जो अपराधी था …: स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम

December 30, 2017

रोहित धनकर

हाल ही में रास्ते चलते चलते किसी का एक जुमला मेरे कानों में अनायास ही पड़ा: “जो अपराधी था वही प्रेमी बन कर रहा”. वार्तालाप में आगे पीछे क्या था मैंने नहीं सुना. पर इस जुमले से तुरंत मेरे दिमाग में जो शब्द गूंजा वह “स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम” था. जैसा कि सर्व-विदित है स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम माने अपने प्रताड़क से प्रेम या मोह हो जाना, उसे के साथ अपनत्व की भावना पैदा होना. बात थोड़ी अजीब सी लगाती है, पर ऐसा होता जरूर है.

मैं सोचने लगा की कहीं स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम इंसानों में हम जितना सोचते हैं उस से ज्यादा व्यापक तो नहीं है? मनोवैज्ञानिकों का मत यह लगता है (इस पर मैंने ज्यादा नहीं पढ़ा है) कि यह बहुत व्यापक नहीं है. पर मुझे लगता है इसके कुछ रूप—शायद कुछ पुनर्व्यखा के साथ—बहुत व्यापक हो सकते हैं. उदाहरण के लिए क्या बहुत क्रूर तानाशाहों के दसकों तक चलने वाले राज को हम “जन-व्यापक स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम” के नजरिये से देख सकते हैं? मनोवैज्ञानिक स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम को एक आत्म-रक्षा (survival) की रणनिति के रूप में देखते हैं. जब आपके पास और कोई चारा नहीं  बचता तो आप अपने प्रताड़क को ही पसंद और खुश करने पगते हैं. इसी में आप अपने बचाव और मन की शांति देखने लगते हैं. अर्थात अन्याय और प्रताड़ना में ही आनंद लेना/कखुश रहना सीख लेते हैं. यदि यह एक व्यक्ति के साथ हो सकता है तो क्या यह समूहित चेतना में जन-व्यापक नहीं हो सकता? जब किसी समाज/देश के नागरिकों को किसी तानाशाह से मुक्ति की कोई उम्मीद न दिखे तो वे उसी के राज में देश के बचाव और उन्नति तक देखने लगें? आरंभिक विरोध को जब कोई क्रूत ताकत से लंबे समय तक दबादे तो लोगों को लगने लगे कि इसकी स्वीकारोक्ति में ही भलाई है. और वे उसे कालांतर में पसंद करने लगें.

इसी तरह शायद हम धर्म-गुरुओं के घिनोने कर्मों के उजागर हो जाने के बाद भी जब देखते हैं कि उनके चेले उन्हें बचाने की ही कोशिश करते रहते हैं तो इसे स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम के रूप में देख सकते हैं, शायद. किसी भावनात्मक या अन्य कारण से लोग आरम्भ में धर्म-गुरुओं के चक्कर में आ जाते हों. और इस प्रक्रिया में अपने ऊपर उनका नियंत्रण स्वीकार करलें. जब तक पता चले की इस नियंत्रण में शोषण और प्रताड़ना तक शामिल है तब तक वे इसी में अपनी निजात देखने लगें. जब यह नियंत्रक खतरे में हो तब उन्हें अपनी आरंभिक भवनातक समस्याएं याद आने लगें और इस से वे असुरक्षित महसूस करने लगें. यह असुरक्षा उन्हें उस धर्म-गुरु को बचने की कोशिश को मजबूर करदे. हम धर्म-गुरुओं के शिष्यों को भवनात्मक बंधकों के रूप में देख सकते हैं. तो शायद थोडा खिंचा हुआ पर फिर भी ये स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम का एक रूप जैसा लगाने लगता है.

व्यक्तिगत तौर पर तो स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम का बहुत अध्यन हो ही चुका है. इस में प्रताड़ित अपने अपहरण–कर्ता/प्रताड़क को ही पसंद करने लगता है और उसी को अपना रक्षक समझने लगता है. इसमें शायद कुछ कारक होते हों. एक बात तो साफ़ ही है, कि प्रताड़क तात्कालिक रूप से तो अधिक शक्तिशाली लगता ही है. क्यों की वह तुरंत पीड़ा दे सकता है, तात्कालिक रूप से खाने/सोने की जरूरतों को पूरा करने को नियंत्रित करता है. जब की बहार पूरी फ़ौज भी उस वक्त तो कुछ नहीं कर सकती. यह शिकार के मन में धीरे-धीरे पहले उसकी सत्ता का डर और फिर सत्ता के सामने झुकाने की, उसकी पूजा करने की मानसिकता पनपा देता है. फिर प्रताड़क हमेशा प्रताड़ना के मूड में भी नहीं रहता. अतः वह भी सक्रिय कोशिश अपने शिकार से भवतात्मक जुड़ाव के लिए कर सकता है. शिकार के अपने बचपन में उसे जिस तरह से भय से नियंत्रित किया गया है और नियंत्रण स्वीकार करने पर जो सुरक्षा और शुकून मिला है वह ऎसी स्थिति में पुनः प्रभावी होने लगता है. हमारे विद्यालय और परिवार विभिन्न प्रकार के भय से ही आरंभिक नियंत्रण स्थापित करते हैं बच्चों पर.

आज कल एक नई और भयावह संभावना उभर आई है: साइबर बंधक बनाने की. सोशल मीडिया और स्मार्ट फ़ोन इस की भरपूर संभावनाएं देते हैं कि कोई किसी को फ़ोन के माध्यम से ही नियंत्रित और प्रताड़ित करने लगे. व्यक्ति इस नियंत्रण को पसंद न करे, और इस से निकलने की कोशिश भी करे आरम्भ में. पर जब ना निकल सके तो प्रताड़क जो चाहता है उसी में खुशी और शुकून ढूँढने लगे. प्रताड़क को ही पसंद करने लगे.

इस उदाहरणों से ऐसा लगता है कि स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम के कुछ रूप हम जितना सोचते हैं उस से कहीं  ज्यादा व्यापक हो सकते हैं.

एक बात तो साफ़ ही है कि हर स्थिति में स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम शिकार के इन्द्रीये-बोध (sense perception) और उसकी व्याख्या (interpretation) को विकृत करता है. यह उसकी सत्ता को बहुत बढ़ा-चढ़ा कर देखने को मजबूर करता है. उस से जो कुछ भी थोड़ी राहत और सम्मान मिलाता है उसको बहुत मानाने लगता है. यह सब शिकार की समझ को धुंधला और शायद विकृत भी कर देते होंगे. इस सब की समस्या यह भी है की स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम में शिकार अपने शिकारी को ही बचाने की कोशिश करने लगता है. यदि परिस्थिति ऎसी हो जिसमें शिकार के सहयोग के बिना उसको बंधन-मुक्त करवाना संभव न हो तो यह एक दुष्चक्र बन जाता है. जिस से निकलना बेहद मुश्किल लगता है. स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम के शिकार के निर्णय स्वायत्त और विवेकसम्मत नहीं होते, वे एक विकृत समझ से संचालित हो रहे होते हैं. इस लिए शायद इसके लिए शिकार को दोष भी नहीं दिया जा सकता.

एक सवाल मन में यह भी उठता है कि क्या व्यक्ति स्टॉकहोल्म सिंड्रोम से अपनी स्व-विवेक द्वारा चिंतन करके निकल सकता है? क्या किसी बाहरी मदद के बिना वह इस तिलश्म को तोड़ सकता है? यह सिंड्रोम व्यक्ति की अस्मिता पर तो आघात करता ही है. साथ ही उसकी स्वतंत्रता भी बलि चढ़ जाती है. पर शायद हर इंसान स्व और स्वतंत्रता को बनाये रखने की कोशिश देर सवेर करता ही होगा. तो सवा-विवेक और सव-चिंतन से शायद यही तिलाश्म भी तोड़ा जा सकता है.

अंत में, वास्तव में एक संयोगवस कान में पड़े छोटे जुमले पर इतना सोचने की जरूरत नहीं थी, ख़ास कर ऐसी परिस्थिति में जब उसका पूरा सन्दर्भ पता न हो. पर मैं गाड़ी में बैठा था, गाड़ी ड्राईवर चला रहा था, ट्राफिक बहुत समय ले रहा था और मेरे पास करने को कुछ नहीं था. तो एक तरह से यह आलेख खाली दिमाग की शैतानी भी है. 😊 पर मुझे यह जरूर लगता है कि यह सिंड्रोम शायद काफी व्यापक है. और यदि सवा-चिंतन से इस से निकलना संभव है तो हमें समाज में कहीं उस की विधि सिखाने की व्यवस्था करनी चाहिए. क्यों कि साइबर बंधन को और किसी तरीके से रोकना शायद आगे आने वाले समय में संभव न रहे.

********

https://counsellingresource.com/therapy/self-help/stockholm/

http://scarysymptoms.com/?s=function+of+character

https://nobullying.com/stockholm-syndrome/

३० दिसंबर २०१७

3 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Quality of knowledge and action

December 29, 2017

Rohit Dhankar

Knowledge is the central input in any decision making process. Yes, moral values are fundamentally important but; understanding, upholding or realizing values requires knowledge. Emotional anchor of values without understanding and rational justification is nothing more than indoctrination. Even to be aware of whether a value is upheld or realised one requires knowledge of the situation. No decision making process can ignore emotional angle; actually, even the need for any decision making arises out of unsatisfactory-ness of a given situation. And that necessarily involves emotional acceptance or otherwise. But without some advance understanding, however imperfect, of the new situation that is desired and how it could be brought about no decision making is possible. That is why I say that knowledge is the central input in decision making.

Being limited in both knowledge and imagination the central character of knowledge I take as Justified True Belief. Though the notions of truth and justification cause considerable perplexity we do not seem to have a better public criterion for knowledge. Of courses, there are areas of life, as well as situation, where we cannot adhere to the strict demands of JTB and make our decisions on the basis of belief in the hope that they be true somehow, even if we are uncertain of their truth at the time of action.

If the above two contentions hold any water, the quality of knowledge becomes very important in life and decision that are likely to have significant impact. The phrase “quality of knowledge” is used more as a placeholder here, rather than a fully workout idea. Some actually might find the notion ‘quality of knowledge’ as somehow inappropriate in itself. Because JTB ensures veracity, what else might matter for knowledge? Still, in the first sight it seems to me the notion is certainly useful in a decision making situation, and may have some value even generally. Therefore, keeping some room for backtracking in fuller analysis ( 😊), I will concentrate on knowledge in a decision making situation in trying to articulate the first strands in quality of knowledge.

Any decision making situation involves a given state of affairs, a desired state of affairs and ways of moving from given to desired state of affairs. And mostly a host of dilemmas involving moral values if the decision is significant. We assume, just for the sake of simplicity and limiting the scope of this cursory analysis, that the values guiding a decision making process are settled upon, the dilemmas are somehow resolved.

One can immediately say that one thing needed in the knowledge, therefore, is adequacy. An adequate understanding of the given and supposed to be unsatisfactory situation, including reasons for dubbing it unsatisfactory. Adequacy here is being used more as a quantitative term; meaning all that is relevant is known. Similarly, for the desired situation and ways of achieving the desired results.

The second strand seems to be clarity of the beliefs/information being used. One can plausible argue that clarity is actually contained in adequacy; as how something unclear be counted as part of the repertoire of the available knowledge. I am mentioning clarity here because we often have an ‘inkling’ of something being the case, but our vision of it is rather hedgy. For example, something moving towards us in the dark; we may be certain that something is there, we may also know that it is moving towards us and may be unable to determine what it actually is. May have some guess due to shape, size and movement; but exact nature of the object eludes us. We may have such lack of clarity in understanding the existing or the desired situations, and also in the ways and means of realising the desired situation. Lack of clarity actually may paralyse our decision making capability, particularly if issues of justice to others are involved and the situation happens to be highly emotionally charged.

Depth of knowledge seems to be another dimension of quality. Which again can be argued as part of adequacy. What I mean here by depth is rich web of conceptual connections that are capable of explaining not only the current state of affairs in a given situation but can also throw reliable light on the causes/reasons that produced it; be they social, historical or nature related (scientific). Similarly, this web of conceptual connection should be able to help in working out the implication of the desired situation as well as a reliable course of change.

Though justification is a necessary condition of calling a belief knowledge, it may be useful here to mention that soundness of justification may be considered a dimension of quality of knowledge in a particular decision making context. Because, most of knowledge used in practical worldly situations is fallible and only reasonably justified. Strict justification is unavailable in most cases. Therefore, reasonableness of the justification of beliefs used in a particular decision making situation is an important measure of quality.

Therefore, in a first tentative analysis we can say that quality of knowledge in a decision making situation can be understood in terms of adequacy, clarity, depth and reasonableness of justification. The the greater the publicly debatable conviction in these four, the better the quality. In other words, we can say that inadequate, obscure, sallow and unjustified knowledge helps no one.

If we consider the situation of a teacher in a classroom, there are hundreds of decisions she makes in a week, if not every day. These decisions though look small [which of the two quarrelling children to be reprimanded, for example] but may have a very significant impact on the life of the child. The teacher often makes her decisions in situations where the quality of her knowledge is rather poor in the dimensions mentioned above. Perhaps that is one of the many reasons why teaching in elementary schools is so tiring. The teacher is forced into a decision making situation and she intuitively understands the limitations of her knowledge of the situation. This may produce stress.

In personal and social relationships, which provide the bedrock of motivation for and happiness in life, again we are forced to act often with poor quality knowledge, where intuition becomes the main guide and even emotions may take over. Often in such situations one who tries to have reasonable quality of knowledge, particularly if it takes time, may be considered a foolish and dithering. However, patience and tireless efforts to understand better may be of use.

In any decision making of significant import in the face of fallible knowledge in professional and person matter, therefore, always a matter of courage of conviction.

Since it is important in both professional and personal life, may be one of the aims of education could be to teach children to enhance the quality of knowledge as much as possible in a given decision making situations, the art of taking risk in uncertain situations where action is unavoidable, and the preparedness to face the music if things go wrong.

******

29th December 2017

 

 

10 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

RTE and popular debates

November 12, 2017

Rohit Dhankar

If your schools have classes they will necessarily have pass-fail

The government has introduced in the Lok Shabha an amendment bill to modify some provisions of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009 (RTE Act, for short). This bill seeks “to empower the appropriate Government to take a decision as to whether to hold back a child in the fifth class or in the eighth class or in both classes, or not to hold back a child in any class, till the completion of elementary education.”

As is well known there is a continuing debate in the country on examination reform and particularly on the issue of no-detention policy. When one goes through the loudest screamed arguments for and against no-detention policy one wonders whether it is an informed debate or simple emotional outburst; or worse still, vehement repetition of pretended positions adopted in order to look progressive.

The Education Minister states in the objectives of the bill that “In recent years, States and Union territories have been raising the issue of adverse effect on the learning levels of children as section 16 does not allow holding back of children in any class till the completion of elementary education.” This singles out “not holding back” as a reason for unsatisfactory learning achievements. Thereby giving good ground to supposed to be progressive educationists to shout “failing children does not produce better learning”. Both miss the point and neither position helps in clearing the mess made in school education, with substantial contribution from confusions in the RTE Act itself.

The supposed to be amended section 16 of the RTE Act states “No child admitted in a school shall be held back in any class or expelled from school till the completion of elementary education.” The most popular reasons given in support of this command of dubious merit is that failing children demotivates them, discourages them, often encourages dropout. This is only a politically correct child centrist argument of no pedagogical value. Yes, children should be encouraged to learn and not discouraged. Yes, keeping motivation high for learning and building their confidence is very important in any worthwhile pedagogy. Yes, repeated failure to be promoted to the next class encourages dropout. And still both the diagnosis and the remedy for these problems is completely wrong. On the other hand, dubbing no-detention policy as the major cause of falling standards of learning is equally wrong. Both are examples of superficial thinking of the worst kind.

Learning requires coordinated and sensitive efforts on the part of the teacher as well as the learner. If the school or the system or the teacher starts thinking that learning of children is a result of their own motivation, intelligence and family background; and the quality of teaching has little or nothing to do with it, they are shifting their responsibility onto the children. The school/teachers have to device ways of engaging children cheerfully and teach them to make efforts to the utmost level of their capabilities, which are dynamic in nature and not static as assumed by the notion of IQ. On the other hand, not telling the children that they have failed; yes, failed, to achieve the expected standards and always communicating that whatever silly notions they have developed are correct, beautiful and epitome of creativity shows complete lack of human achievements as well as of human mind. Pedagogy is an art which requires calibrated feedback without shunning the truth. If a child fails to achieve expected learning the teacher has to find a way of communicating the failure to achieve in a manner that encourages better concentration and efforts; not mindless goody-goody talk of ‘everything is great’. Children have to learn that human ways of thinking, doing and feeling have norms and they are expected to meet those norms appropriate to their age. Also, the teachers have to communicate that the children are perfectly capable of achieving those norms. And that sometimes failing to achieve a normal is nothing more than a necessary part of the mastering anything new; and some other times, in the Indian situations it is also because of inadequate help and guidance available to the child. But expecting that simply failing and communication of inadequate achievements will make children solve their own problems and learn better is an equally stupid idea. Without improving the system and preparing teachers to use appropriate pedagogy with sincere efforts learning achievements will not improve. Therefore, both parties in this case are mindlessly barking up the wrong tree.

The real problems with the RTE Act

The RTE Act is badly thought through. It does not touch the heart of education. It is an example of superficial educational thinking. And I believe, (do not have adequate evidence for this, through) that this superficiality is not because of the politics and politicians but because of inadequate and confused understanding of educationists in the country as it seems to be on the basis of their advice. RTE is about elementary education. But is has a very inadequate definition of completion of elementary education. The elementary education itself is defined as “the education from first class to eighth Class.” There are many stipulations regarding “completion of elementary education” regarding provision of schools, ensuring completion, not having board examination, not holding back, and so on. But the only possibility it provides for defining “completion” is in laying down a curriculum, assessment and implied learning in that which is to be specified by appropriate authority. Even if an appropriate authority defines any kind of learning levels that may be deemed necessary for completion of elementary education the Act takes away from them the power to implement them. It demands from them that the curriculum be completed but also demands that no child can be held back till completion of elementary education. Which simply put means being in the school till the age of 14 years is itself the mark of completion of elementary education. This is a poor understanding of the very concept of education. Education necessarily has an achievement aspect; that is, one can be considered educated only if s/he has achieved specified standards in knowledge, values and skills. Those knowledge, values and skills need assessment if one wants to claim that appropriate standards are achieved. And that assessment has to be respected if some certificate is to be awarded that has some respectability in the society. The RTE Act disassociated certification from any kind of learning achievements; and thus, empties education of its achievement aspect. What remains in education is time spent in school. One can hardly imagine a greater disservice to the concept of education.

Another serious confusion in the Act is use of the term “class” in defining elementary education, its completion, infrastructure norms and stipulations regarding admission. But the term “class” itself remains undefined, and that is one reason the pass-fail is being brought back. The notion of class makes no sense without it.

The requirement of bringing back the possibility of holding children back (failing) is a requirement of certification, not that it will make them learn better. All it will do is deny certificate to those who do not meet the required learning. This is a requirement of putting achievement aspect of education back in the concept as it is implemented. But the government is doing it in a completely wrong way.

The roots of the problem

[This section I am writing on the pain of repletion, therefore, those who have been familiar with my views need not read it. IT needs to be repeated for those who are not familiar. Those who want details can read http://www.epw.in/journal/2017/12/perspectives/beyond-oxymoronic-idea-no-detention-policy.html ]

The roots of the problem lie in our confused thinking. Our imagination of structure of school and that of curriculum is rigidly stratified like our society. We cannot think of a school that does not divide children into hierarchical classes or grades, each one to be achieved successively through aggregated annual assessment. Our curriculum, textbooks, timetable, annual calendar, everything is governed by that imagination of a school. Undoubtedly this is administration friendly structure, but it can work. One can even run very good schools in this structure. They need not always be harsh on children either.

But the pedagogical thought the world over has moved on. There have been serious problems in this imagination of schools, it is challenged and has changed in most countries which do well in education. Particularly child centric ideas made this school structure look evil. Some of us then picked up some of the attractive ideas like CCE, no pass-fail, activity based learning and so on; and tried to implant them in our rigid authoritarian school structure and system. But the whole imagination of school and progression in school education logically demands pass-fail kind of annual assessment, if not one-shot exam at the least aggregation. Therefore, doing away with the pass-fail system actually renders the school a meaningless and aimless institution, in its present structure and imagination. It is natural that everyone practically connected with the school wants to bring back the pass-fail. The RTE and the educational discourse in the country has so far failed to develop an alternative imagination of school and curriculum where one can make pass-fail a redundant idea by organising the school and curriculum as an ungraded learning continuum.

The opportunity

There is an opportunity in the currently proposed amendment. Rather than spending our energies on opposing the idea of holding children back on account of not meeting the learning standard at 5th and 8th standards, we should ask different kind of questions and put forward different kind of demands.

For example, we can demand that rather than “holding back” at “5th and 8th” standard the amendment should mention “giving more time to complete primary” or “elementary” education, and that time need not be one year. Also, completion of primary and elementary level be defined in terms of learning achievements rather than in terms of class or grades. It could be stipulated that primary education is expected to be complete in 5 years normally, but it may be slightly less or more than that, depending on the achievements of the child.

We can also ask if the schools are completely free to disband the grades/classes before completion of primary/elementary education? That is maybe there are no grades 1 to 5. Only years in school and completion of stipulated learning. Similarly, for elementary education. That will give the schools complete flexibility to organise their learning groups and facilitate CCE and pass-fail will become redundant, at the least till students reach completion of primary education.

But this is the tougher path. It will require developing a complete conceptual scheme of elementary education with new organisational principles, massive teacher education and very substantial changes in the administration system. But this is not impossible.

******

12th November 2017

 

 

 

 

 

1 Comment | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

सत्य, शुभ और भावना: निर्णय का बोझ

September 26, 2017

रोहित धनकर

कोई एक-दो महीने पहले मैंने एक हिंदी फिल्म देखि थी: काबिल. फिल्मों की मेरी समझ कोई खाश नहीं है, अतः मैं उसके गुण-दोषों पर टिप्पणी नहीं करूँगा. पर इस फिल्म को एक खाश नजर से देखें तो यह कई जटिल सवाल किसी बात को ‘ज्ञान’ मानने के औचित्य (justification) और नैतिक निर्णय के आधारों पर उठाती है. हालाँकि फिल्म-कार ने इस से दृष्टि यह फिल्म बनी नहीं है. मैं यहाँ इन सवालों में से कुछ को उठाने की किशिश करूँगा.

समझ जायेंगे पर समझा नहीं पायेंगे-१

फिल्म का केंद्रीय बिंदु “समझ जायेंगे पर समझा नहीं पायेंगे” लगता है. अति संक्षेप में एक नेत्र-हीन व्यक्ति अपनी नेत्र-हीन पत्नी के साथ हुए बलात्कार और उसके फलस्वरूप पत्नी की आत्महत्या का बदला लेने के लिए बलात्कारियों और उनको बचाने वालों की हत्याएं करता है. क्योंकि पुलिस अपराधियों को दंड देने में भ्रष्टाचार के कारण असफल रहती है, बलात्कार की शिकार स्त्री का पति उन्हें स्वयं दंड देने का निर्णय लेता है. फिल्म में भी और मेरे इस आलेख में भी किसी नागरिक का अपराधी को स्वयं दंड देने का निर्णय कितना उचित है इस पर चर्चा नहीं है. बल्कि जिस तरह की चेतावनी के साथ राहुल भटनागर (बलात्कार कि शिकार स्त्री का पति) हत्याएं करता है और हत्याओं का दोषी माना जाने से बच जाता है यह है.

राहुल भटनागर चेतावनी के रूप में पुलिस से कहता है कि वह अपराधियों को स्वयं दंड देगा और हत्या के आरोप से बच जाएगा. कि पुलिस अफसर ‘समझ याजेगा की हत्याएं किसने की हैं पर समझा नहीं पायेगा’. अर्थात न्यायालय में और अन्य लोगों के सामने यह सी.द्ध नहीं कर पायेगा कि हत्याएं राहुल ने की हैं.

अब हम कल्पना करें कि जांच करने वाला पुलिस अधिकारी अपने कर्त्तव्य के प्रति बहुत निष्ठावान और ईमानदार था. (इस फिल्म में ऐसा नहीं है, हम यह इस स्थिति में ज्ञान के औचित्य (justification) और कर्म की नैतिकता के सवालों की जटिलता को रेखांकित करने के लिए मान रहे हैं.) अब एक अपराधी (चाहे उसने अपराध किसी अन्याय के प्रतिकार के रूप में ही किये हों) के बारे में पुलिस अधिकारी को साफ़ पता है कि हत्याएं उसी ने की है. यह कोई अनुमान भर नहीं है बल्कि तथ्यों के आधार पर एक तार्किक निष्कर्ष है.  पर दो समस्याएं है: एक, पुलिस अधिकारी जिन घटनाओं को तथ्यों के रूप में काम में ले रहा है वे किसी नेत्र-हीन व्यक्ति के लिए संभव नहीं लगती और इस लिए समाज और नायालय उसे नहीं मानेंगे, यह उसे पता है. जैसे एक दृष्टी-हीन व्यक्ति कैसी कसी को दुसरे सबल और सुआन्खे व्यक्ति को लड़कर फांसी दे पायेगा? कुछ तथ्यों की उसे व्याख्या करनी पड़ती है और वह व्याख्या भी आम तौर पर अमान्य ठहराई जायेगी.

यहाँ तक आम बात है. सवाल यह उठता है कि क्या ज्ञान में व्यक्तिगत-औचित्य (personal justification) और लोक-औचित्य (public justification)  में कोई बड़ा भेद है? क्या यह संभव है की कोई व्यक्ति अपने स्तर पर पूरी तरह आस्वस्त है कि वह किसी घटना के होने की  सच्चाई जनता है, उस के लिए उसके पास अपनेतई साफ़ और पुख्ता आधार है; और इस लिए वह उसे सिद्ध-विश्वास (justified belief) मानता है, साथ ही वह सत्य भी है, तो असके लिए वह ज्ञान है. पर उसके औचित्य को अन्य-लोगों को समझाना असंभव है, तो यह लोक-मान्य-ज्ञान (पब्लिक नॉलेज) नहीं बन सकता, कम से कम अभी. अतः वह अपराधी को न्याय के कठघरे में खड़ा नहीं कर सकता. एक कर्त्तव्य-निष्ठ अधिकारी के लिए यह बड़ी दुविधा की स्थिति होगी: उसके कर्त्तव्य का यह भी हिस्सा है कि न्याय के आधार लोक-मान्य हों, अर्थात औचित्य लोक मान्य हो, justification publicly समझा जाए. तो वह अपराधी को पकड़ नहीं सकता. दूसरी तरफ उस की कृतव्य-निष्ठा यह भी चाहती है कि कोई अपराधी बचे नहीं. तो वह पराधी को छोड़ भी नहीं सकता. तो, क्या करे वह? इस पर आगे और बात करेंगे.

पहले व्यक्ति-गत या आतंरिक औचित्य पर कुछ टिप्पणी. किसी घटना या अनुभव/अवलोकन को व्याख्या करके ही निष्कर्ष निकालने में काम में लिया जासकता है. साथ ही उस तथ्य का तार्किक सम्बन्ध भी निष्कर्ष से होना चाहिए. अब व्याख्या और तार्किक सम्बन्ध देखना दोनों ही व्यक्ती के पूर्व अनुभवों, पूर्व-ज्ञान और तर्क की समझ पर निर्भर करता है. पर कोई भी व्यक्ति अपने संपूर्ण अनुभव, ज्ञान और तर्क को दूसरों के सामने (publicly) रखपाने में सफल नहीं हो सकता, चाहे वह कितनी भी कोशिश करे और लोक (public) कितनी भी प्रबुद्ध हो. निष्कर्ष यह की आतंरिक-औचित्य का दायरा शायद लोक-औचित्य से सदा ही बड़ा होगा. हमारा कुछ ज्ञान हमेंशा ऐसा होगा जिसे हम लोक में सिद्ध नहीं कर पायेंगे. यह किसी भी ईमानदार अधिकारी के लिए बड़ी कष्ट की स्थिति होगी.

पर व्यवस्था—जैसे पुलिस—में काम करने वाले अधिकारियों के लिए कुछ राहत इस बात से मिल सकती है की उनकी निष्ठा का एक हिस्सा प्रक्रियात्मक (procedural) भी होता है. अर्थात हत्या की जांच के कानूनी तरीके होते है, साक्ष्य की परिभाषाएं होती हैं, अतः वहां सत्य में भी एक प्रक्रितात्मक (procedural) तत्व आ जाता है. अधिकारी अपने आप से यह कह सकता है की नियमों के अनुसार जो संभव था सब किया; अब वह इस जांच को खुली छोड़ कर किसी और काम में लगे. यह जाँच कुछ नए तथ्य सामने आये तो फिर खोली जा सकेगी. अतः, प्रक्रियात्मकता में ज्ञान और नैतिकता की पीड़ा दायक दुविधाओं को छुपाया जा सकता है. इस फिल्म में जांच अधिकारी भी कुछ ऐसा ही करता है.

पर आम नागरिक जो अपने व्यक्तिगत आधार पर काम कर रहा हो और उसे कुछ ऐसा समझ में आये कि समाज में कुछ अनुचित है, अन्याय पूर्ण है; वह उसे समझता है, पर समझा नहीं सकता, तो उसकी ज्ञानात्मक और नैतिक दुविधाओं का क्या रूप और क्या कष्ट होंगे? इस पर अगले लेख में विचार करेंगे.

एक और काबिले गौर स्थिति यह हो सकती है जहाँ आम-नागरिक की व्यक्तिगत भवनायें भी जुड़ी हों, अर्थात कुछ ऐसा उसके या उसके किसी प्रिय मित्र के साथ होता है जो अन्याय पूर्ण है, कोई व्यक्ति-विशेष उसे जनता भी है, पर कोई पब्लिक justification उपलब्ध नहीं है. तो इन समस्याओं के क्या स्वरुप बनेगें और क्या इनका कोई हल हो भी सकेगा? यह भी आगे विचार करने की चीज है.

इन उदाहरणों में एक आम बात यह है कि जब व्यक्तिगत तौर पर सिद्ध ज्ञान और सामाजिक तौर पर सिद्ध किये गए ज्ञान में बड़ा भेद हो तो ज्ञान एक फांश बन जाती है. इस फिल्म का मूल कथ्य मुझे यही लगता है. पर इस पर और विस्तार से बात ऊपर उठाई गई दो समस्याओं को समझने की कुछ कोशिश के बाद करेनेगे.

*********

4 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

‘Truth’ versus ‘Truth’?: Or what is India that is Bharat?

July 2, 2017

Rohit Dhankar

Most of my short articles on this blog are ‘Loud Thinking’ as the title of the blog admits. They are not necessarily settled beliefs but explorations into ideas to form a belief. However, even ‘explorations’ have to have some basis in the form of evidence and arguments to be seriously considered as basis of a possible belief. Therefore, they sound less tentative then they actually are. This piece is one such piece. Therefore, interested readers (if any!) and especially historians and political scientists among them are most welcome to enlighten men on the issues I am about here.

Now, let me come to the point after this preliminary statement. Sometime back there was a discussion with some colleagues in connection with some academic issue: what is to be taught to students in class, to be more precis. One colleague said something to the effect that ‘India is a modern nation that came into existence with the Constitution of India. Even the idea of India is hardly 150 years old. And it is constructed around the territories that defined British Raj then. Before that there was no such thing as unified India or Bharat, there were various kingdoms and empires in the history falling within and sometimes encompassing most of the territory of India as it exists today. Therefore, the current rightist nationalist propaganda of India as a very old or eternal and immutable idea should be countered with a more reasonable historical narrative in higher education classes.’

With some give and take this is the position taken by most of those who want to counter the jingoistic nationalism unleashes by the Sangh Parivar. On the other hand many people (not all belonging to or even sympathizers of Sangh Parivar) point out that terms “India” and “Bharatvarsha” were used indicating a political-cultural-geographical region encompassing what is today often called South Asia or India, Pakistan and Banglasesh combined[1]. Irfan Habib writes that “The first perception of the whole of India as a country comes with the Mauryan Empire. Those of you, who have studied Indian history would know that the inscriptions of the Mauryan emperor Ashoka range from Kandahar and north of Kabul to Karnataka and Andhra and they are in Prakrit, Greek and Aramaic. So it was with such political unity that the concept of India came, and its first name was Jambudvipa a name which Ashoka uses in his Minor Rock Edict-1, meaning ‘the land of the Jamun fruit.’ The term Bharata was also used in Prakrit in an inscription in Orissa, at Hathigumpha, of the Kalinga ruler, Kharavela in 1st century BC; that is the first instance of the use of Bharat, and Kharavela uses it for the whole of India. So, gradually the concept of India as a country began to arise and a cultural unity was also seen within it as religions like Buddhism, Brahmanism and Jainism spread to all parts of the country.”[2]

The term indicates a geographical region with cultural affinity and political ambitions even if remained unrealized most of the times in the history. To them “rashtra” is not a modern nation state as most of our historians and political scientists use the term for; but indicating a ‘loose cultural unity’ and political boundaries that somehow indicate a belongingness and ownership. And from there emerges the desire for political unification as well defense against outside forces. More or less combined resistance to Alexander in northern part of India indicates such a loose idea of belongingness. Mauryan Empire is a concrete expression of the same aspiration partially realized. Moughal Empire again comes close to realizing this aspiration. Foreign sources, especially Greek, point in the same direction.

When they claim that “Bharat” is an age old idea these people are not talking of a modern nation state. They are using the term in a sense similar to “Greece” or “Hellas” when we talk of Greece in the ancient times. No one claims that Greece is a not an ancient idea, though it comprised many small city states often at war with each other. Still the idea of Greece as an age old idea is accepted universally without countering it by the modern nation state of Greece, which certainly is not the same thing as the ancient Greece. But when we talk of idea of India then suddenly the idea of nation state (Republic of India) is invoked to counter any clams of its historical unity and ancientness.

How justified are these two claims regarding the idea of India?

If we are talking of India only as a modern nation state them the first claim is fully justifies. The clear articulation of geographical boundaries, nature of the state, constitution to be followed, governance structures and rights and duties of citizens with emphasis on equality, justice, freedom and human dignity were never available in the ancient India. In other words ‘India as a democratic republic’ is a very recent idea indeed, no one can deny this. And therefore the claim is justified in the sense of a nation state.

But the other idea of India as cultural entity in a certain not so clearly defined geographical region and close political connections as well as aspirations of unity is a very ancient idea, is equally undeniable. When the advocates of this idea claim that India is an ancient nation with a certain culture, history and geography they are not wrong. They are using a concept of rashtra that is not the same thing as a nation state but still a well-defined idea that can generate as well as guide aspirations; even aspirations consistent with modern democracy with equality and justice being non-negotiable values; in spite of its history of inequality and oppression of large sections of its population. Thus, both claims are true in their different interpretations. And that can provide an opportunity for dialogue and possible consensus generation.

How is a dialogue possible?

At present both factions of the Indian population (or citizens) are shouting their own versions of the idea of India and not listening to each other. Rather are declaring each other’s ideas a completely false concoctions. No dialogue is possible unless both recognize that the real problem is that they are talking of two different concepts while believing that that are talking of the same thing.

Today we are interested in a democratic India which guarantees and safeguards equality, justice, freedom, and dignity to each one of its citizens without any consideration of caste, creed, race, gender and so on. Therefore, however glorious or true the ancient idea of India might seem to be to some people, it cannot be our aspirational ideal today. We cannot and we do not want to recreate that today. In fact most of the Indian population will oppose that tooth and nail if some mistaken elements try to re-create that India.

On the other hand modern democratic republic of India did not come from thin air at the stroke of midnight on 15th August 1947, nor is it entirely created by the British. It has been in making for at the least two and half-millennia. Denying that civilizational history and legacy is equally impossible and foolish. The democratic republic of India would not have been what it is without that history even if we do not like it. Therefore, a bland and arrogant declaration that idea of India is only 150 years old is completely unjustified and actually insulting to a very old civilization.

A dialogue can become possible only if first both the warring factions try to understand what each one of them means when they use the terms ‘rashtra’ and ‘nation’. They are, of course, using the same terms, but not the same concepts that are indicated by these terms.

The ancient rashra-vadis need to recognize that their cultural and social India is unacceptable today. And the advocates of the modern nation state need to realize the basis of their democratic India is very ancient indeed. It is not created yesterday by the British Raj, though that has contributed to it enormously.

The spirit of constitution, I believe, recognizes that. For a fuller justification of this claim one need to seriously study the debates of the constituent assembly and the constitution itself (which I have not done at this moment, but intent to do), but a very interesting indication is available in the pictures included in the first copy of the Constitution of India. They include line sketches of Gurukula, Rama, Krishna, Buddha, Mahavira, Ashok, Akbar, Gandhi, Rani Jhansi, Tantya Tope (? Or is it Tipu?), Subhash Bose and many more. Showing the awareness of civilizational and political history as well as inclusiveness. Democratic national are not built on exclusive theoretical ideas, every citizen has to be prepared to see the contribution of even those s/he does not like! Those who are interested can download a copy of the first print from here. This is a very heavy file, may be difficult to download. A lighter file containing only the pictures is here Pictures in the Constitution. I could identify some of these sketches but not all. Taking help from knowledgeable people. If you can help, please do.

Nation, as some of our liberals are justifiably fond of quoting, is a daily plebiscite, even if that is somewhat exaggerated. If that is their genuine belief the idea of a rastra (though not a Hindu rashtra) as rooted in the ancient Indian culture has to be allowed to be a contender in that ‘daily plebicite’. It cannot be banned from the contest; though has to be necessarily defeated if we want to remain a modern secular democracy. And that requires a public discourse in language that a common Indian citizen can understand. Of course it is a demand for a massive public education into democratic politics but unless that is undertaken in unrest we will continue to have CMs like Aditya Nath.

———————

[1] उत्तरं यत्समुद्रस्य हिमाद्रेश्चैव दक्षिणम् । वर्षं तद् भारतं नाम भारती यत्र संततिः ।।

“The country(varṣam) that lies north of the ocean and south of the snowy mountains is called Bhāratam; there dwell the descendants of Bharata.” [This reference is taken from Wikipedia, I am not fully confident of its veracity, need to check.–Rohit]

[2] Habib, Irfan “Building the Idea of India”, http://awaam.net/building-the-idea-of-india-irfan-habib/

5 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Beyond the Oxymoronic Idea of No-detention Policy

March 25, 2017

Rohit Dhankar

(EPW 25th March 2017)

The periodic debates on continuous and comprehensive evaluation and no-detention policy in media are completely futile, given the current class-wise structure of schools and curricula. As a result, elementary education gets defined by the number of years spent in school. The examination system thwarts all attempts at bringing reforms in pedagogy, curriculum and textbooks. Therefore, discarding both examinations and detention is necessary, and an alternative imagination of schools and curriculum organisation is imperative for the success of educational reforms.

Read the rest of this entry »

2 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

What is trolling?

March 3, 2017

Rohit Dhankar

The war of words on social media around Gurmehar’s video has raised a small conceptual question for me: What is trolling?

Before I explain why this question I must clarify that this note is not about the justification or otherwise of Gurmehar’s stand. Her complete series of posters makes a lot of sense, though it has its merits and demerits. There are many reasonable and calm responses in circulation by now. I leave that matter for a sane debate. This note is only regarding understanding “what is trolling”.

Last evening a very aware intellectual friend called and in conversation said that Sehwag “trolled” Gurmehar. And of course everyone is crying hoarse that he did troll.

But Sehwag twitted only once. That too without tagging Gurmehar, though his tweet makes it clear that it was in response to her.

So I asked my friend: “what is the difference between a response and trolling? Can a single response be called trolling?”

Friend: “Trolling is when one becomes personal.”

Me: “But Sehwag did not say anything personal.”

Friend: “Randip Hudda tagged Gurmeher with clapping symbols.”

Me: “But Hudda is not Sehwag, and clapping and tagging is not necessarily a personal attack.”

Friend: “But Sehwag trolled”

Me: “How? If Sehwag’s single post is trolling, tell me how can one respond on social media?”

Friend: “Sehwag was sarcastic.”

Me: “But sarcasm is always there in political debates. Is every sarcastic response trolling?”

Friend: “Sehwag’s analogy is not appropriate. ‘War killed, not Pakistan’ is not the same thing as ‘My bat made centuries, not me’”.

Me: “Then accuse Sehwag of bad analogy and bad reasoning, why of trolling?”

Friend: “Sehwag is a celebrity, he should not have responded to a young student.”

Me: “Why? If a young person says something you do not agree with, then you should keep mum? And even if you consider it bad manners to respond to young people, then accuse him of breaking a social norm.”

The point is: I did not get what is trolling:
1. If someone writes a single comment below this post, a very sarcastic one, will it become trolling?
2. If this comment is picked up by friends of the person who made it and re-posted at 1000 places, can the first person be accused of trolling? Or is it that the friends who are responsible for repeated re-posting should be accused?

Any views?
******

6 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Is love ultimate objectification of the beloved?

February 19, 2017

Rohit Dhankar

The cover page of the 71st impression of Alchemist by Paulo Coelho proudly declares that 65 million copies of this book are sold. Inner cover informs that it is translated into 72 languages. The book obviously has been a rage, and may still be. In last about 6-7 years I think at the least five people recommended it to me as a good read. Finally I read it a few weeks back.

This short note, however, is not about the novel itself. But is only a comment on the prologue in the book. When I read the prologue its implications for moral action caught my attention. But to understand that we first have to look into what is the picture of romantic love that is painted here. Therefore, I will come to the moral action at the end of this note.

The prologues narrates “the legend of Narcissus, a youth who knelt daily beside a lake to contemplate his own beauty.” (Emphasis added.) Narcissus become so engrossed in love of his own image that fell in the lake and drowned. The lake, which was of fresh water earlier, cried so bitterly on the death of this ego-centric youth that it turned into a lake of salty tears.

The goddesses of the forest thought that the lake was crying because of loss of the beautiful youth, who paid no attention to any other goddess, and was at the lake every day, providing her with the opportunity to contemplate his beauty from close quarters. That made the lake ask in surprise: “But . . . was Narcissus beautiful?”

The question baffled the forest goddesses and they said: “Who better than you to know that?” the goddesses said in wonder. “After all, it was by your banks that he knelt each day to contemplate himself!” The lake was silent for some time. Finally, it said: “I weep for Narcissus, but I never noticed that Narcissus was beautiful. I weep because, each time he knelt beside my banks, I could see, in the depths of his eyes, my own beauty reflected.”

What struck me in this little story was that the lake was no less narcissistic[1] that Narcissus! Narcissus did not come to the lake to contemplate its beauty, he came to contemplate his own beauty reflected in the lake. The lake was not the object of his love, it was merely a means to reflect the real object of his love: himself.

The lake liked coming of Narcissus to its banks every day, and loved it. But Narcissus was not the object of her love either; his eyes were merely means to reflect the beauty of the lake itself, thus the real object of love for the lake was: the lake itself.

For each the other was merely a means to see their own reflection through the other, to contemplate their own beauty. They were not even particularly aware of the other’s beauty, if any. They were aware only of one quality in the other: the capacity to reflect their own self. The other was only a medium, merely a means.

This is ultimate ‘objectification’[2]; ultimate example of using the other only as a means for one’s own pleasures of contemplating one’s own beauty.

Is that what ‘true love’ means in humans? Turning the beloved into an object to see one’s own image? Using the other merely as a mirror?

Does one fall in love with the ‘mirror’ which reflects the most gratifying picture of oneself? Is the beloved simply an ego-massaging reflector for humans?

Isn’t it a very twisted understanding of love? And, if not, then are humans necessarily narcissistic? Does love necessarily snatches away the personhood of the beloved as far as the lover is concerned? Does love turns the beloved into an object in the eyes of the lover?

Of course, the story could be turned into a positive idea as well: each of a loving pair realises oneself through the other. The success of a lover is in becoming a most gratifying mirror for the beloved, so that the beloved in turn can serve the same function for the lover. Each loses oneself, to regain through the eyes of the other.

But the logic here is somewhat flowed. Because in the story of Narcissus as in prologue quoted above, neither loses himself voluntarily; it is that they simply do not notice each other. They are completely absorbed in their own image, the other does not exist beyond the practical function of reflection it performs. The idea of losing oneself for the other does not arise here. Each one is too full of himself/herself for such an altruistic ideal.

The question then remains: are humans necessarily narcissistic? Does human romantic love necessarily uses the other merely as a means?

Implications for moral action

Love is supposed to be the most selfless human sentiment; and romantic love is only a variety of ‘love’ which is a more general sentiment/feeling. Moral action necessarily requires recognition of the other as having unalienable worth in himself/herself; being ultimate end in himself/herself. The moral agent necessarily needs to see the other as a person, and certainly not as an object to gratify his/her own desires. If even love, which is recognised as the most selfless feeling/sentiment, is as completely self-absorbing as the Prologue makes it, what room does it leave for humans to be selfless? If humans are incapable of subordinating their own selfish ends to some moral principle can they ever think morally? Can they ever act morally?

A least the prologue of this extremely popular novel seems to imply impossibility of moral action through portraying love as completely narcissistic. One hopes it is not true, even if 65+ million readers are enchanted by this twisted ideal.

*******

28th January 2017

[1] Characteristic of those having an inflated idea of their own importance

[2] the action of degrading someone to the status of a mere object.

1 Comment | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »