What would an Indian Education system look like?
There are many interesting conversations about this in India. The primary reason for this is indeed the ascendancy of BJP, a Hindu Nationalist party, which now controls the Union and most State governments in India. In order to secure its rule, the BJP leaders know that they have to transform the education system. And, they are at it, with a clear agenda and intent - curbing the Western influence where they see it. Most of it has come in the form of petty settling of scores - removing people favoured by earlier administrations - and mindless government meddling in curriculum and governance. However, this has put 'Indianness of Education' as an issue to reckon with.
This arises primarily as much of the current Indian Education system was shaped by the British Imperial administration. The British imperial rule did not just set up an Education system in India: It, at the same time, destroyed what was there, pushing Sanskrit and Persian education in India to the margins. The current agenda of resurrecting the 'Indianness' is mostly about undoing what the imperial administration did.
If going back to the past was ever possible, though! British rule changed India's social makeup, built its institutional structure and shaped the values and ideas of its middle class. The current project of restoring Indianness leaves most of these bigger issues untouched, and rather concerns itself solely with superficial elements such as language and rituals. However, the current Liberal antipathy to engagement in the conversation about 'Indianness' unfortunately cedes the space to Hindu Fundamentalists and Ideologues, who are bent on creating a Disneyland version of Indianness, creating a version as alien to India as anything the English had ever conceived.
This is why, while we may not agree with the ideas and ideologies of the current government, it is still worthwhile to explore the idea of 'Indian Education'. This is not just a fanciful thing for a few madcap ideologues, but a necessary precondition for social and economic development of India. A culturally congruent education helps not just the spread of literacy and better understanding between the citizens, but helps develop community identities and builds aspirations for the country. It stops the middle class children to live an artificial life in school and be at odds with their own compatriots; it makes the young men and women of India dream of not going abroad to do a job, but rather to be build a country to be proud of.
This 'Indian Education' that can provide the necessary life-blood to the Indian economy and resuscitate Indian democracy needs a form different from the top-down, ritualistic and historically incorrect idea of the current administration. And, to imagine what it can be, it is important to understand what the British project in Indian Education really meant. And, for this, one has to look closely to the foundational moment of the modern Indian Education system, Charles Wood's Dispatch of 1854, which the English administrators called the 'Magna Charta of Indian Education'.
I know this may sound unfamiliar to some, and Wood's Dispatch is certainly less known than Macaulay's famous Minutes on Indian Education of 1835. However, the famousness of the Minutes is not helpful, as it distracts from the real transformation wrought into Indian Education by the British administration. If anything, the Minutes were the last roar of a dying debate, and in it, the two sides are not an Indian Education versus a British one, but two approaches to Colonial Education. It may seem Macaulay successfully argued for his side and the Orientalists lost, but modern Indian education was dispensed not in English as Macaulay wanted and didn't have any of the evangelical fervour. Going beyond Macaulay, and considering the more nuanced changes advocated by Wood's dispatch and later policy, would allow one to get a different sense what an Indian Education should be.
Without going into too many details, the modern Education system implemented through Wood's Dispatch, and subsequent implementation of grant-in-aid system of Lord Dalhousie and later founding of Indian universities, brought about three main transformations in Indian Education:
First, it replaced Persian and Sanskrit as the languages of Education with modern Indian vernaculars, which were grammatically streamlined by then. This change meant that the Indian Education system was disconnected from India's past and the common language of educated Indians became English.
Second, by introducing the Grant in Aid system, the British administration offered the incentives to Indian philanthropists to direct their efforts to the modern education system, rather than continuing patronage of traditional schools, effectively marginalising all other alternatives to the state-approved educational system, and destroying the diversity of offerings.
Third, it brought about a system of standardised examinations and credentials, and directed educational efforts to passing examinations. When CNR Rao complained, many years later, that India does not have an education system but only an examination system, he was describing the legacy of this system.
These fundamental changes have long term implications in Indian culture and values. I would argue that these changes, crucially, tore India away from Asia, giving its elite an European language to communicate between themselves, and disengaged them from the Indo-Islamic continuum that nourished the Indian culture for centuries. True to its utilitarian principles, the Indian system of education became all about ends, in complete disregard for the means: A very European and particularly English principle of living! The fundamental Indian consideration for the means, the ethic of living a connected life, of acknowledging our indebtedness to nature, tradition and heritage was wiped away: All that Indianness stood for afterwards is a set of meaningless rituals and empty claims.
