Quran and Violence 4: Some clarifications

January 23, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

(Continued from part 3)

As I said in my last post, the way I am writing about Quran is open to some serious charges of bias and misinterpretation. I would like to explain my stand clearly on two things: 1. Cherry-picking the verses and taking particularly fundamentalist translation. 2. Ignoring the context of revelation of the verses.

Cherry-picking and fundamentalist translation

In any genuine discourse one should take the most generous interpretation of the theory one is criticizing/critiquing. In respectable discourse this is generally accepted principle. The reason for this stand is not simply the generosity and good heartedness towards the author or protagonist of the theory. There is also a very sound intellectual reason for this attitude. If one can refute the most generous interpretation then the less generous ones get automatically refuted in this attempt, while refutation of the least generous interpretation leaves room for other more generous interpretations still being defendable.

In writing this blog I am deliberately violating this principle. My reasons for this violations are as follows:

  • Quran is not supposed to be a theory advanced by some human being. It is supposed to be a book sent by Allah and the claim is that every word of it is true, inviolable and good for humanity. Therefore, showing one verse that is unacceptable for the humanity should be enough for refuting the claim of perfection and total goodness. Once that is accepted; that Quran is like any other book, we can look for the good and beneficial aspects of the book more generously. But till the claim to perfection and immutability is maintained, there is no point in looking for softer and nicer parts of Quran. Because the fundamentalism and violence is based on the claim of perfection and immutability.
  •  This book is considered perfect guidance to humanity revealed to the perfect prophet. Again, this perfection is the problem; and once the claim of perfection is withdrawn or refuted one can then see the overall benefits or otherwise of the preaching of the prophet, like one does with all political and moral theorists. Then Muhammad can be analyzed like Marx or Plato or Gandhi or anyone else.

Let us take two examples to underline this point further. Bhagvad Gita is taken by some (not many though) as guidance coming directly from Krishna as the ultimate God in human form. If one wants to show that this ultimate God gave verses that could be interpreted as supporting caste, lower position of women and restriction on women one would chose the relevant verses and not the principle of self-less action for the benefit of all humanity. Let’s also remember that there are Hindu fundamentalists who may use Gita for these purposes.

For this let’s look at the verses 32 and 33 of chapter 9 in Bhagavad-Gita:

मां हि पार्थ व्यपाश्रित्य येऽपि स्युः पापयोनयः ।

स्त्रियो वैश्यास्तथा शूद्रास्तेऽपि यान्ति परां गतिम् ॥ ९- ३२ ॥

किं पुनर्ब्राह्मणाः पुण्या भक्ता राजर्षयस्तथा ।

अनित्यमसुखं लोकमिमं प्राप्य भजस्व माम् ॥ ९- ३३ ॥

They are translated by LM Fosse as “For even those of lowly origin, Son of Pritha, such as women, traders, peasants, and servants, reach the highest state when they take refuge in me. (9:32) How much more pure Brahmin devotees and royal sages? When you live in this transient, unhappy world, worship me! (9:33)”

Fosse has already taken the tinge of the words “पापयोनयः”, “वैश्य” “शूद्र” by translating them as “lowly origin” “traders and peasants” and “servants” respectively. We all know “shudra” is not just servant, the cultural meaning of the term is much worse. Then compare this with “पुनर्ब्राह्मणाः पुण्या भक्ता राजर्षयस्तथा” etc.

Now there are a dozen ways to explain this away and many scholar of Gita may consider this an unfair quotation. But still it does leave the possibility open that the God who was giving Gita-gyan to Arjuna was aware of this varna division in the society, accepted its social recognition; in spite of declaring that all are equal to him. If one is reading Gita as a human creation one will look for the overall message and try to understand where the balance lies. But if one see the Gita as perfect message from God without any blemish, then has to take these verses in consideration as well.

Let’s take another example from Maryada Purushottam Ram. I must repeat that trying to look at Rama as a decent human being one will look at all aspects of his life, but if he is proposed an the perfect purush and husband and an unblemished ideal to be followed by all, then his demand for agnipariksha and sending pregnant Sita to forest acquire a different meaning. And cannot be explained away.

Now, I am not discussing Gita or Ramayana; I am discussing Quran. The issue is: if the Quran is supposed to be the perfect book given by Allah to a perfect prophet, it has to be scrutinised as strictly as possible and highlighting the worst aspects of it is perfectly legitimate. But if it is seen as a human book written/recited by a human being who was like anyone else both good and bad; then one should look at the overall message of the book. The problem is that the Quran is taken by believers as the perfect book given by God and non-believers remain hesitant in challenging that.

The point I am making is that the God’s perfect books has to be analysed differently than the fallible humans’ imperfect books.

Context of the verses

Another problem with Quran is that most of its verses are revealed in a context of small tribal warfare in a small part of the globe. But if one believe that then they become obsolete as soon as that historical time is passed and as soon as one goes out of Arabia. That will make large parts of the Quran redundant today, or will leave them only with interesting illustrations of practical decision making which are open to interpretation. Then the Quran will no more remain immutable. Status of women, attitude to idolatry, polytheism, business, slavery, slave women, etc. all will have to change. But staunch believers like to read universal and eternal message in Quran. That creates a serious tension on the one hand and an advantage to the believers on the other. If there is a demand from non-believers in the society to be accommodative in certain problematic aspects of the Quran then the eternality of Quranic message is emphasised and any change is plainly refused. But when the disrespect, violence and hatred for others in Quran is pointed out then the contextual explanations are offered. This is plain double standard. One cannot have one’s cake and eat it too. The defenders of Quran have to make up their mind: is it the eternal and perfect truth or a contextual message that is being interpreted for universal guidance? If it is the second then I should have quoted many other caring (only for believers through, there are not many for polytheists, etc.) verses as well. But if it is the first, which is the case, then my taking out the verses I have taken out is justified.

It is about the Quran the book and not about Muslims

I must reiterate that the sanction of violence I am looking at is in the Quran. As far as Muslims are concerned I believe they are no different from others in general. There are plenty of Hindus who do not care much about what Gita says; similarly I believe there are plenty of Muslims who do not bother much about what Quran says. There may be Hindus who respect Gita and also reject its varna dharma idea and its ideas about impurity of women. Similarly there are Muslims who respect Quran but reject its violent interpretation. But there are also Hindus who would like the Gita to be THE BOOK and use an interpretation of it to further their agenda. Similarly, there are Muslims who would take Quran as Allah’s book and go by its word.

(To be continued in part 5)

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

Quran and violence 3: Jihad, idolaters and infidels

January 13, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

(Continued from part 2)

What I have posted so far, including this post, is open to some serious charges of deliberate misinterpretation and/or bias. Some of them could be: (i) Particularly fundamentalist translations are used. (ii) The verses are cherry-picked, and those which show Quran in better light are ignored. (iii) Quotations are given almost without any analysis. And, (iv) that the verses supposed to be revealed in particular context are presented as universal principles. I will deal with these charges in the next post (tomorrow), because some material (by the way of examples) is needed before one can make any case on these issues.

