Pratyutpann-Mati | Thinking Aloud

For a rational education debate…

July 7, 2015

Published in THE HINDU, ON 7th July 2015

http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/for-a-rational-education-debate/article7393209.ece

Rohit Dhankar

Maharashtra’s recent decision to conduct a survey of what it calls “non-school going children” seems to have created a storm. Political parties are now up in arms calling it an anti-minority move and Muslim leaders in particular have declared their resolve to fight the decision. Some intellectuals have even called the step as “insensitive” and one that will only raise the suspicions of the minorities. In the midst of this, there are claims being made that the education being imparted in madrasas has helped (and is helping) minority students pass even difficult tests such as the civil service examinations. But the point is that this entire debate is being conducted in an environment charged with emotion and irrelevant facts. In general, these arguments, if allowed to flourish, are likely to harm the cause of education in the country.

What is the issue all about? News reports of July 3-4 say that the Principal Secretary of the Minority Affairs Department sent a letter to the Principal Secretary, School Education, saying that students in madrasas and Vedic institutions which do not teach mathematics, social science, science and English should be considered as “non-school going”.

National system of education

After Independence, India has struggled to craft a National System of Education (NSE). The D.S. Kothari Commission recommended such a system and efforts to realise this goal have been on ever since the National Policy on Education 1968 or NPE 68 was in force. NPE expresses a commitment to realise this goal and every single national curriculum framework since 1975 has declared that one of the important concerns of the National Curriculum Framework is to realise the NSE. NPE 1986 states: “[T]he concept of a National System of Education implies that, up to a given level, all students, irrespective of caste, creed, location or sex, have access to comparable quality” of education. This is the commitment to equal opportunity in education. In order to meet this commitment, the NSE must be in a position to compare standards across the country.

Important features

The country has been struggling to establish the ‘10+2’ structure of education in all States. Without a uniform structure, there can be no idea of standards of achievement that can be worked out for India. Without setting such standards, a comparison of quality cannot be established. Therefore, the goals of equal opportunity for education become vacuous. However, in regard to the madrasa debate this is not the most important issue.

NPE 86 states that the NSE “will be based on a national curricular framework which contains a common core along with other components that are flexible”. Also, “the common core will include the history of India’s freedom movement, the constitutional obligations and other content essential to nurture national identity.” Further, this core “will be designed to promote values such as India’s common cultural heritage, egalitarianism, democracy and secularism, equality of the sexes, protection of the environment, removal of social barriers, observance of the small family norm and inculcation of the scientific temper.” It is not optional and has to be part of all State curricula and syllabi.

Another feature of NSE that emerges out of the commitment to this core is the “common scheme of studies”. This scheme — though described in somewhat variant terms — remains more or less the same as outlined in the “National Curriculum for Elementary and Secondary Education—A framework” or NCF 1988. The three subjects that remain common at the primary level in all States are language (mother tongue/regional), mathematics and environmental studies. At the upper primary and lower secondary levels, the common subjects are three languages, usually regional, Hindi and English, and in the Hindi-speaking areas, Hindi, another Indian language and English. There is also mathematics, social studies — which includes history, geography and civics or political science — and science. Art education, work experience and health and physical education are also part of the curriculum at the upper primary and lower secondary levels. But there is variance in them across States.

Right to Education Act 2009

What is important to note here is that there is supposed to be a common core curriculum across the nation, and there is a high degree of uniformity in the scheme of studies at the elementary level. These two aspects emerged from a felt need for a NSE and articulated in the NPE 1986.

The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE), has some stipulations for curriculum and what will be considered “completion of elementary education” — which should be legally free and compulsory.

The RTE, in Section 29(1), stipulates: “[T]he curriculum … for elementary education shall be laid down by an academic authority to be specified by the appropriate Government, by notification.” All the State governments have already notified their own State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) as the “academic authority” that will lay down the curriculum. Maharashtra also has a curriculum specified by its SCERT, which as per the RTE is its official curriculum.

‘Studying a subject’

According to RTE, the State government is duty bound to make provisions for every child to complete elementary education according to the norms of the prescribed curriculum. If the SCERT in Maharashtra has mathematics, science, social studies and three languages in its curriculum, then it becomes imperative for it to see to it that every child studies all these subjects. Otherwise, the condition of completion of elementary education cannot be met. Therefore, if the State government is trying to identify children who are not getting educated, as per RTE, it has to include those children who are not studying all these subjects, be they in a madrasa, Vedic pathshala or any other religious or community school. If there are madrasas which do not teach one of these subjects, then the government cannot consider — as per RTE — these children to be “school going children”; technically, it has to declare them as “non-school going”. It does not matter whether many of them go on to universities or “crack civil service examinations” or any other competitive examinations. The purpose of establishing a national system of education is to not only prepare students for a livelihood and jobs, but also to make all children aware of the national movement for freedom, nurture a national identity, inculcate a scientific temper, and so on. In propagating these aims, mathematics, science and social studies are seen as necessary. However, if the madrasas are teaching all the subjects mentioned earlier along with religious studies, the State has to consider children studying there as “school going”. But that does not seem to be the case. The government letter seems to be defining “non-school going” as meaning only those children who do not study one or other of these subjects. Another point to keep in mind is that “studying a subject” here means “studying the government prescribed syllabus in that subject”. For example, if the children study the history of Europe or Africa, or Islam but do not study the history of India and the freedom movement, they cannot be considered as completing the prescribed curriculum.

Some news reports mention that Bihar and Uttar Pradesh recognise madrasas as schools, which is perfectly fine if the madrasas are teaching all the subjects prescribed by their State curricula. But if they are not and are still recognised as schools, and the children studying there are considered as school-going children completing their elementary education, then these States are guilty of dereliction of duty and are flouting the norms of NPE 86, NCF 2005 and RTE. I am not a lawyer, but I think that they are liable for legal action under RTE.

Harm to national consensus

The project of developing a national system of education is at least a 100-year-old one, though it took concrete shape only after Independence. The idea was debated by leaders of the freedom movement by the beginning of the 20th century. Sir Syed Ahmad Khan, Sri Aurobindo, Annie Besant, Madan Mohan Malaviya, and many others saw the ills of the system of colonial education and had their own ideals of national education. But many began to recognise that these ideals of education could not become a national system of education. In a systematic analysis, Lala Lajpat Rai rejected all the ideas mentioned earlier as being unworthy of national education status as he felt it would be sectarian. He recommended nonsectarian secular education in his book, The Problem of National Education in India , which was published in 1920. Tagore and Gandhiji wanted a system of education without any sectarian element. The Zakir Hussain Committee Report on Basic National Education articulated an ideal of citizenship that was strongly democratic.

After Independence, the University Education Commission 1950, the Secondary Education Commission 1952, and the Education Commission 1964 were all aware of the need for a national system of education. But education was a state subject in all its aspects including structure, curriculum and pedagogy. Therefore, the national system was more of a cherished ideal than a reality. Only after the 42nd Constitutional Amendment in 1976 did it really become possible to develop a national system of education. The characteristics of the ‘10+2’ structure of school education mentioned earlier, a common core of the curriculum and a more or less common scheme of studies emerged after that. It has taken a lot of hard work to achieve this state. The work is still unfinished as we still do not have commonly accepted standards of achievement. Also, we still do not have the ‘5+3+2’ structure of the first 10 years of education as some States have four years of primary education. But because of the common core of the curriculum and common scheme of studies we can now think of common achievement standards.

This kind of debate will dismantle that hard-earned consensus in structure and curriculum, thereby making equal opportunity impossible as there will be no criteria for judging equality or the lack of it. In any case, RTE is not being implemented with serious commitment in the country. If attempts like identifying “non-school going children”, as per its norms, are embroiled in unjustified controversies, political correctness will further demotivate governments from implementing whatever little is being attempted.

