Asiatic Quarterly Review (Full Title: The Imperial and Asiatic Quarterly Review, and Oriental and Colonial Record): Volume XIII, No. 26 [‎527r] (178/238)

Proceedings of the East India Association. 391
India, as Mr. Digby had threatened, that he was an enemy of India. Mr.
Digby knew better than that. He was a cordial sympathizer with the
Indian National Congress in their general policy, but in this one matter of
taxation for educational purposes they did not represent the suffering
masses of India whom Mr. Digby had so generously championed. As
regards Sir William Lee-Warner’s book, the point taken in the paper was
that some such book was inevitable under the circumstances ; that if the
State undertook to teach morals it must include politics ; if it undertook to
teach politics it must give its own view. And for a partisan statement of
things as the Government would wish them to be Sir William Lee-Warner’s
book was admirable, but they had the testimony of Mr. Digby that it had
produced precisely the danger which a priori he had expected, and had
excited discontent. His remedy was that the State should not undertake
the responsibility of teaching morals at all.
A cordial vote of thanks having been unanimously accorded to the
Chairman, on the motion of Sir Roland Wilson, the proceedings
terminated.
Mr. J. B. Pennington writes: Almost everything I had in my mind to
say was said so much better by other speakers that it is scarcely necessary
for me to do more than emphasize Mr. Digby’s excellent remarks.
Sir Roland Wilson was a good deal misunderstood, and must surely be
the last person in the world to decry the value of a liberal education,
though his story of the managing Hindu widow certainly seemed like
a positive argument against even learning to read and write. All he really
said was that it was not the business of the State to educate the people,
much less to pay for their education. I, on the contrary, agree with
Mr. Digby that it is the bounden duty of the State in India, as elsewhere,
to see that the people are properly educated; and we cannot otherwise
expect them to fit themselves for self-government, however limited; and
that, I still hope, is one of the objects of our rule, if not the most
important of all. Unless the leaders of public opinion are wisely
educated, how can we expect them to discriminate in our favour so as
to prefer our rule to that of any other nation? Education, therefore, is, to
my mind, the most truly imperial of all our national concerns; and, not
only in India, but in this country also, should be an imperial, not a local
charge. It is as necessary to the very existence of the nation as the army
and navy ; and as much more valuable, when compared with the police
and magistracy, as a prophylactic is superior to any mere remedy.
Sir Roland was, in my opinion, too sanguine in thinking that education in
India might safely be left to private enterprise; and, as I have said
already, a civilized Government is as much responsible for the proper
education of the people as for the efficiency of the army and navy. As
Mr. Haldane so well said in his address at Liverpool, “ The work is far too
important to be left to private, or even local, enterprise. ’