10-13-2004, 01:05 AM
Kaushal Garu,
The points below might not be exactly amount to the kind of feedback you are looking for, but my 2 paise (I might find more paise in the recesses later <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).
A decisive blow to indigenous education was by British. The British agenda called
for educational policies that were dictated by the requirements of running the empire rather than the welfare and true education of colonized. Macaulay noted that "the object of the British Government ought to be the promotion of European literature and Science among the natives of India and that all the funds appropriated for the purpose of education would be best employed on English education alone".
Unfortunately even after Independence, we (rather the system) have not shed the colonial legacy while looking for an alternate educational system. The history teaching in particular, typified and continued the relationship that exists between the colonizer and the colonized. Thus even till today schools teach more European history than Indian history. It is in this context and experience, we continue to breed brown sahibs with roots cut off.
In 1975 (I believe) a new framework to teach history in schools evolved under the framework of "socialism, democracy and secularism(?)". The framework was (and
the main objectives of teaching the history of humankind are the following):
From the same paper it also mentions that "The teaching of history should be objective and free from any communal, parochial, and other prejudices. The students should be introduced to the stages of development of human civilization and to the historical forces and factors that have shaped the modem world. Their understanding of India's heritage and struggle for freedom should be enhanced because understanding the past aids the students' understanding of contemporary developments. Challenging assignments and prolects should encourage independent work by students".
However the teaching part of the history becomes a pedagogical exercise with little interaction from students, the quality of history education imparted to the student depends heavily on the bias of the teacher. However if one goes through the framework, in its original and pristine form, was a very good effort in coming up with the principles of teaching history. Then we all know who hijacked it, and now we now know why our people turn out the way they do <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->
The points below might not be exactly amount to the kind of feedback you are looking for, but my 2 paise (I might find more paise in the recesses later <!--emo&
--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif' /><!--endemo--> ).A decisive blow to indigenous education was by British. The British agenda called
for educational policies that were dictated by the requirements of running the empire rather than the welfare and true education of colonized. Macaulay noted that "the object of the British Government ought to be the promotion of European literature and Science among the natives of India and that all the funds appropriated for the purpose of education would be best employed on English education alone".
Unfortunately even after Independence, we (rather the system) have not shed the colonial legacy while looking for an alternate educational system. The history teaching in particular, typified and continued the relationship that exists between the colonizer and the colonized. Thus even till today schools teach more European history than Indian history. It is in this context and experience, we continue to breed brown sahibs with roots cut off.
In 1975 (I believe) a new framework to teach history in schools evolved under the framework of "socialism, democracy and secularism(?)". The framework was (and
the main objectives of teaching the history of humankind are the following):
- to promote an understanding of the processes of change and development through which human societies have evolved to their present stage of development
- to promote an understanding of the common roots of human civilization and an appreciation of the basic unity of humankind
- to develop an appreciation of the contributions made by various cultures to the total heritage of humankind
- to foster the understanding that the mutual interaction of various cultures has been an important factor in the progress of humankind
- to promote the study of the history of specific countries in relation to, and as a part of, the general history of humankind
From the same paper it also mentions that "The teaching of history should be objective and free from any communal, parochial, and other prejudices. The students should be introduced to the stages of development of human civilization and to the historical forces and factors that have shaped the modem world. Their understanding of India's heritage and struggle for freedom should be enhanced because understanding the past aids the students' understanding of contemporary developments. Challenging assignments and prolects should encourage independent work by students".
However the teaching part of the history becomes a pedagogical exercise with little interaction from students, the quality of history education imparted to the student depends heavily on the bias of the teacher. However if one goes through the framework, in its original and pristine form, was a very good effort in coming up with the principles of teaching history. Then we all know who hijacked it, and now we now know why our people turn out the way they do <!--emo&:o--><img src='style_emoticons/<#EMO_DIR#>/ohmy.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='ohmy.gif' /><!--endemo-->