The Gandhi Project by Nashid Fareed-Ma’at

Подождите немного. Документ загружается.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909, p.

60, Chapter XVIII: Education.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909, p.

61, Chapter XVIII: Education.

171

to the conclusion, without weighing pros and cons, that we should

give this kind of education to the people.”

Gandhi did not encourage people to blindly reject the modern European approach to education,

but instead challenged them to weigh the pros and cons of this approach. As is in line with

Satyagraha, if people saw merit in this approach after evaluating it, he would acknowledge their

right to such a position. But for him, although this educational approach is not completely

without value, it lacks many non-compromising essentials to a Truth-oriented way of life. He

explained:

“Moreover, I have not run down a knowledge of letters in all

circumstances. All I have now shown is that we must not make of

it a fetish. It is not our Kamadhuk. In its place it can be of use and

it has its place when we have brought our senses under subjection

and put our ethics on a firm foundation. And then, if we feel

inclined to receive that education, we may make good use of it. As

an ornament it is likely to sit well on us. It now follows that it is

not necessary to make this education compulsory. Our ancient

school system is enough. Character building has the first place in

it and that is primary education. A building erected on that

foundation will last.”

Gandhi clearly pointed out in the above quotes the importance of morality (or ethics) and

character in the Satyagraha approach to education: he regarded these as foundational

components. And to be blunt, when Gandhi said character he referred to good character: one

that is in alignment with Truth and beneficence. This goes beyond the reform efforts of some in

the modern education field to include more morality and character-building elements in

contemporary approaches: these fail to replace jobs, commerce, and violence as foundational

elements of the modern education approach. In fact, Gandhi would reject keeping these as

foundational or major components of education since they often contradict with morality and

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 242.

172

character-building. I would also add that some reformists have severely weakened educational

presentations of morality and character-building so as to make them more complimentary to and

palatable with the prevailing modern educational foundations of jobs, commerce, and violence.

As a result, many modern concepts of morality and character are so full of hypocrisy and

shallowness that they are virtually powerless when presented against pursuing jobs, commerce,

and violence. Note the widespread justification of “little white lies,” the common practice of

“doctoring up” (exaggerating) one’s resume to seem more attractive to employers, and the

justification of immoral and even violent acts by sayings like “it’s not personal, it’s just

business” or “war is ugly.” Gandhi was not content to accept morality and character-building

from a modern perspective; instead he insisted on teaching these from a traditional Indian

approach.

MORALITY AND CHARACTER

“‘Whatever a man sows, that shall he reap.’ The law of Karma

is inexorable and impossible of evasion. There is thus hardly

any need for God {Truth} to interfere. He {It} laid down the

law and, as it were, retired.”

Informed by the law of Karma, Gandhi realized the importance of “sowing” the seeds of

morality and character in one’s life. As his own spiritual development was a testament, this

work required a commitment to training, sometimes rigorous training, to reap the benefits of

cultivating and maturing morality and character. Neither did he waver from making perfection

the goal of such development:

“prolonged training of the individual soul is an absolute necessity,

so that a perfect Satyagrahi has to be almost, if not entirely, a

perfect man. We cannot all suddenly become such men, but if my

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 35 - 36, excerpt from Young India,

November 3, 1927.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 338.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 333 - 334.

173

proposition is correct -- as I know it to be correct -- the greater the

spirit of Satyagraha in us, the better men will we become.”

Prolonged training in quest of perfection was part of Gandhi’s approach to educating others

about morality and character.

Gandhi realized the building of character lay in developing the spirit:

“To develop the spirit is to build character and to enable one to

work towards a knowledge of God {Truth} and self-realization.

And I held that this was an essential part of the training of the

young, and that all training without culture of the spirit was of no

use, and might be even harmful.”

