AAP: The death of democratic India’s newest hope

January 23, 2014

Rohit Dhankar

Many of my friends are ardent supporters of AAP. They see a hope in the meteoric rise of AAP– portrayed by likes of Arvinds, Somnaths, and Kumars—to power. I wondered right from the beginning of Hazare’s movement against corruption whether it represents any sociopolitical thought or is just an expression of collective frustration and gullibility of the propel. A relatively more self-righteous and ambitious faction of that movement formed AAP which is revealing their abysmally low level of ethical development and understanding in Delhi in the full glare of the media these days.

Democracies are supposed to run on the public will. But public will by its very nature cannot be unified and unidirectional. It necessarily involves contradictions, differences of opinions and differences of forms of good life imagined. The forms of good life a khaap member, a sophisticated university professor, a bureaucrat, a poojari and a maulvi imagines is not necessarily the same. Nor every citizen of a democratic country has the larger vision to see the contradiction between his/her own imagination of good life and the possible collective ways of living in a democracy that provide space for realizing individual/group aspirations in a regulated sociopolitical space. Therefore, all democracies require at the least three things to function properly:

1. A normative rational framework to decide acceptability and limits of public aspirations and acceptability of imagined ways of living. A moral and legal framework.
2. A procedural framework to implement that accepted legal-moral framework. (The constitution defines both these frameworks together)
3. A critical mass of people who understand and have conviction in that constitutional framework.

We as a nation do have that constitutional framework. What we lack is critical mass of people who understand this and have conviction in it. Our political parties—-Congress, BJP, various left of the center factions and regional fiefdoms, all–continuously demonstrated a lack of conviction in the democratic norms; of both procedural as well as moral nature. They have depleted the critical mass of people who have democratic convictions and understanding in any robust sense. An average Indian is a non-thinking self-seeker. The rampant corruption is only one of many manifestations of this lack of conviction and understanding.

AAP came to power in Delhi on the promise that it will remove corruption, which will lead to proper functioning of the constitutional framework, resulting in providing unbiased just space to people to realize their aspirations. The frustration of the public with political parties developed an extreme form of gullibility, and the people did not examine the capability to understand and strength of conviction of those who were promising to remove corruption and make the constitution function properly.

The AAP leaders’ limitation of understanding, lack of conviction and deep dishonesty is a matter of daily display on the roads of Delhi these days.

Many people knew that Arvind Kejriwal was never an honest person who respected any legal and procedural norms. His non-compliance to service rules in IT department and refusal to pay back to the government salary for two years leave clearly shows that he was never averse to using public funds for his personal gain—-the main form of corruption in Indian politics. So he was as corrupt in his limited capacities as any other Indian politician.

Lately he has shown his complete disregard for any legal and procedural norms by going on dharna. Somnath Bharati is declaring himself law unto himself, declaring people criminals, wants to be judge, jury, prosecutor and executioner rolled into one. Some obscure figure called Kumar Vishwas gets cheep sexual thrills when a nurse feels his pulse and therefore recommends ‘unattractive’—in his view—‘kaali peeli’ nurses, who can be seen as sisters.

All this shows the wretchedness of their ways of thinking, abysmal lack of ethical development and arrogant self-righteousness. These certainly are not the ‘new netas’ who can serve people and uphold democratic norms. They are thriving on promises and lack of critical thinking on the part of the public. This only proved that any bunch of self-seeking idiots can project themselves as saviors of the public in the present Indian political climate. And the gullible frustrated public will lap up any hope thrown at them by media mechanisms.

This is the death of democratic India’s newest hope. The nation still has to awaken and construct more robust hopes, and they can emerge only through intense churning of ideas in the masses. Can Professor Yadav pay attention on producing that churning rather than pinning his hopes on this by now notorious mindless self-righteous brigade?
******

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

Should homosexuality be criminalised?

December 25, 2013

Rohit Dhankar

A lot is being written on the Supreme Court judgment regarding declaring homosexual relationship a crime. Most of the writing seems to be an expression of opinion. For any public debate to be intelligent and be able to enlighten it needs two kinds (at the least) bases. One, a set of moral principle that are at the least good enough to be considered seriously by all. And two, accurate information on the issue.

It seems to me that the set of moral principle can be provided by the democratic values. One, the most basic value being well-being of all, without any kind of discrimination. Two, autonomy of the individuals to define well-being for themselves. Three, acceptance of the autonomy of others by all. And four, recognition that human existence and well-being is possible only in social living. Once we accept this much, the rest will logically follow, to my mind.

