Are we to keep the people of India ignorant in order that we may keep them submissive? Or do we think that we can give them knowledge without awakening ambition? Or do we mean to awaken ambition and to provide it with no legitimate vent? Who will answer any of these questions in the affirmative? Yet one of them must be answered in the affirmative, by every person who maintains that we ought permanently to exclude the natives from high office. 1 have no fears. The path of duty is plain before us: and it is also the path of wisdom, of national prosperity, of national honor.
Here, Macaulay challenges the logic of permanently excluding Indians from higher office under British rule. He frames the issue as a series of rhetorical questions, pointing out the contradictions in denying education and advancement to Indians while still claiming to rule justly. His language reveals both a moral stance and a pragmatic one: keeping India submissive through ignorance is unjust and also unwise for Britain’s long-term prosperity. By insisting that knowledge will naturally create ambition, he argues that denying Indians political opportunity would lead to instability. Overall, the passage reveals Macaulay’s conviction that the gradual inclusion of Indians into governance was not only a duty but also a means to strengthen Britain’s honor and secure its empire.