Read the previous parts,
Democracy to Despotism
Scrutinising more sharply at the ‘monitorial’ factor of the system. Why did they name them specifically as ‘monitors’? A student from the Bhaktivedanta Gurukul in Mayapur beautifully sheds light on the original multi-age system that prevailed in native schools9:
“In Gurukul, we are always trying to educate the children on how to be good leaders. There is a difference between a ‘leader’ and a ‘manager’. A manager just does what he has to do, to get things done. A leader is someone who improves and understands the people he is leading and works on making them better people. To facilitate leadership in Gurukul, we operate a multi-age system, as it helps the person who is leading to understand that not all students are at the same level. Some can work twice as hard and some cannot as much. The leader has to work within these parameters, to make things improve everyday. In most schools, however, children are kept strictly within their age groups. There is a certain set of standardised expectations. There is no room for individuality. However, this multi-age school allows everyone to learn how to be a good leader and a follower at the same time. There is a constant mix of relationships, so that everyone learns how to reciprocate with seniors, peers and juniors. To respect and listen to the seniors, to support the peers and to educate and protect the juniors.“
This compassionate dimension was shattered by tweaking the two-way learning process(of enabling students to be a good leader and follower simultaneously) to a one-way learning process (of becoming only a follower). And, that is where the group leader/senior turns into a group monitor/manager. In fact, even the architecture of the school buildings was purposively designed to foster this ‘one-way learning’ only.
(Figure 1: One-Way Learning – Illustration by Akshaya Srinivasan)
Right from the terminology used in schools even today, like ‘class monitor’, ‘invigilator’, ‘roll-call’, ‘instruction’, ‘examination’, ‘attendance’ etc; has a clear tone of ‘control’. Hence, the above ‘one-way’ learning (rather instruction) clearly demanded and outturned unquestionable compliance as opposed to the popular claims by the coloniser having gifted India with ‘democracy’. No individual say or independent thinking, mere receiver of instructions.
But, what were they receiving?
‘White’-Washing the Curriculum
(Moving ahead to the ‘what’ is being taught as part of education…) The Company not only subdued India through military force and intense economic exploitation but also established a network of institutions and a civic culture to control the ‘Indian mind’. Central to this process was the creation of an ‘ideological state apparatus’ aimed at producing knowledge that would facilitate the ‘cultural enslavement’ of the Indian subjects.
One key method was the interpretation of Indian texts through a Western lens, based on European historical experiences, and presenting these as the definitive understanding of India—this became known as Orientalism. The Asiatic Society of Bengal, founded by William Jones, was one of the earliest pioneers of this approach. It was followed by other institutions such as the Archaeological Survey, Census, Anthropological Survey, and Zoological Survey. The British determined which texts would be translated and published, framing them as universal laws of the land. This process ignored the rich diversity of local practices and regional variations across India. The knowledge produced from these selective translations was standardised, framed as the definitive Oriental Studies, and propagated within European academic circles. This knowledge was later adopted into India’s official educational system.1
Ironically, there seemed to be immense admiration for the Indian intellect in the earlier phases of the Company.
(Figure 2: William Jones, in his letter (from the Journal of Asiatic Society of Calcutta), expresses great curiosity over Indian math, sciences and philosophy and is sincerely trying to comprehend and translate)
However, over time the tide turned the other way. As historian Padma Sri Meenakshi Jain explains in her book, The British Makeover of India- Judicial and Other Indigenous Institutions Upturned (Meenakshi Jain, 2024):
“Early Company men became strong proponents of indigenous institutions, and cautioned against any transplantation from Britain. A small, but significant, minority of officials, were ‘either evangelical militants or sympathizers.’ They too were curious about their Indian subjects, ‘only to the extent that they could be proselytized.’
The eighteenth-century ‘reverence for Indian antiquity’ was, however, overturned in the mid-nineteenth century, when a marked change in British attitude became perceptible. The earlier appreciation gave way to censure. The transformation could be attributed to mounting self-confidence following a series of military successes in India, and triumph over Napoleonic France by 1815.”
Thereon, ensued the battle of ideals between the Anglicists and the Orientalists. The Orientalist viewpoint primarily focused on India’s philosophical and religious traditions, as well as the promotion of vernacular languages in education. In contrast, the Anglicists emphasised the importance of introducing Western science, literature, and philosophy to India.3 However, the Orientalists (not all though) pursued a manipulated translation process of the minimal native texts available to them and contemptuously declared it as the sole meagre wisdom of the land.1 As Macaulay states in his infamous Minute after inferring from the Orientalists, ‘a single shelf of a good European library was worth the whole native literature of India and Arabia.’
