Author – Prateek Ranjan Jha

Education either functions as an instrument which is used to facilitate integration of the younger generation into the logic of the present system and bring about conformity or it becomes the practice of freedom, the means by which men and women deal critically and creatively with reality and discover how to participate in the transformation of their world. – Paulo Freire 

Historically since 500 BC which has been called the age of the Brahmans, Sutras and early Smritis, the societies in the Indian subcontinent have been segregated under the Chaturvarna social structure of the Vedic tradition. For a society which has been segregated and bound into water-tight compartments, it is quite natural that the act of teaching-learning also becomes segregated. Before the invention of the modern nation-state in 1947, education and learning were reserved strictly for the upper caste men albeit with some rare exceptions. With the establishment of a modern nation-state, the doors of education which had long been guarded passionately by the Brahminical class were finally opened for the majority non-Brahmin communities including the now ex-untouchables. While education has proved to be a crucial factor in the liberation of the depressed classes, yet until today, it remains under the clutches of the ruling class. There is ample empirical data to prove the over-representation of the dominant castes in the Indian academia, esp. in the upper echelons of the institutions and decision-making councils. According to the AISHE report for the year 2018-2019, the SC student enrolment was found to be 18.89% of the total enrolment while the ST student enrolment was found to be merely 5.53%. In the PWD category, SC representation is 9.3% and ST representation is 3.4%. In the case of representation of school teachers at the all India level, the teachers belonging to general category constituent 56.7% of all teachers. SC representation here is 8.8% and ST representation is 2.36%. The report, however, provides no data for the category wise distribution of different teaching posts. Empirical evidence shows us a glaring under-representation of SC and ST in the citadels of knowledge production.    

After Iyothee Thass, perhaps Dr. Ambedkar was one of the first intellectuals to write about the monopoly of the ruling caste-class over the modes of dissemination and production of knowledge in a systematic manner. He remarks that it is utterly unfortunate that the intellectual class which is the most influential class is just another name for the Brahmin ruling class in India. He lamented that fact that the entire destiny of the masses depends upon this group of traditional intellectual class of the country. In recent times this problematic of over-representation of the ruling class-caste as the intelligentsia has been further interrogated by scholars such as Gopal Guru, Dilip Mandal and Y.S. Alone to name a few. While Guru and Mandal address the issue of how egalitarian is the discipline of social sciences in India from different vantage points, Alone formulates this problematic through the conceptual framework of “protected ignorance” as a response to Spivak’s theory of sanctioned ignorance. Apart from few such debates today, the sanctity and constitutional validity of the teaching of social sciences and arts in India is taken for granted esp. at the school level. 

Dilip Mandal has an interesting argument to make in the regard of the monopoly of the ruling Brahminical class over the knowledge production. He writes that the majority of scholarship on caste has been done from the perspective of the ruling castes thereby completely ignoring the experiences of caste from the other end of the spectrum. He further adds that it’s normal for Srinivas and Beteille to stay in the house of a non-scheduled caste person while doing their field works. 

The stronghold of the upper caste-class on the modes of knowledge production and dissemination was the precursor to the formation of the idea of India and a post-colonial nation-state. After gaining independence from colonial rule, the task of recreating a historical and sociological background for the new nation-state became an absolute necessity for the new ruling class of this nation. Cynthia Stephen’s description of this event is remarkably accurate.

“A bonanza had come their (elite class) way through the colonials …..the uniting of the huge Indian landmass into a cohesive administrative and economic entity.”

Language as power has had its own politics. It has been used to exploit and enslave the unacquainted and the unknown, but all too knowingly and in a grotesque yet pulverized manner. It is a language that acted through us humans as the first divisor, the first manipulator and the first corruptor, but then it is not an independent entity at all. Its very nature depends on its humanoid user. One can perhaps say it has somewhat of a parasitic or symbiotic framework. Stephen explains how the ruling class’s access to the English language was a gift of colonial rule. It enabled the elites to get up to date knowledge in economics, law, politics and statecraft. Coupled with a pervasive Brahminical socio-cultural regime, the elite class became the modern gatekeepers of knowledge production and its dissemination in a newly formed post-colonial nation-state.

