I see a lot of posts arguing that India should return to its traditional schooling system—the Gurukul—that existed before we adopted the Western model of education. The argument usually comes wrapped in nostalgia: Our ancestors had a superior education system; the British ruined it; we must go back.
Perhaps. But before romanticising the Gurukul, it is worth remembering what the system actually looked like.
To begin with, the Gurukul was largely a system for boys. Girls were not part of this formal educational structure. And education was often residential, with students living with their teacher, the guru, and becoming part of his household. So, yes, students were exposed to discipline, hierarchy, and the complete authority of the teacher. And let us not imagine that bullying, teasing or what we today call ragging was invented by modern schools. Human nature has not changed that much.
The relationship between teachers and parents was also very different. Today, parents behave as though their money entitles them to dictate terms to teachers and schools. In the Gurukul system, it was largely the teacher who decided whom to teach. Money alone could not buy admission, expertise or attention.
But that came with a price: the system was hardly inclusive by modern standards. Social status, caste, gender and physical ability could determine who received education and what kind of education they were allowed to receive. A child who did not fit the expectations of the system could simply be excluded.
The guru also possessed enormous authority over the student. He could ask a student to leave, withdraw his instruction, or, in traditional stories, even curse a student and forbid him from using knowledge or techniques he had learnt from him.
And teachers, being human, had favourites. They did not necessarily distribute their knowledge equally among all students. The most famous example is perhaps Arjuna, whose guru Dronacharya considered him his exceptional pupil and gave him special attention.
Most importantly, education was not truly universal. It was deeply connected with the caste-based social order. What one learnt depended, in theory, upon one’s social position and prescribed duties. Not everyone was considered entitled to learn everything.
So, yes, the Gurukul had virtues that modern education sometimes lacks: close teacher-student relationships, discipline, personal instruction and respect for the teacher’s expertise.
But it also had exclusion, hierarchy and inequality.
The profession of the teacher was called noble not merely because teachers taught. It was noble because knowledge was considered something precious, and the guru was believed to possess the wisdom to decide who was ready to receive it.