(Figure 3: Excerpt from Macaulay’s, Minute on Education,1835)
Whereas, the Anglicists expressed an outright despise for the native wisdom and batted for the direct introduction of an anglicised curriculum in the new colonial education act. The Macaulay’s Minute in 1835 settled the debate in favour of the Anglicists, hammering the final nail in the coffin of the native education, by announcing the medium of instruction to be in English.
In fact ‘Orientalism merely supplied grist to the Anglicist mill.’ A major part of the Oriental Studies, ‘and the stereotypes emanating from it, were used by Anglicists to attack the native culture. Orientalism and Anglicism thus appear to be two faces of the colonial enterprise, rather than forces in conflict. They both contributed to the construction of a colonised society in India.’ as Krishna Kumar puts it.3
Therefore, the two sides clearly shared in common an innate inferior perception of India, hence the notion of ‘The White Man’s Burden’ to civilise its colonies. Perception forms the basis of a narrative. Unfortunately, a westernised narrative and body of knowledge (extracted from India, distorted and reimported) made its way to (and even after independence, still prevails in) Indian school textbooks.
Research published by Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities shares a glimpse of the curriculum of the Proficient’s Degree, an advanced academic program provided by Madras University, as quoted in the 1853 Second Report from the Select Committee of the House of Lords (Thakurdas Jana, Sarkar Sandip, 2021):
“An acquaintance with the histories of Rome and Greece, through Goldsmith, and the histories published by the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, and with the help of Niebuhr; the history of Modern Europe, through Russell; the history of India, through Symonds, Norton, and Marshman; and the Philosophy of History, through Smyth’s Lectures. In Natural Philosophy, Plane Astronomy, through Herschell, Optics from the work of the Society for the Diffusion of Useful Knowledge, and from notes and formulae of the headmaster. Mr.Powell. Mechanics, Hydrostatics, and Pneumatics from the same materials, Chemistry from Mrs. Marcet’s work. The elements of Political Economy from Mrs. Marcet’s work. Mental Philosophy from Abercrombie’s work. In Mathematics, Plane and Spherical Trigonometry, the first three sections of Newton’s Principia, as modelled by the headmaster, and the Ellipse in Conic Sections. Reading in Shakespeare, Milton, Pope, and extracts from various authors, published in Chambers Encyclopedia of Literature and the Calcutta Reader; besides English composition.”
However, in the following years, British politician, Charles Wood’s 1854 despatch implemented a more effective centralisation of education of the imperialists. The dispatch developed the two-tier approach, when Macaulay’s ‘downward-filtration’ method outputted slow results in mass anglicisation. So, the two-tiered approach that was evolved, declared: English for the elite, vernacular for the masses.5 Both taught western content and thought, only the medium of instruction differing. The despatch provides a much clearer explanation of this:
(Figure 4: Excerpt from Wood’s despatch of 1854)
No wonder, the rural population today attending the government ‘Tamil-medium’ or ‘Hindi-medium’ schools aspire to go to an ‘English-medium’ school one day. While the urban population aspire to attend a convent boarding school, and eventually do a university program, abroad in foreign(western) countries. It is an inherent cultural dependency built, defining the parameters of social mobility and stature. The mission was quite successful, as to foster in the natives right from childhood a sense of respect and awe for the noble qualities of the coloniser’s language and culture, while simultaneously cultivating a sense of disregard for their own background. Former Governor-General of India, Henry Hardinge in his letter to Queen Victoria, on 23rd November 1844, wrote6:
“The return of peace has also increased the desire of the native population to receive the advantages of English education. The literature of the West is the most favourite study amongst the Hindoos in their schools and colleges. They will discuss with accuracy the most important events in British History. Boys of fifteen years of age, black in colour, will recite the most favourite passages from Shakespeare, ably quoting the notes of the English and German commentators.”
By and large, that doesn’t sound so irrelevant, even after almost two centuries, right? It took me 20 years, to discover(the names of) the three major rivers flowing in the city I live in, yet I can still clearly recall reading about the English Channel in my middle school geography textbook. Names like Newton, Pythagoras, Wren & Martin etc. overrided names like Sushruta, Bhaskaracharya, Panini, Aryabhatta. Vaastu Shastra, the Indian treatise on architecture, urban planning etc; was almost considered a trivial topic in my undergraduate architectural program, hardly heeded to, not even during the ‘Vernacular Architecture’ elective course.
