Yoda-esque Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Christianity definitely not the legacy of the Romans,Thomas came to India about 300 years before Constantine made the religion official. What next ? Italians invented Pasta?
anotherhawkeye Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 This thread is getting out of hand. Locking it till tempers cool down. EDIT: Reopening the thread. Please keep the discussion civil and dont abuse/insult other posters. OT: Ganesh, you are a moderator? Damn bro, had no idea. Vijay: There is only one way to handle the trolls. IGNORE. Trolls have no capacity to reason, so to try to have an constructive argument with them is futile. However, I learned several valuable information from this thread when you were trying to 'reason' with the troll. I guess the troll has served his purpose. I'm looking forward to your future posts.
Lurker Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Which is one reason why this OP was brilliant. History is best shared when laced with a sense of humor and wit. Why so serious Khaan Saab and Vijay? Itna serious ho kar kya ukhaad loge guru? Have a sense of light discussion bhai log.
anotherhawkeye Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 To Surajmal and to Vijay (who provided more info in the subsequent post): I was reading up on that dude (and his quote) some more and came to this link http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html which states that: "Nobody so far has been able to trace this quotation to an original publication of Macaulay's speeches, though such published collections exist (e.g. Macaulay, Prose and Poetry, selected by G. M. Young, 1957; Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy, 1750-1921, edited by A. Berriedale Keith, 1922; Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay by George Otto Trevelyan, 1876). It is unlikely that they ever will, and they could have realized as much by carefully rereading the one source to which all the extant instances of this quotation can apparently be traced." That seems reasonable to me. To your knowledge, is there any authoritative source for the quote? If there is none, I cannot accept the quote as a fact and you shouldn't either. Disclaimer: I'm only on the quest for knowledge. I'm not a troll and I'm not trying to start a fight.
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Which is one reason why this OP was brilliant. History is best shared when laced with a sense of humor and wit. Why so series Khaan Saab and Vijay? Itna serious ho kar kya ukhaad loge guru? Have a sense of light discussion bhai log.When you try to talk to people decently and they respond in a trollish manner then you will obviously get pissed off. I notice in this forum humor is given more weight than truth and facts. Many people here think arguments and debates are conducted, and truth is revealed/finalized based on oneupmanship. No matter which forum it is, if you are going to propagate crap as history of my country then I will question you and your knowledge. If you do not respond in a decent manner then I will show you up the way I have shown up many others on this forum itself. I do not get into debates when I do not have enough knowledge of a topic. If I do then I humbly leave thanking the person for educating me. But when I know my stuff and the other has the knowledge of an LKG/UKG student in it and on top of that ridicules me then I will show up his actual credentials. There are enough people on this forum who think they are studs in some topics but when you really debate them you realize these buggers are not even aware of the developments in their own areas of qualification. Any who uses ridicule and cheap humor as an argument when the opposite person is trying to engage in a decent conversation deserves to be shown his place.
Yoda-esque Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 When you try to talk to people decently and they respond in a trollish manner then you will obviously get pissed off. I notice in this forum humor is given more weight than truth and facts. Many people here think arguments and debates are conducted, and truth is revealed/finalized based on oneupmanship.No matter which forum it is, if you are going to propagate crap as history of my country then I will question you and your knowledge. If you do not respond in a decent manner then I will show you up the way I have shown up many others on this forum itself. I do not get into debates when I do not have enough knowledge of a topic. If I do then I humbly leave thanking the person for educating me. But when I know my stuff and the other has the knowledge of an LKG/UKG student in it and on top of that ridicules me then I will show up his actual credentials. There are enough people on this forum who think they are studs in some topics but when you really debate them you realize these buggers are not even aware of the developments in their own areas of qualification. Any bastard who uses ridicule and cheap humor as an argument when the opposite person is trying to engage in a decent conversation deserves to be shown his place. Couldn't have put it better.