The problem in the present opinion brandishing on homosexuality is that we (I mean general public, and not experts) do not seem to have adequate information on the nature of this disposition. In my view the major issues are:

1. Is homosexuality something to be socially ashamed of?
2. Should it be declared a crime?
3. Should homosexual marriage be legally recognised?
4. Can a homosexual couple be allowed to adopt and raise a child?

To deliberate on these issues properly we need the following information:
• The issue of innateness
a. Is homosexual disposition innate?
b. If innate, is it unchangeable?
c. If innate, what percentage of people are born with this disposition?
• The effect of childhood experience
a. Does child abuse develop this disposition?
b. Is it learnt through exposure (may be without abuse) to adults sexual behavior?
c. If it is learn though either abuse or exposure, can it be changed?
d. Is sexual attraction directed to the same sex when appropriate partner of opposite sex is unavailable for whatever reasons?

Unless we have authentic information on the second set of questions, we cannot decide on the first set. The second set demands empirical answers, and the first set demands norm-setting.

Does anyone have authentic information on the second set? If it is available, the answers to the second set questions can be worked out by using the empirical information together with the set of normative principles listed in the second paragraph above.
******

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

Objctive Knowledge

October 24, 2013

Rohit Dhankar

This one is mainly to start a discussion with people working in school education. I know, it’s a boring issue; gyaani log pahale hi jawaab de chuke hain. But what is that answer?

Can the following statements be “objectively” true or false? (Truth falsity does not matter, issue is “objectivity” here.)

1. Sum of all internal angles of a triangle is always equal to two right angles.
2. The moon is spherical in shape.
3. Lower-class people commit more crimes than middle-class people.
4. A woman’s share in her father’s ancestral property should be equal to her brother’s share.

How do we decide?

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

Reaping the fruits of mindlessness: Asaram, Shobhan Sarkar and Big Boss

October 22, 2013

Rohit Dhankar
Some obscure Sadhu called Shobhan Sarkar dreamt of 1000 tons of gold buried in the ruins of a fort. He had confidence enough to write a letter to one of the ministers in the government of our secular country. The constitution of our secular country makes ‘inculcation of scientific temper’ one of the fundamental duties for all citizens. The government, guardian of the constitution, initiated a scientific process to ascertain the possibility of finding gold at the place identified by the Sadhu. The government science machinery came up with a report that confirms possibility of some kind of metal (gold or no gold) in some quality (a gram or 1000 tons) at the identified place. The government considers it scientific evidence enough to start digging with all fan-fare and in full glare of the media. But not before the Sadhu does bhumi pooja to appease the bhu-mata. The whole nation is abuzz—some with the excitement of possibility of gold, others at the superstition and stupidity of the government.
I wonder if one can find a bigger example of superstition and mindlessness provided by a national government any where in the history.
A tea vender called Asumal Sirumalani learns meditation from his mother and declares himself a guru; start preaching one supreme consciousness—a commonplace in Hinduism, declares yoga as path to unite with that consciousness—another common place; and lo and behold, becomes an icon and the god for lakhs. He discovers a potent medicine for longevity—sleeping with young virgins, and his Bhaktas and family support him in getting as many young virgins as his depraved quest for longevity requires. The public throngs in his bhashanas and poojas, the politicians fall over each other to touch his feet; be they secular or bigots. He encroaches on public land with impunity and there is no authority to challenge him.
Manifestation of the same mindlessness at a large scale, and one cunning deprave reaping the fruits.
A bunch of so called celebrities are collected together in the lordship of another celebrity and put in a house for three months (not sure of the duration). There they manifest their idiocy, total lack of any kind of moral thinking, wrapped in their own arrogance, on a daily basis. Watching one episode (I am not recommending) of the farce makes it absolutely clear that they—all of them—are empty-headed idiots. The term homo-sapiens does not apply to them; it was not invented for them. If humanity has anything to do with either moral-sensibility or capability to think, they all belong to some other species. Morality and ability to think are totally alien to them. Then the boss comes and cracks his jokes with fabulous intelligence of a 3 year old child; which would be sweet if he were not approaching fifty. The youth of the country watches this farce every evening and wants to emulate them. In the process each one of them gains lakhs, and some may be crores.
Celebration of mindlessness at a gigantic scale!!
These three examples—and there are sores of others with the same characteristics—prove beyond reasonable doubt that power and money resides with fools; Lakshmi, as we all know, flies on an owl. And that the large sections of Indian public either have no mind or are extremely lazy to use it. Which one, is a matter of investigation.
The connection between the three examples is obvious: corrupt, and better still, stop if possible, all thinking. Raise the future generations in an intellectual environment where they can be totally controlled by the media and gimmicks. Deprive them of all reason and common sense. Then they are in your hands, you can make whatever you want of them. It suits the politicians, the corporate bosses, and feudal lords, all. The media, religious superstitions (sants) and celebrities are new weapons of the powers that be. And they are lethal. What chances poor Dabholkars stand against them?

