Since these observations were made, they have been
treated very differently: by some, with the sanctity reserved for
divine utterances; and by others, as blasphemous. Naturally, the
first view was linked with the growth of a vocal Indian
nationalism. Its exponents, besides prominent Indians of the late
nineteenth and early twentieth century, have also included many
illustrious Englishmen, like Keir Hardie, and academics like Max
Mueller. The second, the blasphemous view of them, was
obviously held by those who were in the later period, in one
capacity or another, concerned with the administration of India;
or those who felt impelled, sometimes because of their
commitment to certain theoretical formulations on the
development of societies, to treat all such impressions as unreal.
Especially after 1860, it had become necessary to ensure that
men who had had a long period of service in the British Indian
administration or its ancillary branches and who also had the
ability to write, should engage in the defence of British rule,
especially its beginnings, and consequently attempt to refute any
statements which implied that the British had damaged India in
any significant manner.
While much ink has been spilt on such a controversy, little
attempt is known to have been made for placing these state-
ments or observations in their contextual perspective. Leaving
Leitner’s work, most of these statements belong to the early
decades of the nineteenth century. For the later British
administrator, the difficulty of appreciating the substance of the
controversy is quite understandable. For England had few
schools for the children of ordinary people till about 1800. Even
many of the older Grammar Schools were in poor shape at the
time. Moreover, the men who wrote about India (whether
concerning its education, or its industry and crafts, or the
somewhat higher real wages of Indian agricultural labourers
compared to such wages in England)^35 belonged to the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth century society of Great Britain.
Naturally, when they wrote about a school in every village in
India—whether that may or may not have been literally true—in
contrast to the British situation, it must have appeared to them
so. And though they did not much mention this contrast in so
many words, it may reasonably be assumed that, as perceptive
observers, it was the very contrast which led them to make such
judgements.
These surveys, based not on mere impressions but on hard
data, reveal a great deal: the nature of Indian education; its