Introduction of Astrology in the Universities


Palash B. Pal (in Bengali)


Sushan Konar (English translation)



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