Macky's Mart

The New Foundationer –
Claude Martin’s Boys

As the College moved towards 175 years of its establishment, the philanthropic component of the Founder’s Will was re-examined in accordance with the exigencies of contemporary times. Through nearly two centuries, Trustees, Governors and Administrators have tweaked the tenets of the Will and the Scheme of Administration while still staying on the right side of the law. It is well known that legal rules can produce unjust outcomes. La Martiniere College, Lucknow has been burdened with this reality.

Perhaps ironically, the phrase, “the law is an ass” was popularized by Charles Dickens in Oliver Twist, a novel based upon the appalling conditions of orphans and abandoned children in Victorian England. Published in 1838, two years before the Court Decree by which the College was founded, the idiom is often used to describe situations where following the letter of the law defies logic or fairness, often leading to ridiculous outcomes. The way Maj. Gen. Claude Martin’s bequest has been toyed with may be seen in this context. This is apparent in the way the charitable, gratuitous and philanthropic spirit of his Will has been circumscribed over the decades by the harness of the law. It is seen that the law is not always synonymous with justice or common sense. Decisions, especially those related to charity, seem morally wrong when they are blindly influenced by the literal text of a statute. A literal or inflexible application of the law has led to an absurd or unjust outcome.

This non-application of the spirit of altruism and generosity, while scrupulously following the letter of the law through convenient interpretation has done great disservice to the memory of the Founder and prospective beneficiaries of his largesse.

1. The College was established as an institution that would be sustained on the investment made by the capital left by the Founder.
2. The majority of boys, or some might interpret it as all pupils, were to taken care of by the Foundation.
3. The College was established with the best of intentions, utilizing the best financial minds in British India and later, the Republic of India. This was to secure the capital of the institution and make safe, judicious investments.
4. The Founder Will and the Scheme of Administration envisaged a school for boys, irrespective of race and religion.
5. The letter of the law was applied by two departments being established – a European and Anglo-Indian section and an Oriental or Native section.
6. Following the events of 1857, the native department was relocated and gradually ground to the dust.
7. Provision was made for lodging, boarding and domestic arrangements for at least 25% of the total pupil strength. Residence in the College was compulsory for Foundation pupils.
8. Parents who could afford fees and desired to have their sons educated at the College were granted admission for their sons as resident scholars.
9. The absolute number of Foundation pupils was never set. Governors from time to time set an arbitrary number. By practice this seemed to stabilize at 100.
10. Interpretations of the letter of the law began with the introduction of supernumerary Foundationers, from whose parents, concessional fees were received.
11. The nomenclature for supernumerary resident-scholars was converted to demi-Foundationer.
12. Resident Scholars, whose parents could pay for boarding and lodging facilities became to first Boarders.
13. Day-scholar pupils were reluctantly permitted to seek admission on the payment of appropriate fees.
14. The College was seen as primarily a residential institution.
15. Segregation by race was the norm. After much struggle, Indian pupils were admitted, but only as day-scholars.
16. With the withdrawal of the British and Anglo-Indians from India following Independence, it was expedient to admit Indian boys as day scholars. Later Indian boys shared facilities for boarding and lodging when admitted as resident scholars.
17. To keep the economy afloat, day scholar pupils were admitted in large numbers. India was moving towards the goal of mass education.
18. The Foundation pupils were relegated to the lowest priority: numbers were retained to fulfil the letter of the law.
19. Skewered fee policy and self-imposed restrictions, not envisaged by the Founder, required that numbers admitted had to be multiplied to make ends meet. This could only be done by admitting day scholars whose numbers soon overtook the resident scholars. This rapidly changed the tone of the institution.
20. Junior classes were sanctioned. Multiple sections were sanctioned. Pre-school groups were introduced. Class strength burgeoned. The western character was replaced largely by non-westernised staff and Hindi speaking pupils.

The Spirit vs the Letter of the Law

The legal foundation for the continuance of the system of Foundation pupils is the Will of Major General Claude Martin. The College exists because a court decree ordered that his charitable intentions be carried out, after prolonged litigation that culminated in binding judicial schemes in 1839 and 1841. The College is therefore not merely a school, but a charitable trust created by testamentary direction. Claude Martin expressly set aside a substantial portion of his estate for education. His belief was that access to education should be made easier for the young, particularly those without means.

