Colonial Education and India 1781-1945

Volume III

Pramod K. Nayar, Pramod K. Nayar

• Publisher: Routledge
• Year: 2019
• ISBN:
  9781351211987
• Edition: 1
• Topic: History
• Subtopic: World History
• Index: History

This 5-volume set tracks the various legal, administrative and social documentation on the progress of Indian education from 1780 to 1947. Thisthird volume features commentaries, reports, policy documents from the period 1911-1945.

The documents not only map a cultural history of English education in India but capture the debates in and around each of these domains through coverage of English (language, literature, pedagogy), the journey from school-to-university, and technical and vocational education. Produced by statesmen, educationists, administrators, teachers, Vice Chancellors and native national leaders, the documents testify to the complex processes through which colleges were set up, syllabi formed, the language of instruction determined, and infrastructure built. The sources vary from official Minutes to orders, petitions to pleas, speeches to opinion pieces.

The collection contributes, through the mostly unmediated documents, to our understanding of the British Empire, of the local responses to the Empire and imperial policy and of the complex negotiations within and without the administrative structures that set about establishing the college, the training institute and the teaching profession itself.

1
H.R. James, Extracts From Education and Statesmanship in India (London: Longmans, Green and Co., 1911), 74–91, 118–132

XI Moral and Religious Education

THE critics of State education in India are never weary of pointing out that its fatal defect is the absence of any moral and religious basis. Among those who say this are many whose attitude to educational effort in India is unquestionably friendly. Thus the Times correspondent, though guarded and moderate in finding fault, speaks of “the careless diffusion of an artificial system of education based none too firmly on mere intellectualism, and bereft of all moral and religious sanction.”¹ Mr. S. M. Mitra, another discerning critic of its weak points, says: “Knowledge has been pursued without any regard for training in the moral virtues or in the development of character.”² Now these and all similar criticisms, friendly or otherwise, must be admitted to have this much justification that all of us are agreed that the strengthening of character is the most important side of education, and that as yet we are far from satisfied with the degree of certainty we can feel that the education being given in India is effective in shaping character rightly. Yet these criticisms, like all the wise things that have been said about the moral and religious side of education since education was spoken of at all in India, remain mere words, until it has been shown practically how effect is to be given to this desire to give education in India a stronger moral foundation. For, in point of fact, admirable things have been reiterated about the importance of this side of education since quite the early days. Even when Charles Grant in 1797, before ever there was any State education at all, put forward his scheme for spreading the light of knowledge through India by means of English, the aim which he put first was moral improvement on the most comprehensive scale. “We now proceed,” he writes, “to the main object of this work—for the sake of which all the preceding topics and discussions have been brought forward—an inquiry into the means of remedying disorders which have become inveterate in the state of society among our Asiatic subjects, which destroy their happiness and obstruct every species of improvement among them.” He lays stress in particular on the effects of seeing “a pure, complete, and perfect system of morals and of duty enforced by the most awful sanctions and recommended by the most interesting motives.” Moral improvement is equally suggested by Lord Minto in 1811 as a reason for the restoration of Oriental learning. “Little doubt can be entertained,” says the resolution, “that the prevalence of the crimes of perjury and forgery so frequently noticed in the official records, is in great measure ascribable, both in Mahomedans and Hindus, to the want of instruction in the moral and religious tenets of their respective faiths. It has been even suggested, and apparently not without foundation, that to this uncultivated state of the minds of the natives is in a great degree to be ascribed the prevalence of those crimes which were recently a scourge to the country.”

The primary object of the foundation of the Hindu College was no doubt to impart knowledge, the new knowledge of the West, which gave to Western nations their extraordinary superiority in the practical concerns of life. But David Hare was one of its first founders, and his connection with the college was undoubtedly moral in its nature. The close personal influence of such a man while he lived (he died in 1842) could not be without its effects. Indeed, its effects are living and visible to the present day in that cult of his memory which leads Hindus, alien in race and religion, to meet together on the anniversary of his death to do honour to his virtues and keep green the remembrance of his benefactions. Gratitude is a moral quality, and in this instance it has survived death.

