Traditional Education System - pitfalls

Yesterdays episode of Maharana Pratap was an excellent example of how the education system has traditionally been.

Snippet from the show for my readers - Bunch of royal kids have gathered at a gurukul with an aim to become future king, senapatis, warriors etc. Entrance exam - One sneeze and the kid is not fit for the exam since he is not in control of a single sneeze. Someone falters and you do not get a second chance in life to enter that gurukul. Late for class - get a punishment which makes you miss an entire day at school. No questions will be entertained, rather you will be punished for opening your mouth. First assignment - is always beyond your physical capabilities, such that maximum kids should run away from school. Do 108 surya namaskars. Second assignment - Go dig a well. Kids do not understand why you need to dig a well in order to become a good archer or a good swordsman. No one dares ask this question. Even parents do not support the kid who is complaining.

The last 2-3 episodes actually sum up how the education system has been. The guruji as shown in the serial is highly knowledgeable and respected. He speaks very less. The approach on day one (entrance exam) seems like "I make my  make my own rules and that too at runtime". Why cant entrance exam rules be spelled out earlier. If the kid sneezes, the inference is that he does not have the strong will to control a single sneeze. Why cant this be outlined to students. How will a 8 or 10 yr old who has no idea of a gurukul know what to expect. Students have always been left to the mercy of their teachers. Once the actual entrance exam  has been outlined, there is a pass or a fail. A failed student undergoes so much humiliation. Why cant a failed student ever get a second chance to attend the same institute. Isn't the aim of any institute or gurukul (at the primary level) to educate and create good individuals rather than "only select" who is already good. I agree that aptitude is very necessary for a certain job but each student cannot be naturally best. Can he/she not be honed/nurtured by the teacher. Even if the student is actually average or above average, he can catch up with peers through training and perseverance. Even a few extra classes can bring someone at par with others and yes, from that point onwards that kid can very well compete with all peers.

If warriors train themselves by closing their eyes and respond only to sound then it means that a blind can fight as well. Would the blind guy be employed as a warrior is a secondary part but wouldn't he be capable of his own security. So my question is, will a blind be given that chance in our traditional system.

Coming to the actual classes, why cant the guruji explain to his students, how a certain assignment is useful. If there was a dialogue between them, if they knew why to dig a well, would it not have helped them to achieve their goal better. Would it not bring out innovation. Multiple ways to carry out the same task is also innovation. Reward the most efficient or futuristic ideas.

All scientists were not able to bring forth a complete finished theory/product. Rather the work of one scientist formed the basis of another guys work. Does that mean that the first scientist was a failure. Theories proposed by some (in a different field of science) were successfully utilized in some other branch of science. This is how, people in the west worked. They also ensured that the original idea was always rewarded and his name retained (we will revisit this point a little later). However, if the student does not know why he is doing a certain  task, what is the end goal, how will he ever think differently. If you are not allowed to ask questions, then you are actually pushing a person away from doing something, forget excelling in it.

I believe that it has been this attitude which led us to our downfall. No innovation, no asking questions, following rituals blindly and also following leaders blindly. The wealth of knowledge, we supposedly had, has vanished into thin air. Each innovator held on tightly to his newly discovered knowledge and did not share it unless it is his family or trusted circle of people. The fear of his work being stolen was also a big reason for the same. As it is, the wealth of knowledge was reserved for 3% brahmins and some % the other elite castes. On top of it, the guru would reserve the "gurukilli" - i.e. his best trick or the ultimate astra - for his favourite disciple or son. All in all, only 15-20% people were eligible to get education (minus the gurukilli) and many of those were giving up due to such the gurus attitude.

I feel sad when people today share links explaining how ancient India had the latest technology in that bygone era. Ancient India had....what about today. I feel like laughing when people say India had nuclear technology and bramhastra was nothing but an atom bomb. In Ramayan, Raavan and his brothers had a supersonic aircraft (reference - Ram was fooled into firing arrows in the wrong direction of the sound). People try to say that the case of Krishna's brothers birth was a case of surrogacy. Even if it was, what good has that knowledge done to the Indian society at large. Neither do we retain anything of our "glorious, old and  respectable" past nor did we participate in the industrial revolution.

I think it is time to appreciate that having equality while imparting knowledge, making kids think independently rather than mugging up and rewarding only the deserving candidates is the hour of the day. Those who fail, please realize that may be you have a different skill or you need to buck up. If it is the former then you are not a failure, you just need to identify that skill.