The Beautiful Tree: Indigenous Indian Education in the Eighteenth Century c8.s1.t7.4

c8.s1.t7.4

There are few Mahomedan schools of learning in this district. Omitting reference to that at Hugly, supported by the endowment of Haji Mohammed Moshin, under the orders of the Board of Revenue, and about to be extended and improved under the superintendence of the General Committee of Public Instruction, I find mention made of only one other existing at *Seetapore*, a populous town, situated 22 miles in the interior of the district. It was originally supported by a grant of five rupees eight annas per diem, made by the English Government in consideration of the faithful services of Umsih-ood-din the founder. After his death, and in consequence of divisions among the surviving members of his family, who it seems had claim to a part of the grant for their maintenance, it was limited to rupees 50 per month, which, as far as my information extends, it continues to derive from government to the present day. According to Hamilton, in 1801, this college had 30 students who were instructed in Persian and Arabic, and according to the report made to the General Committee in 1824, it had 25 students who were taught only Persian. This institution does not appear ever to have come under the supervision of the Committee or of any public officer. The report of 1824 further alleges the existence of certain lands at *Pandua* in this district, which should be appropriated to the support of *madrasas*, but which have been diverted from that purpose. It is stated to be a well known fact that grants were made to the ancestors of the late Mola Mir Gholam Hyder Mutawali, attached to the shrine of Shah Suffud-din Khan Shuhid at Pandua, together with Mola Myn-ud-din or Mola Taj-ud-din and Mir Gholam Mustafa, private persons who had no share in the superintendence. The grants are said to have specified certain villages or tracts of land to be exclusively appropriated to the support of three *madrasas*, in addition to those granted for the personal benefit of the grantees. The *madrasas* were kept up for a generation or two, but through carelessness or avarice were afterwards discontinued. It is added that there were persons then living so well acquainted with the circumstances as to be able to point out the estates that were specified in the grants for the support of the *madrasas*. The Collector, in the letter enclosing the report, intimated his intention to investigate the matter, and in the event of the alleged misappropriation being substantiated, to pursue the course directed in Regulation XIX of 1810. The result of the enquiry I have not been able to learn.