are the orientalists? Anyone brown or full-Hindu among them?
> It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of
> literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I
> certainly never met with any orientalist who ventured to maintain that
> the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great
> European nations.
And this chap has no clue about Sanskrit or Arabic!
I have translated all the sonnets of the greatest English poet,
William Shakespeare, into the Bengali language (which derives from
Sanskrit). It is my belief that my translations are superior to the
original, simply because Bengali is a superior language in the
literary sense. Anyone who wishes to dispute this, is most welcome to
hear me recite the original and the translated version. I will do as
much justice to the former, as to the latter. I have also translated
some of the works of Shelley and Browning, who were even more mature
than Shakespeare.
I have also translated or at least extended into the English language
songs from Hindi and Bengali, with not quite the same effect. English
is really very limited, as compared to the wonderful Indian languages.
Well, it certainly was useful to the British, as they used this
language to create a nation of clerks and snobs and self-despising
reverse-racists.