Memorial by Mahatma Phule to Hunter Commission

November 28! India pays tribute to one of its most significant social revolutionaries, a man from 19th century who pioneered the movement of social revolution in Modern India, Mahatma Jotirao Phule on his death anniversary. A philosopher, educationist, theologian, and an eminent leader of masses, he is precisely termed as Father of Indian Social Revolution. Amongst the variety of roles he played for the betterment of the masses, today we are going to talk about his pioneer role in the educational system in modern India and specifically about the memorial to the Hunter Education Commission by him in 1882.

Background

Since the establishment of its rule, the British East India Company had done almost nothing for education in India till 1813. In 1813, for the first time, the Company arranged some funds for promoting education in India. The medium of education was English. By the year 1855, there were only 1474 educational institutions that were run or aided by the government for the population of 200 million. Only 67,569 student were getting education from these intuitions. Also, here were 1628 Christian missionary schools with about 64,000 students in them. Since the Wood’s Dispatch of 1854 through 1882, the government took some important steps for higher education, but primary education was almost neglected. In the economical year of 1881-82, out of 70,00,000 rupees spent by government on education, only 16,77,000 were spent on primary education. On this background, Lord Rippon appointed an education commission under the chairmanship of William Hunter. This commission reiterated the key points of the Wood’s Dispatch, though it suggested to pay more attention of primary education and education to backward classes.

Memorial by Mahatma Phule to Hunter Commission

The memorial to Hunter Commission by Mahatma Phule is a document of immense importance to understand the educational developments in Modern India. Recorded about a century and a quarter ago, it speaks of some key ideas that are an essential part of modern Indian educational system. He not only speaks of compulsory education to all, but also of creating a taste of knowledge among the backward classes.

In this document, Phule argues that the theory adopted by government that education should go down from the upper classes of society to the masses is nothing but a “utopian” idea. He further goes on to ask for a single example of the truth of this theory. To quote him, the higher classes have “kept their knowledge to themselves, as a personal gift, not be soiled by contact of the ignorant vulgar.” He claims that the educational system has become a monopoly of the higher classes and “if the welfare of the Ryot is at heart, if it is the duty of the Government to check a host of abuses, it behoves them to narrow this monopoly day by day so as to allow a sprinkling of the other castes to get into the public services.”

With regards to compulsory education, he says “I think primary education of the masses should be made compulsory up to a certain age, say at least 12 years.” He notes that the cultivating classes hold aloof of education owing to extreme poverty and also because lack of taste for learning. He asks for special inducements in the form of scholarships, annual prizes, etc. to create in them that taste.

He also notes his observations about the indigenous schools and higher education in this document. However, I do not plan to note it all in the present article. I believe that reading the Memorial in original would be much more beneficial, thus we, the Team of Ghalibana, are posting the original document in PDF form along with this post so that you can save it for yourself or take a print of it and read it thoroughly. This original document, though in public domain, was not available on net till date. We have typed it out ourselves and proofread it twice to avoid any errors from our side. It would be beneficial for both our general readers and scholars to present it in as-it-is form.

We would like to hear from our readers about this project. This is for the first time that we are presenting an original source to our readers. If you find this useful, please let us know. If you have any comments, queries, concerns, or feedbacks, please feel free to leave a note. We love feedbacks.

Once again, our heartiest tribute to that Nobel Soul, Father of Indian Social Revolution, Mahatma Phule.

Click here for the complete document in Google Docs.

Is Hinduism really in danger?

 Over the last couple of days, numerous hoardings have been sprung up on the streets of Nagpur depicting Narendra Maharaj (who is claimed to be Jagadguru, the spiritual mentor of the world, by his followers) proclaiming Hinduism is in danger as it has no state support anywhere in the world (particularly in India). These posters are apparently a part of the bigger agenda of the Hindutva Parivar to polarize the Hindus against the non-Hindus and thus create a vote bank for the Hindu fundamentalist parties. Though such efforts particularly appear to the common man, these also do raise serious questions in the minds of those Indians who are proud of the principal of secularism enshrined in the Constitution of India.
Is Hinduism really in danger? From whom? Left us handle this question a bit systemically. A Hindu state has been a longstanding demand of the Hindutva fundamentalists in India dating back to the early years of the 20th century when V. D. Sawarkar coded the philosophy of Hindutva in his book Hindutva. India, as claimed by the Pariwar, itself is a Hindu nation because of its Hindu majority. But India also has a large population of Muslims too. India has the third largest Muslim population in the world only after Indonesia and Pakistan. As Nobel laureate Amartya Sen has correctly noted, “Too see India just as a country of Hindus is a fairly bizarre idea in the face of that fact alone (the fact of its Muslim population), not to mention the intermingling of Hindus and Muslims in the social and cultural life of India.” Also India has been home to a large number of Christians, Sikhs, Buddhists, Jains, Jews, Parsis, and so on. All these people are Indians by Nationality, and due to this fact, claiming India to be a solely Hindu nation is really a “bizarre India.”