Under the scheme created to implement the Will, “Foundationers” are students supported from the Founder’s endowment. They are provided tuition, boarding, lodging, clothing and education at free of cost. This support exists because of the Founder’s charitable bequest, not as a discretionary welfare measure.

With the changes that have occurred that could not be envisaged by the Founder, the spirit of the law must take precedence over the formality of the letter of the law. This means giving effect to the underlying intention of the law giver rather than relying only on narrow technical wording. As applied to La Martiniere College, Lucknow, Maj. Gen. Claude Martin’s intentions were to make education accessible by a division of his estate. He intended the institutions to operate without discrimination of religion or background. He viewed education as a charitable obligation to society, not a commercial service.

In this context, the spirit of the Will requires that Foundationer benefits be preserved as a charitable right, not reduced to a concession. The College is expected to prioritise educational charity over revenue maximisation. Also, decisions affecting Foundationers are to be judged by whether they advance or dilute the Founder’s charitable purpose.This interpretation is reinforced by the fact that courts intervened to enforce the Will, meaning that charitable intent is legally paramount, not optional.

Charity at La Martiniere College is a continuing obligation, not a historical relic. It finds mention in the College song sung in all Martiniere institutions with the reference: “lasting still his charity” for which pupils are exhorted: “Faithful may we ever be, followers of his constancy”.

Legally and morally, this means that Charity is structural, not ceremonial; Foundationers are central to the Founder’s vision, not peripheral; any interpretation that treats Foundationers as a financial burden contradicts the object of the trust.

Equality does not negate charity. The College admits pupils of all background with equal opportunity. The Will and subsequent Scheme emphasise that all scholars share equally in the benefits of the College without preference in respect of religion or economic status. Foundationers are not “lesser” students; they are direct beneficiaries of the trust. The charitable character lies in lifting disadvantage, not erasing it by uniform fees or treatment.

Seen in the modern context, the spirit of the law governing the Foundationer system at La Martiniere College, Lucknow is this: The College exists to convert private wealth into public educational benefit, with Foundationers being the clearest and most direct expression of Claude Martin’s charitable intent.

The Foundationer System in the 21^st Century

The commencement of the 21^st century saw these multiple factors congregate to exhibit a College, offering 14 years of learning to boys, with abysmal regard to charity and first values. Consider the reported strength at the commencement of the new century:

The numbers of Foundation pupils were nowhere near the arbitrary absolute number of 100, set more than a century ago. The number of paying Boarders could not inflate the expected number of resident scholars, nor establish any ratio or proportion in the context of day scholar strength.

From the time of Independence, now nearly 80 years ago, the reasons for ignoring or consigning the Founder’s ‘lasting charity’ vis a vis the Foundation pupils, have been numerous and excusatory. The tendency, promoted over a century has been to find cogent arguments to maintain a bare minimum number in a quaint display of tradition that was gradually converting to folklore. Among the number of excuses presented were:

• The Founder’s Will and Scheme of Administration required Foundationers to be of European origin or Anglo-Indian ancestry.

The Founder’s Will, supported by the Scheme of Administration, placed no restriction on race.

• In modern India, the Anglo-Indian community has dwindled in numbers and not many Anglo-Indians candidates apply for the privilege of the Foundation.

The dwindling numbers, created by the European and Anglo-Indian diaspora, has been built up again by Anglo-Indians continuing to make the multi-community India their home. The number of boys who can be admitted must come from pan-India. The opportunity for a quality education must be offered to and enjoyed by them.

• Foundationers are freeloaders.

The provisions for free education were provided by the Founder and supported by the Scheme of Administration. Individual, subjective opinion should not interfere with the foundational principles of charity as espoused by the Founder.

• Foundationers are ungrateful.

Gratitude is not a condition for charity. The distinction between the ‘deserving poor’ and the ‘undeserving poor’ has no place in dispensing charity. Also, ‘gratitude’ – genuine or otherwise, is not a condition for service and charity even in the modern socialist state.

