A few days ago, the official Congress Kerala handle shared an article on X titled The Tyranny of Merit. This piece sought to reinforce Rahul Gandhi’s argument that “merit is flawed.” Notably, last Thursday, Rahul Gandhi attacked merit in India as ‘unfair’ to the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes and Other Backward Castes. He also promoted ‘caste census’, meant to divide the Hindu community.
In a podcast with ‘economist’ Sukhadeo Thorat, Rahul Gandhi claimed, “I have had discussions with people about the caste census, where I am saying, look, all we are doing is exposing the truth. Nothing else. And they will say to me directly that no, one must not expose this truth.”
The Tyranny of Merit
When @RahulGandhi spoke about the concept of merit is flawed, he means a lot of things. We are often forced to believe that success is purely based on talent and hard work, which is the foundation of meritocracy argument. Well it is not. In his book The… pic.twitter.com/TwuiZPpnYd— Congress Kerala (@INCKerala) March 22, 2025
On 22 March, the Kerala Congress posted a long message titled ‘The Tyranny of Merit’ on X in support of Rahul Gandhi’s attack on merit, drawing upon the work of American philosopher Michael Sandel, who authored a book by the same name.
In an attempt to adapt this leftist-socialist American perspective to the Indian context, the Congress party referenced historical “facts” from a 2011 FirstPost article. The article alleged that when the British introduced the English education system in 1854, only a handful of students could pass and progress to the college level. Supposedly, a group of Tamil Brahmins petitioned the Governor-General to create a “Third Class” for their children, resulting in the lowering of the passing percentage from 45% to 33%. Furthermore, it claimed that India’s indigenous education system was inherently discriminatory, barring students from the so-called “depressed classes”.
However, a thorough analysis reveals that much of the information presented in this FirstPost article is either unverified or completely fabricated. It is startling that such claims—many of which have been debunked by scholars—were published by a reputed news portal and subsequently amplified by a national party.
Below is an examination of the misleading claims and the factual evidence that refutes them.
Claim 1: The Indigenous Education System Excluded Lower Caste Students
The article suggests that British surveys from the early 19th century (such as the Thomas Munro Survey of the Madras Presidency and Bombay Presidency survey) indicated that no students from the so-called “depressed classes” were included in indigenous education systems.
Fact: Contrary to this claim, British surveys reveal that a significant percentage of lower-caste students were enrolled in indigenous schools, including those from “depressed classes”.
Key British Surveys and Their Findings
1. Thomas Munro Survey (Madras Presidency, 1822-26):
Ordered by Governor Thomas Munro, this survey was conducted across the districts of the Madras presidency to understand the indigenous education system and also to gather the caste-wise distribution of students in the schools.
The students were categorized into four groups: Brahmins, Vaishyas, Shudras, and Other Castes (which also included the present-day Scheduled Castes). The data showed that nearly 64% of students belonged to the Shudra and Other Caste categories.
2. A.D. Campbell’s Report (Bellary, 1822-23):
Another official report, prepared by A.D. Campbell, the Collector of Bellary, showed that the so-called lower castes made up 66% of the indigenous student population. As per his report, in the district of Bellary, there were 533 schools with a student population of 6,338. The caste-wise distribution of the students (males) was as follows:
Other castes: 1,205 (18.8%)
Brahmin: 1,187 (18.6%)
Vaishya: 982 (15.3%)
Shudra: 3,024 (47.3%)
3. William Adam Reports (Bengal Presidency, 1836-38):
This survey, commissioned by then Governor-General of India, Lord William Bentinck, revealed that Brahmins and Kayasthas made up less than 40% of students in Bengal and only 15-16% in Bihar. The majority of students in both regions belonged to lower castes.
*Other castes included castes considered lower than Shudras (current-day scheduled castes or Dalits)
Data from the Burdwan district highlighted a notable trend, there were 61 Dom and 61 Chandal school students (so-called depressed castes). Additionally, lower caste students were enrolled in significantly higher numbers in indigenous gurukuls compared to missionary schools. In Burdwan’s 13 missionary schools, only 86 Dalit students were recorded (including just 4 scholars from the Dom and Chandal castes), whereas 663 scholars from these same castes were studying in native (indigenous) schools.
4. T.B. Jervis Survey (Bombay Presidency, 1824-25):
This survey documented a diverse student population, with many students and teachers from non-Brahmin artisanal backgrounds.
Further Evidence of Indigenous Education Accessibility
A report from the Bombay Education Society in 1819 observed that “Schools are frequent among natives and abound everywhere.” Supporting this observation, Mr. Prendergast, a member of the Executive Council of the Government of Bombay, noted:
“I need hardly mention that there is hardly a village in which there is not at least one school, and in larger villages, there are several. Many exist in every town, and in large cities, they can be found in every division, where young natives are taught reading, writing, and arithmetic. There is hardly a cultivator or petty dealer who is not competent to keep his own accounts with a degree of accuracy.”
These British reports confirm that indigenous education was widespread and accessible, particularly among lower castes. In fact, Adam’s report also highlighted that a few teachers came from the so-called depressed classes.
This data thoroughly debunks the author’s claim that indigenous schools were inaccessible to the lower strata of society.
Claim 2: Tamil Brahmins Petitioned for a “Third Class” to Lower Passing Standards
The article claims that when the British education system was introduced, it initially had only two divisions—First Class and Second Class—without a “Third Class” category. It further alleges that in the late 19th century, a group of Tamil Brahmins petitioned the British to create a “Third Class” for students who were unable to meet the 45% passing requirement.
Fact: No verifiable historical evidence supports this claim. The two sources cited by the article—History of Education in India during British Period (1943) by Nurullah Syed and the 1902 Indian Universities Commission Report—contain no mention of such an incident. Additionally, other contemporary reports, including the Hunter Commission Report (1882) and History of Education in the Madras Presidency, make no reference to this claim.
Evidence from historical records suggests that the “Third Class” designation was likely present from the early days of these institutions, aligning with British academic traditions, where classifications like First, Second, and Third Class were standard in universities. For example, the University of London—established before Indian universities in 1857—followed a similar grading structure, which later served as a model for institutions in Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras.
Moreover, the reduction of passing percentages under the Third Class category was likely an administrative adjustment rather than a formal commission recommendation, potentially implemented at the institutional level to accommodate educational disparities observed among Indian students in early university examinations.
Claim 3: The British Aimed to Educate All Classes, but Upper Castes Opposed It
The article argues that the British government sought to provide education to all social classes but faced resistance from upper-caste Hindus.
Fact: The British initially adopted a restrictive “downward filtration policy,” a concept advocated by Lord Macaulay. Under this policy, education was deliberately limited to upper-class Indians, with the expectation that they would disseminate knowledge to lower strata of society. Macaulay explicitly stated that he sought to create a class of Indians who were “Indian in blood and color, but English in taste, opinions, morals, and intellect.”
Early British educational institutions, such as the Sanskrit colleges in Calcutta, Banaras, and Poona (1790-1820), catered almost exclusively to Brahmins. British officials like M. Elphinstone, the Lieutenant-Governor of Bombay, insisted on recruiting only Brahmins as teachers and restricting college admissions to students from “respectable backgrounds.” Furthermore, members of Bengal’s General Committee of Public Instruction (1823) argued that that its aim should be to educate “respectable individuals, of whom its members will consist of men, who by their Brahmanical birth, as well as by their learning, exercise a powerful influence on the minds of every order of the community.” H. T. Prinsep, a member of this committee adamantly refused to allow the Calcutta Madrassa to teach English to “a very inferior class of scholars, particularly sons of domestic servants.”
Examining the Author’s Bias
A closer examination of the author Chandra Bhan Prasad and his posts on X reveals a consistent pattern of anti-Hindu and anti-Brahmin rhetoric. In his FirstPost article, he explicitly refers to the Hindu upper class as “immoral and shameless.”
His exact words from the article state:
“What is the point of discussing Aarakshan with the upper class which has morally fallen and has no sense of shame or guilt?”
Additionally, in various social media posts, he has used derogatory terms such as “mouth-born” and “Sulabh Shauchalaya” to mock Brahmins. This pattern of discourse raises concerns about the objectivity and credibility of his arguments.
Conclusion
Historical records clearly indicate that India’s indigenous education system was far more inclusive than the article suggests. The British, rather than Hindu upper castes, were responsible for restricting educational opportunities through the systematic dismantling of native institutions and the imposition of elitist education policies.
Furthermore, the author of the FirstPost article demonstrates a clear ideological bias, using inflammatory language against Hindu upper castes in both his writings and social media posts. This raises serious questions about his credibility and the motivations behind his claims.
The FirstPost article appears to be a deliberate propaganda piece designed to propagate an anti-upper caste, Hinduphobic narrative using misinformation and unverifiable claims. It is unfortunate that a reputed news portal published this article without verifying its sources, and even more concerning that a national party like Congress is using it as the basis for its anti-merit rhetoric.
0
0
Average Rating