Talk:Thomas Babington Macaulay, 1st Baron Macaulay

• I have travelled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in the country, such high moral values, people of such caliber, that I do not think we would conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self esteem, their native culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation."
  • Speech to the Britsh Parliament, (1835)

This link DOES NOT point to the Speech of 1835 (The article doesn't even mention Macaulay). In fact, Macaulay made no speech to the British Parliament in 1835, since he was in India at the time. Instead, this probably refers to Macaulay's Minute on Indian Education, which can be found at http://www.columbia.edu/itc/mealac/pritchett/00generallinks/macaulay/txt_minute_education_1835.html . However, this quotation is NOT in it. According to this Google Answers inquiry (http://answers.google.com/answers/threadview?id=296771), this is not a direct quotation at all, but a paraphrase by another source.

• We might still want to include it on the page under ==Misattributed==, if there are any incorrect assertions of his authorship in print. BD2412 T 08:30, 17 December 2008 (UTC)
• That might not be a bad idea, seeing as the quote is so commonly misattributed, even once, apparently, by the President of India. There is also a large debate concerning this quotation on Macaulay's Wikipedia talk page. It is especially problematic because, upon simply glancing at Macaulay's Minute, the offensive tone of this "paraphrase" is totally unfounded. I would like to see the misattribution noted, with a link to this article (http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html), if that's allowed, so that readers can get an idea of what a gross error this quotation is. Macaulay seems to have not been a great guy, but this quote has put him down in history as a monster. This is my first time involved in editing, so I'm not comfortable making a decision.

That alleged speech

Could I make a plea that people sign their contributions with the usual ~~~~ signature? Otherwise it's quite difficult to follow who said what.

The point about that speech is

1. We have the "Minute", which it seems is certainly genuine and accurately quoted.
2. The "I have travelled" paragraph is apparently not supported by documentary evidence. It cannot, as has been said, have been a speech to parliament in 1835. If it is presented as a summary or paraphrase, it is grossly inaccurate as such. In fact the sentiments expressed are diametrically opposed to those in the Minute. It could not have been written by the same man, given that we are talking about two statements, both public, and both of the same claimed date. Thus, as I see it, it must be a tendentious forgery. SamuelTheGhost 18:39, 21 April 2009 (UTC)