Jihad, idolaters and infidels

Verse 2:190 states “And fight in the Way of Allah those who fight you, but transgress not the limits. Truly, Allah likes not the transgressors.” [NQ] This is a much debated verse. Some emphasise “fight in the way of Allah”, indicating fight for religious purposes. Others remind “those who fight you, but transgress not”; therefore, it is a verse sanctioning fighting a defensive war.

The explanation offered by Noble Quran [NQ], however, clearly sides with the first interpretation. NQ’s explanation is worth quoting in full. First, it states that “[T]his Verse is the first one that was revealed in connection with jihad, but it was supplemented by another (9:36)”. We will have a look at 9:36 presently. But before that the meaning and importance of Jihad should be understood as per NQ: “Al-Jihad (holy fighting) in Allah’s Cause (with full force of numbers and weaponry) is given the utmost importance in Islam and is one of its pillars (on which it stands). By Jihad Islam is established, Allah’s Word is made superior, (His Word being La ilaha illallah which means none has the right to be worshipped but Allah), and His Religion (Islam) is propagated. By abandoning Jihad (may Allah protect us from that) Islam is destroyed and the Muslims fall into an inferior position: their honour is lost, their lands are stolen, their rule and authority vanish. Jihad is an obligatory duty in Islam on every Muslim, and he who tries to escape from this duty, or does not in his innermost heart wish to fulfil this duty, dies with one of the qualities of a hypocrite.

 

Narrated ‘Abdullah bin Masud: I asked Allah’s Messenger, “O Allah’s Messenger! What is the best deed?” He replied, “To offer the (prayers) at their early fixed stated times.” I asked, “What is next in goodness?” He replied, “To be good and dutiful to your parents.” I further asked, “What is next in goodness?” He “To participate in Jihad in Allah’s Cause.” I did not ask Allah’s Messenger anymore and if I had asked him more, he would have told me more. (Sahih Al-Bukhari, Vol.4, Hadith No.41).” [Emphasis added]

This explanation does not leave any doubt that: (i) jihad is not some internal purification as far as this verse is concerned, it has to be fought with ‘full numbers and weaponry’, this is a duty, so no deviating interpretation is allowed. (ii) It is not a defensive war, but one to make Allah’s word and Islam supreme, which means nothing else can be worshipped. (iii) Jihad is at the least third best deed for a Muslim, after offering regular prayers and looking after one’s parents.

But there are other interpretations. We should have a look at the least at one of them. TuQ explains in footnote 266 that the call to fight is given to Muslims (O Muslims!). Then goes on to explain in footnote 267 that “in the way of Allah” refers to “in the cause of His true Religion; in the cause of truth, justice, equity and humanity. To combat the dark forces of polytheism, superstition, perfidy, irreligion, and religious persecution, and not for the greed of booty or for self-aggrandisement, nor yet to extend the ‘sphere of influence’ of this country or that. Is the extermination of moral evil, in any sense, an unworthy object of war?” [Emphases added]

This is an interesting explanation. It first lists “the cause of truth, justice, equity and humanity” which are very much acceptable as good cause to struggle for, even if not for war. But then gives another list “the dark forces of polytheism, superstition, perfidy, irreligion, and religious persecution”. Polytheism clearly indicates the agenda; and it is implied that superstition, perfidy and irreligion can be stemmed by monotheism only. Now, if a war could be waged to eradicate polytheism then the definitions of justice, equity and humanity cannot remain as they are supposed to be in the modern world. Nor can ‘religious persecution’ be understood as ‘lack of freedom to practice one’s own religion’, as the war itself is against a religious idea, namely polytheism. The whole passage looks like either an eyewash or an alternative discourse which defines justice etc. in its own manner, which is unknown to unbelievers and infidels. And, it does not take the position that the jihad is not general against all polytheists, in all lands and all times. The verse may have come in the local context of fighting a religious war with Makkans, later in this article we have to look at the attempts to draw universal eternal principle from contextual commands.

The next verse is clearly in connection with the fight between the believers and people of Makka. 2:191 “And kill them wherever you find them, and turn them out from where they have turned you out. And Al-Fitnah is worse than killing. And fight not with them at Al-Masjid-al-haram (the sanctuary at Makkah), unless they (first) fight you there. But if they attack you, then kill them. Such is the recompense of the disbelievers.”

Al-Fitnah is translated in various ways. NQ explains it as “polytheism, to disbelieve after one has believed in Allah, or a trial or a calamity or an affliction” at one place; the meaning in the next verse makes it more general “disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah”. TuQ explains “(of irreligion and impiety). The word covers, on the part of the Makkans, a number of other such crimes over and above the grossest forms of idolatry, as treachery, perfidy, wanton persecution of the Muslims, and aggression in fighting.” The centre of the meaning clearly is “polytheism”. Worshiping other beings with Allah is the real issue, rest of the ‘crimes’ are just additional reasons. And as soon as this meaning is given, the call to fight becomes universal against “al-fitnah”.

Therefore, it is necessary to “fight them until there is no more Fitnah (disbelief and worshipping of others along with Allah) and (all and every kind of) worship is for Allah (Alone). But if they cease, let there be no transgression except against Az-Zalimun (the polytheists, and wrong-doers).” [NQ, 2:193] This verse makes it clear that even if ‘they’—whomsoever they may be—cease fighting, the war against polytheists must go on.

The verse 9:36, mentioned above demands “…so wrong not yourselves therein, and fight against the Mushrikun (polytheists, pagans, idolaters, disbelievers in the Oneness of Allah) collectively as they fight against you collectively. But know that Allah is with those who are AI-Muttaqun (the pious).” The verse 9:38 admonishes those who “when … asked to march forth in the Cause of Allah (i.e. Jihad) you cling heavily to the earth? Are you pleased with the life of this world rather than the Hereafter? But little is the enjoyment of the life of this world as compared to the Hereafter.” And warns them (9:39) if “you march not forth, He will punish you with a painful torment and will replace you by another people; and you cannot harm Him at all, and Allah is Able to do all things.” A believer who does not march willingly in jihad will get “painful torment”. And will be replaced with another people.

Hadith supports this idea. “Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, “Nobody who dies and finds good from Allah (in the Hereafter) would wish to come back to this world, even if he were given the whole world and whatever is in it except the martyr who, on seeing the superiority of martyrdom would like to come back to the world and get killed again (in Allah’s Cause).” (Sahih AI·BukhM, Vol.4, Hadith No.53-A).” [NQ]

One can make a much bigger list of verses of this nature, but perhaps it is not needed. If this does not sanction violence against polytheists and unbelieves one does not know what would?