Gandhi approached character in the context of spirituality. Morality is a component of the

development of the spirit, and the corresponding quests for Truth and self-realization. Thus,

there is a strong link between morality and character. And, as stated earlier, Gandhi held these

as foundational components to the Satyagraha approach to education. He also felt they were

things all could learn, as conveyed in the following quote about him educating children on an

ashram:

“But I had always given the first place to the culture of the heart or

the building of character, and as I felt confident that moral training

could be given to all alike, no matter how different their ages and

their upbringing, I decided to live amongst them all the twenty-

four hours of the day as their father. I regarded character building

as the proper foundation for their education and, if the foundation

was firmly laid, I was sure that the children could learn all the

other things themselves or with the assistance of friends.”

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 163 - 164, excerpt from Young

India, June 1, 1921.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 338 - 339.

174

In realizing character and morality as foundational components to education, Gandhi also

realized that spiritual / moral training could not be imparted through a “knowledge of letters.”

He stated: “My experience has proved to my satisfaction that literary training by itself adds not

an inch to one’s moral height and that character-building is independent of literary training.”

He expounded upon this point in the following quote addressing the challenges of providing

spiritual training to children on an ashram:

“How then was this spiritual training to be given? I made the

children memorize and recite hymns, and read to them from books

on moral training. But that was far from satisfying me. As I came

into closer contact with them I saw that it was not through books

that one could impart training of the spirit. Just as physical

training was to be imparted through physical exercise, and

intellectual through intellectual exercise, even so the training of the

spirit was possible only through the exercise of the spirit. And the

exercise of the spirit entirely depended on the life and character of

the teacher. The teacher had always to be mindful of his p’s and

q’s, whether he was in the midst of his boys or not.”

The above quote mentioned the life and character of the teacher, which will be addressed later in

this chapter. It also highlighted the need for spiritual exercise to train the spirit. Many

Satyagraha activities were designed, in part, to serve as spiritual exercise: constructive service

and spiritual development activities that brought participants (and others) closer to Truth.

In teaching the people of India about character and morality, Gandhi emphasized the

need to do so using Indian teachings, traditions, and cultures. He explained his reasons for this:

“It has always been my conviction that Indian parents who train

their children to think and talk in English from their infancy betray

their children and their country. They deprive them of the spiritual

and social heritage of the nation, and render them to that extent

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 312.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Hind Swaraj (Indian Home Rule), 1938 reprint from original publication in 1909,

p. 62, Chapter XVIII: Education.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 38, excerpt from From Yeravda

Mandir, 1932, Chapter XIII: Importance Of Vows.

175

unfit for the service of the country. Having these convictions, I

made a point of always talking to my children in Gujarati [an

Indian language].”

As addressed in Chapter 4, Gandhi sought Swaraj (self-rule) based in traditional Indian culture

and values. Therefore, it was appropriate that Indian languages be used to convey Indian values,

especially with the foundational education components of character and morality. He wasn’t

opposed to Indians learning English, but even for those who did he advised: “Those who have

studied English will have to teach morality to their progeny through their mother tongue and to

teach them another Indian language...”

For people of different cultures, the same principle

would apply to them to look to their traditional cultures and values as guides to inform their

approach to character and morality. Remember, Gandhi chose traditional Indian values in

rejecting modern European values that glorified commerce even to the point of oppressing

millions of humans throughout the world. To be clear, this doesn’t mean all European values are

worthless in regards to character and morality; Gandhi took issue only with those that glorified

commerce and the subsequent harms that emanated from these. He would also reject non-

European value systems that glorified commerce and harm.

Gandhi also acknowledged another important element in regards to character and

morality. He wrote:

“All business depends upon [humans] fulfilling their promises.

Are such promises less necessary in character building or self-

realization?”

Keeping promises and being “true” to our words are vital to those on the Satyagraha path.

Without these qualities, our quests to develop character and morality will be greatly

compromised. And such compromise makes it exceedingly difficult, if not impossible, to live

the Satyagraha way.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 337.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 420.

176

WHO SHALL BE THE TEACHERS?

“I have always felt that the true text-book for the pupil is his

teacher. I remember very little that my teachers taught me from

books, but I have even now a clear recollection of the things

they taught me independently of books.”

Gandhi’s view of the role of the teacher differed greatly from the modern European

education view. Whereas at points there may be some overlap, there is definitely a strong

difference in points of emphasis. Consider the following statement from Gandhi as an example:

“I explained to them [teachers] that they were expected to teach the

children not grammar and the three R’s so much as cleanliness and

good manners.”

[**NOTE: The three R’s are reading, writing, and arithmetic.]

Many in the modern education field would not completely disagree with the above statement,

acknowledging there is value in teaching children cleanliness and good manners. But this same

field will fail a child with perfect cleanliness and good manners because of an insufficient

understanding of grammar and the three R’s. This designated failure indicates that modern

education values grammar and the three R’s over cleanliness and good manners. In contrast, the

same child would be regarded as a good student by Gandhi, in part, because cleanliness and good

manners are expressions of character and morality, qualities he deemed as foundation

components of the Satyagraha approach to education. And if a student, child or adult, learns

these that student can learn all other things with the assistance of others. In fact, if it was a

choice between students having cleanliness and good manners with poor grammar and three R’s

versus the complete opposite, Gandhi would choose the former without hesitation. Fortunately,

life doesn’t limit us to the previous set of choices: we can develop students to possess

cleanliness, good manners, and aptitude with grammar and the three R’s. But clearly, Gandhi

indicated which was more important: a teacher in the Satyagraha approach to education holds

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 342.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 420.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 336.

177

elements of character and morality as priorities over grammar, the three R’s, and other academic

matters.

Gandhi held as a vital responsibility of the teacher to touch the hearts of one’s students.

He wrote:

“If I was to be their real teacher and guardian, I must touch their

hearts. I must share their joys and sorrows, I must help them to

solve the problems that faced them, and I must take along the right

channel the surging aspirations of their youth.”

In light of this vital responsibility, Gandhi wrote: “My idea was never to entrust children to

commonplace teachers. Their literary qualification was not so essential as their moral fibre.”

I’ll leave the readers to ponder the many connections between character and morality and the

ability of a teacher to touch the hearts of students.

Gandhi’s approach to education placed teachers and students on more equal footing, as

opposed to the typical hierarchal relationship of teacher over student in modern education. An

equal relationship doesn’t mean an eradication of roles: the students don’t take on the role of the

teacher to serve and guide the learning process. But in the fulfillment of each role, Gandhi

strove for a relationship of equal partnership among student and teacher. Thus, as a teacher, he

never hid his shortcomings from his students as he would not want his students to hide their

shortcomings from him. He wrote about this in teaching Tamil boys despite his limited fluency

in Tamil:

“I got along merrily, because I never attempted to disguise my

ignorance from my pupils. In all respects I showed myself to them

exactly as I really was. Therefore in spite of my colossal

ignorance of the [Tamil] language I never lost their love and

respect.”

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 335.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 343.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 342.

178

Note that Gandhi admitted to showing himself exactly as he was: this speaks to the point of the

teacher being the real textbook for the students, to be a living example of what the teacher seeks

to impart to the students. In this vein, Gandhi embraced another condition for teachers to fulfill

the responsibility of being a living textbook and upholding an equitable relationship between

teachers and students:

“we made it a rule that the youngsters should not be asked to do

what the teachers did not do, and therefore, when they were asked

to do any work, there was always a teacher co-operating and

actually working with them. Hence whatever the youngsters

learnt, they learnt cheerfully.”

It should become obvious that character and morality are not just educational foundations

to be taught, but these should be embodied and demonstrated by teachers. Just as in the (self)

development of character and morality, perfection is a goal; for the teacher, the perfect imparting

of character and morality to one’s students is a goal. Perfection, in this sense, includes students

developing character and morality while acknowledging that how this is achieved may vary

greatly with the diversity of unique individual students. Yet, Gandhi held “there is no question

about the teacher’s responsibility for the errors of his pupil.”

He further clarified: “I felt that

the guardian or teacher was responsible, to some extent at least, for the lapse of his ward or

pupil.”

The onus is upon teachers, in accepting this role, to reach the goal of serving their

students to attain character and morality. And I stress service: Gandhi saw the role of the teacher

as providing a service to students, not a provision imposed upon students whether it benefitted

them or not. In pursuit of the perfect goal of every student developing character and morality,

tools from the Satyagraha toolkit can and should be used, such as: seeking Truth, love, ahimsa,

purity, the willingness to sacrifice and suffer. Compulsion, violence (in words, thoughts, or

actions), deceit, and other harmful means are forbidden in the Satyagraha approach. But the

standard remains unchanged: a teacher is responsible for the successes and failures, the progress

and regression, the growth and stagnancy or decay of each of student. These are not the

students’ outcomes: they are the teacher’s AND students’ outcomes -- outcomes a teacher should

take personally. And for school systems, this responsibility also extends to ALL who play a role

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 339.

179

in the education of students: including administrators (i.e. chancellors, principals), support staff,

parents, legislators, etc.

If students’ outcomes are a personal matter for the teacher, then it follows the personal

life of the teacher becomes an educational matter. Gandhi realized that even his Satyagraha

work outside of the “educational setting” had a potential impact on his students. He explained:

“It is possible for a teacher situated miles away to affect the spirit

of the pupils by his way of living. It would be idle for me, if I

were a liar, to teach boys to tell the truth. A cowardly teacher

would never succeed in making his boys valiant, and a stranger to

self-restraint could never teach his pupils the value of self-

restraint. I saw, therefore, that I must be an eternal object-lesson

to the boys and girls living with me. They thus became my

teachers, and I learnt I must be good and live straight, if only for

their sakes.”

Much in the above statement is connected to character and morality. I would also point out that

Gandhi, even in his role as a teacher, was open to learning from his students and the process of

serving his students (as their teacher). This is an important lesson to any seeker (or dare I say,

student) of Truth.

Empowered by character and morality, a teacher can serve even those who are labeled

“bad students.” Gandhi reflected on experiences of teaching “good” students with “bad” ones:

“This and similar experiments have shown me that, if good

children are taught together with bad ones and thrown into their

company, they will lose nothing, provided the experiment is

conducted under the watchful care of their parents and guardians.

“Children wrapped up in cottonwool are not always proof against

all temptation or contamination. It is true, however, that when

boys and girls of all kinds of upbringing are kept and taught

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 341.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 339.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, Non-Violent Resistance (Satyagraha), 1961, p. 311 - 312, excerpt from Young

India, December 3, 1925.

Mohandas K. Gandhi, An Autobiography: The Story of My Experiments with Truth, 1957, p. 337.

180

together, the parents and the teachers are put to the severest test.

They have constantly to be on the alert.”

Gandhi acknowledged there may be challenges involved with educating “bad” students, but

these challenges can be overcome by character and morality combined with watchfulness and

care. He never advocated punishment for “bad” students. He declared, “I have always been

opposed to corporal punishment”

because “punishment does not purify, if anything it hardens

children.”

In remembering Gandhi’s observations about ongoing cycles of violence, much

harm can be sustained and expanded by hardening an already “bad” student. And fortunately,

Truth, love and purity provide a wide range of tools to beneficently address the challenges of

“bad” students.

In seeking to reach students, Gandhi observed that “Children take in much more and with

less labour through their ears than through their eyes.”

For those who doubt this statement,

consider a great speech that you have heard. Go read the text of the speech, just read it, and then

compare the reading of it to what it was like to witness the speech. If it was a great speech, the

memory of it alone may have more of an impression than merely reading it, and may even color

how you read the text of that speech. And if the speech was recorded, you can listen to (or view)

the recording of that speech and measure its impact against reading the text of the speech. In the

delivered speech, the powers of the speaker (which may include character and morality) come

through in a way beyond what the mere text of the speech conveys. To relay lessons can be

powerful, but to witness a living expression of these lessons in a person delivering them directly

can be more impactful -- especially with persons of cultivated character and morality. Gandhi

utilized this approach with his students and noticed their receptivity of it compared to studying

from books:

“It was laborious for them to remember what they learnt from

books, but what I imparted to them by word of mouth, they could

repeat with the greatest ease. Reading was a task for them, but