Lord Thomas Babington Macaulay, whom the British describe and pronounce as the “father of modern education in India,” set about destroying the local educational institutions. His objective was to promote the English language and Western education, particularly in the areas of literature, science, and philosophy. He found education in local languages to be wasteful expenditure. Teaching then became a profession of a select few, who acquired the title of “Brown Sahibs,” like their bureaucratic brothers.

Teaching is a passionate vocation. “A man who knows a subject thoroughly, a man so soaked in it that he eats it, sleeps it, and dreams it—this man can always teach it with success, no matter how little he knows of the technical pedagogy” (Mencken). ‘I learn to teach’ was a motto then. It just takes one teacher to alter a delinquent and awaken him or her into a formidable youngster. The influence of a teacher is eternal—it lasts a lifetime and beyond, in many dimensions.

Who can be a teacher? And how important is their role in the development of society? These are critical questions for policymakers. They ought to find a convincing answer. In the last 77 years, the answers, if any, have been seriously flawed. A focus is imperative today.

Most of us remember our teachers, not the methodologies they adopted. They influence the colour of the soul with the finest quality of their thought process. They ought to be selfless candles who willingly consume themselves to light up the lives of others. They build a nation—they train the mind to recognise that the pen is mightier than the sword.

Gracia Hunter put it aptly: “A teacher is like a magical mirror that will show you your future.” Students are made to recognise that there is no royal road to learning. The need to burn the proverbial midnight lamp is crucial for progress. Teachers hold hands and guide you to where you ought to go. There is much learning while teaching. Post-nationalisation of the education sector, when the quality of teachers took a nosedive due to intellectual corruption, a phrase that became the butt of all jokes regarding teachers was: “He who can, does. He who cannot, teaches.” Everybody who was incapable of learning had taken to teaching. (Thought borrowed and amended from Oscar Wilde). For every person wishing to teach, there are 30 not willing to be taught (Yeatman).

Confucius (Kongzi in Chinese), the Chinese philosopher and teacher, emphasised ethics, morality, social standards, education, and governance in the BC era while delivering lectures to his pupils. These principles have become the rock bed of education in the Far East for centuries. Confucian thought is embedded in their societies.

His pupils attained the highest offices, but he remained a humble “teacher.” All teachers expect their students to do better than themselves; they take pride and bask in the success and glory of their students. There is only joy and no trace of envy or jealousy. This breed of teachers is becoming extinct. Such an endangered species, when found, must be rehabilitated with honours so that there is a standard to follow. As a teacher, Confucius emphasised kindness, goodness, honesty, modesty, wisdom, and trustworthiness. Let’s bring Confucius to life and pack all our decision-makers into a classroom with him. (I am consciously avoiding using examples from the noble religion of Islam, where the first revelation from Divinity was the word “Iqra,” meaning “Read.” In Islam, we can find the best standards of teachers if only we paid heed to them.)

The nationalisation of educational institutions did make education available to the Awam at no or low cost. In the long run, however, it began to gnaw at the quality of education, largely due to a massive decline in the quality of teachers. This led to the unbridled commercialisation of the institution of “teachers”; they became money-minting machines… They began to teach at private tuition and coaching centres; here, they did so with hard work and enthusiasm. An extremely grievous detachment took root between the “student” and the “teacher.” Today, in most institutions, there is no relationship except through the medium of Vitamin “M” (M for money) between the teacher and the taught.

In my school and college years, which were the early period of nationalisation, there existed a bond of sorts with the family that went far beyond the prescribed syllabus. Teachers’ interest was deep and not skin-deep, as is now prevalent. My father had a tutor for me and my elder brother, whose defined job description was speed dictation, focus on diction/pronunciation, vocabulary improvement, and additionally, he taught Additional Mathematics. Prof. Rahim did that assignment extremely professionally, for which he was adequately compensated by my father; however, he also taught me and made me memorise a good portion of the thirtieth chapter of the Holy Book. This was outside the scope of engagement, for which he made no invoice. Teachers then were devoted and selfless.

It is a fact that the economics of a family unit has changed over the last four to five decades, so the need to earn a larger sum is not an undue need or demand. The issue is the quality of teachers. They are often untrained for the job—the blind leading the blind. The government must declare an education emergency and involve itself in serious, proactive policymaking to produce world-class education through excellent teachers, ensuring that our twenty-year-olds in the centenary year of 2047 are smart and relevant to their times. An outdated curriculum will not help. A surgical and incisive approach must be taken to recast the syllabus and curriculum at all levels of education, from tertiary to university degrees.

A society that respects its teachers enables the establishment of a morally, ethically, financially stable, and righteous society.

The writer is a Senior Banker & Freelance Columnist.

Note: This article first appeared in The Nation on March 31^st, 2025.