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

UEE: Discussion 2

September 1, 2013

Rohit Dhankar
[I took a lot of time in coming back to it. And now I have combined two things, to make time: this posting on the blog and Digantar’s course on Foundations of Education. I am going to use this discussion—comments at all—in the foundations of education course. Please inform me if you do not want me to use your comment and/or name. Actually, you can make it clear in the first line of the comment itself.]
The original question:
“Why do we want universalisation of elementary education?”
While posing the question it was assumed that: 1. While we all do want UEE, we may not necessarily agree on why is it important; and 2. Our answer to this why is likely to have very significant influence on the kind of education we try to universalise.
Responses
I will try to summarise the responses before suggesting the next steps in the discussion. My summary may be incorrect or biased or both; but that is how I read the responses.
a) Most responses assume a democratic society in justifying UEE, though not necessarily state that directly. They refer to ‘good to society’, ‘equality’, ‘justice’, ‘eradicating disparity’, and so on.
b) One response suggests that first we should investigate the meaning of education to get a good answer to the original question.
c) One response seems to suggest the following line of argument: To justify UEE we need to first understand Aims of Education (AE), to achieve AE we need UEE. But what justifies the chosen AE?
d) Many responses express concerns over the kind of education, quality of education, the idea of minimum essential and actually reaching every child in a fair manner. All legitimate concerns.
e) There are also concerns that education alone may be able to achieve very little and we have to take into account many other factors/forces in the society.
So how do we go forward?
I would suggest (and this is my own belief, which may be wrong) that to think properly we have to formulate a strategy. Thinking on complex issues often get into something akin to ‘old age problem’, and it afflicts the young more forcefully! Let me explain what I mean by old age problem. This is not common and accepted terminogy, just an example to make the point. Some months back I received an email, in which an old man describes his experience: “I got up from my chair to water the plants, but noticed that my car keys were lying on the kitchen table. I picked up the keys and went to the board on which all keys are hung, while putting the keys at their proper pace I noticed that the window was open and mosquitoes were coming in the house. While I was walking to the window to close it noticed that yesterdays newspaper was lying on the floor, I picked it up and walked to the place for old newspapers beneath the staircase…..”. There is something similar with the described experience of the old man and the way we try to think of conceptual problems. We want to understand why do we want UEE, then notice that we are not able to reach the education to every child, so start thinking why is that happening and what could we do about this? But before we take a few steps in that direction we notice that the UEE does not really change societies, so many other things are needed, what are they? While we are looking at those factors we notice that mid-day meal has not served the purposes it should have, and so on …..
This is what I loosely describe as old-age problem. Of course, a powerful defence could be mounted in favour of this way of thinking, all things matter in education and concepts and results derived on partial consideration are going to be inadequate, even may be misleading and outright wrong. Therefore, before we can answer the question UEE, we must look at all other problems of education and society. Personally I feel we will reach no where through this method unless we workout a strategy of thinking with clarity. The strategy I suggest is as follows:
1. We make a decision to move between analysis and synthesis as frequently as needed. The meaning of analysis I propose here is: “The abstract separation of a whole into its constituent parts in order to study the parts and their relations”. Similarly synthesis is “combination of ideas into a complex whole”. We do this as often as is required.
2. But we also stay with a line of thought to arrive at some consolidation stage, so that we don’t lose the results of our labours, and can retrieve them when taking that line becomes necessary again. This means we ‘bracket’ our results and move to the next stage, issue, or topic.
3. We move between exploring ‘what ought to be’ and ‘what is’ the case as often as required; but don’t mix the two, remain clear on which one we are talking about.
4. Similarly we move between conceptual analysis and practical issues, but keeping our results in a retrievable form.
5. We keep all results of our thinking provisional, when considering new factors and new angles, revisions may seem necessary and we don’t hesitate to review and revise when the need occurs.
6. And all this we do in the light of rational grounds and avoid intellectual fashions and political correct stances if they come into conflict with reason.
