that I am altogether unable to accept your conclusions with
regard to the history of literacy in Bengal during the past 100
years, of which there remains a good deal to be said.
This is only a preliminary reply to your letter; I hope to be
able to write shortly again, both to Mr Gandhi and yourself.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/- P.J. Hartog...
20 March 1939Dear Mr Gandhi,
You will, I think, remember that when you were in England
for the Round Table Conference, now more than seven years ago,
we had a friendly discussion on the subject of literacy in India,
which arose out of a statement made by yourself at the Royal
Institute of International Affairs to the effect that literacy had
diminished in British India in the last fifty or hundred years.
You will perhaps also remember that I had an interview with you
on the subject at your rooms in Knightsbridge in December
1931, and that you willingly undertook publicly to retract your
statement if you were convinced that there was no basis for it in
fact; and that you very kindly wrote to me about it later when
you were in Yervada Gaol. The file of correspondence of which I
enclose a copy will show you exactly how the matter rested after
your last letter of 15 February 1932 and my reply of 9 March
following.
I had to put the subject aside, owing to other and urgent
demands on my time, but I have recently concluded an
investigation of the authorities to which you and Professor Shah
referred me and have published the results in three memoranda
included, in the book entitled Some Aspects of Indian Education,
Past and Present, of which I enclose a copy for your acceptance.
You will see that in the Preface I have referred not only to our
controversy but to your Wardha scheme, in which I take the
deepest interest. If you will read through the Memoranda, I have
little doubt that you will find that a close analysis of the facts
reveals no evidence to support the statement which you made at
the Royal Institute of International Affairs on October 20, 1931,
and that you will therefore feel justified now in withdrawing that
statement. As you implied in your letter of 15 February 1932 we
are both concerned only with ascertaining the truth, and, I