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 To Surajmal and to Vijay (who provided more info in the subsequent post): I was reading up on that dude (and his quote) some more and came to this link http://koenraadelst.bharatvani.org/articles/hinduism/macaulay.html which states that: "Nobody so far has been able to trace this quotation to an original publication of Macaulay's speeches, though such published collections exist (e.g. Macaulay, Prose and Poetry, selected by G. M. Young, 1957; Speeches and Documents on Indian Policy, 1750-1921, edited by A. Berriedale Keith, 1922; Life and Letters of Lord Macaulay by George Otto Trevelyan, 1876). It is unlikely that they ever will, and they could have realized as much by carefully rereading the one source to which all the extant instances of this quotation can apparently be traced." That seems reasonable to me. To your knowledge, is there any authoritative source for the quote? If there is none, I cannot accept the quote as a fact and you shouldn't either. Disclaimer: I'm only on the quest for knowledge. I'm not a troll and I'm not trying to start a fight. It is possible that Surajmal's provided quote is not existing (and made up by saffron brigade - I had the same doubt in my research). However the quote about him degrading India to get his 1 lakh for setting up education system in India is part of his famous speech). That is exactly why I immediately posted in response to Surajmal's post The quotation I got is from the Department of English Studies, University of California. The whole transcript of the speech that Macaulay gave is here (the bolded part is what I quoted) - http://www.english.ucsb.edu/faculty/rraley/research/english/macaulay.html This is the speech he gave in the British Parliament to get 1 lakh rupees as funds for setting up an "Education System in the East Indies". 2ND OF FEBRUARY, 1835 As it seems to be the opinion of some of the gentlemen who compose the Committee of Public Instruction, that the course which they have hitherto pursued was strictly prescribed by the British Parliament in 1813, and as, if that opinion be correct, a legislative act will be necessary to warrant a change, I have thought it right to refrain from taking any part in the preparation of the adverse statements which are now before us, and to reserve what I had to say on the subject till it should come before me as a member of the Council of India. It does not appear to me that the Act of Parliament can, by any art of construction, be made to bear the meaning which has been assigned to it. It contains nothing about the particular languages or sciences which are to be studied. A sum is set apart "for the revival and promotion of literature and the encouragement of the learned natives of India, and for the introduction and promotion of a knowledge of the sciences among the inhabitants of the British territories." It is argued, or rather taken for granted, that by literature, the Parliament can have meant only Arabic and Sanscrit literature, that they never would have given the honorable appellation of "a learned native" to a native who was familiar with the poetry of Milton, the Metaphysics of Locke, and the Physics of Newton; but that they meant to designate by that name only such persons as might have studied in the sacred books of the Hindoos all the uses of cusa-grass, and all the mysteries of absorption into the Deity. This does not appear to be a very satisfactory interpretation. To take a parallel case; suppose that the Pacha of Egypt, a country once superior in knowledge to the nations of Europe but now sunk far below them, were to appropriate a sum or the purpose of "reviving and promoting literature, and encouraging learned natives of Egypt," would anybody infer that he meant the youth of his pachalic to give years to the study of hieroglyphics, to search into all the doctrines disguised under the fable of Osiris, and to ascertain with all possible accuracy the ritual with which cats and onions were anciently adored? Would he be justly charged with inconsistency, if, instead of employing his young subjects in deciphering obelisks, he were to order them to be instructed in the English and French languages, and in all the sciences to which those languages are the chief keys? The words on which the supporters of the old system rely do not bear them out, and other words follow which seem to be quite decisive on the other side. This lac of rupees is set apart, not only for "reviving literature in India," the phrase on which their whole interpretation is founded, but also for "the introduction and promotion of a knowledge of the sciences among the inhabitants of the British territories,"--words which are alone sufficient to authorise all the changes for which I contend. If the Council agree in my construction, no legislative Act will be necessary. If they differ from me, I will prepare a short Act rescinding that clause of the Charter of 1813, from which the difficulty arises. The argument which I have been considering, affects only the form of proceeding. But the admirers of the Oriental system of education have used another argument, which, if we admit it to be valid, is decisive against all change. They conceive that the public faith is pledged to the present system, and that to alter the appropriation of any of the funds which have hitherto been spent in encouragmg the study of Arabic and Sanscrit, would be down-right spoliation. It is not easy to understand by what process of reasoning they can have arrived at this conclusion. The grants which are made from the public purse for the encouragement of literature differed in no respect from the grants which are made from the same purse for other objects of real or supposed utility. We found a sanatarium on a spot which we suppose to be healthy. Do we thereby pledge ourselves to keep a sanatarium there, if the result should not answer our expectation? We commence the erection of a pier. Is it a violation of the public faith to stop the works, if we afterwards see reason to believe that the building will be useless? The rights of property are undoubtedly sacred. But nothing endangers those rights so much as the practice, now unhappily too common, of attributing them to things to which they do not belong. Those who would impart to abuses the sanctity of property are in truth imparting to the institution of property the unpopularity and the fragility of abuses. If the Government has given to any person a formal assurance; nay, if the Government has exdted in any person's mind a reasonable expectation that he shall