There is a popular belief that education is directly related to the development of an individual and the community. It is the most important single factor for economic development as well as social emancipation. Commonsense view in this regard is very clear, but sociological analysis goes beyond just discussing single view. No doubt education plays a very important role in social change but the prevailing education sometime limit the achievement of desired objectives.

Education in India

From time immemorial, India has been a centre for learning. Thousands of years ago, great scholars used to teach through the scriptures. A variety of subjects such as philosophy, religion, medicine, literature, drama and arts, astrology, mathematics and sociology were taught and masterpieces on these subjects have been written.

Under the Buddhist influence, education was available to virtually everyone who wanted it and some world famous institutions arose out of the monasteries, such as, Nalanda, Vikramshila and Takshashila (now in Pakistan). Nalanda is especially noteworthy, flourishing from 5th to 13th century AD. It had at one time about ten thousand resident students and teachers on its roll, which included Chinese, Sri Lankan, Korean and other international scholars.

During the 11th century, the Muslims established elementary and secondary schools, “Madrassahs” or colleges and even universities at cities like Delhi, Lucknow and Allahabad, using Arabic mostly as the medium of instruction. During the mediaeval period, there was excellent interaction between Indian and Islamic traditions in all fields of knowledge, like theology, religion, philosophy, fine arts, painting, architecture, mathematics, medicine and astronomy.

With the arrival of the British, ‘is education came into being with the help of the European missionaries. In 1817, Hindu College was established in Calcutta. The Elphinstone Institution was set up in 1834 in Bombay. In 1857 three universities were set up at Calcutta, Madras and Bombay. Since then, Western education has made steady advances in the country. With 226 universities and thousands of colleges affiliated to them, 428 Engineering colleges and technological institutes, more than a 100 medical colleges, scores of agricultural institutes and many other specialised centres of learning and research in every subject and discipline,

Indian universities and institutes of higher education and research today have made significant contribution to transmission of knowledge and enquiry into frontiers of science and technology as well as in the field of traditional subjects of arts and humanities

At the same time it must be remembered that historically education in India has suffered from following  limitations

In the Brahminical period, the Vedic literature formed the chief subject of instruction.  The main aim of education was the learning of the Vedas.  But the Sudras were excluded from the right to education.  Education was given on the caste rather than ability and aptitude. Women also were debarred from education. 

In the Muslim period, the objectives of education changed.  It was more to teach the three R’s and train in religious norms  The higher education was imparted through schools of learning while the vocational and professional training was given within the caste structure.  Sanskrit and Arabic or Persian were the mediums of instruction.  The teachers’ remuneration was paid by the rulers through grant of land, presents from pupils, allowances paid by wealthy citizens, and payment in the form of food, clothes or other articles.  The financial position of the schools was not very strong.  They did not have special buildings of their own.  In many cases, schools were held in local temples or mosques or teachers’ houses.  The schools were conducted almost exclusively by Maulvis (priests) for the Muslim students and by Brahmins for the Hindu students.  Vocational training was provided by father, brother, etc. to the child.  Thus, the caste system provided vocational training and transmitted skills from generation to generation and also provided gainful employment.  There was no emphasis on physical education, developing thinking ability, or teaching some craft.  Chastity, equality, simplicity were not the ideals of student life.  The specialization of professional roles had not reached a stage at which a separate class or caste could take up education work as a specialized function.  Education was more practical.

In the British period, education aimed at producing mainly clerks.  Education was student-centered rather than teacher-centered.  Unlike today, education in this period never aimed at freedom of individual, excellence of individual, equality amongst all people, individual and group self-reliance, and national cohesion.  Christina missionaries engaged in imparting education gave considerable importance to conversion of religion.  Education is schools and colleges was not productive which could break down the social, regional and linguistic barriers.  It never aimed at making people masters of technology. It is also did not focus on fighting injustice intolerance and superstition.

Education and social change

In the analysis of relationship between education and social change, the question is : how does education lead to social change?  In association between education and modernisation, the main question is : what king of education and under what condition will it generate and strengthen the process of modernisation in the society?  Education has been accepted as one major agency of socialisation, and teachers and educational instrument of social change, three things are important : the agents of change, the content of change, and the social background of those who are sought to be changed, i.e. students.  Educational institutions under the control of different cultural groups reflect the values of those groups which support and control education.  In this situation, teachers impart specific values, aspirations and attitudes to eh children.  Thus, for analysing the role of teachers as agents of change, we have to remember the three types of educational institutions which existed in India before independence : one, which wanted to teach Vedic philosophies (Gurukuls); two, which focused on Indianisation of education; and three, which wanted to impart western type of education.  The second and third type of institutions believed that English education, particularly at the higher levels, would lead to change of social values.  Social reformers, who were educated through English, emphasised values like removal of caste restrictions, equality of women, doing away with evil social customs and practices, voice in the governance of the country, establishing democratic institutions, and so on.  They, thus wanted to teach liberal philosophy through education for changing society.  In other words, they regarded education as a flame or light of knowledge which dispelled the darkness of ignorance.  However, it is doubtful that the teachers – both in schools and colleges – accepted and taught this liberalism in values.  As such, the educational institutions did not impart the masses of social equality, political democracy, and rationality, etc. to students.  It was only after independence when the concept of popular democracy was accepted that new goals of egalitarianism, secularism, individualism, socialism, humanism, undermining the institution of caste and the supremacy of Brahmins, etc.  to be achieved through education came to be emphasised in school and colleges by changing the content of education.

The use of education for spreading the values of modernisation came to be emphasised from the 1960s and 1970s onwards.  Highly productive economies, distributive justice, peoples’ participation in decision-making bodies,  adoption of scientific technology in industry agriculture and other occupations and professions were accepted as goals for modernisation the Indian society.  And these goals were to be achieved through liberal education. Thus, modernisation was not accepted as a philosophy or a movement based on rational values system but as a process that was to characterise our society.  Modernisation was, thus, not to be confined only to economic field but was to be achieved in social, political, cultural and religious fields too.   Education was sought to be utilised as a channel for the spread of modernity.

The problem is that there is open disagreement among the elite in our society about the socio-political framework and the values of modernisation.  As such, the question is : who will impart values of modernisation?  Who will educate?  If agents of change are themselves traditional and do not incorporate modern values in the their own lives, how can they impart such values to students? Even though the Education Commissions and the New Policy of Education of 1986 have spelt out with unusual directness the vales and characteristics of a modern society, yet the path of modernisation through education is not like to be an easy one.  Quite a few political leaders of Hindu  organisation in power in some states and the centre are really keen on some traditional cultural elements to be taught through education. With such philosophies and lack of consensus on the validity of particular values of modernisation (like secularism, individualism, socialism, egalitarianism, etc.) how can we expect to achieve goals of modernisation?  We may, thus, conclude that use of education as an instrument  for the spread of modern influences is an issue which requires serious and fresh thought.

Several sociologists like A.R. Desai (1974), S.C. Dube (1971), M.S. Gore (1971), N. Jayaram (1977), K. Ahmad (1979), and A.B. Shah (1975), etc. have focused upon the issues of educations as an instrument for social reconstruction and modernisation. 

Ahmad (1974) has said that although formal education can play a vital role in ‘ideational’ change through transformation of knowledge, attitudes and values of the people, its effectiveness in bringing about structural changes in society is extremely limited.

This is because of the linkages between the existing practices and procedures in education and vested interests of the status quoists. 

Chitnis (1978) has also pointed out the uneven functioning of education as an instrument of development. 

A.R. Desai (1974) too has questioned the validity of education as an instrument of social change. His contention is that after Independence, education has not been purposively geared to obtain the desired changes.  He has criticised the policies and funding and financing of education to attain the goals of social mobility and equality. To support Desai, we can give the example of education of SCs, STs, women and the minorities which has failed in uplifting their status.  The unemployment and under-employment of uneducated youth is another example of failure of education for achieving the aspirations of youths.  The failure to achieve development of the rural areas and alleviating poverty is yet another example.  Unless the pattern set by the prevailing distribution of power is broken and there is a tile I the policies towards the poor, it will be difficult to find resources for the necessary transformation.  Change in higher education is also necessary for social change. 

Fore, (1971) has pointed out the necessity of change in the necessity of change in the content and methods of education, in the environment and context in which it is conducted, and in the convictions and the commitment of teachers and administrators responsible for education for the effectiveness of education in achieving the required development.  Some empirical studies have been conducted in India on the relationship between education and modernisation. One such study was conducted by the NCERT in Delhi (in the early 1960s) covering eight states.  These studies described the extent to which the attitudes, aspirations and outlook of school and college students and teachers in the country have ‘modernised.  Modernisation in these studies was measured in terms of an adoption of a scale developed by Alex Inkles.  The result pointed out low effect of education on modernisation. Students continue to be traditional in matters of family life, etc. 

Yogendra Singh (1979) conducted a study into the implications of attitudes and values of teachers in Rajasthan University, to modernisation.  This study measured the levels of aspiration, commitment, morale and authoritarianism among university teachers with a view to understanding how the role structures and value system of teachers affect their role as agent of modernisation. He found significant relationships between the two and thus held that teachers’ values influence the modernisation of students.

Earlier, in 1975, E. Haq had conducted a study on the content of secondary school text books, and the process of secondary school education in terms of their effectiveness in political modernisation.  He also pointed out a relationship between education and demographic change.