Question

3 points on anglicist

Answer 1

the 1820s-1830s provides fascinating insight into colonial policy-making, shifts in the ideology of imperialism, and the relationship between imperial government and its subjects. By this time, it must be noted, the East India Company was not merely a commercial venture, and had started to take on political and governmental functions as well as commercial activities. Debate focused on how to best use public funds: either to fund colleges teaching in Arabic or Sanskrit, while providing stipends for students and translators, or to fund colleges teaching in English, with no stipends at all. This documentary commentary analyses two letters between John Tytler and Thomas Babington Macaulay, written in January 1835 at the height of the debate. Although for observers at the time these two positions appeared directly (and irreconcilably) juxtaposed, this analysis draws attention to the similarities between them. Both factions proposed education in a language that was alien to the Indian population, an education reserved to the elite, and most importantly a ‘useful’ education. This last point in particular can be seen as evidence of the ideological shift that Pitts calls the ‘turn to empire’: where at the beginning of the century utilitarian notions would scarcely have been applied, to argue against them in the 1830s was unthinkable, even for the “Orientalists”, for whom arguing their case within this framework noticeably weakened their arguments. The essay also argues that, contrary to what these sources indicate, Indian agency was also crucial, as in the first decades of the nineteenth century a new middle class had arisen that was willing to expose itself to Westernization (albeit in its own terms rather than on Macaulay’s or Tytler’s) and, most importantly, pay for a Western education.