******

Leave a Comment » | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: education, Madrasas, Maharashtra debate, Non-school going, RTE | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

In the Sangh-Parivar Raj

July 1, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

Their understanding of Indian culture is hollow and based on nukkad-panwala gossip.
Their vision of democracy is pushing for imposition of ununderstood ideas they think are characteristic of Hinduism. Freedom is only for themselves; others are free to eat only that which they sanction, do the exercises only those they sanction, study in the schools only that they sanction.
Their intellectual capabilities average around that of a 6 year old child; unfortunately none of the innocence and curiosity of a 6 year old is visible in them. Therefore, they are uneducable.
Their efficiency lies in thoughtless proclamations and twitter abuses. Action is alien to them. ‘Mindless Word’ is taken for the ‘world’.
Morality to them ends with not eating cow (only openly?).
Equality for them lies in varna-asham dharma defined by Manu Maharaj.
Their Hinduism is in formation; basically motivated by the envy of Islam and Christianity for having central dogmas to bind the flock of believer together. They do not know that nuanced interpretation of those central dogmas in Christianity and Islam has produced a wide range of understanding and they are the same more in theory than in practice. The poor devils are incapable of finding such dogma in Hinduism but are persistent. If they continue and Hindu society fails to stop them Hinduism will break and diminish.
Corruption in their ranks is rampant but they do not admit it. Rather protect it.
They are doing in politics what numerous Babas and Ammas are doing to subtle ideas of Hinduism: ugly vulgarization.
We are being rules by a group which is morally depraved, intellectually imbecile, aesthetically severely challenged and grossly inefficient in action. (The last one is a saving grace; it limits their capability to damage!)

ARE THEY AN AGGREGATED MIRROR IMAGE OF OURSELVES? OTHERWISE HOW COME THEY ARE IN POWER IN A DEMOCRACY? (SCARY THOUGHT!)

6 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: BJP led government, Sangh-parivar | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Blind by one eye: A response to “How converters could be made to stop offering inducements”

June 14, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

[This article is a response to an article published in The telegraph, http://www.telegraphindia.com/1150529/jsp/opinion/story_22625.jsp#.VXzi3kbCAzE , and was sent to the newspaper; but in their wisdom they decided not to publish it.]

Professor Ashok Sanjay Guha’s article “Conversion controversies- How converters could be made to stop offering inducements” in The Telegraph of 29^th May 2015 is a classic case of very clearly seeing half the truth and being totally blind to the other half. He catches the deliberate one-eyed vision of left leaning liberals who see conversion to Christianity and Islam as an exercise of cherished freedom of belief; but conversion to Hinduism as bigotry. He also rightly points out that banning all conversion is denial of freedom to practice and propagate one’s faith. And then surprisingly the article builds an argument that is oblivious of the impact of religion on social and political life of the converter, the converted and the rest; and fails to take into account full scope of what freedom of choice means.

His argument in a nutshell is that conversion with allurements is a free economic transaction between the converter and the convert, both consenting adults; therefore, any third party including the state should have no say in it. This argument is flawed on many counts. But in a brief response like this I will show its un-tenability only on three counts.

Weak interpretation of the principle of liberty

First let’s look at a few examples. If one goes by Professor Guha’s argument the state and other citizens should have no say in the following cases: 1. Demanding dowry, 2. Polygamy among Hindus, 3. A dalit selling his land to a non-dalit or non-tribal person, and 4. Offering money to vote in favour of a candidate in elections.

All four can be construed as ‘free transitions’ between consenting adults with supposed to be mutual benefits. Then why are they all banned legally? Among others, one reason is a certain understanding or interpretation of the principle of liberty. Democracy is premised on the principle of individuals making their own choices according to their own light. A democratic state cannot rest assured just by declaring the freedom for its citizens to make their own decisions; it has to maintain a coercion free social and legal environment in which making of choices are facilitated without fear and pressure. In all the four examples above there is a possibility of coercing one party into acceptance of a decision s/he could not have made freely. When a poor father wants his child to be admitted in a supposed to be good school that charges fees beyond his economic capacity and confronts a choice of accepting the religion propagated by the school, then he is being coerced. Or when he cannot afford treatment of his ailing child in a supposed to be good hospital where free treatment is tied to bartering of faith he is not making a free choice. His decision to barter his faith is not a free decision, it is a decision under duress. This is the business of the state to protect weaker citizens from this kind of coercion of the stronger.

Abandoning civic concern for the other

When Professor Guha argues against raising the issue of conversing through allurement by ‘third party’ he is advising citizens to abandon civic concern for fellow citizens. Democracy functions on concern for the well-being of all citizens and of the whole society. When a concerned citizen sees conversion through allurement—economic coercion—s/he has a duty to speak against it. Failing in this duty is tantamount to failing in one’s duty as a citizen. Fraternity in the preamble of The Constitution of India demands concern for wellbeing of all citizens.

No society can maintain justice, liberty and equality if the citizens are concerned only about their own business and their own wellbeing. This is one of the biggest failures of Indian democracy and Professor Guha’s article advises to worsen the situation.

Socio-political impact of conversions

The article completely fails to take into account the socio-political impact of conversions. It is well known by now that conversion almost always destroys the social relationships including those within extended family. Social fabric and families are bound together by shared belief, patterns of life, rituals and other cultural activities. A change in faith demands abandoning many of them, often demands acting in a contrary manner. The argument here is not to sustain unjust social order and superstitious or otherwise subjugating practices; such practices can be challenged even without change of religion. Rather the argument is against the personal and psychological pain caused by distance that change of faith creates with the near and dears, and the community one has been living with. The proselytizing church knows and admits this, but juxtaposes it with the spurious joy found in submitting to Christ. Of course, one can say that this is a matter on which the individual should think, what right any third party has to be nosy about it? Which is Prof. Gha’s argment. But the matter goes further and becomes socio-political.

We all, including Professor Guha, know well enough that conversion today is mainly an economic and political power game. I think it has always been so in the history as well. The ‘sarva-dharma-samabhava’ version of secularism adopted by Indian state has exacerbated the competition and acrimony in this game as all religions under this mistaken brand of secularism have a chance of attempting to grab as much public space as possible; and to impose their dictates on others. For example, ban on beef eating in some states is a clear attempt to impose preferences of a small set of Hindus on others.

This competition results in vigorous efforts to gain convers or to slowdown depletion of one’s religious group. We should remember that religions are also political ideologies. In a democracy this game has a place; but also has to be played with all fairness. Allowing coercion—be that of political, economic or plain brute force—will create unrest, exacerbate hatred and promote violence. That will certainly result in intolerance and social disharmony. A democratic state is duty bound to create a level playing field for these forces; and therefore, has to provide a fair legal framework to operate within.

The only fair possibility

In a democracy, as Professor Guha rightly says, one’s free choice of faith cannot be restricted. Therefore, conversion has to be accepted and allowed, as it is today. But it has to be allowed in a manner that is fair to all religious groups; therefore, Hindu groups have as much right to attempt and succeed in conversion as Christian and Muslim groups do. The left leaning liberals have rendered themselves irrelevant on this issue by taking a partisan position for decades, which is fully exposed now.

Forcible conversion has to be dealt with firmly, be that by any group. It is a crime and should be dealt as a crime. Cheating gullible people into conversion should also be a crime as cheating in any other case is. Economic coercion and bartering of faith for money, if proven beyond doubt, should be criminalised on moral as well as pragmatic grounds discussed above.

The so-called opinion makers and intellectuals should realise that there is no higher motive behind conversion, it is simply a dirty violent political game; and has been so throughout the history. They should spend their energies in exposing the moral depravity of zeal for conversion. And also the inherent bigotry and epistemic stupidity of the idea ‘my religion is the only true religion’. The Hindutva groups’ attempt to create a narrow proselytizing religion out of diversity encompassing Hinduism should be resisted by Hindus themselves as well as the opinion makers. Most of their proclamations of ‘re-conversion’ are either false propaganda to attract attention or plain coercion. It is a political game and is rightly criticised as such. But that can hardly justify closing eyes to economic coercion and cheating involved in conversion to other religions.

1 Comment | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: allurement in concersion, coercion in conversion, Conversion, freedom of faith, Religion | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Rohingyas: atrocities in Myanmar

June 3, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

One of Manoj ji’s posts attracted my attention to the issue of Rohingyas in Myanmar. I do not have a ready intellectual courage to cry “atrocity” or “genocide” at the first glimpse at a headline. So spent about 4-5 hours in 2-3 days looking at newspaper reports, social media cites (including those of Myanmar Buddhists’) and a documentary made by New York Times. I don’t think I understand the issue properly, yet. But a first tentative understanding, without any claims of it being ‘the truth’ is as outlined below. As I claim no great authenticity for my understanding, so am not bothering to site the references. It is just a summary of tentative ideas at present, as I said above.

