PRIMARY EDUCATION

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Village education today has broadly come to mean primary education. the cities which today flourish on the ruins of villages should so change that they serve the villages. Whether or not the cities change, It must convert to this viewpoint as many as possible of the young men and women there. Hence it is necessary that primary education should be considered from various points of view. I wish to dwell on only one idea in this article. From many years of reflection and quite a few experiments, I have come to the conclusion that primary education should be given for at least a year without using any text-books and even after that pupils should make the minimum use of them. When a child is learning the alphabet, when he is trying to master the forms of numerals and letters, his senses remain dormant and his intelligence, instead of blossoming, becomes stunted.

 A child starts learning immediately after birth but it does so mainly through the eyes and ears. It learns language as soon as it starts speaking. Hence the child is as its parents are. If the latter are cultured, the child pronounces words correctly and imitates the right ways of the home. This alone constitutes his true education and were it not that our civilization has become so disrupted, children would be receiving the best education in the home itself. But we are not yet in such a happy situation. There is no alternative to sending children to schools. However, if children must go to shcools, these should feel like homes to them and their teachers should be as parents. The education given also should be similar to that which is imparted in a cultured home. In other words, children must receive their primary education  from teachers through the spoken word. By receiving education in this manner can a child gain in a year through his eyes and ears ten times the knowledge he can acquire through the alphabet.

The child will have got a general knowledge of history and geography in the first year through play and in the form of stories. He will have learnt some poems by heart with their correct pronunciation. He will have memorized his tables. Moreover, as the child will not be burdened with having to identify letters of the alphabet, his mind will be kept from withering and his eyes will not be

misused. The child’s hand, instead of being used to form crooked letters on a slate and trying to understand the difficult symbols that are  letters, would rather be engaged in drawing geometrical lines and recognizing pictures. This is the primary education of the hands. And if we wish to impart primary education to the crores of children of India, we shall not be able to do so in any other way. Under the present circumstances, it is impossible for this country to see that books reach crores of children. I admit that if it is necessary to supply children with books in order to give them primary education, we should try to do so, whatever the cost. However, if books are regarded as superfluous and harmful, the practical argument may be put forward. What is unnecessary or harmful from an ethical standpoint is also found to be impractical.

 In a civilization that is from flaws, the ethical and the practical are not opposed to each other and should not be. It is clear that such education cannot be given by the teachers of present-day primary schools. These teahcers may thrash the children and make them learn the alphabet and perhaps a few numbers. The poor teacher himself does not have the general knowledge which I visualize for the child in the first year. When the teachers themselves do not know how to speak the language in its pure form, how can the children learn it from them?

The problem is how to impart the education we discussed in the last issue and wherefrom to get the teachers to impart it. This is the real problem regarding education. The Government Training College has not solved this problem. It has not even solved the problem of the three Rs that is, reading, writing and arithmetic. Even of these three so little is learnt that neither the pupils nor the public profit much by it. Hence this task has to be taken up by the College. It is the duty and the right of the latter to find new methods in the field of education which would sustain the national cause. And in my humble opinion, we can take these methods in a very small measure from Europe and in an even smaller measure from the current trends in  India. In every country education is for the preservation of its independence. Hence we shall have to conduct new experiments in our education. In doing so, we may well make ourselves familiar with the experience in Europe; but we should not conclude that all that if found there is good or what is good under the conditions prevailing there will be good for us. One of the conclusions that emerges from this is that we should regard with suspicion the methods practised in the Government schools. Since the education imparted by the Government is fatal to swaraj as well as to our civilization, it is possible that if we follow the opposite methods in many matters we may find. The medium of instruction there is English, hence we must conclude that the medium of national education cannot be English. They put up huge expensive buildings in which to give education. We should realize that this is improper. Our School buildings should be simple and inexpensive.

Stress there is purely on literary learning and India’s industries are ignored. We know that this is improper. In that form of education, teaching of religion, that is, religion not of any particular community but universal religion, has no place. We know that this leads to a negation of education.

The history that is taught in Government schools is, if not false, written from the British standpoint. The very same facts have been interpreted differently by German, French and American historians.

Contemporary events are interpreted by the Government in one way and by the people in another, as in the case of the massacre in the Punjab. The economics taught in Government schools upholds the

British system while we, on the other hand, view it differently. Government schools make a plea for the town civilization, whereas the villages are the soul of our national civilization. In Government primary schools, their teachers, with the minimum amount of knowledge, are employed without regard to their character and on the minimum salaries possible, whereas in national primary schools, the teachers being self-sacrificing and persons of character and learning (and not because they are in in a sorry plight), should accept the smallest salaries. We can now have an idea of the kind of education that should be given in the city schools. Our pupils should live in villages, lend stability to village civilization, be familiar with the needs of villages, rid them of such faults as they may have, teach their children not to become citydwellers but to remain villagers, i.e., to become farmers. Hence so long as the existing system of education in the cities is not basically changed without fear, we shall not attain one of the basic ideals of the univerdities nor may we be said to practise it. Let us take only example: any university or school. We shall have the right to run them only when we attempt to make villagers out of the children who study in them, when we succeed in making them take interest in village life, when we make them understand the latter, and, finally, when those of them who are about

The problems of primary education or village education can be solved only when we thoroughly change the curricula of the school and the University and when the teachers have understood my viewpoint. Today we hesitate to effect certain changes for fear of losing pupils, for fear of public opinion or from a sense of false prestige. If we had no hesitation these school would produce a fine set of people who would serve the villages and this would somewhat atone for the sins of the cities. The pupils of these school would become first-class spinners, carders and weavers; they would have the best knowledge of farming, they would know carpentry to suit the needs of the village; in other words, they would know how to make good spinning-wheels, they would know how to repair—if not make—bullock-carts, ploughs, etc., they would know sewing enough for the needs of the village, their handwriting would be as beautiful as pearls, they would have a basic ability to write, they would know Indian multiplication tables, they would be familiar with ancient literature like the Mahabharata and the Ramayana and their modern spiritual meaning; they would know village games; they would be familiar with the rules of hygiene, they would be good home-doctors, i.e., they would be able to diagnose common ailments and prescribe remedies for them; they would know how to clean village dumping-grounds, ponds wells and so on. In other words, education in these schools would be such that it enables the pupils to serve the villages in every way and the expenses incurred should be regarded as having been incurred on primary education. Only when we do so and are able to do so, can we be said to have truly entered the villages. But directly such a question is raised, such a change brought about and such an ideal proclaimed, our school will become empty. Should such a contingency arise I would be willing to welcome it in the cause of truth. But so long as the ideal of the universities regarding village education remains what it is, not to do this would amount to untruth and betrayal. However, it is my belief as well as my experience that if we remain steadfast in our objective, the public will in the end understand it and help in advancing it. If we looked into the causes of failures— so called or so considered—we would find that those who believed in the ideals were themselves disloyal, half-baked and half-hearted. He

who doubts will perish, but people instead of taking his doom for what it is think that it was his ideal that was wanting in some way and so failed.

It is my firm belief that if our school  had teachers with faith and a spirit of self-sacrifice, they would overflow with pupils. People can recognize a genuine thing. Often it seems to take time, but

that is merely an illusion. It is a rule without an exception that the straight path is the quickest.

An institution which panders to people’s weaknesses and their love of pleasure may fill in no time. So what? That certainly does not prove its success. One consequence may however flow from the

acceptance of my viewpoint. Those pupils who have come in the hope of getting the same kind of education as is imparted in Government schools, those who have come in the hope of acquiring fitness to lead a city life, would be disappointed and leave our school. But it would be as well. We as well as they would be saved from a false situation, would be able to render true service to one another. I should like to close this series by dilating a little more on the idea with which I started it. And then I hope to discuss a few questions I have before me on this subject. If the view that a knowledge of the alphabet should be totally avoided during the first year of primary education is correct, some of

its desirable consequences ought to be apparent in the schools and the University.

 

 

Nowadays the cult of bookish knowledge has increased a great deal. New books are being published every day. Anyone who has any command over language, anyone who has reflected even a little, become eager to put his ideas into print and believes that in so doing he is rendering national service. Consequently, an unbearable burden is placed on the brains of pupils and the pockets of their guardians. The pupil’s intellect becomes confused. Their brains stuffed with a multitude of facts have no room for any original thought. And even facts instead of being properly arranged lie about in disorder in these brains like things in the house of an idle person. They are of no use either to themselves or to the public. Hence in my opinion the numerous books that are published   nowdays should not be given to the pupils. Even literate pupils should receive the larger part of their education orally from the teachers. They should read the minimum number of books but should reflect on what they read and while doing so translate into practice whatever they find acceptable. By doing so, the life of the pupils will become interesting, thoughtful, wise, steadfast, pure and energetic.

Such education befits a poor nation and will prove useful to the pupils and the public. Hence the solution to the serious problem before the university depends on the capacity of its present teachers to imbibe its ideals and to make a mighty effort to put them into practice.

 

Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Gandhian Scholor