receive a certain income as a teacher or a learner of Sanscrit or Arabic, I would respect that person's pecuniary interests--I would rather err on the side of liberality to individuals than suffer the public faith to be called in question. But to talk of a Government pledging itself to teach certain languages and certain sciences, though those languages may become useless, though those sciences may be exploded, seems to me quite unmeaning. There is not a single word in any public instructions, from which it can be inferred that the Indian Government ever intended to give any pledge on this subject, or ever considered the destination of these funds as unalterably fixed. But had it been otherwise, I should have denied the competence of our predecessors to bind us by any pledge on such a subject. Suppose that a Government had in the last century enacted in the most sole,nn manner that all its subjects should, to the end of time, be inoculated for the smallpox: would that Government be bound to persist in the practice after Jenner's discovery? These promises, of which nobody claims the performance, and from which nobody can grant a release; these vested rights, which vest in nobody; this property without proprietors; this robbery, which makes nobody poorer, may be comprehended by persons of higher faculties than mine.--- I consider this plea merely as a set form of words, regularly used both in England and in India, in defence of every abuse for which no other plea can be set up. I hold this lac of rupees to be quite at the disposal of the Governor General in Council, for the purpose of promoting learning in India, in any way which may be thought most advisable. I hold his Lordship to be quite as free to direct that it shall no longer be employed in encouraging Arabic and Sanscrit, as he is to direct that the reward for killing tigers in Mysore shall be diminished, that no more public money shall be expended on the chanting at the cathedral. We now come to the gist of the matter. We have a fund to be employed as Government shall direct for the intellectual improvement of the people of this country. The simple question is, what is the most useful way of employing it? All parties seem to be agreed on one point, that the dialects commonly spoken among the natives of this part of India, contain neither literary nor scientific information, and are, moreover, so poor and rude that, until they are enriched from some other quarter, it will not be easy to translate any valuable work into them. It seems to be admitted on all sides, that the intellectual improvement of those classes of the people who have the means of pursuing higher studies can at present be effected only by means of some language not vernacular amongst them. What then shall that language be? One-half of the Committee maintain that it should be the English. The other half strongly recommend the Arabic and Sanscrit. The whole question seems to me to be, which language is the best worth knowing? I have no knowledge of either Sanscrit or Arabic.--But I have done what I could to form a correct estimate of their value. I have read translations of the most celebrated Arabic and Sanscrit works. I have conversed both here and at home with men distinguished by their proficiency in the Eastern tongues. I am quite ready to take the Oriental learning at the valuation of the Orientalists themselves. I have never found one among them who could deny that a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia. The intrinsic superiority of the Western literature is, indeed, fully admitted by those members of the Committee who support the Oriental plan of education. It will hardly be disputed, I suppose, that the department of literature in which the Eastern writers stand highest is poetry. And I certainly never met with any Orientalist who ventured to maintain that the Arabic and Sanscrit poetry could be compared to that of the great European nations. But when we pass from works of imagination to works in which facts are recorded, and general principles investigated, the superiority of the Europeans becomes absolutely immeasurable. It is, I believe, no exaggeration to say, that all the historical information which has been collected from all the books written in the Sanscrit language is less valuable than what may be found in the most paltry abridgments used at preparatory schools in England. In every branch of physical or moral philosophy, the relative position of the two nations is nearly the same. How, then, stands the case? We have to educate a people who cannot at present be educated by means of their mother-tongue. We must teach them some foreign language. The claims of our own language it is hardly necessary to recapitulate. It stands pre-eminent even among the languages of the west. It abounds with works of imagination not inferior to the noblest which Greece has bequeathed to us; with models of every species of eloquence; with historical compositions, which, considered merely as nar- ratives, have seldom been surpassed, and which, considered as vehicles of ethical and political instruction, have never been equalled; with just and lively representations of human life and human nature; with the most profound speculations on metaphysics, morals, government, jurisprudence, and trade; with full and correct information respecting every experimental science which tends to preserve the health, to increase the comfort, or to expand the intellect of man. Whoever knows that language has ready access to all the vast intellectual wealth, which all the wisest nations of the earth have created and hoarded in the course of ninety generations. It may safely be said, that the literature now extant in that language is of far greater value than all the literature which three hundred years ago was extant in all the languages of the world together. Nor is this all. In India, English is the language spoken by the ruling class. It is spoken by the higher class of natives at the seats of Government. It is likely to become the language of commerce throughout the seas of the East. It is the language of two great European communities which are rising, the one in the south of Africa, the other in Australasia; communities which are every year becoming more important, and more closely connected with our Indian empire. Whether we look at the intrinsic value of our literature, or at the particular situation of this country, we shall see the strongest reason to think that, of all foreign tongues, the English tongue is that which would be the most useful to our native subjects. The question now before us is simply whether, when it is in our power to teach this language, we shall teach languages in which, by universal confession, there are no books on any subject which deserve to be compared to our own; whether, when we can teach European science, we shall teach systems which, by universal confession, whenever they differ from those of Europe, differ for the worse; and whether, when we can patronise sound Philosophy and true History, we shall countenance, at the public expense, medi- cal doctrines, which would disgrace an English farrier,--Astronomy, which would move laughter in girls at an English boarding school,--History, abounding with kings thirty feet high, and reigns thirty thousand years long,--and Geography, made up of seas of treacle and seas of butter. We are not without experience to guide us. History furnishes several analogous cases, and they all teach the same lesson. There are in modern times, to go no further, two memorable instances of a great impulse given to the mind of a whole society,--of prejudices overthrown,--of knowledge diffused,--taste purified,--of arts and sciences planted in countries which had recently been ignorant and barbarous. The first instance to which I refer, is the great revival of letters among the Western nations at the close of the fifteenth and the begi:ning of the sixteenth century. At that time almost every thing that was worth reading was contained in the writings of the ancient Greeks and Romans. Had our ancestors acted as the Committee of Public Instruction has hitherto acted; had they neglected the language of Cicero and Tacitus; had they confined their attention to the old dialects of our own island; had they print- ed nothing and taught nothing at the universities but Chronicles in Anglo-Saxon, and Romances in Norman-French, would England have been what she now is? What the Greek and Latin were to the contemporaries of More and Ascham, our tongue is to the people of India. The literature of England is now more valuable than that of classical antiquity. I doubt whether the Sanscrit literature be as valuable as that of our Saxon and Norman progenitors. In some departments,--in History, for example, I am certain that it is much less so. Another instance may be said to be still before our eyes. Within the last hundred and twenty years, a nation which has previously been in a state as barbarous as that in which our ancestors were before the crusades, has gradually emerged from the ignorance in which it was sunk, and has taken its place among civilized communities.--I speak of Russia. There is now in that country a large educated class, abounding with persons fit to serve the state in the highest ftmctions, and in no wise inferior to the most accomplished men who adorn the best circles of Paris and London. There is reason to hope that this vast empire, which in the time of our grandfathers was probably behind the Punjab, may, in the time of our grandchildren, be pressing close on France and Britain in the career of improvement. And how was this change effected? Not by flattering national prejudices: not by feeding the mind of the young Muscovite with the old women's stories which his rude fathers had believed: not by filling his head with lying legends about St. Nicholas: not by encouraging him to study the great question, whether the world was or was not created on the 13th of September: not by calling him "a learned native," when he has mastered all these points of knowledge: but by teaching him those foreign languages in which the greatest mass of information had been laid up, and thus putting all that information within his reach. The languages of Western Europe civilized Russia. I cannot doubt that they will do for the Hindoo what they have done for the Tartar. And what are the arguments against that course which seems to be alike recommended by theory and by experience? It is said that we ought to secure the cooperation of the native public, and that we can do this only by teaching Sanscrit and Arabic. I can by no means admit that when a nation of high intellectual attainments undertakes to Superintend the education of a nation comparatively ignorant, the learners are absolutely to prescribe the course which is to be taken by the teachers. It is not necessary, however, to say any thing on this subject. For it is proved by unanswerable evidence that we are not at present securing the Cooperation of the natives. It would be bad enough to consult their intellectual taste at the expense of their intellectual health. But we are consulting neither,--we are withholding from them the learning for which they are craving, we are forcing on them the mock-learning which they nauseate. This is proved by the fact that we are forced to pay our Arabic and Sanscrit students, while those who learn Engiish are wiling to pay us. All the declamations in the worid about the love and reverence of the natives for their sacred dialects will never, in the mind of any impartial person, outweigh the undisputed fact, that we cannot find, in all our vast empire, a single student who will let us teach him those dialects unless we will pay him. I have now before me the accounts of the Madrassa for one month,-in the month of December, 1833. The Arabic students appear to have been seventy-seven in number. All receive stipends from the public. The whole amount paid to them is above 500 rupees a month. On the other side of the account stands the following item: Deduct amount realized from the out-students of English for the months of May, June and July last, 103 rupees. I have been told that it is merely from want of local experience that I am surprised at these phenomena, and that it is not the fashion for students in India to study at their own charges. This only confirms me in my opinion. Nothing is more certain than that it never can in any part of the world be necessary to pay men for doing what they think pleasant and profitable. India is no exception to this rule. The people of India do not require to be paid for eating rice when they are hungry, or for wearing woollen cloth in the cold season. To come nearer to the case before us, the children who learn their letters and a little elementary Arithmetic from the village school-master are not paid by him. He is paid for teaching them. Why then is it necessary to pay people to learn Sanscrit and Arabic? Evidently because it is universally felt that the Sanscrit and Arabic are languages, the knowledge of which does not compensate for the trouble of acquiring them. On all such subjects the state of the market is the decisive