A case of confused thinking

July 13, 2019

An edited and shorter version of this article is published in The Hindu on 13th July 2019.

[All this goes to show that the Draft NEP2019 itself lacks the very abilities it emphasises; i.e. critical thinking and deeper understanding. It is a badly written document which hides behind half understood plethora of terms clubbed under the overarching master concept of ‘skill’.]

Rohit Dhankar

Draft NEP2019 devotes about 50 pages to curriculum and pedagogy. That should gladden the heart of any schoolteacher who is concerned with quality of curriculum and principles of pedagogy in the country. But alas, quantity hardly makes for quality here.

Coherent and worthwhile recommendations on curricular choices require a framework of principles defining desirable society and general aims of education. The supposed to be practical knowledge without such a framework produces unwieldy and unjustified ideas jostling together for space. That is what has precisely happened in the curricular recommendation in the Draft NEP2019.

It does have many good recommendations though,  such as: flexibility and wider scope at the secondary level, space for moral reasoning, reemphasis on true spirit of three language formula, focus on the core concepts and key ideas in subjects, doing away with rote learning, vocational courses,  and focus of assessment on understanding. But it also has too many subjects/courses at upper primary level, three languages at early childhood education, and is replete with verbose confusing statements. This has made it a laundry-list of subjects, topics, and skills, at the upper primary stage. This seems to be a result of certain kind of thinking on vision, content and pedagogy. This thinking coupled with careless use of terms involved in curricular and pedagogical discourse has made the matters worse. 

India Centered vision?

The vision of education articulated in the document is that of “an India centred education system that contributes directly to transforming our nation sustainably into an equitable and vibrant knowledge society, by providing high quality education to all.” The term directly seems to indicate some urgency and impatience with deeper aspects of education which may not be ‘directly useful’ in ‘knowledge society’. The ‘India centred-ness’ of education is limited to recommendations on Indian languages and mention of Indian knowledge systems. The operational vision actually is that of a ‘knowledge society’ and almost entirely contained in UNESCO preached 21st Century skills. The democratic ideal is neither mentioned nor used in deriving aims of education or curricular recommendation, though democratic values are mentioned in the list of key skills to be integrated in the subjects. In fact, the policy seems to have no concept of aims of education beyond 21st century skills.

A possible counter argument to what I have said in the paragraph above could be that the knowledge society as defined in UNESCO documents emphasises freedom of expression and other human rights, therefore, it takes care of the democratic ideals in education. But the idea of knowledge society also puts all its eggs in the baskets of digital connectivity and economic development. One wonders whether democratic rights and values can be safeguarded by digital connectivity and economic development alone; or is it the other way around: that a richer understanding and commitment to democratic values and freedoms make equitable development and connectivity meaningful and accessible for all.

The Minister’s message in this regard speaks volumes: “To reap the benefits of … demographics, our Government … had promised that it will implement a National Education Policy to meet the changing dynamics of the population’s requirement with regards to quality education, innovation and research, aiming to make India a knowledge superpower by equipping its students with the necessary skills and knowledge …”. The ‘knowledge’ in the Minister’s message, of course, is the knowledge of skills. The Chairperson’s Preamble seems to be a little more balanced as it at least mentions “a just and equitable society” after contribution “to many growing developmental imperatives”. The economic development through demographic advantage takes the centre stage and democratic vision gets lip service at places like in the list of ‘skills’. It is ‘mentioned’, not made the basis of the policy or deriving anything worthwhile from it to inform the curriculum.

Another place the democratic ideals are mentioned is in the finance pages. While arguing correctly for increased budgetary allocation for education as “the best investment” democratic ideal are also mentioned, “… this is without even considering many of the most important aims and benefits of education, which cannot be viewed in economic terms at all, e.g. robust democracy, an equitable society and cultural vibrancy”. The problem is that the vision is grounded somewhere else. The curricular objectives and recommendations are derived from knowledge society and 21st century skills, the democratic ideals are tagalong artefacts.  

