Education and Its Influence on the Nation-Building Process: A Reflection on Ambedkar’s Views in Colonial India

Introduction

As a ground-breaking social reformer, political leader and educationist, Babasaheb Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar still enjoys a significant place in the history of our freedom struggle. His contribution remains unforgettable, not only because he highlighted the injustice towards the depressed classes consistently but also since he provided a comprehensive solution to the problem of their education and hence played a vital role in the process of nation-building. He was against the growing privatization of education and urged the colonial government to ensure education for all marginalized sections at minimal fees. He believed in establishing a universal education system for rendering education accessible, inclusive and distributed equitably to all. He was one of the first students from his community to have pursued higher education abroad. Thereafter, he dedicated his life to the struggles for emancipating the people of his community from the clutches of ‘Brahmanical Orthodoxy’, which segregated people on the bases of caste and imposed restrictions upon ‘lower’ caste people in terms of accessing community spheres habituated by the upper castes. In his fight for justice, he derived inspiration from Buddha, Kabir, Mahatma Phule, Shahuji Maharaj and many other such revolutionary thinkers and social reformers. His initial focus was on raising the consciousness of his community, for which he advocated education as a prominent tool. In his view, it would be impossible to obtain justice and equal status in this society without acquiring knowledge. Hence came the slogan of ‘Educate, Agitate and Organize’ on the day of the foundation of Bahishkrit Hitakarini Sabha in July 1924. His views on education are a fundamental part of his social and political expositions, and the relevance of his views lies in the fact that, ‘He identified knowledge and power as the critical elements in the construction of modernity’ (Ramadas, 2002, p. 226). As a believer of practicing what he preached, Ambedkar laid the foundation of Siddharth Mahavidyalaya in 1946 and Millind Mahavidyalaya in 1951 for promoting these ideals.

Modernity, Education and Reforms

With the establishment of colonial rule in India, the British initiated new developments in the field of education, administration, economy and so on. They were quite aware of the impact education could have, hence they used it decisively as an instrument for establishing their hegemony. The principal aim of colonial education was the indoctrination of colonial ideology in Indian minds along with a steady supply of Indians to help administer the colony by engaging in clerical and menial jobs (Panikkar, 1995). As a result of the English education policy, India saw the emergence of an intelligentsia which not only emphasized upon developing rationality and scientific logic but also focused on democratic rights and the principles of equality, liberty and justice. These intellectuals led various movements for the reformation of society and religion. This is said to have marked the onset of modernity in India. In the second half of the nineteenth century, a churning of sorts was visible in the lives of the socially and economically marginalized sections in Maharashtra, where Jyotirao Phule (1827–1890) and his wife Savitribai Phule supposed to be gardeners by profession by virtue of their caste status, initiated a program for educating the women of all communities. They established a school for the purpose in 1848. In spite of not only facing criticism and being socially ostracized but also facing direct threats and assault from the influential upper castes, they carried on their mission of educating the depressed classes and founded another school for Harijan Girls in 1851. By 1853, there were as many as 237 such schools (Verma & Sohrot, 2004). Jyotirao Phule also provided a critique of the prevailing Hindu social order which denied individuals their rights and dignity. Ambedkar was inspired by Phule’s zeal to educate the depressed classes, and resolved to carry on in this direction.

