India's cultural emergency - and a twisted education system

Let me explain what I mean through an example.
Let’s say, someone contaminates another's food with arsenic every day. Arsenic is deadly, but it’s a slow poison. He'll have no immediate bodily reaction when he consumes it. Say, he'd begin to feel a little drowsy, maybe confused, and have headaches often. As the symptoms worsen, he'll begin to suspect something. Before it’s too late, he needs to realise what the reason is behind these unexpected symptoms, else the outcomes can be adverse and irreversible. 

Back to the context. The reason why I mentioned that example was to say that our country has been poisoned too, and it NEEDS to change its diet before it’s too late.

Let me make things more clear. Here I quote what we know of Macaulay’s address to the British Parliament in India – 
“I have travelled the length and breadth of India and I have not seen one person who is a beggar, who is a thief. Such wealth I have seen in this country, such high moral values, people of such calibre, that I do not think we would ever conquer this country, unless we break the very backbone of this nation, which is her spiritual and cultural heritage, and therefore, I propose we replace her old and ancient education system, her culture, for if the Indians think that all that is foreign and English is good and greater than their own, they will lose their self-esteem, their native culture, and they will become what we want them, a truly dominated nation.”

Of course, I have seen reports which question the authenticity of this speech, but 1. the veracity of those reports by the media are just as questionable 2. the Indian education system had been replaced anyway leading to the British's desired outcome, whether this was Macaulay’s speech or not is really irrelevant.

But here the British have succeeded, atleast to some extent. They have poisoned the Indian students' intake of knowledge by getting their hold on the education its populace imbibes, the values it respects. The painful truth is, we have taken their baton forward. We teach young Indian minds about Marx and Machiavelli rather than Chānakya, Socrates and Aristotle rather than Ādi Shankara, Galileo and Euclid rather than Āryābhatta, Homer and Shakespeare rather than Kālidasa! We worship Dalton and Thomson and Schrödinger, when ancient India talked about anu and paramānu? Magellan was executed halfway through his voyage to prove that the Earth was spherical when India called geography bhūgōla, gōla literally meaning ‘sphere’ and already supported the heliocentric theory long before Copernicus' defiance and death.

Why do we – the Indians – lead our people to believe that if it wasn’t for Magellan going around in a ship and returning without falling off the earthly horizon, we would’ve never known that the Earth is a sphere? This is misguidance, isn’t it? Have we gone back and reflected upon our own ancient texts, what they have said about the most basic functional unit of the body, aeons before Hooke? How even our mythology talks about evolution, much before Darwin walked?

Indian knowledge has been preserved in manuscripts – how many manuscripts, with how much information, is beyond our comprehension. The challenge is to imbibe the knowledge in them. How is that possible? To learn Sanskrit is the only way to truly understand what they contain! Or is it? True, we could have translations of those writings. But with each translation, the authenticity of the original work is diluted by human misinterpretation. The contents of the original work may have been slightly tweaked in its first translation. The second one could alter the already-misunderstood contents of the previous translation. Hence, what you get as an end product under the cover of an “authentic translation” (which many contemporary Indian writers are rather fond of) is a cumulative remnant of misinterpretations, misinterpretations, and more misinterpretations, and if any, intentionally fabricated hoax content which was never there in the first place. 

Undoubtedly, only the original is the most reliable source. And if its medium is Sanskrit, embrace it. Until then, this is my request to you. If you are a student, question your textbooks. Delve deeper. Never be afraid to put a question-mark on what you’re taught. For all you know, the Aryan theory is being disproved. What you learn about the Later Vedic Age and the glory of Akbar or Khilji could be wrong. And to the parents, Netflix and chill should not be all that they have to pass on when they are in your shoes. Develop a bond with them! Pass on your values and your culture, your beliefs – it’s no good if you have absorbed this culture, but distance it from the next generation!! 

India is yet to achieve independence, true independence from its brainwashed British mindset!




Comments

  1. Valid points.

    We won't be defeated until everyone of us gives up.

    We will bring the revival.

    Jai Sri Ram

    ReplyDelete
  2. How nice Sreemati. First I thought it was someone whom I do not know but when Dr Ramesh told me it is Sri my I read the whole thing and I am so happy that you are back at your writing habit again god bless you and wish you many-many successes.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good work Sreemati. I was not knowing you are Vaidehi. I feel this Puranik name is a new acquisition. Wish you success after success.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thankyou for the encouragement Tatagaru. Yes, my middle name is Vaidehi and I just picked it up as a pen name. I will keep posting regularly :)

      Delete
  4. Well written....Sreemayee...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Hi Sreemayee,
    Well writen blog with clear thought process. I think embracing Sanskrit has to be a long term plan - to introduce the subject in all schools in par with other languages. Is there any psychological analysis on how many languages a child can maximum learn? Our knowledge in English has given the Indians an upper hand in the global matters in the current era, though it came to us at the cost of neglecting Sanskrit.
    Also there is a feeling among many that Sanskrit is a tough language. Also its association with India's caste system (brahminical), it ended up as a non starter in modern India.
    Hence in this context, I feel you must talk about - simplification process for larger acceptance,i contact with technology, among others. A prospective futuristic approach will be better that taking a historical approach.
    Keep thinking on the subject. Dwell deeper into it and suggest a way forward for required policy changes. Wishing you all the best. Siddu

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thankyou mama for the encouragement. Firstly, yes; young children have a vast memory and can efficiently learn 4 languages all at once. Secondly, what I feel about Sanskrit is that so-called "development" cannot come at the cost of our culture. We can't leave Sanskrit for English. True; English is a connecting language, but this is relevant only to the present-day situation – consider a few centuries before when English was unheard of! The popularity of a language determines how effectively it behaves as a 'connector'. The British left no continent, conquered from east to west, and left their traces with their language. Sanskrit is rarely taught because of its neglection and I believe there is no reason why it should be harder to learn than English. If anything it should be easier, considering the perfect grammatical structure it has. Thirdly, what people say about the 'difficulty' or 'brahmanical nature' of the language is either dye to 1. lack of motivation, or an excuse, to not study Sanskrit 2. propaganda. I believe that caste or status of its speakers is completely irrelevant when it comes to speaking a language. In taht case, it should have made sense if Germany stopped speaking German because Hitler spoke it. But it didn't, because Hitler speaking or not speaking it didn't change the language. And when it comes to Sanskrit, the language of the Gods themselves, how can it be said that it is Brahmanical, tyrannical, aristocratic or limited to the higher classes? Valmiki was a robber who went on to write the Ramayana in Sanskrit, the First Poem. Is a robber a noble who would be privileged to learn such a language? Sanskrit was a language of the common man, and its beauty is that it remains unalloyed and youthful despite all the years it has been. We should stay away from such false propaganda, it's absolutely essential in the current scenario! I hope that with the growing technology, Sanskrit will be a great learning experience for many seekers who are scared seeing 24-worded seemingly-meaningless vibhakti tables :) that's another flaw of the education system. But stride by stride, we will reach there.

      Delete
  6. Hi Vaidehi, beautiful points.

    Though language is a part of culture, nothing stopped us from learning about Adi Sankara and Aryabhatta in English. You don't need to learn about them only in a native language. So, we ourselves are to be blamed equally since 70+ years is enough time to do the reversals.


    I also have a few questions:

    1. If Indians were truly so strong culturally, spiritually and morally in the pre-British era, how could they become such an easy prey to the invaders? Whether or not Macaulay's reported speech in the parliament is a fact, this is a fact that Indians became an easy prey. Isn't that an indicator that we were not as strong as we claim to be?

    2. Admittedly Sanskrit has been ignored, neglected for whatever reasons but English has today put India on the global map. Of course, China is stronger without embracing English but people have difficulty in communicating with them. So long as people have alternatives to choose, they are entitled to go with the simpler ones - just as you don't take a bicycle to work when you have a bike. You may however take the bicycle only for physical exercise.