• Foundationers are tardy in their academic work. They don’t apply themselves to academic challenges. They get everything too easily. They do not respect the value of the privileges they enjoy … and so on, with grumbling in the same vein.

The Founder set aside his bequest for precisely such unfortunate boys. Many come from backgrounds that are severely financially limited. Most are admitted as children or pre-adolescent boys; affection rather than power and authority can provide a sterling change in attitude. The general malaise, inertia, torpor, apathy, indolence, languor and laissez-faire attitude is often an inherited social factor. It is the responsibility of care-providers in the College to encourage individual change. The state of discouragement into which children are born can be transfigured through accessible education.

• Foundation pupils are only fit for the sports field and not for the classroom.

The genuine credit for physical fitness and all the virtues with which sports and games are associated contribute an equal, if not a greater effect on the all-round education of a child. The best features of popular sport, unarguably promote those characteristics that education encourages. For the academically disinclined pupil, it is a meaningful educational tool rather than mere recreation. Perseverance, consistent effort, and self‑regulation are qualities that reinforce the value of sustained labour and determination in academic and professional pursuits. These cannot be imbibed by academic pursuits alone.

• Funding for the Foundationers is an unnecessary burden.

Foundationer benefits are a charitable right and not a concession. Educational charity is to be prioritised over revenue maximisation. Decisions regarding Foundationers are to be judged by whether they advance or dilute the Founder’s charitable purpose.Charity at La Martiniere College is a continuing obligation, not a historical relic. Any interpretation that treats Foundationers as a financial burden contradicts the object of the trust.

Permanent Resident Scholars

We are reminded of the apocryphal story that led to Maj. Gen. Claude Martin leaving the majority of his vast estate for the education of ‘young men and boys’. It is the story of Zulpheekar, an abandoned Georgian boy for whom the Founder paid a certain sum of money to his father. The condition of European children left destitute in a foreign land by death, desertion, abandonment and so on it may be said inspired Claude Martin to establish an institution where the ‘bazaar trash’ would have an opportunity to escape from destitution by means of a sponsored education. Zulpheekar, given the Name ‘James’ and the ‘patronym ‘Martin’ was educated in Calcutta. The scheme that Claude Martin suggested for his school for boys in Lucknow followed the trajectory of James (Zulpheekar) Martin’s own education and development.

More than 200 years later, in 2014, Mrs Kamini Rattan Chauhan, Secretary, Women Welfare and Child Development initiated a project in which she proposed that abandoned children who were being taken care of in child shelters and homes could be integrated with the wider society and enjoy benefits denied to them by the circumstances of their birth. She approached La Martiniere College, Lucknow to enquire whether the College would be able to accommodate, under this scheme, certain boys in the Boarding House. This would be in the nature of an experiment, which she hoped would be popularised by other institutions, especially those with residential facilities.

The timing was opportune. The College had already decided that there was to a resurgence of Foundation pupils. Considering the Will of the Founder, its legal implications, the carte blanche authority to take in children irrespective of religion and caste and such socially divisive considerations, it was agreed in principle, that the ‘experiment’ would be implemented in La Martiniere College, Lucknow, with certain riders.

From Zulpheekar to Shubham

In 2015, La Martiniere College had opened its doors to the first such Permanent Resident Scholar. Shubham was received on 8 October, 2015. He follows in the footsteps of Zulpheekar, the first abandoned child to be formally maintained by the generosity of the Founder, nearly 200 years ago. The Governors examined the action and recorded Resolutions in this regard:

With the approval of the Board of Governors the College subsequently, over the years received nearly 20 boys. The boys have over the years made the College their home with the security and emotional support from Staff and fellow students alike. Despite their academic delay and the social challenges they have faced, they have integrated with the wider student community and perform well in all spheres of College activity.

Boys were placed in foster care with the College accompanied by a judicial order in each case by the Child Welfare Magistrate. The District Magistrate of Lucknow, by means of the same order, is ex-officio local guardian of the children. The boys, as per agreement, are to be educated at La Martiniere College, with full facilities including boarding, lodging, clothing, health, recreation, etc. The boys are to follow the academic scheme of the College until they completed the ISC or equivalent examination.

The legal framework for this sensitive project was drawn up with the following safeguards:

• The boy/boys recommended to the College would be placed in legal foster-care with the College.
• The children would be received by the College with the Child Welfare Magistrate’s written order for each boy.
• The College would include the boys under the provision for Foundation Scholars in the Will of the Founder Major, Gen. Claude Martin.
• The District Magistrate who is also a member of the local Committee of Governors of the College, in an ex-officio capacity, would serve as the Local Guardian of each boy.
• The boys/boys would be medically examined and the College Physician’s report attached.
  • The case history of each child would be presented to the College and maintained.
  • The CWC officials had the responsibility of making regular visits to check on the children’s welfare.
  • The children would be educated at La Martiniere College, with full facilities including boarding, lodging, clothing, health, recreation, enhancement of their particular talents.
  • The boys would follow the academic scheme of the College until they completed the ISC or equivalent examination.

The scheme is now a well-established part of the College programme, providing inclusivity of less-advantaged children with boys from relatively privileged backgrounds. Above all, it is a natural progression in fulfilling the spirit of charity enshrined in the Will of the Founder. For the first time in the history of the College, a clear legal format has been provided for a new category of Foundation pupils. It is predicted that such children born into disadvantage, shall be the new Foundationers in the unlikely event of the source of the Foundationers from the Anglo-Indian community for any reason ever dries up. The ‘lasting charity’ of the Founder shall thus be sustained.

The demographic change introduced has been well receive with alumni of privilege, mostly requesting anonymity, have made generous contributions for the welfare of the children, including clothes, sports goods, pocket-money, excursions, gifts etc, creating a bonding with the children.

In addition, the College has provided legal protection to the children, as required, visits to parents separated by jail sentences, mental problems, visits to girl siblings and even reuniting with family after years of separation due to being lost in crowds.

By 2018, the Governors were apprised of four more boys joining this category of scholars, whose number reached 10 by 2019 and continued to increase with a minimum of two boys being added to the community each year.

Conclusion

From a small colonial era institution dominated by European and Anglo Indian boys, La Martiniere College, Lucknow, has evolved into a predominantly Indian, socially diverse, and nationally respected school. The most significant demographic change has been the broadening of access, especially for Indian middle class families, while the most significant continuity has been the Foundationer system, which preserves economic diversity. The demographic evolution of La Martiniere mirrors India’s own historical journey—from colonial hierarchy to inclusive nationhood, while remaining anchored to the philanthropic vision of its founder.

A single act of philanthropy can sustain generations. Claude Martin’s decision was remarkable for his times. The current mixed demography prevents the college from becoming socially homogeneous or insulated. A school composed exclusively of affluent students, risks narrowing perspectives and fostering social detachment. With fee contributing pupils and Foundationers sharing the same facilities together, the College actively dismantles social hierarchies within its campus. The student body reflects a broader cross‑section of society, enriching classroom discussions, friendships, and shared experiences. Especially significant is the Foundationer system. This is not an auxiliary welfare measure; it is foundational to the college’s existence. To discontinue or dilute this system would be to redefine La Martiniere as a purely fee‑driven institution, severing it from the very principles upon which it was established.

In an age marked by widening economic inequality, educational institutions such as La Martiniere College play a critical role in bridging social divides, and La Martiniere’s long‑standing model offers a proven example of inclusive excellence. It continues to be not only an institution of privilege but also one of purpose, contributing meaningfully to society while retaining a balanced and representative demographic structure.

La Martiniere College, Lucknow, stands as a permanent monument to the spirit of charity of Claude Martin. It is a reminder that true charity lies not merely in giving, but in creating opportunities that transform lives. Claude Martin’s vision lives on, not in stone and mortar of Constantia alone, but in the lives shaped by the education he so generously endowed.

The Eighties

Whither ‘Lasting Charity’

The 1980s seemed to be the decade where the offer of charity was questioned, re-questioned, permitted, withdrawn, subsidized. It was converted to a competitive exercise. It included a qualifying examination. It even required parents of pupils on the Foundation to pay fees, albeit highly reduced. The status of the Foundationer seemed to overshadow all other aspects of admission policy in that decade.

In the meantime, numbers steadily increased with the usual sops being granted to Foundation pupils, with strenuous checks and balances to disqualify candidates rather than encourage such opportunities for education of the disadvantaged.

While other developments, physically and academically followed an upward trend, the trend was to keep the Foundation pupils at the bare minimum. In this decade, no other aspect of College life received as much attention by the College as the status of these boys.

In 1980, there was the resurrection of the Roorkee Scholarship that had fallen into oblivion since decades had passed from the time that Thomason College, Roorkee had stopped being the most prestigious and sought after College for engineering aspirants. The lapsed scholarship, still officially available now diversified to include beneficiaries from among the meritorious deserving from academic disciplines other than engineering. Carlton J. Ellis was chosen for a scholarship that would have been, in part, underwritten by the Roorkee Scholarship fund. This was to cover costs for a teacher training programme, for which he would sign a bond, committing him to serve in the College, on payment, for a minimum of five years. This was confirmed by the Governors in 1981. Steps such as these were designed to encourage young Anglo-Indian men to take up teaching as a profession. The further advantage would be to have an old boy on the Staff, and in Ellis’ case, an effective College Captain. It was designed to maintain the Anglo-Indian component of the demographics of the College.

The revival of the Roorkee Scholarship awarded to Carlton Ellis was a one-off event in the 1980s. It was never repeated. Instead, mystery surrounds the application on behalf of Rohit Chandra, a pupil in 1983, where the Governors merely recorded “their inability to comply with the above request.” The Roorkee Scholarship and the endowment for the same has never been mentioned again.

With the opening for opportunities for education in the country, La Martiniere College was still an institution of choice for admission of boys. Unfortunately, there were unpleasant occasions when a boy, to gain admission, was presented as a resident scholar, while once the admission was confirmed, the parent would apply for a change of status to day scholar. The College had to scrutinize all applications for such change in status, often bringing it to the knowledge of the Governors. As a rule, it was required for a pupil to complete three years’ tenure as a resident scholar, before the consideration of a request for a change to day scholar status.

In August 1980, the Governors rejected the request of a parent on this basis alone. A change in status would also mean a loss of revenue, necessary to cover overhead expenses of the boarding house.

An year later, the Governors were again approached for a similar change in status from resident scholar to day scholar. The request was turned down with the Governors adding that “there were no special circumstances to justify a departure from the rule.”

The attempts to convert pupil status began in the 80s and continued. Regrettably, even genuine cases had to be overlooked due to what was becoming a scandal. Years later, it would be seen as a dubious way of obtaining higher Boarding fees, while permitted a boy to proceed on ‘day scholar leave’, sometimes for sessions together. This ensured increased revenue, without the corresponding expenditure on a Resident Scholar. The practice, under this guise, was corrupt.

Occasionally, requests would be made within a few days of a boy being registered as a Resident Scholar. Homesickness aside, this would become an unhealthy practice where some boys admitted as Boarders would not spend a single night in the dormitory, proceeding on ‘day scholar leave’, even before attending their first class.

The requests for change of pupil status came with particular regularity:

The downslide in numbers of Foundation pupils continued, with even the notional limit of 100 Foundationers being far from met. The Principal’s Report presented in 1980 provided statistics of an increase in total numbers of almost 300%. The figure was reported to justify the need for the expansion of physical facilities. Yet in the same context, the total number of Foundation pupils was reported to be 45.

Statistics are quoted to fit a particular context. In 1981, the Principal’s Report referred to the 1905 figure of a total number of 248 pupils of which 24 were day scholars.

Records indicate that there were 100 Foundationers and 124 Boarders in 1905. The ratio of Resident Scholars and Foundationers was withheld from the 1981 Report. Instead, the increase in the number of Day Scholars in 1981 was recorded as 1024. This was from a total of 1234 pupils on roll. A quick calculation would indicate the ratio and percentage of the Foundation pupils, spanning the difference of 76 years. In 76 years, the percentage of Resident Scholars had dropped to 5.6%, while the total number of pupils on roll had increased by 5 times the number to almost 400%.

With increasing numbers there was in fact a dramatic decrease in the percentage of boys educated by charity.

By 1982, the Principal was reporting on the homogeneity of the demographics of the College. Principal Shaw referred to La Martiniere and other Anglo-Indian schools as “true examples of National Integration”. Perhaps erroneously he described this as having been “our way of life from the beginning”. The claim sounded hollow when we consider the discrimination that existed due to race and colour; the discrimination that contrasted charity with affordability; the discrimination in even the training in the use of arms before Independence. The rhetoric conceals the clashing social forces that underlie the surface calm. Superordinary goals, described as ‘tradition’, are the acceptable compromise when there is conflict.

The expansion that had begun in the tenure of Principal Daniells, continued through the 80s. Corresponding expenditure was sanctioned by the Trustees only for furniture to equip new classrooms, while it was left to the College to arrange for fittings. The Principal was instructed by the Governors on 30 March, 1985 to forward blueprints and estimates of costs for expansion to the Trustees.

The raison d’etre for Foundationers was once again questioned in 1985, when the Minutes 23 November, 1985reverted to the old tune of requiring a candidate to ‘qualify in an admission test’. This was a competitive exercise, far removed from the principle of unqualified charity that had motivated the Founder for his bequest. Scrutiny of the income of parents was focused on in detail. This seemed more like an attempt to deny the ‘scholarship’ on the financial soundness of the family, making redundant the admission test to qualify for a ‘scholarship’ on merit.

Perhaps the pressure of work and time led to the choice of Foundationers and Demi-Foundationers being delegated to the Principal, rather than taking up the time of the entire Committee of Governors. In February, 1987, the decision to select ‘individual cases’ was left to the Principal. This practice has since continued.

The qualifying ‘entrance test’ was set for candidates in April, 1987. All those who wrote the test were granted admission.

At the same meeting where the Principal had reported the selection of candidates for the Foundationers and Demi-Foundationers held April 7 1987 the controversial decision that had been taken in 1986 was retracted. This was regarding payment of fees for both Foundationer and Demi-Foundationer pupils. The Founder’s bequest had been watered down a century earlier by the introduction of ‘supernumerary’ Foundationers and the nomenclature soon changed to describe resident scholars for whom a reduced fees was charged as ‘Demi’-Foundationers. This had been steadfastly overlooked as the numbers on roll continued to increase. This needs a constant reminding that it is not in keeping with the Will of the Founder or with the Scheme of Administration set out by the Court.

The delegation of responsibility to the Principal for the selection of pupils to be supported by the Foundation was reiterated in 1988. The Principal was authorised to “at his discretion, select suitable candidates from the applicants, and admit them subject to their appearing at an entrance test.”

There is no doubt that financial resources to maintain the boys supported by the Foundation was limited. This was particularly apparent as by the end of the decade, the paltry amount that was routinely handed out for the support of Foundationers from the Trustees was appallingly low. In addition, it was expected that a certain percentage of the amount received was to be transferred to La Martiniere Girls’ College, for which a receipt and statement was required by the Trustees’ office. In 1989, correspondence began to request for an increase the annual grant towards maintenance of Foundationers and Demi-Foundationers.

The Trustees replied negatively. This was duly reported to the Governors.

This item has become a permanent entry on the agenda of every meeting of the Committee of Governors from 1989 till date.

Regrettably, in 2018, the nominal amount of Rs 10,000 for the upkeep of a minimum of 100 scholars that had been received from the Trustees towards this expenditure ceased to be remitted. The trust of the Founder and his permanent appeal to the government of the day may be said to have been betrayed.

Claude Martin set down in writing, an appeal to governments and courts in generations ahead to protect his interests. “I am in hope government, or the supreme court will devise the best institution for the public good … as that it be made permanent and perpetual”.

It is part of the civilized world to adhere to and respect the Will of a testator, especially when it is for a noble, charitable purpose. Claude Martin requested that a copy of his Will was “to be deposited in the Supreme Court, to which I recommend my executors, administrators, assigns, or trustees, to put this Will and Testament under their protection, or tender the protection of government if necessary.”