Obviously one can formulate dozens of more strategies which might be equally useful, this is just one of them. Also, formulating the strategy does not give us a unique way of its application. So we can also decide to apply it in more than one ways.
In our present discussion I suggest we bracket the issues which are not directly necessary at this stage to investigate ‘why UEE’. And focus first on arriving at some understanding of it. Some questions and their tentative (till we feel a need to review/revise them) are suggested below. To my mind they are necessary to move to the next stage.
I suggest we make a distinction between ‘social purposes of education’ and ‘aims of education’. Let’s tentatively take the following:
Social Purposes of Education (SPE): answer(s) to the question ‘why a society wants education’. For example: ‘to create a just society’, ‘to become a developed economy’, ‘for greater prosperity’, ‘for social cohesion’, ‘to protect our cultural heritage’, and so on. Notice that all these purposes are about what kind of social living we want, and pertain to the over all system of education. They are purposes of the system of education. They are directed at justifying and characterising a system of education. PSE are focussed on developing/creating/sustaining the desirable society.
Aims of Education (AE): aims of education properly speaking articulate capabilities, understanding, values, qualities of character and skills that we want to develop in the individual educatee. Examples would be: “rational commitment to democratic values”, “knowledge about social world”, “capability to negotiate one’s rights”, “sensitivity to other human beings”, and so on. AE are focussed on developing the desirable kind of individual.
System of education: let’s define system of education as the totality of structures and procedures created for implementation or practice of education, governance of these structures, and policy making for education. Thus system of education would be the totality of all structures starting from school to CABE and Indian parliament when it discusses education.
Education: let’s begin with a simple definition of education—“intentional teaching-learning with its processed and outcomes”. This is simple and may be contested. But we will modify and make it more sophisticated as we go along.
Consider all these definitions ‘stipulative’ , to begin our explorations. Now, if we understand the discussion in the light of these definitions, it looks somewhat like:
1. The original question “why UEE” is a request to state and justify social purposes of education. That is explanation of why a society wants UEE, what purposes it wants to achieve through it.
2. If we say to ‘achieve aims of education for all children’ then we need to first articulate and justify aims of education. And also justify why ‘all children’? So the question does not go away, it persists in a changed form.
3. Also, a new question arises: which set of purposes/aims is relatively primary? The social purposes of education (SPE) or aims of education (AE)? In other words: do we first want to decide about SPE and then derive (at least partially) the AE from them? Or, alternatively, go other way round—first define AE and then SPE from them? The question can also be asked: which is primary—the vision of society or the vision of individual? Or neither?
4. We can say that we assume a democratic society and then try to fashion our SPE to achieve that social vision. Once we have the SPE we fashion our AE to match with SPE and vision of the desirable society. So SPE have to confirm to the social vision and AE to social vision as well as to SPE.
5. Of course, we are just scratching the surface. Because SPE and AE will be much influenced by the current state of society—how far from democratic is it? How different people see democracy? How shall we negotiate the path to genuine democracy from current state of affairs? And so on. But we are keeping these issues bracketed just yet. Will come to them a little later.
Next stage questions:
Suppose we take the democratic route, then the immediate questions we face are:
• How we define democracy?
• How do we justify out choice of a democratic society?
• What kind of SPE would be necessary (or most suitable?) for a democratic society?
• What kind of AE will be necessary (or most suitable) for a democracy and accepted SPE?
I suggest we deal with these last four questions. Because if the route to exploration I have suggested is acceptable then we can make no genuine headway without dealing with them.
[The discussion has become somewhat complicated. But I do not know how to keep it simple!]
******

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

If Maharashtra anti-superstition ordinance were in force Krishna, Jesus and Mohammad would have been jailed

September 1, 2013

Rohit Dhankar

Dr. Dabholkar was murdered for helping people think better, rationally and developing their reason to deal with fraudulent superstition. He was actually working for the fundamental duties according to the constitution of India: “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform”, Section 51A(h). The state which is very sensitive on protection of those who violate the constitution (religious bigots, regional hate mongers like Raj Thackeray, and innumerable other) could not protect a citizen who was working for the constitutional duties and within constitutional rights.

