The University Grants Commission has proposed that Indian
Universities should henceforth open their doors to astrology,
setting up new departments which can have up to five teaching
posts sanctioned per university.
Scientists have protested, in groups and even individually.
Opposition is countering this protest with the ready reply -
"Has science been able to explain everything? Why then should
we not address such issues with an open mind?" The UGC proposal
itself maintains that this `-logy' is a part of our ancient
culture and learning about our ancient culture is certainly
desirable.
There is no scope for controversy regarding this last part.
Of course, it is important for us to know about our ancient
culture. But is astrology really a part of our ancient culture?
The name of this UGC proposed new department is supposed to be
`Vedic Astrology'. Therefore, the inherent assumption of this
proposal makes astrology a part of the Indian culture contemporary
to the Vedas. It is extremely important to protest against
such a proclamation. Because, a person who has the slightest
idea about ancient Indian culture, would agree that astrology
did not exist in India at the time of the Vedas. Not only that,
it didn't even exist in the times of our great epics, namely,
Ramayana & Mahabharata. No astrologer was called upon to find
the right time for Rama to leave for exile or for attacking
Lanka. Mahabharata describes the events of such an enormous war -
but none of the warring sides deemed it necessary to consult
an astrologer to decide upon the auspicious moment for the
commencement of the war. The reason is simple - astrology was
not practiced then. Of course, astronomy existed. It was used
to calculate the correct positions of the celestial objects in
the sky plane or even to predict their future positions at a
later time. But an attempt at predicting the events of human
life from such information has nowhere been recorded in the
ancient records of our culture. Astrology came to India much
later. Therefore, if someone claims astrology as a part of
our ancient culture simply to fulfill his personal agenda it
amounts to an insult and mockery of the `ancient'-ness of our
culture.
The mockery does not end here. The UGC has even suggested an
alternative name for their proposed subject of study. In Indian
languages it would be known as - jyotirvigyan. What kind of
a translation is this? The reference to Vedas, present in the
English version, is completely absent here. And where did the
vigyan (science) part crop up from?
We have always known astrology as jyotish-shastra. Why does
it become necessary to change it to jyotirvigyan now? Is
the claim of jyotish-shastra not strong enough? If a subject
can't even claim its share of legitimacy unless its name itself
is changed - how can it be a contender for a university department?
Aren't the people advocating astrology themselves hesitant about
this?
Of course, the problem is not confined to the question of the
name only. To understand the issue in its entirety let us
consider the other topics which are also being proposed for
university degrees. This includes pourahitya (study of the
rituals required to conduct a Hindu puja), vastu-shastra etc.
It seems the aim of these studies would be to train people in
certain specific vocations which depending on the department
could be - future prediction, performing a puja or advising
on the correct vastu orientation of a building..
Yet, university curriculum has never been meant for such narrow
vocational training. The subjects taught at universities have
always had wider reaches. For example, physics is taught at
universities. And physics tries to understand the nature of
matter and energy in general. But there has never been any
university department to train people in how to repair televisions.
Of course, we need people who can repair televisions, it is an
essential skill required in today's society. And many earn their
livelihood by repairing televisions. But, as I've said already,
a narrow vocational training like this can not be taught in a
university. Economics can be a university department. But an
entire university department can't devote itself to the teaching
of how to calculate the bank interests. The scientific and
logical structures underlying the manufacturing and functioning
of the computers can be taught in a university. But if a person
wants to learn how to use the internet - surely it has to be
someplace else.
Of course, this does not mean that universities do not have any
departments on applied technologies. Engineering or technology
is taught at universities, also the medical science. But even in
these streams the study has wider application. A person who studies
architecture does not only learn how to build a house but has also
to learn the basic principles of building that are applicable in
general to houses or bridges or dams. A medical student does not
simply learn which medicine to prescribe for cold and cough. He
has to learn the details of human physiology, human biochemistry
and many more things which gives him an idea about how the human
body functions in its entirety.
This nature of wide applicability of the courses taught at
universities till date is completely absent in the subjects
recently proposed by the UGC. This objection is applicable to
all the subjects proposed - astrology, pourahitya or
vastu-shastra. Because of this reason itself we can't
have separate university departments for these topics just
as we can not have university departments of television
repairing or internet usage.
There can be many other questions beside these. Television repair
or internet usage are important and essential techniques for the
present society. Whether astrology or vastu is essential for
the society in that sense is itself a pertinent question. There
would be a lot of debate on this issue and arriving at a solution
may not be easy. But it is possible to answer at least one question,
even without getting entangled in these more complicated issues.
And that question is whether the UGC proposed subjects can really
be contenders for new university departments. And I have already
said the answer to this is - No.
15th May 2001