But if you think about it—why would it? Education in ancient India didn’t make people less Hindu, it made them more. Education in medieval Europe didn’t make people less Christian, it made them more. Education in Madrassas didn’t make people less Muslim, it made them more.
This is a great example of right-wingers unintentionally, subconsciously absorbing the Left-liberal ideological aether: that there is something special about modern educational institutions, that they impart a certain special objective truth, unlike ancient religious institutions, and this objective truth contradicts the old religion.
In truth: modern educational institutions aren’t fundamentally different from these ancient ones. Yes, an enormous amount of knowledge has been built up in the past four centuries since the scientific and industrial revolutions, but this is a difference of quantity, not of type. Perhaps for the brief period between these revolutions and the rise of the Left-liberal Rāj these institutions were truly “secular” (i.e. devoid of religion or ideology).
The preceptors in ancient India did not see themselves as “imparting
Hinduism specifically”, they saw themselves as imparting
THE TRVTH. The Vedas and associated philosophy were among
those truths, as were various mathematical and empirical sciences. Those
at the universities of medieval Europe, or the madrassas of the Muslim
world, saw themselves in the same way (though unlike the Hindus, they
were wrong).
Sidenote. In fact, this is why a proper native
endonym for “Hinduism” never really emerged. Sure, some people have now
taken to using “Sanātana Dharma”, but this was only ever an
occassionally-used descriptor historically. Hinduism was the water the
ancients swam in, it was THE TRVTH,
THE DHARMA: there was no need to give it a name, except
when debating other religions when they would refer to themselves with
descriptors like “āstika” and “those who affirm the authority of the
Vedas” (though the Buddhists and Jains also used the former term for
themselves, calling /others/ nāstika). For the same reason the Sanskṛt
language was not named until quite late, simply being called “Bhāṣa”: it
was THE LANGVAGE, of which all other languages were seen as
a mere degeneration.
The natural question to ask is: what is the analogous ideology today,
whose adherents (and to an extent society at large) simply sees as
THE TRVTH—thinking of themselves as completely different
from all those religions that had come before them?
What ideology—alongside the no-doubt very impressive knowledge of rational and empirical sciences—is instilled by modern academic and educational institutions? What ideology—alongside some amount of factual reporting—is imparted by the news media? What ideology—alongside valuable factual knowledge—is pushed by popular institutions such as Wikipedia?
The answer is Left-liberalism: the ideology that future historians will look back on as the global religion that was in vogue from “1933-(whenever its reign ends)”.
And the reason that education or assimilation into modern global monoculture reduces religiosity among Hindus (and also among Christians/Jews in the West) is that the religion of Left-liberalism is opposed to Hinduism. It sees our philosophy as immoral and oppressive, our gods as false and Hindutva, our cause for Hindu Sovereignty, as “fascist”.
The same is not true between Left-liberalism and Islam: Left-liberalism is not opposed to Islam, in fact it celebrates and affirms Muslim supremacist beliefs (as should not come as a surprise, section 3.1).Sidenote. Muslim traditionalism might decline as a result of increased assimilation into the global monoculture, but we have no issue with Muslim traditionalism, only with Muslim supremacism.
TL;DR. education does not directly “promote atheism or irreligiosity”. It promotes the dominant religion of the time, which happens to be Left-liberalism. For Hindus, Christians, Jews and others Left-liberalism is antithetical to our religion, thus becoming more Left-liberal means becoming less Hindu. Not so for Islam.
This also explains why the liberal fantasy of “immigrating to Western countries will fix radicalism among Muslims” has not borne out well in the U.K. or Europe—quite the opposite, Muslim immigrants have a very large impact on the views and policies of their host country: 1.3% of the American population/6% of the UK population and they have been disproportionately influential enough to make Palestine a top cause in the country, get America to regime-change Bangladesh, prevent Kamala Harris from picking a Jewish VP, turn the entire narrative around 9/11 to focus on reprisal killings etc.
The fundamental problem with this hope is that assimilation into America means assimilation into the dominant Left-liberal culture (this is why Left-liberals will say things like “actually, it’s red state Americans who don’t assimilate” and increasingly the same thing about “Hindutva Indians”). And Left-liberalism does not see itself as opposed to Islam like it is opposed to other religions: maybe it is half-heartedly opposed to some personal traditionalism, but is very much encouraging of the Muslim supremacist and Jihad ideologies that are the real problem. Therefore there is no pressure to shed the Muslim supremacism.