In this context, the role of the colonial government is essential to highlight, since they were the chief architects in creating a structure for the dissemination of Western ideas. Leaders like Phule, recognized their role in writings such as Gulamgiri (Phule, 2017). It was argued that in the early stages of the English education policy, the marginalized sections were the chief beneficiaries. The enrolment data of schools and colleges in the 1840s showed that ‘Baidvas and Kayasthas in Bengal; Kayasthas and Rajputs in Delhi and Agra; Modaliyars, Pillays and the artisanal caste in Madras, and Prabhus, goldsmiths and coppersmiths in Bombay were the first to take to English education’ (Rao, 2014, p. 25). This raised certain fundamental questions such as—why were the people from the downtrodden castes the first to join English schools? Why did the Brahmins not come forward to take English education with the same zeal? Most importantly, if the depressed classes were one of the earliest beneficiaries of English education, why could they not accumulate the knowledge of modern science and technology? A primary reason would be the monopoly of Brahmins over traditional Sanskrit-based learning patterns of the Hindu social order, and hence the outcastes were sidelined from mainstream education. In these adverse circumstances, they did not have any option other than joining schools established by the Raj. Second, the Brahmans did not realize the benefits of English education till the mid-nineteenth century and it was primarily for maintaining their economic and social stature, that they joined the English education system. The third reason was the policy-related discrimination of the British, wherein the knowledge of science and technology was considered the exclusive forte of upper castes. When the Grant Medical College of Bombay was founded in 1845, the Brahmans initially did not take interest in learning Western medicine. The principal of the Medical College subsequently asked the DPI of Bombay to open the college to all sections of society, who replied that they were here to rule rather than promote social amelioration (Kumar, 2006). Hence, the domination of Brahmins over traditional learning along with their oppressive policies forced the depressed classes to join English schools. While the colonial government was compassionate in terms of allowing them access, they were also discriminated in terms of imparting the knowledge of advanced subjects like Modern Science. Ambedkar’s views on education provided the critique of both the Brahmanical and the colonial educational system, and advocated the establishment of a democratic and inclusive education structure for the upliftment of the marginalized sections.

Ambedkar’s Views on Education

Ambedkar’s views on education were drawn from his personal experience as well as the practical need of integrating his community into the mainstream society. In accomplishing this task, he found the traditional Hindu knowledge system dominated by the Brahmins a major hurdle. He observed that the prevailing knowledge system of the traditional Hindu order was not appropriate for imparting rational and scientific education to the masses without any kind of discrimination. The lack of space to address various social issues was a prominent drawback of this system, since it would be quite difficult for anyone to question concepts of sacredness and divine authority even in the modern era. For him, the most fundamental element of this education system was its strict compartmentalization and hierarchy. While revisiting the ancient scriptures, he found that different castes considered it as a blessing to access knowledge in the Hindu social order, but had limited practical access in particular specialized branches. Due to the lack of accessibility and discrimination, he refused to accept the Hindu knowledge system as secular. In his view, such a system ruined the intellect and could never create a mature civilization. He strongly believed that the Brahmins are responsible for these ills, as expressed thus,

There are countries where education did not spread beyond a few. But India is the only country where the intellectual class, namely, the Brahmans not only made education their monopoly but declared the acquisition of education by the lower classes, a crime punishable by cutting off of the tongue or by the pouring of the molten lead in the ear of the offender.

—(Moon, 2014b, p. 215).

While critiquing the traditional Hindu education system, he proposed the model of modern secular education for a community which had borne the brunt of upper-caste atrocities for a long time. While speaking on the amendment bill to the Bombay University Act in the Legislative Council on 5 October 1927, he stated,

The backward classes have come to realise that after all education is the greatest material for which they can fight. We may forego material benefits of civilization but we cannot forego our rights and opportunities to ripe the benefits of the highest education fully.

—(Nithiya, 2012, p. 50).

Thus, underlining the importance of education, he suggested that the backward classes join the new education system since it is a matter of their survival. He emphasized upon compulsory liberal education which, in his views, could ‘Inculcate human rights education, education that teaches human dignity and justice in India’ (Sonpimple & Mohankumar, 2014). It cannot be believed by any means that his views on education were confined to personality development and livelihood. He considered education a tool to bring desired social change and a prerequisite to launch any movement for the purpose in modern times. According to him, ‘Education was an instrument to liberate the Dalits from illiteracy, ignorance and superstitions and thereby enable them to fight against injustice, exploitation and oppression’ (Verma & Sohrot, 2004, p. 25).

