CapitalistImperialistPig

Pre-British India had a system of village schools that impressed the English enough that they imported at least one feature back to their own schools in England - instruction of the younger pupils by the more advanced students. A good deal of English rhetoric was expended on what to do about these schools, but in fact, they were mostly left to their own devices. They were very economical, because teachers usually had no training beyond the village school themselves, and the money they made came in small fees and presents from the villagers they educated. There were no teacher's colleges and no books. These virtues also made them hard to reform and update. They did not admit students from the scheduled castes and many or most did not educate girls Such efforts and expenditures the British made were on the colleges or their own educational ventures. The best source I have found on them is D. D. Aggarawal's History and Development of Elementary Education in India. He reports ...

Thomas Babington Macaulay, the British historian, poet and politician also played a key part in the British rule of India. He was, according to a new biography, a racist with no use for Hindu culture, but he was also a far seeing liberal who had a vision of the future of India that was remarkably prescient. Zareer Masani, a historian who is himself the son of prominent Indian political figures, is the author of Macaulay: Pioneer of India's Modernization. Macaulay is controversial in India, but it turns out that he has a big fan club, mostly among the Dalits (scheduled castes = former untouchables). The reason for the fans, says Masani, is that he introduced teaching English, and they consider that to have been crucial in their social and political advancement.