पृष्ठ 100, कुल 436 में से

संदर्भ में पढ़ें

पृष्ठ 100

See origins of the School of Oriental Studies, London Institution, by P.J. Hartog, C.I.E., M.A., 1917.
A graphic image of the more privileged products of this British initiated education was given by Ananda K Coomaraswamy as early as
Coomaraswamy then wrote: ‘Speak to the ordinary graduate of an Indian University, or a student from Ceylon, of the ideals of the Mahabharata—he will hasten to display his knowledge of Shakespeare; talk to him of religious philosophy—you find that he is an atheist of the crude type common in Europe a generation ago, and that not only has he no religion, but is as lacking in philosophy as the average Englishman; talk to him of Indian music—he will produce a gramophone or a harmonium and inflict upon you one or both; talk to him of Indian dress or jewellery—he will tell you that they are uncivilised and barbaric; talk to him of Indian art—it is news to him that such a thing exists; ask him to translate for you a letter written in his own mother-tongue—he does not know it. He is indeed a stranger in his own land.’ (Modern Review, Calcutta, vol 4, Oct. 1908 p.338).
January 1932, pp.151-82.
Also in House of Commons Papers: 1831-32, vol. 9, p.468.
Clarendon Press, 1917, p.394.
In Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society, London, 1917, pp.815-25.
Philip Hartog’s lectures were announced in the London Times, (March 1,4,6,1935) and two of them reported in it on March 2 and 5. On 2 March the Times reported that Sir Philip Hartog, ‘submitted that under successive Governor Generals, from Warren Hastings to Lord Chelmsford, an educational policy was evolved as part of a general policy to govern India in the interest of India, and to develop her intellectual resources to the utmost for her own benefit.’ It is interesting, however, to note that the Times, while it gave fairly constant though brief notices to Gandhiji’s 1931 visit to England, and some of the public meetings he addressed and the celebration of his birthday, the meeting at Chatham House did not reach its pages. It was not only not reported the next day, October 21, 1931, but was also not announced along with various other notices of various other meetings, etc., on the morning of October 20. Possibly it was a convention not to report any meetings at Chatham House in newspapers.
The Book of Lectures was reviewed in the Times Literary Supplement under the caption ‘Mr Gandhi Refuted’. Complimenting Hartog, the review stated: ‘There are many deserved criticisms of past British administrators in this particular field, but other charges dissolve into thin air when exposed to the searching analysis Sir Philip Hartog has applied to a statement of Mr Gandhi...Sir Philip took up the challenge at once...he shows how facts were distorted to fit an educational theory.’
The text of Hartog-Gandhi correspondence is given at Annexures F (i)-(xxv).
The available material on the survey of indigenous education in the Presidency of Bombay has been brought out in a valuable book Survey of Indigenous Education in the Province of Bombay 1820-30 by R.V. Parulekar in 1951. This survey, however, appears to have covered only certain parts of the Bombay Presidency.
Judging from their products, in a certain sense, this may apply even more to the writings on India by most non-Indians. Their writings on various aspects of Indian society and polity will obviously be influenced, if not wholly conditioned, by their respective cultural and educational ethos. Even when some of them—Alexander Walker in the early 19th century and Prof. Burton Stein today—appear to understand India 91

पृष्ठ 99 पृष्ठ 101