******

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

Quran and violence 2: What the Allah says

January 12, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

(Continued from part 1)

As a reminder, this article is about presence or absence of violence in the Quran, and not at all about the individual Muslims or Muslim society in general. As there are a majority of Hindus and Christians who live their lives guided by their context and times in spite of what is written in Gita (or Manusmriti) and Bible, surely there are majority of Muslims who are products of their times and context in spite of what is written in the Quran. And hopefully their context and times make them all (Muslims, Hindus, Christians, etc.) more like each other in spite of their religious books. Therefore, this article makes no claim about how Muslims as individuals and members of a community think and act. Actually I think that Muslims are exactly like anyone else in a given society. The article is only about what is written in a book, Quran. But I do claims that some extremists get their inspiration from Quran and try to justify their actions on the basis of what is written there in. With this disclaimer, let’s go back to the Book then.

The threats of violence by Allah

The modern day Quran opens[1] “[I]n the name of Allah, the Compassionate, the Merciful.” [TuQ] Almost every chapter of the Quran opens with praise of Allah in terms of being compassionate, merciful, all powerful, all knowing, and so on. However, Allah is merciful and compassionate only to those who believe in him. To those who fail to believe he is a dreadful tormentor who visits on them destruction and annihilation in this world, and endless torture in the hereafter. For those who disbelieve the Allah has “a torment Mighty” [TuQ 2:7] in store. In this regard footnote numbered 49 explains: “A just retribution, after, the last judgment, to the finally impenitent. [Arabic word used in Quran] generally signifies any corporal punishment; and, by an extension of the original signification, any implication of pain that disgraces or puts to shame; originally, beating; afterwards used to signify any painful punishment, torture, or torment.”

Verses 2:23 and 2:24 challenge and threaten: “And if you are in doubt [of the Quran being a book given by Allah] concerning what We have sent down upon Our bondman [Muhammad] then bring a chapter like it and call upon your witnesses, besides Allah, if you are truthful. But if you do not, and you cannot, then dread the Fire whose fuel is men and stones, prepared for the disbelievers.” [TuQ]

The meaning of fire, stones and disbelievers is explained clearly in footnotes 103 and 104 of TuQ (footnote 102 also provides the authority of Bible). “These stones, which the polytheists worshipped and of which they carved idols and images, would be placed in the Hell alongside their worshippers to increase their mental agony and torture. Polytheism has almost invariably manifested itself in stone-worshipping, and ‘sacred stones’ are perhaps the commonest type of idols. … The Hell-fire is thus intended, primarily and mainly, for the infidels, the outright rejectors of faith, and not for mere sinners.”

These two are representative examples. One can multiply them hundredfold easily. But these few are enough for the point I want to make. The main enticements for accepting the faith that Allah offers are war-booty and protection in this life; and a life of endless enjoyment hereafter. Since this article is about violence in Quran I am citing no examples for this enticement. What is relevant here are the threats that Allah issues for non-believers, and Quran is replete with them, it is difficult to finish a page without encountering some or other threat. They mainly consist of visiting scourge in this life and burning in the hell in the next. All these threats are excessively violent. Therefore, Allah is merciful and compassionate for those who believe in the message revealed to Muhammad and obey him [obedience to Muhammad is obedience to Allah, and disobedience to Muhammad is disobedience to Allah]. ON the other hand he is very violent to those who do not believe in what Muhammad says and do not obey him.

This is a very important point. Being infidel is such a great sin that subjecting infidels to excessive violence hereafter does not detract from one being ‘merciful’ and ‘compassionate’. You can torture them and still remain infinitely merciful and compassionate, and even just! This may easily imply, and I suspect does imply to extremists, that the men who shoot cartoonists and innocent people can claim to be merciful and compassionate in spite of their violence as it is seen as justified. The violence of the fundamentalist (not all) among the believers springs directly from a violent God that they fear, love, submit to and worship with unwavering faith and single minded devotion. The Allah has no kind word to spare for the non-believers.

Sanction of violence

When one talks of the violence and killing of non-believers two versed are often flung at them as a supposed to be irrefutable argument that Quran sanctions religious freedom and forbids killing. We must first deal with these verses, then take up a few more examples.

Regarding the religious freedom the often cited words are “your religion to you and mine to me”. Let’s look at the Sura 109 (chapter 109) where these words are found. This is a very short chapter with very short six verses. This is how TuQ translates it: “Say thou: Infidels, I worship not what you worship! Nor are you the worshippers of what I worship, and I shall not be a worshipper of what you have worshiped. Nor will you be the worshipper of what I worship! Your requital shall be yours, and my requital shall be mine.”

To understand the full import of the sura we should also examine the footnotes. TuQ explains the context of the sura in footnote 571, this is how it goes: “Some of the leading pagans of Makka had proposed to the Prophet a compromise between Islam and the ancient faith such as they conceived it, whereby he would concede to their gods an honourable place. This chapter indignantly repudiates all such suggestions. And, It (this surah) breathes a spirit of uncompromising hostility to idolatry.” [Emphases added]

So this is an indignant repudiation of a compromise proposal and expresses “a spirit of uncompromising hostility”, while the last verse is often touted as allowing freedom of religion and tolerance. This is a command from the Allah to Muhammad to say this to the infidels. And the contempt for infidelity is included in the very address to the delegation. The often quoted last verse is “Your requital shall be yours, and my requital shall be mine”. Requital means “a justly deserved penalty”. If one remembers that the penalty for infidels is burning in the hell for eternity, then it is more like a warning (threat from Allah) than acceptance of peaceful coexistence.

This, however, is the harshest translation of the verse. I looked at about 6-7 other translations. This is the only one that uses the word ‘requital’; other use words like ‘way’ and ‘religion’. However, the context makes a few things clear. 1. There has been a dispute over believers criticising the gods of ‘infidels’. 2. The infidels come forward with a compromise proposal. 3. Muhammad addresses them (on Allah’s command) “O Infidels”. 4. Repudiates their proposal. 5. Accepts a mutually uneasy truce (till when?) in which a thinly veiled threat of Allah’s retribution is also included. Does not sound like breathing a spirit of tolerance at all?

 A small but significant point to be noted in this regard is also that this chapter is supposed to be revealed in Makka. The verses supposed to be revealed in Makka are noticeably softer to polytheists and idolater in comparison to those supposed to be revealed in Madinah. We will return to this point later on in the article.

The second often quoted verse is “killing a single human being is like killing the whole humanity”. This also needs an examination. The verse is 5:32 or 5:33 depending on translation. This is how the TuQ translates it: “Because of that We prescribed to the Children of Israel who so kills a person, except for a person, or for corruption in the land, it shall be as if he had killed all mankind, and whoso brings life to one it shall be as if he had brought life to all mankind. And assuredly there came to them Our messengers with evidences, yet even after that many of them are acting in the land extravagantly.”

The reference “because of that” is to killing of Abel by Cain. Moses is commanded by Allah to relate the story of two sons of Adam to Israelites. The verse 5:32 comes at the end of the story. In most of the defensive quotations the conditional phrase “except for a person, or for corruption in the land” is omitted. The verse in its original form is not a blanket injunction on killing; as one can kill a murderer and those who spread corruption in the land. Some other translations use the phrase “spread mischief in the land”. The Arabic term seems to be “fasadin” which is translated sometimes as “spread corruption” and sometimes as “spread mischief”. In many verses ‘dilatory’, ‘polytheism’ and ‘talking against Islam’ are termed as “mischief”. One needs to note that a believer can still kill for ‘mischief’, and talking against the Islam and Muhammad is defined as ‘mischief’.

NQ in connection with verse 5:32 gives a Hadith on authority of Sahih Al-Bukhari which lists the biggest sins. “Narrated Anas bin Malik: The Prophet said, “The biggest of Al-Kaba’ir (the great sins) are: (1) To join others as partners in worship with Allah, (2) to murder a human being, (3) to be undutiful to one’s parents (4) and to make a false statement” or said, “to give a false witness.” (Sahih AI-BukhfJri, Vol.9, Hadith No.10). The first among the biggest sins is polytheism. Quran calls idolatry, we will see presently, as a big sin as well. And giving false witness can easily include a statement like “Quran is not a book from Allah”.

Now if one looks at the verse 5:32 with its conditional phrase “in retaliation for murder, or (and) to spread mischief in the land” [NQ] and interprets ‘mischief’ as ‘polytheism’ and/or ‘idolatry’, one can kill without violating the Allah’s command. Therefore, this verse actually is misquoted, and is no injunction against killing polytheists and idolaters, particularly those who question the divine origin of Quran and prophet-hood of Muhammad.

The very next verse (5:33) commands “[T]he recompense of those who wage war against Allah and His messenger, and go about in the land making mischief is only that they shall be slain or crucified or their hands and their feet be cut off on the opposite sides or be banished from the land. Such shall be their humiliation in this world, and in the Hereafter theirs shall be a torment mighty”. [TuQ] A wide choice indeed!

So far we have been examining if the Quran gives freedom of religion and whether it condemns killing. The above quoted verse brings us to sanction of violence. Killing and various kinds of violence is clearly recommended against those who “wage war against Allah and His messenger, and go about in the land making mischief.” Mischief, as we have seen above, includes polytheism. Therefore, it recommends violence against polytheists. We will try to understand what waging war against Allah and His messenger means and how the Quran wants idolaters to be treated. (To be continued tomorrow.)

******

[1] In chronological order these verses were not revealed the first, they come at number five.

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

Quran and violence 1: Statement of problem

January 11, 2015

Rohit Dhankar

(This post is first part of a long four part article.)

There are repeated violent protests and attacks in the name of Quran and Muhammad. The Charlie Hebdo killing is just the most recent, neither the first not the last. Each time there are such attacks they are condemned by notable people from within Islam as well as outside. They are also supported by what is often called a small lunatic fringe; no one know the smallness or bigness of the fringe for sure, lunacy, however, seems to be obvious. Those who condemn the attacks often make an additional point: Quran does not sanction violence, it preaches peace. The people who condemn the attacks from within Islam mostly base their argument on this premise. And therein lies the problem.

The sincerity, wisdom, goodwill, progressivism and humanity of the people who condemn the violent attacks is beyond question. Let’s call this set of people ‘pacifists’. The pacifists, then, genuinely want these attacks to stop. However, their claims and psychology are totally wrong. Their argument is based on two assumptions: (i) The attackers believe in Quran and want to force the world to accepts its precepts. And (ii) They misunderstand Quran as recommending violence to silence dissent. This two assumption statement, obviously, does not capture the whole socio-political set of beliefs which prompts such attacks. But only articulates the religious basis of the argument. Let’s take the first assumption, that attackers believe in Quran, either to be correct as it is, or that the perpetrators of violence in the name of Quran are caught in a hypocritical mindset where professing belief in Quran and acting it out has become a socio-political necessity for them. In such a case the force of the pacifists’ argument depends on the acceptance of the truth of their second assumption; that Quran does not sanction violence to silence dissent. This assumption, however, is demonstrably false. And if the perpetrator of violence in the name of Quran see this falsehood, which is easy to see, then the pacifist argument cuts no ice with them. Neither does this with the silent majority among the believers in Quran. Therefore, the violent feel justified in their mindset and also maintain their support—whatever its size—within the community of believers.

The pacifists’ desire and valiant efforts to exorcise Quran of violence through reinterpretation is self-defeating; as in basing their argument on the Quran they reinforce its authority, they are trying to undermine religious bigotry through reinforcing the authority of religion. In this context it becomes important to examine whether Quran sanctions violence to silence dissent or not.

The approach

To approach this question properly in modern times and in an impartial manner one has to first take a position of suspended belief, neither of belief, nor non-belief, nor of doubt. Just an attitude of attempt to understand. Second one has to rely on one’s own lights; taking a theological position of either a believing scholar or a critical scholar would demand submission of one’s own reason to their percepts. One has to search for indications in the Quran itself, if there are any, to understand it, if there are any recommendations regarding how it should be interpreted.

Quran itself gives guidance as to how it should be understood in Sura 3. The verse number differs in different translations, I am using “Tafsir-ul-Quran” [TuQ, for short] and “The Noble Quran”[1] [NQ, for short] in both of which it happens to be verse 3:7. Since nonbelievers writing on Quran are often declared to be quoting out of context, therefore, I am giving the context as well as the verse in the full. The verse 3:7, then, is translated in TuQ as: “He it is Who has sent down to thee the Book in which some verses are firmly constructed[2]—they are the essence of the Book; and others consimilar[3]—But those in whose hearts is a deviation follow only what is consimilar therein, seeking dissension and seeking to misinterpret the same whereas none knows their interpretation save Ailah. And the firmly grounded in knowledge say, “we believe in it, it is all from our lord”; and none receives admonition save men of understanding.[4]”

The meaning of the verse is quite clear. 1. There are some verses in the Quran which are entirely clear and do not need any interpretation. 2. There are some others which are somewhat ambiguous, and need interpretation. 3. The ones which are entirely clear are the real backbone of the book are central to its meaning. 4. The verses which are not so clear need to be interpreted in the light and in consistency with the ones which are clear. 5. Those who want to deviate and do not have faith firm enough emphasize the verses which are not so clear and bring in their desired interpretation in them. 6. Those who want to bring in their own interpretation are to be admonished. 7. As no one knows the true meaning of these verses save Allah.