The children were(are still being) not just fed alien information, but more unfortunately, in an alien language. The foreignisation of language and knowledge aided the process of mentally separating a thought, idea, or concept from its original context. Complete decontextualisation of the mind. A great deal of research evidence(approved by UNICEF and UNESCO) indicates that instructing children in their native language builds a solid foundation for cognitive growth, enhances their communication abilities, and strengthens the emotional bond between the child and their educational setting. So, right in the seeding of the colonial tree, the native roots have been severed. An outlander in our own land, we have all become.
Decontextualisation to Desensitisation
A significant shift in the socio-economic landscape stemmed from the colonial government’s push to implement the principles of utilitarianism. The western narrative being fed to children, was based on utilitarian ideas, aiming to address social disorder. A key element of this approach was the acknowledgement of individual rights and freedom, a crucial step in establishing a utilitarian state. This recognition was intended to foster the pursuit and enjoyment of benefits. The individual, whose happiness was safeguarded under this framework, was expected to possess an insatiable desire for resources and the freedom to secure the means of production. Hence, utilitarianism was a means to ensure consumerism. The success of utilitarianism, promising increased productivity and pleasure, relied on the widespread acceptance of this view of the ‘individual’ citizen.3
In the realm of education, the utilitarian model emphasised personal upward mobility as the key driver of progress. However, this notion of ‘individual’ advancement clashed with a society that for years had valued the ‘family’ as its core social unit. As Indumati Ji states, we need to shift back to our Bharatiya drishti of viewing the smallest unit of the societal system as a ‘family’ and not an ‘individual’. Now, how does this make a difference?
When we approach situations from a ‘familial’ perspective, individuals naturally adopt a mindset of compassion and interdependence. Love and empathy serve as the foundational emotions that unite and strengthen a family. When this core value of compassion is applied, it creates a ripple effect across broader systems, influencing economic markets, business practices, educational institutions, and government operations, shaping them in a more interconnected and compassionate way.
Unfortunately, that was not the intention of the rulers. The school curriculum and impersonal examinations became disconnected from the daily lives of Indian children, further distancing them from their families. So, what kept the children tied to these schools?—’Attendance’. The concept of ‘monitor’ in the monitorial system evolved into the idea of ‘attendance’ in the pupil-teacher system during the colonial bureaucratic era. To address irregular attendance caused by festivals, family events like weddings, or obligations related to family occupations, a ‘minimum attendance’ requirement was introduced to pass the academic year. As a result, the children strayed more and more away from their families and homeland.
However, the ‘divide and rule’ was effected not only at the family level, but also at the societal level. The various craftsmen/artisan guilds and other agrarian/vocational communities that were existing across the Indian societal fabric were deliberately crippled and stifled. The traditional handicraft industries were slaughtered, by introducing a series of bans and heavy taxations on native crops and arts, leading to the ‘de-industrialisation’ process of India, during the 19th century. Standing in stark contradiction to the popular affirmations that ‘Industrialisation’, was a boon blessed by the aristocrats to India.
(Figure 5: Paintings by Marlet et Cie, 1828, portray the interconnected network of various artisan/vocational communities that flourished across India, like carpenters, fabric painters, brahmin astronomers, masons, potters etc. (Source: Meisterdrucke Fine Arts))
India, once an exporting country, transformed into an importing one. From having a promising, self-sufficient manufacturing potential, it regressed into a poverty-striken nation striving for growth. This shift occurred because the British decided to stop importing goods from their colony. Instead, they chose to extract raw materials (such as cotton, silk, indigo etc) and sell back the finished products to Indian markets at much higher prices. As a result, they effectively dismantled the homegrown industries.5 This also outlines the need to inculcate in the natives the ‘western taste’ through western education and superiority, ensuring that they would continue to be long-term, loyal consumers of western products—something that we continue to be today! They even went so far as to ban many traditional performing arts, such as Bharatnatyam, falsely labelling them as obscene. Similarly, Kalaripayattu, a martial art originating from Kerala, was prohibited out of fear that any form of combat training could lead to public rebellion and potential overthrow.
This was subtly reinforced through the education system as well. Here, we need to focus not just on the ‘Content of subjects’, but also on the ‘Choice of subjects’. Why were subjects like music, dance, weaving, agriculture, and others marginalised or even completely overlooked in the mainstream curriculum of the Indian education system? As Muneet Dhiman Ji, founder of Vidyakshetra Gurukul, points out: ‘The colonisers deliberately undermined the child’s ‘Ichaa’ (will), ‘Gyana’ (knowledge), and ‘Kriya’ (action) shakti (popularly known as heart, head and hand; will, knowledge and action that is required to realise a vision). The ‘icha’ and the ‘kriya’, being the most compromised by relegating varied disciplines that work on these two realms- arts, crafts, martial arts, yoga, agriculture, and similar disciplines- to the category of ‘extra-curricular’ , effectively excluding them from the core curriculum.’ The prioritisation of literacy and numeracy for clerical jobs and a bit of technical education for engineering, medicine and law; sums up why the curriculum predominately caters to English(few other languages), Math, Science and Social Science only. ‘Hence, it primarily stimulates the Gyana Shakti (intellect or head realm), but only to the extent of acquiring information, without enabling a deeper conceptual understanding.’10
- ‘Sense’ of Place- cultivated through Gyana Shakti, by awakening awareness and aligning with the rhythms of nature, along with a conscious knowledge of one’s surroundings, environment and country—something that is unfortunately hindered by confining children to boxed classrooms.
- ‘Sense’ of Belonging- harnessed through Kriya Shakti, by connecting with the earth and indulging in physical activities, menial services. By ‘doing’ things, a child cultivates life and working skills and hence traits of self-confidence and self-sustenance, and not a mere seeker of external employment—something that is sadly been erased by cancelling out experiential knowledge.
- ‘Sense’ of Community- nurtured through Ichaa Shakti, which fosters interdependence and a focus on building relationships. However, the competition for marks sabotages this, fostering a crab mentality instead.10
As a result, all three are completely shattered, leaving the child utterly ‘de-sensitised’ to his peers, family, environment, society, culture, and ultimately, his motherland.
In the previous section, we explored the need to Indianise the structure and pedagogy within the system. Here, we turned our focus to the Indianisation of the curriculum, which can be achieved in two stages: a) by moving away from the Western perspective and reviving the Bharatiya Drishti (Indian worldview), and b) by restoring the Bharatiya Gyan Bhandar (repository of knowledge and disciplines), which addresses the development of all three Shaktis—Ichha, Gyana, and Kriya—that remain deeply soaked in Indian ethos and guided by the principles of Dharma. And by that, we are not rejecting the concept of the global; rather, in fact exactly presenting an argument for how to engage with it. It is common sense that growth comes from the root upwards, not the other way around!
To be continued…
References
- Roy, H., & Alam, J. (2021). A History of Colonial India.
- Jain, M. (2024). The British Makeover of India: Judicial and Other Indigenous Institutions Upturned. Aryan Books International.
- Kumar, K. (2005). Political agenda of education: A study of colonialist and nationalist ideas. Sage.
- Macaulay, T. (1835). Minute on Indian education.
- Drysdale, R. S. (1975). Education as Cultural Imperialism.
- Esher, R. B. B. (1908). The Letters of Queen Victoria: A Selection from Her Majesty’s Correspondence Between the Years 1837 and 1861, Published by Authority of His Majesty King Edward VII (Vol. 2). J. Murray.
- Jones, W., & Davis, S. (1831). Letters of Sir William Jones to the Late Samuel Davis, Esq., F.R.S., &c. from 1785 to 1794, Chiefly Relating to the Literature and Science of India, and Elucidatory of the Early History of the Asiatic Society of Calcutta. Transactions of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland, 3(1), 1–31.
- Jana, T., & Sarkar, S. (2021). A nation within a nation: English education as a tool of divide and rule policy in colonial India. Rupkatha Journal on Interdisciplinary Studies in Humanities, 13(1), 1-7.
- Bhaktivedanta Academy Mayapur (2021). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_gY9NGlBLkw
- Muneet Dhiman, Sangam Talks (2023). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j5v3mEPg_Jo
- Kāṭadare, I. (1995). पश्चिमीकरण से भारतीय शिक्षा की मुक्ति
Feature Image Credit: Scene at a Native school, with teacher and pupils under a shady roof. By Henrion, Missions catholiques, 1846. (Source: Mary Evans Picture Library
Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article belong to the author. Indic Today is neither responsible nor liable for the accuracy, completeness, suitability, or validity of any information in the article.