One may ask: what is so wrong with that? It is a matter of emphasis. The primary concern of education aught to be the moral development. That, in contemporary world, is articulated as a critical and concerned citizen who upholds the democratic ideals of justice, equality, liberty and dignity for all. All societies need a robust economy as well; therefore, economic aims are necessarily part of the educational scheme and curriculum. But the economic abilities are necessary ‘resources’ for democratic ideals and not the other way around.  The intellectual qualities, knowledge and skills that are necessary for development of such an individual constitute the curriculum. If one takes the skills for 21st century economy as the fundamental focus the moral aspect comes as a ‘bunch of skills’ needed for knowledge society; not as a guiding principle to organise the society, polity and economy. That results is a skewed curriculum which de-emphasis social political life, in favour of economically utilitarian ‘skills’ which are presented a ‘self-justified’. That is very much visible through out this draft.

Curricular Objectives

The knowledge society  vision directly leads to the  objective stated for the chapter on curriculum and pedagogy: “Curriculum and pedagogy are transformed by 2022 in order to minimise rote learning and instead encourage holistic development and 21st century skills such as critical thinking, creativity, scientific temper, communication, collaboration, multilingualism, problem solving, ethics, social responsibility, and digital literacy.” The most important educationally worthwhile term is ‘skill’ and everything has to fit in within that; even ethics and social responsibility! “The goal” according to the draft policy “will be to create holistic and complete individuals equipped with key 21st century skills.” That makes definition of ‘holistic and complete individuals’ quite clear.

After a host of curricular recommendations including new subjects/courses comes another statement which may look like articulation of curricular objectives or aims of education under the heading of “Curricular integration of essential subjects and skills”. The opening statement and list of subjects/skills are worth understanding properly. It states: “… this Policy envisions that certain subjects and skills should be learned by all students in order to become good, successful, innovative, adaptable, and productive human beings in today’s rapidly-changing world. In addition to proficiency in languages, these skills include: scientific temper; sense of aesthetics and art; languages; communication; ethical reasoning; digital literacy; knowledge of India; and knowledge of critical issues facing local communities, States, the country, and the world.” (emphasis added). The broad goals are “good, successful, innovative, adaptable, and productive human beings”. This is not the citizen who may want to think for herself whether to ‘adapt’ or to ‘challenge’; rather it is to succeed and adapt in what is given. The interpretation of all ‘human abilities and qualities of character’ then become ‘skills’ to be used in this adaptation and success. We need to remember that values are to guide us in what aught we to do, and skills are the tools that help us in doing well what we have decided to do. When values become skills, the question ‘what aught we to do?’ is already answered: success in a system given to us. Commitment to values as defining one as a human being is different from ‘values as a tool kit’ for success.

The list of eight ‘skills’ (sic) is supposed to ‘create’ such successful and adaptablke individuals. The use of terminology defies all logic. Not only that ‘sense of aesthetics’ and ‘ethical reasoning’ are supposed to be skills; ‘evidence-based and scientific thinking’ are used together everywhere, implying that there can be ‘scientific thinking’ which is not evidence based. Or it may be dominance of current fashion of ‘evidence based’ terminology without really understanding what ‘scientific temper’ means. Baffling assumptions are stated with certainty, see one example: “[E]vidence-based and scientific thinking throughout the curriculum will lead naturally to rational, ethical, and compassionate individuals who can make good, logical, and sound decisions throughout their lives”.

The term ‘rational’ is much wider than ‘scientific thinking’ as there are rational ways of thinking that go beyond scientific, for example, ethical and aesthetic judgments. Thus, if not scientific thinking than rational thinking should guarantee the intellectual aspect of the ‘ethical thinking’. But, ‘ethical individual’ also has a ‘commitment to values’, which requires something in addition to rational thinking or scientific thinking alone. How scientific thinking alone will develop ‘compassion’ is beyond one’s understanding. Further, problem solving and logical reasoning is a separate heading in this all important list of skills, indicating that they are included neither in scientific thinking nor in rational thinking. It is interesting that ‘evidence based and scientific thinking’ is supposed to develop ethical, rational, and compassionate individual but not ‘logical and problem solving’ individual. One wonders what part of logical and problem-solving abilities remain outside evidence based, scientific and rational thinking? All this happens because the skills are taken as ‘self-evident truths’ or basic axioms. Therefore, a desire to make as long a list of them as possible from the terms in vogue. What exactly they happen to mean and how are they related to one another and to human capabilities is too cumbersome to dwell upon.

