Ancient Indian Education: An Inquiry into its Origin, Development, and Ideals c7.71

c7.71

Making all due allowance for any embellishments added consciously or unconsciously by Bernier, this pronouncement upon the subject of education is most interesting and noteworthy. It makes very little difference whether part of it came from Aurangzib's counsellors or not, for taking it as it stands it gives the view of Muhammadan education held by the seventeenth-century men of affairs in India and their criticism of its defects. Aurangzib's part in this pronouncement is all the more remarkable from the fact of his being an orthodox Muhammadan, who himself had a good knowledge of Arabic and delighted to read and study Muhammadan theological works. He was not a broad-minded student of human nature like Akbar, whose philosophic outlook was a species of eclecticism. But narrow as were Aurangzib's views on some questions he was a shrewd and able ruler, and saw the need of a more satisfactory education than he himself had received. He was not objecting to the theological basis of his education, but to the pedantry and formalism which characterized it. He objects to the mere learning of words and terms without the power to understand or use them, and which had no vital connection with the world outside the school. The study of Arabic must have become as formal as the study of the classics had become in the schools of seventeenth-century Europe, and Aurangzib objects to the wasting of so much time in obtaining mere skill in grammar. We have seen how Akbar seems to have placed a great emphasis on the teaching of scientific subjects. Aurangzib appears to be pleading for a broad humanism in which history, geography, and the languages of the surrounding nations would have a large place. The formation of high ideals, and of such habits of thought and action as would enable the pupil to meet all the difficulties of life with wisdom and courage are also set forth as necessary to a good education. The desirability of connecting the education given with the vocation to be followed by the pupil in after-life is another educational aim which Aurangzib proposes. All this has the appearance of being very modern, and it is of the highest interest to find these two monarchs, Akbar and Aurangzib, who are amongst the greatest rulers of India, and who were in so many ways different from each other in character and outlook on life, each advocating some of those very reforms in education which are being called for loudly at the present time. The only pity is that neither of them seems to have gone very far in giving practical effect to the educational ideals which they set forth.