Mumbai: The recent surge in public debate, sparked by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s pointed critique of the colonial “Macaulay mindset,” has cast a fierce spotlight on the 19th-century British historian, Thomas Babington Macaulay. This is not merely an academic quarrel; it is a profound national reckoning with the foundations of modern India. The central dichotomy, framed by the current political discourse, pits ‘Modi versus Macaulay’—a contest between indigenous renaissance and colonial imposition. Yet, a deeper, more historically pertinent question emerges: Is the real struggle ‘Modi versus Macaulay,’ or is it the far older and more complex tension of ‘Manu versus Macaulay’?
The Two Pillars of Macaulay’s Legacy
Macaulay, who served as the first Law Member of the Governor-General’s Council from 1834 to 1838, left an indelible mark on India through two revolutionary documents: the 1835 ‘Minute on Indian Education’ and the draft of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), often referred to as ‘Macaulay’s Code.’ Both were instruments of radical administrative change, though their long-term impact on the soul of India has been drastically different.
*The Educational Revolution and its Critique
The ‘Minute on Indian Education’ was an unreserved victory for the ‘Anglicists’ over the ‘Orientalists’ in the battle for the direction of government-funded education. Macaulay argued with characteristic vitriol for the exclusive promotion of English as the medium of instruction for higher studies, famously dismissing the entire traditional literature of India and Arabia, claiming that “a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.”
His explicit goal was to create:
> “a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals and in intellect.”
>
This ‘downward filtration theory’ successfully forged an English-speaking, Western-educated elite that would serve as a crucial administrative bridge for the British Raj. While this system inadvertently equipped early Indian nationalists with the common language and philosophical tools to conceive and execute the freedom struggle, it simultaneously inflicted a deep psychic wound. It marginalized indigenous languages, traditional knowledge systems, and fostered a cultural alienation that persists today.
The ‘Modi versus Macaulay’ narrative is primarily a response to this educational legacy, championing a move towards ‘Bharat’—a civilizationally conscious India that reclaims its linguistic and cultural self-esteem. The push for education in local languages and the revision of colonial-era curricula are direct attempts to decolonize the mindset forged in 1835.
*Macaulay’s Code: A Uniform Legal Framework
In contrast to the divisive educational legacy, Macaulay’s contribution to the legal system has been far more enduring and, in many respects, beneficial for its time. As Chairman of the First Law Commission, he oversaw the drafting of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by 1837. This was a colossal effort to bring uniformity, consistency, and the rule of law to a subcontinent previously governed by a heterogeneous mix of English Common Law, diverse Hindu and Muslim laws, and local customs.
Macaulay championed the codification of criminal law, establishing clear definitions of crimes and punishments that, in principle, applied equally to all subjects irrespective of caste or creed. The IPC, enacted in 1860, became the cornerstone of criminal jurisprudence, influencing legal systems across many British colonies. It was, in the words of legal scholars, a remarkably comprehensive and modern document for its time.
The IPC’s monumental status is evidenced by its longevity, having governed India’s criminal justice system for over 160 years until its recent replacement by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita in 2024. The new code retains the structure of the IPC but aims to replace its colonial spirit and outdated terminology, shifting the focus from punishment to justice.
The Deeper Dichotomy: Manu versus Macaulay
The true tension in Indian history lies not solely between the present government’s push for change and Macaulay’s colonial structure, but between Macaulay’s attempt at legal universalism and the pre-existing, deeply entrenched social universalism of Manu Smriti.
Manu, the legendary ancient lawgiver, is associated with a highly stratified and codified system of social and legal order. The traditional legal system, particularly for Hindus, was often rooted in the principles of the Dharmashastras, where justice, punishment, and rights were intricately tied to caste and social status.
Macaulay’s Code, drawing on Enlightenment principles and the Napoleonic Code, offered a radical departure by instituting the principle of equality before the law. Whether a crime was committed by a Brahmin or a Dalit, the definition of the offense and the quantum of punishment were, on paper, the same. This legal universalism was a revolutionary break from a system where, historically, the law treated individuals differently based on their birth.
The fundamental question then becomes: Did the British simply replace a pre-colonial elite system (Manu) with a new colonial elite system (Macaulay)?
* Manu’s legacy was a legal and social framework based on hierarchy and duty (Dharma), leading to differential justice.
* Macaulay’s Code was a legal framework based on universal individual rights and equality for criminal law, leading to uniform justice—a concept which challenged the very fabric of caste-based stratification.
In this light, while Macaulay’s educational policies fostered cultural subservience, his legal code arguably provided a crucial—if unintended—tool for future social reformers and nationalists to demand true equality and dismantle caste privilege under the banner of the universal law he helped codify.
Reclaiming the Narrative
The ‘Modi versus Macaulay’ debate is a necessary battle of cultural and educational decolonization. It represents the urgent national effort to transition from the colonial, anglicized notion of ‘India’ to the culturally rooted identity of ‘Bharat.’
However, historical analysis shows that the most significant societal shift was the displacement of ‘Manu’s Smriti’ by ‘Macaulay’s Code’ in the realm of criminal justice. Macaulay, despite his profound racial prejudices, gifted India a foundational legal instrument built on the principle of legal equality that far surpassed the differential justice systems of the past.
The task for 21st-century India is not to simply discard Macaulay in his entirety, but to critically separate the two pillars of his legacy: to reject the educational mindset that bred cultural alienation, and to refine the legal structure he established, ensuring its principles of universality and justice are truly focused on the welfare of the Indian people. The recent legislative overhaul of the IPC proves this evolution is well underway, signaling a mature effort to claim the best of both worlds: a legal system built on modern universalism, administered with a distinctly Indian spirit.
References:
* Macaulay, T. B. (1835). Minute on Indian Education.
* The Indian Penal Code, 1860. (Now replaced by the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2024).
* Stokes, E. (1959). The English Utilitarians and India. Oxford University Press.
* Kopf, D. (1969). British Orientalism and the Bengal Renaissance. University of California Press.
~Hasnain Naqvi is a former member of the history faculty at St. Xavier’s College, Mumbai