Genocide:

Genocide is understood as systematic elimination of all or a significant part of a religious, ethnic, racial, or even a political group. The ways of elimination could be killing, driving away, or many others kinds; but the aim is to ‘eliminate’ from a particular geographical area.

If one goes by the majority of news report, social media cites and the documentary it is an attempt to drive away the Rohingyas from Myanmar. There is a lot of killing, scaring, hatred, confinement, denial of facilities. And so on. Seems to be very atrocious and as reprehensible as can get.

The state, the Buddhist religious establishment and he public all three seem to be determined that there should be no Rohingyas in Rakhine state. And the atrocities are a tool to drive them away or kill them.

Why this hatred?

There is a tremendous amount of fear on both sides. Rohingyas being a minority and at the receiving end on most of the case are naturally scared. But the Buddhist religious leader and public also seems to be scared. This will sound odd to many that an overwhelming majority (95%) should be scared of a tiny minority. But in a tentative survey of news items and opinions it seems to be true.

Understanding the roots and causes of the hatred and fear seems to be much more complex than getting a reasonable picture of the state of affairs at present.

The history

The present Rakhine state it seems was Arakan earlier, an independent kingdom that was ruled by Bengali kings at times. Therefore, there was an ethnic Bengali population living there traditionally.

When British captured it along with the rest of then Barma, they encouraged Bengali population to settle there. The Rakhines resented this new population right from that time.

After the British left, Rohingyas themselves didn’t make it easy for their compatriots.

“The Rohingya insurgency in Western Burma is an armed conflict between the state of Burma and its Rohingya Muslim minority since 1947. Their initial ambition during Mujahideen movements (1947-1961) was to separate the Rohingya-populated Mayu frontier region of Arakan from western Burma and annex that region into newly formed neighbouring East Pakistan (present-day Bangladesh). Rohingya groups were again active during the period of the Bangladesh Liberation War in 1971. Recently, during the Arakan State Riots, the aspiration of the Rohingya militant groups, according to various media reports, is to create northern part of Arakan an independent or autonomous state. In 2012, Rohingja émigrés in exile declared the creation of the “Islamic Republic of Rahmanland”, located in the north of Rakhine State.” Claims Wikipedia; this to me is not a very reliable source, but perhaps does not contain untruth on such an important matter. If that be true the Rohingyas loyalties lie more with Bangladesh and Islam then to Myanmar; they do not really want to remain citizens of Myanmar.

Such history obviously does not help create bonds of trust and gives credence to separatism fueled by religious zeal.

In the Myanmar favoring sites there are claims that the Myanmar government at one time gave citizenship to many Rohingyas but the influx from Bangladesh scared them and they revoked all such attempts. They claim that there is a sizable percentage of newly arrived Bangladeshis in the supposed to be Rohingya population. (The Myanmar people simply call them “Bengalis” and don’t even recognize separate Rohingya ethnicity!)

There is no evidence of independent news reports of sizable newly arrived Bangladeshis among the Rohingyas (what I mean is, I did not chance upon such evidence in my very short search). But in one of the boats of Rohingyas that landed in Indonesia there were 208 Bangladeshis out of 584 people. Indonesia and Malaysia both refused to admit the people coming by these boats because they fear an influx both from Myanmar and Bangladesh. This, however, does not prove that there are newly arrived Bangaladeshis in Rakhine state as well; as Rohingyas fleeing from Myanmay may have simply shared the facility provided by human traffickers with Bangladeshis fleeing from poverty. But this also does not allow to rule out the possibility completely. The affinity shown by Rohingyas to East Pakistan earlier and Bangladesh after its creation gives credence in the Rakhine people’s minds to the idea of influx from Bangladesh.

Rakhine people claim that there have been instances of rape and killing of Rakhine girls by Rohingyas. How far that is true is anybody’s guess, in absence of independent evidence.

Rakhine also think that the population of Rohingyas increasing very fast due to higher birth rate as well as influx from Bangladesh. I did not chance upon any independent corroboration of these claims.

If the Rakhine people believe all this then fear of overtaking them in terms of population may be justified at the least in their own minds. The situation in some border areas on India where Bangladeshis have become majority also gives grounds for such a fear.

The Rohingyas on the other hand have been always discriminated against by the successive regimes in Myanmar. Right from refusal to recognition their ethnicity, to lack of state support for their development, to denial of citizenship and confining them to concentration camps; are reason enough for them to be angry, distrustful and fearful of the public as well as the state.

There have been many instances of riots and Ronhingyas being minority has been at the receiving end. Both the communities at present seem to be totally distrustful and fearful of each other. On both sides religion has taken on the role of providing fuel for hatred for each other.

None of this, even if true, however, justify the denial of citizenship and encouraging genocide and ethnic cleansing on the part of the state. The issue of citizenship may be complicated due to difficulty of identification of genuine Rohingyas and new Bangladeshi entrants; but denial of citizenship to Rohingyas whose forefathers have been living in Myanmar (old Barma) cannot be justified. The situation is grave for Rohingyas, complex and toehold for rapprochement do not seem to be available at present.

It seems to me outside help will be required to force Myanmar state to recognize its own people. To help Rakhine to learn to be tolerant to the minority. And to the Rohingyas to abandon their hope of being part of a Muslim majority country and of establishing an Islamic state on Myanmar soil. All the three parties cannot accomplish this on their own. A healing process aided by concerned but neutral and impartial party is required.

******

5 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: atrocity, ethnic cleansing, genicide, Muslims, Rohingyas | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Another brick in the wall: Examinations and the child

May 5, 2015

Published in THE HINDU, 5th May 2015

Rohit Dhankar

A few weeks ago, the media captured the stark and shocking image of people — family members and friends — climbing and getting on to the ledges of the high-rise Vidya Niketan school in Mahnar village, 60 kilometres from Patna, Bihar, to pass on answer chits to students appearing for their school exams on March 18, 2015. Headlines such as “Scaling new heights to deliver cheat sheets” and scenes on TV made it clear that this could never have happened without the connivance of teachers and examination personnel, thus laying bare the deep flaws in the Indian education system. The incident caused the State Education Minister P.K. Shahi to admit that stopping malpractices in Board examinations was a huge task.

“If we try to stop unfair means at a centre, friends and family members of the examinees gang up to intimidate us,” said a schoolteacher. The incident at Mahar was not an isolated one. Reports also came in of people scaling compound walls of schools to help examinees at centres in Sharsha and Khagaria districts.

Just a few weeks after this, on April 15, BBC News published a story titled, “Jail for cheating Atlanta teachers”.

These two starkly different responses to unfair means in exams, in India and the United States, are startling. In spite of a difference between teachers adopting unfair means with regard to manipulating exam results and school authorities, including teachers, allowing students to use unfair methods in exams using help from outsiders.

Who is to blame? Who should be held responsible? In both these examples, one has to acknowledge the great pressure of competitive exams and the mark sheet-centric approach in academics as being a measure of human worth in trying to understand why this happens. One also has to look closely at the relationship between education, learning, exams and competition.

Authentic self and education

We often talk of education as being an instrument of economic development of self and society. Sometimes, we also allude to it as being an instrument to help one prepare for critical, democratic citizenship. But rarely do we talk of education being a process to help a person form his authentic self. When I talk about “formation of the authentic self”, I do not mean the oft-talked about character development and education in values. All three aims of education — economic, citizenship, and character/values — though necessary, fall short of helping one form one’s authentic self. Moreover, they can be used to work against it.

The three characteristics I would like to count as being a part of the authentic self of an individual are: autonomy, integrity and harmony. Apart from one’s intellectual capabilities, all three necessarily should manifest themselves as character traits of an individual. Further, their necessary ingredients are a deep, emotional investment as well as a dispassionate understanding.

Let’s examine these three. Autonomy means using one’s own mind in making choices whether they are personal or public. This is possible only with a robust understanding of the world and one’s situation in it. It also demands a level of self-confidence and self-respect without being conceited or indulgent.

Integrity is more than just autonomy as it involves a coherence in the results of one’s intellectual deliberations and taking them seriously while putting them in action and thus imparts an overall stability to one’s personality.

Harmony, metaphorically, may be termed as a state of internal peace. More precisely, it means an alignment between one’s emotional states, intellectual understanding and actions. I will also bring in “an absence of fragmentation”, which does not mean the complete absence of internal tension. There will always be a certain degree of tension as one constantly faces new situations and in utilising one’s emotional and intellectual energies to bear upon them. But this tension will always be confined to being within the limits of one’s strength of character. This wholesome development of an individual can be called the formation of an authentic self. Education is the primary means of helping an individual form such a self. Perhaps, it is also the highest goal of education. An alternative expression for an authentic self can be: manasa, vachaa, karmana; with the proviso that all three are governed by one’s own judgement.

Examinations and testing

So far there is no method by which to assess the development of an authentic self. The only test is life itself! Examinations are a severely limited means by which to assess educational development, even if the assessment of an authentic self is left out. First, they are limited to testing the present repertoire of knowledge of an individual; even this has severe problems of validity and reliability. Knowledge is a fully connected whole and it cannot be tested by seeking fragments of information as is usually done in examinations. Going deeper into the interconnections of concepts and beliefs of an individual is a time-consuming and subjective affair; subjective for both examiner and examinee. In order for it to be reliable, it demands objectivity across a sample of examinees. Therefore, validity and reliability vary inversely with each other. Large-scale tests such as the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) and the Annual Student Assessment Report (ASER) can ensure a satisfactory level of reliability and validity only if the testing is limited to a very small portion of student learning. This makes them almost useless in understanding the development of an authentic self. However, to be fair, in such tests, this is not even the goal.

Competition, an endemic problem of everyday life, is aggravated through a system of testing and examination. In the name of pursuing “success”, schools start encouraging competition at the individual level right from standard one. Measuring one child against the other becomes the motivating factor in learning; in the process, immeasurable damage is done to the child’s self-image; in most cases, a child’s worth is reduced to a piece of paper signed by the class teacher. In schools, students become almost intellectual slaves, competing with each other for a greater share of the market. At another level, as in States, large-scale, unreliable and invalid methods of testing are used. Education is reduced to the level of “teaching for testing”. At the national level, it becomes the tool of one-upmanship and used in spurious predictions of future economic worth. In all this, the individual is completely lost. All that is visible are aggregates of a tiny part of the human capability, measured through tools of suspicious validity.

Education systems across the world are used to judge the worth of individuals. They issue certificates and mark-sheets and these documents are taken by employers and institutions of further education as the measure of an individual’s capabilities. Since societies reward individuals on the basis of their perceived capabilities (if we ignore nepotism and money power), these certificates become the measure of the worth of the individual. Thus a person ends up getting characterised on the basis of minuscule part of his/her self.

The disproportionate importance accorded to such certification pushes people — students, parents and teachers — to use all means possible to get that good certificate. Therefore, using unfair methods in an examination, for example, is often the easiest way to get that ideal mark-sheet. This tilts the balance of the learner’s personality; her development of reasoning, character and alignment of emotions are totally ignored. Her capability to reproduce so-called “important information” overwhelms everything else. Education, which is supposed to help her develop an authentic-self, creates disharmony within her soul.

Nonchalance versus righteous wrath

I come back to the incident and case I referred to in the beginning — in Bihar and the U.S. The typical Indian attitude/reaction if shown a picture of what happened in Bihar would have been one largely of a nonchalance borne out of apathy. The 15-minute flash of interest on social media around the incident does not belie this claim.

On the other hand, the American reaction, which resulted in jail terms of up to 20 years, seems to express a righteous wrath. We, as Indians, generally see ideas and actions in a flux, as specks that are unimportant in a gigantic cosmic flow. This often conceals from us the true significance of events. In the Bihar example, most of us seem to be unaffected by the possible harm it might cause to our collective understanding and growth of our children as individuals with potential. In contrast to this are the Americans who seem horrified by the prospect of the havoc cheating by teachers may cause to the national system of education.

However, both seem to ignore the distortion brought to education and its very purposes, and the root cause of it being testing for competition. Neither apathy nor righteous wrath can free education from the grip of competition, testing, and instances of using unfair methods. This atmosphere and character of education is what holds back a child’s growth, of autonomy, by limiting understanding to a tiny part of “testable” knowledge, which is grossly inadequate to understand one’s situation in the world. It tears apart the coherence of intellectual deliberations, values and actions. It completely destroys the harmony between the intellectual, moral and emotional self; it makes action a random response to the contingency of the moment.

The besieged state of education is what is reducing the child’s soul into a battlefield that results in fragmented pieces of the self. The child’s aspirations, understanding, moral dispositions and emotions are constantly at war with each other. We are reducing the child into becoming fake copies of what we aspire for rather than helping the child become a master of his or her own soul. One wonders whether cases of student suicides in India and the repeated instances of shooting sprees in American schools are a direct result of this disharmony in the soul created by present day education systems!

******

2 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: cheating, child, Educational Development, Examinations, self | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Bhagavad Gita 2: Varna based on birth or individual qualities?

April 22, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

It is often claims with forceful assertions that the chatur-varna-vyavastha (CVV) that is mentioned in the Gita is based on the qualities of persons and not on their birth. Arguments (or assertions/explanations) are advanced on both sides. One needs to look closely at the relevant shlokas to make sense of this issue.

A close reading of some shlokas makes a clear argument that the Varna is based on birth, and also that different Varnas have different dispositions and swabhavas. We need to trace these principle in connection with each other.

In 4-13 Krishna says that the chaturvarnya is his creation.

चातुर्वर्ण्यं मया सृष्टं गुणकर्मविभागशः ।

तस्य कर्तारमपि मां विद्ध्यकर्तारमव्ययम् ॥ ४- १३ ॥

“The fourfold order was created by Me according to the divisions of quality and work. Though I am its creator, know Me to be incapable of action or change.” (Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan [SR], George Alien & Unwin (India) Private Ltd. 1971)

On the first reading it seems that the varnas were created according to division of gunas and karmas. But pay attention to the words gunas and karmas, it will be fully explained when we read further down. We should also pay attention to the fact that here the emphasis is on Krishna being unaffected of karma or change, emphasis of the verse is actually Krishna’s nirliptata; and not chatruvarnya character of the world.

Radhakrishnan tried to explain that this is not a declaration of Varna based on birth, but on “guna (aptitude) and karma (function)”. However, he builds his argument on the basis of quotes from various places in the Mahabharata, not from Gita itself. It is common knowledge that Mahabharata has contradictory statements. Radhakrishna’s explanation is not very convincing. Particularly in the light of what the Gita says further down.

Even the argument he produces on the basis of Mahabharata remains open to question. Radhakrishnan writes: “Yudhishthira says that it is difficult to find out the caste of persons on account of the mixture of castes. Men beget offspring in all sorts of women. So conduct is the only determining feature of the caste according to sages”. This comes in Section CLXXIX of Vanaparva in a dialogue between Nahusha as a serpent and Yudhishthira. And looks like a critique of existing social practice rather than offering a description.

The most charitable view one can take at this moment is: let the issue of Varna by birth or guna be an open question and decide on the basis of what is said in this connection in other places in Gita itself. However, we will do well to remember that there are a large number of Hindi translations and commentaries on Gita which make no bones about Varana being determined by birth. For example Shirmad Bhagwad Gita by Swami Ramsukhdas clearly state that due to actions of past lives the ‘gunas’, satva, rajas and tamas, differ for each person and the God makes them Bhrahmin, Kshatriya etc. according to them. (page 306) This is an interesting interpretation of what Rakhakrishnan calls aptitudes and actions. These, according to the Swami are actions of the past life and the aptitudes are determined by these actions.

So, let’s see what turns out to be the case in other shlakas.

The point in this shloka is that the society is divided into four varnas, be they on the basis of actions and aptitudes n this life or as results of the actions in the last life. The issue then is: are these four varna’s equal in merit?

Well, the answer turns out to be NO.

मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य येऽपि स्युः पापयोनयः ।

स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति परां गतिम् ॥ ९- ३२ ॥

“For those who take refuge in Me. 0 Partha (Arjuna), though they are lowly born, women, Vaisyas, as well as Sudras, they also attain to the highest goal.” (SR)

There seems to be a popular view that this shloka does not call women, vaishyas and shudras belonging to ‘papayoni’ but only says that ‘people born in papayogi and women etc.’ also attain the highest goal through me.

This does not seem to be the sense in Gita. But for the sake of argument even if one accepts it, it turns out to be a small comfort for women etc.

The purpose here is to explain to Arjuna the merits of worshiping and submitting to Krishna. In the shlokas 4:30 and 4:31 it is explained that even “a man of most vile conduct” attains the highest goal if he worships Krishna. Then in 4:32 it says that even the papayoni born and (or like?) women etc. attain the same goal by worshiping Him. Then goes on to 4:33 to say that “How much more then, holy Brahmins and devoted royal saints; having entered this impermanent sorrowful world, do thou worship Me.” This sequence of the argument leaves no doubt that the women etc. are lower than the Brahmins and royal saints.

Neither of the interpretation thinks all varna’s of equal merit. Nor are the women equal in spiritual merit to Brahmans.

Radhakrishana tries to explain it away by saying that “This verse is not to be regarded as supporting the social customs debarring women and Sudras from Vedic study. It refers to the view prevalent at the time of the composition of the Gita. The Gita does not sanction these social rules.” Well, may be. But even if women etc. ate allowed to study vedas what about their position in terms of spiritual attainments according to Gita? It is clearly below the Brahmans and kshatriyas.

Again Swami Ramsukhdas is rather straightforward about the issue and explains that the term “papayonayah” (papa-yoniwaale) is used for those who did bad karmas in their previous life, and so are born low in this life. And women, vaishyas and sudras are included in it.

But be that as it may, what is clear so far is: 1. The society is divided into four varnas. 2. These varnas are not equal in their gunas, karmas and spiritual merit. And 3. Women are more towards sudras than towards Brahmans.

Now let’s see how Krishna himself explains the working of the three gunas of prakriti and their relation to birth.

इति क्षेत्रं तथा ज्ञानं ज्ञेयं चोक्तं समासतः ।

मद्भक्त एतद्विज्ञाय मद्भावायोपपद्यते ॥ १३- १९ ॥

“Know thou that prakrti (nature) and purusha (soul) are both beginningless; and know also that the forms and modes are born of prakrti (nature).” (SR)

प्रकृतिं पुरुषं चैव विद्ध्यनादी उभावपि ।

विकारांश्च गुणांश्चैव विद्धि प्रकृतिसम्भवान् ॥ १३- २० ॥

“Nature is said to be the cause of effect, instrument and agent (ness) and the soul is said to be the cause, in regard to the experience of pleasure and pain.” (SR)

कार्यकारणकर्तृत्वे हेतुः प्रकृतिरुच्यते ।

पुरुषः सुखदुःखानां भोक्तृत्वे हेतुरुच्यते ॥ १३- २१ ॥

“The soul in nature enjoys the modes born of nature. Attachment to the modes is the cause of its births in good and evil wombs.” (SR)

Let’s try to connect all this: HE, the Lord Krishna, caused the four varna system; yes, on the basis of karma and gunas. Women, viashyas and shudras are born in ‘papayoni’ (or are like them in spirituality) because of their karmas. The soul is born into “good or evil womb” according to its karmas of the past lives and gunas (what SR calls “aptitudes”) and karmas are determined by this birth in “good or evil womb”. I do not know how one can doubt the conclusion without a liberal doze of dogma!

Next we need to move to their swabhava (nature) and swadharma (duties) in this life. It is established that: vaishya, shudra and women are born of ‘low’ birth or are in the same category. It is because of their karmas in past lives, their nature (swabhava) is determined by their birth, through the kind of womb they get; and this play happens through the three gunas of prakriti. In simpler words: their past lives determine their birth, and their gunas. And they fit into the chaturvarna. Shlokas 18:40 to 18:47 tell the ‘swabhava’ and ‘swadharma’ of the four varnas. Those who obey their swadharma with devotion to the lord get united with HIM. Moral of the story: do the duties assigned by your varnas; if you want to unite with the Brahmn do not disturb the varna hierarchy.

How it comes from the horse’s mouth is given below.

न तदस्ति पृथिव्यां वा दिवि देवेषु वा पुनः ।

सत्त्वं प्रकृतिजैर्मुक्तं यदेभिः स्यात्त्रिभिर्गुणैः ॥ १८- ४० ॥

“There is no creature either on earth or again among the gods in heaven, which is free from the three modes born of nature.” (SR)

ब्राह्मणक्षत्रियविशां शूद्राणां च परन्तप ।

कर्माणि प्रविभक्तानि स्वभावप्रभवैर्गुणैः ॥ १८- ४१ ॥

“Of Brahmins, of Kshatriyas, and Vaisyas as also of Sudras. o Conqueror of the foe (Arjuna), the activities are distinguished, in accordance with the qualities born of their nature.” (SR)

Remember that “their nature” is determined by the attachment they felt for the pleasures of prakriti in their past life. That attachment determined the womb they are born in. That birth is determined by their nature.

शमो दमस्तपः शौचं क्षान्तिरार्जवमेव च ।

ज्ञानं विज्ञानमास्तिक्यं ब्रह्मकर्म स्वभावजम् ॥ १८- ४२ ॥

“Serenity, self-control, austerity, purity, forbearance and uprightness, wisdom, knowledge and faith in religion, these are the duties of the Brahmin, born of his nature.” (SR)

शौर्यं तेजो धृतिर्दाक्ष्यं युद्धे चाप्यपलायनम् ।

दानमीश्वरभावश्च क्षात्रं कर्म स्वभावजम् ॥ १८- ४३ ॥

“Heroism, vigour, steadiness, resourcefulness, not fleeing even in a battle, generosity and leadership, these are the duties of a Kshatriya born of his nature.” (SR)

कृषिगौरक्ष्यवाणिज्यं वैश्यकर्म स्वभावजम् ।

परिचर्यात्मकं कर्म शूद्रस्यापि स्वभावजम् ॥ १८- ४४ ॥

“Agriculture, tending cattle and trade are the duties of a Vaisya born of his nature; work of the character of service is the duty of a Sudra born of his nature.” (SR)

And then comes the moral of the story:

स्वे स्वे कर्मण्यभिरतः संसिद्धिं लभते नरः ।

स्वकर्मनिरतः सिद्धिं यथा विन्दति तच्छृणु ॥ १८- ४५ ॥

“Devoted each to his own duty man attains perfection. How one, devoted to one’s own duty, attains perfection, that do thou hear.” (SR)

यतः प्रवृत्तिर्भूतानां येन सर्वमिदं ततम् ।

स्वकर्मणा तमभ्यर्च्य सिद्धिं विन्दति मानवः ॥ १८- ४६ ॥

“He from whom all beings arise and by whom all this is pervaded-by worshipping Him through the performance of his own duty does man attain perfection.” (SR)

श्रेयान्स्वधर्मो विगुणः परधर्मात्स्वनुष्ठितात् ।

स्वभावनियतं कर्म कुर्वन्नाप्नोति किल्बिषम् ॥ १८- ४७ ॥

“Better is one’s own law though imperfectly carried out than the law of another carried out perfectly. One does not incur sin when one does the duty ordained by one’s own nature.” (SR)

It seems to be clear to me that the Gita: 1. Recognises varana-vyavastha. 2. Varna’s are determined by birth, through a complex mechanism of karma-theory and workings of the prakriti and purushs (the soul). 3. Varna’s are not equal in spiritual merit, social standing, swabhava and swadharma. 4. However, all can redeem themselves by devotion to HIM and through following their duty; the path to salvation is closed to none. 5. But to achieve this they have to accept their station in the society and their duties to Him and other people in the society. I do not know how one can escape these conclusions.

But is this about ‘varna’ or ‘caste’? Well, we all know how each caste even today wants to place itself in one of the four varnas. This is no difficult task to fit the castes into varnas.

However, that does not make Gita a ‘bad book’. It is simply expressing the thinking of its times. Some of those social norms we do not like today. Still there is plenty in Gita which is extremely valuable for human life. What I was arguing in my article “Indoctrination …” is that unless the student is capable of making her own judgment and is able to shift chaff from the grain, Gita should not be imposed as a moral code. One can learn from it, but has to recognise that all is not acceptable in this book. It could be used for making arguments which go against the principles of equality and justice; and to explains away (even worst: to justify) the inequality in society on the basis of karma theory.

And, of course, it is a religious book which depends on faith for acceptance of its basic assumptions.

******

18 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: Bhagavad Gita and caste, varna and birth, varna and duty, varna and nature | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Bhagavad Gita: response to some issues raised through emails and comments

April 12, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

My article “Indoctrination in the guise of education” in The Hindu on 30^th March 2015 attracted some appreciation and lots of angry rejoinders.

While browsing through the comments and reading the emails and letters I saw a pattern in the criticism that was leveled of the view I took in the article on teaching shlokas from Gita in schools. The pattern in the responses is so clear and has such overwhelming majority that it gives an indication of some very wide spread ideas regarding Gita, schooling in the country and ways of thinking about religion. It seems the people who support shlokas from Gita in schools and comment on the online newspaper articles have some general ideas some of which look like misconceptions to me.

In this chain of article I will try to understand and respond to some of these rejoinders. Actually, many people on The Hindu website tried to clear some of these misconceptions but it seems they were largely ignored, as the same ideas were repeated again and again in the comments.

The general refrain of the comments and the emails boils down to a few issues. They can be articulated as follows:

Why no one objects to teaching of Bible in Christian schools and that of Quran in the Madrasas?
The values propounded in Gita are universal and non-sectarian, therefore, including shlokas from Gita to teach those values is no violation of the principle of secularism.
The moral values that the Gita teaches are independent of the basic assumptions it makes regarding the God, atman, karma theory etc.
The varna-system mentioned in the Gita is based on qualities of people and not on birth.
The moral values are the same in every culture and religion.
Gita is not at all a religious book, it is universal and for all humanity.
There is a long established tradition of including religious material in school curriculum in the form of poetry of Kabir, Meera, etc. and life stories of Buddha, Mahaveer, Christ and Muhammad. So why object to Gita?

Many of these contentions may have some substance, I will try to see their relevance in the context of the issues my article discusses. I will try to respond to each one of them below.

Bible in Christian schools and Quran in Madrasas

My article deals with the public education (government school system) which is run by the state, with public funding. Following the principle of state secularism is mandatory for these schools.

Our constitution also gives freedom to minority run schools to preserve and propagate their culture, languages and religion. They are not part of the government education system. Some of them are partly funded by the government, but that is also allowed. However, there is a debate regarding this later point, as some object to state funding of schools that include teaching of religion in the school curriculum.

In any case there is absolutely no case of Bible or Quran being compulsorily taught in the public schools.

What is wrong in using shlokas from Gita in teaching moral values which are non-sectarian

This is somewhat complex issue and the position I am taking in my said article may not be widely shared. Therefore, I would like to share in in relatively greater detail. The point in teaching values like “modesty, sincerity, non-violence, patience, honesty, integrity, firmness, self-control” is not to memories the list of these values. Rather it is to live according to them. But life necessarily involve value contradiction. For example a boy or girl in Indian society who is ‘firm’ on his/her choices may be considered ‘immodest’ and ‘disobedient’ by elders. Or to take another example: non-violence may often come into conflict with self-protection or protection of someone else against violent injustice.

Moral development means being able to make a reasoned judgment in such cases of value conflicts. If we want our children to develop into independent decision makers they need to resolve such conflicts on their own in adult life. Therefore, further unpacking of this very important capability of reasoned moral judgment it will require. It seems to me one who can make a reasoned moral judgment should:

Understanding the meaning of the values which are sought to be taught. For example, to be ‘honest’ one needs to know what it means to be honest in various tricky situations.
Have a commitment to that value at intellectual and emotional level. That is, being intellectually clear in mind that one wants to be honest and feels emotionally inclined to the same.
Intellectual commitment demands understanding the justification(s) of that value. That is, one should know why s/he values honesty. This justification cannot be that my teacher, father or guru (or the Gita) said so; one should understand and accept the reasons behind it. And,
Should be able to judge relative importance of values when they come into conflict. For example, if there is a conflict in being honest and kindness to someone, one should be able to choose one of them on rational grounds. This is impossible if one does not understand justification for each value clearly.

The values which are found common in many religions are basically humanitarian values emerging out of overall experience of human race. However, all the values and their importance in various religions are not the same. Actually, there is much variance and also contradiction between various religions regarding moral values. But that is not the subject of this artcile.

Religions, in a way, misappropriate these humanitarian values. Often they become ‘religious’ because of the kind of justification provided in the religious belief systems, and not by themselves. To understand this point let’s take a very old moral principle articulated in many cultures.

Mahabharata in 13.114.8 says:

न तत्परस्य संदद्यात्प्रतिकूलम यदात्मनः। एष संक्षेप्तो धर्मः कामादन्यः प्रवर्तते।।

Which means “One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one’s own self. This, in brief, is the rule of Righteousness.” (KM Ganguli, Mahabharata Anushasan Parva, chapter 113. Different editions of Mahabharata have discrepancy regarding number of chapters and shlokas that’s why the discrepancy in the chapter and number of the shloka here.)

The Mahabharata seems to justify this on more than one kinds of grounds. Let’s look at two such justifications and try to understand the difference between ‘religious’ and ‘non-religious’ justifications. It seems in many shlokas Mahabharata justifies the above mentioned principle by claiming that ‘one who follows this will attain happiness in the next world (life)’. This is a religious explanation as the punarjanma is an idea which is part of a religious explanation of the world and cannot be proved or disproved by ordinary means of knowledge. However, in the same chapter Mahabharata also says “When One injures another, the injured turns round and injures the injurer. Similarly, when one cherishes another, that other cherishes the cherisher.” If this is provided as the justification for the same principle it would be ‘non-religious’; as it refers to the nature of creatures and not to any faith based belief, or unjustifiable teleology of human life. One can observe the nature of creatures and can prove or disprove this claim.

One should note that the principle remains the same; what makes it religious or non-religious is the nature of justification provided.

Now, we can come to Gita. That are the kinds of justifications Gita provides for the values I have quoted in my article? These recommended qualities of person come in chapter 13, verse 7. Chapter thirteen is about “The Body called the Field, the Soul called the Knower of the Field and Discrimination between them”. (S. Radhakrishnan) Verses 7 to 11 declare what is true knowledge and what is not. Verse 12 declares that one can gain eternal life by knowing the Brahmn. The whole chapter is about body, soul, Brahmn and the knowledge which gives life eternal. The justification of the values listed is unmistakably grounded in this conceptual scheme which is unmistakably religious in nature. Many of these claims—like the existence and nature of the soul and brahmn—can be questioned and can neither be proved nor disproved by ordinary means of knowledge.

If we consider these values secular and non-sectarian then we do not need Gita to teach them. There are plenty of other ways of teaching as well as to justify them. If we are using Gita, then either we think that Gita gives a good justification; or we want to use and establish authority of a religious text. Both are problematic. That is why I suggest that use of Gita in teaching these values in schools run by a secular state is difficult to justify. Unless, one is ready to critically examine all aspects of the argument, and does not take anything on faith. And is also ready to give curricular space to other religious texts like Quran, Bible, etc. Then it could become an ethical discourse which is philosophical in nature. But that is not what the Haryana government is planning. Nor is it possible at the elementary school level.

I am aware that one of the objection to my article was that Gita is not a religious book. And I have again claimed above that it is. This issue will be dealt with in the subsequent posts.

(to be continued)

******

8 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: Bhagvad Gita, Gita in school curriculum, Indoctrination, Moral education | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Till the kingdom comes: The Church on conversion

April 6, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

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

SUMMARY

(explanations and justifications for the claims made in the summary are in the main artcile.)

The vandalization of Churches and conversions: even if the church is converting people attacks on the churches are totally unjustified, anti-constitutional, vandals should be punished and condemned in the strongest terms.

Conversions and the Catholic Church: in attempts to understand this issue we should make a distinction between an ordinary Christian’s intentions, activities and the church’s intentions and activities. The church may be into conversion while an ordinary Christian may not like it.

The official position of the church on conversion: as per the published documents of the Catholic Church it is established to converting the world to Christianity and will continue to do so till the kingdom comes.

The Christ is the only saviour: according to the church the salvation is possible only through Christ.

The Asian problem: church has devised pedagogy and strategies specially suited to Asian cultures. And would like to convert the Asia to Christianity in the 3^rd millennium.

Is the Church talking of conversion of heart in all this? There is an explanation that the church only wants to proclaim Christianity and when talks of conversion, it’s is conversion of heart. This explanation is nothing more than a falsehood.

The Church only serves the people: the church renders very laudable service to the poor is a fact. The motive, as far as the official documents are concerned, is always conversion. In practice it may not be so, it is an issue of empirical research.

Does the church use allurements in its evangelical work? Officially NO. In reality it is an issue of empirical research.

Those who leave Hinduism do so on their own accord: seems to have some truth in it. But there is a difference between “leaving on one’s own accord”, and ‘fishing in the troubled waters’. Missionaries seem to be doing the later.

Impact on Hindu organisations: they are resisting, learning fast from the missionaries and gearing up for a battle for ‘soul’. Some of them are doing it badly and indulging in violence, it seems.

How should a common Indian citizen respond to this scenario?

A constitutional right: Preaching including conversion is a constitutional right of the church in India. No one need to feel guilty or hide it. All Indians have to accept this.

From the moral point of view: conversion cannot be defended in today’s world.

Social cohesion: Conversion will produce social tension, the state and liberal Indian citizens should try to contain this tension.

It seems we all have to learn how to live in peace and harmony, in the given complex reality till we change it. Neither denials nor violent reactions are justified. We have to raise our own consciousness, understand human failings and have to respect each human beings in spite of these failings. Indian democracy is passing through trying times. Its future depends on our collective wisdom, confidence in human intelligence and deep concern for wellbeing of all Indians; actually of all humanity. We all have to refrain from imposing our own dogmas on others—be they religious, political, or atheist. And in spite of non-imposition we have to keep the care for others intact and rational dialogue open with all our opponents. The much derided secularists I am sure can do this; but can the Church and the RSS/parivar do it too?

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

Whenever there is any incident involving the Christian community or any church a small debate begins. Some elements of this debate are very essential for a healthy democracy. For example there is always a very strong condemnation of the miscreants and reiteration of safe guarding the secular character of the country. This forces the government to create a reassuring environment and also sends a signal to the perpetrators of such acts that the society in general condemns such activities.

Almost always there are also assertions from the right wing that these incidents are a result of conversion related activities of the Church. The response to such assertions is mainly composed of counter assertions that there are no conversion activities on part of the Church. And if there are any conversions taking place from Hinduism to Christianity that is a result of deplorable position of the Dalits and adivasis in that society. These three contentions and counter contentions need a closer examination.

The vandalization of Churches and conversions

Saying that the vandalization happens because of conversions is a totally unacceptable defense of the vandals. Even if the church is active in conversion, vandalization and attacks are still heinous acts from the moral point of view and punishable crime from the legal point of view. It disregards the secular constitution of the country which provides guarantee of freedom to profess and preach one’s religion to every citizen. By advancing such and argument the right wing people are only exposing their own anti-constitutional position and anti-Christian biases. This argument in the debate, therefore, should be exposed and countered strongly.

Conversions and the Catholic Church

This is an often made claim, by the liberal Indians from all religions, that the church in India does not attempt to convert. Church usually keeps silence on this issue, neither confirms that it is into conversions nor denies it. Simply emphasizes its development and welfare activities. When there is a pointed mention of someone like Mother Teresa church functionaries express “sock” and anguish; as if it is unthinkable.

This claim, that the Catholic Church in India does not work to convert people to Christianity, seems to be totally false. But before we can get a hang on this issue we need to make a few distinctions. The common person belonging to Christianity may not have the same attitude to conversion as the church. India is a secular democracy because the common Indians are very tolerant and open minded regarding the religions; be they Christians or from any other religion. If they were in agreement with their priesthood and religious organizations our secularism and democracy would have been almost impossible. Therefore, the attitude of the church on the issue of conversion may not be the same as a common Christian.

The second distinction we need to make is between the official position and strategy of the Church on one hand, and actual efforts (actions) of the church on the other. There is a theoretical possibility that the official position of the church might be to exert all effort for converting non-Christian Indians to Christianity but all churches in India may not take that equally seriously in their actual functioning. The third point that we should remember is that every effort may not succeed. Therefore, the fact that percentage of Christians in India is as low as 2% does not prove that the Church has spared any efforts to convert people. This could be simply a failure in spite of all efforts.

The official position of the church on conversion

There is no room for doubt on the official position of the Church on conversions. The church was established to proclaim the Gospel to all creatures of the world. According to “Dogmatic Constitution of The Church”[i] (DCC), a document issues by the Second Vatican Council (V-II) the church was set “on its course by” the Christ himself, and this course was “preaching the Good News” of “the coming of the Kingdom of God”. This was the mission. The church and the missions are ne and the same thing. The “Ecclesia In Asia”[ii] (EA), an exhortation given by the Pope John Paul II after long deliberations of the Special Assembly of Bishops of Asia, declares that “the time for missionary activity extends between the first coming of the Lord and the second, in which latter the Church will be gathered from the four winds like a harvest into the kingdom of God. For the Gospel must be preached to all nations before the Lord shall come.”

The Christ is the only saviour

Other religions in the church documents are accepted to have some spiritual value. But the salvation comes only through the Christ. “He who believes and is baptized shall be saved; but he who does not believe, shall be condemned”. (The Decree on the Mission Activity of the Church[iii], (DMAC) V-II.) The EA declares “On the eve of the Third Millennium, the voice of the Risen Christ echoes anew in the heart of every Christian: “All authority in heaven and on earth has been given to me. Go, therefore, and make disciples of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit”.”

The Asian problem

The Asian Bishops in their special assembly noted that it is difficult to proclaim the Christ as the only saviour in that continent. As the Asians have their own rich cultures and religions; in that tradition they do not have much problem in accepting Jesus as one of the saviours or divine being among many (his is not true of all Asia, but only of Indian origin religions); but acceptance of him as the only savour does not go well with their cultural traditions. But the assembly, far from being discouraged by this, proclaimed that “the heart of the Church in Asia will be restless until the whole of Asia finds its rest in the peace of Christ, the Risen Lord”.

Is the Church talking of conversion of heart in all this?

The EA that Pope John Paul II issued in India in 1999 declares that “just as in the first millennium the Cross was planted on the soil of Europe, …, we can pray that in the Third Christian Millennium a great harvest of faith will be reaped in this vast and vital continent”. This raised a hue and cry in India at that time. Rev. Dominic Emmannuel, the spokesman for the Indian Bishops’ Conference, tried to explain it away by saying that the Indians “see it only as a change of religion. The church is talking about a conversion of heart.” This plea was obviously a falsehood if one read EA, but is still invoked today by many.

But even a cursory reading of the EA makes it amply clear that the issue is baptising into Christianity. Since Asians are reluctant to accept the Christ as the only saviour a special “pedagogy” suited to the Asian cultures needs to be devised. This involves presenting the Christ in Asian idiom, starting with narratives of spiritual fulfilment, making him look like ‘wise teacher’ etc. but the dogma should always be faithful to the scriptures; and the liturgy, though may accept some Asian symbols, should remain strictly as per the Christian tradition.

This zeal for conversion should be manifest in everything the church does. Education, particularly of the deprived sections, is poor in Asia, so the church should address this need through educational institutions, and the “Catholic schools should continue to be places where the faith can be freely proposed and received.” (AE)

The assertions that the Catholic Church in India is not interested in converting people to Christianity, therefore, is totally false.

The Church only serves the people

It is often claimed that whatever may be the official position the church only serves the people and does not try to convert them. At a speculative level this does not seem to be true. The Asian problem mentioned above makes it very clear that there are ways of working for conversion, and all the service so often mentioned could be a preparation for the ground for conversion when suitable time comes. The Ecclesia in Asia itself gives very clear indication of this: The “evangelization today is a reality that is both rich and dynamic. It has various aspects and elements: witness, dialogue, proclamation, catechesis, conversion, baptism, insertion into the ecclesial community, the implantation of the Church, inculturation and integral human promotion. Some of these elements proceed together, while some others are successive steps or phases of the entire process of evangelization”. That explains that even when there is no direct conversion, all evangelical work is a preparation for that one and the only purpose.

But the real question remains empirical: are the catholic churches in India directly encouraging people to convert? Many studies suggest they are, however, each such study is vehemently rejected by the spokes persons of the church. This is a matter that needs to be investigated further, before coming to a clear conclusion.

Does the church use allurements in its evangelical work?

Again it is an empirical question and needs serious investigation. The official answer that emerges from the documents mentioned above is clear enough at least in principle. DMAC states “[t]he Church strictly forbids forcing anyone to embrace the Faith, or alluring or enticing people by worrisome wiles. By the same token, she also strongly insists on this right, that no one be frightened away from the Faith by unjust vexations on the part of others.”

However, there is plenty of room to adhere to the letter of this declaration and still use allurements and enticements. The very next paragraph starts making room for such a practice: “the convert’s motives should be looked into, and if necessary, purified”. The promise of good schools, health care and other forms of charity can easily be the motive. But this is impossible to nail.

Those who leave Hinduism do so on their own accord

One reason for the conversion of Dalits and Adivasis to Christianity is rightly claimed to be the low social and economic status of them in the society. Desire to escape indignity and oppression forced on them for thousands of years is good enough reason for any human beings to despise the Hindu structure of society. The people who are spearheading the Hindutva movements, including ghar-vapasi, are mostly from the upper caste. They clearly have deep rooted biases against the so-called lower castes and tribal people. They would like them to remain Hindu but at a lower position of power and social status. Often their proclamations of upliftment of lower castes are extremely patronising and lack sincerity.

All this motivates people to leave he Hindu fold as it is. However, we have to make a moral distinction between someone leaving Hinduism on one’s own accord and others fishing in the troubled waters. Missionaries clearly are fishing in the troubled waters.

If the motives of both the Hindu organisations working in tribal areas and the missionaries are pure service, one wonders why they don’t cooperate. The missionaries have experience and knowledge accumulated over hundreds of years in providing good education and health care. They can offer to train the workers of Hindu organisations in these areas. The Hindu organisations rather than competing with the missionaries can learn from them. Each can come to the agreement for not making any further attempts to conversion and reconversion. But we all know that the motives of both are not as simple, and this mutual good will and cooperation in serving the deprived is not likely to come in foreseeable future.

So let’s realise that the zeal of Christian missionaries is not going to be lessened in the near future. Their methods however will be modified according to the social and political situation on the ground. Overall, the methods are much more humane now than they historically have been. The highly respected St. Francis Xavier describes his own method of preaching Christianity: “Whenever I hear of any act of idolatrous worship, I go to the place with a large band of these children, who very soon load the devil with a greater amount of insult and abuse than he has lately received of honour and worship from their parents, relations, and acquaintance. The children run at the idols, upset them, dash them down, break them to pieces, spit on them, trample on them, kick them about, and in short heap on them every possible outrage.” (The life and letters of St Francis Xavier, pages 152-53)

This man is considered a saint, even by the civilizational standards of his times he seems to be more of an apostle of hate. It seems he has nothing common with what Indians consider saints, for example Kabir, Raidas, Meera, Nanak. But the Catholic Church has realised the mistake in this method of spreading their faith and abandoned this, one hopes.

Impact on Hindu organisations

Recently there are is a lot of writing in the press regarding “attack on Christian community” and by implication ‘Hindu community’. Surprisingly no secular intellectual is asking whether the attacks are on the Christian community of on the churches? Whether the attacks are by Hindu community of by some miscreants in the lunatic fringe? We should understand that if attack on a church is seen as attack on the entire Christian community then the actions of the church also have to be attributed to the entire Christian community. This is a logical point to accurately describe the situation; and not a defence on attacks on the churches. On that I have already expressed my opinion and will have something more to say below.

When the Hindu groups (who are a small minority in Hindus) express concern on the issue of conversions the Indian intellectual “laughs” in unison with Ashish Nandi, who said in a recent interview “the majority community, which is 82% of the country’s population but some of them still feel and behave like a minority. [Laughs]”

I am not sure whether they genuinely fail to get the point of this concern of they have acquired a non-thinking attitude to the problem. The way right wing Hindus articulate the issue (and they might be wrong) is that Hinduism is not a evangelizing religion; for centuries missionaries have been slowly chipping away at it, and have been heaping calumny on it; so they feel like resisting it. Those who think that the missionaries do not heap calumny on Hinduism should read missionary literature of colonial period; and Francis Zavier’s letters; jut to get a test. The Catholic Church, the largest church in India, has stopped hate mongering now; but that is not true of all churches which are active in conversion. Those who find this statement baseless should watch this short video https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mM2HgTX0Cng . Pastor Ranjit Abraham is telling lies, heaping insult on India, on Indians and on Hindus. He claims to have hundreds of thousands of followers, more than 3500 churches, and 16 Bible colleges. This worry is a response to a long history of this kind of activity.

This is producing more than just a reaction among the Hindu organisations. An early warning of what might be coming can be heard on Mohan Bhagwat’s speech delivered in Delhi on 5^th April 15. It is clear they are learning from missionaries and are learning fast. They aspire for wider scope, better organised work and ‘service’ without distinction of religions etc. and also without expecting something in return. In near future they will learn all the tricks of evangelism, will try to turn Hinduism in a evangelising religions. We are in for a battle over souls in India for some time to come. Let me add that this is the worst thing that can happen to Hinduism, it will lose its roots and character.

How should a common Indian citizen respond to this scenario?

A constitutional right

Nothing in these intensions of the church is against the constitution. Therefore, it would be much more truthful to say openly that: yes, the church wants to convert. But that is it’s constitutionally guaranteed right. The church neither needs to feel guilty of violating the law of the land nor need to apologise for it, as they are within their constitutional right of propagating their religion. They should simply adhere to their own principle of not using force, allurements or enticements.

The Hindus in general and the fundamentalists among them in particular have to learn that all citizens of India have the right to preach their religion and convert others on the grounds of change of faith. If they think of themselves as good citizens of India they should not attack churches or Christians for this, nor should they malign either the Church of the Christians for this. They have to learn to live with the reality.

The governments—at the centre as well as at the states—are duty bound to protect the liberty of Christens and the Church; and enforce the law and order strictly by punishing the miscreants who indulge in violence against the Church.

From the moral point of view

The church’s position of striving to convert everyone can hardly be defended morally in today’s liberal democratic societies. It is a dogmatic position which cannot be defended rationally. All religions try to capture the consciousness of the gullible. Considering the gospel the word of God itself is a huge fraud on humanity; like any other book that claims to be revealed by the God. The known history of Bible and how it was constructed much after the death of Christ makes it a dogma crafted for political purposes. Therefore, conversion can never be an act of ‘rational persuasion’.

From the humanist point of view those who have acquired the power of sophisticated language and thinking should not use these capabilities to indoctrinate the gullible; they should rather take the responsibility of enhancing the level of consciousness and rational thinking of those who happen to be less prepared due to the unjust distribution of opportunities. The church—and all religions—thrive on the use of others unpreparedness and gullibility to enhance their own power. Therefore, the church has to take the responsibility and moral blame of its acts of unjustly influencing others. In spite of being constitutionally within their rights they are moral transgressors in the eyes of rational humanists.

Social cohesion

The church itself is aware that “the convert often experiences an abrupt breaking off of human ties”, but wants to hide behind the fiction of testing “the joy which God gives without measure”. Everyone is aware that all religions have very strong social, cultural, political and economic implications. All religious communities are now aware of these implications. Therefore, each one feels threatened if their members leave and convert to other religious communities. In a democracy an individual has the freedom to choose one’s own belief system. And still a disruption in the social and cultural life cannot be avoided if conversions take place. Violent retaliation to such a disruption is wrong and unconstitutional; but the actions of the church (if it is involved in conversions) cannot be considered as unrelated to such disruption.

When RSS has developed its own machine of conversion in the guise of Rashtirya Seva Bharati the missionaries and RSS/RSB will be standing eye-ball-to-eye-ball with each other. That will create tension.

******

[i] http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_const_19641121_lumen-gentium_en.html

[ii] http://w2.vatican.va/content/john-paul-ii/en/apost_exhortations/documents/hf_jp-ii_exh_06111999_ecclesia-in-asia.html

[iii] http://www.vatican.va/archive/hist_councils/ii_vatican_council/documents/vat-ii_decree_19651207_ad-gentes_en.html

5 Comments | Pratyutpann-Mati | Tagged: Christian mission, Church attacks, Conversions in India, RSS | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

	Anonymous on Foundational Language and…
	Anonymous on Bhagavad Gita 2: Varna based o…
	Anonymous on Saturday musings on three Indi…
	Stacey on Quran and Peace: A response to…
	Isaac Weber on Skill-Based Curriculum: Will i…

Thinking Aloud

For a rational education debate…

In the Sangh-Parivar Raj

Blind by one eye: A response to “How converters could be made to stop offering inducements”

Rohingyas: atrocities in Myanmar

Another brick in the wall: Examinations and the child

Bhagavad Gita 2: Varna based on birth or individual qualities?

Bhagavad Gita: response to some issues raised through emails and comments

Till the kingdom comes: The Church on conversion

Recent Comments

Archives