NCERT Solutions Exploring Society: India and Beyond Chapter 4 –103Transforming Indian education: creating ‘brown Englishmen’ — THINK ABOUT IT

Book page 102 Updated on2026-09-05

Q1.
What exactly did Macaulay mean when he wrote that “a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia”? And why should he want to make Indians “English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect”? How does this relate to the ‘civilising mission’ mentioned at the start of the chapter? Ask your teacher to guide a class debate on these questions.
Answer

Take the three questions one at a time — the last one ties them together.

1. What the sentence means. Macaulay was claiming that European knowledge was so far above Indian and Arabic knowledge that a comparison was not even close: one shelf outweighed two entire literatures. It is a statement about rank, not about content. And the chapter gives you the fact that destroys it — in the very same Minute he admitted he had “no knowledge of either Sanskrit or Arabic”. He had not read what he was weighing. So the sentence is not a scholar’s judgement; it is an assertion of superiority, and it was made to settle a policy argument, not a literary one.

2. Why he wanted ‘brown Englishmen’. His aim was a class of Indians “Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect”. That served several colonial purposes at once:

PurposeHow the new education served it
Cheap administrationIt created a pool of Indian clerks and minor officials who could staff the lower ranks of the colonial administration at a fraction of the cost of British personnel
Reliable go-betweensA class educated in the rulers’ language and values would interpret the rulers to the ruled — and would have an interest in the system continuing
Removing rival authorityIt sidelined traditional sources of knowledge and authority, creating generations of Indians disconnected from their own cultural heritage
Consent, not just obedienceIf the educated believe the ruler’s culture is superior, rule needs fewer soldiers

3. How it relates to the ‘civilising mission’. Directly — it is the same claim, moved from the battlefield to the classroom. At the start of the chapter, colonisers justified conquest by saying they were bringing ‘progress’ to peoples they demonised as ‘savage’, ‘primitive’ or ‘barbaric’. Macaulay applies exactly that logic to knowledge: Indian learning is declared worthless, therefore Indians ‘need’ British education, therefore the coloniser is a benefactor. In both cases the claim of superiority is what turns taking into giving.

What it cost, in the book’s own figures: British reports themselves recorded hundreds of thousands of village schools in the early 19th century — 100,000 to 150,000 in Bengal and Bihar alone up to 1830 — teaching reading, writing and arithmetic “upon a system so economical… and at the same time so simple and effectual”. India already had pāṭhaśhālās, madrasās, vihāras and apprenticeship learning, which passed on cultural values along with practical skills. After 1835 those schools slowly disappeared. English became a language of prestige, and a lasting division opened in Indian society between English-educated elites and the masses.
For the debate: the chapter is honest that there was a real argument at the time — a few prominent British Orientalists argued that Indian students should be left to study in their own languages, and they lost. So the debate can be framed as it actually was: Macaulay’s side (one modern language, one body of knowledge, cheap and uniform) against the Orientalists’ side (teach in the languages people already think in). Ask each side to argue from evidence, and end by asking who was not in the room — no Indian teacher or student was consulted about either plan.
Was this helpful? Report an error