    3. Suppose I used to consume only rice until someone from the neighbouring country introduced wheat to me and I started loving chapattis more than rice since it suits my taste. Is it right to say that I have been 'poisoned' if I totally or even partially gave up rice? 😊

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Sairam pedd, thanks for leaving your thoughts here.
      Firstly – The present-day education system hardly says anything about Adi Shankara or Aryabhatta. Even if you have read about them in English, this is the most probable scenario.
      1. Shankara writes in Sanskrit.
      2. Sanskrit branches out into dialects which omit is harsher sounds, like prakrit.
      3. A translator A writes the text in prakrit. Let’s say, due to human error, he makes 3 mistakes.
      4. With time, Prakrit dies out and Hindi is born. A translator B who doesn’t know sanskrit writes this Prakrit text in hindi. Now again, due to human error, he adds his own 3 mistakes. However, in comparison to the original, this has 6 mistakes – 3 by A and 3 by B.
      5. This is written in Khadiboli and needs to be translated into Awadhi. Translator C, who knows neither Prakrit nor Sanskrit, writes in the next dialect. His work has – 3 mistakes by A + 3 by B + 3 of his own = 9 mistakes.
      6. The Awadhi text is translated into the Hindi we know today by D, whose work has 3A+3B+3C+3D mistakes.
      7. This is translated into English by E who now has 15 mistakes in his work!
      Definitely, the lesser the length of the list, the better the content, the greater resemblance to the original. But to know Sanskrit means that you – as an individual – will grasp the context with only 3 mistakes.
      Of course, this is just an arbitrary example. The figures are only representative. So yes, even if knowing native languages is unrequired, even if it isn’t inevitable, it’s the only reliabke way out. And definitely, it is very much our own mistake that we haven’t corrected this.

      Delete
    2. 2. I do not discount the importance of English. It’s what most, if not all countries speak to understand one another. But as I have said before it cannot come at Sanskrit's price. France still speaks French as much as English, doesn’t it? Also, about Sanskrit being hard, that stigma again is due to how it’s taught. No one would learn a language with taste if they need to memorise 24 words whose meanings they don’t know just for the marks. This is the sorry state of Sanskrit in today’s education. A language is as easy as it is popular.

      Delete
    3. 3. It would be a mistake on your part if you stop eating rice completely as it may have the nutrition which rotis can’t give you! But still, the question is not of eating only rotis or only rice. Just as we need a balanced diet when we eat, we need a balanced diet when we learn. Why I mentioned 'poisoning' is because we’ve led people to believe that all that’s Indian is passe and superstitious and all that’s western is better. This ideal is poisonous, isn’t it? Education is supposed to give one the ability to discriminate, not brainwash them about good and bad! This is what the English did with us, and it’s a shame that with 70+ years of independence we still teach the same thing. I still believe that the government today, however, is slowly rebuilding Indian culture, and that it’sdoing effectively too, because they are with the times. But considering the education system, that’s why I say that culture begins at home. Without a parent-child bond and mutual respect it will die a slow death. It is true that their introduction of English did us good. But English shouldn’thave been the price we paid for Indian pride and Indian self-esteem. Also, don’t worry, eating rotis will not poison you :)

      Delete
    4. In Chanakya's times the rule wasn't with the people hence the teachers stood up. Now when the teachers aren't with us it's the family's duty. But how effective is this? How many Indian parents tell their children about the Ramayana and Mahabharata? We have given everything a communal colour. Today's definition of secularism is to criticise your culture and shrug it away when it is wronged saying all religions are the same. Should this be the ideology that we pass down? Ours is the culture which said ekam sat vipraah bahudhaah vadanti. We say that all religions are the same, but in today's times, under this cover, we give the minorities a higher seat despite this? That is inequality, not justice. We have left our culture (cycling) for "secularism" (bike) and bit by bit, we are growing weaker. Aren't we?

      Delete
  7. And as for 1, ours is a country that has never invaded, only been invaded. We have stood up for our beliefs and we were spiritually tall, but inclusive at the same time. How can we say that we are weak or easy prey? We withstood Timur, we withstood Nadir Shah, we went against the British despite Dyer - are we still 'easy prey'??

    ReplyDelete
  8. Very well written Shrimayee, loved your language and really proud of you. Your knowledge is commendable and will surely want to see you write more. Oh by the way I am Manju aunty your neighbour.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thankyou so much Manju aunty!! Your support means a lot :)

      Delete
  9. 'only the original is the most reliable source'; very well said. Your undoubtedly an original piece dear. You write very well!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

PLEASE DO NOT FEEL SHY to drop in a comment here! Someone here is excited to know what you think!

Popular Posts