test. Other evidence is not wanting, if other evidence were required. A petition was presented last year to the Committee by several ex-students of the Sanscrit College. The petitioners stated that they had studied in the college ten or twelve years; that they had made themselves acquainted with Hindoo literature and science; that they had received certificates of proficiency: and what is the fruit of all this! "Notwithstanding such testimonials," they say, "we have but little prospect of bettering our condition without the kind assistance of your Honorable Committee, the indifference with which we are generally looked upon by our countrymen leaving no hope of encouragement and assistance from them." They therefore beg that they may be recommended to the Governor General for places under the Government, not places of high dignity or emolument, but such as may just enable them to exist. "We want means," they say, "for a decent living, and for our progressive improvement, which, however, we cannot obtain without the assistance of Government, by whom we have been educated and maintained from childhood." They conclude by representing, very pathetically, that they are sure that it was never the intention of Government, after behaving so liberally to them during their education, to abandon them to destitution and neglect. I have been used to see petitions to Government for compensation. All these petitions, even the most unreasonable of them, proceeded on the supposition that some loss had been sustained- that some wrong had been inflicted. These are surely the first petitioners who ever demanded compensation for having been educated gratis, for having been supported by the public during twelve years, and then sent forth into the world well furnished with literature and science. They represent their education as an injury which gives them a claim on the Government for redress, as an injury for which the stipends paid to them during the infliction were a very inadequate compensation. And I doubt not that they are in the right. They have wasted the best years of life in learning what procures for them neither bread nor respect. Surely we might, with advantage, have saved the cost of making these persons useless and miserable; surely, men may be brought up to be burdens to the public and objects of contempt to their neighbours at a somewhat smaller charge to the state. But such is our policy. We do not even stand neuter in the contest between truth and falsehood. We are not content to leave the natives to the influence of their own hereditary prejudices. To the natural difficulties which obstruct the progress of sound science in the East, we add fresh difficulties of our own making. Bounties and premiums, such as ought not to be given even for the propagation of truth, we lavish on false taste and false philosophy. By acting thus we create the very evil which we fear. We are making that opposition which we do not find. What we spend on the Arabic and Sanscrit colleges is not merely a dead loss to the cause of truth; it is bounty-money paid to raise up champions of error. It goes to form a nest, not merely of helpless place-hunters, but of bigots prompted alike by passion and by interest to raise a cry against every usetul scheme of education. If there should be any opposition among the natives to the change which I recommend, that opposition will be the effect of our own system. It will be headed by persons supported by our stipends and trained in our colleges. The longer we persevere in our present course, the more formidable will that opposition be. It will be every year reinforced by recruits whom we are paying. From the native society left to itself, we have no difficulties to apprehend; all the murmuring will come from that oriental interest which we have, by artificial means, called into being, and nursed into strength. There is yet another fact, which is alone sufficient to prove that the feeling of the native public, when left to itself, is not such as the supporters of the old system represent it to be. The Committee have thought fit to lay out above a lac of rupees in printing Arabic and Sanscrit books. Those books find no purchasers. It is very rarely that a single copy is disposed of. Twenty-three thousand volumes, most of them folios and quartos, fill the libraries, or rather the lumber-rooms, of this body. The Committee contrive to get rid of some portion of their vast stock of oriental literature by giving books away. But they cannot give so fast as they print. About twenty thousand rupees a year are spent in adding fresh masses of waste paper to a hoard which, I should think, is already sufficiently ample. During the last three years, about sixty thousand rupees have been expended in this manner. The sale of Arabic and Sanscrit books, during those three years, has not yielded quite one thousand rupees. In the mean time the School- book Society is selling seven or eight thousand English volumes every year, and not only pays the expenses of printing, but realises a profit of 20 per cent. on its outlay. The fact that the Hindoo law is to be learned chiefly from Sans- crit books, and the Mahomedan law from Arabic books, has been much insisted on, but seems not to bear at all on the question. We are commanded by Parliament to ascertam and digest the laws of India. The assistance of a law Commission has been given to us for that purpose. As soon as the code is promulgated, the Shasster and the Hedaya will be useless to a Moonsiff or Sudder Ameen. I hope and trust that before the boys who are now entering at the Madrassa and the Sanscrit college have completed their studies, this great work will be finished. It would be manifestly absurd to educate the rising generation with a view to a state of things which we mean to alter before they reach manhood. But there is yet another argument which seems even more untenable. It is said that the Sanscrit and Arabic are the languages in which the sacred books of a hundred millions of people are written, and that they are, on that account, entitled to peculiar encouragement. Assuredly it is the duty of the British Government in India to be not only tolerant, but neutral on all religious questions. But to encourage the study of a literature admitted to be of small intrinsic value, only because that literature incuIcates the most serious errors on the most important subjects, is a course hardly reconcileable with reason, with morality, or even with that very neutrality which ought, as we all agree, to be sacredly pre- served. It is confessed that a language is barren