Finance for the Education.
The most important point to be looked into on the
education arena is the conditions and fiscal arrangements for schools of the
pre-British period. It was mostly done locally. Substantial portions of revenue
had long been assigned for the performance of a multiplicity of public purposes
locally, including Education. “It will not
be far wrong to assume that about a quarter to one-third of the revenue paying
sources” [not only land, but also others like sea ports, etc.], “were,
according to ancient practice, assigned for the requirements of the social and
cultural infrastructure till the British overturned it all.” (1)
These seemed to have stayed more or less intact through all the previous
political turmoil and made Education possible. The collapse of this financial
arrangement was done through a total centralization of revenue, which was then
divided for the other purpose, mainly military. This politics led to decay in
the economy, social life and education. (2)
“The major
dispossession of the various categories of revenue assignees (starting from
those who had assignment for the performance of military duties, and who formed
the local militias and going on to those who performed police duties, etc.)
started as soon as the British took over de facto control of any area, from
1757-58 onwards.” (3)
On the financial
situation, “by about 1800, through various means, a very large proportion of
these had been altogether dispossessed; and, most of the remaining had their
assignments greatly reduced through various devices.” “This device, to begin
with, implied a reduction of the quantity of the assigned source in accordance
with the increased rate of assessment.” The “money value itself was reduced”. “The
result was that the assignee—whether an individual or an institution—even when
allowed a fraction of the previous assignment, was no longer able [because of
such steep reduction] to perform the accompanying functions in the manner they
had been performed only some decades previously. Those whose assignments were
completely abrogated were of course reduced to penury and beggary, if not to a
worse fate. Naturally, many of the old functions dependent on such assignments [like
teaching, medicine, feeding of pilgrims, etc.], had to be given up because of
want of fiscal support, as also due to state ridicule and prohibitions.”(4)
It was seen that, with all the disorder, deficiency and
destruction from 1750 to 1800, during which the British made themselves masters
of the whole area; the finance for the education was brought down. About 35% of
the total land revenue collected was being used for Education and other
services as stated above. Means still there was some revenue, which could be
used for education. However Thomas Munro
seemed outraged by the fact that 35% of the total cultivated land revenue “was
still being assigned for various local purposes, and expressed his
determination to reduce it to as low as 5% of the total land revenue in the
“Ceded Districts” also. Munro, at that time, also advocated the imposition of
an income-tax of about 15% on all those (revenue assignees, as well as
merchants, artisans, laborers etc.), who did not pay land revenue. The
Government accepted his recommendation and tax, under various names, was
imposed. (5) All the collections went to British, not to the local rulers. It is not
sure if the “Mulakkaram” (breast tax) was part of this proposal.
Thomas Munro reduced the quantity of assignments as he
expressed, making it a very drastic reduction. The reduction in the ceded
districts was also carried out in all other districts ruled by local Kings.(6) For
all practical purpose those kingdoms were also under the British rule through
“Residents” as the case was with ThiruvithAmcoor and many other kingdoms
(small states) throughout the country.’ Thus we lost our ancient Education
System and along with it the ancient knowledge. Now people in general, think
that we had no knowledge system and knowledge. This was achieved by the British
directly even in the areas where the Kings where the rulers. Because the kings
were rulers for name-sake and the actual rulers were the “Residents”. ‘The revenue locally used for education was
thus, almost nullified by the British, thus crippling of the Education System
was achieved all over the country. It is a pity that some people still believe
that some of those Residents were working for free because they said that they are
doing a favor by serving the people and the country without a salary.
Just think, if the disbursed revenue was reduced to 5%
from 35% for social, cultural and educational Institutions and other services
run by the local rulers by the British, how devastating it can be! The aims of
that action are nothing but the destruction of the indigenous Education System
and establish their education system through which they can evangelize the
indigenous people. Now if the 5% even though very little, if it is given to the
upper class, at least few of their schools will flourish and the schools run by
the lower classes will seize to function for lack of finance, thus denying
education to the lower spectrum of the population. Denying education to a
section can also attract them to the British schools and also create animosity
with the other group(s). (The best way to evangelize is to divide the people.)
That is what exactly happened. When taking into consideration that the British
needed the help of the more educated and the intellectual who were called
Brahmins at that time, it is quite natural that, the small amount available was
disbursed to them. Because of this some of the local schools run by upper class
or castes survived. The rest, mostly run by the so-called AvaRNnaR collapsed
this action also aided the split and increased animosity within the local
people. They were driven into opposing groups of AvaRNnaR – SavaRNaR
and the hate started to buildup. When we take into account the other actions of
the British, we can be one hundred percent sure that this is what exactly they
did and that is how they built up to divide us into mutually hating groups.
Bibliography
1.
(i) Collected
Writings Volume III, by Dharampal, Page 77. (ii) and Presidency districts where
Persian was not only studied little, but the students of it were mainly
Muslims. Interestingly, Adam mentions Page.149. (iii) I.O.R. Factory Records:
G/6/4. Proceedings of Burdwan Council on 24.5.1775.
2.
Collected
Writings Volume III, by Dharampal, Page 21.
3.
(i) Collected
Writings Volume III, by Dharampal, Page 78. (ii) For fairly detailed
information on Malabar, see the voluminous Report of Commissioner Graeme,
16.7.1822 in TNSA: Revenue Consultations, especially volume 277A.
4.
(i) Collected
Writings Volume III, by Dharampal, Page 78, 79. (ii) XXI Report from PRINCIPAL
COLLECTOR, MALABAR TO BOARD OF REVENUE dated 5th August, 1823. (iii) Report of Commissioner Graeme,
16.7.1822.
5.
Collected
Writings Volume III, by Dharampal, Page 76, 80,
92.
6.
Collected
Writings Volume III, by Dharampal, Page 76, 80.
(Will continue;
Copyright © Udayabhanu Panickar)
അഭിപ്രായങ്ങളൊന്നുമില്ല:
ഒരു അഭിപ്രായം പോസ്റ്റ് ചെയ്യൂ