The history of education and caste in pre-colonial and early colonial India remains one of the most contested subjects in modern historiography. A recurring claim in public discourse is that “Brahminical Hindus” maintained a rigid monopoly over knowledge, systematically excluding lower castes from learning until colonial intervention. However, the education surveys conducted by Scottish missionary William Adam in Bengal and Bihar during the 1830s are frequently cited to challenge this narrative. His reports provide valuable data on indigenous “native schools” and reveal a more complex educational landscape than commonly assumed.
https://twitter.com/MumukshuSavitri/status/2021823431952695751
William Adam’s Surveys: Background
William Adam, a Scottish Baptist missionary, was commissioned by Governor-General Lord William Bentinck in the mid-1830s to examine the condition of education in Bengal and Bihar. Between 1835 and 1838, Adam submitted three detailed reports documenting indigenous village schools. These institutions were locally managed, funded by communities or parents, and conducted in regional languages such as Bengali and Hindi. Importantly, they operated outside direct British administrative control and were separate from missionary schools.
Adam’s work is often considered one of the earliest systematic attempts to map traditional education in eastern India. His findings have since become a focal point in debates over caste participation in pre-modern education.
Student Demographics: Evidence from the surveys
In districts such as Burdwan, Adam recorded a diverse student body. Of the over 12,000 Hindu students documented, Brahmins accounted for roughly 27.6%, while other upper castes made up the remaining portion of the population. Shudra students represented nearly half of the total, and students from communities categorised as “Avarna” were also present.
Similarly, in South Bihar, Adam’s data indicated that Brahmins and other upper castes together accounted for less than one-fifth of students in indigenous schools. A large majority came from occupational and agrarian communities typically classified as Shudra, with smaller but notable representation from groups identified as lower castes.
Supporters of the argument that caste barriers to education were less rigid than commonly portrayed point to these numbers as evidence that village schools admitted students from varied social backgrounds. Adam himself remarked that members of “all castes, both high and low” participated in education.
Adam also compared indigenous Hindu schools with missionary schools operating at the time. In some districts, a larger proportion of students from the lowest caste groups appeared to be enrolled in local native schools rather than missionary institutions. Proponents of a revisionist view argue that this undermines the colonial narrative portraying missionary education as the primary pathway to learning for marginalised communities.
Teacher Diversity and Social Mobility
Another notable aspect of Adam’s reports concerns teachers. While Brahmins and Kayasthas made up a significant share of instructors, Adam documented teachers from various occupational and lower-caste backgrounds as well. He even observed cases where families from higher social strata sent children to schools run by teachers of different castes or religious backgrounds. Advocates of a pluralistic interpretation argue that this reflects a degree of social flexibility within educational practices at the local level.
Colonial Narratives and Historical Interpretation
Some modern commentators argue that British colonial authorities exaggerated caste exclusion in order to justify educational intervention and missionary expansion under a “civilising mission.” They see Adam’s statistics as evidence that indigenous systems already offered a degree of inclusivity.
However, many historians caution against sweeping conclusions. While Adam’s data provides insight into certain regions and types of schooling, it does not necessarily reflect the entire Indian subcontinent or all forms of education. Elite Sanskritic or religious learning, for instance, often remained more restricted. Additionally, enrollment in elementary village schools did not automatically translate into equal access to advanced education or social mobility.
William Adam’s education surveys remain a crucial primary source for understanding early nineteenth-century indigenous schooling in eastern India. They highlight the presence of students and teachers from a wide range of castes and suggest that village education was more socially diverse than some simplified narratives imply.
