Puslapio vaizdai


DUCATION in India in ancient days was a very honourable profession and commanded great respect, but it has lost much of its prestige at the present day. The conditions were different under which it was carried on. None but a competent man took it up. It is true that he did not receive any fees from his pupils, but, on the other hand, fed them and clothed them like his own children. They gave him a parting gift when they had finished their education and that was all that he could expect from them. But he was under the patronage of the nobles who thought it their duty to send him presents on all domestic occasions and there was not a month in which there was not something. He lived a life of plain living and high thinking and so did his disciples. But times have changed entirely. It is not the same profession as it formerly was. It is a service now which is resorted to by many who use it only as a steppingstone to some other profession suitable to their taste and devote as much time to it as they possibly can spare. There are many that take it up because there is nothing else that they can turn their hand to. They are naturally dissatisfied with it and measure their responsibility by the remuneration they receive. But there are others that love it and make it their profession, not for the money it can bring, for that is, in most cases, a pittance but to help those that come under their guidance.


It is not surprising therefore that the results are so unsatisfactory. They could not be better under the existing circumstances. Unless the whole regime is changed and education is entrusted to those that are really qualified, there is no hope for better days. It is the noblest of vocations yet it is treated as if it were the meanest,

This fact in itself points to some grave defect in the whole system. Certainly we are much more materialistic than we were formerly and are inclined to judge the worth of a person according to his worldly possessions but still there is no doubt that teachers would not have been despised if they had not been recruited so carelessly. Every one is not good enough to be a doctor or a lawyer, for his success depends on his own merit : if he kills rather than cures or loses his cases, he cannot expect anything but failure. He retains his name of a doctor or lawyer but he is seldom called to a sick bed or is favoured with a brief. He has to be satisfied with his degree only. But any one is good enough to be a teacher provided he can read and write; not only so but we think a well-educated teacher is not a necessity but a luxury for beginners or very young children; and we think that a person with a knowledge up to a primary or secondary standard is quite competent for infant classes if he or she has passed through the training department.

Education does not mean information and does not consist in stuffing the brain with matter which it cannot assimilate or make proper use of. It is a developing process and requires careful handling throughout but more specially in the case of infants. They are not machines that can be turned or loaded according to the desire of the teacher. If that is his purpose, he is an abortionist and should not be admitted into that rank. Each child should be carefully studied and guided accordingly. It is the teacher's duty to let children realise what they are doing and all their work should have reference to themselves and their surroundings. We have a notion that compound rules are much more difficult to learn than simple ones but in reality they are not so,

Provided their brains are not overburdened with measures they are not familiar with, children understand and realise them as soon as simple rules. All their work must be practical for their's is not the age for abstract things. Even simple rules apart from concrete examples are nothing but an extra load on their memory.

Dramatic elements appeal very much to children for their life is one play of characters. They are never happy unless they are personating somebody or something. The dramatisation may be used most profitably to bring most of the things home to them; it can help them with arithmetic, history, geography and literature. It will develop a spirit of toleration in them by helping them to realise the different conditions under which the characters lived and acted and will encourage ingenuity and resourcefulness in them.

Geography should have an active interest for the child viz., to show the relation of his surroundings to him where he lives, what things are produced in his immediate neighbourhood, how far these can supply his needs, what are the other channels through which other articles necessary for his subsistence find their way into his neighbourhood. The aim of education is to whet his curiosity and call forth originality in him. If geography is properly taught, it requires to be supplemented by a knowledge of history. The child should know the reasons for the growth of a town or market and the habits of the people that have helped to build it up. The current methods of teaching history in India cannot cite a living interest in the subject. Books are recommended which are statements of facts and he is expected to learn them and remember them. The mastery of dry facts does not make a historian. In order to become one, he should be able to sift facts and draw conclusions from original documents and contemporary writings. Literature, history and geography are all inter

related. If history and geography are banished from the curriculum, literature cannot be explained properly and loses much of its charm. They can very profitably help one another, but this correlation may be carried too far. It is not desirable that pupils should have the same lesson in history, geography and literature always but sometimes such a course may help to illustrate the lesson from three points of view. Novelty plays a very important part in education but monotony has just the opposite effect. It should be guarded against under all circumstances and teachers should see that they do not lessen the interest of their pupils by harping upon the same thing too often. Repetition is necessary but lessons may be so arranged that the same thing may be emphasised under different aspects. The introduction of some novel feature entirely changes the subject and ensures interest. It is mischievous to continue the same subject throughout the day in different lessons, but it is absolutely necessary to explain the relations of a particular subject to other things in the same lesson and let children realise that it has reference to their actual life, that every lesson is meant to explain the world and its problems in which they live, that school life is not a different life but has connection with everyday life and is meant to solve the problems that face them everywhere.

All their work must be made interesting to them or in other words it must engage their involuntary attention. We have an erroneous idea that a child, when he comes to school, must be forced to do things he dislikes. The duty of the educator is in exciting his curiosity and in manipulating is environment. in order that he may solve his problems for himself. In order to do this effectively, we require sympathetic teachers who would understand the need of the child and help him accordingly.

We have grasped the fact that there is need of training but we have not yet quite understood

that an educator must be the master of the particular branch in which he undertakes to direct his pupils. The consequence is that we have only a few training Colleges where graduates are trained. Our whole attention is directed to the training of candidates whose knowledge does not go beyond the Matriculation standard. Can methodology make up for want of knowledge in a particular subject? I may learn the rules of presenting a subject to my pupils, but unless I know the subject thoroughly, I cannot present it so as to engage the interest of every individual pupil.

There is another problem of education which has not been given a fair trial except in America viz., co-education. It is generally argued that men and women have not the same sphere and that therefore their education should be carried on on different lines. There is sense in this statement, but when we separate boys and girls altogether, we go too far. Men and women are complementary of each other, and therefore it is necessary that they should be brought up together to ensure a healthy development and promote a spirit of comradeship between them. Woman is not a mere plaything and man is not an earning machine with an absolute power over her. She is as important a member of the household as he. In some respects, her duties are more complex than a man's; for, besides managing her house, she has the care of her children. If she is not as well equipped in intellectual attainments as her husband, she cannot discharge her obligations to any degree of satisfaction. It may be objected that on this very ground she should receive an education different from a man's and be trained for her proper sphere in life. But how can man and woman realise their highest ideals if they are banished from each other? We have often heard of people who were completely changed after their marriage. The reason is very obvious. It is their communion that has

helped the growth of those qualities that could not have a fair play so long as they lived apart. If such marvellous changes take place in grownup people, is it surprising that greater changes should be observed in young people when they are allowed to share one another's lessons and games? Boys and girls who have been accustomed to read together never feel shy in one another's company and never contract silly notions about each other, whereas those who have been separated look upon each other with different eyes. Boys conceive a silly notion that girls are meant for flirtation and can never understand any friendship on a sound basis between a boy and a girl. Girls, on the other hand, become effeminate and take delight in the silly nonsense which, in their ignorance, they understand as admiration from the sex.


National growth depends upon men and woIn order that they may co-operate and work for the common good, there should be comradeship between them. This is only possible when they mix freely and are educated together; co-education brings out the best in both; it softens the boys and strengthens the girls. Both are put on their best behaviour. It promotes self-respect.

Co-education cannot be introduced among children who have already been separated but among those who are just beginning their education. There are certain subjects which are suitable for girls and others for boys. The timetable could be so arranged that they could pursue these subjects apart but could come together for the main subjects of the curriculum. As regards games, boys and girls can share in them equally up to the age of twelve. After that, some change is necessary because boys are physically stronger than girls at this age. If girls are matched to play with boys two years their juniors, they can successfully compete with their male comrades.


HE Conference of Nations that is now taking place around the peace table at Versailles is doubtless the most important of any in history. One reason is the fact that whatever plan the Conference decides to carry out will necessarily concern most all countries of the world. For railroads, steamships, aeroplanes, telegraph, telephones and wireless telegraphy, as never before, have made communication between nations so easy, quick and direct that distance is almost eliminated, enabling the world to think, reason and act at the same time, and to be influenced as one human solidarity.

There seems to be a strong desire in all lands that the Peace Conference at Versailles will make future wars not only improbable, but practically impossible. But how can this be done? For years countless peace plans and theories have been proposed, filling volumes of books, but they are mainly of a speculative nature. Since theoretical grounds have proved inadequate, is there, then, any experience in the history of the world which can be made a basis for permanent peace? Is there, for instance, any kind of war that has resulted in doing away with itself permanently? The answer is that the Thirty Years' War, closing with the Peace of Westphalia (1648), seems to have put an end to all religious wars.

How, then, does it happen that the Peace Treaty of Westphalia, of all the treaties of the world, is the only one that has stopped all religious wars?

As religious wars are admitted to be the most intense, most idealistic and most sacrificial of all wars, and, therefore, most difficult to stop, can it be ascertained just how the Thirty Years' War, culminating in the Peace of Westphalia, brought about the end of all religious wars This might suggest how all political political wars may be made to cease. If the 17th century accomplished the more difficult task, the Peace Conference at Versailles ought to succeed in the If the 20th century prides it

less difficult one.

self on being suprerior in displomacy, practical statesmanship and general mental calibre, it will now have an opportunity at Versailles to show such superiority, by formulating a treaty which will make all future political wars not only improbable but inpossible.


In following the present Peace Conference at Versailles, and comparing it with the Peace Congress of Westphalia, it may be well to mention a few of the principles of such Congresses in general. In a treaty of peace there are the usual articles, as declaration that peace is restored, and amnesty clauses, including restitution of such conquests as are not intended to be retained and of rights suspended by the war. Also there are provisions to remove the causes out of which the war arose, redress grievances and prevent their occurrence. This is the most essential thing for the Congress to do. Then there is the indemnity for satisfactory restoration, for injury sustained and cost of war. But there should be great prudence here, otherwise the conquered power may feel deep resentment, which is liable to sow seeds for a future war,


As early as 1636 Pope Urban the Sixth extorted from the belligerents of the Thirty Years War their unwilling consent to treat. In 1637, a discussion of safe conducts lasted nearly five years, and it was not until 1641 that preliminaries as to time and place of the Congress were signed, and these were not ratified, nor safe conducts exchanged, until 1643, making six years for controversies as to mere formalities. One of the causes of this dilatoriness was that neither side really desired peace. Captiousness, peevishness and punctiliousness were doubtless emphasized in order to obtain delay.

The labour of concluding the peace of Westphalia was called colossal; there were endless obstacles to surmount, contending interests to reconcile, a labyrinth of circumstances to co-operate with,

besetting difficulties at the very opening of negotiations, of arranging the conditions of peace and still more the carrying them through the proceedings. These were some of the practical problems that were encountered.

It is, therefore, fair to assume that the difficulties in establishing the Peace of Westphalia were as great as and probably greater than those now confronting the Peace Conference at Versailles. For in the Westphalian Congress they did not desire peace and it was not possible to agree to an armistice, so that war continued while the Congress was in session, materially affecting their deliberations; this may be one reason why the Congress lasted as long as four years.

To avoid questions of precedence, and to lessen further opportunities for disagreement, two cities in Westphalia, Munster for the Catholics and Osnabruck for the Protestants, were selected. These places were a short day's ride apart. The treaty was signed at Munster, October 24, 1648, and was called "The Peace of Westphalia."

The Papal Nuncio and the Venetian envoy were mediators as well as members of the Congress. France and Sweden were opposed to each other in religion, but in accord on political policies. The treaty was drawn up with such fullness and precision of language as is rarely found in documents of this nature, due to a large body of trained lawyers among the members. As indicating a desire for fairness in little things, as well as the larger questions, the treaty contained these words: "No one of any party shall look askance at any one on account of his creed." As an example of wise provisions, the following may be noted: the Protestants demanded the year 1618 for restitution, the Catholics insisted on 1630. The Congress split the difference and made it 1624. The medius terminus is often the wisest course in acute controversies.


As to temporal affairs, all hostilities, of whateyer kind, were to be forgotten and neither party


was to molest nor injure the other for any purpose. In regard to spiritual affairs, complete equality was to exist (acqualita exacta mutuaque), and every kind of violence was forever forbidden between the parties.

The Peace of Westphalia was the first effort to reconstruct European States' system, and it became the common law of Europe. Few treaties have had such influence, and Europe is said for the first time to have formed a kind of commonwealth, which watched with anxiety over the preservation of the general peace.


To have called.to mind some of the principal points in the Peace of Westphalia is not sufficient for understanding the real significance of the treaty without some consideration of the Thirty Years' War. As already suggested, this war, looked at from a scientific point of view, is an unconscious experiment of nations,a problem in abnormal international psychology. In order to comprehend this experiment and its resultant treaty, just how it brought about permanent religious peace, some of the main events of the war must be recalled, as a basis, upon which to work.

The Protestant Reformation had great influence upon almost everything political in Europe until the Peace of Westphalia. The religious peace of Augsburg (1555) furnished no settlement to questions stirred up by the Reformation. The Thirty Years' War marked the end of the Reformation which changed the idea of Christian unity, altered the theory of a Holy Roman Empire, replacing it by the idea of autonomy for individual States. It was inevitable that such funda mental disagreements of the 16th century should lead to a general war.

On May 23, 1618, a body of Protestants entered the royal palace at Prague and threw two detested representatives of the Crown from the window. This act started a struggle that involved Europe for thirty years in war, which spread gradu

« AnkstesnisTęsti »