Nick Cheesman

In his seminal text on equality, R. H. Tawney remarked that "the hereditary curse upon English education is its organisation upon the lines of social class." That said, the far more insidious hereditary curse upon Indian education is its organisation upon the lines of caste.

Policymakers throughout much of the 20th century searched for material solutions to this bane. Yet in 1936, Dr. B. R. Ambedkar had already laid its roots bare, remarking generally that "men are undoubtedly unequal. But the question is, Shall we treat them as unequal because they are unequal?" Rather than searching for calculable explicit criteria by which to resolve the educational inequalities in India, Ambedkar went to the true issue: mentality.

Social equality is not something subject to static equations. It is not something that becomes operative at one point in time vs. the next nor is it subject to administrative whim. It is determined by attitude. Educationally, this is no less applicable. It is attitude that ultimately determines the success or failure of policy towards educational equality and, hence, deserves the greatest consideration.

In independent India, a parade of committees, reports and recommendations have avoided serious examination of the root causes for educational inequality in favour of bean-counting and administrative tinkering, albeit on a gigantic scale. Elementary education has been characterised by repeated initiatives pointing towards equality, but these have been relentlessly stymied, both by elite resistance and confused objectives. To appreciate the failures of the 20th century, however, it is necessary to go back further in time.

A History of Inequality

Although the principle of equality rests most comfortably in mathematics, it has been extrapolated across the social sciences where it is not reducible to numerical variables. If educational equality though is not about mathematical uniformity, what is it? "Equality" is in itself a problematic concept; when joined with "educational opportunity," it takes on new difficulties.

In the West, while discussion of the philosophical principle of equality extends back to Aristotle, "equality of educational opportunity" grew only with the public education systems of the 19th century. Prior to the introduction and growth of these publicly funded systems for learning, education had been a matter for private enterprise and was restricted to the elite. However, 19th century technological and social changes expanded the categories of "educable" people. Unfettered by a traditional class structure, the United States was fertile ground for the concept where, in theory, all men were created equal: in practice, this meant most white males.

In the United Kingdom, however, where the standards for India's modern system were set, it was not until 1870 that state-run education was legislated. Despite elementary education in Britain being declared free and compulsory, the class divide continued to manifest itself through differentiated schooling. Students were provided an "appropriate" education befitting their anticipated station in life. That this division has remained in British education indicates the resilience of class consciousness there and likewise speaks to the entrenched caste consciousness in India.

In the Buddhist societies of Asia, free and voluntary elementary education was available through the monastic system for centuries. More than 2,500 years ago Gautama Buddha asserted that "the differences spoken of among humans are purely conventional." Societies following his teachings had a theoretical basis for equality. This was a profoundly different starting point from that of the Brahmin-dominated Vedic societies, which sought not to eliminate inequalities, but, in fact, to reify them.

The principles espoused by Buddha included equality of educational opportunity, irrespective of class, caste and gender, in a frontal assault on the Vedic inequalities of his time. Under the Vedic system, education was linked exclusively to caste and gender. "True" learning was the prerogative of male Brahmins. The Sanskrit texts and verses were conveniently deemed sacred matters reserved for them as "ritually pure" agents. While lower castes were under certain circumstances permitted limited instruction of a "non-sacred" nature, under no circumstances was education available to the lowest strata. It was a categorically exclusive system.

Two centuries after Buddha, Asoka ruled the greater part of the area now demarcated as northern India and beyond with Buddhist principles. For a time, the region bloomed under enlightened leadership. Sadly, his kingdom was displaced, and the Brahmin hierarchy reasserted itself. Buddhist values of equality were lost in the land of their origin as it sunk back into the Vedic dark ages. By the time that the British East India Co. first ventured into the subcontinent in 1757, education there generally consisted of merely a small formal sector servicing the caste elite and a larger non-formal sector for some others.

The British devoted their attention to education in India from 1813 to 1921. Unfortunately, interest in primary education was greatly diminished after 1835 when Macaulay's (in) famous "Minute" directed policy towards higher education premised on the "downward filtration theory." This convenient postulate held that, just as in Britain, the formally educated elite would theoretically disseminate kernels of knowledge to the masses. It was believed that the technique would work in India as well.

Hence, the Vedic system of enclosure was only partially broken by the British. The preeminent Indian educator J. P. Naik has observed that the principal achievement of the British was in their making of non-discriminatory educational institutions, which theoretically overcame the monopoly of education held by the upper castes. However, he continues, their principal disservice was in differentiated education, which offset the advances made by permitting the upper castes to consolidate and, in fact, further formalise their power through new social arrangements.

That the British facilitated both a new sense of class consciousness and also reinforced caste onsciousness was not merely coincidence. The 1857 uprising against their rule precipitated a serious rethink of all public administration. Policies aimed at changing some social and political structures had apparently catalysed local resistance, and overnight the British became acutely aware that they were seen primarily as alien autocrats rather than the benevolent patriarchs they had thought themselves to be. Subsequent governance became characterised by reticence and conservatism that was aimed at simple retention of the jewel in the empire's crown.

By preserving "traditional" social structures, the British (erroneously) held that conflict would be avoided and they would secure the realm into the distant future. Accordingly, they sought to mollify the upper castes and, if not to sway them to their side, at least to neutralise them. Instead of undermining the caste system, they rewarded hereditary leaders who had remained loyal during the crisis and conciliated others. Ultimately, their plans failed as the upper castes forged an unprecedented nationalist movement against British rule. In this process, the practical outcome was that caste did not die but was reconstituted and ingrained into modern institutions.

Inequality into the 20th Century

By the turn of the century, a few liberal thinkers recognised the danger posed by caste. In 1903, the progressive parliamentarian Gopal Krishna Gokhale foresaw that social progress was threatened by caste practices, declaring that, "if you want to stand where you were a thousand years ago, the system of castes need not be modified in any material degree. If, however, you want to emerge from the slough in which you have remained sunk, it will not do for you to insist on a rigid adherence to caste."

That caste was continuing to play a significant role in the lack of educational development in the country, particularly in prohibitions placed on the lowest groups by upper castes, was indicated by accounts such as that of a missionary who observed that "outcastes who have the temerity to send their children to school-even if the school be in their quarter so that there can be no complaint of defiling caste children by contact-find themselves subject to such violence and threats that they yield and withdraw their children."

With Gandhi's Basic Education Scheme of 1937, it was supposed that the educational obstacles presented by caste would be overcome. Gandhi was understandably hostile to the dominance of higher education at the expense of elementary schooling, observing that, "if all the collegians were all of a sudden to forget their knowledge, the loss sustained . . . would be as nothing compared to the loss that the nation has sustained through the ocean of darkness that surrounds 300 million."

Gandhi proposed a nationwide programme of primary-level vocationally directed education. Although the scheme was anti-class, and Gandhi launched nationwide campaigns to outlaw untouchability, he refused to condemn caste outright. Gandhi saw aspects of caste as demonstrative of community living and downplayed the grossly offensive attribution of rank inherent in the system. His speeches on the uplifting of outcastes emphasised material change and the provision of resources for educational and social improvement rather than an attitudinal and structural adjustment.

Ironically, while Gandhi was, on one hand, calling for revolutionary change through basic education, he balked in respect to caste and sought merely to liberalise what was in need of radical action. Furthermore, Gandhi's appeals to the collective social conscience of upper-caste members to help uplift those beneath them left the fate of the oppressed in the hands of their oppressors and smacked of the same patronising sentiments as the British "downward filtration theory" a century earlier. Unsurprisingly, in Gandhi's time, as both previously and since, the members of the elite deigned to take on the role of collective saviours of people whom they abhorred. Gandhi, it seems, simply did not understand.

In 1935, outcastes were officially classified as "scheduled castes," ostensibly to facilitate social equality through special concessions. In 1944, the Central Advisory Board of Education first proposed educational scholarships for scheduled castes. Article 46 of the Constitution followed, reaffirming that "the State shall promote with special care the educational and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people and, in particular, of the scheduled castes." Article 45 also included universal elementary education as a directive principle, making it an important part of both the Constitution and state policy but not legally enforceable. Paradoxically, free universal elementary education became something that had to be achieved, but legally, nothing could be done if it was not.

Elementary education grew rapidly in the period immediately after independence with some tangible results, but the gains made subsequently levelled out. Policymakers have been unable to address the perennial failure of respective schemes directed towards equality in educational opportunity. Indian educational development has, in the words of one critic, suffered from an excess of policymaking and a dearth of policy implementation.

According to the Dept. of Education, currently about 149.4 million children in the 6 to 14 age bracket are enrolled in school, that is, about 82 percent of the target group. In 1997, an estimated 62 percent of the national population was literate, comprising 73 percent among males and 50 percent among females. While such figures suggest considerable quantitative advances, enormous regional and social disparities persist, which V. Raja Rao, studying literacy rates in the state of Andhra Pradesh, has found typically correspond with large scheduled caste populations.

Rao's observation is particularly interesting in light of the central government's efforts to uphold its constitutional obligation and positively discriminate towards scheduled castes. It has initiated numerous programmes to provide them with, among other things, scholarships and accommodation, subsidised or free textbooks and midday lunches and uniforms. As in the case of policy on universal elementary education, it has become ritual to regularly affirm this obligation.

Good intentions, however, have foundered on the problematic nature of the schedule itself. Incongruously, it seeks equality by formalising inequality. On one hand, a "schedule" of backward groups creates a special imperative for their social progress. On the other, the schedule demands that to become "equal" one must first officially demonstrate inequality by fitting into one of its static categories. The millions of oppressed people who have abandoned Hinduism in favour of Buddhism, Christianity or another religious practice, for example, are officially excluded from the schedule. They continue to suffer discrimination and exclusionary practices; but because they have refused to submit to formal public classification as "backward" people, they lose their entitlement to programmes otherwise designed to alleviate their collective plight.

The general presumption that the "weakness" of downtrodden groups could be overcome via education has also been proved false by numerous independent studies. These have revealed that scheduled castes' social mobility has been limited by unrelenting discrimination, irrespective of their improved education. By all statistical accounts, the scheduled castes perform poorly. The 1991 census estimated that overall scheduled caste literacy was 37 percent-up from 10 percent in 1961-although among rural females it was only 19 percent. In a study of scheduled castes in the state of Maharashtra, Suma Chitnis has concluded that the education of scheduled castes does not lead to social mobility and, hence, is of limited utility. Chitnis has also found that, where statistics suggest educational improvements among scheduled castes, invariably only a small and advantaged segment has gained all of the opportunities at the expense of the broader community. Similarly, S. P. Jain in a study in Uttar Pradesh found that community aspirations for education were linked explicitly to caste. Among lower castes and outcastes, aspirations were virtually non-existent because the people in these groups did not expect their situation to be improved by education. In a nationwide study, Barbara Joshi has also warned against taking statistics suggesting educational advancement out of context, noting that "statewide achievements in education do not necessarily involve even proportional improvement in Untouchable education so that the relative competitive disadvantage of Untouchables is sometimes stark, even when they have experienced relatively rapid absolute gains."

Poromesh Acharya has identified almost a perfect correlation between caste, income level and educational attainment in West Bengal, noting that "the upper strata of rural society in West Bengal has reaped almost all the benefits of the gigantic expansion of educational facilities." It follows that "the vast expansion of educational facilities has, in fact, helped to sharpen the differentiation in rural society rather than reduce it." Acharya also found that the main obstacle to change was not material but attitudinal. A survey of upper castes revealed that they overwhelmingly opposed compulsory education in spite of the uniformly high levels of enrolment among their children. The explicit reason for their objection was, as in the past, that they did not want the lower castes educated.

J. P. Naik has likewise pointed to this problem of mentality, arguing that the innate inequality of Indian education can no longer be put down to poverty and occupational constraints. He has contended that its main obstacles are the elite caste-driven power structure and corresponding lack of political will to break obstruction. As summed up by the anthropologist André Béteille, "Collective identities have withstood this change of orientation from hierarchy to equality without being substantially weakened."

Conclusion

The Vedic education system mandated inequality of educational opportunity. While partially broken by the establishment of new institutions under British control, ultimately these reinforced elite caste dominance through differentiated education and compromises made to upper castes by British administrators keen to ensure their continued rule.

Educational and legal manoeuvres in the 20th century attacked the most extreme forms of caste but not the institution itself. Constitutional safeguards and other measures designed to extend equality to marginalised groups have failed to make significant progress. Educational achievement among oppressed castes has not contributed to social mobility as higher castes continue to practice enclosure. Apparent shifts in caste structure and status have therefore been no more than a matter of degree rather than kind. The caste system remains the most significant obstacle to equality of educational opportunity in India.

Policy failure has generally been attributed to ostensible material, financial and administrative difficulties while the root causes have been ignored. The basic education model has foundered because it has conflicted with the value system of the ruling elite. Vernacular education has had the opposite effect than was intended. It expedited an increasingly differentiated and hierarchical system already dominated by English. Educational concessions to marginalised groups have not significantly altered their lot as they remain constrained by caste boundaries and a "scheduling" system that is fundamentally flawed. Sadly, hierarchy and wealth are now probably more closely linked to educational standards in India than at any time since independence. Government statistics suggesting continued quantitative growth in elementary education and literacy fail to camouflage the inherently dysfunctional nature of the Indian educational system.

Mere quantitative expansion of education will not in itself bring about equality, neither at the educational level nor at the broader social level. Educational historian R. P. Singh has remarked that "a colony is as much an intellectual attitude as it is a political fact." The same is true of caste. Any education system is unconditionally part of the wider social system and subject to its terms and conditions. It can facilitate social change; but unless it is matched by corresponding transformations in other sectors of society, it is not likely to succeed. Until such time as there are significant changes to deep-rooted social mentalities and structures in India, both from without and within the education system, equality of educational opportunity will remain a myth.

 

The Voiceless Weep a Weeping Hymn Robert Mayer That even the heartless can feel The voiceless weep a weeping hymn Forbidding consciences to sleep. The voiceless howl a howling hymn That pierces through the highest cloud. The voiceless howl a howling hymn As silence heralds thunder loud. The voiceless moan a moaning hymn Groaning with faith for justice bright. The voiceless moan a moaning hymn Till God's fierce lighting flashes might. The voiceless cry a crying hymn Vibrating through the system's steel. The voiceless cry a crying hymn That makes the saints and angels weep. The voiceless chant a singing hymn. The sweetest part is still unsung. The voiceless chant a singing hymn. Who will give voiceless mouths a tongue?