Indian Education : Part A : The Confusion

Damning Reality

Education is one subject about which I am, hopefully, somewhat qualified to talk about. Education is my passion. I have taught and trained people for last many years. I have been part of committees and discussions in organizations, developmental bodies and government policy-making forums on education. I can say with great pride that I have come across the best minds on education in India and abroad, in private sector, government, academia and social sector.

And it makes me sad. If truth be told, I don’t have a clue about what education is and what it should be or mean. Moreover, it seems most people do not have a handle on the subject in India or even elsewhere in the world. We hardly know the purpose, we spar over the problems and we definitely have no clue about the solutions.

On one hand I look at Rajat Gupta, the disgraced Indian-American business tycoon, the epitome of what great education can achieve even for common mortals. The labels (credentials if you may) say it all - IIT, Harvard, top positions at McKinsey, advisor to Gates foundation, co-founder of Indian Business School, etc. etc.

In the end, just a petty thug who got big opportunity to swindle big time.

On the other hand, another completely different image comes to my mind. I recall my experiences with poor women in West Bengal taking small microfinance loans of 3000 to 5000 rupees, working hard and trying desperately, often with some success, to make a better life for their kids and families.

Most of them could barely write their names and could only speak Bengali. But they were extremely sharp, articulate and street smart. They were survivors and had been taught by that harsh but the best of teachers called LIFE.

Barring a misfortune of birth, they were next to none and they taught me an invaluable lesson - that uneducated does not mean idiot (as much as education does not mean integrity and character, as in Rajat Gupta’s case).

Both these pictures are quite stark and totally unrelated, but they, like many other pictures, tell a common story. Obviously, we are going very wrong somewhere on education. I don’t really know where, and what are the solutions. So I dug in some history in the Indian context to see if I can draw some conclusions of my own.

A Quick Peek @ History  : Education In Ancient India

 

India has a long history and tradition of organized learning from school education in ‘Gurukuls’ to higher education centers starting from ancient times. In the past, only students belonging to the Brahmin and Kshatriya communities were taught in Gurukuls. With the advent of Buddhism and Jainism, however, access to education developed a more secular and democratic component.

 

TAKSHASHILA UNIVERSITY

The first millennium and the few centuries preceding it saw the flourishing of higher education at Nalanda, Takshashila, Ujjain, & Vikramshila Universities. Art, Architecture, Painting, Logic, Grammar, Philosophy, Astronomy, Mathematics, Literature, Buddhism, Hinduism, Arthashastra (Economics & Politics), Law, and Medicine were among the subjects taught. 

According to ancient Indian traditions, teachers were the most revered people in society (a point reiterated by Dr Radhakrishnan later) and the ‘guru’ was worshipped only next to God.  ‘Vidya Sa Vimuktaye’ (education gives freedom) and ‘Vidya Dadhati Vinayam’ (education begets humility) are integral ideas in India’s value system. Furthermore, examples abound of the depth of epistemological and dialectic work in India. The fine distinctions between ‘gyan, vigyan and agyan’ (knowledge, science and ignorance) or between ‘tark, vitark and kutark’ (argument, counter argument and false argument) which have been laid down in amazing detail provide clear instructions on dialogue and discourse as well as the classification of knowledge itself based on philosophical, social, ethical and practical considerations. These and other core ideas were reflected in the Indian education system until the 18^th century CE, and elements of it have endured to this day.

 

Some of the key features of the Gurukul system are strikingly in line with the latest post-modern thoughts in education worldwide. Some of these features are:

1. The focus of education was holistic; it covered spiritual, ethical, social and vocational needs.
2. There were no fixed syllabi and education was customized to every student’s needs and interests.
3. The role of the teacher was that of a guide and mentor. The teacher shared a very personal and emotional bond with each of his students. This bond set the context in which transfer of learning took place.
4. Teaching was organized around experiential learning, practice and enquiry and was not passively instructional.
5. The life of a student was well integrated with the community and the education addressed itself to local questions and problems. For example, Ramayana narrates the incident where Ram fought and defeated ‘rakshasas’ while he was still a student at his guru’s ashram, when the local community of hermits complained and sought help.
6. Progress of each student was closely monitored by the teacher who provided specific feedback and developmental support. However, there were no formal examinations or certification.

 

The Islamic invasions of India added another dimension to education with the introduction of Matkabas (primary education) and Madrasas (high school). By the time the British established their rule, India’s education system, much like its society, had developed a multi-faceted network.

Education In British India : Macaulay’s Minute and the Colonial Hangover

The current system of education, with its western style and content, was introduced and funded by the British in the 19th century following recommendations by Lord Macaulay in 1835 (law Member in the Governor-General's Council and in-charge of education). Macaulay prepared the educational policy for India, popularly known as Macaulay’s Minute on Indian Education.

Macaulay had little knowledge of India and lesser respect for oriental learning or Eastern languages (though he presented his case rather differently to the British Parliament, but achieved the desired result!). Macaulay derided Sanskrit or Arabic by saying that "a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole literature of India and Arabia."

Macaulay’s objective was to serve the needs of the British administration through English education. He said. "We must at present do our best to form a class who may be interpreters between us and the millions whom we govern, a class of persons Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions, in morals, and in intellect…”

 

Traditional structures were not recognized by the British Government thereafter and have been on the decline ever since. Scholarly debate continues to focus on the impact of the British education model, which came at the cost of indigenous models.

 

Macaulay’s historic ‘vision’ was implemented by the British and remains a basic element of our education system even though independence has been achieved and the British have departed. Many thinkers have commented on education in India in the backdrop of colonial rule. Swami Vivekananda, Shri Aurobindo, Tagore and even Mahatma Gandhi developed ideas of education as a tool to uplift society and build a common consciousness. They sought to return to Indian traditions in different ways and amalgamate concepts from both Western and Eastern streams of thought to build effective systems of learning and education.

Indian Education after 1947

 

India’s Education system in the post independence era went through various milestones, a few of which are listed below. This is not intended to be an exhaustive list but is intended to provide a context to our modern system by tracing the general trend of development.

 

Dr. Radhakrishnan Report, 1949

http://education.nic.in/cd50years/n/75/7Y/757Y0101.htm

This proposed a distinction between facts (nature), events (society) and values (spirit), which in turn would be the subject matter of the sciences, social sciences and humanities respectively. This model of disciplinary compartmentalization has been a basic tenet of senior secondary and higher education in India. In some ways, it has been no mean achievement on the part of Cultural Studies in India to have negotiated and attempted integration across this division.

Kothari Commission Report (KCR), 1964-66 http://www.education.nic.in/cd50years/g/W/16/0W160401.htm

The KCR stated the need for a drastic reconstruction of education and made recommendations along the following lines:

A.     Internal transformation

B.     Qualitative improvement

C.     Expansion of educational facilities

 

The Policy Resolution, following the submission of the report, was adopted in 1968, at the time when the economic crisis arising out of the capitalist path of development was finding sharp political expression. The Education Policy Resolution of 1968 in fact was not representative of the overall recommendations of the Kothari Commission. The government selected the following six recommendations of the Commission and intensive efforts were made to implement them.

1.     Use of regional language as medium of instruction at the university stage.

2.     Non-formal education.

3.     Education for the people i.e., Elementary and Adult Education.

4.     The Common School System.

5.     10+2+3 Pattern.

6.     Teacher’s salaries.

It is clear that there has been no dearth of deep, original and India relevant thought on education in our country. Yet, it is equally self evident that we have struggled to put any of these ideas, approaches, recommendations and guidelines to much use as far as results are concerned.  Before we move into the future, we must raise some inconvenient questions in self-scrutiny. Why, for all our efforts, the results since independence have been less than satisfactory. Where have we gone wrong? What have we learnt (if at all) and what will we do differently henceforth to expect different results in the future?
 
Perhaps, some answers could be found, inter alia, in the areas of a lack of powerful and unifying vision, conservative and risk-averse decision making, indifferent monitoring and a general lack of accountability during implementation. We might need to be simultaneously courageous and vigilant going forward…  


(To be be continued : Indian Education : Part B)