Intolerance and Religion

November 29, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

SECTION I

The dictionary meaning of ‘tolerance’ is ‘willingness to recognize and respect the beliefs, opinions and practices of others; particularly those that one disagrees with.’ And that of ‘intolerance’ is ‘unwillingness to recognize and respect differences in opinions, beliefs and practices.’ This ‘willingness’ and ‘unwillingness’ in both cases, obviously, is expressed through word and actions of people. Usually unwillingness to accept something expressed through civilized speech has to be considered within the limits of tolerance, even if one does not like it.

When we want to understand level of tolerance or intolerance in a society the issue becomes very complex. One, there are a range of practices, belief and behaviors which could be classifies into ‘social’, ‘political’, ‘religious’, etc.; and intolerance may be expressed towards some of them and not to others. On the other hand the agents could be seen as ‘individuals’, ‘communities’, ‘political parties’, ‘governments’, etc. Usually the statements of prominent citizens and opinion makers are rather general and do not specify what kind of intolerance among which section people they are talking about. Political correctness stops them from being precise; and that leave the interpretation open. Some interpret such statements as a judgment on the whole nation while others think it to be directed at a section of people or to the government. As a result the ensuing debate is actually a lot of statements with very imprecise meaning and anger; a lot of smoke and heat without much light.

There could be umpteen ways of interpreting stray incidents in any country at any given time. The most of the present day intolerance debate refers to killings of three rationalists (Dabholkar, Pansare and Kalburgi), killings and attacks related to cow and attacks on Dalits. All these incidents are pinned down to BJP and a section within Hindu community, if there be such a unified community, that is. The incidents in themselves may not justify the tag of intolerance to the whole Indian society or the nation. But do demand serious thinking if something is going on within the Hindu community and if BJP is abetting it; if a process of political consolidation and religious intolerance is on the rise. Another issue that needs examination is the actions of the government in power. How the government responds to such incidents? The third is the actions and pronouncements of the supporters of and the people in the government, even if they are not considered representative either of the party (BJP) or of the government.

Since the last two are easier to deal with I will begin with them.

The supporters of the government

This, as I said above, includes those within the ruling party but are not recognized as official spokes persons. The most visible faces of such people are BJP MPs Sadhvi Prachi, Yogi Adityanath, Sakshi Maharaj, etc. There is also some little known national secretary of the BJP who said something recently. Their statements leave no doubt that these people are communal and want to foment trouble. Many of their statement are clearly against the constitution and secular ethos of the country. They definitely want to create an intolerant, fanatical and violent section within the Hindu community and want to project this rabid fringe as the protectors of Hinduism.

The government

The incidents themselves and sickeningly malevolent statements of these people may not in themselves be enough for the present day feeling of growing intolerance if the government acts decisively and condemns such incidents and statements. But the responsible people in the government seem to be either silent or protecting these evil forces. And that increases the feeling of insecurity and intolerance. The intolerance of stray individuals, small groups, and some elements within the government acquires a new meaning when they are ‘tolerated’ by the government. The government of the day is increasingly seen as not only tolerating this sick mindset, but seems to be encouraging it.

The opposition to intolerance

In spite of this scenario is the opposition of ‘intolerance’ helping the cause of secularism, tolerance and diversity in India? I have serious doubts about it. Their statements are made in a manner that they proclaim the Indian nation as a whole as intolerant. Second they give enough hints at various times that the intolerance is rising due to the Hindu community (not dues to some obnoxious people and organizations in it, but the Hindu community as whole). Three they are made in such a manner that they seem to be selective. Four, they often seem to be exaggerated. This deliberate or otherwise openness left in their statements is being hammered by the Hindu right in such a manner that they are seen as partisan and larger and larger sections of the common masses are being consolidated behind the lunatic fringe. If the liberals are serious about the issue beyond personal limelight and narrow party-politics agenda they have to raise the levels of clarity and depth of the debate. They have to address the so far ignored less educated, not too well informed Indians who do not share their theoretical lenses and lingo. If they are not able to do that they will lose the battle in spite of their stand being relatively (only relatively) closer to the constitutional vision of India.

SECTION II

On the religious intolerance

Common Indian has a very erroneous and gullible mindset on religion. They often pronounce platitudes like, (i) all religions say the same thing, (ii) no religion preaches violence, and (iii) it is not the religion per se that incites violence but the political use of religion. Many more of course such statement float unexamined in the public space, but let’s look at these three. It seems to me that these claim are patently wrong. They are either dishonest hypocritical statements or emerge out of ignorance or from faulty analysis.

Religion

Many scholars today realize that religion is not a single entity but a complex of more than one components or elements. Durkheim remarks that some of the definitions of religion cause problems because “[t]hey proceed as if it [religion] were a sort of indivisible entity”, while he thinks “as a matter of fact, it is made up of parts;  it is a more or less complex system of myths, dogmas, rites and ceremonies.”[1] One can cite many scholars who hold this view; but in this simple piece it is not necessary to do so. We will proceeded by accepting this claim of religion having many components.

The actual components any religion has can be roughly summarised as: (i) a belief system, (ii) a clergy (official or unofficial) that guards and interprets that belief system, (iii) a community of believers, and (iv) practices that bind the community of believers together.

The nature of religious belief systems is such that it cannot be rationally justified, and has to be taken on faith. For example no religions is possible without imagining life after death. This little stratagem makes it possible to make the present life look of little importance and the eternal life (ether in the Jannat or Swarga or in union with the supreme reality) more important. The one religion that does not make the life after death as enjoyable or in union with the supreme reality, namely Buddhism, dreams of complete emancipation from the snare of material life, even if to achieve only total obliteration. In any case the present life is only a means for either a better after life or annihilation of its continuity as rebirth. None of the claims about life after death can be rationally substantiated, therefore, have to be taken on faith. Faith in scriptures, founders of religions and in interpreters of belief system.

The very nature of this belief system makes it possible to churn out theories like karma-theory and piousness of certain acts. Through karma-theory Hinduism has been perpetrating untold slow violence on some sections of its believing community for ages; and through supposed to be piousness of some acts in the eyes of a vengeful God Islam has been producing killers of kafirs throughout the history. But the process of making submissive masses and bigoted zealots is not a simple one. I goes through complex mechanism.

The first problem of sustaining unreasonable belief system is to lull natural human tendency to have some grounds to believe, we can call it natural rational impulse. Religions produce such grounds in multiple ways. In each religion there are people who claim that they have realised a higher state of mind. Their behaviour and demeanour exudes calm, serenity, goodwill for people, and equanimity in the face of trouble. They are not all necessarily hypocrites—though many of them are. These ‘realised’ ones are capable of producing this state of mind through belief and practices. A community of believers is necessary for such practices to sustain. These people provide a toe hold for a common believer to accept the belief system, as they see these ‘realised’ ones as a ‘proof’ of that.

But humans also have a psychological need for security and meaningfulness of life. Some, a very small section, of total human population can manage both these needs through rational thought. A very large majority, however, needs something to lean on. The community of believer through a strong identity creation provides for this even to those who do not really have faith. Their identification and belonging to the community defines them. Their morality, practices and behaviour need the constant support from this community; which they think is based on the belief system. They become ‘projections’ of the ‘expressed common’ thinking of the community. Anything that undermines this community and openly challenges the faith then becomes a direct threat to their own existence as they define it, they are nothing but the ‘projection’ of the community, as said above.

The feeling of community provides social, economic and political benefits as well. And, therefore, this complex phenomena of religion becomes easily available for radicalisation. The principles of political unity in this need not be, and most often are not, justice for all humanity, but gains for one’s own community. The other, therefore, is a threat. And need to be either controlled or better, if possible, eliminated. The zeal of religious people to spread their own religion universally is this intense desire to eliminate the other couched in the language of bringing them to the right path.

When we want to understand whether religion teaches violence or not, we cannot talk of something idealised and ungraspable by human mind. We have to talk of (i) the beliefs as expressed in the scriptures and as interpreted today, (ii) we have to see the behaviour of the community of believers, (iii) we have to look at the practices and (iv) have to look at the political use that this complex phenomena is put to. We have to accept that what religious preaches or does not preach is a combined effect of all these elements. Isolating a particular interpretation of the belief system as ‘true religion’ and declaring all the evil effects of that belief system as nothing to do with the religion is a dogmatic position, if not downright mindless. Blind statements without looking at all these aspects teach us nothing; they simply delude good hearted people in the society and give space to the hatred, potential for which is available in religions.

In the coming sections of this piece I will argue against the common platitudes that:

  1. All religions say the same thing,
  2. No religion preaches violence,
  3. It is not the religion per se that incites violence but the political use of religion, and
  4. That if we want to protect secularism we have to discard these platitudes, otherwise germ of hatred will always be available for political use.

******

[1] EMILE DURKHEIM, The Elementary Forms of the Religious Life, translated from the French by Joseph Ward Swain, George Allen & Unwin Ltd. 1915 (Fifth Impression 1964) (page 36)

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

Extreme intolerance issue

November 7, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

It seems some people have interpreted my little note titled “The mindless cacophony” as an opposition (or condemnation) to people who are speaking against intolerance.

One of them (J. Saahir) has seen it as justification of intolerance and wants me to be ashamed. A second (J. Neha) imputes motive, reads the note as if I am arguing in favour of waiting till the intolerance becomes extreme; and finds my examples for ‘extreme intolerance’ “stupid”. A third (Prasoon on FB) thinks that I want people to wait till India becomes as intolerant as Pakistan and China (in this case only when you differ from the government policy). He thinks that I am stopping people from speaking against intolerance.

Of course I meant none of all this. I am not sure why these people (and there must be many more who did not comment) are reading my post in this light. May be my ways of expressing are inadequate; may be they are reading in a highly charged atmosphere where whatever said against intolerance has to be taken as such, without further arguments. May be they do not know what I have been writing and saying; and in this charged atmosphere anyone who seem to be expressing slightest disagreement is already a fallen being! Let their reasons be what they are, I would like to explain a few things more clearly and state how I think this debate should be conducted if we want it to be anything more than a cacophony.

First some basic points:

  • I have no doubt that the Sangh Parivar people want to make India totally intolerant to religions other than Hinduism, to political views other than their own, to the social life other than what they recommend. This much is clear from the statement issuing regularly from their ranks and leadership.
  • Then, I have no doubt that the government of the day is either doing nothing to stop them or is being totally ineffective so far. Perhaps, the government thinks that the majority community will come on their side because of these statements.
  • Three, I have no doubt that some of the Parivar supporters are getting emboldened by all this and behaving in an obnoxious manner; and they can be called becoming ‘extremely intolerant’.
  • Four, I have no doubt that they should be resisted and be shown their place.

And still I think that SRK is exaggerating when he says that there is “extreme intolerance” as an unqualified statement. (However, one clarification is needed here. I went by media reports in more than one newspaper as quoted in my earlier note. Then I watched the whole relevant video carefully. SRK does make that claim, but it also looks like a ‘slip of tongue’. He does not seem to really believe that India is an extremely intolerant society. But since he says is, and he is a celebrity, so words become important; there is reason enough to analyse it. Another thing which no one notices in my note is that I am calling the BJP and congress spokes persons as creating cacophony. SRK, in spite of my disagreement with him is not cacophonous. Any one reading my note carefully will see that.) And there are many other examples of such exaggeration which I have not mentioned in this post. Professor Habib sees no difference between RSS and ISIS as far as intellect goes. (Now, it is not clear if he is making a point regarding ‘intellectual capabilities’ alone or also wants to extend this claim to their respective objectives, strategies, actions and world views.) There are other people who think that telling supposed to be lies regarding reservation quota by Narendra Modi will lead to a civil war. I consider these statements as exaggerated if these people actually said what is reported.

So, why do I find this kind of claims exaggerated and potentially weakening the fight against intolerance?

My assumptions and arguments are as follows:

One, the health of democracy, secularism, freedom, plurality, etc. in a society depends on clarity of thinking of the citizens. It cannot be ensured for long term on the basis of influencing people through rhetoric. Therefore, the arguments and facts one uses against intolerance should be as sane and balanced as possible.

Two, I think words are important means of fight between ideas and ideologies; they are means of understanding the differences and working out/forming shared grounds. Words can do their job only if one respects them and does not misuse their power. If people who are respected in a society use words for their current purposes and immediate impact; they are destroying the power and utility of words; and weakening the possibility of a balanced dialogue.

Three, I believe when the possibility of dialogue is destroyed in a society, only means of resolving difference that remains is subduing or destroying the other. This is a dangerous path. The votaries of openness themselves turn into closed minded bigots in that situation. They lose their own ‘goodness’. Please note, I am not saying ‘use of words alone brings about this situation’. What I am saying is that when the possibility of dialogue is finally destroyed this is what happens.

Three, “extreme” means “of the greatest possible degree, extent or intensity; far beyond a norm in quantity, amount or degree; to an utmost degree.” I do not know any descriptive word beyond this. My knowledge of English might be limited, but at this moment I do not know any other word. But I make a distinction between ‘descriptive’, ‘evaluative’ and ‘emotive’ words. “Extreme intolerance” I read as a description of a situation; of course it can also be evaluative and emotive, in different contexts. “Horrendous”, “disgusting”, “appalling” are less of descriptive and more of expressing impact on the speaker or moral/emotive evaluation.

Four, there is a difference in saying “there is extreme intolerance” in general and saying that “Adityanath is extremely intolerant”. There is a difference between saying “killings on the issue of cow slaughter are incidents of extreme intolerance” and stating without qualification that Indian society and nation are “extremely intolerant”. There is a possibility of there being incidents of “extreme intolerance” in a society that does not qualify to be called “extremely intolerant”. I have absolutely no doubt that the incidents of cow related killings are incidents of ‘extreme intolerance’; that Togadia, some sadhvis (I don’t remember their names) and some other BJP worthies are giving statements that preach extreme intolerance. There are also the Thackeray hate industry, both Thackeray senas are little more than gangs of thugs. But I would make a difference between Indian society and these unworthy citizens of a democracy.

Five, when you declare Indian society and nation as ‘extremely intolerant’ you are putting it in the same class as China in the matters of state dictates, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia in the matters of religion, etc. I do not think that is the case; I do not think we should be doing that. Some people have objected to my examples; they can have their own, I have no objection to that.

Six, right or wrong, I do not see the Indian society as ‘extremely intolerant’ in spite of worthies like Raveena Tondon (she thinks that this society has always been ‘extremely intolerant’, its nothing new) and SRK declaring it so. That is because this society still has people like the three mentioned above, and others who have tried to explicate my argument. And a host of the very well-known public figures who are resisting that. And there are many such people in this society; I would like to believe that they are in a majority. I also do not think that the Indian state has become extremely intolerant; as its critics are happily writing and holding seminar. (And for the very discerning readers, by my last sentence I do not want to stop them, nor am accusing them for writing and holding seminars.) I am not saying that the present day government does not want to make Indian state ‘extremely intolerant’; I am not sure of that, all I am saying is, it is not ‘extremely intolerant’ at the moment. I do not think that Indian nation is extremely intolerant. And I do think that it will not become extremely intolerant; even if that belief of mine be more of a hope than a properly justified belief.

That is why I am citing examples of much greater intolerance of societies and/or states. It is not that I want to wait till India becomes like them; it is that let us appreciate that India still has hope, and very solid one at that; that it will not become like them. When we use untenable and exaggerated statements we lose credibility and may push the fence sitters on the other side. Therefore, it demands careful use of arguments and words. The people who are speaking against intolerance are the only hope, their credibility and veracity of their statements should be maintained in the public debate. They are opinion makers, they should educate the public rather than gunning for immediate impact. It is a long struggle; we will need all resources we can muster in it; we should not fritter them away for sound bites.

Therefore:

  1. This piece does not justifying intolerance, it cautions against inappropriate use of language to fight better against it.
  2. It does not asks to wait till we become ‘extremely intolerant’ it is talking of fighting it now.
  3. The examples of extreme intolerance might be stupid; But, as no stupid person ever knows his own stupidity; therefore, have nothing to say on that.
  4. I am not conscious of any motives of maligning a Muslim in my mind, as suspected by Neha. But can never claim anything definite about subconscious/ unconscious workings of my mind. As it can be detected only through a psychiatric analysis which I cannot do on myself.
  5. But, right or wrong, I do not think that imputing motives and stupidity of a person should be made subjects of a public debate.

Prasoon has mentioned that he is scared. I would like to point out that being scared is not going to help in this resistance; and painting an extreme scenario will silence those who are prone to be scared. If you want them to speak on your side create only as much fear as is justified by the situation and not more; it will detract from your own support base.

=======

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

The mindless cacophony

November 5, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

We are passing (hopefully!) through the period characterized by mindless cacophony. That might be a reflection of who is considered worth listening to by our worthy media.

Shah Rukh Khan (SRK) proclaimed that “There is intolerance, there is extreme intolerance… there is I think… there is growing intolerance”. Now he is a celebrity; therefore, what he says has to be paid attention to. I will come back at the end regarding veracity of his proclamation. But he is as good a citizen of India as Mohan Bhagwat of any Parvar worthy. And he has as much right to state his opinion openly and fearlessly as, again, Mohan Bhagwat or any parivar big wig.

But a general secretary of BJP is quick to attack: “Shah Rukh Khan lives in India, but his soul is in Pakistan. His films make crores here but he thinks India to be intolerant”. It is hard to imagine something more stupid and poisonous than this; unless the likes of Vijayvergiya help us by creating even more obnoxious examples. It is stupid because Vijayvargiya actually is providing easy and immediate proof of intolerance, proving SRK immediately right, at the least partially.

Next comes someone from the Grand-old Feudal Fiefdom of India: “he [SRK] comes from a family of freedom fighters. How can he become a ‘Pakistani’ when his family fought for the freedom of this country? On the other hand, none of your family members have fought for the freedom of this country and you call yourself patriot?” What a beautifully stupid argument. If your ancestors were patriots you are a patriot; if your ancestors were unknown small people you can never be a patriot; if your ancestors were against the country’s good (as seen at that time) you are treacherous. He does not thinks that this will lead to in investigation of record of his own party’s leaders and their ancestors; just for example: Sindhias and Nehrus is 1957.

Now, SRK thinks that India is extremely intolerant. Of course he has the right to hold and express his views. But his understand of what is called ‘extreme intolerance’ seem to be seriously limited; may be because he lives in India. He should pay attention to China on Falun Gong movement in the past. He should pay attention to Pakistan of today (not because there is any reason to believe that he has any sympathy with that country, for he does not; but simply to understand the meaning of ‘extreme intolerance’); where about 30 Hindu women are abducted, forcibly converted and married off to Muslims. The law of that lawless-land is totally in favour of the abductors! He should pay attention to Saudi Arabia where you cannot practice your religion publicly, if it happens to be other than Islam. He should look at the record of ISIS (that will be useful for Professor Habib as well). That Mr. Khan, will help you understand the definition of extreme intolerance better.

Does that criticism of SRK mean that we should be happy or should not be worried about the level of intolerance in our country today; by no means. That simply means that we need to be careful and closer to the reality in our proclamations. We cannot fight intolerance by exaggeration and hyperbole.

And we, the masses of India, have to develop the capability to be critical about this cacophony and sift the grain from the chaff.

******

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

They don’t need no thought control

October 11, 2015

Published in The Hindu online on 11th October 2015 at http://www.thehindu.com/features/magazine/rohit-dhankar-on-why-the-teacher-is-central-to-teaching/article7742620.ece

Rohit Dhankar

[This is a slightly edited version.]

A “very successful and dynamic” school principal in conversation with a government school principal once used an interesting metaphor to describe her role. The conversation was about teachers’ salaries. She claimed: teachers in private schools are paid much lower salaries than their government counterparts. But a principal is paid much higher compared to a government school principal. In her opinion, this was the reason why the quality of education in private schools was better.

Her justification was powerfully conveyed through the metaphor of a school as a chariot which has to be driven as fast as possible in the competitive market of education. She saw the principal as the charioteer (or the driver), the teachers as horses, and the school as a fast-moving chariot. Even if one horse slackened its pace, the school’s progress would be hampered. Her recommendation: get rid of such a horse. The leadership’s skills lay in managing all the horses, ensuring that they galloped at top speed, enhancing their capability to maintain or increase speed, spotting the stragglers and getting rid of them; and thus keeping the chariot in a winning position.

One could dismiss this metaphor as the result of the flawed imagination of a principal and, therefore, as being of no consequence to the system of education. Alas! One is not allowed this luxury given the way school leadership development and the emphasis on leadership for quality improvement are today.

Metaphors are powerful ways of communication and have a certain persuasive force. But metaphors can mislead and obscure clear thinking; they often hide contradiction. Therefore, it is worth analysing the idea of school leadership and the use of the chariot metaphor in conveying this.

Common sense understanding of leadership is one that is of a role or a capability to give direction to something to be done, to set the pace and to direct others’ energies in a manner that best helps achieve set objectives. This emphasises the role of a “leader” who chooses what is to be done, how it is to be done, and then coordinates efforts to achieve these objectives. But the problems in this understanding of school leadership are easily spotted: teachers are reduced to just resources to be used by the leader. Since education necessarily involves the very serious engagement of the minds of teachers and students, the idea of the teacher as being just a resource to be used by the leader does not fit in the vision for education. Therefore, there are various ways of characterising educational leadership — as a process, as a role disassociated from any particular individual but which could be taken up by a different member of the group at various times, or even as distributed leadership, where many members may share leadership depending on the task or the occasion. Another variety of distributed leadership is supposed to involve collaborative engagement, interpersonal synergies and relationships within institutional structures.

These are supposed to be more sophisticated forms of leadership but they also have their problems. They become so diffused that one does not understand why the term “leadership” is retained; as the leader as an individual is passé. They become impossible to practise and there is no one to initiate and guide people. Thus, they become impossible to develop, jeopardising the very rationale of teaching leadership or preparing people for leadership roles as distinct from being good workers.

But the emphasis on developing the leadership capability of school principals remains an all-consuming preoccupation. That leads people in action — especially principals — into facing deep contradiction between the “talk of leadership” and the “practice of leadership” in actual situations. In theory, distributed or holistic leadership becomes privileged; while in practice, it remains the good old, person-centric leadership hidden under jargon. That is precisely where metaphors like “the school as a chariot” become important and worth analysing in order to bring out the hidden aspects.

The Katha Upanishad and Plato’s Phaedrus are two famous allegories of chariots in philosophical discussion which can help us understand this metaphor. In the Katha Upanishad, the self is seen as the master of the chariot, which is the human body. The buddhi (intellect) is the driver, manah (translated as mind, different from budhhi) serves as the reins while the horses are the five senses. In Phaedrus, the soul itself is seen as being composite in nature, made up of a charioteer and a pair of winged horses. The charioteer here is reason; one of the two horses represents a spiritedness, boldness, etc. seen as positive qualities of the soul; while the other, indicates desires and is seen as dragging the soul down if not controlled.

In the Katha Upanishad, the only conscious part is the soul; the rest including the buddhi and the manah are material and mechanical in nature. The senses are seen as the source of energy for motion but can lead to the right or the wrong direction depending on the judgment of the soul conjoined with the buddhi, and its capability to control the manah. In Phaedrus, it is reason which is supposed to decide which direction to take; the horses are devoid of reason and judgment. In both cases, reason and the power of judgment rest with the soul. In the Katha Upanishad, these are in conjunction with the buddhi, while in Phaedrus, these are with the rational part of the soul.

For long, the teacher in India has been seen as an employee who occupies the lowest rung. She is seen as someone who shirks work, is incapable and irresponsible. Therefore, talk of motivating and making her accountable through interventions become important. It is just a small step from here to see her as a horse that is niggardly, inefficient and in need of control through commands. In addition, the horse metaphor emphasises the point that either her judgment is irrelevant or that she is devoid of conscious reason and judgment. Her autonomy as an educator is either absent or is seen as being of no value. What she is supposed to do is to obey the commands of the chariot driver as precisely as possible and with a sense of willingness. Her capabilities and attitudes are supposed to be well developed so that her contribution to the goals of the school can be maximised.

The model directly leads to standard operating procedures for her functioning, faithfully following the “latest trends” in pedagogy and to be committed to giving her best. If not, her fate is like that of the horse which slows down the pace of the chariot.

This also leads one to examine the vision for teacher education institutions hinted at in the first paragraph by the principal. Teacher education institutions become “stables”. It is obvious that these must meet the needs of charioteers. Teacher education becomes horse-training. Therefore, skills of various kinds such as 21st century communication and classroom management become the predominant part of the curriculum of teacher education; understanding, knowledge, educational judgment and development of reason would be useless if not a hindrance in controlling the horses. Who would want a horse with independent mind!

At present, many government initiatives and plans seem to be formulated under the idea of the better functioning of private schools, and done so in an economical way. Various public-private partnership models and frequent references to the better quality of education in private schools are examples of this. Since private schools are thought to impart better and quality education, society appreciates this. Therefore, the practices that are current in private schools are seen as the ultimate solution. These practices are premised on having low-paid, highly controlled and insecure teachers. These assumptions are hidden under talk of responsibility, accountability and performance measuring frameworks.

If done in an intelligent and respectful manner, there is nothing wrong in emphasising responsibility, accountability and performance per se. But the ideas hidden behind such theories and practices are not those of educators working for good education but of workers who submit themselves unquestioningly to the school’s leaders.

To begin with, this unhealthy view must be got rid of. In this, we have to re-examine research which claims that quality in private schools is better. Here, the concept of quality is about “customer satisfaction”, and “customer satisfaction” is derived from the result of high academic marks. This notion of quality is fundamentally flawed if one examines it from the angles of personal development and social justice. The second thing is to re-examine the concept of school leadership. We have to lay emphasis on the principal being an educator with social and educational vision, rather than her being a chariot driver competing in a rat race. Her capabilities of shouldering responsibility, respecting teachers as autonomous educators of equal worth, and creating an atmosphere of collaborative, decision-making need to be emphasised. Teachers have to be seen as educators who are capable of independent judgment and meaningful collaboration simultaneously. The school has to be seen as the conscience-keeper of society which is continuously striving to take humanity to the next higher level of moral, intellectual and aesthetic development and through its serious engagement with children. The system has to develop its own capabilities to allow the autonomous functioning of the school along with the collective guidance of its teacher community. Of course, all this must be within the framework of the curriculum and facilitative institutional arrangements. We have to leave the chariots, horses and races behind and think of small communities of educators greatly inspired by their vision of society, education and pedagogy.

The moot question is: do we have the intellectual and moral capacity in the society to walk this path?

******

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

Rational enquiry in schools: opening up mind

October 10, 2015

Published in Deccan Herald on 10th October 2015 at http://www.deccanherald.com/content/505509/rational-enquiry-schools.html

Rohit Dhankar

In the dominant traditional paradigm in India, the primary education is almost entirely geared to imparting the famous 3Rs (Reading, wRiting, and aRithmatic) and some rudimentary information regarding natural and social environment. This view is constantly reinforced by large scale evaluations of reading without comprehension and arithmetic algorithms without understanding.

The less practiced but more professed child centred approach does a little better by recognising that the school should encourage children’s curiosity at the primary stage so that they learn to explore their environment, gain confidence, and learn to discover. But the approach puts almost complete faith in the so-called activity based learning and assumes that children are natural scientists who will discover all that they need; only if we could love them and involve them in activities. The need to set children on the path of deliberate rational enquiry falls between these two stools.

The traditional approach assumes the child almost as a proverbial tabula rasa or clean slate, to be written on by the teacher. The child-centrist approach, on the other hand, assumes the child to be a competent hypothesis making and testing scientist. Both spell half-truths.

This child is far from being a tabula rasa, and is certainly not a competent scientist. Michael Oakeshott eloquently expresses what the child possesses when she comes to the school: “chance encounters with fragments of understanding, … moments of unlooked-for enlightenment and … answers imperfectly understood, because they are answers to unasked questions”. All this is spontaneously gained in the process of living in the society. These fragments of understanding and imperfectly understood answers, however, are not to be ignored; and least to be despised. As they are the only basis available to an educator for putting the child on the path of boundless intellectual growth. This wealth of understanding that the child brings to school however need to be used effectively and intelligently. Again, in Oakeshott’s words the school ought to be a “serious and orderly initiation into an intellectual, imaginative, moral and emotional inheritance” of human race. And that could be done only through “a considered curriculum of learning to direct and contain the thoughts of the learner, to focus his attention and to provoke him to distinguish and to discriminate”. In other words, a conscious effort to put the child on the path of deliberate rational enquiry to eventually acquire the full range of human ways of thinking, doing and feeling.

The most important aspect of rational enquiry at the primary level is accurate articulation of ones thoughts. It could be a description of visual objects, situations, events, expression of opinions, feelings, and so on. Articulation of thoughts is much more than an exercise in language development alone. It brings the memories and imagery formed through experience at the conscious level; and thereby making them available for public sharing and scrutiny.

Children, if engaged in discussions on various issues, easily see the need to be coherent in their views; both internally, in their own views; as well as publicly, with views of others. This is an important demand of rational thinking on public matters. This quality of thought is, however, conspicuous by its absence in the most of our public debates; be they in the parliament, on TV channels or in the social media. May be we are paying the price of neglecting it in the primary education.

Clear and accurate articulation and recognition of need for coherence develops into an attitude to demand justification for claims made by others and epistemic responsibility to provide the same for the claims one himself/herself makes. These three simple things can serve as criteria of rational enquiry at the primary level: clear articulation, coherence in claims and demand for justification.

Intelligent self-learning

There are several examples in the country of learning schemes and material for beginners which use intelligent self-learning based on acquired knowledge and skills, rather than the teacher directed drill. Such schemes teach all the three aspects of rational enquiry mentioned above.

To illustrate the recommended approach I will give a simple example, lack of space does not allow more. A child of about 5 years was talking to a teacher. They both were looking at some claw-marks of birds on sand. The teacher pointed to one of the marks and asked: what bird made this claw-mark? The child, “A sparrow”. The teacher challenged: “How do you know it is not made by a maina or a dove?” The child looked puzzled for a few seconds. Then looked at a few sparrows searching for food at a little distance, and said: “Look.” Then pulled the teacher by hand towards the sparrows. The birds flew away as they approached. The child pointed to the claw-marks made on the sand and said: “these marks are exactly like those. And they are made by sparrows.” The argument concluded.

The pedagogical value of this little interaction: One, the child recognises the need to substantiate his claim, and takes the teacher’s question as a legitimate one. Two, he finds a fact (sparrows on the ground) which they both accept. Three, shows the teacher that the marks made by the sparrows are exactly like the mark under question. Therefore, the marks under dispute are made by a sparrow. The child has built a fine rational argument. The primary curriculum can provide numerous opportunities of much better exercise of reason than this one.

What we need to gear the primary education towards a rational enquiry at the children’s level is: one, re-imagination of teacher education. Two, a change in our notion of knowledge. Three, a greater acceptance of NCF 2005 and its recommended pedagogy. And four, restructuring the schools for sustained enquiry by the children. These conditions are not impossible; thought will require serious efforts. But, then, nothing valuable can be achieved without serious efforts.

******

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

Dadri lynching and religion/दादरी हत्या-कांड और धर्म

October 5, 2015

Rohit Dhankar/रोहित धनकर

[This is a survey. Please give your opinion. यह एक सर्वेक्षण है. कृपया अपना मत बताइए.]

(इस पोस्ट का हिंदी अनुवाद नीचे है, स्क्रॉल करें.)

Facts:

According to a news item in The Indian Express on 4th October 2015 a “UP Homeguard spread beef rumour to instigate attack on father and son, says police.” The paper further says, “According to a senior police officer, Vinay [the homeguard] had a personal dispute with Akhlaq earlier and had been instigating a group of youths to attack his family, alleging that they were involved in cow slaughter.” (Emphasis added)

Let us take this news item as the truth. Actually it may or may not be true, but for the purpose of this little survey I want to run suppose that it is true. Rest of the analysis and questions all assume this statement to be the truth. Hope I do not need to repeat it any more.

Now my claim is: “If this is the truth then Hindu religion has to bear the blame for Dadri lynthing.”

What is your opinion? Please express below in the comments.

Arguments for and against:

  1. The claim made above is not justified. Because:
    1. The real reason is the personal enmity between the homeguard and Ikhlaq.
    2. The homeguard used Hindu religion to instigate public sentiment and lynch Ikhlaq.
    3. The homeguard most probably did not believe in the religious injunction on beef eating.
    4. He certainly did not believe that Ikhlaq has killed a calf or cow.
    5. His own sentiments had nothing to do with his religion, they were governed by his personal enmity with Ikhlaq.
    6. Therefore, it cannot be blamed on Hindu religion.
  1. The claim made above is justified. Because:
    1. Yes, there was enmity between the homeguard and Ikhlaq, and that certainly was one of the reasons for the situation that developed.
    2. But, the homeguard could instigate the Hindu mob because their religion has certain beliefs (at least according to the people in the mob) regarding not eating beef.
    3. And, their religion has created a community with a strong sense of belonging, and identity; and this identity is seen by the mob-members as opposed to Muslim identity.
    4. They believed that the Muslims insult their belief and disrespected cow. And they wanted to protect (either genuinely or pretentiously under the influence of mob-mentality) their own respect and respect for cow. Alternatively, because of the same Hindu-Muslim identity issue they wanted to establish Hindu supremacy.
    5. Which means that the Hindu religion has created a mind-set that was ready to be exploited by the homeguard.
    6. Therefore, the Hindu religion should be blamed.

What do you think? What are your arguments?

Please give your true opinion in the comments, however, you can give it anonymously if you like. Hoping to get a reasonable number of responses.

==================================

तथ्य:

अंग्रेजी अख़बार The Indian Epress में छपी ४ अक्टोबर २०१५ की एक खबर के अनुसार, “उत्तर प्रदेश के एक होमगार्ड ने पिता-पुत्र पर हमला करवाने के लिए यह अफवाह गोमांस की अफवाह फैलाई. ऐसा पुलिस का कहना है.” अख़बार आगे लिखता है: “एक वरिष्ठ पुलिस अधिकारी के अनुसार विनय [होमगार्ड] का इखलाक से कोई व्यक्तिगत विवाद था. और इस लिए वह युवाओं के एक समूह को इखलाक के परिवार पर हमला करने के लिए उकसा रहता, यह आरोप लगते हुए कि वे लोग (इखलाक के परिवार वाले) गौहत्या में लिप्त हैं.”

तर्क के लिए मान लीजिये कि यह खबर सत्य है. वास्तव में यह सच भी हो सकती है और झूठ भी. लेकिन मेरे इस छोटे से सर्वेक्षण के लिए मान लीजिये की यह सच है. यह तथ्य है. आगे का सारा विश्लेषण और सवाल इस खबर को सच मान के लिए गए हैं. आशा है की खबर को सच मानने की बात को आगे दोहराने की जरूरत नहीं है.

अब मेरा दावा (claim, मानना)  यह है: “यदि यह खबर सच है तो दादरी ह्त्या-कांड के लिए हिन्दू धर्म दोषी है.”

आप का क्या मत है? कृपया अपना मत नीचे कमेंट्स में दीजिये.

पक्ष और विलाक्षा में तर्क:

  1. ऊपर हिन्दू धर्म के बारे में किया गया दवा अनुचित है, सिद्ध नहीं होता. क्यों कि:
    1. अशाली कारण होमगार्ड और इखलाक के बीच की दुश्मनी है.
    2. होमगार्ड ने हिन्दू धर्म का उपयोग जनभावनाओं को भड़काने के लिए किया.
    3. बहुत संभव है कि होमगार्ड तो गौमांस खाने के धार्मिक निषेध में विश्वास ही ना करता हो.
    4. यह तय है कि वह यह नहीं मानता था कि इखलाक ने गौवध किया है (क्यों की उसे तो सच्चाई का पता था).
    5. होमगार्ड की स्वयं की भावनाओं का धर्म से कोई लेना-देना नहीं था, वह तो व्यक्तिगत दुश्मनी से संचालित था.
    6. अतः, इस के लिए हिन्दू धर्म को दोषी नहीं ठहराया जा सकता.
  1. ऊपर क्या गया दवा उचित है (सिध्ह है), क्यों कि:
    1. निसंदेह होमगार्ड और इखलाक के बीच दुश्मनी थी, और निसंदेह जो परिस्थियां बनाई गई उस के पीछे यह एक महत्वपूर्ण कारण था.
    2. पर होमगार्ड हिन्दू-भीड़ को भड़काने में सफल हुआ ही इसलिए कि उनके धर्म में गौमांस खाने को पाप माना जाता है, कम से कम उस भीड़ के अनुसार.
    3. और, उनके धर्म ने एक समुदाय बनाने में मदद की है जिसमें लोगों में ‘उस समुदाय का सदस्य’ होने का एक प्रबल भाव है, एक अस्मिता भी बनाई है; और इस अस्मिता का ‘मुसलिम-अस्मिता’ से विरोध है, ऐसा भीड़ के लोग मानते थे.
    4. वे यह भी मानते थे कि मुसलमान उनके विश्वासों का और गाय का अपमान कर रहे थे. और वे लोग अपने विश्वासों और गाय के लिए सामान को कायम करना चाहते थे, (या तो वास्तव में या भीड़-संचालित मानसिकता में.) या फिर, इसी हिन्दू-मुसलिम अस्मिता से संचालित हो कर वे मुसलामानों पर हिन्दू प्रभुत्व स्थापित करना चाहते थे.
    5. इस का अर्थ यह हुआ कि हिन्दू धर्म ने ऎसी मानसिकता बनाई जो होमगार्ड द्वारा उपयोग किये जाने के लिए तैयार थी.
    6. अतः, इस घटना के लिए हिन्दू धर्म ही दोषी है.

आप का क्या मत है? और उसके पीछे अप्प के क्या तर्क हैं?

कृपया कमेंट्स में अपना असली मत दीजिये, चाहें तो नाम ना दें. आशा है समुचित संख्या में लोगों के विचार आयेंगे.

*******

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

गलत पेड़ पर भोंकना: बच्चों को फ़ैल करो

October 4, 2015

रोहित धनकर

(अनुवाद: रमणीक मोहन)

[अंग्रेजी में यह लेख मैं ब्लॉग पर पहले ही पोस्ट कर चुका हूँ “To detain or not to detain: Barking-up the wrong tree” नाम से. रमणीक जी ने मेहरबानी करके अनुवाद कर दिया है तो यहाँ हिन्दी में भी दे रहा हूँ.]

समाचार-पत्रों में इन दिनों इस बात का बहुत ज़िक्र हो रहा है कि पास-फ़ेल करने वाली व्यवस्था को स्कूलों में फिर से लागू किया जाए या शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम के तहत मौजूदा प्रणाली को जारी रखा जाए जिस के अन्तर्गत बच्चे को अगली कक्षा में स्वत: प्रमोट कर दिया जाता है। 21 अगस्त 2015 को अंग्रेज़ी समाचार-पत्र ‘द हिन्दू’ में छपी ख़बर के मुताबिक इस प्रणाली को “रद्द किये जाने के लिए उठ रही एकमत आवाज़ के बावजूद” केन्द्र सरकार इस मुद्दे पर बहुत सावधानी से चल रही है और उस ने “सभी राज्य सरकारों से लिखित प्रतिक्रियाएँ लेना तय किया है”।[i] इसी तारीख़ को ‘द हिन्दू बिज़्नस लाइन’ में छपा कि महाराष्ट्र के शिक्षा मन्त्री के मुताबिक, “देश के अधिकतर राज्य…… चाहते हैं कि केन्द्र सरकार शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम में संशोधन कर के कक्षा-1 से कक्षा-8 तक के विद्यार्थियों को किसी भी कक्षा में न रोके रखने की नीति को रद्द करे”।[ii] लेकिन कुछ शिक्षाविद इस नीति को समाप्त करने के पीछे एक कॉरपोरेट एजेण्डा देखते हैं। उन का मानना है कि “शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम ने स्पष्ट तौर पर खोल कर बताया था कि सी.सी.ई. [यानी निरन्तर एवं सतत मूल्यांकन] को किस प्रकार लागू किया जाना चाहिए। उन्हें अनुत्तीर्ण कर के आप बच्चों को अच्छे शिक्षार्थी नहीं बना देते” (‘द हिन्दू’ ,18 अगस्त 2015)[iii]। दूसरी ओर शिक्षक बहुत बार बच्चों को किसी कक्षा में रोके न रखने और सज़ा न देने की इस नीति पर शिकायत करते हैं – उन में से कुछ के लिए तो ये दोनों ही बच्चों पर नियन्त्रण का सब से कारगर औज़ार हैं। और जैसा कि हम जानते ही हैं, बच्चों को सिखाने के लिए नियन्त्रण को एक आवश्यक शर्त के रूप में देखा जाता है।

लगता है कि दोनों दावों में कुछ सत्य तो है, लेकिन असल मुद्दे से तो वे दोनों ही बहुत दूर हैं। हमारी औपचारिक शिक्षा पद्धति करीब डेढ़ सदी से भी अधिक समय से परीक्षाओं की सख़्त जकड़ में रही है। इम्तिहान सीखने के लिए एकमात्र उत्प्रेरक बनजाते हैं और इस के चलते प्रेरक का काम करने वाला कोई भी अन्य स्रोत उभर नहीं पाता। सभी शिक्षित भारतीय इस अनुभव से हो कर गुज़रे हैं। इसी लिए वे इस बात उनके ज़हन में गहरे बैठ चुकी है कि ‘इम्तिहान नहीं, तो सीखना भी नहीं’। यह विश्वास बहुत ही आसानी से बच्चों को भी हस्तान्तरित हो जाता है। सीखने और ज्ञानार्जन की प्रक्रिया में भी एक मज़ा होता है, इस बात का अन्दाज़ा शायद प्रचलित व्यवस्था को है ही नहीं। इस लिए जिन लोगों का मानना है कि इम्तिहान के डर के बिना बच्चे सीखेंगे नहीं, वे एक व्यावहारिक बात करते दिखाई देते हैं, हालाँकि शिक्षा-शास्त्रीय नज़रिये से देखें तो यह बात सही नहीं है।

शिक्षाविदों का यह कहना सही है कि “बच्चों को फ़ेल कर के आप उन्हें अच्छे शिक्षार्थी नहीं बना सकते”। लेकिन यह सोचने में वे ग़लत हैं कि अगली कक्षा में स्वत: प्रमोट कर दिये जाने से प्राथमिक शिक्षा पूरी की जा सकती है। बहुत बार यह विचार रखा जाता है कि बच्चे फ़ेल होने की वजह से स्कूल छोड़ जाते हैं[iv] – असल में यह बात सही नहीं है। बच्चे सीख न पाने की वजह से स्कूल छोड़ते हैं, फ़ेल होना तो इस इस ‘सीखने से रहित शिक्षा’ का परिणाम भर है। यह दावा कि “शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम ने स्पष्ट तौर पर ज़िक्र किया है कि सी.सी.ई. को किस तरह कार्यान्वित किया जाना है”, ग़लत है। शिक्षा अधिकार अधिनियम में तो सी.सी.ई. की समझ भी ठीक से नहीं झलकती, उस के कार्यान्वयन का तरीका दूर की बात है।

सर्वप्रथम, हमें ध्यान देना होगा कि कक्षा में ‘न रोके रखे जाने की नीति’ और सी.सी.ई. का एक दूसरे से बहुत करीबी सम्बन्ध है। शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम के अनुच्छेद-4 के तहत आयु-उपयुक्त कक्षा में दाख़िला एक तीसरा मुद्दा है जिस से कुछ स्कूलों में स्थितियाँ कुछ उलझ गई होंगी। इस प्रावधान के मुताबिक यदि छ: साल से अधिक उम्र के बच्चे को या तो स्कूल में दाख़िला नहीं मिला या वह प्रारम्भिक शिक्षा पूरी किए बिना स्कूल छोड़ गया हो तो वापस विद्यालय आने पर “उसे अपनी आयु के अनुकूल कक्षा में दाख़िला मिलेगा।”[v] इस सन्दर्भ में हम यह भी पहले से जानते हैं कि हमारे बच्चे पाठ्यचर्या में उन से की गई उम्मीद के मुकाबले बहुत कम सीखते हैं। ऐसी जटिल स्थिति में विद्यार्थी को कक्षा में रोके न रखे जाने की नीति से बस एक ही बात सुनिश्चित की जा सकती है – वास्तविकता में कुछ भी सीखे बिना प्राथमिक शिक्षा पूरा कर लिए जाने का दिखावा।

लेकिन अगर हम इस नीति के शैक्षिक महत्व को समझना चाहते हैं तो हमें शिक्षा का अधिकार अधिनियम द्वारा प्रतिपादित तीनों महत्वपूर्ण बातों को ध्यान में रखना और समझना होगा : आयु-उपयुक्त कक्षा में दाख़िला, सी.सी.ई., तथा विद्यार्थी को कक्षा में न रोके रखे जाने की नीति।

इन विचारों की जड़ें

इन तीनों विचारों की जड़ें पश्चिम में चली विकासवादी शिक्षा की मुहिम में हैं, जिस के कई रूप हैं। भारत में इस का पदार्पण बाल-केन्द्रित शिक्षा के नाम से हुआ। कक्षा के भीतर की प्रक्रिया बच्चे की रुचि के अनुसार और गतिविधियाँ करते हुए सीखने की बात से मार्गदर्शित हो, ऐसा इस की सोच में निहित है। भारत में शिक्षा के विमर्श में रचनावाद (constructivism) के नाम से प्रचलित शिक्षा-शास्त्रीय व्यवस्था बाल-केन्द्रित शिक्षा के लिए पूरी तरह उपयुक्त है। विकासवादी शिक्षा की ही तरह रचनावाद के भी कई रूप हैं। इस के एक सिरे पर तो यह विचार है कि शिक्षक बच्चों को स्वयं अपना ज्ञान निर्मित करने में सहायक हो, और वह उन द्वारा निर्मित ज्ञान की उपयुक्तता या उस के सत्य के लिए कोई मापदण्ड लागू न करे, क्योंकि सम्पूर्ण ज्ञान व्यक्तिगत अनुभवों और व्यक्तिगत अर्थ-निर्माण का नतीजा होता है। रचनावाद के ही तहत में एक विचार यह है कि शुरुआत वहाँ से करें जहाँ बालिका है, यानी उस के पास उपलब्ध ज्ञान से शुरुआत हो। अवधारणाओं के निर्माण तथा उन के बीच के परस्पर सम्बन्धों के निर्माण के माध्यम से सक्रिय अर्थ-निर्माण करने में विद्यार्थी की मदद की जाए – मगर उद्देश्य उस ज्ञान तक पहुँचने का ही है जो आम तौर पर आज के दिन स्वीकार्य है।

इन धारणाओं का तकाज़ा है कि बच्चे एक-दूसरे के साथ सहयोग करते हुए काम करें, एक स्वतन्त्र वातावरण में तार्किक खोज करते हुए आगे बढ़ें। मान कर चला जाता है कि एक ही आयु के बच्चों का परस्पर अन्त:क्रिया में होना और सहयोग करना उन्हें इस निरन्तर अर्थ-निर्माण में बेहतर मददगार होगा। इसी के चलते आयु-उपयुक्त कक्षा के सिद्धांत की बात की जाती है। (हालाँकि आयु-उपयुक्त कक्षा में प्रवेश एक अस्थाई व्यवस्था हर है, क्योंकि यदि सभी बच्चे विद्यालय आने लगें और कोई भी बीच में ना छोड़े तो सभी अपने आप ही आयु-उपयुक कक्षा में होंगे.)

इसी प्रकार, बच्चे भिन्न-भिन्न गति से विकास करते हैं और ज़रूरी नहीं कि यह विकास एक ही अवधारणात्मक पथ के माध्यम से हो। इस लिए तयशुदा प्रश्नों की सब के लिए एक ही नियतकालिक परीक्षा का होना उपयुक्त नहीं है – क्योंकि इस के चलते शैक्षिक तथा नैतिक एवं भावनात्मक विकास में बच्चे की प्रगति का मूल्याँकन काफ़ी हद तक छूट जाता है। और इसी लिए सी.सी.ई. की आवश्यकता है।

क्योंकि बच्चे अपनी गति से विकास करते हैं, और यह इस लिए भी आवश्यक है कि वे स्वयं अपने दिमाग़ को प्रयोग में लाते हुए अवधारणात्मक स्पष्टता हासिल कर पाएँ, इस लिए कक्षाओं में पास-फ़ेल करने की कोई तुक नहीं है। इस से तो बच्चों को बस कृत्रिम तरीके से, ज़बरदस्ती एक-दूसरे के साथ इकट्ठा कर दिया जाता है – इसी लिए बच्चे को कक्षा में रोके न रखे जाने की नीति की बात होती है।

इस तरह इन तीनों विचारों (सी.सी.ई., पास-फ़ैल व्यवस्था को हटाना और आयु-उपयुक्त कक्षा में बच्चे का दाख़िला) का एक दूसरे से नज़दीकी रिश्ता है और ये तीनों विचार ज्ञान, मानव के सीखने और बच्चे के स्वभाव तथा प्रकृति से सम्बन्धित मान्यताओं पर आधारित हैं। ये एक दूजे के पूरक हैं और एक साथ गम्भीरता से लिए जाएँ तो किसी भी शिक्षा व्यवस्था में काम में लाए जा सकते हैं। इन्हें अलग-अलग कर दिया जाता है और किसी एक को अपनाते हुए अन्य को छोड़ दिया जाता है, तो बात नहीं बनेगी, और ऎसी कोशिश निसंदेह असफल होगी।

 

गहरा विरोधाभास

अगर हम आयु-उपयुक्त कक्षा में दाख़िला, सी.सी.ई. और कक्षा में न रोके रखने की नीति की बुनियाद में मौजूद मान्यताओं को स्वीकार करते हैं तो पाठ्यचर्या की व्यवस्था और स्कूल के ढाँचे में बुनियादी बदलाव करने होंगे। पाठ्यचर्या और पाठ्यक्रम को ‘सीखने में सातत्य’ के सिद्धांत को मान कर चलना होगा न कि ‘सीखने की सीढ़ी’ के सिद्धांत को। ‘सातत्य’ के तहत सीखने के एक ऐसे वक्र की कल्पना की जाती है जिसे हम प्रत्येक बच्चे द्वारा लिया गया पथ कह सकते हैं। आवश्यक नहीं है कि इस पथ में समय-सीमाओं में बंधे और तयशुदा मील के पत्थर हों। ज़रूरत हो तो पाठ्यचर्या और पाठ्यक्रम के तहत ज्ञान, दक्षताओं और मूल्यों को एक शृँख़ला में तो व्यवस्थित किया जा सकता है, लेकिन किसी सालाना कड़ी-कठोर सीढ़ी-व्यवस्था के लिए जगह नहीं हो सकती।

दूसरी ओर ‘सीखने की सीढ़ी’ के सिद्धांत में पाठ्यचर्या और पाठ्यक्रम को सालाना व्यवस्था के रूप-आकार में बड़े ही साफ़-सुथरे तरीके से बांधा जाता है। इन्हें हम ग्रेड्स या कक्षाओं के रूप में जानते हैं। प्रत्येक साल में एक व्यवस्थित पैकेज सीखा जाता है। साल के दौरान परीक्षा हो सकती है – जितनी चाहें हो सकती हैं, लेकिन नतीजों को साल के अन्त में इकट्ठा किया जाता है। पर्याप्त सीखना हो पाया है या नहीं, इस पर निर्णय पास या फ़ेल, उत्तीर्ण या अनुत्तीर्ण के रूप में अभिव्यक्त होता है। अनुत्तीर्ण होने की सूरत में सम्पूर्ण वार्षिक-खण्ड को फिर से सीखा जाता है; उत्तीर्ण हो जाएँ तो माना जाता है कि पहले से नाप लिए गए क्षेत्र में सीखे गए को अधिक मज़बूती देने के लिए और मौका मिलाने की ज़रूरत नहीं है। बस चढ़ गए अगली सीढ़ी, अब पीछे का दिमाग में रहे या ना रहे कोई फर्क नहीं पड़ता.

पाठ्यचर्या को सीखने-के-सातत्य के रूप में व्यवस्थित करने का अर्थ होगा स्कूल के ग्रेड या कक्षा-आधारित ढांचे के विरुद्ध जाना। क्योंकि माना गया है कि सीखना सतत निरन्तरता में होगा, इस लिए वर्ष-आधारित बंटवारा भी नहीं किया जाएगा। ऐसे में बच्चों को विभिन्न ग्रेड्स या कक्षाओं में स्थित करना, और उत्तीर्ण-अनुत्तीर्ण वाली परीक्षा-प्रणाली भी न केवल अनावश्यक हो जाते हैं बल्कि वे सीखने-सिखाने की प्रक्रिया के लिए अवरोध का काम करेंगे। इस हालत में सी.सी.ई. की मूल्याँकन पद्धति ही उद्देश्य की प्राप्ति में सहायक हो सकती है।

हमारी शिक्षा व्यवस्था बहुत ही रूढ़ और जड़ किस्म की है। बच्चे द्वारा स्वयं, सीधे तौर पर, लगातार विकास करते हुए ज्ञान के निर्माण का विचार उस विचार के संपूर्ण ढाचे के ही विरुद्ध जाता है जिस के तहत पाठ्यपुस्तक में स्थापित ‘ज्ञान’ एक संपूर्ण और पक्का उत्पाद है, ठीक कुम्हार के पके घड़े की तरह, तो पूर्ण और अपरिवर्तनीय है। पाठ्यचर्या की ग्रेड/कक्षा-आधारित व्यवस्था ज्ञान की इस अवधारणा के साथ बहुत मेल खाती है, क्योंकि किसी भी पूर्ण उत्पाद को साफ़-सुथरे तरीके से टुकड़ों में विभाजित कर के प्रस्तुत किया जा सकता है। स्कूल का कक्षा-आधारित ढाँचा एक प्रशासक के लिए बहुत ही सुविधाजनक है क्योंकि इस का प्रयोग करते हुए विद्यार्थियों और शिक्षकों के लिए बहुत आसानी से काम निर्धारित किए जा सकते हैं। पास-फ़ेल परीक्षा-प्रणाली तो ज्ञान, ज्ञानार्जन, पाठ्यचर्या और स्कूल सम्बन्धी इन विचारों का स्वाभाविक तार्किक नतीजा भर है।

यह एक पुरानी पड़ चुकी सत्तावादी-जड़ व्यवस्था और शिक्षा के एक अधिक प्रबुद्ध, ज्ञान-सम्पन्न विचार के बीच इस वक्त चल रहे टकराव का नतीजा है कि पहले तो सी.सी.ई और विद्यार्थी को कक्षा में न रोके रखने की नीति को लागू किया जाता है और अब उसे हटाए जाने के लिए शोर हो रहा है। सी.सी.ई. और विद्यार्थी को कक्षा में न रोके रखने की नीति को तब तक अर्थपूर्ण ढंग से लागू नहीं किया जा सकता जब तक कि हम सत्तावादी और जड़ शिक्षा-व्यवस्था को चुनौती नहीं देते, उसे डहा देने को तैयार नहीं होते।

साहस की कमी – या समझ की?

सी.सी.ई., विद्यार्थी को कक्षा में न रोके रखना, और आयु-उपयुक्त कक्षा में दाख़िला – ये तीनों सैद्धांतिक तौर पर मज़बूत और व्यावहारिक तौर पर सही सिद्ध हो चुके विचार हैं। गुणवत्तापूर्ण शिक्षा के लिए ये विचार तयशुदा कक्षा/ग्रेड तथा पास-फ़ेल परीक्षाओं के मुकाबले कहीं बेहतर विकल्प हैं। इसी लिए विद्यार्थी को कक्षा में न रोके रखने की बात का मौजूदा विरोध “गलत पेड़ पर भोंकने”[vi] जैसा है। कमी स्कूल के निरंकुश ढाँचे में है, कैंसर वहां है. न कि विद्यार्थी को फ़ैल न करने की नीती में।

दिक्कत यह है कि हमारे यहाँ बात को पूरी तरह समझे बिना और संस्थागत ढाँचों तथा सम्बद्ध लोगों को समर्थ बनाए बिना, उसे लागू कर दिए जाने का इतिहास रहा है। डी.पी.ई.पी. की तरह की बाल-केन्द्रिकता, बी.आर.सी/सी.आर.सी के विचार और कार्यरत शिक्षकों के सालाना प्रशिक्षण का ढोंग ऐसे ही कुछ उदाहरण हैं। और अब वक्त आया है शैक्षिक तौर पर एक और विचार (यानी विद्यार्थी को कक्षा में न रोके रखने के विचार) को बदनाम करने का – और हम यही करने में लगे हुए हैं।

शिक्षा से सम्बद्ध प्रशासकों से यह आशा करना कि वे सी.सी.ई. और कक्षा में विद्यार्थी को न रोके रखने के सिद्धांत को समझ लेंगे, बेपर की उड़ान वाली बात होगी। लेकिन उन शिक्षाविदों के बारे में क्या कहें जो शिक्षा का अधिकार जैसी नीतियों पर सलाह देते हैं? क्या उन में इन प्रस्तावित शैक्षिक सुधारों की नफ़ासत और उन के परस्पर अन्तर्सम्बन्धों की समझ की कमी है? या फिर उन में यह हिम्मत नहीं है कि वे ऊपर चर्चा में आए अन्तर्विरोध, और स्कूल के सत्तावादी जड़ ढांचे को डहा देने कि जरूरत पर जोर दे सकें?

इन दिनों हम देश के लिए एक नई शिक्षा-नीति पर चर्चा कर रहे हैं। इस चर्चा के केन्द्र में शिक्षा और स्कूल की एक अधिक विवेक-सम्मत दृष्टि होनी चाहिए थी। यह देख कर निराशा होती है कि नीति सम्बन्धी बहसों को दिशा देने वाले लोगों में हमारी शिक्षा-व्यवस्था की इस घोर आवश्यकता के प्रति कोई जागरूकता नहीं है। और इसी लिए हम यों ही गलत पेड़ों पर भोंकने के लिए अभिशप्त रहेंगे।

******

[i] The Hindu, in “Govt. treads warily on RTE amendment” dated 21st August 15.

[ii] The Hindu BusinessLine, in “States want revocation of no-detention policy in schools”, 21st August 15

[iii] The Hindu, in “Panel for phased implementation of no-detention policy in schools”, 18th August 15.

[iv] The Hindu BusinessLine, in “States want revocation of no-detention policy in schools”, 21st August 15

[v] RTE section 4.

[vi] अंग्रेजी का एक मुहावरा है “barking up the wrong tree”. कल्पना करिए आप अपने शिकारी कुत्ते की मदद से शिकार को निकले हैं. जो शिकार आप ढूंढ रहे हैं वह नीम के पेड़ पर छुपा है और आप का कुत्ता दूर कीकर के पेड़ के नीचे खड़ा होकर ऊपर देखते हुए भोंक रहा है आप को यह संकेत देने के लिए कि शिकार कीकर पे पेड़ पर है. इस एकाहते हैं “गलत पेड़ पर भोकना”.

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

Is the cow still holy?

September 30, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

“The 50-year-old father of an Indian Air Force personnel was beaten to death by a mob on the outskirts of Delhi on Monday night, allegedly over rumours that he had eaten beef.
Mohammad Ikhlaq and his 22-year-old son were dragged from their house by around 100 villagers in Dadri in Uttar Pradesh and beaten with bricks. Ikhlaq’s son is critical.” From NDTV site, 30th September 2015.

Reading the news item makes it is clear that the killers knew the victims; they lived in the same area (is it a village?). One finds it difficult to believe that people known to each other will kill on such grounds. The announcement from the temple regarding a calf being killed indicates a plan. Who knows deep down the incident there might be some old animosity or grudge. Temple and holy cow may have been used as a pretence to attack the family. And that (if it happened to be so, I am only guessing in order to understand the bizarre incident) is much more dangerous and heinous than if the killers actually believed in ‘protection of holy cow’ and actually believed that the family has killed a calf. Pretended religious sentiments are more dangerous that actual. These inhuman schemes of the rogue elements may get concretises with the help of unjustified laws like beef ban. I am not discounting the larger communal politics here, rather am hinting that the larger divisive politics plays through personal animosity or old grudges among people known to each other.

The issue of cow protection is not new. Arya Samaj in the guidance of Dayanand Saraswati started a movement in 1882, and established cow protection societies all over India. This movement led to serious riotes in 1893. In independent India there was an anti-cow-slaughter movement in which the parliament was gheraoed by a mob of thousands in the leadership of Hindu organisations and Shankaracharya Niranjandev Tirth.

One of the problem in this issue is also the article 48 of the constitution, which is a directive principle; it states: “Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry.—The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.” It seems to me inclusion of the words “cows and calves” serves no purpose here as the article is about agriculture and animal husbandry. Organising animal husbandry on “scientific lines” may require protection of some animals for environmental and economic reasons; but it may also require slaughtering some animals for the same reasons. Specifically mentioning “cow and calves” here gives a religious tinge to this secular constitution. In my view it should be amended and these words should be deleted. But, all said and done, we should remember that it is only a directive principle, and by definition should “not be enforceable by any court”.

The present proponents of the beef ban, however, are no respecter of the constitution. The debate and thin justification mainly hinges on two kinds of arguments: one, that Hindus have always respected cows and never ate them; and two, that killing and eating cow by others hurts Hindu sentiments.

The first claim has two parts: ancient Hindus (Aryans?) respected cows and never ate them. Respected in terms of ‘valued’ might be true, as they considered them their wealth, and cows and oxen played an important role in their agriculture. The second part is certainly not true; as one finds references to eating beef as well as to declaring it a sin. Which is not at all surprising; Hinduism always had several views on almost all issues. There might have been people who happily ate beef, and there might have been another set who declared them sinners. Actually, who will declare a non-existing practice as a sin? And why? Declaring a practice as abominable or a sin also proves its existence, at the least till the time of declaration.

However, the debate regarding whether the Aryans and ancient Hindus ate beef or not is totally irrelevant in the present case. We have to remember that we are not living in ancient India. Even if the ancient Hindus did not eat beef it does not mean we should not or cannot eat it today. It does not mean at all that non-Hindus cannot eat it. Only about 200 years back Hindus motivated and sometimes forcibly burnt women on the funeral piers of their husbands in the name of sati; it was not considered a crime. Today it is a crime. Ancient Hindus did not allow shudras and women to study vedas; and if shudras were found studying vedas they were punished. Today, anyone including shidras can happily study vedas if they want. In the epic of Ramayana it is mentioned that Shambuka was killed by the so-called maryadapurushottam Rama simply because he was indulging in tapasya to gain power and he was a shudra. No maryadapurushottam can do that today. By the way, even Ramayana in this tale of oppression recognises that change is inevitable. It says that in Satayuga only Brahmans could do tapasya, in Treta Brahmans and Kshariyas were allowed, in Dwaper, when story of Ramayana is supposed to be situated, Brahmana, Kshatriyas and Vaishyas could do tapasya, but Shudras could not. It also mentioned that Shudras will be allowed in Kaliyuga, our own yuga.

We are living in a diverse and democratic country, and in kaliyuga, we have a constitution which gives us freedom to regulate our own personal lives. Eating what we like and not eating what we don’t like is our personal matter. So what ancient Indians (Hindus, Buddhists, Jains, Ajivikas, Charvakas, etc.) did or did not eat does not matter and constitutes no argument today. Please also remember that Charvakas were as good Indians as Hindus, perhaps better, and I am sure, though have no proof, they had no problems with eating beef.

That brings us to the second argument in the current debate: that if others eat beef it hurts Hindu sentiments. This argument has several problems.

First, beef eating by others may hurt sentiments of some Hindus; but they are in a minority. Because there are plenty of Hindus who actually eat beef. And there is a greater number of those who themselves may not eat beef but nothing happens to their sentiments if others do. This brigade whose sentiments are hurt (if they are actually hurt, that is) is a small minority. They do not represent Hindus.

Second, the ‘hurt sentiment’ is a bad argument in a democracy. Jain sentiments may get hurt if you eat any animal flesh, Muslim sentiments may get hurt if you eat something as dirty as pork anywhere in their vicinity. Rajput sentiments were hurt due to Jodha-Akbar TV serial, Jat sentiments are hurt if their girls marry in their own gotra or a Dalit. In each case the rights of Indian citizens are trampled underfoot, and the state which should provide guarantee of liberty to act as per the constitutional rights fails. The ‘hurt sentiment’ argument is the biggest danger to our secularism, to openness in society and to freedom of expression.

This flawed argument has played havoc with the freedom of expression in India, even if we ignore rest of the world. The Indian society and liberal intellectuals have been either very tolerant or selective in criticism to this spacious argument. Let us realise that the ban on cow slaughter and ban on Satanic Verses, in spite of seeming different on the surface, basically use the same argument of hurt feelings/sentiments. In both cases one group wants to impose one’s own way of life on the rest of the people: one on what you can eat, other on what you can read.

This argument is basically a gift of our own distortion of secularism which we call sarvadharma-samabhava. The beauty of sarvadharma-samabhava is that if you accept an unreasonable argument of one religious community, you have to accept an equally unreasonable argument from another community. Thus a competition in being more and more unreasonable and to grab public space starts between the communities. Since the state want to be polite to religion it cannot stop the slide on the slippery slope. This is the defect in Indian secularism.

Professor Irfan Habib rightly said in an interview that “[i]t is absurd to say that if we treat all religions equally, then religion can play a part in the state”.  Professor Thapar, another famous historian and public intellectual, also said in a lecture that Indian definition of secularism is “limited and incomplete”. It seems to me that both, like many others, recognise the problem and its gravity. But they seem to see the damage it can cause only partially. They both claim, in somewhat differing terms, that this definition privileges the majority religion. This conclusion, in spite of the correct recognition of the problem, is only partially true. Neither one can build a theoretical argument to support it fully, nor is it corroborated by empirical facts.

The acceptance of religion based decisions in the public affairs and in the state policy basically opens the way for influencing the state and public decisions in favour of religions. It results in attempts to impose religious ideas and ways of living on unwilling non-believers. All religions in a democracy tainted with sarvadharma-samabhava can use that opportunity, and they actually do.

If one looks at the list of banned books and other public acts allowed or banned in the name of religion the list shows that Hindus and Muslims both have been using it quite frequently. The only solution, therefore, is that no legitimacy should be provided in the name of religion. If someone’s sentiments are hurt due to other citizens’ legitimate acts within the constitutional boundary it is their own problem. If A eats beef and B’s sentiments are hurt because of it, there is something wrong with B, not with A. May be B does not understand democracy and individual freedoms. Or maybe he wants to impose his ideas on others. Or maybe he simply does not know why, but feels terribly disturbed to the point of wanting to kill. Or he may not feel anything, just sees an opportunity to further his selfish ends and simply pretends. In all these cases it is the problem of education or general thinking in the society. It needs to be rectified, not appeased. It seem to me that most cases of hurt sentiments on religious matters are actually mob pretentions.

If we want to save secularism any law that legitimises imposition of ways of life of one group on unwilling others should be resisted. Beef ban is a dangerous step for democracy. Unlike banned books, it provides occasions to rogue elements in general public for settling scores and spreading violence. In the last decade or so there have been several incidents (remember five Dalits killed in Haryana, in 2002?)  in the name of cow; so much so that now it might start looking like ‘unholy’ rather than ‘holy’. [Please don’t read it as blaming cow. Cow is neither holy nor unholy, it is simply cow. The ‘holy’ and ‘unholy’ characterises the thinking of people in this controversy.]

******

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »