The Radhakrishnan Commission was a 10-member commission. There were six Indians and four from abroad. Dr Zakir Hussain was also included among the six Indian members. At that time, Dr Hussain was Vice Chancellor of Jamia Millia Islamia. In those days, he was highly acclaimed for saving the Jamia from being closed down. The commission sought advice from 600 academics in preparing the report, completed the assigned responsibility within a period of one year and submitted the report to the Government on 24 August 1959.
The 705-page report has two parts. The first part has 18 chapters. It includes the report and recommendations while the second part has 10 appendices. Most appendices include figures and tables. Aligarh Muslim University, Jamia Millia Islamia and Osmania University Hyderabad are among the selected universities visited by the commission for consultation. Those active in the field of education, especially those with an interest in policy intervention, should read the entire report of the commission, also available at taleemiboard.org. This report has invited severe criticism from some because it ardently advocates the Hindu philosophy of life and gives central importance to the philosophy of “Sarva Dharma Sambhava” (the equality of the destination of the paths followed by all religions).
This has been a subject of constant debate, however, in the article we will look at other issues mentioned in the commission’s report. We will highlight some important chapters of this report in this article.
History of Education in India
The first chapter of this report presents the history of education in India. It is divided into two parts. The first part deals with the history of education in India before 1857 and the second part after 1857.
The report says, “The universities of modern India owe very little to our ancient or mediaeval centres of learning but one must not forget the existence of such centres since very early times.”
In other words, modern universities can gather very little from these ancient centres. While this is the view of the first Education Commission established in the country, the National Education Policy 2020 holds the opposite view. The NEP 2020 holds the view that we should model and standardize our colleges and universities according to the educational centres of ancient India, including Nalanda and Takshashila. When the National Education Policy 2020 was being reviewed, as far as we know, none of the reviewers cited this part of the Dr Radhakrishnan Commission report as an argument (to criticize it).
The Radhakrishnan Commission has presented the educational activities during the mediaeval period (i.e. the period of Muslim Rule in India). It is written in the report – “While some of those Hindu centres of learning in the East and the South continued their work throughout the middle ages, the Mohamedan rulers encouraged the establishment of colleges (madrasahs) at places like Lahore, Delhi, Rampur, Lucknow, Allahabad, Jaunpur, Ajmer and Bidar. Sher Shah who later became emperor was a student at Jaunpur, and among, the subjects he studied there were history and philosophy, the Arabic and Persian literature.
“The curriculum of these colleges paralleled the trivium and quadrivium of the European institutions and included grammar, rhetoric, logic and law, geometry and astronomy, natural philosophy, metaphysics and theology while poetry was a source of pleasure to all. Most of the important institutions attempted to specialize in one or more branches of knowledge as Rampur did in logic and medicine, Lucknow in theology and Lahore in astronomy and mathematics.
“The medium of instruction was mainly Arabic and there were many famous scholars in Arabic, teaching in the institutions of higher learning. While most of these institutions have disappeared, some still carry on the traditions of the old Madrasahs.”
It appears pertinent to mention that while Mediaeval Education does not find any mention in the current National Education Policy 2020, it could have been referred to when the government called for suggestions on the Draft National Education Policy 2020. But, maybe it was not done. Instead of criticizing the Muslim community, we will work with the presumption that the intellectuals in the Muslim community did not point it out because the current government does not listen but believes in spelling out its narrative. An objective review of the educational activities in the British Raj is also presented in the historical background of the report. Not only this, the commission also recorded the educational services rendered by Christian missionaries. In this part of the report, the establishment of Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) is also mentioned.
In contrast, the National Education Policy 2020 does not mention the services rendered by the British government in the field of education. The National Education Policy jumped straight into 2020 from ancient times. Hiding history, distorting it and highlighting only certain portions of history appears to be the motto of those who framed the National Education Policy 2020.
Selected points from the 18 chapters of the Commission’s report
A study of these points will also show that India, which was once committed to the policy of respecting all religions and promoting a pluralistic society, has today reached a point where the supremacy of one culture is not only spoken of but is being forcibly enforced.
The second chapter is about the objectives of university education. The first title in it is “New India” i.e. the present India came into existence on 15 August 1947. The society of this newly formed nation is new, the mood is new, its education is new and its economy is different from Ancient India. In university education, students should be made aware that they should not lead purposeless lives and that their lives should have some aim or goal. (It is another matter that this purpose was not explained in the report. Critics of this commission pointed to this weakness and wrote that the commission did not make clear recommendations, especially concerning religion and moral education.)
Our ancient teachers would impart wisdom along with the teaching of various subjects. Their aim was not merely to impart information through education but to inculcate knowledge and awareness in the students through facts and events occurring in the real world. In the report, knowledge is written in parentheses after the English letter wisdom. “Where is the wisdom we have lost in knowledge? Where is the knowledge we have lost in information? We know what Hitler did in six years with the German youth. The Russians are clear in their minds about the kind of society for which they are educating and the qualities required in their citizens. They tried to remake man in a new image. Our educational system must find its guiding principle in the aims of the social order for which it prepares, like the civilization it hopes to build.”
After mentioning Hitler, the commission said that the education system should be designed keeping in mind how our policymakers aspire for Indian society to be established. This was said 64 years ago, but today it is as important as it was then. Today the importance of that statement has more than doubled. Since education wants to train the intellect and the soul, therefore both knowledge and wisdom (awareness, insight) should be included in the objectives of education.
According to Indian traditions, education should not merely be a means of earning a living, nor should it solely be a means of cultivating thought, nor a system of preparing citizens; rather it should be a means of training and purifying the soul so that people can understand the reality of life and they can be exposed to it. Knowledge should give birth to this process. There is a Sanskrit term for this called “Devatyajanma”.
The report says, “Our ancient teachers tried to teach subjects and impart wisdom. Their ideal was wisdom (irfan) along with knowledge (ilm), jnanamvijnanasahitam. We cannot be wise without some basis of knowledge though we may easily acquire knowledge and remain devoid of wisdom. To use the words of the Upanishad, we may be the knowers of texts (mantravit) and not knowers of self (atmavit).
“Plato distinguishes between factual information and understanding. No amount of factual information would make ordinary men into educated or ‘virtuous’ men unless something is awakened in them, an innate ability to live the life of the soul. The strength of the new ‘faiths’ among intellectuals is partly due to their claim to explain the universe. By professing to interpret all human activity in terms of a single thesis, they give the modern educated men a sense of assurance certainly formerly provided by religion. Since education is both a training of minds and a training of souls, it should give both knowledge and wisdom.”
From the above quotes from the report, it can be deduced that the commission was convinced to introduce spirituality (roohaniyat), purposiveness (maqsadiat) and consciousness (marifat) into the education policy of the British that was devoid of all spirituality. However, these objectives (suggested by the Radhakrishnan Commission) remained only on paper and they were never implemented in our education system.
For all practical purposes, ever since we became independent, our education system remains “Marks-ist”. (Marks mean the numbers that a student secures in his/her exams, and “Marks-ist” means it only revolves around or is obsessed with marks one obtains in the examination. The student is not judged by how much knowledge and wisdom he/she has acquired, rather it is only how many marks the student secures that are relevant and important.)
(to be continued)