Ram Mohan Roy’s Letter to lord Amherst 1823

On December 11, 1823, Raja Ram Mohan Roy penned a

significant letter to Lord Amherst, the Governor-General
of India. In this letter, Roy articulated his strong advocacy
for the introduction of Western education in India.

Roy expressed his disappointment with the government’s

proposal to establish a new Sanskrit college in Calcutta.
While acknowledging the government’s intention to
improve the native population through education, he
argued that focusing solely on traditional Sanskrit
learning would be detrimental. He contended that the
Sanskrit language was too complex and that the
knowledge contained within its texts was outdated and
lacked practical application in the modern world.

Instead, Roy passionately pleaded for the establishment

of a system of Western education. He emphasized the
importance of teaching subjects like mathematics, natural
philosophy, chemistry, and anatomy, which were
advancing rapidly in Europe. He believed that acquiring
knowledge in these fields would lead to the intellectual
and societal progress of India and enable Indians to
participate in contemporary scientific advancements.
Furthermore, he highlighted the necessity of English as
the medium of instruction, as it would provide Indians
with access to a vast repository of modern knowledge
and improve their socio-economic standing.

Roy’s letter critiqued the existing traditional Indian

education system for its overemphasis on metaphysics
and grammar, which he believed offered little practical
value. He argued that education should evolve to meet
the demands of the modern age and equip individuals
with useful skills.

While Lord Amherst did not immediately act upon Roy’s

suggestions, this letter is considered a landmark in the
history of Indian education. It played a crucial role in
shaping the discourse on education in India and
significantly influenced the subsequent educational
policies of the British government, including the eventual
push for English as a medium of instruction. Roy’s vision
of blending the best of Indian traditions with modern
Western knowledge laid the foundation for future
educational reforms in the country.
………………………..

Detail analysis of Ram Mohan Roy’s

Letter to lord Amherst in 3000 words
A Detailed Analysis of Raja Rammohan Roy’s Letter to
Lord Amherst (1823)
Raja Ram Mohan Roy’s letter to Lord Amherst, penned on
December 11, 1823, stands as a monumental document
in the intellectual and socio-political history of 19 th-
century India. More than just a plea for educational
reform, it encapsulates a profound understanding of the
forces shaping the modern world, a deep concern for the
future of his nation, and a courageous articulation of a
vision for India’s intellectual and societal advancement.
This detailed analysis will delve into the multifaceted
dimensions of this seminal letter, exploring its historical
context, key arguments, underlying philosophies,
immediate and long-term impact, and its enduring
relevance in the discourse on education and national
progress.

I. Historical Context: The Crossroads of Tradition and

Modernity

To fully appreciate the significance of Roy’s letter, it is

crucial to understand the historical backdrop against
which it was written. The early 19 th century in India was a
period of profound transition, marked by the
consolidation of British power and the increasing
interaction between Indian and Western cultures. The
East India Company, initially focused on trade, had
gradually established its political dominance, leading to
significant administrative and social changes.

The existing indigenous education system, largely

decentralized and diverse, primarily revolved around
traditional learning in Sanskrit, Persian, and Arabic. These
systems, while rich in their own philosophical and literary
traditions, were perceived by some, including Roy, as
increasingly inadequate to address the demands of the
changing world. The rise of scientific inquiry,
technological advancements, and Enlightenment ideals in
Europe had created a vast body of knowledge that
remained largely inaccessible to Indians educated solely
in traditional systems.

The British administration, while initially hesitant to

interfere with indigenous institutions, began to consider
the need for a more structured education system, partly
to create a class of educated Indians who could assist in
governance and commerce. However, debates raged
within the colonial administration regarding the nature
and content of this education. Orientalists advocated for
the promotion of classical Indian languages and learning,
believing it would foster understanding and respect
between the rulers and the ruled. Conversely, Anglicists
argued for the introduction of Western education,
emphasizing its perceived superiority in terms of
scientific and practical knowledge.
It was against this backdrop of intellectual ferment and
policy deliberation that Rammohan Roy, a polymath
deeply versed in both Eastern and Western thought,
stepped forward with his powerful intervention. His letter
to Lord Amherst was not merely a petition; it was a well-
reasoned and impassioned argument that directly
challenged the prevailing Orientalist viewpoint and laid
out a compelling case for the adoption of Western
education as the key to India’s progress.

II. The Genesis of the Letter: A Reaction to Policy and

a Vision for the Future

Roy’s letter was a direct response to the government’s

proposal to establish a new Sanskrit college in Calcutta.
While acknowledging the government’s stated intention
of improving the native population through education,
Roy fundamentally disagreed with the chosen means. His
opposition stemmed not from a rejection of learning itself,
but from a critical assessment of the limitations of
exclusively focusing on traditional Sanskrit scholarship in
the contemporary context.

Roy argued that the Sanskrit language, while possessing

a rich intellectual heritage, was “so difficult that almost a
life-time is necessary for its perfect acquisition.”
Furthermore, he contended that the knowledge contained
within traditional Sanskrit texts, particularly in areas like
law, logic, and metaphysics, was often outdated,
abstruse, and lacked practical application in the modern
world. He believed that investing significant resources in
promoting such learning would be a misallocation of
funds and would fail to equip Indians with the skills and
knowledge necessary for progress.

Instead, Roy passionately advocated for the

establishment of institutions that would impart “a more
liberal and enlightened system of instruction, embracing
Mathematics, Natural Philosophy, Chemistry, Anatomy,
and other useful Sciences.” He recognized the
transformative power of Western scientific knowledge and
believed that its introduction to India was essential for
the intellectual awakening and material advancement of
the nation. He envisioned an education system that
would empower Indians with critical thinking skills, foster
innovation, and enable them to engage with the rapidly
evolving global landscape.

III. Key Arguments and Underlying Philosophies:

Roy’s letter is a masterpiece of persuasive

argumentation, grounded in a unique blend of intellectual
insight, social concern, and a forward-looking vision.
Several key arguments underpin his plea for Western
education:

A. The Pragmatic Argument for Utility and Progress:

At the heart of Roy’s argument lies a strong emphasis on

the practical utility of knowledge. He believed that
education should equip individuals with skills and
understanding that could contribute to their material well-
being and the progress of society. He saw Western
sciences as possessing this practical value, offering
insights into the natural world and fostering technological
innovation. This pragmatic approach contrasted sharply
with the perceived impracticality of much of traditional
Sanskrit learning in the context of 19th-century realities.

Roy’s vision was not simply about acquiring knowledge

for its own sake; it was about harnessing knowledge as a
tool for social and economic upliftment. He understood
that access to modern scientific and technical knowledge
would open up new avenues for employment, innovation,
and overall societal development.

B. The Argument for Intellectual Enlightenment and

Critical Thinking:
Beyond practical utility, Roy recognized the importance of
education in fostering intellectual enlightenment and
critical thinking. He believed that the study of Western
sciences, with their emphasis on empirical observation,
logical reasoning, and questioning established dogma,
would cultivate a spirit of inquiry and rationalism among
Indians. This, he argued, was essential for breaking free
from outdated beliefs and fostering a more progressive
and dynamic society.

He implicitly critiqued the traditional system for its

reliance on rote learning and the unquestioning
acceptance of authority. He envisioned a system of
education that would empower individuals to think for
themselves, analyze information critically, and contribute
to the advancement of knowledge.

C. The Argument for Access to Global Knowledge

and the English Language:

Roy astutely recognized the pivotal role of the English

language as the key to unlocking the vast reservoir of
modern knowledge being generated in the West. He
argued that making English the medium of instruction
would provide Indians with direct access to the latest
scientific discoveries, philosophical ideas, and literary
works. He understood that relying solely on translations
would be a slow and inefficient process, hindering India’s
intellectual integration with the rest of the world.

His advocacy for English was not a rejection of Indian

languages but a pragmatic recognition of its global
significance and its potential to serve as a bridge to
modern knowledge. He believed that proficiency in
English would empower Indians to participate in
international intellectual discourse and compete
effectively in the modern world.

D.The Underlying Philosophy of Reform and

Progress:

Roy’s letter is deeply rooted in his overarching philosophy

of social and religious reform. He believed that India
needed to shed outdated customs and embrace modern
ideas in order to progress. Education, in his view, was the
cornerstone of this reform process. He saw the
introduction of Western education not as an imposition of
foreign values but as a necessary step towards India’s
intellectual and social regeneration.

His engagement with both Eastern a”d Western thought

allowed him to critically assess the strengths and
weaknesses of both traditions. He sought to synthesize
the best of both worlds, advocating for a system of
education that would be rooted in modern scientific
knowledge while also preserving and promoting India’s
rich cultural heritage (though his emphasis in this
particular letter is clearly on Western learning).

E. A Vision for a Modern and Self-Reliant India:

Underlying Roy’s arguments is a profound vision for a

modern and self-reliant India. He believed that education
was the key to empowering Indians to take their rightful
place in the world. By equipping them with modern
knowledge and critical thinking skills, he envisioned a
future where India could contribute meaningfully to global
progress and stand on its own terms.

His plea for Western education was not driven by a sense

of inferiority but by a deep-seated belief in India’s
potential and a desire to see his nation rise to its full
intellectual and societal stature.

IV. Immediate and Long-Term Impact:

While Lord Amherst’s immediate response to Roy’s letter

was not overwhelmingly positive, the document had a
significant and lasting impact on the discourse
surrounding education in India. It became a crucial point
of reference for subsequent debates and policy decisions.

A. Shaping the Discourse on Education:

Roy’s letter directly challenged the Orientalist perspective

and provided a powerful articulation of the Anglicist
viewpoint. It contributed significantly to the growing
momentum for the introduction of Western education in
India. His arguments resonated with a section of the
British administration and influential Indian intellectuals
who recognized the need for a more modern and practical
system of learning.

B. Influence on Educational Policy:

While the immediate establishment of institutions based

solely on Western learning did not occur as a direct
consequence of Roy’s letter, his arguments played a
crucial role in shaping the educational policies of the
British government in the subsequent decades. The
recommendations of the General Committee of Public
Instruction, which initially favored Oriental learning,
gradually shifted towards a greater emphasis on Western
sciences and the English language.
The landmark Macaulay's Minute on Education in 1835,
which advocated for English as the medium of instruction
and the promotion of Western science and literature, can
be seen as a culmination of the arguments articulated by
Roy and others who shared his vision. While Macaulay’s
approach had its own limitations and biases, it undeniably
marked a significant shift towards the adoption of
Western educational models in India.

C. Inspiring Future Generations:

Roy’s passionate advocacy for modern education inspired

generations of Indian reformers and intellectuals. His
letter served as a powerful reminder of the importance of
embracing progress and adapting to the changing world.
His vision of an educated and empowered India continued
to fuel the nationalist movement and the subsequent
development of India’s education system.

D.Fostering Intellectual Ferment:

E.
The debates sparked by Roy’s letter and the subsequent
policy shifts led to a period of intense intellectual ferment
in India. New schools and colleges based on Western
models were established, and Indian intellectuals actively
engaged with Western ideas, leading to a significant
transformation in the intellectual landscape of the
country.

V. Enduring Relevance:

Nearly two centuries after it was written, Roy’s letter to

Lord Amherst continues to hold significant relevance in
the ongoing discourse on education and national
progress. Several aspects of his arguments resonate with
contemporary challenges and debates:

A. The Importance of Relevance and Utility in

Education:

Roy’s emphasis on the practical utility of education

remains a crucial consideration in modern education
systems. The need to equip students with skills and
knowledge that are relevant to the demands of the
contemporary world and contribute to economic
development is a central concern for educators and
policymakers globally.

B. The Role of Science and Technology in National

Development:
Roy’s recognition of the transformative power of science
and technology is even more pertinent in the 21 st century.
In an era driven by rapid technological advancements,
the importance of fostering scientific literacy and
promoting research and innovation cannot be overstated.
His advocacy for the inclusion of science and
mathematics in the curriculum remains a cornerstone of
modern education systems worldwide.

C. The Significance of Language in Accessing

Knowledge:

The debate surrounding the medium of instruction

continues to be a complex issue in many multilingual
societies. Roy’s pragmatic approach to the English
language as a gateway to global knowledge offers
valuable insights into the challenges and opportunities
associated with language policy in education.

D.The Need for a Holistic and Progressive

Education System:

Roy’s vision of an education system that fosters critical

thinking, intellectual curiosity, and a spirit of inquiry
remains a guiding principle for educational reformers. The
need to move beyond rote learning and cultivate
independent thought is a constant challenge in education
systems across the globe.

E. Balancing Tradition and Modernity:

While Roy’s letter primarily focused on the need for

Western education, his broader intellectual project
involved a synthesis of Eastern and Western thought. The
ongoing challenge of how to integrate traditional
knowledge and values with modern scientific and
technological advancements remains a crucial
consideration for India and other nations seeking to
preserve their cultural heritage while embracing progress.

VI. Conclusion: A Testament to Vision and Courage

Raja Rammohan Roy’s letter to Lord Amherst is far more

than a historical document; it is a testament to the power
of vision, intellectual courage, and a deep commitment to
the progress of one’s nation. In a period of significant
cultural and political transition, Roy articulated a
compelling vision for India’s intellectual future,
advocating for an education system that would empower
its people with the knowledge and skills necessary to
navigate the modern world.
His arguments, grounded in a pragmatic understanding of
the changing global landscape and a profound belief in
the potential of human intellect, challenged the prevailing
orthodoxies and laid the groundwork for significant
educational reforms. While the implementation of his
vision was complex and often fraught with colonial
agendas, his fundamental insights into the importance of
modern knowledge, critical thinking, and access to global
intellectual currents continue to resonate today.

Roy’s letter stands as a powerful reminder of the

transformative potential of education and the crucial role
of intellectual leadership in shaping the destiny of a
nation. It remains an inspiring document for anyone
concerned with the advancement of knowledge, the
empowerment of individuals, and the pursuit of a more
progressive and enlightened future. His courageous
articulation of a modern vision for India’s education
continues to inform and inspire educational debates and
policy-making in the 21st century, solidifying its place as a
truly seminal document in the history of Indian thought
and social reform.
………………………………………………………………………………………………………
…………………,…

Periyar, the Educationist

By Modern Rationalist July 14, 2021

Periyar during the period of Plague

Capture

S. V. Rajadurai
Progressive – Critical writer

Many an eyebrow may be raised in the academia – in

utter disbelief and discomfort – if an attempt is made to
cast Periyar E.V.Ramasami in the role of an educationist, a
pedagogue of some worth. The uneasiness this attempt
causes can be attributed to more than one reason: firstly,
the space available within the academia for making
education an area of enquiry is very scant, if not totally
absent; secondly, the ‘commonsense’ understanding of
Periyar, even while reverential towards that Great Man
and conceding a social reformist role for him, considers
the notion of Periyar as an Educationist as something far-
fetched, since this understanding restricts the concept of
education to its formal, institutional structure and content
and technical forms – how come, a person, however great
he may be, with only a few years of schooling , that too
marked by more of abstention than by attendance, can
by any means be considered an ‘educationist’?; and
thirdly, even in instances where educational models are
subject to reviews and reappraisals, such enquiry is
invariably be underlined by instrumentalist notions of
education and behaviourist model of learning and/or
teaching, a model with positivist logic targeting the young
people for socialization, for moulding their basic needs
and expectations and for obtaining their consent to
hegemonising ideology and the material life forms and
styles of dominant sections. The world has seen and is
still seeing through the role of education in the game plan
of constructing a civil society where the hegemonic
elements remain either totally invisible or partially in
sight. In Indian context, it has been the Fascist forces that
blatantly seek to manipulate the educational system for
constructing a religiously bigoted civil society and it
would take years to remove the cultural landmines it has
planted in textbooks, curricula and the rest of the
structure of learning. Unfortunately the political and
social forces involved in emancipatory projects are yet to
take up adequate and bold measures to remedy the
immense damage the communal forces have caused to
the entire pedagogic system in our nation. Caught in the
greatest crisis of our era- the Covid-19 pandemic – even
the States under the rule of secular, democratic and left
forces are struggling to see the thorough overhauling of
their educational systems and institutions poisoned with
irrational , religious and casteist characters.

In a society that has developed an indigenous Eugenics

with a claim that intelligence and proclivity to learning
inhere only in a certain caste or a group of castes and
that the rest of the society is fit only for ‘hewing the wood
and drawing the water’, whatever educational models
designed in the past had been the prerogatives and
privileges of the few. The large chunk of the society was
fated to wallow in the mire of illiteracy and superstition. It
is a paradox that while other countries of the world
suffered economic exploitation and cultural domination
by the aliens, particularly the white colonialists who
intervened in every aspect of their subjects’ life forcing
them yield to the imposed rule, in our country, the letters
and words of the languages spoken by the vast majority
of the populace that constituted the productive classes
(or castes) reached them only through the measures
(‘benign’ or ‘malign’, according to the perspectives of
each one concerned) introduced by the alien masters.

To speak of the much derided and condemned

educational policy of Lord Macaulay – it may sound
blasphemous to those schooled in unadulterated
patriotism – , it was indeed as one of the unconscious
tools of the history to usher those condemned to mental
darkness unto the threshold of modernity and
enlightenment. Despite the conscious and unconscious
prejudices a white liberal had against the native race and
an uninformed assessment of the intellectual, particularly
the literary achievements of the Orient, Lord Macaulay
was however the first to liberate the educational system
from the clutches of obscurantism which was continued
to be defended by the social orthodoxy by invoking
Queen Victoria’s declaration assuring neutrality on all
religious matters. It was only from the days of Macaulay,
the Indians received “a more liberal and enlightened
system of instruction embracing mathematics, natural
philosophy, chemistry, anatomy and other useful
sciences” as desired by the great social reformer Raja
Ram Mohan Roy. In his famous (or infamous) minutes
Macaulay wrote:
Assuredly, it is the British Government in India to be not
only tolerant, but neutral in all religious questions. But to
encourage the study of a literature admitted to be of
small intrinsic value only because that literature
inculcates the most serious errors on the most important
subjects, is a course hardly reconcilable with reason, with
morality, or even with the very neutrality which ought, as
we all agree, to be sacredly preserved. It is confessed
that a language is barren of useful knowledge. We are
told to teach it because it is fruitful 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 trust we
shall always abstain from giving public encouragement to
those who are engaged in the work 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 ?

The subsequent educational policie” of the British Indian

Government drew liberally from the one elucidated by
Macaulay, eventually shedding much of its elitist
character and making it possible for a larger populace to
profit from the modern education which was preceded or
followed by the new and western discourses on rights
that made the colonial subjects at least formally equal
before law. It is no wonder then, the great anti-caste
movements of nineteenth and twentieth centuries and
their leaders had quite a few things positive to say about
the advent of British rule. The modern education and the
discourses on rights of the people introduced by the
British also brought into being the bi-lingual nationalist
intelligentia which, combining the notion of western
democracy with the invocation of the Indian (Hindu) past
set about imagining and then actually realizing an Indian
Nation. Periyar with his characteristic sarcasm
commented on the patriotism of the Nationalist Brahmins
who were the greatest beneficiaries of modern
educational system introduced by the ‘mlechchas’:

Let us examine the present condition of politics in our

country. Today in the political world there are two sets of
people that are making much noise, viz the Congressmen
and the Independents. What are their qualifications? Let
us examine their “deeds” and “sacrifices” in the name of
politics. On the Congress platform they would declare
that the “Satanic” British Government should be swept off
at once. People would also applaud them. But their sons,
brothers and relations would be earning Rs. 500, 1000,
2000 & 3000 a month as Munsiffs and Judges under the
same Government. Their heroic declarations would but
serve to strengthen the positions of their relations in the
various professions and yet they will be masquerading in
the name of the country.
The Secretary of the Congress, Mr. Rangasami Iyengar
would roar, “we must obstruct the Government form
functioning and beard the lion in its own den.” But his
brother would crawl into the den of Government, bow low
to the Britisher, lick at his feet and hold the banner of the
Bureaucracy. Mr.S. Srinivasa Iyengar, the Independent-
wallah would ask others to do away with the British
connection, but, every morning he would unconsciously
find himself at the feet of the judges addressing the
representatives of the “satanic” government as “Your
Lordship, Your Honour” etc. and would coolly pocket a few
thousands. His creed of independence would also help
him in securing fresh appointments for his kith and kin.

And there are other political magnates who are said to be

intoxicated with too much of patriotism. Messrs. Srinivasa
Sastri T. Rangachari, Mani Iyer, V. Krishnasami Iyer, C.P.
Ramasami Iyer, C. Vijayaraghavachari are names to be
conjured with. And surely their sons, nephews, brothers,
brothers-in-law and other relations are reaping the fruits
of these “patriotic” brains. Those that are unfit for
Government services and those that are retired from
service have come out as patriots, but their sons, and
relations are in the service of the “Satanic” Government.

It was these Nationalists who were crying hoarse against

the social justice the Non Brahmin movement wanted to
introduce dubbing it as communalism! The idea of
Nationhood was a contested territory; for the Nationalists,
‘Swaraj’ was a birthright; for the anti-caste leaders like
Baba Saheb Ambedkar and Periyar, ‘Self-Respect’ was the
birthright, which, they never believed would accrue to the
down-trodden masses represented by them either by the
good will of the British or by the Nationalists. They did not
believe that a mere transfer of power, or the political
democracy based on ‘one man-one vote’ would ensure
the liberty, fraternity and equality of their women and
men in India, unless the social democracy based on ‘one
man-one value’ is rendered tangible. But this was not an
easy task. All the mucks of the past and present in the
form of hierarchical caste system was weighing like an
incubus on the civil society whose political expression,
according to Periyar is the Indian state. For Ambedkar and
Periyar, every aspect of Indian life was informed and
guided by the code of Manu and Varnashrama which fed
on Vedas, Smritis, Shastras and Puranas . However, like
Ambedkar, Periyar exhorted the Ad-Dravidas to free
themselves of their internalized oppression and made it
clear that they had been condemned to a life of un-
cleanliness and were not allowed to be blamed for the
excreable conditions in which they lived.:

Why must you unnecessarily address other castemen as

Swami? The sense of being a low caste person seems to
have mingled completely with your blood. But you must
endeavour to change this. Whenever you see a person—
of another caste—you must ask yourselves, if in reality
there exists any difference between him and you. One
cannot help a caste that is not concerned about its own
self-respect to progress. Each one of you must recognise
and be conscious of the fact that you are human …If your
clothes are dirty and you appear unwashed, who is
responsible for this state of affairs? When you do not
have access to drinking water, how can you possibly
bathe? It is not as if you were born smelly and dirty . . . If
mahants and Shankaracharyas were denied access to
water to bathe, wash their clothes and brush their teeth
and were to be locked up in a house for days, would their
clothes remain spotless? Would their bodies smell
fragrant?

To Periyar, caste was, simultaneously, a system and

ideology; it comprised a complex set of social relations,
as well as those principles which informed, sustained and
justified these relations. As a system, caste served the
interests of Brahmins who were its favoured agents and
existed chiefly to gratify and perpetrate their sense of
their own superiority. As an ideology, caste worked to
ensure the notions of ‘high’ and ‘low’ birth were accepted
as given by the peoples who were marked thus. The
ideology of caste-referred to by Periyar as Brahminism,
Varnadharma and Hindusim – held that society could not
have been divided otherwise; and offered a range of
explanations and arguments as to why this hierarchy had
to be and why it was desirable. He and other Self-
Respecters considered the abolition of untouchability and
emancipation of Non-Brahmin Shudras were absolutely
indispensable for the destruction of caste, but also
insisted that these two differently oppressed segments
come together into a new relationship of mutuality and
reciprocity. Untouchability was understood, both as an
instance of a general inhumanity and arrogance derived
from the notions of ‘high’ birth, and a condition that was
fundamental to the very existence of caste society. In
their view, all imprecations to freedom, equality and
justice were in vain, if they did not address this extremely
crucial problem, and not merely from a religious and
moral point of view. Untouchables were, first and
foremost, workers whose labour through the centuries
had made possible and ensured the wealth and welfare of
caste society as a whole. Unless untouchables were freed
from servitude and fear, all talk of freedom and self-rule
of the Indians could only be construed as partisan and
narrow in its concerns.

(to be continued)

Previous Post

Advice to Student Volunteers

Next Post

Thoughts on Education Policy for Tamil Nadu…..

Letter to Lord Amherst by Rammohan Roy

summary
Raja Rammohan Roy’s “Letter to Lord Amherst”
(December 11, 1823) is a significant historical document
where he passionately advocates for the introduction of
Western education in India. Here’s a summary of his key
points:

Acknowledgement of Government’s Intention: Roy

begins by acknowledging the British government’s
“laudable desire…to improve the Natives of India by
education” through the establishment of a new Sanskrit
school in Calcutta.
Plea for Western Sciences: However, he respectfully
argues that focusing solely on Sanskrit learning will not
be beneficial for the intellectual progress of the country.
He passionately pleads for the government to allocate
resources to teach “Mathematics, Natural Philosophy,
Chemistry, Anatomy, and other useful Sciences” which
have propelled European nations to advancements.
Critique of Traditional Learning: Roy contends that
the proposed Sanskrit school will only impart knowledge
that is “already current in India” – grammatical intricacies
and metaphysical distinctions of little practical use. He
suggests that students will merely acquire knowledge
from “two thousand years ago” with the addition of “vain
and empty subtleties.”
Emphasis on Practical Utility: He underscores the
practical benefits of Western scientific knowledge,
implying its relevance for societal progress and the
empowerment of individuals.
Comparison with European History: To illustrate his
point, Roy urges Lord Amherst to compare the state of
science and literature in Europe before the time of Francis
Bacon with the significant progress made since then,
attributing it to the cultivation of useful sciences.
Call for European Educators: He suggests employing
“European Gentlemen of talents and education” to
instruct Indian natives in these modern subjects and
establishing a college equipped with necessary books and
instruments.
Respectful but Firm Tone: While expressing gratitude
for the government’s efforts in education, Roy maintains
a firm stance on the necessity of Western education for
the true intellectual and societal advancement of India.
He frames his arguments as a “solemn duty” to his
countrymen and the enlightened British sovereign.
In essence, Rammohan Roy’s letter is a powerful and
forward-thinking appeal for a modern, scientific education
system in India, arguing that it is essential for the
nation’s progress and for bringing India on par with the
advancements of the West. He believed that this form of
education would be more beneficial and practically useful
than a system solely focused on traditional Sanskrit
learning.