Since my student days, I have been quite used to hear ritualistic speeches from our social and spiritual guardians glorifying the ‘education’. In Bengali there is a saying that "Without referring to Kanu (Lord Krishna), a song is not a song"[1]. Likewise a common adage appears in any serious discussion on our social upliftment that "No progress happens without education". Words such as 'Truth', 'Education', 'Knowledge', 'Work' - eventually spread such pretensions in their self-imposed glory that we start worshipping them and impose an aura of divine mystery to a layperson. Eventually, we leave such serious and complex tasks of encoding and decoding of ‘Education’ to our learned scholars, and continue to suffer from its systematic sickness in our schools and colleges. The symptoms of this illness are observed in several ways. Existence of a large pool of 'educated' unemployed youth, the irrelevance of higher education in our work and profession, above all the failure in ensuring universal access to education – paint a sad picture of our current education system. It is true that our social backwardness is reflected in our education system. At the same time, this poor state of education is too an obstacle to our social progress. There were many efforts from many great personalities in the past to educate people in an 'ideal' education system, as those visionaries thought appropriate, with the hope that the educated youth would engage in building a better society. Although some of these efforts were initially unique in devising teaching-learning methodology and in setting curriculum, they also eventually lost their distinctiveness and became parts of the 'traditional' educational system of our society.
I do not mean to say that there is no progress in education in independent India as compared to India under colonial rule. Neither I would say that the education system has not improved over the past few decades in post-independence India. Just as I do not want to portray a glorious past in the context of the present misery, I do not also have any grand vision on breaking the chains of present orthodoxy. My purpose in this discussion is to understand the historical existence of this education system and its logical evolution in the future. That is the sole purpose of this exercise. It is good to mention here that by ‘education system’ I mean the traditional education system that relies on scientific knowledge and practice. Apart from this, there exist various other religious and ancestral vocation centric education, which are out of consideration in my discussion.
...
In general, our current education structure is organized into three or four tiers - primary, secondary and higher secondary, and higher education. This kind of progression is compatible with the educational system of the West and other developed countries. However, pedagogy and curricula structure significantly differ. Especially the children of our middle and lower middle class families cross the boundary of the school and enter the field of higher education in a traditional sequence one after another. But, this does not happen in the developed countries. Let me share some of my personal anecdotes in this regard.
About five years ago[2] (May-July’2000) I was in USA for about two and half months. The landlady of the house where I used to live on rent, has two sons. The elder 'Mark' is a computer engineer and the younger 'John' is a professor in biology. Mark after finishing his education in high school at the age of eighteen went on to become a musician. He had teamed up with his friends, and had been working in restaurants for daily living. After spending about fifteen years in this way, he began to give up hope of success in his career of a musician. Then again he returned to the academics. In America, 'City colleges’ act as stepping stones for admission to various academic programs of universities. There you may study a set of suitable subjects to enter a university. These colleges do not offer any academic degree program, but they offer bridge-courses, clearing which students become eligible for admission to an academic program of a university. So when Mark graduated from a university as a computer engineer, he was almost forty.
Mark's younger brother John also left home after finishing his term in a high school to become a carpenter. For a couple of years, he learned to build wooden houses. Then again, when he wanted to study, he took admission to a 'City College' to study biology.
This kind of self-will of a student is rarely valued and permitted in our education system. Students choose their disciplines of higher education based on their worth in the job market. Besides, they are also ready to get any discipline in their unquenchable thirst to get a degree in higher education. There obtaining a degree is their main objective, while learning is a secondary affair. Naturally this raises a few very pertinent questions. What is the purpose of education, and which education system is ‘ideal’ for a free and fair society? These two questions have been bothering me, since I was a student.
...
At the beginning of this discussion, I would like to recall some of the popular phrases and idioms related to education. I have been hearing these words since I was a student and developed some ideas of my own under their influence. As can be recalled Swamiji's[3] famous saying - "Education is the manifestation of perfection already in a man." Similarly we are used to hear the much clichéd slogan, 'Education brings consciousness, consciousness brings revolution'. Likewise, we get moved by the depiction of gurukul based education[4] in a serene open environment of meditation and study (Tapovon) of ancient India and try to draw inspiration from Rabindranath's[5] 'Ashramic' (a residential eco-system for teachers and students) education in modern times. In our discussion, we try to address the queries raised from such a spectrum of definitions and attributes about education.
As may be observed from different opinions on the necessity of education, it is primarily focused on two aspects - education for 'individual needs' and education for 'societal needs'. Not that one should be pitted against the other. But that where the emphasis is, depends on how the motto is pitched. When Swamiji wants the full revelation of the 'inner being', his focus is on the development of an individual human being. But it does not exclude the social development. For the exponent of the mantra of serving a living being as a service to God ('Jiva' as 'Shiva')[6], the wholistic development of a person happens through engaging himself in a selfless service as a monk to the society. Thus, even though there is no direct reference of 'society' while educating a person for his (her) wholistic development in those brief words of Swamiji, undeniably the social development is also linked in the process.
Let us consider the other side of the coin, where the focus of the education is our society. Here we may consider what the Soviet educationist Anton Makarenko (1888-1939) had to say on this matter. In his writing he explained the purpose of Soviet education as follows.
'We want to bring up creative, productive Soviet working people. It is for that purpose that the education of such people should be organized - especially school (secondary) education. We have to make that man (woman) efficient and disciplined. He (She) should be politically aware. He should be a member of the Komsomol. He (She) should be a Bolshevik[7]. He (She) should be responsible to his (her) class. His (her) classmates must obey the collective authority. On the other hand, he (she) must be able to provide leadership. He (she) must be altogether modest, firm, kind, and fearless. His (her) character should be made flexible adapting to the conditions of his (her) life struggle. He (She) must be an active organizer – a person of unyielding iron, self-disciplined and motivated. He (She) will accept the collective punishment with dignity. He (She) should always be smiling - joyful - energetic - struggling and happy. Not only to spend his (her) life dreaming of future happiness, but also to be happy in the present.' In Makarenko’s description it is quite clear that the 'society' is the primary target of education. But as we see, he gave considerable importance to the development of an individual.
Rabindranath said, 'That is what I call the best education, which does not merely impart information – but also builds our lives in harmony with the universe.' He wanted the development of an individual in harmony with the greater society. On the other hand, Gandhiji[8] thought that the main purpose of education is to build character - 'The end of knowledge must be the building of character.' Both Rabindranath and Gandhiji wanted to make education suitable for Indian society, especially for rural Indian society.
So, even though the individual development is emphasized in the motto of education of some of our visionaries and social reformers, the desire for social development remains latent in the background. Similarly, when education is considered as a means for the development of a society, an individual plays a role of its driver. Perhaps the only exception was the French philosopher Rousseau[9]. Society was just a prison for him. His thoughts wandered in a utopian realm of an education system, conducive to the development of extreme individuality by freeing a person from every kind of social bond.
As we observe in the thoughts of our educationists both the development of ‘individual’ and ‘society’ were ingrained. Does it mean that there is no fundamental difference in their vision and ideology? Next, let us develop an understanding on the broad spectrum of their educational philosophies.
...
According to the famous American educationist John Dewey (1859-1952), "Education is actually a means of social existence". There is a huge gap in the development of the body and mind of a child with any adult member of a society. Education is needed to fill that void. The same applies to the animal world. Their immature cubs also have to learn the rules of living. But a cub there only grows up in the presence of its elders and in their imitation. It was the custom in primitive human societies too. We still see its remnants in aboriginal societies. But as a society develops, social activities become so complex, that controlled and planned education is needed to bring a child to the level of an adult. The curricula of this education and the environment of pedagogy are to be structured in the context of a child’s integration to the larger society. We strive to replicate that miniature version within the confines of a school. Naturally, the reflection of the complexity of society is not truly possible in this artificial environment. Hence the need for abstraction of reality. It is needed to teach and train students in various subjects according to their skill and aptitude in subsequent developmental stages. It is absolutely necessary to build an education system to maintain the continuity of our social life. This is not merely a program of social welfare, or a gift from our Governments and rulers. Once I read in a science fiction story that a few aliens came to the Earth, and destroyed the intellectual minds of its inhabitants, thus making them their slaves. In this process Man lost all the knowledge of his own culture and creativity. As a result, human civilization disappeared. Although it is a fiction, it captures the essence of the reasons behind the destruction of a society. Ancient Greek and Roman civilizations were also destroyed when their education systems were completely abolished by neo-Christian priests. Even their books of knowledge and wisdom almost went into oblivion. It took another few centuries to recover a part of those treasures from Arabic translations of Islamic scholars. In this way the relatively primitive and underdeveloped races had wiped out the social life of the old civilized races from this world[10]. The Chinese, the Hindus in India and the globally spread Jews are certainly some exceptions in this regard. For various historical reasons they have been able to maintain their cultural distinctiveness and intellectual practices.
So, the education system is developed to keep the society functioning. In particular, this education system is aimed at strengthening the production system and its supporting political and social order. In the ancient Greek and Roman civilizations, society was primarily divided into two classes: free men (women) and slaves. There was a formal education system only for free men. Its aim was to produce 'citizens' fit to participate in religious, political, and social activities. Although education was not widespread in all levels of society (which was not really necessary based on the standards of production and the relations of production), in democratic states of free people (such as Athens and to a lesser extent Rome) education encouraged 'independent thought' and 'intellectual practice'. However, later as that democracy got eroded and monarchy was established, this character of 'education' also was lost. The society of that era was also tolerant to different religious beliefs and opinions. This was also reflected in their education systems.
At the beginning of the Middle Ages, this system came into conflict with Christianity. Especially when Christianity became the king's religion and was established as one of the instruments of governance, the mottos and objectives of the old education system had to be discarded. Religious beliefs replaced the multifaceted intellectual practices of Greek and Roman civilizations. Although a 'feudal society’ is considered to be an advancement from a 'slave society’ - the feudal 'educational system' of obedience to the representatives of 'God' is relatively permissive and narrow in its antecedents. This period of nearly a thousand years in Europe is called the Dark Ages and the feudal education system has the primary onus on its darkness.
With the development of the production system, it became necessary to spread education among the people of all strata of the society. As the complexity of the production process increases, so does the need to educate the people in a society. A 'universal' education system was needed to break the old feudal bonds and to educate 'free' workers. In the revolutionary transition of capitalism by overthrowing feudalism, the message of 'freedom', 'equality' and 'fraternity' was also ingrained with the call of 'universal education'. The emerging capitalist state then championed this mission with considerable importance. With the development of the capitalist production system, the production process has become more complex and multifaceted, and thus different tiers and specialized disciplines of education have been established.
...
In our discussion, we primarily dealt with two aspects of education, namely, 'Education for a society' and 'Education for an individual'. We may consider the following four key take aways from our discussion on the former aspect of education.
1. An education system imposed on a society from the above does not become effective as it lacks relevance. It is to be harmonized in the context of social, cultural and economic interactions among the members of a society. Its outcomes[11] are also measures of social progress and development. As a result, those who think 'education is the key to the development of a society' need to understand this 'half-truth'. It is not possible to bring revolutionary changes through 'education'. Rather, it is the social revolution that brings radical reforms in an education system. On the other hand, those who dream of introducing an 'ideal education system', neutral to social changes, live in a fool’s paradise.
2. An education system is concerned with the development of an individual as much as it is conducive to the development of the society or running of its affairs. The expansion of higher education depends on to what extent intellectual exercises are socially demanded. The democratization of higher education by making it affordable with a fair admission policy for every member of a society stands on this foundation.
3. Although an education system is built meeting the demand and needs of a society, it does not remain stagnant, rather it goes through changes and evolution over time. This is true for any social order. That is why we find the greatest thinkers of the Renaissance among the Christian clergy. Likewise, in any education system, the visionaries of the future society are nurtured. At the same time, people become more and more educated with the development and growth of a society. When its development is blocked, the education system too stagnates. Then not only there exists a growing urge to change the society, but also a desire to change the education system arises in people.
4. The curriculum and various specialized disciplines of education depend on the production system, and prevalent social and religious order. Apart from this, the political character of the state also has a considerable influence on education. In spite of having the same type of production system, freedom of thoughts and expressions are more tolerated in and education system of a relatively 'democratic' society. Athens and Sparta are classic examples of ancient Greece. In relatively democratic Athens, the standard of education was better, although in a primitive communist social order of Sparta, free men and women enjoyed equal rights to education. As 'education' also became a commodity in Athens, the poor were deprived of this opportunity. However, prior to the initiation to the citizenship of a male[12] (at the time of his entry to adulthood), the Athenian state undertook to educate him in various disciplines, including two or three years of military training. Even in a capitalist society of the present era, the quality and expansion of education depend on the character of the state.
...
Now let us consider the role and nature of education in the development of an individual. In fact, three of our great personalities in the past, Rabindranath, Vivekananda and Gandhiji, all had given sufficient emphasis on the development of an 'individual' - although it was by no means thought to be in isolation from the society. They saw an 'individual' and the 'society' in roles of a 'giver' and a 'taker', respectively. In the wholistic revelation of the 'inner self' Vivekananda dreamt only of those selfless social workers (Karmavirs), who carry the spirit and wisdom of a monk. They become the guides and teachers of the society. But that the 'society' is also a 'teacher', and an 'individual' and the 'society' complement each other in the teaching-learning process, did not get much emphasis and clarity in their thoughts. As a result, in practice, we do not find much qualitative difference in characterizing educational Institutions run following their doctrines from other social educational institutions. Maybe there are some variations in the pedagogy, maybe the teachers are very dedicated, motivated, patient, and sympathetic - but there is nothing to distinguish in terms of originality. The characteristics which institutions bear at their birth gradually lose their distinctiveness and become part of the educational system like other social institutions. If not, the organization cannot survive.
As mentioned earlier, the tasks of individual development in an education system are also related to the tasks of social development. In fact, an education system is designed to maintain the prevailing social order and inequality. For this reason, in a capitalist society the higher education is regulated by making it costly, and by setting a limited number of Institutions, even though universal basic education is required to support the production system. The rich are more able to avail the higher education. As a result, the intellectual practice and management of the production process remains in the hands of a small section of the society, who benefit from this inequality. Even the universal access to basic education is not needed in a feudal system. The same was true during the colonial rule in our country. The British wanted a few bureaucrats and clerks to run their administration, who would be Indian in color but English in spirit. That is how they organized the colonial education system. Spreading of basic education to grassroots was not their agenda. Neither they wanted to expand higher education to the aspiring section of the Indian population. In response to this, the 'Indian' education movement emerged with the national liberation movement - one of whose pioneers was Rabindranath. That has had a considerable impact on the education in post-independence India, although as no 'social revolution' or 'radical change' has occurred while gaining our independence, the colonial remnants and influences remain in our present education system. Today, the imperialist alliance of developed countries, especially the US imperialism, is much more aggressive. Imperialism not only strives for economic exploitation, but also creates a supportive political and cultural environment. The more our native rulers compromise and submit to this imperialism - the more our education system become restrictive. The development of an 'individual' also gets impacted. Higher education becomes more 'expensive'. Students from poor families continue to lose even the frugal opportunities that they get presently from the state. Thus imperialism is anti-democratic in nature, and creates obstacles to the spread of education. On its influences and pressure, the state gradually withdraws all sorts of expenses on social welfare, primarily in health and education.
Before we conclude, we may have a few words on teaching methods in individual development. Despite the outcry against the caning of students by our school teachers of old times, many academics did sanctify the 'guru-disciple' relationship. In other words, they recognize the right of a ‘guru’ to discipline a 'disciple'. A debate is also present with this role of a teacher on the development of an individual. Many believe that each individual (or a child) has distinct character, nature and potentials. Therefore, for each of them there exists a customized 'ideal' teaching method. Thus, an ‘ideal’ teacher's duty is to focus on this customized training according to the individual's nature and potential. On the other hand, in a classroom teaching in a school, not an 'individual' but the 'collective' is the object of education. This is what creates a contradiction between this theory and practice.
Soviet academic Anton Makarenko had suggested measures to resolve this conflict. He proposed to harmonize the 'collective' (the class of students) with the process of teaching and learning. He presented examples from his own experiences of how the 'collective' participate in education. A gist of his own words in this regard is given below.
“ ... we should avoid the policy of adopting special teaching methods for any particular individual. We tend not to recognize the importance of another person's influence on a person. Rather, we want to organize education for the purpose of the collective[13]. It is for them that we want to apply planned and well-organized teaching methods. Moreover, we are convinced that the most realistic task of an individual's development is to bring him (her) up within the group in such a way that he (she) will willingly want to be a part of it. On the other hand, his (her) classmates will also want to see him (her) as a part of their group. ... Here the collective assume the role of a teacher of that individual.”
So, Makaranko gave great importance not only to the teacher-student relationship, but also to the relationship among the student's classmates. His (her) classmates also play a very important role in his (her) development. He even advised the teachers to be part of the collective. In his experiments on school education, students were asked to lead the collective as a part of their development from within the group. In his words -
“The way a teacher influences an individual, so do the members of the collective to him (her). This does not mean that we teachers and senior members of the community in general will play the role of mere spectators. We must constantly apply our thoughts and experiences in various activities, decisions and desires of the collective, and help the collective with our suggestions, opinions and decisions on various occasions.”
It should be noted here that Makarenko shared his experience in the period of building a socialist society in post-revolutionary Soviet Russia. The social environment of that time was favorable for his formulation of this policy. Naturally, the current education system of our country does not meet those conditions for implementing his principles. Yet our conscious participation in the collective activities of the students in the classroom or outside, and the development of the collective through it, is desirable, and may be put into practice.
8/11/2024
(Originally written in Bengali on 15/12/2005.)
[1] কানু বিনা গীত নাই।
[2] It was initially written in Bengali in December, 2005.
[3] Swami Vivekananda (1863-1904)
[4] The lineage and heritage of pedagogy and curriculum set by a famous teacher and then preserved by subsequent generations through teaching and learning.
[5] Rabindranath Tagore (1861-1941)
[6] জীবজ্ঞানে শিবসেবা।
[7] Bolsheviks were ruling Russia during this period. They called their philosophy Marxism-Leninism, where their motto was to build a socialist state ruled by the working class. They subscribed to the Marxist philosophy of dialectic materialism. As Makarenko was a Bolshevik it was quite natural and common, that as a part of the ruling establishment, he would want to indoctrinate the students by the same ideology.
[8] Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi or Mahatma Gandhi (1868-1948)
[9] Jean-Jack Rousseau (1712-1778)
[10] Probably the Sindhu Civilization had the similar fate.
[11] Gross enrolment ratio, Literacy rate, Drop outs in higher grades and higher education, Number of educational institutions at different tiers, Education budget, Universal accessibility, and so on.
[12] Females and slaves were excluded.
[13] In this case, the class of students
