11-17-2005, 12:27 PM
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->K: I think your forthcoming book on education in pre-British India has some interesting facts*.
D: Yes, For instance, a detailed survey of the surviving indigenous system of education was carried out in the Madras Presidency during 1922-1925. The survey indicated that 11,575 schools and 1,094 colleges were still then in existence in the Presidency and that the number of students were 1,57,195 and 5,431 respectively. The much more surprising information this survey provided is with regard to the broader caste composition of the students in the schools. According to it those belonging to the sudras and castes below them formed 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the total students in Tamil-speaking areas; 62 per cent in the Oriya areas; 54 per cent in the Malayalam speaking areas; and 35 per cent to 40 per cent in Telugu-speaking areas. The Governor of Madras further estimated that over 25 per cent of the boys of the school-going age were attending these schools and that a substantial proportion were receiving education at home. In Madras about 26,000 boys were receiving their education at home and about 5,500 were attending schools. In Malabar, the number of those engaged in college level studies at home was about 1,600 as compared to a mere 75 in a college run by the family of the then impoverished Samudrin Raja. Again, in the district of Malabar the number of Muslim girls attending schools was surprisingly large 1,122 girls as compared to 3,196 Muslim boys. Incidentally, the number of Muslim girls attending school there 60 years, in 1884-1885, was just 700 or so. I have reproduced must of the documents in my book. A number of our notions about education in per-British Indian society have to be discarded in the light of these British reports and surveys.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->K: What do you say about the caste system? I suppose you would not say that the problem of caste is only a post-1800 one. I feel caste poses a lot of problems when we begin defending our tradition.
D: You are right. Caste seems to be the major symbol of India's backwardness. But how have we arrived at such a conclusion? Like village, castes have been invariable constituents of Indian society throughout history. It is true that according to Manusmriti etc., society in India was at a certain stage divided into four varnas. But while castes and tribes have existed in India and continue to exist today, never before in history do they seem to have posed a major problem.
Historically they have existed side by side, they have interacted among themselves, groups of them have had ritual or real fights with each other and so on. Contrary to accepted assumptions and perhaps to Mansumritic law, when the British began to conquer India, the majority of Rajas had been from the Sudra Varna. It is possible that the existence of separate castes and tribes have historically been responsible for the relative weakness of Indian polity. On the other hand it can also be argued that the existence of caste added to the tenacity of Indian society, to its capacity to survive, and to be able to stand up again. Under what circumstances and what arrangements castes are divisive of Indian society or lead to its cohesion are questions which still have no conclusive answer.
For the British, caste was a great obstacle, an unmitigated evil not because they believed in castelessness or a non-hierarchical system but because it stood in the way of their breaking Indian society. I think caste did hinder the process of atomization of Indian society and made the task of conquest and governance more difficult. The present fury and theoretical formulation against the organization of Indian society into caste, whatever the justification or otherwise of caste today, thus begins with British rule.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Misconception Sudras
Friends this chapter tells you about the actual status of the Sudras & below varnas meaning they were peasants, artisans, employed by the textile industry, astrologers and the primary steps initiated by the British political system like centralization etc.
For the past century, or more, and perhaps from the beginning of British indological scholarship, it has generally been assumed, naturally on the analogy of pre-1800 European development that except for the Brahmins and the twice born and those belonging to the Muslim aristocracy, the rest of the Indian population i.e. some 80 to 85 per cent of it was more or less in some state of serfdom, lived at the sufferance of those termed as the "brahmanical" or "feudal" orders, and were immersed in darkness and ignorance. Here, it may be mentioned that for the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century British orator and writer, darkness and ignorance had wholly different meanings and to the majority of them, these terms conveyed not any ignorance of arts and crafts or technology, or aesthetics but rather the absence of the knowledge of Christianity and its scriptural heritage. According to such usage, it is not only the Hindu who fell into these categories of the morally depraved but also the ancient Greeks-men like Horner, Socrates and Plato-and the Romans before Rome embraced Christianity?
But if India was not immersed in darkness and ignorance and if it was not primarily organized on principles and precepts laid down in the Manu Samhita or some other dharma sastras the question arises as to how it actually did function and what the social and economic roles were of its predominant non-elitist population. That its peasants, its artisans, those engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel, or in the various processes of its flourishing indigenous textile industry, or its surgeons and medical men, even many of its astronomers and astrologers belonged to this predominant section i.e. Sudras is unquestionable.
Further, that in most areas the predominant proportion of those receiving non-sanskritic education came from this 80 per cent (in the Tamil areas as many as 75 to 80 per cent of the total in educational institutions) is also confirmed by early nineteenth century data. Further, according to an 1820 survey of the customs of castes in areas of the Bombay Presidency the prevailing view according to British researches then was that the sastras themselves recognized the primacy of caste customs and these were to be considered as the final authority. Similar information may emerge about other areas if sufficient investigation in depth were undertaken into the contemporary records pertaining to them. Such an investigation may also disclose that the majority of the Hindu kings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in most parts of India were not from amongst the twice-born but from amongst the groups which were not included in the twice-born categories.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
D: Yes, For instance, a detailed survey of the surviving indigenous system of education was carried out in the Madras Presidency during 1922-1925. The survey indicated that 11,575 schools and 1,094 colleges were still then in existence in the Presidency and that the number of students were 1,57,195 and 5,431 respectively. The much more surprising information this survey provided is with regard to the broader caste composition of the students in the schools. According to it those belonging to the sudras and castes below them formed 70 per cent to 80 per cent of the total students in Tamil-speaking areas; 62 per cent in the Oriya areas; 54 per cent in the Malayalam speaking areas; and 35 per cent to 40 per cent in Telugu-speaking areas. The Governor of Madras further estimated that over 25 per cent of the boys of the school-going age were attending these schools and that a substantial proportion were receiving education at home. In Madras about 26,000 boys were receiving their education at home and about 5,500 were attending schools. In Malabar, the number of those engaged in college level studies at home was about 1,600 as compared to a mere 75 in a college run by the family of the then impoverished Samudrin Raja. Again, in the district of Malabar the number of Muslim girls attending schools was surprisingly large 1,122 girls as compared to 3,196 Muslim boys. Incidentally, the number of Muslim girls attending school there 60 years, in 1884-1885, was just 700 or so. I have reproduced must of the documents in my book. A number of our notions about education in per-British Indian society have to be discarded in the light of these British reports and surveys.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->K: What do you say about the caste system? I suppose you would not say that the problem of caste is only a post-1800 one. I feel caste poses a lot of problems when we begin defending our tradition.
D: You are right. Caste seems to be the major symbol of India's backwardness. But how have we arrived at such a conclusion? Like village, castes have been invariable constituents of Indian society throughout history. It is true that according to Manusmriti etc., society in India was at a certain stage divided into four varnas. But while castes and tribes have existed in India and continue to exist today, never before in history do they seem to have posed a major problem.
Historically they have existed side by side, they have interacted among themselves, groups of them have had ritual or real fights with each other and so on. Contrary to accepted assumptions and perhaps to Mansumritic law, when the British began to conquer India, the majority of Rajas had been from the Sudra Varna. It is possible that the existence of separate castes and tribes have historically been responsible for the relative weakness of Indian polity. On the other hand it can also be argued that the existence of caste added to the tenacity of Indian society, to its capacity to survive, and to be able to stand up again. Under what circumstances and what arrangements castes are divisive of Indian society or lead to its cohesion are questions which still have no conclusive answer.
For the British, caste was a great obstacle, an unmitigated evil not because they believed in castelessness or a non-hierarchical system but because it stood in the way of their breaking Indian society. I think caste did hinder the process of atomization of Indian society and made the task of conquest and governance more difficult. The present fury and theoretical formulation against the organization of Indian society into caste, whatever the justification or otherwise of caste today, thus begins with British rule.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->
<!--QuoteBegin-->QUOTE<!--QuoteEBegin-->Misconception Sudras
Friends this chapter tells you about the actual status of the Sudras & below varnas meaning they were peasants, artisans, employed by the textile industry, astrologers and the primary steps initiated by the British political system like centralization etc.
For the past century, or more, and perhaps from the beginning of British indological scholarship, it has generally been assumed, naturally on the analogy of pre-1800 European development that except for the Brahmins and the twice born and those belonging to the Muslim aristocracy, the rest of the Indian population i.e. some 80 to 85 per cent of it was more or less in some state of serfdom, lived at the sufferance of those termed as the "brahmanical" or "feudal" orders, and were immersed in darkness and ignorance. Here, it may be mentioned that for the late eighteenth and early nineteenth century British orator and writer, darkness and ignorance had wholly different meanings and to the majority of them, these terms conveyed not any ignorance of arts and crafts or technology, or aesthetics but rather the absence of the knowledge of Christianity and its scriptural heritage. According to such usage, it is not only the Hindu who fell into these categories of the morally depraved but also the ancient Greeks-men like Horner, Socrates and Plato-and the Romans before Rome embraced Christianity?
But if India was not immersed in darkness and ignorance and if it was not primarily organized on principles and precepts laid down in the Manu Samhita or some other dharma sastras the question arises as to how it actually did function and what the social and economic roles were of its predominant non-elitist population. That its peasants, its artisans, those engaged in the manufacture of iron and steel, or in the various processes of its flourishing indigenous textile industry, or its surgeons and medical men, even many of its astronomers and astrologers belonged to this predominant section i.e. Sudras is unquestionable.
Further, that in most areas the predominant proportion of those receiving non-sanskritic education came from this 80 per cent (in the Tamil areas as many as 75 to 80 per cent of the total in educational institutions) is also confirmed by early nineteenth century data. Further, according to an 1820 survey of the customs of castes in areas of the Bombay Presidency the prevailing view according to British researches then was that the sastras themselves recognized the primacy of caste customs and these were to be considered as the final authority. Similar information may emerge about other areas if sufficient investigation in depth were undertaken into the contemporary records pertaining to them. Such an investigation may also disclose that the majority of the Hindu kings of the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in most parts of India were not from amongst the twice-born but from amongst the groups which were not included in the twice-born categories.<!--QuoteEnd--><!--QuoteEEnd-->