Another aspect of this question is does Hinduism (or any religion for that matter) really needs state support? Indeed, religious have been spread and flourished for ages by state help. State support of Ashoka to Buddhism, of Arabs to Islam, of Romans to Christianity have been helped a lot to spread those religions all over the world in the past. Hinduism had spread to Java and Sumatra with the imperialist kings of South India. But those were the things of past. Is it possible in this age to convert a mass of people from one religion to another by force? Yes, conversions still occur, but there are various reasons behind those and force has little, if any, role to play with it. Religion is supported by its followers. If state has any role to support it, it is secondary. We have seen in the history that religion like Din-e-Ilahi, which was founded by the Akbar, could survive even in his lifetime though it was the regions professed by the emperor himself. And as a matter of fact, Hinduism has survived for ages despite the fact that India has been a subject of various foreign powers for a vast period over this time. This proves that state support is absolutely secondary force in survival and flourishing of any religion. An in a secular state like India, it is absolute unnecessary.

 Let us move towards our main question: Is Hinduism really in danger? It is totally impossible to believe that such an overwhelming majority can be in danger for the minorities. And not merely a majority of numbers, but a majority in every aspect of state – legislation, executive, judiciary, press, military, etc. But this is a less important argument. Hindus are safe not because they are in majority, but because of the multireligious harmony that has been a core part of our Indianness.

Despite the interreligious harmony, conversions do happen in India, and sometimes en masse, but state has nothing to do with it. The Constitution of India has given us a fundamental right to accept and profess a faith of our own choice. What make the people to give up the beloved faith of their ancestors is the most important question . The hostile approach of the upper-class Hinds towards the depressed classes make the poor people to incline towards any love shown by others to them. Many peoples of scheduled tribes have accepted Christianity because of this reason. Another prominent example is of the so-called untouchables who converted to Buddhism en masse, about 400,000, under the able leadership of Dr. Ambedkar. We cannot blame them for their act, because they had been treated rather inhumanly by the Hindus for ages.

The above examples light up the fact that if there is any real danger to Hinduism in a long run, it is from the fundamentalist Hindus themselves who have hijacked the term Hindu for their selfish aims. Their hostility towards their own people and their belligerent attitude towards the others have made a common Hindu to think seriously about his being a Hindu. As Bhalchandra Nemade, a prominent Marathi author, has noted:

"Once Hindu meant all the people living on this side of Sindhu (Indus) River. But now Hindu has become a word in the hands of Hindu fundamentalists, it has been a matter of shame to call yourself a Hindu."

This is not a feeling of Nemade alone. It is a feeling of every common Hindu who is proud of India’s multireligious harmony. To protect our Indianness, the antisecular agenda must be fought against with all of our strength. We are not a Hindu, Muslim, Christan, Buddhist, or Sikh nation – We are Indian at first and Indian from the heart.

To quote Amartya Sen again, “There are good reasons to resist the antisecular enticements... The winter of our discontent might not be giving way at present to a glorious summer, but the political abandonment of secularism would make India more wintry than it currently is.”

*Notes*
1. Sen, Amartya (2005), The Argumentative Indian, “Secularism and Its Discontent”, London: Penguin Books. P. 308
2. Nemade, Bhalchandra, “Reviving the true Hindu Ethos”, An interview with Meena Menon, The Hindu, July 4, 2010.

Hemingway, his old man, and me!

After the failure of 84 consecutive days, the old man got a fish to his hook. Then started the real struggle. The old man had never been defied. He had not lost hopes even after returning with empty hands for eighty four days. For the 85th time, he put his ship in the sea. And this time, he caught his luck. But this was not the final victory. The real victory was in keeping the luck sustained, in getting to shore with it. Here was the real test, real fight -- not with the fish, not the sea -- the fight was with himself, with his luck. The old man knew -- what it happened was too good to get done with it.

Then started teh real fight. The old man easily defied the first shark. Then came many. The old man lost his axe, then went the knife, the the last big stick he had. But the old man did not lose. He stil had hope. His fight was still going on. His body was going against him, but the old man had not lost.