of useful know- ledge. We are to teach it because it is fruittul of monstrous superstitions. We are to teach false History, false Astronomy, false Medicine, because we find them in company with a false religion. We abstain, and I trust shall always abstain, from giving any public encouragement to those who are engaged in the work of converting natives to Christianity. And while we act thus, can we reasonably and decently bribe men out of the revenues of the state to waste their youth in learning how they are to purify themselves after touching an ass, or what text of the Vedas they are to repeat to expiate the crime of killing a goat? It is taken for granted by the advocates of Oriental learning, that no native of this country can possibly attain more than a mere smattering of English. They do not attempt to prove this; but they perpetually insinuate it. They designate the education which their opponents recommend as a mere spelling book education. They assume it as undenlable, that the question is between a profound knowledge of Hindoo and Arabian literature and science on the one side, and a superficial knowledge of the rudiments of English on the other. This is not merely an assumption, but an assumption contrary to all reason and experience. We know that foreigners of all nations do learn our language sufficiently to have access to all the most abstruse knowledge which it contains, sufficiently to relish even the more delicate graces of our most idiomatic writers. There are in this very town natives who are quite competent to discuss political or scientific questions with fluency and precision in the English language. I have heard the gentlemen with a liberality and an intelligence which would do credit to any member of the Committee of Public Instruction. Indeed it is unusual to find, even in the literary circles of the continent, any foreigner who can express himself in English with so much facility and correctness as we find in many Hindoos. Nobody, I suppose, will contend that English is so difficult to a Hindoo as Greek to an Englishman. Yet an intelligent English youth, in a much smaller number of years than our unfortunate pupils pass at the Sanscrit college, becomes able to read, to enjoy, and even to imitate, not unhappily, the compositions of the best Greek Authors. Less than half the time which enables an English youth to read Herodotus and Sophocles, ought to enable a Hindoo to read Hume and Milton. To sum up what I have said, I think it clear that we are not fettered by the Act of Parliament of 1813; that we are not fettered by any pledge expressed or implied; that we are free to employ our fiinds as we choose; that we ought to employ them in teaching what is best worth knowing; that English is better worth knowing than Sanscrit or Arabic; that the natives are desirous to be taught English, and are not desirous to be taught Sanscrit or Arabic; that neither as the languages of law, nor as the languages of religion, have the Sanscrit and Arabic any peculiar claim to our engagement; that it is possible to make natives of this country thoroughly good English scholars, and that to this end our efforts ought to be directed. In one point I fully agree with the gentlemen to whose general views I am opposed. I feel with them, that it is impossible for us, with our limited means, to attempt to educate the body of the people. We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern; a class of persons, Indian in blood and colour, but English in taste, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect. To that class we may leave it to refine the vernacular dialects of the country, to enrich those dialects with terms of science borrowed from the Western nomenclature, and to render them by degrees fit vehicles for conveying knowledge to the great mass of the population. I would strictly respect all existing interests. I would deal even generously with all individuals who have had fair reason to expect a pecuniary provision. But I would strike at the root of the bad system which has hitherto been fostered by us. I would at once stop the printing of Arabic and Sanscrit books, I would abolish the Madrassa and the Sanscrit college at Calcutta. Benares is the great seat of Brahmanical learning; Delhi, of Arabic learning. If we retain the Sanscrit college at Benares and the Mahometan college at Delhi, we do enough, and much more than enough in my opinion, for the Eastern languages. If the Benares and Delhi colleges should be retained, I would at least recommend that no stipends shall be given to any students who may hereafter repair thither, but that the people shall be left to make their own choice between the rival systems of education without being bribed by us to learn what they have no desire to know. The funds which would thus be placed at our disposal would enable us to give larger encouragement to the Hindoo college at Calcutta, and to establish in the principal cities throughout the Presidencies of Fort William and Agra schools in which the English language might be well and thoroughly taught. If the decision of his Lordship in Council should be such as I anticipate, I shall enter on the performance of my duties with the greatest zeal and alacrity. If, on the other hand, it be the opinion of the Government that the present system ought to remain unchanged, I beg that I may be permitted to retire from the chair of the Committee. I feel that I could not be of the smallest use there--I feel, also, that I should be lending my countenance to what I firmly believe to be a mere delusion. I believe that the present system tends, not to accelerate the progress of truth, but to delay the natural death of expiring errors. I conceive that we have at present no right to the respectable name of a Board of Public Instruction. We are a Board for wasting public money, for printing books which are of less value than the paper on which they are printed was while it was blank; for giving artificial encouragement to absurd history, absurd metaphysics, absurd physics, absurd theology; for raising up a breed of scholars who find their scholarship an encumbrance and a blemish, who live on the public while they are receiving their education, and whose education is so utterly useless to them that when they have received it they must either starve or live on the public all the rest of their lives. Entertaining these opinions, I am naturally desirous to decline all share in the responsibility of a body, which unless it alters its whole mode of proceeding, I must consider not merely as useless, but as positively noxious.
