Note by H.T. Prinsep, February 15, 1835

Note dated the 15th February 1835, by H. T. Prinsep

        It seems to me that there are some points touched upon in the Minute of the Hon'ble Mr. Macaulay that require to be set right by an explanation of the facts or by more clearly stating the views and principles against which the arguments of the minute are directed where these appear to have been misunderstood. For as the question before the Government is of the first importance and the propositions to which it leads such as if any step be taken hastily and without a thorough comprehension of the subject in its different bearings the Government may be committed irretrievably to measures hateful and injurious to the mass of the people under its sway such as it might repent afterwards when too late-it behoves everyone that can contribute anything towards clearing it of fallacies or further elucidating any of the material points to bring forward what he may have to say before rather than after the Government's determination is taken. My note will be short for I propose merely to point out where in the minute before Government the opposite view has not been fully stated or where the information built upon is incomplete or incorrect. It is not my purpose to make a laboured advocacy of the cause of oriental literature; for neither my pursuits, inclinations nor acquaintance with the subject qualify me for such a task.

        First in respect to the legal question.

        It is submitted that the Act 53 Geo. III must be construed with special reference to the intention of the Legislature of that day. So construed there cannot be a doubt in the mind of any person that by "the revival and promotion of literature and the encouragement of learned natives" the legislature did not mean to refer to any other literature than native literature nor to any other learned natives than such as were eminent by their proficiency in that literature. These were the persons then intended to be produced and encouraged and it is surely forcing the words out of their natural construction when it is argued that the revival of native literature can best be effected by abolishing all institutions for teaching the literature that then existed and that had existed for ages before and by communicating instruction only, in English.

        With respect to the analogy to the position of the Pasha of Egypt there can be no doubt that if he were to talk of reviving and promoting literature in that country his meaning would be the literature and language last existing in Egypt, viz., that borrowed from Arabia and accordingly we do see him cultivating and reviving that and teaching medicine and other sciences in that. The example is worthy of imitation. There is no talk there of reviving the mummy literature of Osiris nor in India of going beyond what we found prevailing throughout but languishing for want of encouragement.

        With respect to rescinding any provisions of the Charter act of 1813 by a legislative Act of the Indian Government, I have before argued that question and it cannot be necessary to revert to it.

        The next point is that the Institutions established for communicating instruction in Arabic and Sanskrit are endowments to which funds have been permanently and irrevocably appropriated. Against this, it is argued that Government cannot have pledged itself to perpetuate what may be proved noxious, that there is no right of property vesting in any body and that requires to be respected as such-therefore that to take these funds from these purposes and objects and direct them to other that may be thought by the rulers of the day to be more beneficial is no spoliation or violation of any vested interest but on the contrary that the annual Lakh of Rupees set apart by the act of Parliament may annually be applied to such purposes as may each year be thought most conducive to the great end-the revival and encouragement of literature and the promotion and cultivation of Science.

        Upon this it is to be observed first that the argument as to the inviolability of endowments was never applied to any Institution paid out of the Parliamentary grant of a Lakh of Rupees. It was adduced only in behalf of the Mudrisa which was specifically an endowment made by Warren Hastings more than fifty years ago and for the support of which certain Funds, viz., the land revenue of the Mudrisa Muhal part of which is included in the Barrackpoor park were specifically assigned. At first the Institution was left to the uncontrolled management of the Moola placed by Mr. Hastings at its head. The Muhal however was under the Khas management of the Board of Revenue and the varying amount realized from it was placed at the Moolavee's disposal. Subsequently the Muhal was made over at a fixed Jama to the Raja of Nudeea when he was restored to his estates of which this formed a part. Except therefore that the direct management of the lands was not in the hands of the Principal and Professors and Fellows of the College this was assuredly as complete an Endowment as any of the colleges of Oxford and Cambridge or as the Blue coat school in London can boast of. The purpose was declared to be the education of Moolavees and Kazees and the cultivation of Arabic learning, and from the day of the Institution's first establishment to this present time degrees and certificates have been granted entitling persons to assume the style and to exercise the functions of Moolavee and Kazee in like manner as degrees of Master of Arts and Doctor are conferred in Europe.

