At the Ayodhya Dhwajarohan ceremony, Prime Minister Narendra Modi said India must shed the “slavery mindset” that took root during the colonial rule, particularly through the influence of British administrator Thomas Macaulay. The PM said Macaulay’s ideas, introduced nearly 200 years ago, created a long-lasting inferiority complex among Indians and urged that the colonial way of thinking should be completely removed within the next decade.
This is not the first time PM Modi has invoked Macaulay; he has referred to the man multiple times over the years, especially when discussing education, decolonisation, and cultural revival. However, of late, there seems to be a renewed effort—using “Macaulay” as a symbolic figure to talk about colonial influence, not because the public knows him well, but because the name helps frame a larger ideological narrative. Just a couple of days back at a media event, he referred to Macaulay’s push to dismantle traditional knowledge systems and impose a colonial model of education.
Political observers say the message is meant for two key groups—the English-educated elite and the large group of culturally rooted Hindu middle class. When he challenges the authority of English-medium urban elites who have long shaped institutions and public discourse—his suggestion is that they inherited a colonial worldview and allowed it to continue. At the same time, the appeal is also meant for the middle class and the lower middle-class voters, who, in any case, respond well to issues related to cultural and national pride.
The fact is, most Indians don’t know who Macaulay was, but such references work symbolically, not historically. By invoking Macaulay, Modi signals the need to reject a “colonial mindset” and reclaim cultural confidence—ideas ordinary voters can identify with without knowing the man. The “elite versus common people” contrast and criticism of English-educated power centres, or “Lutyens culture,” also come through. Rather, the way he talks about Macaulay in a way overlaps with his long-running critique of “Lutyens culture,” which too was aimed at elitism and the Congress party.
Macaulay played a major role in shaping British India’s education system in 1835 and is portrayed as someone who introduced a hierarchy that placed Western knowledge and the English language above India’s own intellectual traditions. But by invoking him, the PM is not just referring to a historical personality but highlighting the mindset that still lingers and also surrounds the main opposition—the Congress—who took over the system after independence.
“By focusing on Macaulay, the PM is reinforcing his government’s broader push toward the larger plan—curriculum changes, renaming institutions, promoting Indian languages, and rewriting legal codes. When he challenges the authority of English-medium, urban elites who have long shaped institutions and public discourse, his suggestion is that they inherited a colonial worldview and let it continue. At the same time, it also appeals to the middle class and the lower middle-class voters who respond strongly to themes of cultural and national pride,” they say.
Thomas Babington Macaulay was a British historian and politician best known for shaping colonial education policy, which promoted English instruction and aimed to create an English-educated Indian administrative class to serve under the colonial bosses.