And children pay for our fragmented thinking

February 9, 2017

Rohit Dhankar

Professor Krishna Kumar has written a very thought provoking article (my response in Indian Express) on the CBSE’s decision to make class X board examination compulsory again. He rightly argues that compulsory class X exam will serve no useful purpose and will increase stress in children. He also points out the problems in re-introducing of annual examinations in elementary classes, and rescinding RTE decision that introduces CCE.

These arguments are sound; still the analysis presented in the article needs to be taken further. Professor Kumar rightly points out that examination can never be effective motivation for learning. Actually it is well recognised that it only devalues understanding and kills joy in learning. But motivation through examination is not the most important argument that the people wanting to rescind CCE and reinstate compulsory board exam are making. Their argument is that children reach the next level of schooling grossly underprepared if one removes annual exams in the present day Indian system. Annual examinations, according to them, make some dent in this unpreparedness, even if cannot remedy the situation completely. This is not an argument that can be dismissed summarily.

His arguments against the examinations are pedagogically peripheral. The most forceful argument is that examinations cause stress in children. Yes, education should be sensitive to the child and should not cause stress to the level where childhood becomes a burden. But being serious about studies is also a necessary condition for learning well. If proper teacher training could be a solution for implementation of CCE, as Professor Kumar argues, it can also be assumed to be a solution for stress-less annual examinations. The stress argument provokes sentiments without saying much about quality and depth of learning. One can also argue that the stress is caused by the family pressure and competition in the society; not by the examinations per se. Whatever system of certification of relative merit one creates, if the society remains competitive and parents make children means of realising their unfulfilled aspirations, we cannot reduce stress in education.

Professor Kumar thinks that if examinations are reintroduced in elementary education the path to child-centrism will be closed. This takes child-centrism as an article of faith, and as if that is the only true path to educational reform. But exactly what do we mean by child-centrism in India? Does it mean that the children should decide the curriculum, or that only what is interesting for children should be taught, or that children should be left free to discover their own knowledge, or is it simply teaching through activities? All these positions are taken by different people at different times; and each one of them has serious problems; theoretical as well as practical at the level of classroom pedagogy.

One viable form of child-centrism is what John Dewey, the famous American philosopher, articulated. He calls it “progressive education”. That the school curriculum has to be ‘psychologized’. Dewey argues that one necessarily has to start from the child, her experiences, and her understanding; but has constantly to look at the accepted human knowledge and understanding. One is the starting point, the other the end. Without the end in view, the starting point itself is of no value; and in fact there can be no justification for taking this or that starting point without reference to an end point to reach.

We in India do not realise what all does it take to ‘psychologize’ the curriculum in Dewey’s sense. The matter is not that of activities or keeping the children happy or even stress free. It is quite a different story. To psychologize the curriculum would mean that the subject matter of today’s accepted human knowledge may become part of child’s experience. And how the teacher’s knowledge of subject matter may assist in recognising what is valuable in the child’s experience today, what the child’s needs of growth are and how her growth can be properly directed towards the end of acquiring knowledge and understanding.

All this demands freedom, flexibility and contextual decision making on the part of the teacher; keeping in mind individual child. And that is the crux of the matter: our system of schooling does not give that space. We have a year wise divided curriculum, grade wise organised school and annual occasions of progression. And wnat to implement CCE keeping this structure intact. But this structure militates against using child’s experience and growth of understanding based on experience. Because the understanding to be built on experience cannot be predicted for all children and cannot be planned in a timed sequence in advance that is universally applicable. Graded school and curriculum assume precisely that. One can of course plan rough overall time and sequence of knowledge acquisition; but the day to day activities and their results are to be left to the teacher and the child. Therefore, the graded school and curriculum logically demand pass-fail kind of examination. CCE and automatic promotion, then, are a logical anathema to present day schooling system. This contradiction makes CCE in any reasonable form impossible in our schools. The school structure and basic ideas behind CCE are in a fundamental and irresolvable contradiction with each other.

This is not a problem that can be solved through better teacher training. Actually there can be no teacher training that can prepare teachers to implement CCE in the present day rigid and authoritarian system. All attempts will turn out to be a series of miniscule examinations and burry the teacher in more and more record keeping, without really interpreting those records into any helpful way. It is a systemic problem and teachers cannot be expected to solve it through their sensitivity, skill and understanding. It is a matter of making up one’s mind regarding what kind of school and curriculum organisation suites child’s development that is sensitive to her emotional, intellectual and moral growth. It is a matter of fitting the school structure and curriculum to the desired visions of education and CCE; and not the matter of fitting a form of so called CCE to the existing school and curriculum structure. We are looking at the problem up-side-down.

Our fragmented thinking that educational ideas can be implemented out of their overall theoretical and structural frameworks is the cause of repeated failure to achieve success in any reform. We get infatuated by singe ideas and never take on the bull of total system by horns. As long as we keep thinking in this fragmented way without looking at the overall structure in which such ideas can fruitfully exist, our children will keep on paying the price of reform pendulums we set in motion without any real progress. Therefore, if we are serious about doing away with stressful examinations be that at elementary or X standard level, we have to dismantle the rigid structure of school and curriculum.

******

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

सत्य और गुंडों की ताकत

January 28, 2017

रोहित धनकर

कल संजय लीला भंसाली को थप्पड़ मारा गया और उनके बाल खींचे गए. यह झूठी रजपूती शान के रखवाले एक संगठन करणी सेना के लोगों ने किया. आरोप यह कि उन्हों ने अपनी नई फिल्म में पद्मावती के साथ अल्लाहुद्दीन खिलजी के प्रेम दृश्य दिखाए हैं. पर फिल्म तो अभी बनी ही नहीं है. इन गुंडों का कोई नेता नारायण सिंह कहता है कि गलत तथ्य न दिखाए जाएँ और “यदि” कोई प्रेम दृश्य फिल्म में दिखाने हैं तो भंसाली उन्हें निकाल दे. “यदि” पर ध्यान दीजिये; इस का अर्थ यह है कि किसी गुंडा समूह को “शक” हो जाए तो उसपर भी लोगों की पिटाई की जा सकती है और उनके उपकरणों को तोड़ा-फोड़ा जा सकता है. और सरकार इसमें कुछ नहीं कर सकती. वैसे भी राजस्थान में इस वक़्त रजपूती-सरकार ही है, हालाँकि वह प्रजातांत्रिक तरीकों से चुनी गई है.

इस में मूल सिद्धांत यह है कि: “सत्य वह है जो हम मानते हैं. जो कोई भी इसके विरूद्ध मानता है, बोलता है, अभिव्यक्त करता है; उसे दंड देने का हमें हक़ है.” यह “हम” कोई जातीय-समूह हो सकता है, धार्मिक-समूह हो सकता है या राजनैतिक-समूह हो सकता है.

यही सिद्धांत है जिसके चलते राजस्थान में जोधा-अकबर पर बवाल हुआ था. कल तक जो राजपूत जोधा बाई के सलीम की माँ और अकबर की पटरानी होने पर गर्व करते थे आज बदलती राजनैतिक और जातीय अस्मिता के चलते उसी जोधाबाई को दासी-पुत्री घोषित करना चाहते हैं.

इसी सिद्धांत के चलते तीन-चार वर्ष पहले दिल्ली विश्वविद्यालय के पाठ्यक्रम से अहिल्या प्रकरण वाला रामानुजन का लेख निकाला गया था. वास्तव में वाल्मीकि रामायण में अहल्या इंद्र से जानते-बूझते प्रेम करती है, और रामानुजन इस प्रसंग को उदृत करते हैं अपने लेख में. विचित्र बात है, वाल्मीकि रामायण को सत्य-ग्रन्थ मानाने वाले लोग ही उस के उद्धरणों का विरोश भी करते हैं.

इस भावना के तहत १९५१ में औब्रुए मेनन की रामायण पर प्रतिबन्ध लगाना पड़ा था. जिस में सीता स्वीकार करती है कि वह रावण के साथ एक समझौते के तहत अपनी मर्जी से गई थी, और बिना बाध्य किये उसे से दैहित सम्बन्ध बनाये थे.

यही सिद्दांत है जिसके चलते मुहम्मद को समलैंगिक संबंधो को पसंद करने वाला कहने पर कमलेश तिवारी जेल में है (शायद?) अभीतक और बिजनौर के एक मौलवी ने उसका सर कलम करने के लिए एक करोड़ के इनाम की घोषणा की थी.

बेचारे रुश्दी को एक दसक से ज्यादा छुपे रहना पड़ा मुहम्मद के इल्हाम पर संदेह करने के लिए और उसकी बीबियों के नामों पर गणिकाओं के नाम रखने पर.

तसलीमा पर आक्रमण हुए मुहम्मद के अपनी बीबियों के साथ हुए करार को तोड़ने की बात कहने के लिए, जिसमें मुहम्मद के उसकी एक गुलाम से योन-संबंधों की बात है.

इन में और इस तरह की सब घटनाओं में यह तो है ही कि ये हिंसक समूह दूसरों की विचार-शक्ति को ख़त्म करके अपना वर्चश्व बनाना चाहते हैं. और इस पर बहुत कुछ लिखा भी जाता रहता है. पर कुछ और पहलू भी हैं इस के जिनपर शायद बहुत विचार नहीं हो रहा है.

इन पहलुओं में से एक तो यही है कि विचार की स्वतंत्रता पर हिंसक आक्रमण करने वाले समूह अपने आप को कम-अक्ल के रूप में स्वीकार करते हैं. चाहे वे करणी सेना जैसे जातीय समूह हों, मंगलौर की राम सेना हो, बम्बई की शिव सेना हो, मुसलामानों के उग्र समूह हो, या कोई और; वे यह सार्वजनिक तौर पर स्वीकारते हैं अपनी हिंसा के माध्यम से कि विचार का बौद्धिक विरोध करने की क्षमता उनमें नहीं है. वे विवेक और प्रमाण के आधार पर लोगों को सहमत नहीं कर सकते, कि वे दूसरे विचार समूह की तुलना में मूर्ख है. पर तुलनात्मक रूप मूर्ख होने के बावजूद अपनी बात मनवाना चाहते हैं.

साथ ही वे यह भी स्वीकारते हैं की दूसरे इंसानों की सत्य की परख की क्षमता पर भी उन्हें भरोसा नहीं है. वे यह मानते हैं की जो भी विचार अभिव्यक्त होगा उसे दूसरे लोग बिना जांचे मान लेनेगे, कि दूसरों के पास विचार के जांचने की अक्ल नहीं है. इस लिए वे उन्हें बिना जांचे, बिना प्रमाण के मानने पर बाध्य करना चाहते हैं.

लगता है की ऐसे सभी हिंसक समूह सत्य के निरपेक्ष हो सकने की संभावना से इनकार करते हैं और इंसान के दिमाग की सत्य-शोधन क्षमता पर संदेह करते हैं. इन दो बुनियादी मान्यताओं में इन हिंसक समूहों की सामाजिक-ज्ञानमीमांसा (social epistemology) में कुछ धारणाओं से गहरी सहमति लगती है. यह मान्यता की ज्ञान की निरपेक्षता असंभव छलावा है. कि ज्ञान तो सदा सामाजिक-मोलभाव और सत्ता के बल पर ही स्थापित होता है. खाश कर इतिहास जैसे समाज-विज्ञानों में. किस चीज को सत्य माना जाए और किसे असत्य यह सामाजिक-राजनैतिक मशाला है, इसके कोई ज्ञान-मीमंसकीय (epistemological) और निरपेक्ष आधार नहीं हो सकते. और जो लोग निरपेक्ष ज्ञान-मीमंसकीय आधारों और मापदंडों की बात करते हैं वे भी अपना वर्चश्व बनाने की ही कोशिश कर रहे होते हैं. यह भी कि सत्य और ज्ञान के निरपेक्ष मानदंड सामाजिक रूप से कमजोर तबकों के हितों के विरुद्ध जाते हैं. की विवेक-सम्मता की बात गैर-बराबरी को बढ़ावा देती है. ये मान्यताएं आजकल उदारवादी विचारकों में बहुत प्रचलित है.

एक सवाल यह उठता है कि जब सत्य और ज्ञान के कोई निरपेक्ष ज्ञान-मीमंसकीय आधार होते ही नहीं, जब सत्य का निर्धारण सामाजिक-मोलभाव और सत्ता के आधार पर ही होता है अंततः; तो फिर करणी सेना, शव सेना, राम सेना, मौलवीयों के गुट्ट और मुहम्मद की इज्जत बचने के लिए इकट्ठी की गई उग्र भीड़ गलत क्यों हैं? वे सब भी तो यही कर रहे हैं कि ज्ञान के कोई निरपेक्ष आधार नहीं होते, और हम सत्य का निर्धारण हिंसा की ताकत पर करेंगे? यह कहा रहे हैं कि अपना तर्क-वितंडा बंद करो, लफ्फाजी बंद करो, ताकत हमारे पास है अभी, तो हमारी बात मनो. नहीं तो ….

यह कहा जा सकता है की अकादमिक तौर पर ज्ञान को सामाजिक समजौते से स्वीकृत मान्यताएं मानाने वाले और उसकी निरपेक्षता को अस्वीकार करने वाले लोग यह चाहते हैं कि सब अपने विचार रखें और अकादमिक और सामाजिक बहस में उस समझौते को उभरने दें. पर क्यों? जब निरपेक्षता है ही नहीं सत्य की, जब उसे अंततः सत्ता के दबाव में ही रूप लेना है, जब वह अंततः सत्ता और वर्चाश्व का हथियार मात्र ही है तो इस लफ्फाजी में समय क्यों बर्बाद करें? ताकत का सीधा उपयोग क्यों न करें?

सीधा सवाल यह बनता है: क्या ज्ञान की निरपेक्षता (objectivity) को सिरे से अस्वीकार करने वाले और उसकी सत्ताधीनता को स्वीकार करने वाले लोग करणी सेना जैसी करवाई के विरोध का कोई विवेक-सम्मत आधार प्रस्तुत कर सकते हैं? यदि नहीं तो शायद वे करणी सेना से ज्यादा खतरनाक है: क्यों कि करणी सेना की इच्छा और तरीके साफ़ और जग जाहिर है; जब की उनकी इच्छा और तरीके दोनों में छुपे अजेंडा होने की बहुत संभावना है.

*******

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

The storms and their fallout

January 8, 2017

Rohit Dhankar

The demonetization fever is ebbing. It has been a storm of accusations and defense. Much of the defense was weak, confused and shifting. Initially it was to ‘eradicate’—not just to bring out some—black money. Then to stop counterfeit industry in Pakistan and then to stop flow of money into terrorist organizations; and finally virtues of cashless economy. None of this could have been achieved by demonetization in itself. Therefore, the defense was transparently unacceptable.

Accusations of course dismissed all this even without thinking and imputed motives from bribery, to collecting money to loan to big sharks, to some hidden motives. As the eradication of black money etc. Could not have been achieved solely through demonetization, and lacked convincing power; so did the accusations. But neither the demonetization totally ineffective in what the supporters claimed nor it was so pure that the accusations had no substance at all. Both sided ignored the other and purveyed their own lies in the name of truth; both has some grains of truth in their lies. But they together killed the spirit of healthy public debate in politics.

This was the third instance in one year (2016) which hugely eroded trust worthiness of the government and as well as the intelligentsia and opposition. The JNU farce, thickly flying attacks and defense in surgical strike issue and demonetization; all were occasions of blind clash without any desire to understand or enlighten the public. At the end the government is completely unreliable in the eyes of the people. It acts without thinking, and cannot defend or explain its actions. Its motives are dubious, analytical capability wanting, and communication with the public restricted to blind followers. The vocal intelligentsia was actually never understood in the public, but had an aura that evoked a sentiments of “if such wise people are saying so, it must be true”. Their stand in the last year has been so blindly predetermined that this pious sentiment has now run out of its steam.

This is the time when demagoguery that can invoke the deepest sentiments and hidden fears will reap rich harvest. Sane public debate is already impossible because of cacophony raised on the basis of half understood facts and already made commitments that fly in the face of reason.

Isn’t it time to reevaluate our politics, our political formations (parties), the concerns and aspirations of the people, and, last but most important, the language we speak? India needs a mass political education movement right now to survive as a functioning democracy. Are there any takers?

******

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Identity politics will produce Giriraj Singhs

December 5, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

[Posting every day is a bad idea. But still… Also these thoughts are truly “loud thinking”, not very well worked out. Just a rough cut.]

“There is a need to increase population of Hindus in the country. They should take this issue seriously as their population has been decreasing in eight States in the country,” Mr. Giriraj Singh, Union Minister of State, said in October 16, as per a report in the The Hindu, 5th December 16.

“The country is facing population explosion, it has to be controlled soon,” the same Minister says in December 16, and as per The Hindu report, and he also thinks that “after ‘notebandi’ (demonetisation), there is an urgent need to make laws for ‘nasbandi’ (sterilisation) in the country.”

Looking at his record one needs waste no time in explaining that he wants ‘nasbandi’ for Muslims and ‘increase of population’ of Hindus. The question is: should such a person be a minister in the government of a secular country?

Percentage of Muslim population in the country is increasing can hardly be denied. Nor can one close ones eyes to the fact that in some areas (particularly along the Bangladesh boarder) it has changed the local demography beyond recognition. This phenomenon cannot be explained through the ‘general minority mentality’ syndrome as population of Hindus in both Pakistan and Bangladesh is constantly decreasing in spite of Hindus being in a minority in these countries. Those who think that this phenomenon has nothing to do with religion and political use of it are over stretching their intellectual capabilities.

However, the question still remains: should not people like Mr. Singh be shunted out of the government? Those who govern a democratic country are expected to rise above their sectarian biases and of being capable of a little more intelligent thinking. They should try to understand the complex factors what influence reproduction rate in any section of population. And they are to do with economic and educational status of the section in question as well. Yes, religious beliefs and practices are a very important factor, but that is not the only factor.

It seems to me that what makes such leaders acceptable to the masses is intense identity politics in India. Identity politics encourages—nay, depends on—excusatory principle of membership of a political formation, it is not open to all citizens on the basis of their political views. It is restricted by caste or religion or any other basis that provides a fulcrum of identity. It harms the moral and intellectual development of the members of such formations as they cannot grow beyond their restricted identities; and induces the same desire to play identity politics in other communities. All this gives rise to intense competition between communities, the humanitarian values and individual freedom suffers.

All communal (I am deliberately using the term “communal” for “community based”) identities are exclusory in nature and repressive to individual members of their own communities. If it is allowed and appreciated when Jats, Rajputs, Brahmins, Dalits, Muslims etc. organise themselves and struggle for their interests; how does one oppose some more sinister (and perhaps cleverer) minds to organise Hindus to fight for their own interests? One understand that politics is a messy business and does not always take a straight path; therefore, there may be times when a deliberately disadvantaged section of population comes together and fights against injustice done to them. But this has to be played with care, the basic principle of organisation has to remain political and the politicians have to be wise enough to know when to stop playing it.

Indian people have to learn to go beyond their restrictive identities to recognise themselves humans first and foremost; and then construct an identity of being Indians for themselves. The smaller indemnities of being an Indian and belonging to a caste or religious group have to submit to the paramount identity as a human being; and have to be governed by the principles of equality, justice and freedom for all humans.

That is the only way to neutralise people like Modi and Giriraj Singh. Pitching one identity or interest group against another is a sure way to lose. If all this sounds too simplistic to some complex minds, go on and obfuscate as much as you please, Girirajs and Modis will thrive. Politics in India at this moment has to be conducted in a simpler language that people can understand, and make sense of. “Sab se pahale tum insaan ho; Hindustani, Pakistani, chini baad men. Aur Jat, Rajput, Dalit, Musalman, Hindu to use se bhi baad men.” I think an ordinary Indian can understand, argue, debate, accept and reject this proposition. And that is what is needed at the moment.

******

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Democratic Dilemmas

December 4, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

Accepting democracy as way to form government of the day means accepting one citizen one vote. That is also an acceptance that every human being (where there is universal adult franchise) is capable of contributing to the process of formation of that government and has the right to do so. It also implies that anyone’s supposed wisdom does not give him/her any more right to have a say in this process than one whom the wise consider ignorant. The only way the wise can play a larger role is by persuading others to accept their wisdom, and this acceptance itself has to be their own free choice.

If that is the case in a democracy: what should be the response of the wise if the general public elects someone whom the wise consider absolutely disastrous and unacceptable?

Should a wise true democrat accept one’s own limitations that s/he failed to convince the people, and work for their better understanding? Or should s/he declare that ignorant public’s choice is unacceptable to her/him, and s/he does not recognize the legitimacy of elected government? Would the later mean that the wise reserve the right to accept democratic decisions only as per their prescription, and by dent of their wisdom are not bound by the outcome of democratic process if it does not suit them?

The Indian Lok Sabha elections is 2014 and recent US presidential elections is also a revolt against the hegemony, obscure verbose reasoning, and political correctness of the wise. It is assertion of unsophisticated thinking of the larger public. This assertion has thrown up results that may undermine the very democratic process. Democracy so far it seems have been functioning on the recognition of the common citizen that s/he may not understand the complicated matter of statecraft, and therefore, accepted the thought-leadership of the select few. Now it seems either that set of the select few is being replaced or every citizen is claiming his/her own right to have his/her own say. That means they are becoming more responsible and asserting their own will, be that sophisticated or rude; be that right or wrong. Can we say that the democracy actually is deepening in this sense?

Everyone has equal interest in life in the nation. The supposed to be unsophisticated public will learn to be more reasonable and responsible only when they start using their own opinion in government formation rather than opinions handed over by the wise. In this sense it might be a moment to cherish for a truly democratic mind: that an opinion counter to his/her own has emerged more powerful, but at the same time that also distributes the responsibility of remaining on course among a much larger set of people. Is capability to cherish the win of the opposite view a necessary condition to be a true democrat?

In this half worked out (at this moment, more work has to go into it) thought I have ignored the argument that the public is swayed, or cheated or coned or intimidated or made a fool of in any other way. This needs to be considered. But that will involve a very careful shifting of ideas. Reason being that even in the claim that the “public” is swayed or coned etc. but “we are not” there is inherent superiority of judgment attributed to “us”! Which might be actually true, but has no force in one-citizen-one-vote principle. That again raises the issue: whether the simplistic or ignorant “public” which can be swayed and coned should have rights equal to “us” who are wiser?

All this raises some very sharp questions (at least in my own mind): does the ideal of democracy necessarily involve acceptance of an opinion counter to my own and which I consider also inferior to my own? Does it necessarily imply submission to the popular will while at the same time I consider my own judgment to be superior to that popular will? Does it necessarily imply that when one stands in the public the wise have to leave the halo of their wisdom at home, and count themselves as anyone else?

It seems to me that a legitimate struggle against a popular mandate in a democracy can be waged only by first accepting the mandate; and then through a peaceful rational persuasion to right the wrongs in the popular mandate, bringing about a shift in popular thinking. It involves unrelenting resistance against the wrong decisions of the elected government, but also acceptance of the right ones. It involves more work with the common citizen (the public) than with the government. Are we doing that?

*******

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

Attention: this is patriotism

December 3, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

The Supreme Court (SC) has ordered that:

(a) “There shall be no commercial exploitation” of the national anthem,

(b) “There shall not be dramatization” of it,

(c) “National Anthem or a part of it shall not be printed” in such a manner that “may be disgraceful to its status and tantamount to disrespect.”

(d) All the cinema halls in India shall play the National Anthem before the feature film starts and all present in the hall are obliged to stand up to show respect to the National Anthem.”

(e) While the national anthem is being played “the entry and exit doors shall remain closed”

(f) Playing of national anthem will “be with the National Flag on the screen.” And,

(g) The abridge version of the National Anthem … shall not be played or displayed.”

I have been arguing on this blog (particularly during the JNU tamasha) that:

  1. It is wrong to think that the notion of nationalism is necessarily (a) repressive for some sections of the population and (b) aggressive to other nations. There can be forms of nationalism that are no-repressive and non-aggressive.
  2. The humanity at present is not developed enough to organise itself and have a non-repressive state without the ideas of nation and constitutional nationalism, which to my mind come so close to patriotism that is virtually indistinguishable from it. Therefore, they are necessary ideas at present state of intellectual and moral development of humanity.
  3. It is not possible to argue in favour of and struggle for the ideals of equality, justice, freedom, etc. if one discards the ideas of nation and nationalism.
  4. The ideas of the nation and nationalism expressed in the idiotic Sanghi vigilante brigade are not the ideas or ideals on which Indian nation is built. Therefore, assuming that that is what nationalism is and attacking the very core of Indian nation under this false assumption is massive foolishness.
  5. The overbearing and screaming critics of the ideas of nation and nationalism are deriding the massive section of population, undermining the binding force for the democratic nation and spreading disaffection for the nation and state. While at the same time reaping all the benefits of these very ideals; they are actually being irresponsible and selfish free riders.

This SC order seems to be a legal reaction to this kind of irresponsible, loud and overbearing criticism. This kind of criticism is made possible by some theories of nationalism built on false assumption of necessity of repression and aggression in nationalism. This also provided such people an opportunity to pretend to be the champions of the repressed, and therefore take the moral high ground. Many people lose no opportunity of earning credentials of being revolutionary simply by showing deviant behaviour. For example in on public function when the national anthem was sang at the conclusion a supposed to be revolutionary intellectual remained seated. That person was clearly seeking attention in a very childish way. This act did not constitute a critique, did not constitute any resistance, it was simply an act of trying to show “who one is”.

However, the SC order itself raises very serious and disturbing questions. The order assumes that the above mentioned legal diktats will “instill the feeling within one, a sense committed patriotism and nationalism”. The court thinks that the Article 51A(a) of the constitution makes it “clear as crystal that it is the sacred obligation of every citizen to abide by the ideals engrafted in the Constitution. And one such ideal is to show respect for the National Anthem and the National Flag.” Then goes on “[B]e it stated, a time has come, the citizens of the country must realize that they live in a nation and are duty bound to show respect to National Anthem which is the symbol of the Constitutional Patriotism and inherent national quality. It does not allow any different notion or the perception of individual rights, that have individually thought of have no space. The idea is constitutionally impermissible.”

Most of the objectives of the order may be laudable, but one wonders whether patriotism can be instilled by legal orders. Yes, legal orders may ensure external behaviour as per stated norms, in other words can ensure a “show” of patriotism. But patriotism and love and respect for the nation is much more than just an outward show of it. It is a sentiment, a disposition, a commitment which comes about from one’s internal intellectual and emotional processes; from shared experiences and public feelings. This commitment cannot be enforced, this cannot be based on any “sacred” ideas with legal force. That respect and love has to come from a rational understanding and emotional bonding with the people living in the nation, the citizenry. If some loud people are building their intellectual fortunes on the basis of pitting one section of the population against other, are incapable of imagining common public good and ways to achieve that without attacking the very foundations of the nation; they cannot be made ineffective by legal action.

Their genuine concerns have to be addressed and their misguided attacks have to be intellectually countered. This is not an issue of defeating them, this is an issue of convincing them of more meaningful ways of critiquing the ills our democracy has and showing them the necessity of respect to some fundamental ideals as well as large sections of population who disagree with them. This is a project of freeing them of their own bigotry.

This requires a more balanced debate and rejection of the factionalist nationalism of the sangh-parivad as well. The saner people have to groups to deal with: the sanghi-bigots as well as the all-knowing so-called left liberals. Two wrongs in the national arena cannot be righted by a legal order.

******

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

Some ideas on nationalism

November 26, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

Recently I spoke on nationalism in a panel discussion and one old friend raised some questions on what I said. Here I am articulating some of the ideas expressed in this session. Obviously this article remains only at some sundry ideas and nowhere near any rounded articulation of a position. However, some of the ideas here may play a pivotal role in a rounded position, if it is ever fully developed.

Recently some of the very prominent and noisy intellectuals have been shouting on every proper or improper opportunity that ‘nationalism is an evil idea’. There can be nothing good in it. There can be no beneficial or even benign interpretation of this idea. It is necessarily: 1. repressive for some sections of population in the country (nation), and 2. inimical to some other nation. The argument is made on the basis of historical analysis of emergence of the idea of nationalism in Europe. Where, it is claimed to have been used in consolidating nation states through internal repression and external aggression.

I will leave the historical analysis as it is, without commenting or questioning. But will ask a different short of question: what kind of concepts permit immutable certain knowledge? What kind of concepts permit fallible but reliable knowledge? And what kind of concepts permit interpretative knowledge of particular instances which may or may not be generalizable in all supposed to be similar situations? Is “nationalism” a kind of concept which permits immutable certain knowledge? If no, what is the basis for shouting loudly that ‘nationalism’ can be only a repressive and aggressive evil idea?

To elaborate on the same point a little further let’s consider three particulate concepts and the kind of claims that can be reasonably made about them.

First let’s take a triangle. In Euclidian geometry a triangle by definition is a figure contained by three straight sides. Figure, straight, three, sides, angles, etc. all have their definitions. It is not necessary for any of these concepts to correspond with anything in the real world of experience; even if they are abstractions of very real experience in the world.

Now, when one says that sum of all the interior angles of a triangle is equal to two right angles; it is nothing but statement of a relationship between various definitions; which all are abstract and immutable. This conclusion can be deductively proved starting from definitions and using only one’s reason; or logic, a more direct and restricted from of reason. Since the definitions are immutable, and the procedure of arriving at conclusions is deduction, the knowledge expressed by the above statement is immutable as long as the definitions and logic remains the same. And one can confidently claim anywhere and everywhere that sum of the interior angles of a triangle is always equal to two right angles. But, remember that in real-world one can never draw or make such a perfect triangle. This perfect triangle remains only in human imagination.

Second, let us consider the concept of a leaf. A dictionary definition of leaf could be: “a flattened structure of a higher plant, typically green and blade-like, that is attached to a stem directly or via a stalk. Leaves are the main organs of photosynthesis and transpiration.” This object is found is nature, it has a ‘natural’ relationship with plant, green, flattened shape, stem, stalk, and a process called photosynthesis. These are names given to objects and processes found in the nature. Therefore, they are not purely definitional; here definitions have a job to do: to represent nature as closely as possible.

In this case leaves may or may not adhere absolutely to the characteristics given here: they may not be always green, may not always be very well flattened; could be thickish. There could be fence sitters who one wonders whether to call a leaf or not. The claims that can be made about leaves have to be found in the nature, and they may not be as clear, absolute and immutable as those about triangles. Therefore, there is always a possibility of finding leaves that actually have some characteristics not so far attributed to them or even those which may not have some of the characteristics supposed to belong to them. There might be laves which have thorns on them or may have sharp edges. On the basis of this evidence one cannot claim that “all leaves have thorns”.

Third, let’s consider the concept of a “school”. The simplest definition of a school could be “special arrangements made and space set aside for teaching of the young”. This is abstract and captures only the purpose and arrangements required to achieve that purpose. Now, there is a possibility that in a particular time and place there are schools which teach Sanskrit grammar mainly through rote learning. That does not mean that all schools always teach Sanskrit grammar and in this manner. But teaching is of course essential in this definition of the school. Suppose that teaching necessarily ‘changes the state of mind of a person’; then one can claim that schools necessarily want to change the state of mind of their students. Again, if some schools have made some students’ clones and cronies of their teachers or crafty cheats one cannot claim that all schools produce such graduates.

School is a concept that describes a social arrangements and functions. They can be of very different kinds in their content, pedagogy and organisational structures and still all may have the central purpose as facilitation of learning in young children. Therefore, statements like “all schools kill creativity”, “all schools teach confirming to authority” etc. may be true of particular set of schools. They may even be true of “all existing schools so far”. But they are not necessary part of the concept of school, and therefore, the possibility of someone creating a school that enhances creativity and teaches rebellion against authority is not closed.

Coming back to the concepts of a nation and nationalism: what kind of concepts are they? Are they definitional like a “triangle”, which contain all their properties in their definition itself? Or are they like “leaf”, which has to describe a natural object and its properties are contingent on natural phenomena, which need observation and cannot be deduced from the definition itself? Or are they like the “school” where a social phenomenon and organisation is deliberately demarcated; and which can change, grow, be modified etc. as per the changing needs, functions, theories of learning and so on?

One does not need to spend time in arguing that “nation” and “nationalism” are like “school”; and not like “triangle” and “leaf”. Therefore, the claims that can be made about them can never be generalised on all possible forms of these concepts. They are open to interpretation and constantly evolve.

In view of this analysis if one wants to make a claim that “Indian nationalism is necessarily repressive and aggressive” then one has to first establish that there is such a thing as unified “Indian nationalism”, and then one has to show on the basis on empirical evidence that the current version of what is being called “Indian nationalism” does have these characteristics.

Is any such analysis available at the moment? As far as one knows—none. There have been ways of thinking and conceptualising nationalism in India which is non-repressive internally and perfectly compatible with international cooperative coexistence. How do the critics of the idea of nationalism today know that the majority Indians do not hold this kind of positive and integrative concept of nationalism? Why do they assume that some social media hoodlums and coward vigilante represent the majority idea of nationalism?

The intellectual incapability of the noisy critics of nationalism is very clear at the moment. They are not able to distinguish between the hoodlum-nationalism and sentiments of concerned Indian citizens. In their zeal to attack the hoodlums they are constantly deriding the ideas of the nation and nationalism. Yes, the hoodlums need to be defeated and silenced. But so do need the overbearing critics of the ideas of nation and nationalism.

********

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: , , | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

On community identities: sundry thoughts

November 13, 2016

Rohit Dhankar

The very idea of a community is premised on relatively greater affinity and acceptance among a set of people. It necessarily requires another set of people with whom the affinity and acceptance is seen to be relatively of a lesser degree. That much is a conceptual requirement of the very idea of community, and one can do nothing about that unless is ready to completely junk this very idea.

So far this idea cannot support universal democracy at the national level. To be a democrat one has to recognise the rights and ways of living of people not belonging to one’s own community. On the basis of just being human. This requires recognition of areas of social and political behaviour where affinity and community based acceptance are not only invalid criteria for decision making; but are positively harmful and morally wrong. That means going beyond the bounds of one’s community, and creating an identity which is not circumscribed or limited by one’s own community ethics.

Human affairs are not neat and clean, ideas are not accepted and understood uniformly by all members of a nation or a community. Even when an idea or principle is understood and accepted acting according to it may not be equally possible for all and in all circumstances. Therefore, the principles of justice, equality and public space for every one and for all communities may not always operate in an ideal manner. Because of the sheer numerical weight of majority community minorities and less privileged communities may actually face discrimination or develop a perception of discrimination. It may or may not involve any active effort and conspiracy from the majority and more privileged communities; still the discrimination remains equally real and perception remains equally distressing.

In any case this is something undesirable and a way has to be found out to do away with discrimination as well as the perception of discrimination. When an aggressive identity politics is used to fight against this real and perceived discrimination the fundamental principle of democracy “operating without one’s community identity” is violated. Then in reality there is a demand on the majority to weaken their community identity while at the same time there is a process of strengthening community identities of the minority and less privileged sections. In other words it is demanded from the majority to ‘de-comminitize’ itself; while simultaneously support aggressive ‘communitization’ (deliberately not using the term “communalize” in both cases 🙂 ) of the minorities and less privileged communities.

To deal with this democratisation process the majority community has to grow mentally in order to understand the demands of democracy. This is the job of the ‘intellectuals’ in the society to help the majority understand this process. The minorities and less privileged also have to understand the mental and moral limits of their communitarian demands. This moderation is also the job of the intellectuals in the society.

When the very same intellectuals start weaving theories where all community-based thinking and action of the majority is derided, discarded and attacked without intellectual engagement at the level of the masses it’s logic escapes the massage in majority. At the same time if spacious theories are spun to obfuscate and support each thought and action of the less privileged and minority by the voluble cacophony through various captured means of communication the majority starts feeling marginalised, right or wrong. This brings about an anxiety in the majority and a backlash starts.

When these concerns are not addressed the political and thought leadership in the society leaves the ground open for the rogue elements to capitalise on the slow festering unaddressed discontent of the majority. That is what is happening in India for a long time by now. An is the main strength of BJP, it is a ‘negative strength’ curtsy thought leaders of our country.

If you see yourself as a thought leader in the political arena you have the responsibility to deal with the unsophisticated crudely expressed bigoted and self-centred concerns of the people who did not have the opportunity to learn your obfuscating language. If your theories did not prepare you to engage with that person without quoting ten irrelevant books and without using rarefied terminology which you yourself do not understand, you are spewing crammed junk and the people at the ground level engaged in menial tasks know intuitively when you are talking nonsense.

Those who are interested in democracy in the country have to engage with those crudely expressed ideas and concerns at the level of the people who are effected by them. Deriding them as fools and misguided by some army of the devil is not going to help.

More evolved and sophisticated your understanding is better equipped it should become to communicate with the genuine and simply expressed fears and anxieties. If it does not happen you are mistaken in seeing yourself as a sophisticated thinker and an intellectual; you are only re-producer of crammed junk.

*********

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »