Dr. V.K.Maheshwari, M.A(Socio, Phil) B.Sc. M. Ed, Ph.D
Former Principal, K.L.D.A.V.(P.G) College, Roorkee, India
The child is taken to school, and the first thing he learns is that his father is a fool, the second thing that his grandfather is a lunatic, the third thing that all his teachers are hypocrites, the fourth, that all the sacred books are lies! By the time he is sixteen he is a mass of negation, lifeless and boneless. And the result is that fifty years of such education has not produced one original man in the three presidencies…. We have learnt only weakness.
Out of the past is built the future. Look back, therefore as far as you can drink deep of the eternal fountains that are behind and after that look forward, march forward and make India brighter, greater, much higher than she ever was. Our ancestors were great. We must first recall that. We must learn the elements of our being, the blood, that courses in our veins; we must build an India yet greater than what she has been.
Nowadays everybody blames those who constantly look back to their past. It is said that so much looking back to the past is the cause of all India’s woes. To me, on the contrary, it seems that the opposite is true. So long as they forgot the past, the Hindu nation remained in a state of stupor and as soon as they have begun to look into their past, there is on every side a fresh manifestation of life. It is out of this past that the future has to be moulded; this past will become the future.
The more, therefore, the Hindus study the past, the more glorious will be their future and whoever tries to bring the past to the door of everyone, is a great benefactor to his nation. The degeneration of India came not because of the laws and customs of the ancients were bad but because they were not allowed to be carried to their legitimate conclusions
Swami Vivekananda
Knowledge, is the third eye of man, which gives him insight into all affairs and teaches him how to act. As per classical Indian tradition “Sa vidya ya vimuktaye”, (that which liberates us is education). From the Vedic age downwards the main conception of education of the Indians has been that it is a source of illumination that gives a correct lead in the various spheres of life.
The formation of character by the proper development of the moral feeling was an important aim of education. Like Locke, ancient Indian thinkers held that mere intellectual attainments were of less consequence than the development of a proper moral feeling and character. The Vedas being held as revealed, educationalists naturally regarded their preservation as of utmost national importance; yet they unhesitatingly declare that a person of good character with a mere smattering of the Vedic knowledge is to be preferred to a scholar, who though well versed in the Vedas, is impure in his life, thoughts and habits. This opinion tallies remarkably with that of Socrates, who held that virtue is knowledge.
Ancient Indians held that good character cannot be divorced from good manners; the teacher was to see that in their everyday life students followed the rules of etiquette and good manners towards their seniors, equals and juniors. These rules afforded an imperceptible but effective help in the formation of character.
There can be no doubt that piety and religiousness are more characteristic of Hindu society than of any other community. The success of the educational system in moulding and forming character was also very remarkable, as proved by the testimony of a number of foreign observers, belonging to different centuries, creeds and countries, who had no particular reason to pass flattering remarks about Indian character.
Among these foreign observers, the Greeks are chronologically the earliest ( 300 B. C.). Politically they were not the allies but the opponents of the Hindus. They have made a few caustic remarks about some aspects of their culture, but they have candidly noted the high impression that the Hindu character and veracity produced on their mind. ‘Indians have never been convicted of lying. Truth and virtue they hold in high esteem says Megasthenes in one place ( Megasthenes, Fragment 35.). This statement could not have been literally true, but it shows that the cases of cheating and swindling must have been comparatively few in society. Strabo and Megasthenes have further pointed out that law suits among the Indians were rare owing to their frank dealing. “They are not litigious. Witnesses and seals are not necessary when a man makes a deposit, he acts in trust. Their houses are usually unguarded .”( Elliot, History, Vol. I, p. 88.)
Yuan Chwang pays an equally high compliment to the Indian character during the 7th century A.D. He has carefully noted the weak and strong points in the character of the peoples of different districts ; but while summing up his impressions of the Indian character as a whole, he says “They (i.e. Indians) are of hasty and irresolute temperament, but of pure moral principles. They will not take anything wrongfully and they yield more than fairness requires. They fear for retribution for sins in other lives and make light of what conduct produces in this life, They do not practice deceit and they keep their sworn obligations. Majority of Indians in Yuan Chwang’s time did not share his religious beliefs and practices and yet they receive the above high compliment from the Chinese pilgrim.
Al Idrisi’s impressions of the Hindu character in western India during the 10th century A.D. are similar to those of Yuan Chwang’s. Though a Muslim, he says of the Hindus, ‘The Indians are naturally inclined to justice and never depart from it in their actions. Their good faith, honesty and fidelity to engagements are well known and they are so famous for these qualities that people flock to their country from every side ; hence the country is flourishing and their conditon pros- perous. 3 “In the thirteenth century Marco Polo also was impressed very highly by the character of the Brahmanas of Western India. “You must know” says he, “that these Brahmanas are the best merchants in the world and the most truthful, for they would never tell a lie for anything on the earth. If a foreign merchant, who does not know the ways of the country, applies to them and entrusts his goods to them, they would take charge of these and sell them in the most zealous manner, seeking zealously the profit of the foreigner and asking no commission except what he pleases to give.” (Yule, Marco Polo, Vol. II, p. 363 (Third edition).) When the morality of the trading classes is so high, the character of the average man must have been very noble. Ibn Batuta, another Muslim observer, describes the Marathas of Deogiri and Nandurbar of the I4th century as ‘upright, religious and trustworthy. ( Ibna Batuta, p. 228.) The same was the view of Abul Fazl, the minister of Akbar.
Travellers, pilgrims and merchants are usually disposed to make caustic remarks about theculture and character of the foreigners among whom they have moved ; when so many of them belonging to different times and climes and professing different faiths agree in paying a high tribute to Indian character, we may well conclude that there is no exaggeration and that the educational system of the country had succeeded remarkably in its ideal of raising the national character to a high level. It is only after the 17th and 18th centuries A.D. that- we come across some foreign travellers, traders, missionaries and ex-governors passing strictures upon the Hindu character. Some of them were probably misled by their prejudices, as we find their testimony contradicted by others. It is also possible that the Hindu character may have suffered deterioration during the long spell of foreign rule in medieval times ; for successful falsehood is usually the best defence of a slave. It is however worth observing that not a single foreign observer is found passing hostile remarks about Hindu character and honesty during the ancient period of Indian history. ( Sleeman, for instance, says : ‘Lying between members of the same village is almost unknown.’ I have had hundreds of cases before me in which a man’s property, liberty and life depended upon his telling a lie, and he refused from telling it,’ Quoted by Mullet in India, What It can teach Us, p. 50.
The development of personality was in fact the most important aim of the education. This was sought to be realized by eulogizing the feeling of self -respect, by encouraging the sense of self -restraint and by fostering the powers of discrimination and judgment. The student was always to remember that he was the custodian and the torch-bearer of the culture of the race. Its welfare depended upon his proper discharge of his duties. If the warrior shines on the battlefield, or if the king is successful as a governor, it is all due to their proper training and education .To support the poor student was the sacred duty of society, the non- performance of which would lead to dire spiritual calamities. A well trained youth, who had finished his education, was to be honored more than the king himself. It is but natural that such an atmosphere should develop the student’s self-respect in a remarkable manner.
Hindu achievements, however, in the different walks of life and branches of knowledge were fairly of a high order in ancient India down to the 6th century A.D. Things however changed for the worse from the 6th century A. D. Brahmacharya discipline became nominal when a vast majority of students began to marry at a very early age ; growth of independent judgment became stunted with the growing veneration for the past and its time-hallowed traditions. Self- confidence and self-respect disappeared in a great measure when society suffered from the convulsions of sudden foreign invasions and long alien rule, frequently imposing a hated religion and strange culture with the aid of the sword. We must not judge the success of the ancient Indian educational system in building personality of students by the conclusions based upon its products at the advent of the British rule.
The preservation and spread of national heritage and culture another most important aims of the Ancient Indian System of Education. It is well recognised that education is the chief means of social and cultural continuity and that it will fail in its purpose if it did not teach the rising generation to accept and maintain the best traditions of thought and action and transmit the heritage of the past to the future generations. Anyone who takes even a cursory view of Hindu writings on the subject is impressed by the deep concern that was felt for the preservation and transmission of the entire literary, cultural and professional heritage of the race. Members of the professions were to train their children in their own lines, rendering available to the rising generation at the outset of its career all the skill and processes that were acquired after painful efforts of the bygone generations. The services of the whole Aryan community were conscripted for the purpose of the preservation of the Vedic literature. Every Aryan must learn at least a portion of his sacred literary heritage.
It was an incumbent duty on the priestly class to commit the whole of the Vedic literature to memory in order to ensure its transmission to unborn generations. A section of the Brahmana community, however, was always available to sacrifice its life and talents in order to ensure the preservation of the sacred texts. Theirs was a life-long and almost a tragic devotion to the cause of learning. For, they consented to spend their life in committing to memory what others and not they could interpret. Secular benefits that they could expect -were few and not at all commensurate with the labour involved. Remaining sections of the Brahmana community were fostering the studies of the different branches of liberal education, like grammar, literature, poetic, law, philosophy and logic. They were not only preserving the knowledge of the ancients in these branches, but constantly increasing its boundaries by their own contributions, which were being made down to the medieval times. Specialization became a natural consequence of this tendency and it tended to make education deep rather than broad.
Friends and foes have alike admitted that the ancient Indian system of education has been eminently successful in its aim of the preservation o ancient literary and cultural heritage. Very few of the Vedic works have been lost. It is indeed a wonder how so vast a literature could have been preserved without the help of the art of writing for the task. Among post- Vedic works too, the number of valuable book loss is not considerable. And here also the losses would’ have been practically insignificant if the destruction of temples and monasteries had not taken place on a wide scale at the time of the invasions of the Mahomadens and during their subsequent long rule.
The surprising amount of cultural uniformity that is to be seen even now over the length and breadth of India is mainly due to the successful preservation and spread of ancient culture and civilisation. If there are several features, common to Hindu life, all over the country, contributing to Hindu unity, the credit has to be largely given to the educational system, which has produced uniformity in the culture and outlook on life of the Hindu community. The remarkable success of Indian missionaries in spreading Indian culture in Indian Archipelago, Siam, China, Japan, Tibet, and Central Asia must be attributed to the success of the educational system in enkindling a strong zest in the minds of students for spreading the national culture and heritage far and wide, both in India and outside.
The success of the educational system in infusing a sense of civic responsibility and promoting social efficiency and happiness, which were two of its important aims, was also remarkable. It was but natural that the educational system should have taken the help of the religious feeling and the caste discipline for infusing the sense of civic responsibility. Society had accepted the theory of division of work, which was mainly governed in later times by the principle of heredity. Exceptional talent could always select the profession it liked; Brahmanas and Vaishyas as kings and fighters, Kshatriyas and even Shudras as philosophers and religious teachers, make their appearance throughout the Indian history. It was however deemed to be in the interest of the average man that he should follow his family’s calling. The educational system sought to qualify the members of the rising generation for their more or less pre-determined spheres of life. Each trade, guild and family trained its children in its own profession. This system may have sacrificed the individual inclinations of few, but it was undoubtedly in the interest of many.
Differentiation of functions and their specialization in hereditary families naturally heightened the efficiency of trades and professions, and thus contributed to social efficiency. By thus promoting the progress of the different branches of knowledge, arts and professions, and by emphasizing civic duties and responsibilities on the mind of the rising generation, the educational system contributed materially to the general efficiency and happiness of society.
