The Educational Heritage of Ancient India-How An Ecosystem Of Learning Was Laid To Waste: My Reading and Review

Brief Opening comments:

This book by Ms. Sahana Singh is an interesting attempt in compiling the literature on the educational heritage of India spanning several centuries. The book is precise, structured into seven chapters and is indeed well written with a clear choice of words and unambiguous constructions. Indeed the author has succeeded in her attempt to build the awareness of our pristine glory, as has been also observed by Prof. Kannan in his foreword to this book.

Analysis of References cited in this book

It looks that out of 48 references reference number 2 is cited for as many as 31 times. Also, reference number 32 seems to be missing.

Detailed observations and Review:

Time is indeed ripe where the revival of India’s past glory in various fields would do a great benefit in informing the contemporary generation that is well equipped with digital information. At this juncture, a book of this sort is definitely well in place which acts as a stepping stone to the vast literature pertaining to the topic. This book also introduces the discourses related to educational content, dissemination of organized education, and strategies of education in the colonial, post-colonial era which are introduced very well. Following are my review/observation in a chapter-wise manner where I highlight a few factual issues, raise doubts on authentication, and seek clarifications.

Chapter 1: Holistic learning in the midst of nature

Going green, being one with the environment may be a current style statement but when we discuss issues of education and educational institutions in ancient India, obviously we cannot discuss it vis-à-vis the current educational infrastructure. It would indeed be modest compared to what we have today, so I don’t really understand what the author intended to say here. Yes, the earlier gurukuls would have been in the forests and few in the cities.

Then there is a paragraph on the “forest Universities.” Well, it would have been much more insightful and scholarly had the author managed to describe the day to day affairs of such “universities” like managing the food for the pupils because food would be needed in a relatively larger scale and other issues of logistics if were not in place, running such an organization would not have been possible. So delving into such details would have added to the scholarly content. Some of the statements, if backed up with sufficient evidence, would go a long way in changing the narrative, lest, it will appear to peddle the ideologies of the right-wing polity.

For instance, there is a sentence in Pg2, “A sizeable number of foreign students came to study in India from China, Korea, Japan, Indonesia and West Asia.” And immediately after this sentence, the author mentions Fahien and Hieun Tsang about whom we have been hearing in our textbooks for the past 40+ years. Giving the first-hand account of other foreign students or at least the information about how they were construed as foreigners by the locals, how they made their way to our Universities etc. would be a refreshing piece of new details in this discourse. In the absence of which, it amounts to merely rehashing the available information.

Chapter 2: Universities, Universities Everywhere

This chapter cites the reference number 2 (R.K. Mukherjee, 1960) for 13 times and this happens to be the largest frequency of any citation in the entire book. So, without any loss of generality, I safely surmise that this chapter is a rehash of reference 2. The rationale is that is there is no original content in this chapter. Secondly, the author has resorted to a back and forth timeline while attempting to build the narrative around the evolution of Universities. Also, usage of contemporary terminologies and jargon is a bit cheeky and it is highly uncalled for when dwelling into such issues. The author has, for undisclosed reasons, completely skipped to mention the period of Ujjaini University. Informed readers could get easily confused here because Bhaskara II was born in 1114 and the observatory (Vedhshala) was commissioned by Maharaja Jai Singh II in the early quarter of the 18th century. So without resorting to a definite timeline, this section of the chapter is good source of confusion.

Although the author has compiled a large number of Universities, a better narrative, from the evolution of Universities' point of view could have been in place. This would give ample space for discussions and analysis as to why the Universities evolved in a particular way. Also, for the sake of completeness and fair disclosure, a paragraph should have been devoted to analyzing how the Universities handled failures. Moreover, if the Universities were imparting such high quality of all-rounded education, the reason should be in place about what greater forces grounded them.

Factual correction may be in place when the author highlights the glory of Bhaskara II particularly with respect to the sentence, “He was hailed as the first mathematician to write a work with full and systematic use of decimal number system.” Well, the author needs to clearly elaborate on this as to which work she is referring to here. What about the works of Aryabhata who was, in fact, had used the decimal (centesimal) place value system many centuries before Bhaskara II? Again, the statement that Bhaskara II was the founder of differential calculus needs a proper contemporary citation, lest, this claim runs the risk of getting mocked at much like other tall claims.

Chapter 3: Specialization and graduation in Ancient India

The sentence (Pg 21, 2nd para), “….students who wish to study at Takshasila were required to either pay their tuition fees…..” apparently contradicts the statement of the previous chapter (in pg 3) where it was mentioned that traditionally it was unethical to seek monetary compensation for imparting knowledge. The author must explain this or should have written the context in a clearer manner.