f.b.m Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 I notice in this forum humor is given more weight than truth and facts. Many people here think arguments and debates are conducted, and truth is revealed/finalized based on oneupmanship. Dont think its limited to this forum or in fact real life.. Just one of the depressing facts of discussing anything in general. Also, I doubt that a sports forum is really a good place to have a meaningful conversation on anything remotely intellectual.
anotherhawkeye Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Valid points. However, he didnt need a navy to get out of the subcontinent. He could have pushed into the Seleucid empire, completely controlled south india etc but chose not to, whatever his reasons might have been. Also I am not sure what you mean by nobody at that time had a navy. Lots of rulers had navies even before Ashoka's time. Phoenicians, greeks, persians etc etc. Did some reading and realized that you were right about ancient navies predating Ashoka. I stand corrected.
retterimp Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 this is worth a read: http://voiceofdharma.org/books/hhrmi/ i think we give too much credit to the 'few muslims ruled over all the hindus' theory. in my view, it was not a victory for 'muslims' at all. a victory in that religious sense would have required the conversion of most sanatan dharma followers which clearly didn't happen, because that's what islam's goal is: to make people 'revert' to their true religion. as such, i see the muslim conquest as largely a failure. and i see great resolve in the people following the indigenous religions to stick to their beliefs after centuries of attacks by muslims/christians but yes, if you talk about central asian warriors in general, then you can say they were successful in conquering india due to the 'go for the kill' attitude and superior military/tactics
Tiger80 Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 http://kaipullai.com/2012/01/18/four-little-things-that-shaped-india/ Very well written. There have to be many more 'key' events, but read it just to know the importance of these 4 key events - especially for the random/unexpected elements common to these, w/o which things could have gone totally different path. Don't know why author said that invasion of Ghenghis khan could had destroyed Indian civilisation.India faced so many invasions from cruel invaders and there is no poof that Ghenghis Khan could had destroyed India which other invaders did not do. Also don't know Hemu's defeat was such an important point or not as may be Akbar could had defeated him later.Prithviraj Chauhan's defeat was much more key elemnent
anotherhawkeye Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 It is possible that Surajmal's provided quote is not existing (and made up by saffron brigade - I had the same doubt in my research). However the quote about him degrading India to get his 1 lakh for setting up education system in India is part of his famous speech). That is exactly why I immediately posted in response to Surajmal's post The quotation I got is from the Department of English Studies, University of California. His speech on education system seems legit. It's a very interesting speech, parts of which are very well thought out.
anotherhawkeye Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Don't know why author said that invasion of Ghenghis khan could had destroyed Indian civilisation.India faced so many invasions from cruel invaders and there is no poof that Ghenghis Khan could had destroyed India which other invaders did not do. Also don't know Hemu's defeat was such an important point or not as may be Akbar could had defeated him later.Prithviraj Chauhan's defeat was much more key elemnent That's my general take away from the article as well. I was thankful to gain some knowledge, but I don't agree with all the conclusions drawn. There's simply no way to know how a particular event, if it didn't happen, would have shaped the rest of the history. It was witty and a good read, but seems very simplistic at the end.
Yoda-esque Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Don't know why author said that invasion of Ghenghis khan could had destroyed Indian civilisation.India faced so many invasions from cruel invaders and there is no poof that Ghenghis Khan could had destroyed India which other invaders did not do. Also don't know Hemu's defeat was such an important point or not as may be Akbar could had defeated him later.Prithviraj Chauhan's defeat was much more key elemnent I guess that the Mughal empire must be the only instance of a predominant Islamic rule that failed to convert an entire country..guess there were too many people:) Btw Timur came to India for a week and killed more than 120000 "infidels" So imagine what his par dada would have done..
Lurker Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 I notice in this forum humor is given more weight than truth and facts. Many people here think arguments and debates are conducted, and truth is revealed/finalized based on oneupmanship. Aisa nahin hai bandhu. Online discussions have changed over the years. You are perhaps a few years behind the curve (no offence meant). We used to have lot of long discussions right here but life caught on, most folks moved on and were replaced by newer generation who just does not do so many longish discussion. Its just evoloution really. Also personally what peeves me is how most folks just google information and pass on links as if their own. You rarely debate a person and debate more his googling skills. I know its not fair on you by any means but thats how I see it. Also sometimes humor cuts the ice. Its easy to spot a troll and just ignore him instead of getting sucked in a debate. Also the serious the discussion, the more laughs it needs (in my opinion). :winky:
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Aisa nahin hai bandhu. Online discussions have changed over the years. You are perhaps a few years behind the curve (no offence meant). We used to have lot of long discussions right here but life caught on' date=' most folks moved on and were replaced by newer generation who just does not do so many longish discussion. [/quote']I agree I have been behind the curve when it comes to understanding the nature of online discussions. But dost, the malaise has not affected only "kids". In fact I sometimes find the kids more well behaved than the older ones. I have seen some really nasty fellows here who might actually be Senior Managers or equivalent in their professions and behave worse than teenagers. But the moment you finish the third return post, the requisite knowledge of the person comes forth for everyone to see. The easiest and most obvious give away of the lack of knowledge in a debater is when he starts using stupid humor, or references from other threads, or presupposes your viewpoints and presents them.
Vijay.Sharma Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 Tiger80 and Anotherhawkeye, In defense of the writer of the blog I think his posts were more from the perspective of fiction and what-ifs. In fact I read some comments in his blog from others who made the exact same points as you did. And he replied to them saying that the "what-ifs" were totally imaginary and basically wishful thinking and also provided fodder to make the post interesting. I agree with Tiger's point about Genghis Khan's (in)ability to destroy India. But on the Hemu part I think that was a real big event. Hemu's tragedy was a real game changer. Unlike the Rajput rulers who allowed the Islamic jehadis to set up tents in India, Hemu was capable of setting up a Harshavardhana-esque empire
Tiger80 Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 I guess that the Mughal empire must be the only instance of a predominant Islamic rule that failed to convert an entire country..guess there were too many people:) Btw Timur came to India for a week and killed more than 120000 "infidels" So imagine what his par dada would have done.. Ghenghis khan was Budhist secular king,Timur was fanatic muslim.Ghenghis khan had no motive to massacre Indians .He could had asked Indians to accept his supremacy and give him money which was normal in those days. So unlike Timur Ghenghis Khan had no motive to massacre Indians apart from establishing his rule
Lurker Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 I agree I have been behind the curve when it comes to understanding the nature of online discussions.But dost, the malaise has not affected only "kids". In fact I sometimes find the kids more well behaved than the older ones. I have seen some really nasty fellows here who might actually be Senior Managers or equivalent in their professions and behave worse than teenagers. In retrospect that post of mine was in bad taste. You arent behind the curve or anything really. And yes I agree Seniors behave worse than teenagers. In fact with age we all have less time and more cynicism which perhaps shows up in our post. Personally I am doing a bunch of Annual reviews of those who report to me so not getting sucked up in major discourses right now. The reason I say this is because 5 years back I had none of that worry so would write thesis. Thats one part I do miss...writing long ended articles and stuff. Oh I am all for humor. However dost, there is a universe of difference between humor and ridicule. Good debaters, and knowledgeable folks use humor to supplement a point they make. When people use ridicule it is as if they are making their main argument. I don't think anyone has a problem with mindful and supplementary humor (check out Mariam she is good at it many times) but masking lack of expertise with ridicule is a mark of stupidity. I understand where you are coming from. Of course what everybody appreciates is humor and wit, not ridicule or even sarcasm at times. Chalo I wouldnt derail your discussions. Peace..and smile :two_thumbs_up:
Tiger80 Posted February 6, 2012 Posted February 6, 2012 I agree with Tiger's point about Genghis Khan's in(ability) to destroy India. But on the Hemu part I think that was a real big event. Hemu's tragedy was a real game changer. Unlike the Rajput rulers who allowed the Islamic jehadis to set up tents in India, Hemu was capable of setting up a Harshavardhana-esque empire What about Rana sanga's defeat ? Is it not true that Rana sanga one of great Rajput king was almost favourate to win the war and even babur himself was thinking of defeat .I think the time of Babur and Akbar was full of Ifs and buts .The 4 major events of that time were Babur defeating Lodhi ,the defeat of Rana Sanga,The death of Sher shah suri who was also going to become one of the great kings and defeat of Hemu
Recommended Posts