 This power manifested most comprehensively in the capital of New Delhi. According to Ayesha Jalal, the centre constructed a form of “democratic authoritarianism” which claimed a monopoly over the means of violence, legitimate or otherwise in its dealings with rebellious peripheries. This constant tussle between the periphery and the centre can be observed in academia and its discourse in New-Delhi. James Scott argues that the pre-modern state was blind in many crucial respects. It knew precious little about its subjects, their wealth, their landholdings and yields, their location, their very identity. In contrast, the modern state sees too much. It engages in simplifications that have dangerous effects for the citizenry. This characteristic of the modernist nation-state manifests in Academic Brahmanism of New-Delhi in ways which help maintain the caste interests of the ruling caste-class. Overtly simplified concepts such as Tribalism, Sanskritization and Bramhinism can be placed on one side of the Academia while the other side is composed of silence. A culture of silence imposed violently upon a section of society by the ruling class. Pashupati Prasad Mahato has argued that the national movement in India is to be held responsible for a cultural memo-cide, a systemic cultural invasion for a prolonged period which resulted in the killing of memories of resistance, creative excellences and aesthetics of the culturally invaded communities. Such colonization of memory and history forces the Mulnivasi-Dalit clusters of ethnic groups to lose their cultural strength and think and act according to the axioms, symbols, signs and styles of the dominant nationalities-accepting the rituals and religions through usurpation including food habits of the Brahmin castes. This process Mahato calls as the process of Nirbakization or cultural silencing.

Institutions such as the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) which operate from New-Delhi hold the monopoly over the knowledge production in the entire nation. These highly centralized councils create and prescribe curriculum and syllabus as the standard of evaluation and judgement at school and collegiate levels. It is through the means of such channels that an antiquarian construction of India and its Vedic culture takes shape. In the recommendations of the National Curriculum Framework, 2005, it was suggested that there is a greater need for de-centralization of curriculum development. The recommendations argued that the students at the periphery cannot be taught and evaluated on one abstract national standard. Teaching the struggles of Bhagat Singh who grew up and died in Northern India to a student who lives in Jharkhand does not serve many purposes. The understanding of the habitat has to be locale-specific, albeit in the context of a global vision. Today the formal education is largely alienated from the actual habitat and lived realities of students.  Fifteen years since this recommendation was made, the most that NCERT conceded to, was developing remedial modules for different states but only from its headquarters in New-Delhi. The pedagogues identified the need for greater assimilation of the indigenous students but only on the axioms decided by a National level Council, under the supervision of scholars who have studied and lived in New-Delhi. It is under such riders and clauses that knowledge production takes place in India. Great educationists such as Mahatma Phule, Babasaheb Ambedkar and Iyothee Thass do not even find a mention in the curriculums decided by these nationalized councils.

The first battle for independence against the British regime is located in Mangal Pandey’s Sepoy mutiny of 1857. Such a version of history stands in abject contradictions with the lives and struggles of great Adivasi revolutionaries who fought for the right over their land and much before the Indian independence of 1947, gained autonomy through the Tenancy Acts passed by the British government. The national standard straight jackets different histories into one single compartment which is designed exclusively by ruling caste-class pedagogues.

 The paradigm of cultural expression and past traditions are constructed upon mythic culture and rituals. The post-Independence historiography attaches a certain value to mythologies which fortify the social locations of ruling caste communities. Mythic figures become the standard of evaluation. For instance, in our popular imagination, Vedic texts are re-constructed as the point from where the study of ancient Indian history begins. The question of appropriation of the indigenous folk traditions in the subcontinent by the Vedic colonizers is not paid adequate attention. Contemporary art historians and practitioners read a text like the Natyashastra as The Manual for ‘Indian’ theatre and dance traditions. Various adaptations of Sanskrit theatre which occur every other day in and around the National School(s) of Drama, try to locate an ancient idyllic past of a newly formed nation-state in them. Such uncritical antiquarian reconstructions of the past, assume the Vedic textual narrative to be sacrosanct, never engaging with questions on race, caste and gender buried underneath.

 Perhaps the first attempt made by the Brahmins in creating people’s history can be traced in the Natyashastra. Natyashastra is the fifth Veda and unlike the other four Veda is one which could be read, followed and taught by non-Brahmin class as well. So Natyashastra was the first instance when the Brahmin composed a text not only for his own caste but for the general masses. There is a crucial difference between the first chapter of the Natyashastra and the subsequent chapters. While the subsequent chapters can be read as a complete manual or a prescriptive primer on theatre and performance arts, the first chapter is more of a narrative-based storytelling of how the fifth Veda came to be written. What was the need to archive a guidebook of sorts for nritta and abhinaya? It is in the first chapter that the author Bharata reveals a crucial justification for why the fifth Veda should be made open for not just the Brahmins but for other social groups as well. In fact, he even suggests that this text is composed primarily for the usage of the non-Vedic communities. What could have been his motivation is something which we shall find out.   

In the study of Natyashastra today, the Rasa theory enjoys a special position of coveted attention amongst the interests of the Natyashastra historians and practitioners. The question which however remains unattended is what could have been the imperative of Bharat Muni and subsequently present-day scholars to locate Natyashastra as the standard of evaluation of all Indian Art. Or more simply put, why was a there a new need to teach this text by the ruling class to the oppressed class groups both at the time of its conception in 200 CE as well as today in our contemporary world.  What made Bharata and contemporary cultural institutions such as National School of Drama to standardize performance and passionately re-create the fifth Veda for the masses?  Here is what Bharat himself had to say regarding this question. 

“I shall make a fifth Veda on Natya with History, which will conduce to duty, wealth and fame, will contain good guidance to the people of the future as well in all their actions, will be enriched by the teaching of all scriptures and will give review of all arts and crafts. “

The Brahmin saviour tendency which was just a cover-up for the grand scheme of assimilation of indigenous traditions into Vedic culture is visible very clearly in the above answer of the author. The point of contention in Bharata’s answer lies in the word History. Further, this very contention can be found manifest in the story of the first dramatic play produced under the rubrics of the Natyashastra. The development which took place over this very first production throws light on the violence inherent in the act of history writing and its dissemination by the Brahmin class. 

According to the Natyashastra, the first play was produced on the event of the banner festival of Indra. This festival celebrated Indra’s victory over Danava, Daitya and Asur (characterized as the enemies of the Gods). In this festival, jubilant gods assembled in great numbers and an imitation of the situation in which Daitya were defeated was performed. This was represented as a tumultuous altercation and mutual cutting off and piercing of limbs. When this performance relating to the killing of the Daitya and Danav began, the Daitya were angered and proclaimed that such performance shall not be tolerated and disrupted the performance. At this point when the Brahmin asks the reason for discontent, Virupaksa who was the great fearless leader of Daitya said:

“The knowledge of the dramatic art (Natyaveda) which you (Brahmin) have introduced for the first time, at the desire of gods, has put us in an unfavourable light, and this is done by you only for the sake of the gods. “ 

To meet this opposition from the non-Brahmin ethnic groups, Bramha recommended Bharata to adopt a reconciliatory method of giving dana and gifts to the dissenting groups. If this method was to fail, then the second method suggested was to create dissension among enemies and this too proving unsuccessful, primitive force (danda) should be adopted for curbing the resistance.  Thus we see here how a Machiavellian scheme of governance is being put to use by the Brahmin class as a corrective and coercive agent of governance of a non-Brahmin society. This also perhaps points towards the first recorded instance in the history of India society where a Vedic narrative was openly challenged. 

A reading of the first chapter of Natyashastra from the frameworks of caste, race and ethnicity throws light on how violent cultural assimilation of the non-Vedic ethnic groups such as the Asur and the Naga was orchestrated by the Brahminic ploys of Bharata. After more than two thousand years, this counter-revolutionary cultural assimilation is still taking place albeit in modernized settings of National schools of drama and history. 

The form of a Kutiyattam performance may have changed drastically over the period of many centuries yet the purpose remains intact, that of the celebration of Vedic colonization of the non-Vedic way of life. 

This concern present in the first chapter of the Natyashastra largely remains ignored in the contemporary historiography of performance traditions of India which instead chooses to focus exclusively upon the subsequent theoretical chapters on Bhava and Rasa. 

Dr. Ambedkar had a very critical view of the Brahmin scholarly class. He writes that a Brahmin scholar is only a learned man. He is not an intellectual. The former is class-conscious and is alive to the interests of his class. The latter is an emancipated being who is free to act without being swayed by class considerations. It is because the Brahmins have been only learned men that they have not produced a Voltaire. The selfish interest of a person or of the class to which he belongs always acts as an internal limitation which regulates the direction of his intellect. Unfortunately, even after more than seven decades since the democratization of education in India, the Brahmin monopoly over knowledge production has served only to further the self-interests of the ruling class-caste. The complete refusal to interrogate ethnic tensions arising from the narrative of Vedic texts by contemporary art historiographers goes in tandem with the vested interests of Brahmin class to maintain its construct of an antiquarian past at the expense of a mass historical amnesia. The impetus behind the scholarly study of the Natyashastra in modern India remains exactly the same as the one behind the creation of the Natyashastra two thousand years ago i.e. the desire of the Brahminical class to assimilate the different ethnic groups living in India under the hierarchical social structure of Vedic religion which places the Brahmin at the top. 

So we can see two differential processes at play in the act of knowledge production and dissemination. One is of a “Protected Ignorance” and other is of “Nirbakization”. Both these processes take place at the same time but from the opposite ends of the social spectrum. While the ruling caste tries its best to foster a protected ignorance regarding the past injustices and prejudices of Vedic religion, at the same time a culture of silence or historical amnesia is imposed upon the non-Brahminical discourses. Thus history is written, archives are built and canons fortified. These antiquarian constructs based upon Vedic prescriptions and mythologies are packaged and disseminated in schools and universities as the History, culture and tradition of India. The nationalization of arts and history has only served the detrimental effect of a greater, more conniving Brahminical co-option of the non-Vedic traditions of India, to the point where Chaturvarna and consequently rule of the Brahmin has been naturalized under the democratic framework of the Indian constitution.

Epilogue: 

As a final remark, I would reiterate what Dr. Ambedkar suggested to all students of history. He asks us to bear in mind the one fact which has been completely neglected by the historians who have written about the history of India. This fundamental fact he says is that there has in ancient India, a great struggle between Buddhism and Brahminism. The history of India is nothing if it is not one of this great struggle. It is not even a struggle but a quarrel over some creed. The quarrel was on the issue of “Truth”. What can be accepted as truth? 

Now there is a funny way in which the Brahmins understand truth. They understand the truth as something declared by the Vedas instead of understanding the truth as something which is actually witnessed through senses. This very contradiction is at play in the Natyashastra. The Asur, Naga, Daitya and other non-Brahmin ethnic groups refuse to accept the Brahmin’s claim on itihas. On the event of the very first dissemination of Vedic history which was made available for the non-Brahmin audience through the form of abhinaya, the narrative was subjected to strong criticism and it was only through malicious interventions of Bramha (co-option, dissension and retribution) that the quarrel was stifled and the dissenters were forced to conform to the Brahmin narrative. That Brahmins retain this power of writing and disseminating itihaas even after so many years has remained the crucial factor in the creation of the protected ignorance and alongside a culture of silence. This monopoly was challenged by the constitution of India which made it possible for the depressed classes to access education and gave them a chance at fair-representation in the socio-political spheres life. Because of the constitutional right to a fair representation, the historiography of what Dr. Ambedkar would call the revolutionary tradition was made possible and the thoughts and legacy of visionaries such as Dr. Ambedkar, Iyothee Thass, Jyotiba Phule and in fact the Buddha himself, live on despite every attempt been made though education councils controlled by Brahmin class towards its systemic erasure from popular consciousness.

The patronage which Brahminical historiography and arts receive today under national grants and funding acts as a serious roadblock to the development and/or revival of such revolutionary modes of culture and consciousness. Natyashastra, just like Manusmriti and Bhagvad Gita is a counter-revolutionary gospel. Its uncritical prescription in the halls of National School of Drama and Delhi University reflects the hegemonic DNA of Indian academia. Such prescriptions, syllabus, curriculum and learning objectives need to be radically re-evaluated from the lens of non-Vedic traditions in order to make any intervention in the hegemony of the ruling Brahminical class in India.             

References – 

[1] “Pedagogy of the Oppressed”, p.34, Bloomsbury USA

[2] All India Survey on Higher Education 2018-2019, Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2019

[3] BAWS, Vol. 1

[4] Caste Life Narratives, Visual Representation, And Protected Ignorance, Y. S. Alone, Biography, Volume 40, Number 1, Winter 2017, pp. 140-169, University of Hawai’i Press

[5] How egalitarian is the EPW, Dilip Mandal, 2017, Round Table India

[6] India, The Idea Of Nation And The Subaltern Indian Woman, Cynthia Stephen, Savari, adivasi bahujan and dalit women conversing, http://www.dalitweb.org

[7] Ibid

[8] Democracy and Authoritarianism in South Asia-A comparative and Historical Perspective, 1995, Harvard University Press

[9] Sanskritization vs Nirbakization- A study of cultural resistance of the people of junglemahal, Pashupati Prasad Mahato, 2000, Purabalok Publication

[10] National Curriculum Framework 2005, Position Paper 9, Habitat and Learning, NCERT

[11] History, Class X, NCERT, 2019

[12] Natyashastra, Translated by Manomohan Ghosh, 1951

[13] BAWS Vol. 7

[14] BAWS, Vol. 17