top of page
Search
  • Writer's pictureThe Patriot

Propaganda Exposed - Blame on Education Minister of India from 1947-1977



A message circulated on social media about the Muslim Education Ministers of India between 1947-1977. It claims that the Mughals glorified, more Madarsas emerged, and Hindu Gurukuls vanished because of these education ministers.

When our team researched it, we found that the message is Propaganda and factually wrong.

The mentioned people in the statement were indeed Education Ministers of India but, there is no proof that they were behind the glorification of Mughals, adding more Madarsas in the country, and dismantling Hindu Gurukuls.

How did Gurukuls ended in India?

Britishers demolished the education system of India (Gurukuls) and introduced their own, The English Education Act, in 1835. Lord Macaulay surveyed the education system of India and found that there is 97% literacy in North India and 100% in South India. Lord Macaulay was clear that if they have to enslave India, then they must replace this education system. Therefore, he first declared Gurukuls illegal. Then they set up on fire the Gurukuls of this country. Gurus were beaten and put in jail.

Till 1850, there were 7 lakh 32 thousand gurukuls in this country, and the villages in this country were 7 lakh 50 thousand. An average of one Gurukul in every village.

All those who used to be Gurukuls used to have 'Higher Learning Institute' in today's language. Total subjects taught were Eighteen in all of them, and people used to run these Gurukul together and not the king, the Maharaja.

Building Madrasas

It is no surprise that madrasas in India came with the advent of Muslim rule in the subcontinent. The madrasas were central to the eco-cultural life of Muslim society. Their role in medieval India was about providing a workforce to the government of the day and helping in its vast machinery. In those times, a chain of madrasas was instrumental in imparting education to the masses. One of the significant characteristics was that they were secular and attracted children even from the non-Muslim community. The secular traditions continued till the late 19th century.

One would be surprised to know that luminaries like Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Dr. Rajendra Prasad, and Dr. Sachdanand Sinha acquired their primary education from madrasas.

Madrasas are never built or approved by the central government. It is either made by private sectors or the state government. In both cases, state government-appointed committees approve them. So, the Education Minister of India has nothing to do with opening a Madrasas. The state government sends a report to the Ministry of Minority Affairs with updated data.

According to the information provided by the Ministry of Minority Affairs, India had 24,010 madrasas in 2018-19.

Glorifying Mughals in NCERT

The NCERT books have taken a very objective approach while writing Indian history. I have myself read these books and do not find any bias in their version of historical events. The role played by the local powers during the Mughal Empire is well documented in NCERT books. The part of regional authorities like the successor states of the Bahamani sultanate, Rajputs, the Vijayanagar dynasties, the Marathas, the Jats, and the Sikhs also covered in great detail. For example, the role of Malik Ambar, the Ethiopian military commander in the service of the Nizam Shahs of Ahmednagar, in keeping the Mughals at bay in the Deccan for 25 years, the exploits of the Maratha warrior Shivaji, and others who played a key role is also adequately covered.

It is a fact that 2 out of 5 chapters on medieval Indian history are on Mughals, primarily because of the dominance of North India over the rest of the country. Mughals dominated North India for a more extended period, and the hegemony of the North alienates us from a host of other histories with equal merit. Even ancient India talks about the Mauryas and the Guptas of the North, while the Pallavas and Cheras of the South find no mention.

Was Akbar great? Maybe or maybe not, but he was certainly not good.

I think that a lot of people misunderstand what Great means when used in a historical context. How can one call Jahangir great when he was a drug addict and alcoholic or Aurangzeb, a religious bigot or Akbar, who ordered the massacre of Chittorgarh?

Now let's come to the term Great in a historical context. Great does not mean good. It has nothing to do with morality at all. A great person does not have to be a good person. Even an evil person can be great; Ravana is the best example of this. He was referred to as Ravana the Great because of his knowledge and power. Does this mean that Ravana was an excellent being from a moral perspective? Quite the opposite, isn't it? But he was Great. He was larger than life, had 20 hands, ten heads, and was blessed with exceptional supernatural powers that enabled him to vanish, throwing rain and fire or launching thousands of arrows during the war. He was also an extraordinary scholar; he mastered the Vedas. An excellent veena player and a devotee of Shiva. How could he possibly not be called Great? But he was in no way good.

Similarly, Alexander the Great serves to remind us of Alexander's accomplishments and conquests. The power that he commanded. It does not mean that he was a good person. He was responsible for plenty of massacres as well - all for personal glory.

In the ancient world, the truth is that no leader could afford to be a good person. A person who followed the morally correct decisions only is unlikely to rule for long. Killing people was quite natural in those days. The sword resolved all the matters instead of talking. There would not have been a single noble family that did not kill its enemies. To not do so would have meant their destruction. Far too many people seem to use the morality of the 21st century to judge people from history. What may seem like evil to us was entirely just to the people of the age.

If you want to teach history in detail in schools, including all massacres, you must educate the audience to understand the medieval and gunpowder ages. And this information is usually deemed as too bloody for the students of such a young age. Even movies containing violence are not allowed to be seen by a person below 18 years.

References




1 comentário


palvi sarup
palvi sarup
14 de ago. de 2021

Just finished reading this blog, totally changed my view about THE GREAT. Usually I never comment on blogs but your article is so convincing that I couldn’t stop myself. You’re doing a great job Man,Keep it up.

Curtir
Post: Blog2_Post
bottom of page