Raleigh Commission

The Raleigh Commission, formally known as the Indian Universities Commission of 1902, was appointed by the British Government to examine and reform the condition of higher education in colonial India. Headed by Sir Thomas Raleigh, the Commission marked a turning point in the history of Indian education, laying the foundation for the later Indian Universities Act of 1904. Its establishment reflected both administrative concern for educational efficiency and the colonial intent to strengthen control over the growing sphere of Indian higher learning.

Background and Context

By the end of the 19th century, the system of higher education in India—established primarily through the Universities of Calcutta, Bombay, and Madras (1857) and later Allahabad (1887) and Punjab (1882)—was facing widespread criticism. The universities, originally conceived as examining bodies rather than teaching institutions, had expanded rapidly but lacked uniform academic standards and effective administration.
Several issues prompted the British government to reconsider the structure of Indian universities:

• Overcrowding and Decline in Standards: The growing number of affiliated colleges had strained resources, leading to deteriorating academic quality.
• Neglect of Scientific and Technical Education: The curriculum remained heavily literary and theoretical, producing a glut of arts graduates unsuited for industrial or administrative work.
• Rise of Nationalist Sentiments: Universities had become centres of political awakening and anti-colonial thought, alarming the colonial administration.
• Need for Bureaucratic Reform: The government sought to align higher education with imperial administrative and economic interests.

In response, Lord Curzon, the Viceroy of India (1899–1905), initiated a thorough review of university education. He believed that the educational system required stricter regulation to curb inefficiency and what he viewed as political radicalism among students. Consequently, he established the Raleigh Commission on 27 January 1902.

Composition of the Commission

The Raleigh Commission was chaired by Sir Thomas Raleigh, a distinguished jurist and member of the Indian Civil Service. The commission comprised 21 members, including both British and Indian representatives. Notable members included:

• Sir Thomas Raleigh (Chairman)
• Syed Hussain Bilgrami
• Raja Sir Kishen Pershad
• Dr. Ashutosh Mukherjee
• Harold Stuart, J. Harvey Adamson, and other senior officials.

Although a few Indians were included, the Commission was largely dominated by British administrators, which influenced its orientation towards bureaucratic control rather than academic autonomy.

Objectives of the Commission

The Raleigh Commission was appointed with the following key objectives:

• To inquire into the condition and prospects of Indian universities and their affiliated colleges.
• To review the existing system of university governance, examinations, and curricula.
• To recommend measures for improving the quality of teaching and research.
• To advise the government on the need for legislative reform in university administration.

Findings and Observations

After extensive investigation and consultation, the Commission submitted its report in 1902, highlighting several weaknesses in the Indian higher education system.
1. Administrative Weakness: Universities lacked effective governance structures. The Senates and Syndicates, dominated by non-academic members, were inefficient and often politicised.
2. Poor Academic Standards: The Commission criticised the overemphasis on examinations and rote learning. It observed that colleges focused more on producing degree-holders than promoting intellectual development.
3. Inadequate Funding and Infrastructure: Universities and affiliated colleges suffered from financial constraints, insufficient libraries, laboratories, and qualified teachers.
4. Limited Scientific and Technical Training: The system continued to produce graduates in arts and humanities, with negligible attention to science, technology, and vocational education, which were essential for industrial progress.
5. Over-affiliation of Colleges: The Commission noted that universities had affiliated too many colleges without ensuring proper standards, leading to administrative overload and academic decline.
6. Political Agitation: Echoing Lord Curzon’s concerns, the report remarked that universities had become breeding grounds for political agitation and anti-British sentiment, which required stricter supervision.

Recommendations

The Raleigh Commission made several recommendations aimed at improving the quality and control of higher education in India:

• Reduction of Affiliated Colleges: To maintain quality, the number of affiliated institutions should be limited to those meeting prescribed academic and infrastructural standards.
• Strengthening of University Senates and Syndicates: The composition of governing bodies should be restructured to include more officials and fewer elected members.
• Appointment of Full-time Vice-Chancellors: Universities should have permanent heads responsible for administration and academic leadership.
• Emphasis on Teaching and Research: Universities should promote direct teaching through constituent colleges and foster original research.
• Improvement of Secondary and Collegiate Education: The Commission recommended closer coordination between schools and universities to ensure a continuous educational framework.
• Government Supervision: The colonial government should exercise greater control over universities to ensure discipline, efficiency, and loyalty to imperial objectives.

These recommendations clearly reflected Lord Curzon’s philosophy of centralised control and bureaucratic efficiency rather than academic freedom.

The Indian Universities Act of 1904

The recommendations of the Raleigh Commission culminated in the enactment of the Indian Universities Act, 1904, during Lord Curzon’s tenure. The Act aimed to regulate and modernise higher education but was also criticised for tightening government authority over academic institutions.
Salient features of the 1904 Act included:

• The Governor-General was empowered to make regulations for university administration.
• The number of elected representatives in university bodies was reduced, while nominated officials increased.
• The government gained the right to veto university decisions.
• Conditions for college affiliation were made more stringent.
• Universities were encouraged to promote research and scientific study.
• The appointment of salaried Vice-Chancellors was made compulsory.

Although the Act improved the administrative efficiency of universities, it significantly curtailed their academic autonomy and self-governing character, leading to protests among Indian intellectuals and nationalists.

Reaction and Criticism

The Raleigh Commission and the subsequent Universities Act were met with strong opposition from Indian leaders, educators, and students. Critics argued that the reforms were designed not to promote education but to suppress nationalist sentiment and ensure political conformity.

• Indian National Congress condemned the Act as an attempt to “enslave education.”
• Eminent scholars such as Gopal Krishna Gokhale, Bal Gangadhar Tilak, and Surendranath Banerjea criticised the curtailment of academic independence.
• Students organised protests across major universities, viewing the new measures as an extension of imperial control.

Despite opposition, the Act remained in force and continued to shape university governance until later reforms in the 1910s and 1920s.

Significance and Legacy

The Raleigh Commission holds a significant place in the evolution of India’s educational policy for several reasons:

1. Institutional Reform: It was the first comprehensive inquiry into higher education across British India, setting a precedent for later commissions such as the Sadler Commission (1917–19).
2. Foundation for Modern University System: Though restrictive, its recommendations introduced administrative professionalism and academic structure in universities.
3. Stimulus for Educational Nationalism: The restrictive nature of the 1904 Act led to widespread resentment and inspired Indian leaders to establish national educational institutions, such as the Bengal National College (1906) and later Visva-Bharati (1921).
4. Shift in Educational Policy: It marked the transition from laissez-faire university administration to a state-controlled educational system, reflecting broader colonial strategies of governance.