in the Madras Presidency (from Ganjam in the north to
Tinnevelly in the south, and Malabar in the west) during 1822-
25.^10 A much later work on the subject, but more or less of a
similar nature is that of G.W. Leitner pertaining to indigenous
education in the Punjab.^11
Amongst the above-mentioned sources, G.W. Leitner’s
work, based on earlier governmental documents and on his own
survey, is the most explicitly critical of British policies. It holds
the British authorities responsible for the decay, and even the
destruction of indigenous education in the Punjab—the area
with which his book is concerned. The reports of Adam, as well
as the reports of some of the collectors in the Madras
Presidency^12 refer likewise to the decay of indigenous education
in the areas of India with which they were concerned. Of course,
they do so much less explicitly—and in language more suited to
British officers and gentlemen—(Leitner, though a British
official, was ‘not an Englishman’).^13
Mahatma Gandhi’s long address at the Royal Institute of
International Affairs, London on 20 October, 1931, stated that
literacy had declined in India in the past 50-100 years and held
the British responsible for it. The statement provided a real edge
to the observations of Adam, Leitner, and others and to the view
which Indians had held for decades. It was then that all the
above sources relating to indigenous education in the earlier
part of the nineteenth century assumed their great importance.
The person who, perhaps not only as an individual, but also as a
representative of British rule in India, contested what Gandhiji
had said was Sir Philip Hartog, one time vice-chancellor of Dacca
University, and chairman of the ‘auxiliary committee of the
Indian Statutory Commission’. He asked Gandhiji for ‘precise
references to the printed documents on which’ Gandhiji’s ‘state-
ments were based.’^14 Not finding satisfaction (during much of
this period Gandhiji and his colleagues were in prison) Hartog,
four