To me, the following sentence is either an over-statement or a gross generalization, “Most Brahmin students were too poor to pay upfront….” Any discussion on the fee structure of the university, whether it was a fixed structure or a dynamic one, how the economic condition of the prospective student was assessed, what had happened if the student did not pay the fee or did not fulfill the promise of paying the fee later etc. would have added to the original content of the narrative here.

Another sentence reads, “Often families living around the universities would generously host meals at their residences for the students” seems somewhat speculative. Perhaps the householders did patronize the gurukuls, yet, the pupils had to adhere to strict disciplinary lifestyle and were secluded from families to avoid distractions from their studies. So here too the author cites the reference number 2 for the information that she provides without getting to the analysis of these statements.

On page 23, the author states “….assemblies of learned scholars that have been mentioned in the Rig Veda.” This statement is in the paragraph where temples are discussed as centers of learning. This might confuse the reader as a question may arise as to whether temples existed in the Rig Vedic period. So the author is not clear about this. Perhaps the intention of the author was, in my guess, to bring out the fact that Rig Veda mentions the assemblies of learned scholars which was continued for several centuries and culminated in an institutionalized form in the temples at a later period. If my guess is wrong, then the author has to explain the context of the above-quoted statement.

On page 26, the author mentions agrahara. It would have been very insightful if there were any original information about such agraharas in North India as this is closely associated only with the residential quarters of Brahmins in South India.

On page 27, there is a factual error. The author states, “….titles such as Chaturvedin, Trivedin,…..which denoted their specialization in particular texts.” Well, to the best of my knowledge, Somayajin and Vajapeyin are titles that are not related to any particular texts. Rather they are honorific titles bestowed upon those individuals who have performed the yagas like Soma yaga and Vajapeya yaga.

Talking about the Kerala school of astronomy, the author should have discussed the continued tradition from Bhaskara II to the period of Madhava of Sangamagrama. Bereft of this discussion, one gets to believe that the Kerala school propped up from isolation and that there was no systematic transmission of accumulated knowledge until Bhaskara II, given the fact that we did have so many glorious universities around.

On page 29, it is written, “Going by the antiquity of Ayurveda, it is possible that the Hippocratic Oath was borrowed from the Charaka Samhita.” Any evidence to support this claim would be really great. In the same paragraph, an incident from Jivaka’s life is mentioned where the duration of his study of 7 years is explicitly given. This gives room for delving into the structure of the medical school curriculum say the number of years they took to graduate, how were they assessed, etc. should have been in place here. Also, questions arise whether the medical course was stipulated for a particular period of time or was it a dynamic one varying based on the aptitude of students and as discerned by the teacher for individual students.

On page 30, the last paragraph reads, “Many thought leaders have regarded the jaati system of India as a form of social capital which helped to enrich India.” Although the author says many thought leaders, she just cites Prof. R. Vaidyanathan to buttress this point. There are various other researchers like Prof. P. Kanakasabhapati, Sri. R. Gurumurthy etc who have been echoing similar thoughts for a very long time. Their explicit mentions would have added some more credence to the jaati system’s interpretation. Moreover, giving the tone of only social capital to jaati system is also a slightly dangerous premise for it appears to be a mere response to the ill interpretation of the jaati system by the vested interests. Rather a deeper research expounding the real significance and variations in the educational content and methodologies, if any, should have been delved into.

Chapter 4: Education for Women

The author has indeed done a good job of compiling various instances where women have had direct participation in education. But one question stands unaddressed. And this question should be looked upon in conjunction with previous chapters where the ubiquity of the University was delved into. The question is whether there were any female teachers in the University? A complete absence of any attempt to either formulate this question or to tangentially address this issue will surely raise serious concern in both well-meaning readers as well as those who are waiting for a lapse to pounce upon and reiterate their aspersions on our ancient systems.

I sincerely wish the author had addressed this issue to some extent beyond merely stating that women teachers were called Upadhyayas and citing reference number 1 to buttress this point. Also, the stated fact that the upanayana ceremony was performed for women also needs to be backed up with a solid reference from either the traditional smriti or its commentary or contemporary gloss on these smritis.

Merely stating may run the risk of being perceived as an opinion or wishful thinking of the author in the absence of concrete evidence. At least the author could have paraphrased the relevant portion from the cited reference to buttress her point.

Again another statement is made without offering proof that both husband and wife were jointly needed to perform yagna and that the women were supposed to recite mantras and that some yagna was performed by women even without the men around. Well, it is in practice that a widower has no right to perform any yagna even in the modern-day. But stating that women chanted mantras and that they performed yagna without men are, at best, highly speculative in retrospect or bold claims without supporting pieces of evidence.

On page 34, in the second paragraph the author sounds apologetic that owing to the absence of modern-day paraphernalia related to both sanitary and otherwise, women of yore were confined to homes. Well, then the question arises as to why they were given education then? Was education, back then, also towards job orientation, or was it for getting acquainted with minimal facts/information for carrying on the life and spark inward introspection? Lack of such an analysis makes this paragraph contradict the goals of the book.

