Ever since the British came and imposed their Raj, one way of escaping that slavery was by obtaining an education. It not only qualified one for the invader’s jobs, but could lead to upward mobility. One of the most sought-after goals was an education in the home country. Then there began to sprout up educational institutions in the Subcontinent patterned on British models. However, it was still considered better to go to England and obtain one’s degree. Not only were there better prospects, but pays and promotions were better.
This was college and professional education: sending boys to school was rare, both because of the expense, and because the boys were considered children. And note: one sent sons, not daughters. While Jawaharlal Nehru sent off his daughter Indira to Oxford just as he had gone, he schooled her in India, even though he had himself been sent to Harrow.
Apart from equipping the student for life, an education should also settle his or her relationship with the universe. It is not meant to defend child murderers or perpetuate a caste system. It is impossible to avoid the purposes of a Muslim education. It is to enable the child to worship the Almighty, and also to see His signs
What was the purpose of education? To get ahead, of course. Though only Quaid-e-Azam Muhammad Ali Jinnah attained eminence as a lawyer, such people as Mohandas Karamchand Gandhi, Vallabhai Patel and Jawahirlal Nehru all went to England and became barristers and Liquat Ali Khan was an Oxonian like Nehru. However, from the point of view of educators, the purpose was acclimation, absorption into society, making the subject being educated a useful member of society, and making him fit into that society.
That is one reason why all students are taught the history of their country; not so much the history as the tribal myth which holds them together. A shared history is an important component of nationhood, and when young colonized Indians went to British, and later American colleges, they joined ranks with their native classmates, who had been imbued with the national myth since childhood. They then absorbed that myth, while the history of India was taught such that it justified, indeed glorified, the Raj.
Then there are immigrants’ children, who learn one national myth at home, and then learn another in school. They have different coping mechanisms, running from joining Al-Qaida or the Islamic State to joining the Tory or Republican parties. They also have to cope with racism, which was more open in the earlier years.
However, that seems to be falling apart at the seams. Donald Trump, in an attempt to support Israel, is attacking Harvard University. Not only has he cut off its federal funding, and the research grants given to it, but he has prevented it from admitting foreign students, and indeed, removing those already enrolled, who must now transfer or lose their legal status. About 27 percent of Harvard’s students are from abroad, (according to Trump 31 percent), 6800. As they pay full fees, they subsidise American students. Trump wants those places taken up by American-born students.
Trump might be disappointed to know that so-called American-born students may include non-white people. His actions are throwing a spanner in the works of AI development. There is an undercurrent of racism in what he is doing, because it deprives mainly non-white students. By also stopping diversity, equity and inclusion admissions, Trump is targeting impeccably US-born African-Americans through such admissions.
The excuse he has is that foreign students have taken part in the campus protests, including at Harvard, against Israeli atrocities in Gaza. However, this ignores the fact that campuses are supposed to be safe spaces where anything can be discussed, in pursuance of the right to free speech.
However, Zionists have latched on to the fact that free speech is guaranteed by the US Constitution, and no one has yet made the claim that there is any sacredness about the Constitution. Free speech is not absolute: for example, Holocaust denial is illegal in Canada, but not the USA. However, it is a good way of committing academic suicide, not because of Israeli pressure (though that is there) as because it is so flagrantly against the evidence and historical methodology. However, the sort of freedom allowed to Holocaust deniers is to be denied to pro-Palestine protesters. Is this because Holocaust deniers can be shown to be whackos, but pro-Palestine demonstrators are right: the Israeli Defense Forces are undeniably killing children?
Because free speech is not sacred, it is not to be enjoyed by foreigners. Their right to a Harvard education is to be denied. An element of Trump’s actions are fuelled by the need to give something to his base, that Middle America of the 1950s, which is highly suspicious of liberals. So depriving deserving (white) Americans to make way for foreigners is exactly the sort of wrong that Trump was elected to right.
The same sort of problem is apparently arising in India, where the highly competitive Indian Institutes of Technology have seen some Scheduled Caste students committing suicide, while the very many that live have complained of discrimination at the hands of upper-caste classmates and teachers. At fault is upper-caste prejudice against lower castes, but the remedy, quotas for lower castes, has become a weapon against them. Those who are admitted on quotas are shown contempt, and other students hold them responsible for keeping deserving candidates on a general quota.
Another avenue, that of faculty, sees reserved posts chronically unfilled, as institutions refuse to lower their standards. There is something to be said for that, because the IITs have earned a reputation for excellence with difficulty, by virtue of alumni who have established themselves as excellent professionals both at home and abroad. The IIT faculties cannot afford dilution, otherwise the standard would go down.
Apart from showing India to still be a caste-ridden country, the IITs’ difficulties show that education has failed in one very important respect, which it was touted to do: drive away prejudices. For well over a century,education was proclaimed as the antidote to such backward beliefs as caste prejudices. It may have succeeded partially, but it has failed overall. Particularly disappointing is its failure in the IITs, which are bastions of science.
Is that Trump’s problem with Harvard? That it does not do the sort of science that suits his prejudices. It’s not just about race, but climate change as well. If the IITs are such bastions of caste sentiment, what chance is there of Harvard being different? For a start, it also has a very strong background in the kind of subjects that are supposed to work against prejudice. At the same time, these subjects were roped to provide support for the race theory of the Nazis. It seems to have been the attempts by scholars to cleanse their disciplines of these excesses that have led to the ‘woke’ culture Trump rails against, and which he takes Harvard as a symbol of.
What is an education for? Can the postgraduate stage shape individuals? Basic belief systems have been challenged by foreign study, but the evidence is purely anecdotal. Trump seems to resent the fact that foreign students benefit from the government money spent on their institutions, while foreign governments paid nothing for these expenses.
Apart from equipping the student for life, an education should also settle his or her relationship with the universe. It is not meant to defend child murderers or perpetuate a caste system. It is impossible to avoid the purposes of a Muslim education. “`It is to enable the child to worship the Almighty, but also to see His signs.