The discussion so far in this article may be seen as nit-picking by some people. However, a policy document is read and interpreted at many levels and influences educational discourse. The document which places so much emphasis on clarity of understanding and critical thinking cannot itself afford to fail in meeting the same standards. Shoddiness of thinking at the national level makes one wary regarding the possibility of proper interpretation and implementation of the policy. This is already reflected in some policy recommendations. A few such examples are given below.

The daft policy is quite confused on what it calls foundational stage. It rightly criticises private pre-schools for being downward extension of primary school and formal teaching in them. And then goes on to prescribe learning alphabets and reading in three languages for 3-6-year olds. This in the name of ‘enhanced language learning abilities of young children. The policy mistakes ‘language acquisition when children are immersed in more than one languages’ with ‘language teaching situation’ where immersion is impossible in three languages; and then extends it completely unjustifiably to learning three scripts. It laments that the preschools are being run as downward extension of primary school and then recommends preparing children for primary by teaching them alphabets, forgetting that that is precisely what downward extension of primary school means. It wants to teach reading and script from age three, but writing from age six, and wants to introduce ‘some textbooks’ from age eight. One wonders what is their notion of textbooks? And how are they going to teach reading and script without printed/written materials? Why withhold introducing textbooks for two years when the children are being taught reading and writing by the age of six? Is learning easier when introduced simultaneously with writing or is it better to first teach reading for three years and then talk of writing?

The draft policy rightly stipulates that the “mandated contents in the curriculum will be reduced, in each subject area, to its core, focussing on key concepts and essential ideas.” This is to “yield more space for discussion and nuanced understanding, analysis, and application of key concepts.” A very good suggestion. But then hogs more than the space vacated by introducing six new laundry-list subjects/courses in addition to already existing eight. Some of the new subjects like (often called “courses” at upper primary level, without explaining what is the difference between a subject and course at this level) ‘critical issues’ and ‘moral reasoning’ can be much better taught in a revised concept of social studies as the context for both is the society. But the policy wants them as standalone subjects. In any case, social studies need more space in the upper primary curriculum, teaching it in a manner that it connects with the society can be a very good way of introducing critical issues and moral thinking. Moral reasoning taught by itself is likely to have the same fate as so-called moral science in many schools. Similarly, Indian classical language and Indian languages can constitute a single rich subject. Identifying key concepts and essential ideas is a matter of rational curricular decision making based on some principles, not listing ideas as they come to one’s mind.

Missing socio-political life

The absence of discussion on socio-political life seems to be another casualty of emphasis on knowledge society and 21st century skills. Actually, social studies seem to be entirely absent from the mind of the committee, as it is mentioned once and then left alone for the entire curriculum discussion. This precisely is the subject area in upper primary that situate the democratic values in the curriculum most appropriately. But the vision of this policy rests on UNESCO declarations and reports rather than Indian constitution and development of democracy in this country; in spite of wanting to make education India centred.

All this goes to show that the Draft NEP2019 itself lacks the very abilities it emphasises; i.e. critical thinking and deeper understanding. It is a badly written document which hides behind half understood plethora of terms clubbed under the overarching master concept of ‘skill’. However, to give the devil its due, it also manages to make some good recommendations on the curriculum front, even if half undone by itself.

*******

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

प्रारूप शिक्षा-नीति २०१९ का रुख १: दृष्टी

July 8, 2019

रोहित धनकर

[ मूल मंत्र क्या है? ज्ञान और नैतिकता में समृद्ध लोकतान्त्रिक समाज, जो आर्थिक विकास को मानव के साधन के रूप में देखता है; या फिर आर्थिक विकास और तकनीकी केंद्र में रखनी है और लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्य बस कई शर्तों में से एक शर्त है, और नागरिक उसके लिए संसाधन है?]

राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति २०१९ का प्रारूप आखिरकार जनता के सामने आ गया है। ‘आखिरकार’ इस लिए की इसका लोगों को पिछले पाँच साल से इंतजार था। पहले दो दस्तावेज़ लग-भग प्रारूप जैसे जारी हो चुके हैं, और सरकार कई बार इसके जारी होने की तारीखें बदली हैं। खैर, देर आयद दुरुस्त आयद। पर क्या ‘दुरुस्त’ आयद? इतने लंबे इंतजार के बाद लोगों की यह अपेक्षा तो जायज है कि राष्ट्र की शिक्षा नीती बहुत बढ़िया और शिक्षा को आगे कई वर्षों तक दिशा देने वाली होने के साथ-साथ शैक्षिक सिद्धांतों और भारतीय लोकतन्त्र की दृष्टि से भी खरी उतरे। इस दृष्टि से इस दस्तावेज़ को समझने की जरूरत है, इस के विश्लेषण की जरूरत है। शिक्षा राष्ट्र के जीवन पर बहुत गहरा असर डालती है, इसे न तो नजरअंदाज किया जा सकता है न ही सरसरी नजर से देखा जा सकता है; और ना ही इसे किसी तात्कालिक फैशन के हवाले लिया जा सकता है।

यह लेख राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति प्रारूप के इसी नजर एक से विश्लेषण का प्रयास है। जाहिर है, शिक्षा को और उस पर नीति को लोग बहुत अलग अलग नजरियों से देखते हैं, और संचार माध्यमों से अपने नजरिए बांटते हैं, ताकि कोई आम सहमती का नजरिया बनाया जा सके। यही लोकतन्त्र का तरीका है और यह हर समझदार नागरिक का कर्तव्य भी है। लेख के इस हिस्से में मैं प्रारूप राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति 2019 (प्रा-19) के सामान्य ढांचे और मान्यताओं पर विचार रखूँगा। विशिष्ठ अनुसंसाओं की चर्चा आगे के हिस्सों में होगी।

प्रा-19 को देखते ही एक बात जो दिमाग में आती है वह यह है कि यह शिक्षा नीति पहले की शिक्षा नीतियों से बहुत अलग है। सब से पहले तो यही की 1968 की शिक्षा नीति महज 7-8 पृष्ट की थी, 1986 की कोई 28-29 पृष्ट की; पर प्रा-19 अँग्रेजी में 484 और हिन्दी में 650 पृष्ट की है। लग सकता है कि यह कोई महत्व की बात नहीं है, इस पर क्या विचार करना? पर वास्तव में यह शिक्षा नीति की धारणा में बदलाव का संकेत है। शिक्षा नीति में जो चीजें निश्चित रूप से होनी ही चाहियें उनकी सूची  पर नीति निर्माताओं के बदलते विचारों का संकेत है। पहले की शिक्षा नीतियाँ शिक्षा में राष्ट्र से लेकर स्कूल तक निर्णय लेने के लिए एक ‘सैद्धान्तिक-ढांचा’ होती रही है। वे दिशा निर्देश देती है, वास्तविक ‘निर्णय’ क्या हों उनपर सिर्फ सिद्धांतों से सहमती की मांग होती रही है, विस्तार से क्या करना है और कैसे इस यह तय करना राज्यों का काम होता था। इसी लिए शिक्षा नीतियाँ शिक्षा-क्रम और शिक्षण-शास्त्र पर सिर्फ दिशा-निर्देश देती थी, कौनसे विषय हों, उनमें क्या-क्या हो आदि शिक्ष-क्रम निर्माताओं पर और अन्य विशेसज्ञों पर छोड़ दिया जाता था।

इस का कारण यह है कि शिक्षा नीति एक राष्ट्रीय दस्तावेज़ होता है, भारत में शिक्षा संविधान की समवर्ती सूची में है, अर्थात इस के बहुत से पहलू राज्यों के अधिकार क्षेत्र में हैं। शिक्षा-क्रम शिक्षा का एक ऐसा ही पहलू है। भारत में राष्ट्रीय पाठ्यचर्या एक अनुसंसात्मक दस्तावेज़ होता है, राज्यों पर इसे मानने का कानूनी बंधन नहीं होता। हर राज्य अपना शिक्षा-क्रम स्वयं तय करता है। इस लिए नीतियाँ सिर्फ ऐसी बातें कहती थीं कि सम्पूर्ण राष्ट्र के स्कूली शिक्षा-क्रमों में कौनसी बातें लाज़मी तौर पर होनी चाहिए; जैसे: स्वतन्त्रता आंदोलन का इतिहास, संवैधानिक मूल्य, वैज्ञानिक सोच, पंथ-निरपेक्षता, आदि।

प्रा-19 इतनी बड़ी इसलिए है कि इसमें कई चीजें समाहित करली गई हैं, जैसे: नीति, नीति को लागूकरने का कार्यक्रम, चुने हुए मुद्दों पर शिक्षा-क्रम का विस्तार, चुने हुए मुद्दों पर पढ़ाने की विधियों का विस्तार, आदि; और एक ही चीज को बार-बार कहना। राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति 1986 में शिक्षा-क्रम के विस्तार में जाने कि बजाय ये सैद्धान्तिक बातें कही गई हैं कि सारे भारत के शिक्षा-क्रमों में एक “सामान्य केंद्रक” (common core) होगा। उसमें कुछ राष्ट्रीय मूल्य भी दिये हैं। “इन राष्ट्रीय मूल्यों में ये बातें शामिल हैं : हमारी समान सांस्कृतिक धरोहर, लोकतंत्र, धर्मनिरपेक्षता, स्त्री-पुरूषों के बीच समानता, पर्यावरणका संरक्षण, सामाजिक समता, सीमित परिवार का महत्त्व और वैज्ञानिक तरीके के अमल की जरूरत। यह सुनिश्चित किया जायेगा कि सभी शैक्षिक कार्यक्रम धर्मनिरपेक्षता के मूल्यों के अनुरूप ही आयोजित हों।” प्रा-19 में शिक्षा-क्रम पर विस्तार से अनुसंसाओं के बवाजूद “लोकतंत्र, धर्मनिरपेक्षता, सामाजिक समता” पर ज़ोर नहीं है, और 1986 की शिक्षा नीति की यह पंक्ति “यह सुनिश्चित किया जायेगा कि सभी शैक्षिक कार्यक्रम धर्मनिरपेक्षता के मूल्यों के अनुरूप ही आयोजित हों” शिक्षा में धर्म-निरपेक्षता पर जो बल देती है वह नहीं है। प्रा-19 सांप्रदायिक हो या किसी खास धर्म की तरफदारी कर रही हो ऐसा नहीं है, पर इस में वह दिशा निर्देश भी नहीं  है कि शैक्षिक कार्यक्रम पूरी तरह धर्मनिरपेक्ष होगा। इस नीति के लिए देश में सांप्रदायिकता कोई मुद्दा नहीं  है।

दूसरी बात, शिक्षा-क्रम और शिक्षण-विधि के विस्तार में जाने का कारण यह हो सकता है कि नीति निर्माताओं को भरोसा नहीं है कि हमारा शिक्षा-तंत्र इस के सही विस्तार की, सही निर्णयों की और ठीक से लागू करने की काबिलियत और ईमानदार इच्छा रखता है। पीछे की नीतियां, शिक्षा-क्रम और शिक्षा का अधिकार कानून जिस तरह से शिक्षा-तंत्र ने लागू किए हैं उसे देखते हुए यह शक गैर-वाजिब भी नहीं है। शायद हमारा तंत्र न तो सक्षम है ना ही ईमानदार मेहनत करने वाला। पर इस समस्या का समाधान नीति के स्तर पर अनुचित विस्तार में जा कर तंत्र पर अनुचित बंधन लगाना नहीं हो सकता, इसके लिए तंत्र की काबिलियत और प्रतिबद्धता का विकास करना होगा। और यह कैसे किया जाये यह बताना नीति का काम है। नीति का काम सम्पूर्ण तंत्र के काम को अपने हाथ में लेलेना नहीं है।

प्रा-19 में इसकी शिक्षा-दृष्टि (educational vision) और शिक्षा के उद्देश्यों का बहुत ध्यान से विवेचन होना चाहिए। इस पर विचार करने से पहले राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति 1986 (शिनी-86) में शिक्षा-दृष्टि और उद्देश्य देखना समीचीन होगा। इस लिए नहीं की अब भी वही दृष्टि और उद्देश्य हों, बल्कि इस लिए कि हम बदली परिस्थिती में अनुसंसित बदलाओं को ठीक से समझ कर उनका औचित्य-अनौचित्य समझ सकें। शिनी-86 में एक बहुत छोटा-सा अधयाय है, “शिक्षा का सार और उसकी भूमिका” नाम से। यहाँ इसको पूरा देखना जरूरी है। आगे मैं उसे पूरा उद्धृत कर रहा हूँ, सिर्फ विभिन्न अनुच्छेदों को दी गई संख्याएं हटाई हैं: “हमारे राष्ट्रीय परिप्रेक्ष्य में ‘‘सबके लिए शिक्षा’’ हमारे भौतिक और आध्यात्मिक विकास की बुनियादी आवश्यकता है। शिक्षा सुसंस्कृत बनाने का माध्यम है। यह हमारी संवेदनशीलता और दृष्टि को प्रखर करती है, जिससे राष्ट्रीय एकता पनपती है, वैज्ञानिक तरीके के अमल की संभावना बढ़ती है और समझ और चिंतन में स्वतन्त्रता आती है। साथ ही शिक्षा हमारे संविधान में प्रतिष्ठित समाजवाद, धर्मनिरपेक्षता और लोकतंत्र के लक्ष्यों की प्राप्ति में अग्रसर होने में हमारी सहायता करती है। शिक्षा के द्वारा ही आर्थिक व्यवस्था के विभिन्न स्तरों के लिए जरूरत के अनुसार जनशक्ति का विकास होता है। शिक्षा के आधार पर ही अनुसंधान और विकास को सम्बल मिलता है जो राष्ट्रीय आत्म-निर्भरता की आधारशिला है। कुल मिलाकर, यह कहना सही होगा कि शिक्षा वर्तमान तथा भविष्य के निर्माण का अनुपम साधन है। इसी सिद्धांत को राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति के निर्माण की धुरी माना गया है।”

यह अनुच्छेद बहुत संक्षेप में पर बहुत स्पष्टता के साथ ये चीजें कहता है: मानव जीवन में शिक्षा का महत्व, राष्ट्रीय जीवन में शिक्षा का महत्व, लोकतन्त्र में शिक्षा के उद्देश्य और आर्थिक आधार के रूप में शिक्षा। यह शिनी-86 की ‘शिक्षा-दृष्टी’ (educational vision) है। आगे उद्देश्य, कार्यक्रम, शिक्षा-क्रम और शैक्षिक ढांचे आदि पर निर्णय लेने में यह दृष्टि “धुरी” का काम करेगी।

अब देखते हैं की प्रा-19 की वह धुरी क्या है? प्रा-19 अंग्रेजी में लिखी गई थी। फिर उसका हिन्दी अनुवाद हुआ। हिन्दी अनुवाद में शिक्षा-दृष्टि (vision): “राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति २०१९ एक भारत केन्द्रित शिक्षा प्रणाली की कल्पना करती है जो सभी को उच्च गुणवत्ता की शिक्षा प्रदान करके, हमारे राष्ट्र को एक न्यायसंगत और जीवंत ज्ञान समाज में लगातार बदलने में योगदान देती है।” मेरे विचार से यह ठीक अनुवाद नहीं हुआ है। इस लिए मैं निम्न अनुवाद काम में लूँगा।

