“Prejudice blinds people. It makes us blame the very people from whom we need to learn the lessons we desperately need to learn. We are not ashamed of importing ethnic nationalism from Germany or Communism from China. We borrow expertise to help us plan projects from sanitation to satellites. But we lack the humility to learn again how to become a decent society. The spirituality that prepared us for freedom in the first place is capable of helping us to strengthen our present fragile freedoms.” [Dr Vishal Mangalwadi in his 1997 book India: The Grand Experiment.]
The prejudice Dr Mangalwadi referred to was the belief that “the British people” were uniformly of the opinion that India should forever remain under British subjugation. He mentioned imported ideas because he believes what was being passed off as “Hindu cultural nationalism” was in fact imported. His book was written for the non-uniform, multi-faceted population of India. His purpose was to call Indians to become a decent, free society without entrenched corruption. He mentioned spirituality because effective repair of society requires that we revive the roots that strengthen and pull out the things that hinder.
Every society has a tendency to be selective about history – the stories we re-tell; the dates we recall; the people we describe. In the case of India, the main story is independence from Britain, the year is 1947, the persons are Gandhi and Nehru. Well, perhaps so from the point of view of the majority of Indian writers. What about the alternative point of view?
Dr Mangalwadi points us to a debate in the House of Commons, the year 1833 and two persons: Charles Grant and Lord Macaulay. Those who wonder how a debate (talk, talk and more talk) could be so important might wish to recall that the early church debated before deciding upon important policies – most notably at the Council of Jerusalem which is described in chapter 15 of the Bible book of Acts; there may be similar examples in Islam.
“Most Indians, understandably, find it difficult to contemplate that some Englishmen wanted to reform and liberate India. And that they introduced the literature of freedom available in the English language in order to liberate the Indian soul. It is not easy for most Indians to imagine that the educational scheme, first proposed by Charles Grant, may have been intended to prepare us for our freedom. And that conscientious Christians in England fought for an India-policy which pursued the noble goal of equipping the Indian mind and heart with the capacity to live as free people. Yet, the fact is that through his debate in the House of Commons, in 1833 (reproduced in Chapter five) Lord Macaulay actually convinced his colleagues and critics of ‘this grand political truth, that self government was the interest as well as duty of all governments.’”
Both Grant and Macaulay spent time in India and were (at times) Members of Parliament in Britain. Grant, a Scotsman, eventually chaired the Board of Directors of the British East India Company. Macaulay, an Englishman, was the architect of English education in India as well as of the Indian Penal Code.
As I ponder the situation in Malaysia today, I observe the similarities between India and Malaysia: multi-ethnic society, ethnic nationalism, corruption, spiritual inadequacy.
I also notice there are persons who take up the moral debate in parliament and in the public square; there are some who challenge the narratives which are presented to us as “official” history whether in textbooks, Barisan Nasional sponsored videos or speeches, e.g. Art Harun has debunked the common portrayal of “Malay rights” and Fahmi Reza has exposed the falsehood of BN’s supposedly exclusive role in Malaysia becoming independent of Britain.
Yet when I consider what politicians mainly speak about, it’s opportunity, prosperity, progress, safety and security. Also, why is there so little talk of freedom, fairness and civility? Why don’t we hear our politicians tell us whom they admire? Is it because there are no local models and it would appear “non-nationalistic” to publicly admire those of other races, including colonists who helped establish the foundations of our nation?
One Hindu Nationalist group in India lists four M’s as enemies: Muslims, Marxists, Missionaries and Macaulayites (English educated Indians). Prejudice blinds them and prevents them from learning the lessons they desperately need to learn. How about us?
The Micah Mandate is a Christian-based public interest advocacy ministry that seeks a transformation of our nation through justice, mercy and humility.
