The Stupid Debate of Temple vs Schools
A major problem with Indian intellectuals and so called secularists is that they end up showing the comparison of numbers of temples and schools in India whenever there is a debate on religion. Knowingly or unknowingly, this debate goes back into the past and somehow defames Hinduism that it focuses more on temples than any other aspect.
However, these learned people do not understand that a majority of the temples have been in existence since thousands of years and well before 1947. If you really want to go back to history to discuss about Temples, you should also stay in that era and read about the Gurukuls and other educational centers that only flourished in India. Institutions like Nalanda and many others were the hotbed of education, where people from all across the world (Chinese, Greeks, Romans) used to come to gain knowledge. These instituions preached on almost every subject under the sky — Politics, Science, Mathematics, Astronomy, Architecture, Religion, Art, etc. The Guru Shisya mode of education was not only accepted by everyone but also praised. It was even praised till the British era and as it was a threat to their dominance, it was systematically destroyed.
Temples, on the other hand, were the outcomes of the architectural knowhow that people learned from these Gurukuls. If you understand a temple only from the perspective of worship, then you are horribly wrong as it is much more to it. The beautiful carvings, the scientific approach to design which we still see as a mystery in many of our temples is something that forms a larger picture. Temples were not only used for worship but also were a gathering point and many a time storage houses for water and grains. There is so much to learn from various temples in India.
Indian civilization never demeaned the importance of education over religion and it is well reflected in the tremendeous powerhouse of knowledge — the Vedas and other manuscripts.
The Islamic invasion led to the destruction of many Gurukuls and Temples and were replaced by Madrassas and Mosques. Now, I will always be against this destruction but a thing that I would like to point out is the ‘replacement’. Even though Madrassas did not have the same level of education system, it still preached similar subjects — Mathematics, Science, Religion, Art. Long story cut short — The then India still focused on education, however, lesser than before.
The onset of British Raj destroyed the roots of Indian education by killing the Gurukuls, even the teachers and imposing English as a language. There are written records of British High Command about the superiority of Indian education system over the British. But they had to root it out of the system in order to survive.
In today’s time, when I see people making a comment on the fact that we Indians want temples over schools — then my friend, either you are weak in analysis or a pseudo intellectual.
If post 1947, the govts. have not been able to increase the number of schools as per the population, then temples are not to be blamed for, most of which have been existing before 1947. I haven’t heard from a single family which does not want its kid to go to school and rather only visit temples. Even a priest first gets a proper degree in Sanskrit and religious studies before becoming one.
Why we have been fighting over a temple is because of the religious importance that it holds dating back to thousands of years and is innate to the majority, if not all. .One cannot relate this to any other issue, be social or economic. Yes, one thing I would agree to is that politicians play around with this sentiment, but nowhere it ridicules education.
There is a fine line of difference between religous dogmatism and being religious, and we are very far away on the religious side. Had the majority of Indians been dogmatic then our situation would have been that of Bangladesh, Pakistan or Afghanistan.
