<P> It should have been clear what answer Macaulay was seeking, given his past comments . In 1833 in the House of Commons Macaulay (then MP for Leeds), had spoken in favour of renewal of the Company's charter, in terms which make his own views on the culture and society of the sub-continent adequately clear: </P> <P> I see a government anxiously bent on the public good . Even in its errors I recognize a paternal feeling towards the great people committed to its charge . I see toleration strictly maintained . Yet I see bloody and degrading superstitions gradually losing their power . I see the morality, the philosophy, the taste of Europe, beginning to produce a salutary effect on the hearts and understandings of our subjects . I see the public mind of India, that public mind which we found debased and contracted by the worst forms of political and religious tyranny, expanding itself to just and noble views of the ends of government and of the social duties of man . </P> <P> Finishing with a peroration holding it a moral imperative to educate the Indians in English ways, not to keep them submissive but to give them the potential eventually to claim the same rights as the English: </P> <P> What is that power worth which is founded on vice, on ignorance, and on misery--which we can hold only by violating the most sacred duties which as governors we owe to the governed--which as a people blessed with far more than an ordinary measure of political liberty and of intellectual light--we owe to a race debased by three thousand years of despotism and priest craft? We are free, we are civilized, to little purpose, if we grudge to any portion of the human race an equal measure of freedom and civilization . </P>

Why did the british introduced english language in india explain any two reasons