Gandhi and Social Education

From Our Archives – A Glimpse into 1961

By Peter Ibbotson

In his Basic Education, Gandhiji outlined his belief that one of the chief reasons for the many troubles of India was the education system imported into India by Britain. This foreign education system created two groups of people: the Haves and the Have-nots, the small literate elite and the massive illiterate majority.

The elite, argued Gandhiji, used their literacy to exploit the life, labour and even leisure of the illiterate masses; even literate Indians behaved like foreigners among their own countrymen. They were the janissaries of the Raj: between them and the illiterates there was no social bond, no living cohesion. Social disunity was fostered by the provision of education only for the few.

Gandhiji wanted to remove this disparity by means of a widened opportunity of education; and he wanted to see not a spread of the bookish, academic education imported from Britain, but a new concept of education, a basic education for the many, a Nai Talim (“New Education”) as he called it. Gandhiji believed that education should be holistic, focusing on the development of the body, mind, and spirit through practical, hands-on labour.

That which Gandhiji criticised about the system of education practised in India under the British, existed also in the UK, where in the nineteenth century there was plenty of educational opportunity for the few but little opportunity for the many. Since the nineteenth century the picture in the UK has changed somewhat, but the British education system still puts a premium on class consciousness in education. Thanks to the hierarchical structure of schools in England and Wales, education in the UK still tends to create class division instead of national unity.

Gandhiji wished to see education as an instrument of national unity, of class cohesion. His Nai Talim was aimed at the creation of a socio-economic educational revolution which would, he said, “lay the foundation of juster social order in which there is no unnatural division between the haves and the have-nots and everybody is assured of a living wage and the right to freedom. And all this would be accomplished without the horrors of a bloody class war or a colossal capital expenditure…” (Basic Education).

The traditional way of life in Indian villages was one of self-help, cooperation, mutual understanding and tolerance. Community life flourished. But under British rule this community life was neglected and ruined; the education system imported from England aimed at developing the student’s individuality without considering the use to which that developed individuality could best be put. And often, too often indeed, it was used to exploit others, often on behalf of the Raj. Mutual strife replaced mutual understanding: community life was replaced by individual rivalries. People no longer asked instead “What can I do for my village? What can I do for India?” they asked instead “What is my village going to do for me? What is my country going to do for me?”

We have seen that same process at work in Mauritius. Too many people taking their cues from the arch-anarchs of the IFB, are asking “What is the Government going to do for me?” Read the debates in Hansard and what do you find? Over and over again the lunatic fringe of the Legislative Council benches asks the Government to do this, that, and the other for the people of Mauritius. Seldom, if at all, do those myopic monomaniacs who call themselves ‘Independent’ and ‘Forward’ say for a change “What can I do for Mauritius?” Seldom do those intellectually anaemic

Destroyers say to their constituents “How does your village stand? Is it making progress? If it is, are you satisfied with the degree of that progress? If it isn’t, why isn’t it? The Government can’t do everything for you; you must help yourselves by making an effort to improve your own surroundings”. On the contrary, the individualists are content to ask the Government to do something, to sit back and wait for it to be done and to grumble if it isn’t done at once. They are not prepared to lift a finger to help themselves; they want it all done for them; they want it all handed to them on a plate.

This is just the attitude which Gandhiji aimed at eradicating with his Nai Talim. He wanted every village to be restored to its previous spirit of tolerance and self-help through education. Gandhiji would have approved of the means adopted by the National Fundamental Education Centre in India to get every village interested in social education and an all-round improvement of its social situation.

The Centre has drawn up a ‘social education checklist’ which every village is asked to consider and complete. Then the village has to pick out the targets it would like to achieve. Next year, the checklist is again considered and completed and the number of additional affirmative answers to questions indicates the amount of progress the village has made during the year.

These social education checklists could well be used by the Village Councils in Mauritius. If they were, every village would be able to see how to progress without always running off to the Government to ask for this and that. If the social checklist system were introduced, it would go a long way to help to create a true spirit of cooperation, a real spirit of mutual understanding and tolerance among villagers of different races and creeds.

Dr Benedict found a high degree of cooperation among Hindu and Muslim villagers who were members of village councils; but this degree of cooperation is under fire from the anarchic agents of the racial Parti Mauricien who follow the classic tactic of dividing and conquering. For the future of Mauritius, every village must get together and work in harmony.

What sort of questions are asked in the social education checklists?

Questions on education; on organisations; on economic development; on citizenship; on family life; on health. The education questions deal with adult literacy; school attendance; village libraries; secondary schools; adult education through discussion and literacy groups.

Organisational questions deal with men’s, women’s and youth clubs; the economic questions ask about farming techniques and crops. Citizenship questions deal with the various topics in which a Village Committee might interest itself and with whether every V. C. member can read a newspaper. Health, home and family life matters include, among others, questions about inoculations, vaccinations and sanitation.

Once accepted, the social education checklist can help the village to measure its progress every year. What about it?

8th Year – No 335
Friday 3rd February 1961

Mauritius Times ePaper Friday 1 May 2026