Lord Macaulay about India 1835

This extract from Macaulay's speech in 1835 is doing the "Forwards" on email lately.

Yes he got his predictions right. And break the backbone of India the Britishers did with scruplous tenacity to the letter by his plan.

Every Indian cries murder and foul about the long lost inheritance of the Utopia that purportedly was India.

We need to think deeper here. Every one's conception even singularly as an event had a probability close to nil. Now if we are to calculate the probability of our birth from say N generations back. It would be, nearly zero to the power of N. To illustrate this phenomenon, 0.5 (though not anywhere close to zero) to the power of 2 is 0.25 so next to nothing to the power of say a hundred generations is one hell of a small chance.

Quite simply we are darned lucky to have been born. So stop brooding about how bad looking you are or how poor you are. You are amongst a chosen few!

According to science any event in a space-time cone will affect other events within the cone. So the British rule in India at some point or other could have caused a man and a woman amongst our ancestors to conceive a link in our family tree.

So whether one likes it or not we are destined to inherit only this India (Actually it is not bad at all !).

Had India not been fouled by Macaulay yes it may have been rich in every sense but a very different set of people would have been walking it.

Our life is a precious outcome of a probability closer to zero so forget things beyond our control and LIVE to the FULLEST.

God Bless.

AN ADDENDUM...

Subsequent to my writing the above. I discovered that the speech is a forgery and that Macaulay was in India during 1834-38. So in no way could he have addressed the British Parliament in 1835.

http://www.humsurfer.com/view/the-truth-about-lord-macaulays-address-to-the-british-parliament-

There is an excellent article, Reinventing Lord Macaulay By Pioneer columnist Chandrabhan Prasad. You can see this page at:

http://www.countercurrents.org/dalit-prasad271004.htm


My thoughts do not loose any relevance except that Macaulay's name has to be read as "The British" instead.