his statement in any way’; but ‘he has undertaken to retract that
statement, if he cannot support it.’
Within a few days of reaching India, Gandhiji was put in
Yervada Prison. From there he wrote to Hartog on 15 February
1932 informing him of his inability at that moment to satisfy
him, mentioning that he had asked Prof K.T. Shah to look into
the matter. K.T. Shah’s long and detailed letter reached Hartog
soon after. In it, Shah also referred to the various known
writings on the subject including those of Max Mueller, Ludlow,
G.L. Prendergast, and the more celebrated Thomas Munro, W.
Adam, and G.W. Leitner (already referred to in the foregoing
pages). For Bombay, Shah quoted G.L. Prendergast, a member of
the Council in the Bombay Presidency (briefly referred to earlier)
who had stated in April 1821:
I need hardly mention what every member of the Board
knows as well as I do, that there is hardly a village, great or
small, throughout our territories, in which there is not at
least one school, and in larger villages more; many in every
town, and in large cities in every division; where young
natives are taught reading, writing and arithmetic, upon a
system so economical, from a handful or two of grain, to
perhaps a rupee per month to the school master, according
to the ability of the parents, and at the same time so
simple and effectual, that there is hardly a cultivator or
petty dealer who is not competent to keep his own
accounts with a degree of accuracy, in my opinion, beyond
what we meet with amongst the lower orders in our own
country; whilst the more splendid dealers and bankers
keep their books with a degree of ease, conciseness, and
clearness I rather think fully equal to those of any British
merchants.^72Knowing what Hartog considered as sufficient proof, Shah
began his letter by saying that he ‘need hardly point out that at
the time under reference, no country in the world had like
definite, authoritative, statistical information of the type one
would now recognise as proper proof in such discussions’; and
that ‘all, therefore, that one can expect by way of proof in such
matters, and at such a time, can only be in the form of
impressions of people in a position to form ideas a little better
and more scientific than those of less fortunately situated, or
less well-endowed, observers.’ Shah finally concluded with the
view that ‘the