No doubt also Macaulay’s enthusiasm is for “intellectual improvement;” and his faith is that the way of improvement lies through the learning of English and the study of European literature. But it would be unfair to suppose that this zeal for pure knowledge and the impetus to educational effort which followed it are divorced from moral ideas. They were, on the contrary, inspired by an essentially moral idea, the idea of a general elevation in civilization. All that may fairly be said in criticism of Macaulay’s standpoint is that it was too easily assumed that more accurate knowledge would necessarily bring with it moral improvement and happiness. Yet there was definite moral instruction in Government institutions under the auspices of the General Committee after 1840. In that year Mr. Cameron, then a member of the committee, and from 1842 to 1847 its President, wrote in a Minute on the importance of moral training: “In most countries morality is taught as part of religion. Here we are prevented by the circumstances of the country from teaching morality in that manner. It is, therefore, more incumbent than upon other ministries of public instruction to teach morality in the form of Moral Philosophy.” In 1851 Mr. J. F. Thomas, one of the members of the Madras Council of education in a Minute criticizing sharply on many points the existing system, drew special attention to the very want of effective moral education which is fastened upon to-day. “Education without moral culture,” he wrote, “is probably as often injurious as beneficial to society; and at all events a system like that at present in force, which to a great degree overlooks this point, and which makes little or no provision for this most essential part of education, is so radically defective that I feel satisfied that although it may be upheld for a time under special and peculiar circumstances, it must in the end fail, and I hold that unless it can be shown that the people of this Presidency are opposed to receiving moral instruction, combined with intellectual, there is no ground for this palpable practical omission in the existing system.”

There is no paragraph of the Despatch of 1854 directly bearing on the subject of moral education, but an earlier letter is quoted in support of the encouragement of education as calculated “not only to produce a higher degree of intellectual fitness, but to raise the moral character of those who partake of its advantages;” and a valuable testimony is later given to the actual efficacy of education in producing such effects. The Directors say: “We are sanguine enough to believe that some effect has already been produced by the improved education of the public service in India. The ability and integrity of a large and increasing number of the native judges, to whom the greater part of the civil jurisdiction in India is now committed, and the high estimation in which many among them are held by their fellow-countrymen is, in our opinion, much to be attributed, to the progress of education among these officers, and to their adoption along with it of that high moral tone which pervades the general literature of Europe.”

The preamble to the Act constituting the universities in January, 1857, says nothing of moral education. The model of the Universities of Calcutta, Madras, and Bombay was the London University, their declared aim was the test of proficiency in study and the affiliated colleges were non-residential. The method of education in the colleges, however, was what it had been before the establishment of universities, and what had been said in 1851 about moral education by the first historian of education in Bengal, Mr. J. Kerr, held good: “Whatever enlarges the mind or refines the taste, tends to improve character. All the studies of our colleges have thus, in a greater or less degree, the effect that is aimed at in a systematic treatise on moral science. If our students remain stunted in moral growth, it is not for want of instruction, which is imparted largely and in most attractive and impressive forms.

The Education Commission of 1882 devoted separate sections to moral and religious training. Their preliminary remarks on the former settle once for all the limits of discussion: “The subject of moral training in colleges is replete with difficulties—difficulties, however, that are mainly practical. For there is no difference of opinion as to moral training being as necessary as intellectual or physical training, and no dissent from the principle that a system in which moral training was wholly neglected would be unworthy of the name of education. Nor, again, is there any difference of opinion as to the moral value of the love of law and order, of the respect for superiors, of the obedience, regularity, and attendance to duty which every well-conducted college is calculated to promote. All these have, by the nearly universal consent of the witnesses, done a great deal to elevate the moral tone and improve the daily practice of the great bulk of those who have been trained in the colleges of India. The degree in which different colleges have exerted a moral influence of this kind is probably as various as the degree of success that has attended the intellectual training given in them and has doubtless been different in all colleges at different times, depending as it does on the character and personal influence of the Principal and Professors who may form the staff at any given period. So far all the witnesses, and probably all intelligent men, are substantially agreed. Difficulties begin when the question is raised whether good can be done by distinct moral teaching over and above the moral supervision which all admit to be good and useful, and which all desire to see made more thorough than it is at present.” After a careful review of the conflicting opinions and practice, the Commission made two recommendations on the subject of direct moral instruction: (1) That an attempt be made to prepare a moral textbook based upon the fundamental principles of natural religion, such as may be taught in all Government and non-Government Colleges. (2) That the Principal or one of the Professors in each Government or Aided College deliver to each of the College classes in every session a series of lectures on the duties of a man and a citizen.