It is also important to recognise all of this was done for a reason. The Modern Indian system of Education was part of a new imperial system - the Free Trade Imperialism - which was not about exacting tributes from Indians and grabbing their land, but rather turning Indians to consumers of British commodities. This was spectacularly successful and this still goes on, though cultural commodities and educational ideas have now replaced industrial products. The principle that Education is for preparation as a Consumer, rather than for life in a community, has endured beyond the wildest dream of the Imperial policy-makers.
An Indian Education, therefore, is not one on Hindu religion and rituals, but rather one of rediscovering the Indian ethic of living. It is about reconnecting with nature, and considering means rather than the ends; it is about an attitude of Care rather than treating everything and everyone as resources for fulfilment of some or other needs. It is about rediscovering Indian culture, which is really about finding India in Asia, in context of its deep cultural connections with Central Asia, China and the Indian Ocean region. It is about finding a common language for the Indians, which will help its elite to connect with its common people, and with the history of India.
Popular posts from this blog
A friend has recently forwarded me a quote from Lord Macaulay's speech in the British Parliament on 2nd February 1835. I reproduce the quote below: "I have traveled across the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and, therefore, I propose that we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native self-culture and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation." The email requested me to forward me to every indian I know. I was tempted, but there were two oddities about this quote. First, the language, which
Introduction : The Business of Gift Giving Business gift giving has always been common and contentious at the same time. Business gifts are usually seen as an ‘advertising, sales promotion and marketing communication medium’ (Cooper et al , 1991). Arunthanes et al (1994) points out that such gifting is practised usually for three reasons: (a) in appreciation for past client relationships, placing a new order, referrals to other clients, etc.; (b) in the hopes of creating a positive, first impression which might help to establish an initial business relationship; and (c) giving may be perceived as a quid Pro quo (i.e. returning a favour or expecting a favour in return for something). The practitioners of gift-giving generally argue that doing business is often an aggregation of personal interactions and relationships, and gift-giving should be seen as a natural way of maintaining and enhancing these relationships. ‘Business gifts, especially one given in the course of the festive s
Buzzwords have disadvantages. Right now, experiential learning is one, and that means we put the label on everything and it stops to mean anything. Also, this means reasonable conversation about experiential learning becomes difficult - at times such as this, either you preach experiential learning or you are traditional, antiquarian and hopelessly out of touch. But, overlooking the limitations of experiential learning can cause big problems. Experiential Learning does many things - putting practice at the heart of learning is an important paradigm shift - but not everything, and it is important to be aware what it does not do. Usually, we equate the terms Project-based Learning (the method) with Experiential Learning (the idea) and Learning from Experience (the ideal), treating them as one and the same and using the terms interchangeably. Any talk about distinctive meaning of these terms is usually seen as pedantic, but really represent very different ideas about education.
Today, Helen Goddard, 26, a highly popular music teacher of a City School for Girls, has been sentenced to 15 months in prison. Her crime was to carry out a year long lesbian affair with one of her pupils, who appeared in the court and admitted that the affair was consensual and it was she who pressured Helen into the affair. For Helen, a bright musician and a devout Chistian, this is an extraordinary lapse of judgement. Also, she was teaching in the £13,000 private girls only school in London. She was surely aware what the consequences of her action will be. The fact that she still could not stop herself tells us that lovers do not always act rationally, something we always knew. There is more in this affair than personal tragedies. For a start, this has all the dramatic elements: a bright, beautiful teacher more in Julia Roberts mould [as in Mona Lisa Smile], a stiff upper lip school [not unlike Wellesley] and a story like Notes On A Scandal with an added twist. Indeed, Helen
In most societies today, making profits are accepted as moral, if not especially praiseworthy. This was not as obvious as it appears today – people used to be embarrassed about making a profit not so long ago. Crazy as it seems today, it is worth thinking why it was so. Profits, as economists will put it, is the reward for risk-taking, for putting a business enterprise together in the pursuit of an objective. In this definition, remember, profits are not what it is commonly understood to be – the gross middle-line towards the bottom – but a figure net of entrepreneur’s earning [wages for his labour], dividends and interests on borrowed capital, and provisions for building and other physical assets [a sort of rent, offsetting what these assets could have earned if leased out]. This pure profit – surplus – accrues to a business as a reward to its organisation, for the act of entrepreneurship itself. Economists were divided on how this surplus comes about. The conventional wisdom was,
Introduction Erna Petri née Kürbs, a farmer’s daughter from Herressen in Thuringia, arrived in Ukraine with her three year old son to join her husband Horst in June 1942. Horst, an SS leader inspired by Nazi ideologue Dr Richard Walter Darré, settled in the plantation of Grzenda, just outside today’s Lviv, to become a German Gentleman-Farmer. Erna saw Horst beating and abusing the workers in the plantation within two days of arriving there, which was, as Horst explained, necessary for establishing authority. Erna joined in enthusiastically, settling into a combination of roles of ‘plantation mistress, prairie Madonna in apron-covered dress lording over slave labourers, infant-carrying, gun-wielding Hausfrau.’  However, there were clear rules in the plantation, and Erna was very much expected to play the woman’s role of being a Cake-and-Coffee hostess. When four Jews were caught in the estate while trying to escape from a transport to a death camp, Horst told Erna and her female
A week into lockdown and things are beginning to change. Mornings are late, afternoons are lazier and evenings never end; meditations are filling out the time for Yoga routines and Netflix profiles are strewn with half-finished movies. This state-mandated, state-funded period of idleness is being likened to being called up to serve, but is nothing like that: Such a comparison is really an affront to the idea of service. Instead, this is just one long streak of panic; of the centre not holding and life not going on as usual. With the usual patterns and rules in suspended animation and business talk - and business - being rendered meaningless, space is opening up for unusual questions: Is Capitalism about to end? Is this the death of globalisation? Does it get uglier from here? My grandfather's generation would have scoffed at us. They saw through wars and pandemics. But, in fairness, we haven't had a life-ending crisis of our own. Notwithstanding the experiences of th
I wrote a note on Kolkata, the city I come from and would always belong to, in July 2010. Since then, the post attracted many visitors and comments, mostly critical, as most people, including those from Kolkata, couldn't see any future for the city. My current effort, some 18 months down the line, is also prompted by a recent article in The Economist, The City That Got Left Behind , which echo the pessimism somewhat. I, at least emotionally, disagree to all the pessimism: After all Kolkata is home and I live in the hope of an eventual return. Indeed, some change has happened since I wrote my earlier post: The geriatric Leftist government that ruled the state for more than 30 years was summarily dispatched, and was replaced by a lumpen-capitalist populist government. Kolkata looked without a future with the clueless leftists at the helm; it now looks without hope. However, apart from bad governance, there is no reason why Kolkata had to be poor and hopeless. It sits right
The ‘Why’ Question? Adolf Hitler was appointed the German Chancellor by President Von Hindenburg on 30th January 1933. This was an extraordinary turn of events. Previously, President Von Hindenburg consistently refused to appoint Hitler the Chancellor, despite the impressive electoral performance of NSDAP in July 1932, Hitler’s uncompromising demand of the Chancellor’s post and a repeat election in November 1932 which failed to break the deadlock. Explaining his refusal, Hindenburg wrote in a letter on 24th November, “a presidential cabinet led by you would develop necessarily into a party dictatorship with all its consequences for an extraordinary accentuation of the conflicts in the German people.” The question ‘why’ Hitler was appointed Chancellor, despite the President being acutely aware of what might follow, is therefore a significant one. The NSDAP had election successes throughout 1932, and was already the biggest single party in the Reichstag and various Landtags acros
Introduction: Hastings in the history of Indian Education Whether or not one includes Warren Hastings in the history of Education in India is a matter of perspective. If writing the history of education means writing the history of schools, the impact of Hastings' administration would be quite limited. If anything, the rapid implosion of local rulers in Eastern, Southern and Northern India during Hastings' tenure had meant a bleak period for the indigenous education system, as patronage and funds would have dwindled away for many of them. The Company administration really concerned itself with the schooling of the natives only after 1813, as Nurullah and Naik rightly pointed out ( see my earlier post ) and one can legitimately start the story at this point. However, if history of Education in India is to encompass the transformation of Indian Scholarship, on which foundation the new, colonial, system of Education would be built, the story must start with Warren Hast
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 4.0 International License.