After the elections of 1937, Mahatma Gandhi with the complete backing of the Indian National Congress inaugurated the Wardha Education Scheme (also known as Vidya Mandir Scheme). This education system made Satyagraha, the so-called 'philosophy of non-violence,' as well as the teaching of caste Hindu culture mandatory in schools. Mahatma Gandhi was also portrayed as a god-like figure to whom students had to pay respect. Muslim League formed an eight-member committee to investigate the scheme in 1938 and report its findings.
Citing its focus on the doctrine of Satyagraha, which also prevented women from self-defence when being violated by a man, the report concluded that the teaching of any ideology to young children, even for so-called 'peaceful purposes' is a fascist act in nature because it enforces one-dimensional thinking. The report compared Wardha Scheme with Mussolini's tactics which wanted to promote “unquestionable faith and ardour from its adherents.”
The report claimed that instead of indoctrinating the children with one way of thinking, the system of education should promote “complete freedom of thought and freedom to express ideas, freedom to discuss the ideas to search for the truth and to proclaim it.” Continuing, it stated: “The system of education should be based on liberal principles where no particular political creed or philosophy is given undue predominance.”
The Committee's findings claimed that the imposition of the doctrine of non-violence is destined to create an inferiority complex in Muslims and other minorities, while instilling a superiority complex in the followers of Congress and those caste Hindus who follow this doctrine. These claims survived the test of time, as many in today's India think that their community always been peaceful, while the Muslims were the ones who brought bloodshed and swords to the Subcontinent. Ironically, the radicals concluded that there can be no peace or return to a 'superior way of living' until the Muslims disappear.
The report said, “We are in no way condemning the doctrine of non-violence, but in an education scheme there must be scope for teaching different forms of political doctrines. If from their childhood boys and girls are made to think in terms of the superiority of non-violence, it may produce the same results as the doctrine of the superiority of race has done in certain totalitarian states.”
It further thought that “in a country like India, a land of various nationalities, only that system of education can be successful which realises that their land is diverse and teaches people to 'be tolerant of other people's views.” Furthermore, “a system of education which emphasises the superiority of one political ideal over others will encourage intolerance.”
According to the report they had “seen how this sort of education and belief in the superiority of the National Socialist creed has resulted in the imposition of disabilities on the Jews.” It continued, “The fact has to be faced that the Muslims and Hindus are destined to live together in this country and the most suited system of education is that which inculcates in them toleration and mutual respect.”
The report suggested three possible solutions. First, that no ideology or religion should be taught in the same school. Second, that all ideologies and religions should be taught in the same school. Third, that if only Hindu religion is being taught in the schools, then there should be separate institutes for other communities as well.
The committee in its report concluded that “under the present system” there are institutions where “the Hindus, Muslims and Christian children are educated together.” So, “as long as impartiality is observed in the educational system, truly secular common institutions serve a useful purpose.” However, if the system of education is based on the ideology of Congress, “which is predominantly a Hindu body, the Muslims in this case from the instinctive reaction will have to demand a separate educational system for their own nationals.”
The committee admitted that such a scenario would be “contrary to the true educational spirit,” however, “those who want to impose a particular culture and propagate a special political creed are really responsible for this tendency.”
The Muslim League's call for an inclusive, impartial, liberal, tolerant, diverse and secular education system wasn't exclusive to British India. In Pakistan, a similar education system was announced in April 1948, and it was to start from Punjab, where the League had a ministry.
Back then, the Education Minister was Fazlur Rahman. He was a Bengali with liberal views on Islam and had great admiration for the Urdu language and the subject of history. Dawn newspaper from April 1948 reported, “As far as the teaching of history and geography is concerned [...] stories about renowned personalities will be taught.”