The average man in ancient India was always loyal to the interests of his guild, village and caste. It was the success of the educational system ;n promoting social efficiency, which enabled Hindu society to be in the vanguard of the march of civilisation for several centuries. It is true that this ceased to be the case from about the 10th century A.D. ; but the failure during the last millennium in this connection should not blind us to the success in the preceding long period of more than two thousand years.
Religion had an immense hold over the Hindu mind and many of the admirable features of the educational system have to be attributed to this circumstance. It did not make the educational outlook ‘otherworldly’, as is supposed in certain quarters. The ideals of the Vanaprastha and the Sanyasa were no doubt purely spiritual, but such was not the case with the ideals of the educational system. It aimed at producing youths eminently fit to perform their civic and social duties ; if any spiritual merit for the life to come was to result from Brahmacharya, it was to be through the proper performance of duties, which however were principally determined with a view to make the student an efficient and God-fearing citizen.
The majority of teachers in ancient India were priests, as was the case all over the ancient world. They did not exploit their position for promoting any selfish ends of their own, but they had the natural limitations of their class. When the even balance that was for a long time successfully held in Hindu society between the claims of religious and secular life (Dharma-Moksha versus Artha-Kama) was disturbed, religious and semi-religious studies got undue predominance in the educational system. Secular sciences like history, economics, politics, mathematics and astronomy did not receive as much attention as theology, philosophy,, ritualism and sacred law. Commerce and industry and fine and useful arts made no appreciable progress during the last 1500 years or so, because those in charge of education showed no keen interest in them.
It may however be interesting to note that down to the 18th century, educationalists in Europe also regarded religious studies as the most important constituents of the educational course ; many of them like Franke and Comenius held that all children should be instructed above all things in the vital knowledge of God and Christ. (Greaves, Educators, pp 723,)
A greater defect produced by the hold of religion over the Hindu mind was the tendency to hold reason at a discount, which became prominent a few centuries after the Christian era. Such was not the case in earlier times, when society used to value intellectual freedom highly.Upanishadic thinkers have, for example, advocated bold and original theories of philosophy without showing any anxiety whatever to prove that their views were in consonance with those of the Vedic sages. In the days of the Buddha there were as many as sixty three systems of philosophy, very few of which cared to rely on Vedic authority for their premises or conclusions. Systems of philosophy like the Samkhya and the Mimansa, which did not recognise a Creator-God, were admitted within the fold of orthodoxy. Buddhism and Jainism were not summarily dismissed as athiestic or heterodox ; their scriptures were carefully studied in order to prove that their theories were unsound. For a long time society was successful in reconciling its reverence for the past with its regard for the advance of knowledge ; it used to silently abandon exploded views and quietly accept new theories and doctrines.
Unfortunately for the progress of learning and scholarship Vedic literature was canonised some time about 600 B.C. An almost equally high reverence came to be paid to the Smritis and Puranas in course of time. The authorship of these works came to be attributed to divine or inspired agency, and it was averred that what they contained could not be false, what they opposed could not be true. Theories began to be accepted or rejected according as they were in conformity with or opposed to the statements of the sacred books on the point. Intellectual giants like Sankara and Ramanuja had to spend a disproportionate amount of time and energy to prove that their systems of philosophy were in conformity with and the natural outcomes of the Upanishadic hypotheses. If the hold of the Srutis and Smritis were not so exacting, there would have been freer development of philosophy. At any rate many of the remarkable intellects of the Middle Ages would have found it possible to write independent works on their own systems of philosophy instead of being compelled to present it unsystematic ally, while engaged in the ostensible task of writing commentaries on the revealed literature.
Under such circumstances, there was not much scope left for research and originality in those matters where opinions were expressed in sacred texts. For example in the infancy of astronomy, the eclipses were explained by the mythological stories about Rahu and Ketu attacking and temporarily overpowering the moon and the sun. It was an evil day for the advance of astronomy when this mythological version got a canonical sanction by its inclusion in the Puranas. Hindu astronomers like Aryabhata, Brahmagupta, Varahamihira and Bhaskaracharya knew the true causes of eclipses, but felt powerless to carry vigorous propaganda to explode their popular and mythological explanation canonised by the Puranas. Even, Brahmagupta, with a view to win cheap popularity, went to the extent of advocating that the popular view was correct, when he knew full well that such was not the case. In Chapter I of his Brahma-siddhanta, he gives both the popular and scientific theories about the eclipses, but advocates the cause of the former. “Some people think that the eclipse is not caused by the Head (of Rahu or Ketu). This, however, is a foolish idea. The Veda, which is the word of God from the mouth of Brahman, says that the Head eclipses, likewise Manusmriti and Carak- samhita”. ( As quoted by Alberuni, Vol. II, pp. 110-1.) What is, however, most lamentable is that Brahmagupta, who knew full well the real cause of eclipses, should have proceeded to condemn Aryabhata, Varahamihira, Srishena and Vishnuchandra for expounding the unorthodox but scientific theory that eclipses are caused by the shadow of the eaith. It is important to note that Brahmagupta becomes guilty of intellectual and moral dishonesty because he was anxious to win cheap popularity by supporting the popular view that what was contained in the Vedas and Manusmriti could not be untrue. It is interesting to note that Varahamihira first combats the Rahu-Ketu theory, but then immediately succumbs to it. Arya-bhata alone has perhaps the moral courage to be consistent with his intellectual convictions. But he also only hints that the popular theory is wrong, but does not dare to attack it openly. The Rahu-Ketu theory of eclipses has continued to retain its hold over the popular Hindu mind for the last 1500 years and more, inspite of the scientific discovery of the true cause of eclipses, the reason is that Hindu scholarship of later times was too much in the leading strings of religion to carry on active propaganda against its hypotheses.
Similarly astronomers continued to subscribe to the view that the constellation of the Great Bear moves from one lunar mansion to another in a hundred years, even when they had discovered that such was not the case. The discontinuance of dissection in the medical training and the abandonment of agriculture by the Brahmanas, Buddhists and Jains are also to be attributed to the hold of the progressively puritanical notions over the popular mind.
It is, however, but fair to observe that in Europe too, reason had to beat a hasty and precipitate retreat when in conflict with the dicta of scriptures down to the beginning of the modern age. Galileo had to suffer for his astronomical discoveries. Throughout the middle Ages, educationalists were more anxious to impart traditional theories and formulae to train minds, capable of forming their own conclusions. Medieval philosophers and commentators were utilizing reason only to prove that the scriptural hypotheses were correct.
The truth was that the Reformers were unwilling to concede to others the right to interpret scriptures, which they claimed for themselves. If therefore reason was at a discount in India from the beginning of Middle Ages, (c. 500 A.D.) we must also note that the same was the case in Europe down to the beginning of the modern age. We should not further forget that reason was given full scope by the Hindu scholars and thinkers for more than about 1500 years, when it was superseded by the exigencies of the religious situation. The historian, however, cannot help regretting that super session of reason should have taken place among a people, who had given full scope to it for several centuries.
Enrichment of the culture of the past along with its preservation continued to be the goal of the Indian educational system for several centuries. Intellect and reason were for a long time given full scope, originality was encouraged, and as a result we find remarkable creative activity in the domain of theology, philosophy, philology, grammar, logic, astronomy, mathematics, medicine, etc., down to about 500 A.D. Indian achievements in many of these fields were remarkable, judged either by the contemporary or by the absolute standard Scholars from China, Korea, Tibet and Arabia used to visit India in order to learn what she had to teach in the realms of religion, medicine, mathematics and astronomy.
Towards the beginning of the 9th century A.D., the creative vein in the Indian intellect got fatigued after an intense activity of more than 2,000 years. Hindu intellect had probably become old and no longer possess- ed the energy necessary to open out new paths of thought and action. Probably the heritage of the past became so great that all the ability of scholars was engrossed in preserving it. As also was the case in Europe down to the 16th century A.D., the habit of looking back to the past for inspiration and guidance became quite common ; it began to be instinctively felt that not much could be expected from the present. ! The creative phase of (the Greek or the Roman intellect lasted for about 1,000 years only.) The golden age of inspiration had gone, no new achievements were possible, the best that the age could do was to preserve, expound or comment upon the masterpieces of the past. Hindu educational system was unable to create minds powerful enough to rise above the influence of these theories. For the last one thousand years and more, the Hindus have been writing only digests and commentaries on the works of earlier periods. Creative activity has come to a practical standstill.
In Europe too the Middle Ages were a period of intellectual repression. Jesuitical education also produced not creative or original but receptive and imitative minds. The Renaissance and Reformation movements, however, eventually succeeded in establishing an era of intellectual independence and originality in Europe ; in India, on the other hand the foreign rule and its natural consequences continued the spirit of the Middle Ages down to the time of the national reawakening towards the end of the 19th century.
Owing to its excessive reverence for the past, the Hindu intellect ceased to be assimilative from about 800 A. D, Hindu sculptors assimilated Greek methods and enriched Indian art. Early astronomers like Aryabhata and Varahamihira were keeping themselves in touch with the activities and achievements of the workers in the same field outside India. Varahamihira (c. 500 A. D.) pays even a handsome compliment to Greek astronomers and observes “The Greeks are no doubt Mlechhas (impure), but they are well grounded in astronomy and are therefore worshipped and honoured like the Rishis.” A remarkable change for the worse took place in the Hindu attitude towards foreign scholarship within a couple of centuries or so after Varahamihira’s death. Implicit faith in the past and in the correctness of its canonised tradition made the Hindu scholar narrow, bigotted and conceited. Of the Hindu men of letters of the 11th century A. D., Alberuni observes, “They are haughty, foolish, vain, stolid and self-conceited. According to their belief, there is no country on the earth but theirs, no other race of men but theirs, and no created beings beside them that have any knowledge or science whatever. Their haughtiness is such that if you tell them of any science or scholar in Khurasan or Persia, they will think you to be both an ignbramus and a liar. If they travelled and mixed with other nations, they would soon change their mind, for their ancestors were not so narrow-minded as the present generation is ”. In proof of the last assertion Alberuni quotes the tribute of Varahamihira to Greek ‘astronorhers, quoted above. Hindus in Alberuni’s time had very good reason to feel a very deep prejudice against Muslim scholarship ; Alberuni’s picture may have been to some extent overdrawn. But the contemporary Hindu attitude towards the Smritis and Puranas and other works of the past, would show that Alberuni’s account of the mentality of the contemporary Hindu scholar is substantially true. Hindu education had ceased to remove prejudices, explode superstitions and broaden the mind, so as to keep it capable of receiving instructions from all quarters by the beginning of the 9th century A. D. Hindu colonising activity, necessitating travel abroad, had also come to an end by this time. Some Hindu doctors are no doubt known to have proceeded to Baghdad at the invitation of Khalifa Harun (786 A.D. 808 A.D.) to act as chief physicians in his hospitals ; we however do not know whether public opinion approved of their conduct, whether they returned home and were readmitted to Hindu society. Foreign travel for the purpose of education and the broadening of views became impossible when the sea voyage was prohibited. Whether it was undertaken in earlier days also for these objects is doubtful.
There are no books in Sanskrit literature descriptive of geography, manners and climate of the countries adjacent to India. Nor do the Pauranic geographers seem to have been in touch with Skill in manual training and industrial arts was highly appreciated in early times. Liberal and ‘useful education was usually combined among high class workers. Brahmanas used to be skilled in mining and metallurgy, medical and military sciences. Weavers were often amateur students of literature, folk lore, astronomy and the art of war. This combination of liberal and useful education began to become progressively rare after the Gupta age. The status of the Vaishya became assimilated to that of , the Sudra as early as the 1st century A.D. and talented persons among the intellectual classes began to think it below their dignity to follow useful and industrial arts. Like European classical scholars of the Renaissance period, Indian scholars became fascinated by the charms of the classical literature. Absorbed in the beauty of words and ideas, they neglected the world of Nature.
Mathematics and astronomy, sculpture and architecture ceased to attract them. The level of intelligence among the industrial classes therefore became lowered down when their education became rigidly confined to the technique and processes of their own professions from about the 9th century A. D. As a natural consequence of such a state of affairs, the growth and development of the fine, useful and industrial arts became arrested in India from about the 8th century A.D. No advance is to be seen after that date in the realms of sculpture, painting, mining, surgery, etc. The old type of learning became stereotyped and it soon began to degenerate. It is true that India continued to retain her dominating position in the weaving industry down to the beginning of the last century ; but it is doubtful whether any progress was made in the technique or processes of manufacture during the last one thousand years.
Education of Masses neglected in later Times. At the time when India was making rapid strides in the different domains of knowledge, her education was broad-based. In ancient Athens one in ten and in’ ancient Sparta one in twenty five received education, and women’s education was altogether neglected. The case was much different in India down to the commencement of the Christian era. Literacy among the Aryans was probably as high as 60 per cent in the days of Asoka. Anxious thought and care were also bestowed on female education. Things, however, gradually changed for the worse in the first millennium of the Christian era. The education of women began to be neglected. Kshatriyas and Vaishyas began to become progressively illiterate. It is true that in Europe also the masses were little more than barbarous and took more naturally to warfare than to schooling down to the end of the Middle Ages. We can, however, hardly derive any consolation from this comparison, for the prevalent illiteracy in India was due to degeneration from a more creditable condition, obtaining in earlier centuries.
Hindu educational system was unable to promote the education of the masses probably because of its concentration on Sanskrit and the neglect of the vernaculars. The revival of Sanskrit that took place early in the first millennium was undoubtedly productive of much good; it immensely enriched the different branches of Sanskrif literature which began to reflect the ideals and ideas of the individual and the race. But owing to the deep fascination for Sanskrit, society began to identify the educated man with the classical scholar as was the. case in the Europe of the Renaissance period. But when the best minds became engaged in expressing their thoughts in Sanskrit, Prakrits were naturally neglected. As long as Sanskrit was intelligible to the ordinary individual, this was not productive of much harm. But from about the 8th century A.D. Prakrits and vernaculars became widely differentiated from Sanskrit, and those who were using them began to find it difficult to understand the latter language. Hindu educationalists did not realise the importance of developing vernacular literatures in the interest of the man in the Street. Alberuni observes, “The language in India is divided into a neglected vernacular one, only in use among the common people, and a classical one, only in use among the upper and educated classes, which is much cultivated.” (Saohau, I, p. 15 Some poems and dramas were written in Prakrit, bat their number was very small.)
We no doubt come across a few cases from the 13th century onwards where provision was made for the .teaching of Telugu, Canarese and Marathi in some of of the schools and colleges of South India, but the general impression produced by a survey of the educational system and institutions is that society was not alive to the importance of the teaching and development of vernaculars in the interest of the spread of education among the masses. Things in India were however quite on a par with’ what they were in contemporary Europe, where Latin continued to be the medium of instruction down to the 17th century A.D. The classics dominated the curriculum of the Public Schools in England down to 1850 A.D., boys could write better Latin than English. In the 16th century school boys were punished for using the mother tongue, and its study could be started in Jesuitical schools only with the special permission of the Provincial. India however could have been much in advance of the world ideas in this matter if the impetus that was given to the cultivation of vernaculars by the two gifted Seers, Mahavira and the Buddha, had not died down owing to the revival of Sanskrit.
Hindu education was thorough, but it was not sufficiently broad. Each branch was thinking of its own problems. Educationalists do not seem to have bestowed much thought on the relative utility of the study of the different branches like grammar, literature, logic, philosophy, mathematics and fine arts for the development of the intellect, the mind and the imagination. Specialisation was started too early. A broad-based secondary course embracing a study of grammar, literature, mathematics, astronomy and history did not exist. ( Many sided interests were not created probably because it was difficult to maintain them in later life in an age when cheap books were unknown.)
Subjects of aesthetic value like music and painting did not form part of the general course, as they did in ancient Greece. An undue emphasis was laid on grammar literature and logic at the cost of history, mathematics and astronomy. Here again the impartial historian has to point out that this defect of the Hindu educational system was not peculiar to India, but was to be seen all over the civilized world. In Europe all the energies of teachers and students were concentrated on grammar, rhetoric and dialectics down to the 13th century ; only that much knowledge of arithmetic was given which was necessary to calculate Church festivals. Geography was ignored altogether till an incentive to its study was given by the discoveries of Columbus and Vasco de Gama. Natural sciences were introduced very reluctantly only by the middle of the last century.
Some of the defects noted above like the neglect of the education of women and the masses crept into the Hindu Educational System only in later times ; others like the non-existence of a broad-based secondary course and the neglect of the vernaculars were common to all the contemporary systems. The twentieth century critic often forgets that the West has gone on progressing rapidly during the last 300 years owing to the impetus it has received from the Renaissance, the Reformation and the Scientific Movement, while India has gone on deteriorating ever since 1000 A.D. owing to the almost continuous foreign rule and its natural consequences. The Muslim conquerors no doubt became domiciled in India, but they were on the whole unable to appreciate and encourage Hindu culture and education to any appreciable extent. The effects of the Muslim rule on the learning and scholarship of the Hindus can be described in the words of a Muslim himself. While describing the state of Hindu learning after the invasions of Mahmud of Ghazni, Alberuni observes, ‘The present times are not of this kind ; they are the very opposite, (because there is no royal support or encouragement to learning), and therefore it is quite impossible that a new science or any new kind of research should arise in our days. What we have of sciences is but the scanty remains of bygone better times’ Bernier, while describing the state of Hindu education in Benares towards the middle :the 17th .century, observes, ”Students stay for ten or twelve years during which the work of instruction proceeds but slowly. Feeling no spirit of emulation and entertaining no hope that honour or emoluments may be the reward of extraordinary attainments as with us, the scholars pursue the studies slowly, without much to distract their ‘attention.” The Report of the Bengal Provincial Committee, Education Commission, 1882, observes, ‘The Mahomaden conquest proved disastrous to all indigenous educational institutions.. The proprietary rights in land changed hands. The language of the court was changed. Indigenous learning lost most of its support In course of time the Musalman teachers and schools drew off the largest portion of the upper and the middle classes of the community and the pathasalas either died or barely managed to survive.’
It is therefore hardly fair to compare ‘the scanty remains of bye-gone better times’ with the tremendous advance the West has made during the last century and half under very favorable circumstances . The impartial historian will have to note that in the heyday of her glory. Education in India was broad-based, women and a large section of the masses being admitted to its privileges and advantages. It was able to develop character and personality, to inculcate civic virtues, and to turn out citizens well qualified to follow their professions and discharge their duties in life. It introduced a high standard of culture and emphasized the necessity of self-imposed” discipline and “stern regard for duty.
REFERANCES:
Radha Kumud Mookerji :Ancient Indian Education -
A. S. Altekar Education in Ancient India -
Swami Tattwananda: Ancient Indian Culture at a Glance -
Benoy Kumar Sarkar: Creative India
Gurumurthy. S: Education in South India
Radha Kumud Mookerji : Hindu Civilization –