Evolution of the Modern Indian Teacher

  People, a long time back, considered a teacher not merely a professional educator in one field or subject as in the present, but a scholar who was knowledgeable in all subjects. It was similar to a child’s view of his first teacher. A teacher knew all, was all powerful. Education was what he considered worthy of bestowing on his students. Was he paid? Did he have any personal benefits in return for his teaching? The system of education was so different in India when we consider the west.

Before the western influence changed the system of education in India totally, the ‘Guru’ or the master teacher was solely given the responsibility of imparting knowledge to his students and ensuring  it was passed on to the future generations. It was called the ‘Gurukula’ system. The students stayed with the teacher in his home and whenever the the teacher found time he taught them. The teacher taught religion as well as subjects like language, history, science,debating etc. and skills according to their birth. There were no class distinctions among the students. The king’s son sat along with a poor man’s son and both learnt the same subjects. But when it came to skills, the prince learnt the skills to be a warrior and a king. All the students did all the tasks assigned to them. They also ran errands like bringing firewood from the forest for the teacher’s kitchen or washing his clothes. The king and the rich men paid the teacher. For the poor, education was free. Each student according to his financial standing, gave money or a gift to the teacher at the completion of his education. But it was not mandatory. Writing was rare and done on palm leaves. Most of the learning was acquired by listening and repeating. What the teacher knew was directly transferred to the pupils. He was a king maker as well as citizen maker. No wonder  the teacher occupied a high pedestal.

 With the changing systems of education the teacher is expected to inspire not to indoctrinate. Rather than sitting on a pedestal, has to be on the same plane as the pupil. He is to be more of a friend than a master. The children have other sources of acquiring knowledge and the teacher has to acknowledge his learnedness. Sometimes the student knows what the teacher does not know. The teacher should be broadminded enough to accept the pupil’s perception. Specialisations in subjects has led to the teacher having knowledge only in his subject if he does not develop interest in other fields. Above all, the student knows that the teacher is getting paid for what he does. So transfer of knowledge is no more a blessing from the teacher. It is no less than a business transaction. With all this we cannot conclude that there is a dearth of good student – teacher relationship. Even now there are teachers who are wowed by the students and students who have no qualms in running errands for a teacher. Changes have occurred but they do fit the present.