( 3 ) THE PRESIDENCY COLLEGE, Calcutta, 3oth January 1895. From MoULVIE ABDUL MONAIM, Professor of Arabic Presidency College, SIR, In reference to your Circular letter dated the 5th of January 1895, I beg leave to say that, though nothing is nearer and dearer to my heart than the advancement of vernacular languages, yet I cannot approve of the proposal to make the vernacular languages the medium of instruction up to Entrance Examination of the Calcutta University in History, Geography, and Mathematics. Such an attempt, in my humble opinion, would greatly tend to defeat the object the University has in view namely, the English education. Text books on history, I believe, form no weaker vehicle of teaching a language, specially when it is a foreign one than the text books on literature itself. Consequently by the substitution of vernacular text books for English text books on the subject, one of the chief means of teaching English would be taken away. As to Geography and Mathematics I am afraid, the same amount of precision and exactness that is desirable in the instruction of any subject would not be secured if they be taught in vernaculars. As regards suitable text books on these subjects, it is doubtful whether the vernaculars marginally noted possess good and suitable works on these subjects. I know that the Bengali language alone is rich and can, to some extent, supply the want. But Urdu which is emphatically the language of the Mohammedans does not possess suitable books at all on these subjects. It is a notorious fact that our young gentlemen, passing their Entrance examination, cannot write few simple lines in English, Under these circumstances if one of the principal mediums of teaching English to the learners be taken away, the students at large will have greatly to suffer. We should no doubt try to enrich our vernaculars with various useful works on important sciences. By the substitution of Bengali histories in place of English books, our language will have only some translations and translations indeed do not enrich a language. Therefore, the step which deprives our students of one of the two principal mediums of imparting English education to our youths, and, at the same time, does not tend to the real development and progress of our vernaculars, is not a desirable one. As to the and part of the 1st question I would not say anything more than this-that it would entail upon the students the same difficulties under
