Mainstream WeeklyWhen I entered a classroom of Vidyavanam (a primary school in Andhra Pradesh), I noticed four tables arranged in the room. Students from different grades were sitting together, with no strict seating arrangement, engaging in various activities. Some were playing, others were working on some tasks. There was no designated place for the teacher to sit. At one of the four tables, the teacher was guiding a few students to do an activity. Suddenly, one student, who was playing when the teacher was guiding other students, asked in Telugu, "I didn’t understand. Can you explain again?" Without hesitation, the teacher began explaining the concept once more in the Telugu language. No one scolded, no one laughed. That fleeting moment encapsulated the essence of the idea that has been on my mind: fear-free learning.
This article is drawn from my qualitative research [1] at the Rishi Valley Rural Education Centre (REC) and satellite schools, where an innovative pedagogy, Multigrade-Multilevel (MGML) methodology, has been informed by Jiddu Krishnamurti’s philosophy as well as by the pragmatics of rural school education. The concept of learning without fear lies at the heart of this educational experiment, countering the deeply ingrained norms of discipline, punishment, and authority that govern conventional Indian classrooms.
What is Fear-Free Learning?
Krishnamurti (1953) held that fear-free learning is an educational atmosphere in which students are motivated neither by fear of exams, punishment, or failure, nor by teacher dominance, but by the freedom to inquire, question, and learn at their own pace. The aim is not to eliminate structure, but to provide an atmosphere where curiosity is never dampened by fear. Fear is embedded into learning within India’s formal education system by use of corporal punishment, shame, high-stakes testing, and hierarchical discipline (ibid). Learning without fear, as at REC, counters these systems. Its foundation is Krishnamurti’s assumption that learning is possible only in freedom, not under the shadow of fear.
This is reflected too in the writings of Paulo Freire (1970), who argued that education has to be an act of liberation, rather than domestication. Fear, he believed, is one of the key instruments used by which domination operates in the classroom. Krishnamurti (1953) goes one step beyond this by saying that fear has to be eliminated totally from learning so that the child can develop awareness, sensitivity, and intellect.
I never really heard the term fear-free learning used during my fieldwork. However, the principle of fear-free learning did influence daily life within classes. At REC:
The only assessments that existed were informal exams, along with self-assessment by students and ongoing feedback.
Corporal punishment was never applied; teachers learned to lead, not to command.
Students sat on mats across flexible seating configurations, not permanent rows.
The textbooks were swapped for activity cards so that students could learn at an individual pace.
The room was free of blackboard dominance; students tended to write, read, and play together.
Students didn’t hesitate to ask questions, to admit to confusion, or to assist one another without competition. Such emotional security permitted them to be themselves more openly. But at the same time, there still existed traces of hierarchy. Once, a teacher blatantly labelled a student as a "slow" learner. Teachers, even those who had been trained in Krishnamurti’s philosophy, occasionally exercised authority. This reminded me that fear-free learning is an ideal, always negotiated in practice, never completely established.
Why It Matters
Across most of the world, discipline is closely linked to learning. The image of the "strict teacher" remains an ideal. Parents associate fear with seriousness and punishment with responsibility. Fear-free learning, under such conditions, is not only a pedagogical alternative, but it is a change of culture. In rural schools, where students are structurally disadvantaged by poverty, irregular attendance, and resource shortages, fear can exclude children from the system entirely. Fear-free settings, however, such as those established through MGML classrooms[[REC comes under Rishi Valley Education Centre, Andhra Pradesh, which provides free education to children from nearby rural villages, mainly kids of shepherds, peasants, and labourers. REC includes a middle school and satellite schools built with community help. Students are mostly day scholars from local hamlets, and teachers are local youth trained in MGML, provide an inclusive, flexible, emotionally responsive alternative. They are respectful of local knowledge so that the curriculum can be shaped by the child’s world. For instance, REC’s satellite schools utilised local folk legend, folk songs, and games as learning materials. Students came to find themselves reflected within the subject matter, overcoming the abstraction that is so common to formal textbooks.
Radhika Herzberger (2018) has extensively covered the philosophy of the MGML system at Rishi Valley, highlighting the way that fear is eliminated so that education can be more ethical and richer. Herzberger observes that "examination-based education creates a system of reward and punishment," one that MGML seeks to avoid. In Tamil Nadu, analogous practices under the Activity-Based Learning (ABL) approach in Government schools saw the replacement of memorisation with an activity card. Outside India, however, Freire’s writings on fear and education are still seminal. His concept of "conscientiazza