Hello Sir, I have some arguments to discuss with you regarding the piece of paper we had about Lord Macaulays’,that is, “it is a page of an old book and we have scan of it and that book would be around 100 to 150 years old, if we have a look on the way of writing on this page and the photo of Lord taken, like light of flash on the face of Lord for taking his picture etc, which looks like pictures was taken at least 150 years before by a very old camera and the way of writing on this page is also very old.” And it was also argued to me that whatever material you presented to us was written on internet/ word page which would be the new story, either by someone or by British government itself as they keep modifying history on time to time to prove they were good with their colonies.
We would welcome your commdent on these arguments. thanks
Hello again, Hello 10,
Let me respond to you. What I have posted is the text of Macaulay's "Minute" in its entirety, not some 'cooked up' facsimile. I cannot give you a scanned copy since neither scan/or xerox exists with me. But the text that I have given you is based on the material available with an American University which had something to do with the research done by an INDIAN SCHOLAR. And you will find this text too on the net. But leave that aside for the time being.
This purported facsimile that you refer to is patently false and has many glaring (in your face inaccuracies). First of all it says speech of a "certain date". And that said speech is only a few sentences long, the WTH happened to the rest of the speech? Given that Macaulay was both an erudite speaker and writer; he just said some disjointed sentences/para worth of stuff and then shall we say "clammed up"!
Then, in that purported facsimile, at the beginning Macaulay says (actually writes) something in Tamil or some other South Indian language. Surprising? Unless of course his nanny or governess had taught him that language!
Then in the margin, one can read (in English) "India
had no beggars". Really funny that one. Assuming of course that Macaulay wrote that in his own hand, Macaulay speaks in the past tense about something contemporary. HOLLY MOLLY! or I'll say HOLY MUSA! (just to pacify that Smelly Critter who pops like a jack-in-the-box on this thread).
And Bang Galore already put his finger on that "caliber" fiction. That SPEECH(?) was made in the Houses of Parliament in 1835, while Macaulay was in India? Did he do that by video-conferencing? Well if there can be a scanned copy(?), why not that! Why not indeed.....
In contrast, read (and I mean, for godsakes READ) the text that I have posted. Check the construction of the sentences there and not limited to spellings of certain (key) words. I will not need a xerox copy to know which is the "real McCoy", not at all.
Most of all, this was a minute that was circulated among members in council to be used as a background note to (probably) arrive at some policy decision.
I find no merit in either peddling or perusing something that is a work of fiction and very poor fiction at that. Apart from that, I have not offered any comment on whether India (and Indians) were rich or poor, the British- good or evil, Macaulay- saint or sinner etc. First of all the basis of this whole discussion(?) is shamefully false; and I feel no desire to countenance that!!