If the matter is still unclear NQ tells which ones are to be taken literally and not to be metaphorically interpreted, “those are the Verses of Al-Ahkâm (commandments, etc.), Al-Farâ’id (obligatory duties) and Al-Hudud (legal laws for the punishment of thieves, adulterers, etc.)” We should remember that the commandments and obligatory duties are defined in ‘unambiguous’ terms.

The TuQ emphasises in regard to these verses that “here it signifies the fundamental part of the Book, its essence, comprising its principal tenets and central doctrines in consonance with which other passages, less dear and less definite, are to be interpreted”. [Footnote 232]. The TuQ also helpfully explains the meaning of “men of understanding” at the end of the verse as “those who exercise their commonsense. Reason also commends this course of interpreting the equivocal in the light of the unequivocal.”

This makes the matter entirely clear. The verses that are to do with duties, obligations, legal rights are to be taken as they are, without trying to deviate by application of your common sense. The Allah has defined them very clearly. This is the approach then we will take in this attempt to understand violence in Quran.
(to be continued tomorrow)
==================================

Footnotes

[1] TAFSIR -UL- QURAN, (1991) Translation and Commentary of the Holy Qur’an By MAULANA ABDUL MAJID DARYABADI, Published by DARUL – ISHAAT URDU BAZAR, KARACHI. And THE NOBLE, Translation of the meanings in the English Language by Dr. Muhammad Taqi-ud-Din AI-Hilali, Formerly Professor of Islamic Faith and Teachings Islamic University, AI-Madinah AI-Munawwarah, and Dr. Muhammad Muhsin Khan, Formerly Director, University Hospital, Islamic University, AI-Madinah AI-Munawwarah. KING FAHD COMPLEX FOR THE PRINTING OF THE HOLY QUR’AN, Madinah.

[2] NQ “entirely clear”

[3] NQ “not entirely clear”

[4] There is variation in translation of the highlighter part. Some translate it as ‘only those with wisdom understand/head’. Others as ‘only those with understanding mind’. NQ and TuQ roughly as only those who use their understanding are to be admonished. I am taking the later meaning, as this fits with the earlier translation better.

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

Examination System: In dire need of reform

January 5, 2015

Rohit Dhankar, Jan 05, 2015, Deccan Herald

The Zakir Hussain Committee Report (1939) on basic education rightly saw examination system as “a curse to education”. The Commission on Secondary Education (1952) spelled the curse out by pointing out that it dominates education in every aspect from content to teaching and that it becomes the sole motivation for learning.

Today, there is near unanimity that the examination system is in dire need of reform. Therefore, the Right to Education Act (RTE) is justified in emphasising continuous and comprehensive evaluation (CCE). However, all efforts to change the examination system almost always fail. One wonders why this exam system bounces back every time one tries to reform it. Obviously, there are many reasons. This article briefly hints at one, perhaps the most important, of them.

Examinations and the factory model of schooling

The structure of modern school, brought to India by colonial masters in curriculum, teaching and examination, assumes that knowledge can be organised into discrete packages, each to be mastered independently. Therefore, learning can be organised into grades, and the content of learning in each grade can be separated into subjects like language, mathematics and environmental studies without emphasising interconnections.

The curriculum, therefore, loses its aim of holistic growth and becomes a bag of more or less unrelated units. Once the curriculum is fragmented, the teaching and testing follow suit. Therefore, periodic checks on how much of each of these independent units is memorised becomes the most efficient way of evaluation. This is the birth of an examination system most suitable for a factory model of school. The models of the school and examination support and give life to each other, and are highly management friendly and authoritarian.

The CCE as a possible alternative

What is demanded in CCE is ‘continuity’ and ‘comprehensiveness’ in assessment of learning. Discrete periodic events—however frequent—do not constitute continuity, unless one creates a sham misleading definition. One does not require much analysis to realise that the continuity in evaluation can be achieved only if the teaching itself becomes a process of evaluation for the child as well as for the teacher, and includes an ongoing sensitive response to the child’s learning difficulties and achievements. This is possible; but requires individual attention to each child. Therefore, the teacher needs to know each child, be in a position to make mental note of their learning behaviour in the classroom, needs to know their difficulties and successes individually, and to keep a reliable record of her classroom teaching every day. This, in turn, demands a high teacher pupil ratio, and institutional time for the teacher to plan, prepare and maintain notes. The system recognises none of these demands of CCE or not to the extent it should.

The second aspect in CCE is comprehensiveness, which demands attention not only to the particular concepts being taught, but to situate them in curriculum of the subject, and connect with what is being learnt in all other subjects as well as to the child’s general problem solving behaviour. The teaching, therefore, becomes a highly reflective activity. In addition to scholastic learning, comprehensiveness also demands attention to the child’s attitudes and dispositions. That further increases the demand for time and hard work.

The purpose

The central purpose of CCE is to facilitate better learning for the child. Three-fold variations in any class room can be easily understood: One, the children are likely to learn with different paces. Two, are likely to have different conceptualisations of what is being taught during the process of learning; for example, in their ways of understanding multiplication or how seasons change.

Their paths to achieve a common understanding are likely to differ substantially. Three, children come to class with different levels of preparedness to learn and interest in different subjects. Therefore, the same child may learn faster in one subject while may be slow in another. A suitable pedagogy for CCE has to facilitate learning in all these situations.

Little choice

On the other hand, the system demands that all children in a class complete the curriculum by the end of the session. This leaves very little choice for the teacher but to teach the whole class in a uniform manner. In order to complete, say, the upper primary curriculum in three years the teachers and children need an enormous amount of freedom to plan their work and execute it. The authoritarian system does not allow that.

To take an example, the understanding of child’s knowledge in CCE has to be progressive meaning making which becomes increasingly consistent internally as well as with accepted human knowledge at a given historical juncture. In this understanding, if the child is becoming progressively aware of her own ideas and tries to create coherence in them, it should be considered very good progress. But the year-wise packaged curriculum emphasises conformity, memorisation and reproduction on demand. These two attitudes to knowledge and learning contradict each other. As a result the teaching becomes geared to examination and the intellectually organic progress has to be abandoned.

It is clear, therefore, that the CCE can succeed only if we make the system flexible, change the notion of child’s knowledge, formulate the curriculum as a learning continuum and restructure the school.

Surprising we continuously miss the point that the prevailing examination system is a creature of the structure of school and curriculum; and cannot be reformed without dismantling the authoritarian school. If we still lack the courage to question this structure, CCE will fail; or it will metamorphose into something very akin to the existing examination system; which will serve no good purpose than to kill one more excellent idea in education.

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

‘पीके’ के बहाने

December 30, 2014

रोहित धनकर

धर्म—मजहब, पंथ और रिलिजन के अर्थ में—बहुत कमजोर और डरपोक विचार है. यह बात खासकर धर्म के संगठित हो जाने पर सही उतरती है, और सब धर्मों के लिए सही है. चाहे वह हिन्दू धर्म हो, ईसाइयत हो, इस्लाम हो, बोद्ध धर्म हो या कोई और. उनकी हिंसक और आक्रमणकारी प्रवृत्ती धर्म के मूल में बैठे इस डर का नतीजा है, किसी ताकत का नहीं. यह डर स्वयं विश्वास के आधार-हीन, तर्कहीन और विवेकविहीन होने के कारण उपजता है. क्यों की धर्मं लोगों की असुरक्षा की भावना और जगत की रहस्यमयता पर पनपता है, अतः वह नासमझी और भय को सदा बनाए रखना चाहता है. लोग यदि समझने लगें और अपनी असुरक्षा को स्वयं संभालना सीखालें तो धर्म को बहुत बड़ा खतरा होता है. जो धर्म की इस कमजोरी की तरफ इशारा करता है धर्म उसको हिंसा से रोकना चाहता है. ‘पीके’ के साथ यही हो रहा है.

जिन हिन्दुओं को ‘पीके’ में दिखाए गए धर्म के टोटके, चालबाजियां, धोखे और छल आपत्तीजनक लगते हैं वे उनको मिटाते क्यों नहीं? सड़क पर लाल पत्थर रख कर रोज उगने वाले मंदिरों को ये क्यों नहीं हटाते? रामपाल और आशाराम जैसे बाबाओं के चरणों में ये सर क्यों झुकाते हैं? ‘पीके’ के तपस्वी जैसे धोखेबाज बाबा तो आज हर गली-मोहल्ले में हैं; इन के होने से तो इन हिन्दुओं को कोई शर्म नहीं आती. उनके होने की बात करने से, बता देने से शर्म क्यों आती है? ‘पीके’ का विरोध इस डर का नतीजा है कि धर्म की जड़ों की सड़ांध को लोग समझने लगेंगे तो उसकी धन कमाने की और सत्ता देने की क्षमता खत्म हो जायेगी.

‘पीके’ कोई कॉमेडी नहीं है, केवल कोई नासमझ ही उसे कॉमेडी कहेगा, यह एक तीखा व्यंग है. व्यंग (satire) और प्रहसन (comedy) का फर्क या तो लोग सकझते नहीं या फिर व्यंग को नरम साबित करने के लिए कॉमेडी शब्द का प्रयोग कर रहे हैं. वैसे भी धर्म की जड़ में जितना छल होता है उस को उजागर करने के लिए कॉमेडी बहुत हल्का हथियार है, यह काम व्यंग ही कर सकता है.

लोकतंत्र में किसी चीज का विरोध करने के लिए, किसी छल को उजागर करने के लिए, व्यंग का उपयोग एकदम जायज है; बल्की लाजमी है. कुछ लोग अपने विवेकविहीन विश्वासों की रक्षा के लिए दूसरों के विचारों की अभिव्यक्ती पर आक्रमण नहीं कर सकते. उन्हें यह इजाजत नहीं दी जा सकती.

क्यों की अभिव्यक्ती की स्वतन्त्रता हमारा अधिकार है, इस लिए इस अभिव्यक्ती का विषय चुनने का भी अधिकार है. आप किसी लेखक को, कलाकार को, इस बात के लिए बाध्य नहीं कर सकते की वह धर्मों की जड़ में डर, मूर्खता और धोखा उजागर करे तो सब धर्मों में इन की बात करे. यह लेखक या कलाकार का चुनाव है की वह किस की बात करना चाहता है और किसकी नहीं. उसे न तो सब की बात करने के लिए मजबूर किया जासकता है ना ही सब की बात न करने पर दण्डित. ‘पीके’ हिन्दू धर्म पर अपना ध्यान केन्द्रित करती है, और यह उसका हक़ है. इसके लिए उसे दोषी नहीं ठहराया जासकता. इस्माल और ईसायत की बात उसमें केवल एक संकेत के रूम में है. मेरे विचार से फिल्मकार यह कहना चाहता है कि वह हिन्दू धर्म के माध्यम से कुछ समस्याओं पर सवाल उठा रहा है; ये समस्याएं इस्लाम औए ईसाइयत में भी हैं. कोई और उनको विस्तार से ले, चाहे तो.

वैसे भी हम सब जानते हैं की इस तरह का करारा व्यंग इस्लाम पर करना ज्यादा खतरनाक है. (यह बात बहुत से लोंगों को बड़ी फिरकापरस्त लगेगी, पर सही है.) इस के कई कारण हैं. एक तो यह कि हिन्दू धर्म का कोई केंद्रीय रूढ़-मत (dogma) नहीं है. बहुत सारे रूठ-मत है, इन में कोई भी सर्वमान्य नहीं है. इस का फायदा यह है कि कोई भी ऎसी चीज नहीं है जिसे कोई न कोई नकारता नहो, जिस पर अंगुली उठाने से पूरे धर्म पर अंगुली उठ जाए, जिसकी जड़ खोदने से पूरे धर्म की ही जड़ खुद जाए. पर इस के नुकशान भी हैं, जैसे यह कि धर्म के नाम पर कोई कुछ भी चाल-बाजी कर सकता है. दूसरा कारण हिन्दू धर्म की आलोचाने के कम खतरनाक होने का यह है कि बड़ी कटु आलोचना का इतिहास भी रहा है इस धर्म में. अब तो संध की करामातों के चलते इस खुलेपन के इतिहास को खतरा लग रहा है, पर अभी भी लोग इस की रक्षा करने में समर्थ हैं. तीसरा कारण यह है की इस्लाम में मुहम्मद और खुदा पर अंगुली उठाने का जवाब हिंसा से देने का पुराना रिवाज है.

जहाँ कोई एक रूढ़-मत नहीं होता वहां विभिन्न संभावनाओं को तलाशने की गुंजाईश थोड़ी ज्यादा मिलसकती है. और उस रूढ़-मत पर चोट से डर भी कम लगता है. हिन्दू धर्म के बारे में यह आशानी से कहा जासकता है कि लोगों ने अपनी जरूरत के मुताबिक भगवान् और देवता बना लिए, कई बार भ्रामक विश्वास के कारण और कई बार जान बूज कर अपने किसी फायदे के लिए, बल्की लोगों को छलने के लिए भी. मुहम्मद के बारे में यह कहना कि कुरआन देने वाला जिब्रील उसके मन का भ्रम या जान बूझ कर घड़ी गई छल-पूर्ण कल्पना थी, कहीं ज्यादा खरनाक है. रश्दी ने यही कहा था. बीबीसी हिंदी पर पाकिस्तानी पत्रकार वुसतुल्लाह ख़ान का एक लेख है ‘पाकिस्तान में भी कोई पीके बनाएगा?’ के शीर्षक से. उसमें वे कहते हैं “ऐसी फ़िल्म पाकिस्तान में बनाने का अभी किसी का हौसला नहीं और कारण आप जानते ही हैं.” यह कारण इस्लाम के लिए भारत में भी लागू होता है.

पर इस से ना तो किसी को ‘पीके’ के विरोध में हिंसा करने का हक़ मिलता है नाही हिरानी को पक्षपाती कहने का. यह उनका चुनाव था, और जायज था. इस देश में बहुसंख्यक हिन्दू हैं, हिन्दू धर्म में ढकोशले और पाखंड की ज्यादा गुंजाईश है. यह पाखंड इसी धर्म में इस वक्त सबसे ज्यादा हो रहा है. और इस से होने वाला नुकशान भी इस वक्त ज्यादा लोगों को हो रहा है. तो व्यंग भी इसी पर सब से पहले होना चाहिए.

आखिर में एक स्पष्टीकरण और एक दावा: मैंने धर्म के बारे में जो कुछ ऊपर कहा है वह कई लोगों को बहुत सतही और भोंथरा लगेगा. इस में उनको विश्लेषण की गहनता और सूक्ष्मता (nuance) की कमी लगेगी. मैंने यह बात जान बूझ कर इसी तरह कही है. क्यों कि ‘पीके’ के सवाल भी इसी तरह के सीधे सादे हैं. उदहारण के लिए: इन इतने भगवानों में असली कौनसा है? कैसे पता चले? या, भगवान् को हमने बनाया या हमको भगवान् ने? ये बड़े सीधे और बुद्धूपने के सवाल हैं. पर कोई सूक्ष्म से सूक्ष्म ईश्वर-मीमांसा भी इन का उत्तर नहीं दे सकती. हाँ, गहराई और सूक्ष्मता के नाम पर भ्रम जरूर फैला सकती है. इन का जो सीधा-सादा विवेक है उस की चमक धर्म-मीमांसा की सारी लफ्फाजी से कहीं ज्यादा है.

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

A template for teacher education

December 27, 2014

Published in THE HINDU http://www.thehindu.com/opinion/lead/a-template-for-teacher-education/article6728577.ece

Rohit Dhankar

All curricula are situated in contexts and are simultaneously guided by ideals. Therefore, an understanding of and a balance between the two is essential.

We have succeeded in creating an education system that discourages good education in every possible way. It is largely apathetic to the quality of education and the fate of children. The mindset that governs thinking and the actions of the functionaries of education in the government are to somehow manage the naukari and to reap the benefits of the job on the basis of seniority. The thought of doing a good job rarely comes to mind if it ever does. The idea of reform and improvement remain at the level of rhetoric. In this system, any teacher who wants to work for good education has to work on his or her own and without much support. He or she also has to overcome varied forms of resistance.

Obstacles before the teacher

In schools, the quality of education revolves around issues such as a school uniform, heavy school bags, mark sheets and some semblance of having the English language and infrastructure in place. Parents are conscious of the need for quality education, with upward mobility in the form of well-paying jobs being uppermost in their minds. This is a legitimate expectation, but parents and schools see the path to well-paying jobs through so-called English medium and high-fee charging schools. From there it moves on to children studying in private universities, now a dime a dozen, and which all proclaim to produce leaders.

Children’s lives, even in the rural areas, now revolve around television and in various activities on the mobile phone. Hence, the motivation to ensure that a child has a worthwhile education enabled by a wholesome learning experience has to be created by the teacher. Even if the child is a natural and enthusiastic ‘learner’, that all learning is equally worthwhile is an unexamined assumption. Therefore, the teacher has to direct the efforts of the child towards this goal. This is a difficult job.

Let’s focus on the teacher. In the general atmosphere of economic competition and consumerism, a teacher legitimately desires leading a good economic and social life. The teacher has to constantly fight with her visibly low status in society, which saps her enthusiasm for good teaching.

Education is increasingly becoming centric to the government’s thinking in order to realise the desire for India’s economic competitiveness in a globalised world. Thus, the purpose of education can be well served by having a layered education system. One part of that system can take the responsibility of mass producing “narrowly skilled” people with a limited vision of life and completely sold out on shining promises of consumerist hedonism. Another part could produce a limited number of people who can think relatively better regarding skills and theoretical knowledge, but still remain wedded to promises of economic growth.

Obviously, in each point mentioned in the system, namely the parent, the child, a teacher’s ambitions and the government, there exists many alternative ideas and serious efforts as well. I have painted this grim picture in order to claim that this is the dominant mood and in spite of there being many people who want to do something better. The purpose of citing these instances is not to deny the positive aspect, but to make the point that a teacher has to work in an adverse scenario and be on the lookout to identify genuine elements in the system to collaborate and work with.

The ideals

The issue is this: what is the kind of Teacher Education (TE) curriculum needed that can help a new teacher enter this scenario with confidence and to work effectively? The context-centric thinking has a natural tendency to privilege status quo without the thinker being conscious of this problem. One starts thinking of ways of survival in the face of adverse elements in the context and loses sight of the larger purpose, thereby reinforcing the context as it is. This is producing a tendency to take the context as given and planning education that seems possible in the given limitations. In the process, the limitations gain acceptance while the quality of education becomes a variable to be adjusted with them. The teacher has to strive for quality; not only for survival.

But why should the teacher struggle? It is much easier and personally beneficial for him to go along with the system. What motivation could there be to challenge it? And, strive for what? What should he try to achieve? What are the kind of tools to be used? These abstract questions are very pragmatic ones if we are to develop an effective TE curriculum.

One definite requirement to work well is to have an idea of what one is working for and an ability to divert one’s efforts towards enabling worthy goals and a vision. Therefore, a personal examination of goals and vision proposed by the system is essential in order to create commitment for a task. This requires a reasonable amount of intellectual autonomy; it may be weak and limited autonomy perhaps, but autonomy nonetheless.

A teacher needs to build an intellectually, ethically and socially satisfactory, if not exciting, life for herself as a thinking being. Also, a possibility for continuous personal development is essential in order to contribute towards creating good education. Usually, creating opportunities for such development is supposed to be the job of the system; but in the situation we have, the poor teacher has to fend for herself.

A commitment to good education will also require an understanding of the need for education in people’s lives and society, and a reasonable dose of dreams. People seem to be creatures of dreams to a large extent, and there is no contradiction between being creatures of dreams and being situated in socio-political reality as embodied creatures. The trick is to create dreams that have intellectual conviction as well as pragmatic possibility.

The need for capabilities to teach is obvious enough. But these capabilities have to be rooted in what one wants a child to achieve through education, an understanding of the child, and the society in which both the child and the teacher live. This demands a serious theoretical understanding of the same, boring and age-old questions: Why teach? What to teach? And, how to teach?

Practical skills

None of our TE programmes has ever seriously tried to achieve a clear and convincing enough understanding of what one tries to achieve through education. It always has been a rhetoric of larger aims and working for myopically understood parental and market aspirations. This confusion has made education non-serious to both — a case of na khuda hi mila na wisaal-e sanam. We are prone to see the failure of TE in the lack of practical skills. However, a deeper analysis is likely to show that the failure is primarily theoretical. Practical skills, however well taught, usually do not answer the question “why” and, therefore, do not generate conviction and commitment — essential ingredients in good teaching. There is a reasonable unexplored possibility that adequate understanding of and conviction in the “why” along with guidance in teaching skills may produce a variety of viable methods. Therefore, the issue is not where to start from — is it theory or from practice? It is to traverse the whole continuum whatever one’s chosen starting point is. If one starts at theory, then it is about bringing it right down to the classroom level and in terms of actual skills; if starting with classroom work, it is about taking it to issues of serious theoretical understanding. A half-finished or half-hearted job, irrespective of the starting point, will remain unsuccessful. A display of bias in any direction will also be counterproductive.

In concrete terms, a teacher has to have a range of capabilities. A tentative first listing could look like this: capability to teach all school subjects at the primary level and at the least, one at the upper primary level. This will involve practical activities, the use of materials, and connecting with children. It will also demand an understanding of the subject in terms of its content, epistemology and rationale in the curriculum; adequate understanding of the curriculum and its rationale. It will necessarily involve understanding the aims of education, the need for education in an individual’s life and in social life; a convincing dream of a desirable society and living a satisfactory life. And situating oneself and the child in this dream; self-confidence and a conviction to work in an either indifferent or adversarial education system; a professional conviction that one can find ways for personal growth and development as a teacher, and a capability to generate episodes of reasonable success in order to keep that hope alive.

What kind of curricular content and institutional experiences will develop these qualities is what will have to be worked out seriously, with care and in detail. It seems that without these capabilities, teacher education is unlikely to have any effect on the system. We also have to discard the rhetoric of “change agents” and replace it with an unglamorous idea of doing one’s job adequately to one’s personal and social satisfaction, and as a plain and simple worker.

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

Schools and crime against children

November 9, 2014

[This was written a few weeks back. And is more of an outburst of anger than a reasoned argument. The Bangalore police seems to be taking a similar view on the responsibility of the management.]

Rohit Dhankar

And yet gain, the newspapers inform on 22nd October 2014 that a nursery level student is sexually abused in a Bangalore school. The third incident in recent months.

A school that does not feel mortally ashamed on child abuse in its precincts and does not accept responsibility unconditionally for whatever happens to children there, is nothing more than a den of thugs. “Alma meter”, the Latin phrase, is often used for the institution from which one receives a bachelor’s degree; but it is equally applicable to a school as well. The literal meaning of “alma meter” is “nurturing mother”. What kind of nurturing a school where sexual abuse is possible can offer?

The NCF 2005 recommends that “schools must be marked by the values of … dignity and rights of children. These values must be consciously made part of the perspective of the school and form the foundation of school practice. An enabling learning environment is one where children feel secure, where there is absence of fear”. How does one square up this idea of school with the everyday some or other news of child abuse emanating from these places we call schools today?

The schools are supposed to introduce children to the “grandeurs and servitudes”, to borrow from Oakeshott, of being human. This grandeur lies in keenness and depth of human understanding; in experiencing the sublimity of beauty and richness of moral consciousness. The servitude of being human lies in demand for exacting standards in understanding, feelings, thoughts and action; and to submit to guiding principles. It demands a discipline of thought and action. Thus schools are places infused with the spirit of satyam (truth and knowledge), shivam (goodness) and sundaram (beauty). None of these can survive in an environment where child abuse is possible; even imaginable.

Schools are not places of pure rigour; they are spaces where children should enjoy life and form lasting pleasant memories of their childhood well spend and well lived. Then only they will be able to help children form morally and intellectually satisfying self-identity; then only they will be able to gift them opportunities to form their own personhood.

An abused child is devalues, her self-confidence and identify are ripped apart. Her humanity is denied; she is used as an object of desire in the vilest possible manner. Her curiosity to know and concentration is destroyed, her faith in the goodness of the world is shaken, assumed protectiveness from adults is demolished; an exceedingly evil picture of humanity is painted on her consciousness. The progress she was making in forming a coherent, beautiful, enjoyable and sane picture of the world in her tender mind is disrupted. Her enthusiasm for life is dampened.

The perpetrator of such a crime discards his own humanity and reduces himself into an evil monster. His deadly sickness of mind and evilness of heart are revealed to the world. The society for the sake of its own sanity has to still grant the status of humanity and recognise rights to such an abomination; but as far as his own actions are concerned he is nothing more than a foul bundle of flesh and blood.

The schools where such acts are possible should lose their recognition immediately; be they public or private. Their management should be held responsible for such unpardonable laxity. Collecting hundreds of children in a tightly controlled and often locked compound where even parents cannot enter without permission is an act that demands responsibility and accountability. The management of schools cannot shirk this moral duty. They are dealing with the most cherished part of the humanity; most cherished part of people’s lives. They cannot be allowed to hide behind unpredictability of some of their employees. The management should be made to pay an unaffordable price for such incidents in their institutions.

Having said that, we should realise that this is not a matter of surveillance and security cameras alone. It is a matter of ideas, sensitivity, moral uprightness and discipline of each member of the staff. Running of a school is primarily a moral enterprise. The utilitarian and business consideration are secondary and can be taken into account if and only if the primary moral considerations are satisfied. Failing in the primary moral considerations should render the management unfit to run schools.

There are too many educational institutions being run without the proper understanding of the nature of educational engagement and obligations one has to accept when dealing with tender minds. The crime against children in schools is a symptom. The real disease is callousness, lack of understanding of the educational enterprise and/or administrative capability. If a school director hires a teacher or games instructor or a bus driver that commits crime against children it should be considered his/her direct responsibility; and he/she should be made to pay for this. In defending himself/herself on the plea of other human beings being independent agents such a director/manager is simply failing to show adequate level of remorse and moral accountability. A person lacking in either should be considered unfit for running an enterprise like a school.

The crime against children in schools is an indicator of sliding moral responsibility of all involved. It cannot be corrected by coercive measures alone. The schools, if they want to retain the tags of alma meter and vidyamandirs themselves have to come forward in owning this responsibility and improving their own understanding, sensitivity and efficiency. The relationship between the teachers and children is a very delicate one. Too much of restrictions and external rules will impoverish it to the level where it will become impossible to providing intellectual and moral guidance to the children. In spite of rules and procedures this relationship has to retain its spontaneity, purity and deeply felt affection. Therefore, the only possibility that remains is qualities of the mind and character of the teachers and management. The schools have to create a sensitive code of conduct for themselves, on their own accord.

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

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »