well as boys, while in Madras only the male population was
considered. On that basis, this figure could be easily raised to at
least 15% of the total. There is reason to prefer this basis for
calculation, since, under the conditions and ideas of the time,
women could not go for education to schools publicly recognised;
and so a proper index for judging of the real state of literacy is
rather the male population than the total. Again, the percentage
of population receiving instruction, compared to the total of
school-going age, would be still higher, if we would bear in mind
the fact that the so called untouchables formed part of the total,
but could not, necessarily, be included in the people receiving
instruction as these were not admitted into public institutions.
In the Bombay Presidency, the total population was
returned in 1829 at 4,681,735. The total number of scholars in
schools was 35,153. If we take, with Sir T. Munro, one-ninth of
the population to be of school-going age, the total figure of
school-going age would be 520,190. This gives a percentage of 7
to the total of school-going age; while if we confine ourselves only
to males, the percentage of scholars to the total population
(male) of school-going age would be 14. This proportion is more
than borne out by the later Report of 1841, relating to only 9
selected districts in the Presidency.
The following comparative position, between the state of
things now and a hundred years ago, would be instructive, if not
conclusive. Percentages of population of school-going age
receiving primary education in 1921 (males only) and a 100
years ago (roughly):
Madras 42.5 33
Bombay 45.1 14 (highest 28 in some parts)
Bengal 37.2 16 (highest 32 in some parts)I have already pointed out that these statistical data for the
earlier period are undependable, because (1) the figures for
privately educated children are not available; (2) the people were
averse to disclosing what they thought to be unwarrantable bits
of information; (3) the compilers of this information were not of
requisite efficiency or intelligence; (4) certain large sections of the
population were necessarily excluded, and had to be excluded
from these calculations, if they were to be at all reliable; and so
the mere percentages, uncorrected, are of no use. The closer
enquiry of this type conducted by Leitner is far more reliable,