Organizer and Chair: Gail Minault, University of Texas, Austin
Discussants: Syed Akbar Hyder, Harvard University; Angelina Whitford, University of Texas,
Austin
Benedict Anderson, in his study of nationalism, Imagined Communities, approvingly quotes Eric Hobsbawm's dictum that: "the progress of schools and universities measures that of nationalism, just as schools and especially universities become its most conscious champions." Anderson points out that this process was more complex in British India, for the language of higher education, English, was the language of colonial domination. Nevertheless, English-knowing Indians could communicate with each other across the boundaries of India's many regional and ethnic particularities, and they became the ones who developed a nationalist consciousness and led a successful movement against British rule.
Indian higher education, both for its British founders and their nationalist successors, was the means to inculcate a scientific and literary culture that was universalistic, cosmopolitan, and secular in outlook. Educators in independent India looked to the same educational system to create a responsible, integrated citizenry for the new nation. Education also held the promise of greater democratization, spreading the benefits of scientific and technological knowledge to new groups, breaking down the barriers of region, language, caste, and religion.
It is, therefore, ironic that many institutions of higher education in India today have become the seedbeds of various regional and ethnic loyalties. The various papers in this panel seek answers to the questions: Why has the spread of higher education in India reinforced particularisms rather than led to their dissolution? Is this a paradox, or is it a product of the democratization inherent in nation-building? Are these "imagined communities" a threat to India's existence, or only a sign of growth, albeit contentious?
All the participants in this panel, paper-givers and discussants alike, are part of a research team that is examining different dimensions of this topic in relation to selected institutions of higher learning in India. Each study emphasizes a different dimension of ethnic particularism: religion, caste, language, region. Questions covered, though not by every paper, include: What were the founding principles of the university and how were they carried out in practice? What was the curriculum and how has it changed over time? Who were some of the leading administrators and teachers and how did they shape the institution, and have their ideals persisted? What were some of the contentious issues that arose among the students, faculty, and administration? What was the political agenda of the institution during the nationalist movement, and what agendas have emerged since independence? How has the history of the particular "imagined community" been depicted or reinterpreted?
The three papers deal, respectively, with Benares Hindu University, Mysore University, and with the overall question of national integration and regional language education. In addition, the discussants have conducted research on Osmania University and Madras University, and will bring insights related to those cases to their discussions.
Leah Renold, University of Texas, Austin
The question which gave rise to this paper concerns the designation Hindu in Benares Hindu University. How did the university define itself when one takes into account that Hindu and Hinduism have defied concise definitions? What was the meaning of Hindu to the founders of the university and what were their intentions in so defining the institution? Did the definition of Hindu at the university change with political and social change?
An examination of the intentions of those involved in the foundation of BHU, as well as the intentions of officials and supporters of the university, reveals a tug of war over the function of the institution which reflected various social, cultural, and political forces. The factions vying for influence attempted to use the university as a source of legitimization, giving various interpretations to the Hindu in Benares Hindu University and attempting to direct different understandings of dharma for their own ends.
Although Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya is viewed as the founder of BHU, the university would probably not have existed without the support of British officials who both permitted and encouraged its development. Harcourt Butler, the Lt-Governor of UP, and Lord Hardinge, the Viceroy, were praised by the founders for their appreciation and patronage. Informed by an Orientalist perspective, they held a notion of Hindu that was complementary to empire and had their own purposes for helping institute the university.
The Indian princes, as collaborators with empire, were major donors to the university and were supposed to serve as controlling and guiding elements in its policies. They too had a stake in supporting a Hindu University as they defined it. Furthermore, they were able to encourage other wealthy Indians to donate to the university by raising the call of Hinduism, as variously interpreted.
Pandit Madan Mohan Malaviya, as a nationalist, a brahmin, and a leader in both the Indian National Congress and the Hindu Mahasabha, had his own vision of the Hindu purpose of the institution. Then too, Hindu students at BHU were required to receive instruction in Hinduism. Instruction requires more than vague slogans, but rather textbooks and teachers, which implies a clear-cut definition of the meaning of Hindu. The nature of these made for a curious development in Hindu self-definition. How the various purposes and meanings of Hindu have been played out on the campus of Benares Hindu University provides a sampling of the various meanings of Hindu in Indian national life.
Manu Bhagavan, University of Texas, Austin
Since the dawn of the twentieth century, the State Government of Mysore has pursued relatively progressive social policies aimed at promoting the welfare of the region's so-called backward classes. In defining this target group, the government chose to accept the method of classification designed by the Chief Judge of the Mysore Chief Court, Sir Leslie Miller, in 1918, a method which used educational levels to help determine categorization. Miller submitted a Report to the Princely Ruler in which he recommended improving the lives of the backward classes by providing increased educational and occupational opportunities.
From the time of independence in 1947, the Indian central government, in the tradition of the policies of Mahatma Gandhi and such states as Mysore, has enforced a policy of reservations wherein positions are earmarked for the backward classes throughout the university process, from admission to class registration. In addition, reservations reach past the educational process and mandate that various prized public-sector jobs also be held for the underprivileged. This program became controversial among high-caste Hindus, particularly Brahmins, who felt the policy was a political ploy to secure votes among minority and low-caste citizens.
In this paper I plan to examine the Backward Class policy as it related to the educational development of Mysore University, focusing on its cumulative effects in the culminant decades of the policy, the l950's, 1960's, and 1970's. I will examine the interplay between the Brahmins and the backward classes to see what effect, if any, the debate between them had in delineating group identities.
During these decades, only a select few backward-class citizens were able to attend the university not only due to their underdeveloped educational skills, but also because of cost and scheduling conflicts. Those lucky enough to secure admission therefore became, in a sense, another elite group. The following questions thus arise: If the elite of the backward classes, as a group was disliked by the traditional elite, did they then return to their roots and proudly proclaim their affiliation with the backward classes; or on the other hand, did this new elite feel ostracized from both their original community and the high caste, and did this feeling of uniqueness lead to the creation of an altogether new identity? My paper, then, examines the role that education, particularly higher education, plays in defining a group's identity.
David Fado, University of Texas, Austin
During the early years of the Indian federation, those who supported higher education in regional languages played a key role in bringing about the reorganization of states along linguistic lines. By the 1960s, the Government of India had agreed that many institutions of higher learning would use regional languages as the medium of instruction. Would the role given vernacular languages promote identities harmful to Indian stability? Would higher education in regional languages serve merely to create provincial politicians with a narrow focus on regional interests? These important questions concerned Indian national leaders.
In the early 1960's, a number of government bodies discussed ways to help control India's divisive potential. For example, the Committee on Emotional Integration, created by the Ministry of Education in 1961, sought to study the role of education in "promoting the processes of emotional integration in national life." The committee emphasized the need for uniform educational standards and the persistent teaching of the idea of national unity. The committee also encouraged the use of regional languages as a means of strengthening the ties between the masses and the local elites. In contrast, caste and communal identities would, on no account, be encouraged. Although the committee accepted linguistic differences, they still sought an emotionally-integrated Indian whose sentiments would support central power. Considering her later efforts to mold Indian federalism in her own image, it is of interest that the committee members included Indira Gandhi.
These efforts to use education to help construct a sturdy national identity provide insights into the nature of Indian federalism. From the vantage point of the mid-1990's, India's first decades of independence appear a striking success. Unlike federations such as Yugoslavia, India did not, in the wake of an imperially-imposed unity, splinter into warring fragments. What role, if any, did such enterprises as the Committee on Emotional Integration play in securing national allegiance? Did the central government fashion the type of emotionally integrated citizen it wanted? Was the central government correct to fear educational support for caste and communal identities more than support for linguistic identities?
This paper will argue that the success of India's federation was not due to the effort to construct sentimental ties between all Indians. Of greater importance to India is her federal structure, which the Government of India Act of 1935 put into place, and centuries of experience as a multi-cultural region supported. Indeed, the tolerance shown on the language issue is an example of the type of approach needed to maintain stability, together with a constitutional structure that created a political system that allows diversity to flourish.
Would you like to return to the South Asia Table of Contents? Choose another area?