Decolonization(s) and Education. Daniel Maul

aim was the (re)construction of an imagined pre-colonial social order disrupted by British colonial rule. Similarly, Gandhi’s famous educational proposals represented the spiritualization of this very imperial idea and did not pose an emancipatory alternative with regard to the questions of hierarchy and discrimination. The chapter highlights the character of nationalist education as an elite project. Education constituted ←43 | 44→a primary tool in the fabric of independence and liberation. But this tool was still both imperial and socially conservative in outlook and purpose.

      Keywords: India, independence, nationalism, women, low castes

      Introduction

      The similarity in the ideas of a conservative member of the British parliament, the British governor-general of India who laid the foundation for its colonial education policy⁵ and the most vocal anti-colonial leaders who have assumed an iconic status is quite extraordinary. Popular writings about the history of education in India assert that the British colonisers imposed English education while anti-colonial nationalism rejected it and that M. K. Gandhi produced the most original and revolutionary alternative.⁶ The terms ‘English’ and ‘English education’, as used in the colonial records and the nationalist writings, denote modern education.

      During the first ninety-three years (1757–1850) of its rule, the colonial state did not establish a single modern educational institution. It established Arabic and Sanskrit colleges and issued stipends and scholarships to study these languages. It incorporated nearly 70,000 indigenous vernacular schools by giving a small salary of five rupees to the teacher and established several schools where a “pre-colonial” vernacular curriculum was taught. Though the British liberals forced the colonial government to earmark 100,000 rupees a year for Indian education in 1813, the amount remained unutilised till 1823, and partially utilised till 1852–1853. During this period, few English schools were established by individual British officers, which were regularly closed down soon after the death or departure of their respective founders. Indians themselves established most of the modern educational institutions like the Hindu College at Calcutta, The Elphinstone College at Bombay, Pacheyappa College at Madras.

      Two models of national education

      The imperialist and nationalist historical narratives create binaries by side-lining the areas of convergence, co-operation and trans-national connections. In fact, ←44 | 45→the origin of the anti-colonial agitation itself was rooted in a transnational connection. Alan Octavian Hume (1829–1912), son of the radical Scottish member of British Parliament Joseph Hume, was the moving force behind the establishment of the Indian National Congress (INC) in 1885. The liberal Indian and British leaders who joined Hume opposed oppressive agrarian policies and campaigned for the introduction of compulsory and free education. They were idealists, rationalists, and humanists who refused to turn a blind eye on the traditional social disabilities suffered by women and lower castes and the abject rural poverty. They believed that economic and social transformation achieved through universalisation of education and political agitation for India’s liberation from colonial rule should take place simultaneously.⁷

      A group of leaders who called themselves as nationalists opposed this liberal agenda of the INC. The most prominent among them were Lajpat Rai (1865–1928), Aurobindo Ghosh (1872–1950), Bal Gangadhar Tilak (1856–1920) and Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi (1869–1948). These nationalist leaders could be divided into two categories: those who did embrace modern education and those who opposed it. Lajpat Rai and Aurobindo Ghosh supported modern education but insisted on teaching cultural, religious, and philosophical achievements in ancient India. Lajpat Rai was the first to raise the issue of “national education in 1883” two years before the establishment of the Indian National Congress. His primary concern was peculiar to his province of Punjab. When the British conquered Punjab in 1849, they rejected the Punjabi language which was spoken by the Hindus, Muslims and Sikhs as ‘a dialect’ and imposed Hindustani or what came to be later called Urdu in Persian script as the official language and the medium of instruction in schools.⁸ This was resented by all the three communities. William Arnold, the first Director of Public Instruction, termed this opposition in a racist way by declaring that, “to an Asiatic, everything is distasteful, which is new.”⁹

      The resentment against the introduction of Hindustani was due to two reasons. Firstly, it was unfamiliar language and secondly, the British promoted Hindustani as the language of the Muslims other parts of India. This language ←45 | 46→was spoken by people in and around Delhi, which was a seat of erstwhile Mughal Empire. This was a politically motivated stand to keep the two communities separate and prevent a possible threat of combined opposition to the colonial rule. Officials openly declared that “divide et imperia had always been our best policy and must continue to be so.”¹⁰ The Muslims in various parts of India spoke the language of their Hindu neighbours and used Arabic for religious purposes. They spoke Bengali in Bengal Presidency, Gujarati and Marathi in Bombay Presidency, Tamil and Malayalam in Madras Presidency. The colonial state argued that the Muslims had forgotten their culture and established separate schools for Muslims to teach Hindustani.¹¹ These schools were not successful; the Muslim boys studied in them could not get jobs as they had no command over the local language. But they were successful in promoting a distinct Muslim identity.

      Lajpat Rai developed his ideal of national education as a reaction to this policy. He also held a very high status and position in the Arya Samaj, the revivalist organisation established by Dayananda Saraswati in 1875. He wanted “to instil pride in the Indian nation” by making Punjabi as the medium of instruction in the educational institutions and teach ancient India’s cultural, and scientific achievements in addition to the modern curriculum.¹² His movement was region-specific.

      Aurobindo Ghosh drew up a constructive plan for national education during the Swadeshi movement during 1905–1908. Aurobindo explained that the national education movement was an attempt “to rescue education from subversive to foreign and petty ends and to establish colleges and schools maintained and controlled by Indians which would give an education superior to the government-controlled education.” Aurobindo insisted that “we must acquire for her the best knowledge that Europe can give her and assimilate it to her own peculiar type of national temperament. We must introduce the best methods of teaching humanity has developed, whether modern or ancient. All these we must harmonise into a system which will be impregnated with the spirit of self-reliance so on to build up men and not machines.”¹³ So the national education model promoted ←46 | 47→by Lajpat Rai and Aurobindo Ghosh proposed to teach patriotism along with the modern curriculum.

      The second model was developed first by Bal Gangadhar Tilak and then by Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi. They rejected modern education as it supposedly destroyed the structures of hierarchy. This paper limits its analysis to the second group as its protagonists were the most vocal advocates of national education and exhibited vehement opposition to modern education.

      The sources for national education

      During the colonial period, two sources were available to build educational systems upon India’s own pre-colonial system and the system as practised in England. Regarding the Indian system, the British officials and educators had conducted extensive village level enquiry and published reports for most parts of India. The Indian society was stratified in terms of caste, with Brahmins as priests and interpreters of sacred texts alone having access to the Sanskrit schools.

      Vernacular schools, in contrast, were open to boys of all castes. Nearly two-thirds of students and a large portion of teachers in pre-colonial vernacular schools came from peasant and artisanal castes. In the Bombay Presidency, the village-wise data for Ratnagiri district is available. Here of the 1468 boys in schools 418 were non-Brahmin, and 393 belonged to artisanal castes,