“The spirit of toleration and understanding which is sought to be inculcated amongst the students is manifest from the fact that in the category of prophets and reformers besides the Muslim prophets, the lives of Krishna, Buddha and Guru Nanak are included. Stories about Mahatma Gandhi, Quaid-i-Azam, Maulana Mohammad Ali, Ibne Saud, Kamal Ataturk and Raja Ram Mohan Roy will be part of the study,” the newspaper concluded.
Citing its focus on the doctrine of Satyagraha, which also prevented women from self-defence when being violated by a man, the report concluded that the teaching of any ideology to young children, even for so-called 'peaceful purposes' is a fascist act in nature because it enforces one-dimensional thinking. The report compared Wardha Scheme with Mussolini's tactics which wanted to promote “unquestionable faith and ardour from its adherents.”
The report claimed that instead of indoctrinating the children with one way of thinking, the system of education should promote “complete freedom of thought and freedom to express ideas, freedom to discuss the ideas to search for the truth and to proclaim it.” Continuing, it stated: “The system of education should be based on liberal principles where no particular political creed or philosophy is given undue predominance.”
The Committee's findings claimed that the imposition of the doctrine of non-violence is destined to create an inferiority complex in Muslims and other minorities, while instilling a superiority complex in the followers of Congress and those caste Hindus who follow this doctrine. These claims survived the test of time, as many in today's India think that their community always been peaceful, while the Muslims were the ones who brought bloodshed and swords to the Subcontinent. Ironically, the radicals concluded that there can be no peace or return to a 'superior way of living' until the Muslims disappear.
The report said, “We are in no way condemning the doctrine of non-violence, but in an education scheme there must be scope for teaching different forms of political doctrines. If from their childhood boys and girls are made to think in terms of the superiority of non-violence, it may produce the same results as the doctrine of the superiority of race has done in certain totalitarian states.”
It further thought that “in a country like India, a land of various nationalities, only that system of education can be successful which realises that their land is diverse and teaches people to 'be tolerant of other people's views.” Furthermore, “a system of education which emphasises the superiority of one political ideal over others will encourage intolerance.”
According to the report they had “seen how this sort of education and belief in the superiority of the National Socialist creed has resulted in the imposition of disabilities on the Jews.” It continued, “The fact has to be faced that the Muslims and Hindus are destined to live together in this country and the most suited system of education is that which inculcates in them toleration and mutual respect.”
The report suggested three possible solutions. First, that no ideology or religion should be taught in the same school. Second, that all ideologies and religions should be taught in the same school. Third, that if only Hindu religion is being taught in the schools, then there should be separate institutes for other communities as well.
The committee in its report concluded that “under the present system” there are institutions where “the Hindus, Muslims and Christian children are educated together.” So, “as long as impartiality is observed in the educational system, truly secular common institutions serve a useful purpose.” However, if the system of education is based on the ideology of Congress, “which is predominantly a Hindu body, the Muslims in this case from the instinctive reaction will have to demand a separate educational system for their own nationals.”
The committee admitted that such a scenario would be “contrary to the true educational spirit,” however, “those who want to impose a particular culture and propagate a special political creed are really responsible for this tendency.”
The Muslim League's call for an inclusive, impartial, liberal, tolerant, diverse and secular education system wasn't exclusive to British India. In Pakistan, a similar education system was announced in April 1948, and it was to start from Punjab, where the League had a ministry.
Back then, the Education Minister was Fazlur Rahman. He was a Bengali with liberal views on Islam and had great admiration for the Urdu language and the subject of history. Dawn newspaper from April 1948 reported, “As far as the teaching of history and geography is concerned [...] stories about renowned personalities will be taught.”
“The spirit of toleration and understanding which is sought to be inculcated amongst the students is manifest from the fact that in the category of prophets and reformers besides the Muslim prophets, the lives of Krishna, Buddha and Guru Nanak are included. Stories about Mahatma Gandhi, Quaid-i-Azam, Maulana Mohammad Ali, Ibne Saud, Kamal Ataturk and Raja Ram Mohan Roy will be part of the study,” the newspaper concluded.