But when Dr. Dabholkar was murdered and people paid attention to his work and sacrifice; the state quickly wanted to redeem itself. So they passed an ordinance with a mouth full of a name, hold your breath: “Maharashtra Prevention and Eradication of Human Sacrifice and other Inhuman, Evil and Aghori Practices and Black Magic Ordinance, 2013”. Its too big, I will simply call it “Maharashtra Anti-Superstition Ordinance” (MASO).

This ordinance has many progressive stipulations and should be welcomed for them. Much fraud happens in the name of religious beliefs, magic, tantra, and super natural powers. Politicians and film starts are the most visible people who promote superstitions regarding powers of five-star babas. They spread five-start superstitions. The common public does not have wherewithals to indulge in five-star superstition with five star babas, so they have their own cheep versions with cheep babas. These babas usually are criminals and the public does need protection from them. So the ordnance is perhaps to do some good.

But, the ordinance also has problems. It is very badly drafted, and has provisions that seem to be problematic in a democracy. Let’s have a look at some of these problems.

Item 11 (a) in the schedule of banned practices takes the cake to my mind. The full text of 11(a) reads: “To create an impression that special supernatural powers are present in himself, incarnation of another person or holy spirit or that the devotee was his wife, husband or paramour in the past birth, thereby indulging into sexual activity with such person.” It can be divided into two parts, one I have italicized and other is made bold. The acts in the bold part, of course, should be punishable. The problem is caused by the italicized part.

Now Krishna claimed to be the God in Gita, and also showed supernatural power to Arjuna. Jesus declared himself to be god’s son and turned water into wine. Under this ordinance both would have been sent to jail minimum for 6 months. A good rationalist could have taken Mohammad to court for claiming that the Koranic verses were given to him by Gabriel, a super natural being.

I have no love lost for the three gentlemen mentioned in the paragraph above. But in a democracy with freedom of expression I would definitely support them to express what they believed. Punishing them for openly declaring what they thought to be true is throttling freedom of expression; if one allows it in this matter today, it will be done in other matters tomorrow. So a democratic citizen should come to the support of Krishna, Jesus and Mohammad in this matter, and work for changing the law. If someone today believes that he is a prophet or an avatar, it should not be nabbed b y law.

However, a critical democratic citizen should also contest the propagation of false beliefs. But that, in such cases, can not be done on the pain of punishment. Therefore, they should be allowed to express their views, and then should be challenged publicly and exposed for being deluded or deliberately mischievous. The MASO does no service either to democracy or to reason by this provision. Actually, it positively harms both. It harms democracy by curtailing freedom of expression and reason by propping it up through the crutches of law. Reason that can not stand on its own feet is lame and useless. Laws don’t change people’s beliefs, only behavior; that too if rigorously implemented.

Banned item 5 in the schedule states (part only): “To create an impression by declaring that a power inapprehensible by senses has influenced one’s body.” I wonder if I can sue a doctor who tells me that I am suffering from schizophrenia. Schizophrenia is not apprehensible by senses and can affect the body as well.

Superstitions can be relatively benign and their practitioners may not charge anything. Let me give an example. “Moch-aan” is a term used for stiffness in body parts in some rural areas of north India. And it is supposed to be cured if a person who is born feet-first presses the stiff part of the body seven times with the big toe of his left foot. Now this is plainly silly. But is it punishable? This may be interpreted as possession of special supernatural power which is punishable as per item 11(b) of the schedule. Of course such silly superstitions should be eradicated, but not by law. The state should make laws only for those superstitions which cause harm and/or involve crime. This law plays with people’s beliefs in too wide an area. Things which should be fought through rational dialogue and do not involve harm or crime should be fought rationally only.

The law is also very vague. In section two (on definitions) I states: ““human sacrifice and other inhuman, evil and aghori practices and black magic” means the commission of any act, mentioned or described in the Schedule appended to this Ordinance, by any person, by himself or caused to be committed through or by instigating any other person.” It promises to give definition of “inhuman, evil and aghori practices and black magic” in the schedule. But the schedule itself keeps on repeating the same terms without ever defining them. I think meditating in shamshan is an aghori practice. Why should it be punished?

