Next to discipline, the most persistently vexing issue teachers and parents face is the issue of freedom. Freedom became fashionable with the rise of the alternative schooling movement, not only in India but the world over. I remember being drawn into several spirited debates on freedom in schools: the extent to which freedom ought to be given, where freedom may degenerate into licence, and why sparing the rod indeed spoils the child.

In most of these discussions, what disturbed me was the recurring phrase “giving freedom.” You cannot give freedom as you would give time or space; freedom is something that has to evolve, it cannot be a “given.” Whatever is given can also be taken back. The very fact that I can give you freedom implies that I have the authority and the capacity to take away your freedom at any moment. That makes freedom conditional, and conditional freedom cannot be true freedom—it can, at best, be latitude.

Either freedom is unconditional, or it is not freedom at all. I have often heard objections being raised to such “unbridled freedom.” My question is: can you have anything called “bridled freedom”? Wouldn’t that be like tying a rope to your feet and telling you that you are now free to go anywhere you want?

Freedom, in its true sense, evolves out of awareness, choice, and responsibility. If I am not in a position to choose my course of action out of my own understanding and awareness, and if I cannot assume full responsibility for what I choose, then I cannot be regarded as a free individual at all.

Freedom has very little to do with doing anything I want. That is where most of us go wrong. All our apprehensions about freedom stem from our assumption that freedom means being free to do anything we want. But is this so?

Most people are composites of so many diverse influences that have moulded their beings over the years: the influences of parents, significant adults, teachers, friends, society, culture, and the media. Most are largely unconscious of how these influences operate through their physical, vital, or mental beings, dictating and determining actions, reactions, motivations, and impulses.

If we consider these facts carefully, we see that hardly any one of us can claim to be an individual in the truest sense of the word. One can be an individual only if one is aware of oneself—aware of the reasons and motivations for one’s actions and reactions—and able to stand apart from the medley of external influences and past conditionings, to discern what in oneself is truly one’s own.

This is difficult because most of the time we unquestioningly accept whatever rises within us as our own. If this is so, then what kind of freedom do we assume when we claim that we are free to do what we want? The truth is that we are not even free to be ourselves, let alone free to do as we wish. Most of the time, we do not even know what we really want.

Thus, freedom cannot exist without individuality. Only one who is free of external influences, internal conditionings, biases and prejudices, fears and compulsions of their own nature can claim to be an individual. Only such an individual can take responsibility for their actions, simply because their actions are truly their own. And only such an individual is capable of freedom.

To illustrate this more graphically: imagine a puppet moved by numerous invisible strings of conditionings, fears, biases, and compulsions. It must move the way the strings are pulled. Now imagine that this puppet can think—and imagine further that it thinks itself free, interpreting its movement as free will simply because it cannot see the strings. Would its sense of freedom amount to much in real terms? For this puppet to attain real freedom, it must be released from its strings. That is the first condition. Only then will it be able to move its limbs the way it truly wishes. Until then, neither freedom nor responsibility would make much sense.

Integral education must begin with this premise: humans are conditioned, they are not free. Only then can an actual evolution towards freedom begin. Once I know I am not free, the next logical step is to identify the factors—the strings in our puppet illustration—that prevent freedom, that create conditions for the opposite of freedom in us.

Once that is done, the next step is to consciously free ourselves from those strings and prevent new ones from forming. Children must be made aware of their own conditionings, of how their actions and reactions are controlled by these strings. They must be shown that it is possible to develop individuality, and with it, the capacity for independent reasoning and action.

As with all educational processes we have discussed, this will take time and persistent effort. At each step, the child will have to be made aware of her thoughts, feelings, and actions—always playfully, always gently, so that the child does not feel pressurised. And at each step, the teacher must be sensitive enough to know when not to persist with questioning, for there must also be times when the child is allowed to act impulsively, without reason or awareness. That too is part of the overall process of growing up.

Freedom, therefore, will evolve along with the integral process. The whole question of freedom is irrelevant in an integral perspective, because freedom is not something the school gives to teachers or children as a policy. Freedom is a living process that evolves as integral education itself evolves. It evolves through the growth of self-awareness, self-discipline, and a sense of personal responsibility.

And it is inevitably a process that involves the school, the teachers, the parents, and the children together.