Education in Ancient India c6.21

c6.21

Private Teachers and Fees: It is necessary to note that what has been condemned by the sacred texts is a stipulation for the payment of fees as a condition precedent to admission; they have no objection to teachers accepting voluntary gifts from the guardians of students reading under them. Just as the teacher was exhorted to remember that teaching was his sacred duty, the guardian also was asked to note that no object in the universe, howsoever precious it may be, can be regarded as an adequate fee for even that humble teacher, who teaches a single letter of the alphabet.¹ Smritis resort to this hyperbolic strain because they were anxious that the teacher, who was prevented from charging regular fees, should be in a position to get an adequate living. The exhortation to the guardians was not without its effect. For we find that though in theory the teacher's honorarium (*guru-dakshiṇā*) became payable only at the end of education², rich guardians used to pay the whole of it in advance according to their ability³. Guardians of ordinary means must have found this procedure impracticable and paid the fee by easy instalments, though we have so far got no evidence of this practice prevailing. None who could afford, was permitted to evade payment by the public opinion. It was regarded as a very great disgrace that one should not pay one’s teacher though properly instructed, when one had the ability to pay. When Nāgasena, being a monk, naturally expressed his unwillingness to accept the rich and luxurious gifts of his royal pupil, Menander, the latter begged him to change his mind in order to save him from the scandal getting abroad that though properly instructed, he would give nothing in acknowledgment to his teacher (Mil. pan. 1, pp. 134-5). Students whose guardians were really too poor to pay any honorarium were expected to help the teacher in his household work and pay him some honorarium at the end of the course by collecting subscriptions for the purpose.¹ We often come across such students in Jātakas. To refuse their request for subscription was regarded as highly disgraceful.²