While keeping teh struggle with all his sufferings, all pain, he finally noticed -- the fish, his luck, has almost been eaten up by the sharks. He had nothing to lose now. There was nothing left to fight for. Suddenly, the old man felt very calm. How easy life becomes once you accept the defeat?

It's Sunday! The only leisure day of the week. Why do I need this leisure? -- to do something, to read something! But what if there isn't anything to read. Usually we have Loksatta on Sundays, only on Sundays! And today--saving 3 rupees of Loksatta and adding 2 more to it can buy Tab. Deriphylline -- so Loksatta cancelled.

Then what -- once again Hemingwe's old man! The old man lost the axe fighting against the luck, then his knife, then the last emergency stick -- and finally luck! The old man accepted his defeat and suddenly his life became calm. How easy life becomes once you accept defeat?

Tripped over this line -- how easy life becomes once you accet the defeat? I stopped. It's off all the day. No work. Just have good sleep all over the day. Evening at in-laws. Today is Rajasthan Royals versus Chennai Superkings match. Can watch the match in the evening. Rajasthan Royals should win. No work all the day. How easy life becomes once you accept the defeat.

Suddenly tripped over and stopped. Who accepted defeat? Me? When, where, how? Am I defeated? Is it a defeat to live in comfort? Thought get on whirling!

The old man fought till the last moment. He kept on fighting till the complete defeat. His life was full of struggles, but it was the life of a winner. And mine? Where is the struggle? Is it a struggle to be happy the earning of mere 4 or 5 thousand? Is it a struggle to kill your littlemost wants for financial reasons? It is a damn defeat! Get going with whatever present conditions -- to keep things going as they are -- is a defeat!

What should I be doing at this moment? There is MPSC prelim after 3 weeks -- need to appear UPSC next year. I am struggle-less. I am cool. I have no hopes in my mild. Where do I stand? Am I a winner because I'm liviging a happy-go married life or a defeated one because I am still standing where I was yesterday?

The old man's defeat was not a defeat. It was a victory from another viewpoint. To earn money is another thing, but the feeling of "I am a bit different old man" that nurtures your self -- his struggle ws to make people believe on this feeling. He had lost the fish, but even the skeleton was enough to make people believe that he was indeed a different old man. His defeat was not a defeat at all.

Sunday morning spent with the old man! Shedded some tears. But the old man gave a thump -- Be careful my son, you're going to do a crime.

To lose is not a crime. In some way, the old man was too lost. Real crime is to keep on afloating with whatever comes. Keep on struggling, to put a foot forward from where you are is a victory. To be an xxx is not a victory. It is just a step! The definition of victory is confirmed. Sometimes, an old fisherman too teaches you a lesson for life.

~ Ganesh Dhamodkar

(This is a translation of my own article I wrote about 2 years ago in May of 2008. Translated by myself. )

Charvaka: The Pioneer of Skepticism in World History

Charvaka is the materialistic and naturalistic school of thoughts in India Philosophy.  Charvaka, literally one who speaks sweet, founded his philosophy on the thoughts of this world rather than the mystic accounts of Vedas and supernatural god and heaven.  Charvaka denies the authenticity and holiness of Vedas and hence is termed as Nastika (nonbeliever) by the Vedic tradition.^[1]  He denied the existence of supernatural God.  He denied the claims that the Vedas are created by God.  He held that they are made by human beings and so they must be open to scrutiny.  To him the Vedas were mere utterances, devoid of any meaning, meant to "confound and confuse the common people."

The central thesis of the Charvaka philosophy is worldly materialism.  This consists of at least two basic principles:  Firstly, there is nothing beyond the life except physiochemical and neuropsychological functions; and secondly, the soul and after life are stories of fantasy as the gods and demons.  Such belief were quite contrary to the chanting and rituals of the Vedic ways.  Because of propagating such beliefs, Charvakas had to confront with the Vedicas several times and the Brahmins showed the greatest cruelty to finish Charvakas several times.  In fact, we can read in Mahabharata how a Charvaka was burnt dead by the Brahmanas in the court of Yudhishthira itself.^[2]

Charvaka represented one of the very first skeptic rebels in the world history and we see today that the world believe more in the philosophy of Charvaka's materialism rather than the mystic Vedicas and cunning Mimansa.  Whatever say the Vedic tradition; this is the victory of Charvakas over the Brahminical tradition of mysticism and unreality.  This marks the greatness of Charvaka over the Vedic tradition.  But the greatness of their school should not be judged based only on this victory.  Charvakas were among the first philosophers in the world history to raise question against the traditional knowledge and this gives them the unique place in the world history.  Charvaka merely stand for those skeptical rebels who has spoken out in all great civilizations now and again.

