There is nothing surprising or abnormal about learning. We learn from others in a direct manner or indirectly. Direct learning implies personal contact and some sort of personal relationship, which forms a conduit through which knowledge is imparted and received. In pre-literate society, this was a standard practice. That’s why we have a long standing tradition of master and disciple, which, in our region, carries various names such as Guru and Chela and Murshid/Pir and Mureed. Before the advent of printing press when books were rare and expensive, personal contact was crucial as the proximity to the teacher or master was the stream that carried alluvial deposits to the disciple’s arid land. Transformation of land into fields depended on the master’s willingness to impart and disciple’s capacity to receive and to nurture what was received. In the absence of other means, this method evolved into a stable institution of knowledge generation in almost all fields such as religion, education, spirituality, music and crafts. It helped greatly in creating knowledge and skills in material and intellectual world as intuition and accumulated personal experience were the main sources the knowledge hinged on.

The flip side was that the relationship was reverential to the point of being irrational. It required unconditional and total submission on the part of disciple; servility bought one favour. The most obsequious students have been held out and touted as glorious examples. This orientation was wrapped in endearingly soft terms such as humility and euphemistically called etiquettes/manners (Adab) in Persian-Arabic society and tradition (Parampra) in subcontinental culture.

Both the traditions have similar ethos the chore component of which is genuflection. What it means in practice is no-questioning, elimination of doubt, absence of open debate and lulling critical faculty into sleep. All this has been practiced and accepted as a precondition for being a good disciple in all spheres, religious, spiritual and secular. Master is taken for a person of unquestionable wisdom who epitomises all the good that is in the discipline he is concerned with. This pedagogy is what is known as rote learning. Paulo Freire, an advocate of critical pedagogy, famously described it as banking concept of education. A teacher is a giver and student a taker. Student is a container like a bank account. He gets deposits from the teacher, retains it and ejects them when needed. The student is not required to process the received and examine it critically. Mind is a locker that can only expel what it receives. This method is glorified ad nauseam in our oral tradition and literature.

Master’s personal attention is the most sought after asset and his gaze is considered a repository of revelatory insights, which would illuminate the way for his disciple. In Hindu, Muslim and Sikh religious traditions authority carries the paramount importance. A student establishes his authority through the acceptance of his master’s authority. The master is thought to be almost infallible. So what is conveyed is beyond doubt. Authority, secular or otherwise, never likes to be questioned as it carries in-built sense of its own righteousness.

In spiritual and literary history examples of such a phenomenon are galore which are quoted ad infinitum as the ultimate of spiritual achievement, zenith of love and height of illumination. Who can forget Rumi and ShamsTabrizi, Amir Khusrow and Nizamuddin Aulia, Shah Husain and Madhu Lal, Bulleh Shah and Shah Inayat and Pero Preman and Ghulab Das. Rumi titled his collection of poems ‘Divan-e –Shams Tabrizi’. Amir Khusrow never got tired of waxing eloquent about Nizamuddin Aulia’s powers as a spiritual guide. Shah Husains’s love for Madhu is a legend. Bulleh Shah never ceases to sing paeans to Shah Inayat who he deems as his master as well as savior. Pero Preman abandoned her given faith to follow Ghulab Das who is for her a guru as well as a beloved.

In Indian culture, Guru and Chela evolved into a strong tradition in the period of Upanishad (Up means near, Ni means down and Shad means to sit).The term vividly evokes the image of genuflection. Dronacharya and Arjun in Mahabharata, Chanakya and King Chandragupta Maurya are present secular Guru and Chela tradition. Rama and Hanuman, and Rama and Lakshmana in Ramayana have similar relationship.

Master and disciple relationship transformed into a tradition that eventually emerged a fully-fledged institution. It certainly added to human knowledge and skills that helped improve the quality of life. But with the passage of time it started to suffer from the malaise what all institutions tend to do; self-perpetuation which is taken as raison detre of their existence. Intuitions are the means for the realisation of specific objectives. An institution becomes hollow when it assumes the power of self-perpetuating, which gives it a false sense of being an end in itself and all to itself. With the emergence of modern life, this institution has been reduced to unintelligible mumbo jumbo because new means of knowledge and enlightenment have come to the fore, which are far more rational and scientific; hence more reliable. This tradition is now a refuge of imposters and charlatans out to make a quick buck to enjoy a crassly materialistic life. They now exploit vulnerable people who are rendered helpless by myriad problems generated by a skewed social system that lacks compassion and problem-solving ability. They pretend to put an end to their apparent emotional and spiritual aridity. Helplessness breeds superstition. Human mind whenever confronted with a threatening situation invariably feels compelled to have a way out, some sort of solution. If it can’t be real, let it be airy-fairy. Psychological help, even a false hope given by swindlers pretending to be gurus, can make one stand on their feet at least for some moments. South Asia is a region where trickery is rife; Pirs, Murshids, Gurus and Babas are flies up in the air in buzzing swarms. So beware lest they contaminate your mind with old poison, which is a vestige of an era gone and dead. But the problem is that what is dead can still weigh heavily on the mind of the living with its glimmer in a society, which is less rational and dehumanized. —

— soofi01@hotmail.com