REGIMES IN INTERNATIONAL RELATIONS: A STUDY OF THE REFUGEE PROBLEM IN SOUTH ASIA

 

Making Education More Meaningful

*Dr. Saumitra Mohan

 

Education is among the most powerful institutions through which a civilisation transmits its knowledge, values, aspirations and understanding of life from one generation to another. Yet, in our contemporary understanding, education has gradually become narrower and more utilitarian. We increasingly view education through the prism of examinations, degrees, qualifications, placements and employment. The question most frequently asked of a young person after completing school or university is not what he or she has learnt about life, society or the world, but what job the qualification will secure.

The choice of a course is often guided primarily by its perceived employment prospects, the success of an institution is frequently measured by its placement statistics, and the success of an individual is increasingly associated with salary, designation and professional status. Employment, which should be an important outcome and instrument of education, has gradually become its principal purpose, rather than preparing and grooming an individual as a complete person ready to go through life in any situation and circumstances.

There is nothing inherently wrong with seeking employment through education. Economic independence, dignity of labour and the ability to sustain oneself and one's family are essential dimensions of a meaningful life. A modern education system must certainly equip young people with knowledge and competencies that enable them to participate productively in the economy. It must respond to technological change, emerging professions and the changing requirements of the world of work. The problem begins when employment becomes the sole lens through which the value of education is judged. When that happens, education risks becoming a transaction in which a student acquires a credential, an institution delivers a qualification and society expects the qualification to produce a job. Somewhere in this transaction, the larger purpose of education often disappears.

The consequence is a paradox that deserves serious reflection. We have more institutions of learning, more graduates, greater access to information and unprecedented technological capabilities, yet formal education does not necessarily translate into greater wisdom, stronger character, social responsibility or the capacity to deal with the complexities of human life. We are producing people who may possess degrees without possessing adequate employability, and even those who are professionally successful may not necessarily have acquired the life skills, ethical judgement, emotional maturity or social values necessary to live responsibly.

A degree can demonstrate that a person has completed a prescribed course of study. It cannot, by itself, demonstrate that the person has learnt how to deal with failure, exercise restraint, respect another person's dignity, resolve disagreements, distinguish between what is legal and what is ethical, or accept responsibility for the consequences of his or her actions. This distinction between being qualified and being educated is fundamental. A qualification is an acknowledgement of academic attainment. Education, in its fuller sense, is the development of the whole human being. It should enlarge the mind, deepen understanding, develop judgement, cultivate curiosity and enable a person to live with oneself, with others and with the larger world.

A truly educated person should not merely know how to perform a task; he or she should also understand why the task matters and what consequences follow from performing it. Education should enable a person to ask not only, “How can I do this?” but also, “Should I do this?”, “For whose benefit?”, and “What responsibility follows from my action?” This is particularly important in an age in which information is abundant but wisdom is not. A smartphone can place enormous quantities of information in the hands of a child. Artificial intelligence can increasingly provide answers to questions, generate text, solve problems and assist in professional tasks. But access to information does not automatically create knowledge, and knowledge does not automatically produce wisdom.

Information tells us what. Knowledge enables us to understand how and why. Wisdom helps us decide what ought to be done. The more powerful our technological capabilities become, the more important this distinction will be. A person who knows how to manipulate information, but does not possess ethical judgement can potentially cause greater harm than an ignorant person. Education must therefore prepare individuals not merely to acquire knowledge but to use knowledge responsibly.

This requires us to recover the idea of education as a lifelong process. The classroom is only one of the places where learning takes place. The family is a school. Society is a school. Work is a school. Relationships are a school. Failure is a school. Adversity is a school. Nature is a school. Books, art, music, history and human experience are all teachers. A person who has completed formal education but has stopped learning has not necessarily become educated in the fullest sense. Conversely, a person who continues to learn from experience, from other people and from the changing world remains engaged in education throughout life.

The purpose of formal education should, therefore, be to prepare a person for this larger school of life. Instead of treating the completion of a degree as the end of education, we should regard it as the beginning of a more independent and lifelong quest for learning. The student should leave school or university not with the impression that learning is over (reflected through acts like tearing away books on the last day of examination), but with the curiosity and intellectual discipline to continue learning throughout life.

This requires a fundamental reorientation of our education system. Such reorientation does not mean abandoning professional education, vocational training or employability. Rather, it means placing these within a larger educational framework. We must move from an education system that primarily asks, “What occupation will this student enter?” to one that simultaneously asks, “What kind of human being is this education helping the student become?” The two questions are not contradictory. In fact, they complement each other. We need doctors who are competent and compassionate, engineers who are technically capable and socially conscious, administrators who are efficient and ethical, entrepreneurs who are innovative and responsible, lawyers who understand both law and justice, teachers who possess subject knowledge as well as empathy, and citizens who can pursue their own aspirations without forgetting their obligations to society.

The reorientation must begin with the curriculum, but it cannot end there. Our curricula need greater integration of life skills, ethics, civic responsibility, financial literacy, digital literacy, environmental awareness, communication, critical thinking and emotional maturity. These should not be treated as peripheral subjects to be completed merely for an examination. They should become part of the lived educational experience. A young person should learn how to communicate clearly, listen carefully, manage money responsibly, understand basic legal and civic obligations, respond to emergencies, recognise misinformation and manipulation, protect digital privacy, resolve conflicts, deal with failure and seek help when necessary. These abilities are not less important than academic knowledge simply because they are difficult to measure through conventional examinations.

We should also rethink our obsession with marks as the principal measure of educational achievement. Marks have their place; academic standards matter, and knowledge must be assessed. But examination performance cannot capture curiosity, integrity, creativity, cooperation, leadership, empathy, resilience or the ability to apply knowledge in real-life situations. If everything in education is designed around what can be tested in a written examination, students will naturally optimise themselves for the examination. We should, therefore, create more opportunities for experiential learning, projects, community engagement, problem-solving and collaborative work. Students should encounter real situations in which they have to use what they have learnt to address a problem or help another person. This is where knowledge begins to acquire meaning.

Service, in particular, has enormous educational value. When students participate in community work, environmental initiatives, care for the elderly, teaching children from disadvantaged backgrounds, heritage conservation, disaster preparedness or other forms of constructive social engagement, they begin to understand society beyond textbooks. They discover that the world contains people whose circumstances may be very different from their own. They learn empathy not as an abstract concept but as an experience. They learn that knowledge becomes meaningful when it is used for something larger than personal advancement. Such experiences can also cultivate humility, because they remind the student that no individual succeeds entirely alone and that society continuously sustains the opportunities available to each of us.

The role of teachers must also be reimagined. A teacher cannot merely be a person who completes a syllabus. A teacher is potentially a mentor, an intellectual guide and an example of conduct. Students often remember a teacher not for every fact taught in a classroom, but for the confidence that teacher inspired, the curiosity that was awakened or the standard of integrity that was demonstrated. As technology transforms access to information, the role of teachers as mentors may become even more important. When information is available everywhere, the teacher's distinctive contribution lies increasingly in helping students interpret, question, contextualise and use that information wisely.

The same principle applies to parents and to society as a whole. Values cannot simply be delivered through textbooks. Children observe what adults do far more closely than what adults say. A society that lectures children about honesty while rewarding dishonesty sends a contradictory educational message. A family that speaks of respect while resolving disagreements through humiliation teaches something very different from the lesson written in a moral-science textbook. An institution that speaks about integrity but celebrates success achieved through manipulation undermines its own educational purpose. The most powerful curriculum is often the culture surrounding the child.

This is why the crisis of values cannot be addressed by placing the entire responsibility on schools and colleges. Families, educational institutions, workplaces, media, public institutions and society at large collectively educate the next generation. If we want young people to become responsible citizens, adults must demonstrate responsibility. If we want them to respect differences, they must see disagreement handled with civility. If we want them to value public spaces, they must see adults treating public property as a shared resource. If we want them to understand service, they must see service respected as an important social virtue.

Our understanding of success also needs reconsideration. A person may earn a large income and yet experience a life impoverished by broken relationships, anxiety, selfishness or an absence of purpose. Another person may have a modest profession but contribute enormously to family, community and society. Economic achievement and human fulfilment are not synonymous. Education should not teach young people to be indifferent to material success, but it should teach them that material success is only one component of a meaningful life.

This brings us to perhaps the deepest question: what is the purpose of human life? Different philosophical and spiritual traditions answer this question differently, and education should not impose one particular answer. But education should create the intellectual space for a young person to ask the question. What does it mean to live a good life? What do I owe to my family and society? What is the relationship between freedom and responsibility? What constitutes happiness? How should one respond to success and failure? What is the difference between desire and need? How should power be exercised? What makes an action just or unjust? These are not questions outside education. They are among the most important questions education can help a human being explore.

Literature, philosophy, history, art and culture have a special role here. Literature allows us to enter lives different from our own. History teaches us that societies are shaped by choices and consequences. Philosophy trains us to examine assumptions. Art develops sensitivity and imagination. Music and theatre cultivate emotional expression and collective experience. Civics teaches us that rights are accompanied by responsibilities. These disciplines should not be regarded as ornamental in an education system increasingly oriented towards science and technology. The technological citizen of tomorrow will need the humanities precisely because technology will increase his power to act while leaving unresolved the question of what actions are desirable. Hence, the need for an inter-disciplinary approach to education.

Reorienting education also requires a closer relationship between education and the world of work, but in a different way from simply making education job-oriented. Students should have opportunities to understand actual workplaces, professions, entrepreneurship, crafts and skilled occupations. Vocational education should receive the dignity it deserves. The artificial hierarchy between “academic” and “practical” learning needs to be reduced. A society requires skilled technicians, artisans, farmers, entrepreneurs, caregivers, researchers, teachers and professionals of every kind. Education should help young people understand that dignity comes from the value and integrity of one's contribution, not merely from the social prestige attached to an occupation in a stratified society.

At the same time, industry and employers also have a responsibility. If graduates lack employability, the answer cannot always be to demand that universities simply produce more narrowly trained workers. Employers, professional bodies and educational institutions need a continuing dialogue about changing skills and competencies. Life-long learning must become normal because professions themselves are changing rapidly. The person who enters employment at twenty-two may need to acquire entirely new competencies at thirty-five, forty-five or fifty. Education cannot, therefore, be something completed before employment begins. It must continue alongside employment and throughout life.

Technology makes this life-long approach increasingly possible. Digital platforms, open educational resources, libraries, lectures and collaborative networks can make learning accessible well beyond conventional classrooms. But technology should be used to deepen learning rather than merely accelerate information consumption. The objective should not be to produce people who consume more content, but people who think more deeply, question more intelligently and act more responsibly.

The relationship between education and social degradation must also be understood carefully. It would be too simplistic to attribute crime, violence or moral decline to shortcomings in the education system alone. Social problems arise from multiple and interacting causes. Yet education has a preventive and formative role. A person who develops empathy, self-control, critical thinking, respect for law, appreciation of human dignity and the ability to resolve conflict constructively possesses resources that can help resist destructive impulses and social pressures. Education cannot eliminate crime, but an education system that consciously develops character and social responsibility can contribute to a healthier social environment, away from deviant social behaviour.

Ultimately, what we need is not less education but a broader conception of education. We need to move from education as credential to education as capability; from education as preparation for employment to education as preparation for life; from learning as an activity confined to youth to learning as a lifelong process; and from knowledge as personal possession to knowledge as a resource for social contribution.

The reorientation of the education system must, therefore, be systemic. It should influence curriculum design, teacher training, assessment methods, institutional culture, vocational education, higher education, career counselling and community engagement. Educational institutions should be encouraged to measure not merely examination results and placement figures, but also participation in meaningful projects, innovation, service, creativity and the development of broader competencies. Parents should be encouraged to value curiosity and character alongside marks. Students should be told that a career is important, but it is only one part of a life. Employers should participate in shaping relevant competencies while recognising that universities have a responsibility larger than supplying skilled labour. Policymakers should ensure that employability and human development are treated as complementary rather than competing objectives.

The ultimate objective should be to create an education system that produces people who are capable of earning a livelihood, but who also know how to live; people who can compete, but also cooperate; people who can exercise rights, but understand responsibilities; people who can use technology, but are not controlled by it; people who can pursue ambition, but retain humility; people who can accumulate knowledge, but also develop wisdom; and people who can achieve personal success without losing sight of the society that made that success possible.

Employment should remain an important objective of education because a dignified livelihood gives a person independence and the ability to contribute. But it should be understood as a means rather than the meaning of life. The real purpose of education is larger. It is to enable a human being to understand the world, understand oneself, develop useful knowledge and life skills, cultivate values, form meaningful relationships, accept responsibility and remain capable of learning throughout life.

The ultimate classroom is, therefore, not the school or university. It is life itself. The ultimate examination is not a written paper, but the difficult moment when knowledge has to become judgement, when freedom has to become responsibility and when personal interest has to be reconciled with the larger good. The ultimate certificate is not the degree hanging on the wall, but the trust that other human beings place in us.

If education can once again embrace this larger purpose, we will not have to choose between employability and humanity. We can create an education system that prepares young people both to earn a living and to live a life of meaning. We can transform the degree from an endpoint into a beginning, the classroom from a place of instruction into a foundation for life-long learning, and employment from the destination of education into one of its many instruments.

The challenge before us, therefore, is not merely to educate more people. It is to reorient what we mean by education itself. We must ask whether we are merely preparing the next generation for the labour market, or preparing them for the far larger and more meaningful and demanding task of being human. A society that gets this distinction right will not only produce better workers and professionals; it will have a better chance of producing wiser citizens, stronger communities and more humane human beings. Education should ultimately teach us not merely how to make a living, but how to make a life—and how, through that life, to make a meaningful contribution to the lives of others.