These recommendations did not win the acceptance either of the Local or of the Supreme Government and have remained a dead letter. Some arguments used by the Commission in their report go far to remove any regret that might be felt on this account. They say: “In all colleges and under all courses of instruction the most effective moral training consists in inculcating habits of order, diligence, truthfulness, and due self-respect combined with submission to authority, all of which lessons a good teacher finds useful opportunities of imparting. The formation of such habits is promoted by the study of the lives and actions of great men, such as the student finds in the course of his English reading; and it may be hoped, by the silent influence upon his character of constant intercourse with teachers, whom he is able to regard with respect and affection. Nor, again, is there reason to believe that collegiate education of the present type has any injurious effect upon the life and character of students. On the contrary, the nearly unanimous testimony of those who have had the best opportunities of observing goes to show that in integrity, in self-respect, in stability of purpose, and generally in those solid qualities which constitute an honourable and useful character, the University graduate is generally superior to those who have not enjoyed the advantages which college training confers.”

As regards direct religious teaching the Commission of 1882 report with no uncertain voice its impracticability. Government institutions cannot undertake such teaching owing to Government’s declared policy of religious neutrality. The Commission weigh carefully the complaints that have been made of the demoralizing influence of the exclusion of religion. They consider the remedy proposed “that Government should employ teachers of all prevalent forms of religion to give instruction in its colleges, or should at least give such teachers admission to its colleges if their services are provided by outside bodies.” They conclude: “We are unable to recommend any plan of this kind.” However praiseworthy the feelings that underlie such a proposal, “we are satisfied that no such scheme can be reduced to practice in the present state of Indian society.”

It cannot be said that the subject of moral education has been neglected. If anything is wanting it is supplied by a resolution of the Government of India in 1887 directed wholly to enforcing the necessity of careful attention to school and college discipline. “The question of discipline in schools and colleges,” it premises, “does not seem to have hitherto received any comprehensive consideration apart from the discussion of the subject by the Education Commission;” and it acknowledges that “the growth of tendencies unfavourable to discipline and favourable to irreverence has accompanied the general extension of education.” It advocates the firm maintenance of discipline in Indian schools and colleges, based on the standard recognized in the highest schools and colleges in England which nowadays does not err on the “side of severity. It then deals at length with the problem of discipline in schools, discerningly pointing out that, if right habits of discipline are formed in schools, the problem of collegiate discipline is materially simplified. Among the suggestions for schools are the introduction of the monitorial system, the building of boarding-houses, well-defined rules; and the value of training for teachers is especially insisted on. For colleges the suggestions are of weekly college meetings and recognized disciplinary powers (fines, suspension, rustication, expulsion) for both Principals and Professors. The value of the encouragement of physical exercise is emphasized, and teaching having a direct bearing upon conduct is recommended. The resolution concludes with an emphatic affirmation of the importance of the subject. “In conclusion I am to commend the whole subject to early and careful attention, for the importance of the considerations thus brought to notice cannot be exaggerated. The true interests of education are bound up with the solution of the problems now touched upon.”

It would appear from all this that the importance of the moral side of education has by no means been overlooked in the sixty years that have passed since the despatch of 1854 formally adopted English education. If, as we have seen, there has been a steadily deepening sense of responsibility for the moral side of education in the policy of the Government of India, as evidenced by authoritative documents, and yet well-meant criticism continues to show that we have little ground to congratulate ourselves on the success achieved, the cause of failure must be sought otherwhere than in want of attention to the subject. A suspicion may take shape that the impediment lies in the nature of the task attempted. The education of character, which is presumably what is meant by moral education, is something very deep-lying, and depends on a number of factors of which school life is only one. Now it is not very difficult to put together a number of common-places on the importance of moral education. It may in some circumstances be exceedingly difficult to turn precept into practice. The thing to be done is so to train boys that they may grow up to be manly, truth-loving, courageous, law-abiding, with just notions of self-respect and of what is due to others. It is by no means easy anywhere to bring this to pass through the daily routine work of school and college, and in India there are hindrances of a very baffling nature. In any case the burden is laid upon the professed teacher in school and college. He it is who must bear the responsibility and do the work, if it can be done. It may be well then to listen to the comments of one whose profession is education on the last and most pointed government utterance on the subject, the very judicious circular of 1887.

“I would respectfully beg leave to say a word or two with respect to the causal connection assumed in the letter of the Government of India to exist between the education imparted in our schools and colleges, and ‘the growth of tendencies unfavourable to discipline and favourable to irreverence in the rising generation.’ No one could be more sensible than I am of the imperfections of our educational system, but I cannot believe that schools and colleges have been largely instrumental in bringing about the state of things complained of. I consider, on the contrary, that we teachers have cause to complain that the tone of our schools has been prejudicially affected by the tendencies unfavourable to authority invading them from without … Indian society is breathing the same social and political atmosphere as all other civilized communities—an atmosphere which happens at present to be deficient in reverence for authority and in willingness to submit to it. Are the seeds of these tendencies sown in our schools and colleges and fostered and made to fructify there? I think not. Beyond what naturally follows from that emancipation of thought which is one of the first-fruits of a liberal education everywhere, I do not believe that the system of education pursued in India has had any hand in fostering ‘the growth of tendencies unfavourable to discipline and favourable to irreverence.’ My contentions that these tendencies belong to the world that lies outside our schools and colleges, that they colour the thoughts and feelings and aspirations of the grown-up generation, and that from this outside world they invade our schools and infect our pupils—these contentions are borne out by the two following considerations: first, that it was not till after the political and racial excitement of recent years had spread throughout India that the youth attending schools and colleges showed signs of turbulence and insubordination; and secondly, that these tendencies were practically confined to those provinces in the north of India where political and racial feelings were most bitter. In the Madras Presidency, where the feelings never ran very high, our educational institutions have hitherto enjoyed an almost absolute immunity from such disturbances; and to the honour of the students of this college, be it said, there has not, during the eighteen years I have been connected with them, been any other disposition manifested than that of cheerful and loyal obedience to the rules of the institution.”

This commentary shows the whole question of the relation of the political and educational movements in a new aspect. Is it possible that cause and effect are being confused, when education is blamed, and that it is not the educational system which has produced political disaffection, but disaffection towards the existing order, otherwise generated, has first produced its effects in society at large, then invaded and injuriously affected the educational system. The relations of cause and effect are in a complicated material hard to disentangle, and where interaction is a necessary factor in the problem, mistake as to the ultimate causation is easily made. But the question here is not of the causes of “unrest,” but of the means of improving the moral influence of education. The writer of the memorandum from which the above quotation is made was Dr. Duncan, at the time Principal of the Presidency College, Madras, and afterwards for many years Director of Public Instruction in the Madras Presidency. His opinion in the matter is entitled to great weight, and what he further says on the subject may help to determine just conclusions on the difficult question of moral and religious education in Indian colleges and schools. Judgment of what has been done in the past and of what may be better done in the future depends closely on just conclusions as to what is possible.

I will take first the question of religious education. When I see religious education seriously advocated as the basis of morality in Indian schools and colleges, I wonder if those who advocate it have any clear ideas as to what they mean. Which religion? In India there are many religions. “Have there not been, are there not religious beliefs utterly antagonistic to genuine morality? In spite of this people speak and write as if the problem of moral education would be solved were religious instruction provided for the young! It surely ought to be recognized that everything will depend on the moral character of the religious beliefs inculcated. No one would recommend the teaching of any and every religious dogma in Indian schools; and until such beliefs as may on moral grounds be taught, are separated from such as may not be taught, the question of religious instruction must remain one on which no practical policy can be adopted.” Dr. Duncan wrote thus in 1888. Now twenty years later the voices protesting the inadequacy of secular edu...