As per the definition of “propagation” in section 2(d) I believe Sudhir Kakkar can be punished for one of his books (if I remember correctly “Shamans, Mystics, And Doctors”) as it gives detailed description of aghori practices. What the definition of “propagation” in the ordnance says is: ““propagate” means issuance or publication of advertisement, literature, article or book relating to or about human sacrifice and other inhuman, evil and aghori practices and black magic and includes any form of direct or indirect help, abatement, participation or cooperation with regard to human sacrifice and other inhuman, evil and aghori practices and black magic”.

It seems the Maharashtra government wanted to show its concern for superstitions and its rationalist credentials in the atmosphere created in wake of Dr. Dabholkar. They did not have enough time to think through the ordinance and promulgated a vague ordinance. This vagueness is good neither for rational attitude nor for democracy. Let’s remember that vague parts of laws become un-implementable and that harms the cause for which the law was created.

******

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

Letter to a cultural relativist friend

August 31, 2013

Rohit Dhankar

[Did not get time to write something specifically for the blog, and am likely to remain busy for some more time. So thought will put this letter to a friend on it, as I have many relativist friends here too. It is not of general interest though. Still….]

Dear Friend,

We speak from two different lines of thought, so perhaps will keep on hitting road blocks. But still I will respond to two of your general principles, before shutting up.

Giving prominent place to emotions and personal politics in our meaning making and decision making in public life:

I may not have read much of a particular kind of literature on this issue, and my actual knowledge of cultural relativism is nonexistent; but I have thought a lot on this. I never rejected, and I never reject, the importance of desires, emotions, intentions, and politics to achieve what we want to achieve in this. Actually I believe that desires, emotions and intentions are what make the life worth living, enjoyable, meaningful, good as well as evil. What I object to is using individual’s emotions, desires and intentions in public decision making on issues of common interest. Once you accept that the desires and emotions of the stronger will rule, you have no antidote to that. The religiously tried compassion for the weaker is iniquitous, patronising, and keeps everything in the hands of (under the sweet will of) the self-interest of the stronger, as the weaker have no principle of unity to counter. Gandhi’s change of heart and Buddha’s karuna does not work. It leaves no ground for the weak to fight on. The idea that not allowing individual’s emotions and desires to play in the public arena shuts up the weak is plain wrong. It provides the weak the ground to fight upon and a powerful weapon to fight with. Therefore, the desires, emotions and personal politics in the public arena should be governed by some more just and inclusive principles. Sorry, considering every shred of idea of equal worth is not inclusive, it is ultimate exclusive principle.

The second point: who says what and why? Must be considered fist:

I must share with you a little personal detail. I come from Chirawa tehsil in Jhujhunu district in Rajasthan (advance apologies to Chirawa people, in case their feelings are hurt). This idea is ingrained in the thinking of every illiterate as well as well educated inhabitant of that area; sometimes I feel it is hard-wired in their brains and is part of their genetic code. This is not only a theoretical principle there, it is their lived reality, and most of them are aware of it, and can articulate. You go to any village in Chirawa, propose the sanest scheme that benefits all and be as transparent as you can. The first thing each listener to you will think and will discuss with his confident is: Who is she? What does she want? Why does she want to benefit us? What is there in it that is actually for her? If you don’t believe me, go to that place and start working with them, you will find that every semiliterate farmer is using this principle to the hilt.

I grew up in that culture. I saw, am seeing, devastating effects of this thinking, unbridled by reason. It is pragmatically a bad principle and theoretically untenable. It over emphasises either the evil side or the unconscious-ignorant side, or both, of human being. When we attribute people consciously using general principles for their own benefits alone, we are emphasising the evil side; when we think that their consciousness is shaped that way and they are unaware (and will always remain so) we are emphasising the unconscious-ignorant side of human being. I reject neither the possibility of evil not that of ignorance. I accept both. But I don’t want to celebrate them, I want to control the evil side and mitigate the ignorant side. (And don’t worry about my using the word evil, and come up with the argument that I am already terming others’ ways of thinking evil. I am doing no such thing. Consider “evil = self interest on the cost of harm to other” for the sake of simplicity. If you reject that that is evil, then we really have no ground to talk on, end of the dialogue. Period.)

Fortunately, there is another impulse (yes, impulse, generated by what we are) in humans. Which is capable of seeing the other as myself, and feeling the pain of the other (note emotion, as necessary ingredient in reason). “This other as myself” is a generalisable principles, and empathy connects me to the humanity. Both put together I call impulse of reason. (Why impulse of reason? A long story, some other time; but that is one of the definitions of reason. Or at the least, one necessary ingredient in the definition of reason.) This impulse of reason I find the only antidote to the impulse of self-interest and unawareness of one’s motives. I find this impulse lightening the darkness of human heart, and generating hope for the future of humanity. All this is not based on emotional proclivities; it has sound rational grounds.

So where does that lead me? To this: if I hear an Iliah or a Hitler say X, then

  1. First, I will examining X closely. Its concepts, its arguments, its proposals, on its face value. No matter whether it comes from Hitler or Iliah.
  2. Then I will examine the intellectual tradition in which it is said.
  3. Then I will examine who Iliah or Hitler is, how X related to his/her known agenda, why s/he might be saying that? And when I find that X is something good, but flies in the face of his/her known agenda, I will still hope and give her/him benefit of doubt—may be this time s/he has seen the light! And will keep my fingers crossed.
  4. And then I will use all three in my judgement; yes, I will make judgment as a thinking being.

I will not start examining number 3 first and will not decide the worth of X on the basis of who said it alone. It to my mind is a fallacy rooted in the belief that predominant nature of humanity is either evil or ignorant. I accept the possibility of evil and ignorance in humans, but reject the belief that it is their predominant nature. I believe that human beings do have the capability both to understand and go beyond the self; in recognition of the other as equally worthy. I would like to strengthen and use this later. And all my stark harshness is generated from this sand point.

In case you find all this too simplistic and un-nuanced, please consider the possibility that that might be because of the quick articulation in too brief an email.

At the end I cannot resist a dig J:

Cultural relativism comes in two varieties: methodological and moral/political.

The methodological variety is harmless, and perhaps a necessary and powerful research tool for the anthropologist.

Cultural relativism of moral variety has many ideas that are very useful in making people aware of their own biases, and thereby, making them open-minded towards other people and cultures. But when it is pushed to extreme it makes the relativist’s own mind opaque to him, throws him in the same pit, perhaps in even a darker corner, he wants to pull others out of.

Sorry for boring you with all these fundamental assumptions.

Regards

Rohit

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

Why do we want Universalisation of Elementary Education?

August 11, 2013

Rohit Dhankar

As a nation India is committed to universalisation of elementary education[1] (EE), at the least on paper, even if the action encourages scepticism about this commitment. There is also a push to extend this commitment to secondary[2] level. There is an act called “The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009”, in short RTE Act, to guarantee universalisation of quality education. There is a national consensus on this, stamped by the parliament.

We might feel comfortable about this national consensus and may think the matter settled. But there are debates on ways of achieving universalisation of EE, on whether the private schools should be forced to admit 25% at fee decided by the government, on what constitutes quality, whether no-examination and no detention is a good policy, what continuous and comprehensive evaluation (CCE) happens to be, and so on. We are trying to construct generally acceptable answers to these and a host of other such questions. In this context I want to pose a few old and baring questions yet again. First of them being: why do we want universalisation of elementary education?

This issue is considered debated enough and settled finally, which means we have a generally acceptable and accepted answer to it. That might be true. The policy makers and administrators might have an answer to this, the educationalists and university professors also might have an answer to this. But one wonder if every worker in education does. Does the community worker trying to mobilize local support for school improvement have an adequate answer to this question? Do the teachers have such an answer? Do most of the teacher educators have one? If they all do, are their answers coherent with each other? I am not sure.

Usually the kinds of answers we provide for the basic questions have a great influence on the further questions we raise and on their acceptable answers. There is good reason to believe that the kind of answer we construct and accept for “Why UEE?” will influence all our further questions like whether 25% quota should be mandatory, whether no detention policy is good, how do we define quality of education and so on. If all his be acceptable, the question “Why do we want universalisation of elementary education?” seems to be worth engaging with.

Therefore, I request those who happen to read this post to give their answers to this question in comments or any other way they like. I also request to please keep your answers within 1000 word and out of those 1000 do not in quotations more than 250 words.

So, why do we want universalisation of elementary education?

—————————————————————————–

11th August 2013

[1] Elementary Education means education for eight years, officially defined as from 6 to 14 years of age; in common parlance education up to 8th grade.

[2] Secondary Education is supposed to be from 9th year to 12th year of schooling; or 9th grade to 12th grade. 9th and 10th grades are referred to as lower secondary and 10th and 11th as higher secondary.

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »