I know Macaulay is widely reviled among many Indians for asserting the superiority of European learning. His thought that Indians should receive a Western education and learn the English language was disliked by many in India.

At Cambridge when I mention him to Indian students they do not react well. He is like a demon figure to them. I can understand that. But he is a complex figure and my book seeks to show that. Macaulay did not have any knowledge of Indian classics but I wonder what might have happened had he known Sanskrit and the rich Indian literature.

Macaulay was a brilliant writer and he could learn a language within few weeks. He would have been less dismissive of India if his Sanskrit dictionary had not fallen off the boat during an Indian visit and had he learned that language. He learned Portuguese instead.

People in Europe were just learning to appreciate the richness of Sanskrit and its literature then. Even then Macaulay would have appreciated the Sanskrit legend, lore and literature available then. He would not then have been a chauvinistic person and if he had learned Sanskrit, he would have a treasure trove of literature.

But it so happened that he did not see the richness on his doorstep. Instead, he acquired a very blinkered approach to Indian culture.

Is there anything else about Macaulay that we do not know much about?

I certainly do not share Macaulay's prejudices. But I remember he promoted the freedom of press and equality before law. He accommodated to India more than many Englishmen. He found Calcutta despite its horrible climate less suffocating than the House of Commons.

It is true that Macaulay disparaged Indian history and literature, but his ultimate purpose has been largely obscured. He aimed to fit Indians for Independence and to teach them to embrace European institutions of government.

Many conservative politicians in England opposed the spread of Western education because they were afraid it would undermine the British Empire. But Macaulay wanted the opposite thing to happen. He believed that the empire had a finite life.

He knew that the empire could offer India a lot of things including Shakespeare and a civil service that was not corrupt.

He even declared that the ending of the Raj would be 'the proudest day in English history' -- provided that his compatriots left behind an empire immune to decay, 'the imperishable empire of our arts and our morals, our literature and our laws.'

When you look at India's freedom movement, you will find this was a legacy many Indian nationalists were prepared to accept. And we also know how English became the vernacular of emancipation, how English and American thinkers influenced Indian leaders, and how substantial part of the Indian freedom literature was published in English.