institutions had increased to 6,81,174 males, and 1,10,460 fe-
males. It is at this time then that the proportion (taking all those
males attending educational institutions) rose to 34.4%: just
about equal to the proportion which Thomas Munro had
computed in 1826 as one-third (33.3%) of those receiving any
education whether in indigenous institutions, or at home. Even
at this period, i.e. 70 years after Munro’s computation, however,
the number of males in primary education was just 28%.
Coming to 1899-1900, the last year of the nineteenth
century, the number of males in educational institutions went
up to 7,33,923 and of females to 1,29,068. At this period, the
number of school-age males was calculated by the Madras
Presidency Director of Public Instruction as 26,42,909, thus
giving a percentage of 27.8% attending any educational
institution. Even taking a sympathetic view of the later data,
what clearly comes out of these comparisons is that the
proportion of those in educational institutions at the end of the
nineteenth century was still no larger than the proportions
estimated by Thomas Munro of the number attending the
institutions of the decaying indigenous system of the Madras
Presidency in 1822-25.
The British authorities in the late nineteenth century must
have been tempted—as we find state authorities are in our own
times—to show their achievements in brighter hues and thus err
on the side of inflating figures: therefore, this later data may be
treated with some scepticism. This was certainly not the case
with the 1822-25 data which, in the climate of that period, could
not have been considered inflated in any sense of the word.
From the above, it may be inferred that the decay which is
mentioned in 1822-25 proceeded to grow in strength during the
next six decades. During this period, most of the indigenous
institutions more or less disappeared. Any surviving remnants
were absorbed by the late 19th century British system. Further,
it is only after 1890 that the new system begins to equal the
1822-25 officially calculated proportions of males in schools
quantitatively. Its quality, in comparison to the indigenous
system, is another matter altogether.
The above comparison of the 1822-25 Madras indigenous
education data with the data from the 1880s and 1890s period
also seems to provide additional support—if such support were
required—to the deductions which G.W. Leitner had come to in
- These reveal the decline of indigenous education in the
Panjab in the previous 35-40 years.