Like his predecessors, he considered the colonial government responsible for imparting education to depressed classes. His speech during the discussion on grants for education in the Bombay Legislative Council criticized the colonial government for making scant progress in terms of education for the natives. He referred to the report on the progress of education and insisted that if the government does not change its present education policy, it would take 40 years for all boys and 300 years for all girls of the school-going age to be brought into the mainstream education system. He demanded that the government increase its expenditure on education. He asserted that primary education is essential for every person to provide a sound educational base and develop their intellect. In his words, ‘The object of primary education is to see that every child that enters the portals of a primary school does leave it only at a stage when it becomes literate and continues to be literate throughout the rest of his life’ (Narke, 2014, p. 35). He further brought the attention of the colonial government towards ‘the wastage in educational effort’. His argument was backed up by statistical data, which claimed that only 18 out of every 100 students could reach the fourth standard. He believed in completely rejecting the ‘great disparity in the comparative educational advancement of different classes’. For him, India is

Composed of different communities. All these communities are unequal in their status and progress. If they are to be brought to the level of equality then the only remedy is to adopt the principle of inequality and to give favoured treatment to those who are below the level.

—(Narke, 2014, p. 37).

Thus, he proposed the idea of affirmative action for the depressed classes, along with demanding scholarships and hostel facilities for the children of such communities as remedies to eradicate exclusion and inequality.

Ambedkar’s vision was multidimensional, which extended not only to the primary and secondary education but also on the need of creating a knowledge society. In his view, the fundamental function of a university is not merely dealing with the problems of examinations and granting degrees but also ‘to provide facilities for bringing the highest education to the doors of the needy and the poor’ (Narke, 2014, p. 54). While delving on the role of a university in a broader perspective, in a written reply to the University Reforms committee on 15 August 1924, he stated,

The aim and functions of university education should be to see that the teaching carried on there is suited to adults; that it is scientific, detached and impartial in character; that it aims not so much at filling the mind of the student with fact or theories as at calling forth his own individuality, and stimulating him to mental effort; that it accustoms him to the critical study of the leading authorities, with perhaps, occasional reference to first hand sources of information, and that it implants in his mind a standard of thoroughness, and gives him a sense of the difficulty as well as the value of reaching at truth.

—(Narke, 2014, p. 290).

For further intellectual advancement and exposure, he advised the depressed classes to attain higher education as a tool of empowerment. He was of the view that advancement in education would mean that high administrative posts hitherto out of reach for his community would now be available. Underlining importance of higher education, he said,

This gulf between the education of Brahmans and non-Brahmans will not end just by primary and secondary education. The difference in status between these can only be reduced by higher education. Some non-Brahmans must get highly educated and occupy the strategically important places, which has remained the monopoly of Brahmans since long. I think this is the duty of the state. If the government cannot do it, institutions like ‘Maratha Mandir’ must undertake this task.

—(Sowbhagya, 2014, p. 179).

For Ambedkar, a university is a place of promoting authentic knowledge and research. If a university would work only as an examining body, it cannot achieve its aim of producing good research. He was against the bifurcation of the undergraduate colleges and university campuses, and said, ‘The division of the pre-degree education and the post-degree education meant the partition of education and research from each other, which itself proved that when the research is separated from education then the former is immeasurably harmed’ (Sonpimple & Mohankumar, 2014). His views on education upheld the principal of egalitarianism. He widely criticized the archaic notion of women’s intellectual inferiority, which was quite a prevalent gender discourse at that time. For ensuring self-reliance in the coming generations, he suggested incorporating democratic values and providing equal opportunities to boys and girls. He urged the people of his community to educate their daughters to bring them in parity with men. His painstaking efforts for promoting women’s education were lauded by numerous scholars. Padma Velaskar wrote,

Like all successful mass leaders, Ambedkar was an educator in the widest sociological sense of the term, socialising his followers into a new counter-hegemony of new values and principles that he sought to make foundational to their lives. Through thought, word and action, he raised the consciousness of Dalits regarding the wretchedness and injustice of their social condition, and awakened them to the possibilities of establishing a society in which they would live as equals. Women were integral to this visionary egalitarianism, and the Ambedkarite movement had an enormous and radicalising impact on Dalit women. Ambedkar made a separate, conscious and determined effort to politicise and politically educate Dalit women.

—(Velaskar, 2012, p. 247).

Thus, Ambedkar’s views on education were not only influential in laying a foundation for the education of the depressed classes but his progressive stands on issues of women’s emancipation pertaining to equal access to opportunities and reforms in the Hindu Code Bill also made him a true visionary and champion of democratic rights.

The Ambedkarite Vision and the Process of Nation-Building

The vision for the idea of nation-building had multiple, and many a times, contradictory facets. It is well known that Ambedkar opposed the mainstream nationalist discourse, since in his view freedom meant not only the formal independence from foreign rule but also the actual freedom from internal forms of slavery, oppression and exploitation. He criticized the brand of nationalists who championed orthodoxy and were unwilling to eradicate the prevailing internal oppression in their society, while paradoxically demanding freedom from imperialism. His idea of nation was an intriguing synthesis of liberal, socialist and Buddhist worldviews. Liberty, equality and fraternity as the time-tested motto from the French Revolution were pertinent in his views for the development of the nation. His intervention in the nationalist discourse highlighted the plight of the subjugated sections of society and prodded the moral conscience of the society as a whole to take immediate steps for the welfare of the oppressed, if the dream of a materially and culturally prosperous country were to be realized. When a member of the Swaraj Party raised the issue of granting provincial autonomy to the Bombay Presidency during the discussion on the Bombay University Act Amendment Bill in the Legislative Council, Ambedkar vehemently resisted the demand and said,

When three-fourths of the population is drenched in ignorance and does not know its rights and responsibilities there can be no hope of autonomy… Our representative system will be a sham, and there would be a rule of wealth against poverty, of power against weakness.

—(Narke, January, 2014, p. 46).

Thereafter, he went on to suggest measures for ensuring accessibility to education for the backward sections of society, so that they may realize the rights and responsibilities of their citizenship.

Ambedkar’s views on education were influenced by the twentieth-century pragmatist and egalitarian philosopher John Dewey (1859–1952), who considered schools and civil society as fundamental to the survival of democracy. In Dewey’s view, democracy cannot be achieved by merely extending voting rights, but by ensuring that there exists an enlightened ‘public opinion’. His philosophy contended that the voice of the citizenry is important and the politicians are accountable for the policies they adopt (Dewey, 1916). Ambedkar incorporated the ideals of ‘democracy and education’ from Dewey to develop his conception of the nation which considered democracy as the catalyst of social change. In his view,

A democracy which enslaves the working class, a class which is devoid of education, which is devoid of the means of life, which is devoid of any power of organisation, which is devoid of intelligence, I submit, is no democracy but a mockery of democracy.

—(Narke, January, 2014, p. 216).

In these novel principles of nation-building, he advocated fundamental rights for the citizenry, as key to the empowerment of society and strengthening of the nation. His primary motivation in propagating the Right to Equality was the creation of a mechanism for disseminating education for all sections of the society. He said,

The growth of education if it is confined to one class, will not necessary lead to liberalism. It may lead to the justification and the conservation of class interest; and instead of creating the liberator of the down-trodden; it may create the champions of the past and supporter of the status quo.

—(Moon, 2014a, p. 269).

For giving a concrete shape to his idea of equality, he suggested concrete measures like abolishing discrimination on the bases of caste, class, colour and gender and ensuring equality of opportunity. Both this tenets are enshrined in the Indian constitution.

