The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century c4.s4.t2.1

c4.s4.t2.1

In spite of the controversies which *Adam's Reports* have given rise to—the most notable one being his mention of there being perhaps 1,00,000 village schools still existing in Bengal and Bihar in some form till the 1830s—the total impression produced by them is one of extensive decay of these institutions. Largely due to Adam's evangelical, moralistic tone, reading them is a rather depressing business. Adam himself was no great admirer of the Indian teacher, or the nature and content of Indian education. However, as Adam started from the view that the British Government of the day should interest itself in the sphere of elementary and higher Indian education and also support it financially, he seemed to have thought it necessary to use all possible arguments and imagery to bring home this point. Under the circumstances, it was necessary for him to dramatise the decay as well as the relative state of ignorance of the teachers, as well as the lack of books, buildings, etc., in order to evoke the desired sympathetic response. Furthermore, it is important to note that W. Adam initially had come to Bengal in 1818 as a Baptist Missionary. Though he left missionary activity after some years, and took to journalism instead, he remained a product of his contemporary British times, a period dominated by two principal currents of opinion: one which saw the necessity of evangelising India, advocated by men like William Wilberforce; the other, its westernisation, symbolised by men like T.B. Macaulay and William Bentinck. As indicated earlier, both ideas were encompassed in the Charter Act of 1813. Additionally, the reports of Adam, although not formal official documents, were nonetheless sanctioned and financed by the orders of the Governor General himself. Naturally, therefore, while they may imply many things—as do some of the reports of the Madras Presidency collectors—they were nevertheless phrased in such a way as not to lay the blame directly on past government policy and action.