A self-publication (Nithin; number 24) is cited for Lilavati of Bhaskaracharya II. Well, in the presence of several other scholarly works on Lilavati, it would indeed be unwise to not represent them in this subject.

Chapter 5: Fueling a knowledge revolution outside India

Mukherjee’s work is again used for saying that Gunavarman was invited by the Chinese emperor. Either in the reference or from independent research corroboration from Chinese literature or historical documents from China pertaining to this episode would indeed be highly critical in establishing the authenticity of this statement.

On page 37, the author says, “The poor man was made to return from the shores of India the very moment he landed in year 749 CE because the Chinese Emperor decided there was little time to be lost.” This sentence appears to have been taken from Mukherjee’s work (duly cited as ref 2) but the intent of the author is not at all clear. Also, the context and significance of mentioning this are also not clear, at least to me.

On the same page there is a mention of Gautama Siddha who is said to have translated the Indian navagraha calendar into Chinese. It needs to be made clear what is meant by navagraha calendar. Also, similar corroboration from the Chinese side would raise no doubts about the authenticity of this episode.

On page 39 it is written, “The Materia Medica compiled by Greek physician Dioscorides during 50 to 70 CE, which was used for 1 century in Europe, contains a large number of Indian herbs.” This is indeed a slippery surmise according to me. I am aware of a talk by Rajiv Malhotra ji where he rationalizes the quest of Portugals and other European kingdoms towards India to the blockade that the Ottoman Empire had created. These Europeans were primarily interested in the Indian herbs. But what is being cited here is almost 1500 years before these travelers came to India. So, citing a “Youtube lecture” accompanied by no solid evidence amounts in merely restating the conjectures in the lecture. I did listen through the lecture that is cited in the book where again I don’t find convincing pieces of evidence to believe the surmise.

Chapter 6: Deathly blow to Learning

On page 42, I personally have serious doubts. The author uses Ref 1 which in turn, I assume, quotes one Minaj-i-Siraj where the term ‘Hindus’ appears. The date or period of this person is not mentioned.

On page 43, the author states, “Had rulers of India learned lessons from the earlier destruction of libraries in ……….and put their differences aside…….”

Questions are:

1) Were Indians and their rulers aware of this destruction?

2) If aware, then was it optimistic thinking on their part to have not taken the adequate precaution to safeguard their institutions?

3) If they were not aware, then why were they not aware?

4) What are the differences that the author is talking about here?

On the same page when the author indulges in the destruction of key centers of learning and temples etc. it is not clear whether this is a pan-Indic statement or confined only to North India.

On page 45 the author states, “Maktabs and madrasas attached to mosques began to impart training in Islamic traditions.” Well, is it not the sole purpose for which these were created in the first place? It is indeed not at all clear what the author is trying to mean here.

On page 50, it is indeed commendable to quote Irfan Habib. It would be also highly productive if the author quoted him on other accounts where he has talked about the destruction of temples, Universities, etc.

Chapter 7: A beautiful tree is damaged

On page 52, there is perhaps a typographical error in paragraph 4, the third line, where in place of “educate the elites” it should have been “educated by the elites.”

What is lacking in this chapter is highlighting the conspicuous absence of historical research and documentation of the contemporary historians who were actually peddling the Marxist-Communist ideology in collusion with the ruling polity and who were very selective in their narration of India’s history.

Needham’s phenomenal work on the scientific heritage of China is something even the contemporary leftist historians find palatable but when it comes to Indian scientific heritage, such works are only given a communal color by them.

Such expositions also should have been included in this chapter because this only gave a death blow to the beautiful tree where young impressionable minds of children in the contemporary schools read about our country’s past in a much distorted, subaltern manner.

One last comment and I shall stop. S. L. Bhyrappa is rightly remembered in the Epilogue. But he is introduced as a fearless novelist. Well, a fearless novelist that he rightly was, but he was first a philosopher and educationist who had bitter experience in the national level committee where he was ousted to have stuck to his clear thinking where he had articulated to stay away from distorting history (http://prekshaa.in/distorting-indian-history-s-l-bhyrappa-girish-karnad-u-r-ananthamurthy-parthasarathy-ncert-indira-gandhi-distortion-mughals-tipu-sultan-aurangzeb/#.WrD4buhuZPY).

P.S: There was an open call for reviewing this book and I had volunteered. I got the book for free for agreeing to write a review. This was some 2 years back and before the author’s lecture was out on Youtube. But to my surprise, my review was never published, discussed or I got any response. I was also not offered any reason for not taking cognizance of my reviews. This lecture is making recent rounds and hence this timely review through this medium for genuine seekers to look through the content carefully and use their discretion. I declare no conflict of interest.

The author is an Assistant Professor at IIT(BHU) Varanasi, India and can be reached at @vraman16