The idea of nation-building hinged on the fundamental right of Liberty, which was a key constituent of his worldview on education. He contended that ‘Intellectual slavery is the mother of all slaveries. It is, therefore, most essential to be liberated first from intellectual slavery. Education is the chief weapon of this liberation’ (Velaskar, 2012, p. 246). His ideals of liberty, thus, clearly emphasized upon rationality, and propagated the liberty of thought, speech and action. Similarly, other fundamental rights such as justice, right against exploitation, freedom of religion culture and so on, also correspond to his views on education. These fundamental rights constituted bulwark for Ambedkar’s fight against Brahmanical injustice which was perpetrated through the monopolization of the education system. The Indian Constitution that we see today largely reflects the vision of Dr. Ambedkar and his vision for establishing the principles of democracy, justice and egalitarianism. He was, however, quite clear about its limitation. While presenting the final draft of the constitution to Lok Sabha in 1949, he said, ‘On the 26th of January 1950, we are going to enter into a life of contradictions. In politics we will have equality and in social and economic life we will have inequality… We must remove this contradiction at the earliest possible moment…’ (Jaffrelot, 2015) Unfortunately, even after 70 years of independence, these dreams are yet to be realized. In sum, the process of nation-building in India was tremendously influenced by Ambedkar’s views on education. Had it not been for his ‘Opposition in the mainstream nationalism, the process of internal consolidation of Indian nation would not have been carried sufficiently far to help strengthen and broaden the social base of Indian nationalism’ (Gaikwad, 1998, p. 517).

Conclusion

Ambedkar not only proposed the ideas but also practiced them, for example, he started the People’s Education Society on 8 July 1945, with the view to advance the educational status of the depressed classes, which is a testimony to his status as a public intellectual. This organization established Siddhartha Mahavidyalaya on 20 June 1946 in Bombay as the first of its kind. The name of the college symbolizes the ideals of Gautam Buddha, who had emphasized upon ‘Social freedom, intellectual freedom and political freedom’ (Verma & Sohrot, 2004). Further, Millind Mahavidyalaya in Aurangabad was founded, with its foundation stone being laid by the first president of India, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, in September 1951. After his demise in 1956, nothing sufficient seems to have done to promote Ambedkar’s ideas on education, or even in academic circles. Academics usually projected him more as a social emancipator and a political leader than an educator (Sonpimple & Mohankumar, 2014). After independence, India under the premiership of Jawaharlal Nehru began to move on the path of large-scale industrialization so as to compete with other developed nations of the world (and avoid a newer form of economic colonization), as well as try eradicating poverty. This meant more of an emphasis on technical education, which was already being augmented by the then prevailing Western model. In such a scenario, the influence of Ambedkar’s views on education was bound to take a beating. While it would be hard to find a reason to criticize or underestimate his worldview, but there were some pertinent reasons for his views on education not finding enough currency.

The worldview of an individual is the expression of his deep-seated engagement with the prevailing social, political and economic conditions of his times. Therefore, the burden of carrying forward his legacy and adding newer dimensions to it lie on the shoulders of the succeeding generation. In the case of Ambedkar, it could be said that he has been notoriously betrayed by the Indian state post-independence. Ground reality shows that a large section of Dalits in India still face rampant discrimination which seems to suggest that not much has changed from ancient times. Government speaks for itself. According to the 2011 Census, ‘the average literacy rates of people aged above 15 among Scheduled Caste (SCs) and Scheduled Tribes (STs) are about 9 per cent which is 17.4 per cent less than the national average, respectively’ (Sangai, 2016). It is, therefore, imperative for the elected government of the country to implement reforms suggested by him, which would go a long way in transforming the condition of the weaker sections of our society. Other factors like debilitating condition of public schools, rampant corruption and privatization of education have led to continuing exclusion of the marginalized sections from the mainstream without an egalitarian distributive mechanism to include everyone in the fold of education; it would be futile to hope for a prosperous, progressive and democratic nation that we aspire to be. The Marxist notion that until there is a change in the living material condition of the masses, the larger superstructure would remain the same holds. We would have to effect changes in the polity, society and economy of the country to bring about any significant alteration to the education system.