Notes:

1.  Dr. A. H. Salunkhe, an eminent Sanskrit scholar and author of Aastikshiromani Charvaka argues that the term Nastika is not used honesty by the Vedic cult.  Literally, Nastika means one who does not believe in something.  Technically, this term is used for Buddhism, Jainism, and Charvaka who does not believe in the authority of Vedas.  Dr. Salunkhe states that despite of this original meaning, the term was made popular meaning as one who does not believe in existence of god or anything that is good.  He argues that Charvaka's philosophy did believe in well-being in this very world and hence should be termed as The Gem of the Aastikas as opposed to a Nastik.  Salunkhe AH (In Marathi), Aastikshiromani Charvaka (1992), Satara:  Lokayat Prakashan.

2.  When Yudhishthira enters the city of Hastinapura after the victory of Kurukshetra, Charvaka accuses him in the open of having committed the crime of murdering his kith and kin.  The Brahmins were appalled; they exposed him as a friend of Duryodhana in Brahminical guise, and condemned him to death.  Encyclopedic Dictionary of Sanskrit Literature (2004), Volume I, Delhi:  Global Vision Publishing House, pp. 283-285.

* I found two well-written posts on blog world about the same subject by The Infidel and by Domenic Marbaniang.  I hope our readers will find them helpful.  The first one is in French, you can use Google Translate to translate it in the language of your choice. 

Paul Laurence Dunbar: Life and Poetry

Paul Laurence Dunbar

I am not a great admirer of English poetry.  My literary taste is nourished on classics of Urdu poetry.  My philosophy about life owes a lot to the great poets of Urdu language from Ghalib to Iqbal and Faiz to Faraz.  Also in my own mother tongue Marathi, we have some fine pieces of poetry from medieval ages of Dnyaneshwar and Tukaram to modern voice of Marathi Dalit poetry.  Hailing from such a great literary background, I am a bit skeptic about English poetry.  It is true that I have read only a little of it, but whatever I read, it could not catch my nerves and soul.  But all of this was only until yesterday when I saw the name of Paul Laurence Dunbar somewhere while surfing.  I saw his name somewhere in some google ad and just for curiosity made a google search.  The words were:

My days are never days of ease;
I till my ground and prune my trees.
When ripened gold is all the plain,
I put my sickle to the grain.
I labor hard, and toil and sweat,
          While others dream within the dell;
But even while my brow is wet,
          I sing my song, and all is well.

                                                (The Poet and His Song, 1885)

These words, as they sound pretty similar to the Marathi Dalit poetry, prompted me to make a further search.

Paul Laurence Dunbar born in an African-American former slave family in the State of Ohio just a few years after the American Civil War ended.  His mother was a former slave.  His father was a Veteran in American Army during the Civil War.  After separation of his parents, Paul grew up under the loving care of his mother.  She always encouraged Paul to read and write poetry and he began writing as early as six.  His first poetry collection Oak and Ivy published in 1892 when he was just 20 years old.  Though his book was received well locally, Dunbar still had to work as an elevator operator to help pay off his debt to his publisher.  In 1893, he was invited to recite at the World's Fair, where he met Frederick Douglass, the renowned abolitionist who rose from slavery to political and literary prominence in America.  Douglass called Dunbar "the most promising young colored man in America."  It was Dunbar's second book that propelled him to national fame. William Dean Howells, a novelist and widely respected literary critic who edited Harper's Weekly, praised Dunbar's book in one of his weekly columns and launched Dunbar's name into the most respected literary circles across the country.

Dunbar died at a very early age of 33 from tuberculosis and depression from separation from his wife.  He ultimately produced 12 books of poetry, four books of short stories, a play and five novels. His work appeared in Harper's Weekly, the Sunday Evening Post, the Denver Post, Current Literature and a number of other magazines and journals.  He was a poet with a dream and he had his dream all through his life.

He had his dream, and all through life,
Worked up to it through toil and strife.
Afloat fore'er before his eyes,
It colored for him all his skies:
          The storm-cloud dark
          Above his bark,
The calm and listless vault of blue
Took on its hopeful hue,
It tinctured every passing beam --
          He had his dream.

He labored hard and failed at last,
His sails too weak to bear the blast,
The raging tempests tore away
And sent his beating bark astray.
          But what cared he
          For wind or sea!
He said, "The tempest will be short,
My bark will come to port."
He saw through every cloud a gleam --
          He had his dream.
                                    (He Had His Dream)