Questions on Education with Mahatma Gandhi—III

[Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav]

Prof. Dr. Yogendra Yadav

Senior Gandhian Scholar

Gandhi Research Foundation, Jalgaon, Maharashtra, India

Contact No. – 09404955338, 09415777229

E-mail- [e-mail];

[e-mail]

Mailing Address- C- 29, Swaraj Nagar, Panki, Kanpur- 208020, Uttar Pradesh, India

 

 

Questions on Education with Mahatma Gandhi—III

 

Q. 7. Do you not feel that just as it is necessary for students to now three or four languages, it is also necessary for them to be informed about the dogmas, rituals, injunctions and superstitions of all the prevailing religions?

A. If we wish to create among students respect, tolerance and love for every religion which is indeed religion and not irreligion, we should certainly instruct them in their principles. I do not consider it very necessary to have knowledge of the superstitions and rituals. In a country like India anyone who goes about with his eyes eyes and ears open can see for himself the superstitions and rituals. If we wish to adopt that which is virtuous, we should not at all insist upon knowledge of the superstitions and rituals of every religion. It is possible that a good deal of the students’ time will be taken up by our insisting on their gaining a minute knowledge of whatever rituals and superstitions are to be found in our religion and trying to introduce any necessary reforms in them.

Q. 8. Since you believe in the system of varnas, do you not accept that persons of different varnas should be given different kinds of education?

A. I do not feel that there should be different kinds of education for the different varnas. There is much in common among them and our education should be, as it is at present, common to all. One of the aims of education is to make men of students and he who has become a man will easily understand the norms that apply to and should govern human beings. My conception of the varnas is that they are based on occupations and as the four varnas have to earn their living through their own occupations, the special features of each should be hereditary. Moreover, I do not interpret the varnadharma to imply that one Varna can never have the virtues of the other three. A Brahmin will not earn his livelihood by serving like a Shudra; nevertheless, if he cannot serve or is ashamed to do so he is no Brahmin. True knowledge is unattainable without disinterested service. And although the Shudra will not live on the food received in the begging-bowl after teaching the Vedas and other scriptures, nevertheless, in a well-ordered society, he too will have knowledge of the Vedas.

Q. 9. Is it true that you say that vocational training includes all education and intellectual training is merely a frill of education? If this is so why do you welcome college education?

 A. It is as truer as it is false. Where there is blind worship of intellectual education, I would certainly say that vocational training covers everything. In my definition of education, there is no wall of brick and cement separating intellectual training from vocational training, but the latter includes the former, that is, it provides scope for the development of the intellect. I would make bold to say that a true development of the intellect is not possible without vocational training. The knowledge a mason requires to earn his livelihood is not education at all in my opinion. His education should comprise knowledge of the place of his vocation in society, of bricks and their importance, of the need for houses and what they should be like and how closely they are connected with civilization. We often wrongly believe that intellectual education implies a general knowledge of events. A full development of the intellect is possible without such knowledge. The educationist who turns the student’s brain into a storehouse of innumerable facts has himself not learnt the very first lesson in education. It must have been clear by now what is said in the question is both true and false. It is false if you accept my view of intellectual and vocational education. It is true if these are regarded as mutually exclusive, if there is misconception concerning education and if in framing the question this misconceived education has been kept in mind. It should now be understood why and under what conditions I welcome university education. The university which I visualize will consist of masons, carpenters and weavers who will be truly intellectual social workers; they will not be only masons, carpenters and weavers having knowledge of their trades sufficient merely for them to earn their livelihood. From this university I look forward to seeing a Kabir arise from the weavers, a Bhoja Bhagat from the cobblers, an Akha from the goldsmiths and a Guru Govind from the farmers. I regard all these four as having received intellectual education.

Q. 10. If vocational training is all that education is, why do you not entrust the Vidyapith to a committee of carpenters, blacksmiths and weavers; let them then engage professors for intellectual education as expert servants.

A. The answer to this question is covered by the answer to Question 9; nevertheless, it has been reproduced with a view to clarifying my meaning further. If I had with me weavers, etc., like Kabir, I would certainly hand over the reins of the Vidyapith to them and these professors who impart intellectual education would not be ashamed to serve under them but rather consider it an honour to do so. It is because we have not regarded vocational training as part of education that those practicing the trades are regarded as inferior and we get little or no help from the latter in social service work.

 

Reference:

Navajivan, 17-6-1928