        The Government exercised towards this institution the functions of Waqif or Endower which are distinct and well defined in law and by the practise of the country resembling those of directing visitor but more extensive than any enjoyed by visitors in Europe. In the exercise of these powers the Government had reformed the Institution and placed it on a footing efficient for the purposes intended by the founder before the Parliamentary grant of 1813 was made. It was transferred to the Committee appointed to carry that act into execution not as an Institution established under it and paid from the funds appropriated therein to Education but because the Committee was deemed the fittest organ for the execution of the functions of visitor. The Mudrusa had before a separate Committee which merged into the General Education Committee and therein the connexion of this latter with it. The argument therefore that the Government is free to deal with its lakh as it pleases does not touch this particular Institution-the Government proceedings and determination in respect to which must be guided by specific reference to the conditions of its establishment and to its present position. If there be any thing positively noxious in the existence of a seminary of this kind that of course may be an argument for correcting what is bad or if the mischief be past correction for abolishing root and branch the irredeemable evil. But surely Government is not yet prepared to put forth a declaration that such is the light in which it regards the instruction of all its subjects of the Mooslim faith-of this however more presently.

        With respect to the argument that the Government cannot be pledged to perpetuate any course of instruction for that it has created no property and there is no one that can pretend to possess a vested interest. This, in so far as it denies to collegiate institutions a right which I believe in Europe they have always stoutly asserted and hitherto maintained, is a question that may be left to be battled by the Universities in England. Nothing on earth can hope to be perpetual and property of every kind is of itself the most mutable of things. By the hand of time, by the act of God, by foreign violence or internal convulsion everything most prized and most valued may be swept away in an instant. To all these sources of ruin to vested interests must be added the changeful opinions of mankind and the caprices of those who rule. The Government doubtless may set up and abolish Institutions with the same facile rapidity with which it creates and abolishes offices and passes acts and Regulations. The question is one of wisdom and expediency. Is it wise and beneficial for a Government so to act as to destroy the hope that what is, and has been, will be lasting? Does not every Government on the contrary derive strength and influence from encouraging its subjects to look upon certain classes of its actions as permanent and binding upon itself and its successors? The establishment of such an Institution as the Mudrusa is most assuredly an act of this description and class-and in every part of the world when the ruling Power has made an Appropriation of funds or through other means established a Seminary of the kind for Education whether it be to teach Latin and Greek or to teach English to the Catholic uneducated Irish or for any purpose of supposed utility the appropriation has been respected and held sacred by those who have followed. It is only in this country that it would be proposed not to improve and make perfect and correct errors in the Institutions already established by the liberality of those who have gone before, but upon a vague impression that the object is not beneficial wholly to abolish and dissolve them.

        In behalf of the Mudrusa more claim to permanency has not been asserted than is allowed elsewhere to similar Institutions and Seminaries. Let it be dealt with as a charity school or college of England liable to fall to corruption and to need the hand of the governing power to correct its abuses and reform its practise, nay even to suit it to the advancing opinions of the day. The Proposition for its abolition goes a great deal further.

        The minute assuming apparently the Mudrusa to be one of the Institutions supported out of the Lakh of rupees appropriated by Parliament proceeds to the question what is the most useful mode of employing that fund. It is laid down that the vernacular dialects are not fit to be made the vehicle of instruction in science or literature, that the choice is therefore between English on one hand and Sanscrit and Arabic on the other-the latter are dismissed on the ground that their literature is worthless and the superiority of that of England is set forth in all animated description of the treasures of science and of intelligence it contains and of the stores of intellectual enjoyment it opens. There is no body acquainted with both literatures that will not subscribe to all that is said in the minute of the superiority of that of England but the question is not rightly stated when it is asserted to be this "whether, when it is in our power to teach this language"-that is English-we shall teach those which contain no books of value. The whole question is-have we it in our power to teach everywhere this English and this European science? It is in doubting nay in denying this that those who take the opposite view maintain the expediency of letting the natives Pursue their present course of instruction and of endeavouring to engraft European Science thereon.

        An analogy is drawn between the present state of India and that of Europe at the time of the revival of letters. The cultivation of English is likened to the study of Latin and Greek in those days and the grand results that have followed are held out as an example to be imitated hereby inculcating English in order that a Bangalee and Hindee literature may grow up as perfect as that we now have in England. This however is not the true analogy-Latin and Greek were to the nations of Europe what Arabic and Persian are to the Mooslims and Sanscrit to the Hindoos of the present population of Hindoostan and if a native literature is to be created it must be through the improvements of which these are capable. To the great body of the People of India, English is as strange as Arabic was to the knights of the dark ages. It is not the language of the erudite of the clergy and of men of letters as Latin always was in Europe and as Arabic and Persian are extensively in Asia.

        The analogy of Russia is less convincing. It is through communication with foreigners through imitation and translations that the Russians are building up a native literature. This is the method that is specifically advocated by those who despair of making English the language of general adoption or the vehicle for imparting a knowledge of the sciences to the millions who compose the population of India. The argument would only have weight if, in the schools and colleges of Russia, German were now or had ever been the exclusive organ through which the youth of that country derived instruction which it assuredly is not and never was.

        But to proceed to the real arguments of the minute. It is said that in teaching Arabic and Sanscrit we are not consulting the intellectual taste of the natives but are "forcing on them the mock learning which they nauseate." If there were the slightest ground for believing that the great body of the Mooslims did not venerate to enthusiasm their Arabic and Persian literature or to believe that the Hindoos as a body were not partial to their studies Sanscrit then of course would the whole case or those who advocate the prosecution of those studies require to be thrown up. This however is a matter of fact and of opinion that cannot be conceded to either party upon mere assertion. It is necessary to examine the grounds upon which so startling a proposition as that above stated is advanced and maintained.

        The minute proceeds "This is proved by the fact that we are forced to pay our Arabic and Sanscrit students while those who learn English pay us..... We cannot find in all our vast empire a single student who will let us teach him those dialects unless we will pay him.

        These assertions are supported by adducing from the report upon the Mudrusa of Calcutta the circumstance that there were in December 1833 seventy seven Arabic Students on that foundation receiving in the aggregate above Rs. 500 per mensem while in three months Rs. 103 were collected by the English master from out-students who paid for his instruction in that language. The contrast is dwelt upon as conclusive but a very little explanation will suffice to show that the argument is quite groundless.

        There are ordinarily taught in the Mudrusa between two and three hundred youths. The Government scholarships are eighty and if the President of the Education Committee would attend the next examination of candidates for these scholarships he would see in the keenness of the competition and in the proficiency of the candidates abundant evidence that the salaried scholars are not the only persons in our Indian Empire who learn the rudiments of Persian and Arabic literature. I am no Sanscrit scholar and never attended the examinations of that college in Calcutta nor do I pretend to much acquaintance with its constitution or with the rules under which its scholarships are given away but only the other day the Education Committee received a report of the examinations of the Sanscrit College at Benares and it cannot have escaped the president of that Committee to have observed that, although the jageers or scholarships were only 130, upwards of three hundred students pressed forward for examination.

        In truth the jageers or monthly allowances given at the Mudrusa and in the Sanscrit Colleges and elsewhere are in all respects similar to the Scholarships of the Universities or to the foundation Scholars of the Public Schools of England. They are given not as inducements to study the language but as the rewards of successful study and in order to keep at the institution for the prosecution of further studies those who by their progress evince a love of science and the qualification to become learned men, Moolavees or Pundits. Most of those who enjoy these jageers are themselves the teachers of many pupils, teachers in the College to those who attend there for instruction and teachers at home in families of the better order to those who prefer that their sons shall be so instructed.

        Whether it is expedient or not to give these stipendiary provisions as rewards for ardent study and to keep students longer at their education by means of them is a question that has heretofore been argued in the Committee of Public Instruction. Something is to be said on both sides and although the Committee heretofore decided in favour of the practise it does not follow that they may not have decided wrong. But however this may be the fact that there are paid scholars on the establishment or foundation of any seminary affords no ground for assuming that none would learn if they were not paid, yet this is the argument of the minute. As well might it be assumed from the fact that there are foundation scholars at Eton and scholarships in all the Colleges of both Universities in England that no body would learn Latin and Greek if it were not for these stipendiary advantages. Be it Latin and Greek or Mathematics or Law or Arabic and Sanscrit literature or be it English the principle is the same. Scholarships are given and it is thought right to give them to reward and encourage the poor scholar and to lead as well through the excitement of competition as by lengthening the course of study to the attainment of higher proficiency. In the Mudrusa itself separate scholarships have been established for proficients in English in order to encourage the study of that language. If this be a conclusive argument that the study of English is nauseated because it requires to be paid for, then may it be applied to Arabic and Sanscrit and to Mathematics and to all other studies. All must participate in the reproach or it will evidently apply to none.

        But the fact remains to be explained that a sum of Rs. 103 was collected in three months from out students of English whereas nothing is shown by the accounts of the Mudrusa to have been collected from out students of Persian and Arabic. Everybody knows that with Moolavees and Pundits, for both profess the same principle in this respect, it is meritorious to give instruction gratis and sinful to take hire or wages from the pupil who receives it. The teacher's remuneration is always in the way of a present and perfectly voluntary. The English Master on the other hand who is a Christian and who has been appointed by the Committee to the Mudrusa acts on quite different principles and not only deems it no sin to take payment for the lessons he gives but makes a special demand of it from all who appear to him to have the means of paying. The wonder is rather, considering that the teacher in this instance is a first rate instructor and that he gives instruction to Hindoos as well as Mooslims, that more was not realized. The fact that a sum of about Rs. 30 a month was realized when upwards of three hundred per mensem is paid from the Committee's funds to the Schoolmaster is surely no proof of the violent desire for instruction in English which is inferred from it. If again the desire of this instruction were so great how comes it to have been proposed to make the learning of English compulsory in the Mudrusa and how does it happen that of all the students now in the Mudrusa there are but two who have made progress beyond the spelling book.

        Undoubtedly there is a very widely spread anxiety at this time for the attainment of a certain proficiency in English. The sentiment is to be encouraged by all means as the source and forerunner of great moral improvement to those who feel its influence but there is no single member of the Education Committee who will venture to assert that this disposition has yet shown itself extensively amongst the Moosulmans. It is the Hindoos of Calcutta, the Sirkars and their connexions and the descendants and relations of the Sirkars of former days, those who have risen through their connexion with the English and with public offices, men who hold or who seek employments in which a knowledge of English is a necessary qualification. These are the classes of persons to whom the study of English is as yet confined and certainly we have no reason yet to believe that the Moosulmans in any part of India can be reconciled to the cultivation of it much less give it a preference to the polite literature of their race or to what they look upon as such.

        The minute proceeds to cite a petition from certain students of the Sanscrit College complaining that their studies did not secure them an assured and easy livelihood as affording another conclusive argument against extending encouragement to such studies. But surely the disappointment of the too sanguine hopes of any class of persons as to their future provision in life affords no evidence that the knowledge they have acquired is useless. Much research and patient investigation would be indispensible before any determination could be come to on the important question to native youth at this moment how best to secure respect in after life and by what course of education to provide themselves the best chance of a comfortable livelihood. In all times and amongst all people this is an important question for youth but more especially to the youth of India at present when society with all its institutions is so evidently in the transition state. This argument again even were it sound as respects the study of Sanscrit has evidently no application to the Mudrusa and to those who study Arabic and Persian. These at least have never complained that through proficiency in their studies their means of obtaining a livelihood have not been improved nor will it be maintained that the study of both is not at this moment highly useful for this great purpose of life.

        But the great argument remains to be noticed and that is that by encouraging the study of native literature we create the very opposition which is adduced as the chief obstacle to the introduction of the study of English and of true science. This is a most important question but seems to involve the previous one-does or does not the prejudice exist? It is declared by those who take the opposite view to Mr. Macaulay that it does exist and that the prejudice is so general especially amongst the Moosulmans that there is no hope of our being able by the mere offer of instruction in English and English science to secure that it shall be received for its own sake. These persons say that the best chance of procuring that true knowledge hall ultimately prevail is to engraft it upon the course of education now most esteemed and to take every means of leading the youth to the improved condition in which it is desired to place them by giving them first all they respect and admire in their fathers and then besides the further instruction we have to impart. The argument on the other side is that unless we violently assail and displace the false literature that we see held up as erudition and learning we shall by continuing instruction in it create opposition to the reception of the new. Now this argument on the very face of it seems to assume that the possessors of the old literature are necessarily opposed to the new, it seems to build upon the impossibility of reconciling the two and yet in the same breath we are told that all the world is anxiously seeking the new and attaches no value to the old.

        On the other hand it is maintained that, if at this time the desire for European science and literature is extensively felt and is still on the increase, the cause of it is to be found in the manner in which the Government interfere with the work of education which was commenced and has hitherto been carried on, and in particular to the strict observance of the principle of encouraging every course of education that is followed by any extensive class of the population and doing violence to no existing feelings whether of prejudice or prepossession.

        It is maintained that by following this course we bind and perpetuate no enmities but on the contrary mitigate and reconcile opinions and doctrines that seem adverse and when we recollect that out of the philosophy of the schools the same philosophy that is the highest point of knowledge in Arabic and Sanscrit grew the very philosophy we wish to inculcate, viz., that of Bacon and Locke and Newton, why should we despair of engrafting on the similar stock of Arabia and India a similar fruit?

        With respect to the expenditure upon printing and translating in regard to which it is argued that the fact that the books of the Committee do not sell is proof conclusive that the money is thrown away and that there is no taste for the literature it was meant to encourage, I fear it must be admitted that very considerable sums have been thrown away upon works which have yielded no fruit. The translations have been the most expensive and the least profitable of these works, for they have been executed at very enormous rates of charge and in a style for the most part not popular and taking. I quite agree that the funds appropriated to revive literature ought not to be lavished on works that will not pay and that for the printing of those that will pay, there can be no need of aid from Government. But I do not admit that because we have failed to make our printing and translating a profitable speculation that therefore there is no taste for the literature. Our prices have been exorbitant and our works childish or ill got up. This alone accounts for their not being taken off our hands and as for the fact that private Printing establishments find a profit in printing English School Books they have had the extensive patronage of the Committee and of Mofusil institutions and more especially of Missionary schools and a growing Christian population to provide. Besides which the relative expense of printing in the native languages as compared with that of printing in English will of itself account for the difference. Our books be it observed have been mostly printed at the same press which is referred to as having thrived by its printing business and it has thrived mainly at our expense. However there is not I believe in the Committee of public instruction a single advocate for a continuance of the printing and translating business on the footing on which it has hitherto been conducted It has been ruinously expensive and has yielded no return but we see establishments for printing Persian and Arabic books as thriving as the English Presses and numberless books and little treatises are issued from them of which we hear nothing. The text book of the Moolavees who recently rose in insurrection is an instance in point. Although printed in Calcutta it was not heard of by Europeans until the sect broke out into rebellion.

        If our translations and the books of our selection have not hit the taste of the reading classes or have been too dear for them to purchase it is a reason for discontinuing the provision of such but no proof that there is no taste for anything that might be provided. There are applications in abundance for our books as presents and we know not when one is issued how many copies are made from it at less cost even than that we ask to compensate the charge of publication. The price too paid by the Committee for native publications is the first subscription price and the Committee is always undersold by the presses which supply them books for they sell the reserved copies at a reduced price.

        The minute proceeds to say that it cannot be necessary to keep up instruction in Arabic and Sanscrit because of the connection of these languages with the religion of the Hindoos and Mooslims. I have never heard this reason assigned as an argument for a Christian Government's continuing to give the instruction. The circumstance has been referred to as both proving and accounting for the confirmed veneration these classes have for their respective literatures and because it has sometimes been denied that the natives have any respect for their own literature which is quite inconsistent with the idea that all their religion is wrapped up in it.

        It is on account of the connection of these languages with existing laws that the necessity of continuing instruction in them has been maintained. This argument is met in the minute by reference to what the Law Commission are expected to do and what the Legislature intends should be done. Herein however is an admission that for so long as this intention is unfulfilled the motive for continuing instruction in that which is the law, exists in full force.

        The nature of the instruction in English that will have to be imparted is the next point. Those opposed to the discontinuance of instruction in Sanscrit, Arabic and Persian maintain that in place of them the Committee would have to commence everywhere teaching the English alphabet. It cannot surely be denied that this must be the beginning. The minute dwells on the capability of the natives to attain high proficiency. This may be admitted as a result to be expected hereafter but if the teaching of English be substituted everywhere for the perfecting of youths in their present courses of education does it not follow as a necessary consequence that we shall have to substitute the teaching of the alphabet and spelling book for instruction in advanced literature? The candidates for admission into our Arabic and Sanscrit Colleges know already much of those languages and are prepared to be taught science. The students we should get for English would require to be taught to read.

        To the recapitulation at the close of the Minute I have nothing new to object. It is admitted that we must endeavour to carry the people with us in all we seek to do for their improvement. The party whose sentiments I am endeavouring to express argue to the question what are the best, indeed to their minds the only means of doing this. Their opponents, looking to grand results to follow when all the desired improvements have been effected, pass over altogether the necessary consideration of means. Ofter volo jubeo is their policy on this great question. The abolition of the Mudrusa and Sanscrit College at Calcutta and the alteration of the character of all other Institutions supported or assisted from the Public funds is their proposition but it is submitted that there are many considerations which should protect the Mudrusa at least from any present demolition. It is the a only link through which the Government has at present any connection whatsoever with the instruction of the Mooslim youth of Bengal, it is not one of the passing institutions of recent establishment for the support of which funds are assigned from the Parliamentary lack of Rupees but is an old established college endowed separately and efficiently performing the purposes of the endowment. If this be doubted let the fact be made the subject of enquiry the more searching the better will the advocates of this institution be satisfied. Even though the Committee of General Instruction should come to a resolution or should be desired by Government to change altogether the principles by which it has hitherto been guided in the application of the Parliamentary grant, it would by no means follow that the Mudrusa should be placed on a different footing. The Moosulman subjects of the Government are much more jealous of innovation upon their habits and their religion than the Hindoos ever were. When it was first proposed to teach them English they consulted their oracle of the day Uzeezooddeen of Dehlee as to whether it was sinful to yield to the innovation. He gave them a most sensible answer and since then not only has English and English science been extensively taught but much progress has been made in instilling correct moral principles and reconciling the sect to further improvements. Such a measure at this time as the abolition of the Mudrusa would produce alienation in this wide class of the population....instead of aiding would impede if it did not prevent any further improvement. To the principle of conciliation it is decidedly opposed and will universally be looked upon as touching close upon intolerance.

        I have written much more than I had intended or thought would be necessary and yet feel that I have not half stated all that I have myself to urge on this important question. The cause has many advocates who also deserve to be heard before Government shall come to a final determination. There is a minute by Mr. Macnaghten about to be sent up by the Education Committee which seems entitled to much attention and I am sure that not only that gentleman but every member of the Committee would wish to be heard upon any resolution passed for abolishing the Mudrusa. In the height of the discussion as to the proper course to be followed by the Committee for promoting the improvement of the education of the country such a proposition was never brought forward by any one of those most opposed to the continuance of instruction in Arabic and Sanscrit. It is now submitted separately and it is my hope that I have shown sufficient ground to induce the Members of Government to suspend their judgment at least.....of investigation.

H. T. PRINSEP

Sunday, 15th February 1835.


I retain (not only) unshaken but confirmed (in all my) opinions on the general question. I may have committed a slight mistake or two as to (details), and I may have occasionally used an epithet which might with advantage (have been) softened down. But I do not retract the substance of a single proposition I have advanced.

T. B. M.

From: Bureau of Education. Selections from Educational Records, Part I (1781-1839). Edited by H. Sharp. Calcutta: Superintendent Government Printing, 1920. Reprint. Delhi: National Archives of India, 1965, 117-130.