“राष्ट्रीय शिक्षा नीति २०१९ एक ऐसी भारत केन्द्रित शिक्षा प्रणाली की कल्पना करती है जो सभी को उच्च गुणवत्ता की शिक्षा प्रदान करके, हमारे राष्ट्र को  ‘कायम रहने वाले तरीके से’ (sustainably) एक समतापूर्ण और जीवंत ज्ञान समाज में बदलने में सीधा योगदान दे।”

यहाँ दृष्टि मूलतः एक ज्ञान-समाज की है, यह ज्ञान-समाज समतापूर्ण होना चाहिए, इस के निर्माण में शिक्षा को ‘सीधा’ योगदान देना चाहिए और बदलाव ‘कायम रहने वाले तरीके से’ होना चाहिए। बहुत अधिक तर्क के बिना भी यह साफ है की यह दृष्टि ‘ज्ञान-समाज’ केन्द्रित है। यह शिनी-86 की दृष्टि की तुलना में संकुचित है और अंतर्राष्ट्रीय आर्थिक और तकनीकी केन्द्रित नजरिए से लाई गई है। ऐसे कौन से नए बदालव हुए हैं कि प्रा-19 में मानव जीवन और लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्यों को एक शब्द ‘समतापूर्ण’ में समेट दिया गया है? या अब हमें मानव जीवन में  वैज्ञानिक तरीके के अमल की, समझ और चिंतन में स्वतन्त्रता की, और हमारे संविधान में प्रतिष्ठित समाजवाद, धर्मनिरपेक्षता और लोकतंत्र के लक्ष्यों की आवश्यकता नहीं रही? क्या वे प्राप्त कर लिए गए हैं? या वे तो सब जानते ही हैं और शिक्षा तो उन्हीं की राह पर चल ही रही है? या अब दुनिया बादल गई है इस लिए लोकतान्त्रिक समाज के बजाय ज्ञान-समाज अधिक महत्व पूर्ण हो गया है? यह सही है कि ज्ञान समाज की धारणा में यूनेस्को अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतन्त्रता, मानव अधिकारों, और लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्यों की बात करता है। पर ये सब आर्थिक विकास और संचार तकनीकी के संदर्भ में होते हैं। मूल मंत्र क्या है? ज्ञान और नैतिकता में समृद्ध लोकतान्त्रिक समाज, जो आर्थिक विकास को मानव के साधन के रूप में देखता है; या फिर आर्थिक विकास और तकनीकी केंद्र में रखनी है और लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्य बस कई शर्तों में से एक शर्त है, और नागरिक उसके लिए संसाधन है?

प्रा-19 को ध्यान से पढ़ने पर दूसरी, अर्थात आर्थिक और तकनीकी विकास की केन्द्रीयता साफ उभरती है। सवाल यह नहीं है आर्थिक और तकनीकी विकास की जरूरत है या नहीं; यह जरूरत तो है ही। सवाल यह है कि लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्य और संविधान आर्थिक विकास को दिशा दे या आर्थिक विकास की मांगें संविधान और समाज को दिशा दें। प्रा-19 की शिक्षा-दृष्टि इस मामले में कुछ असपष्ट है, और जितनी स्पष्टता उसमें है उसमें आर्थिक विकास केंद्र में दिखाता है।

*********

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

Misinterpreting secularism, Indian culture and education

July 6, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

Professor V. Santhakumar’s article “Indian Culture, Secularism and Education: Let us be Realistic and Pragmatic” completely misses the point regarding secularism in education due to misinterpretation of the ideal of secularism. He assumes that the central point in the ideal of secularism is to make disappear “non-secular ways of life through” secular education and that there is a necessary dichotomy between emphasis on Indian culture on one hand and secularism on the other in school education.

The declaration of Indian constitution “to secure to all its citizens: JUSTICE, social, economic and political; LIBERTY of thought, expression, belief, faith and worship; EQUALITY of status and of opportunity; and to promote among them all FRATERNITY assuring the dignity of the individual” is an embodiment of secular ideal in the constitution, right from the beginning, despite of not having the word “secular” in it before 42nd amendment. The declaration in the preamble does not make a distinction on the basis of religion among the citizens and is not guided by any religious doctrine. It is a state policy which implies in its very proclamation that ‘religious doctrine and ideals’ are not going to govern or influence the relationship between the citizens and the nation state.

For the rigour of this blog piece it is enough to say that secularism “in the twentieth century has come to refer to two interrelated practices: (1) a mode of political organization in which the state is neutral with reference to all established religions; and (2) later in the century, a political practice of the state that protects the rights of minorities in a multicultural society”.[1] The ideal of secularism then is an ideal to be followed by the state; in separating its policy from the religion and religious considerations. And it is not about making people abandon their religious or communitarian practices. Some religious practices, however, may have to be restricted in case they interfere with others’ rights and entitlements; that will be necessary for the state to fulfil its promise to all its citizens. I will discuss some such cases below.

Strictly for the present purpose, if we take the promises of justice, liberty, equality and dignity made by Indian constitution in its preamble (and then expanded in fundamental rights) then the state, on certain occasions, may come into conflict with religious practices of various communities. The constitution makes these promises to the ‘individuals’ not to ‘religious communities’ and makes these promises to all its citizens without any consideration of their practiced or professed faiths.

If a religion prescribes unequal treatment to its adherents then the state has to take note of it, and if any individual approaches the state with a complaint of injustice or inequality or encroachment upon his/her liberty etc. then the state is duty bound to protect its promises made to individuals irrespective of their religious affiliations. For example, from this perspective whatever the religious communities may believe the state cannot allow unequal access to public facilities (public transport, hotels) in the name of caste. If the state decides for health and other reasons to ban marriage before 18 years, then it cannot make considerations on the basis of Manu’s criteria of marrying a girl before puberty or Mohammad’s example of marrying a girl of 9 years. In such cases a secular state necessarily comes into conflict with practices recommended by religions. But this is because these practices trample on girl’s rights grow up as free individuals.

In India we are not very secular in our lives and the state actually does not fulfil the promises it made in the constitution. (That, however, does not make secular ideals any less important.) Our politicians indulge into non-secular practices as office bearers of state (Modi’s meditation in the cave) and we have state schemes that are non-secular in character (Kejriwal’s promise to send elderly Delhi residents on religious tourism on public exchequer). Modi and Kejriwal are free to practice their religion in their personal life, but not as office bearers and as state schemes. That is what secularism means.

If a religion wants to encroach on public spaces in the name of Ganesh or Durga puja or in the name of Friday namaz, it is the duty of the state to protect other citizens’ right to use those spaces; and not to advise people to stop either Ganesh/Durga puja or Friday namaz. That is none of the states business, all the state is concerned is that you practice your religion privately.

If a religion does not want to give women equal share in ancestral property, as was the case with Hindu women till as recently as 2005 and is the case with the Muslim women today, then the state is duty bound to protect the individual right of the woman who considers herself wronged. If the state does not do that with all women whatever their religion than it is not fulfilling the constitutional promise. However, if the woman herself in pursuance of her religious beliefs forfeits her rightful share, then the state, as far as I understand, has no business interfering in it. Professor Santhakumar assumes that the secular ideal is about not allowing the woman to donate her property to her brothers under her exploitative religious beliefs; as far as I understand, that is not the case, it is only if the woman wants her equal share, the state should ensure that she gets it. The secular ideal provides a framework of liberties and entitlements to each individual irrespective of their religion, it does not force them to depart from their religious practices if they do not encroach on other citizens’ rights.

Religions are known throughout history to accord unequal status to sections of population, treatment of Dalits and women in Hindu practices is an example. Treatment of women in Islam is another example. Whether the communities themselves reflect and amend these practices or not, the state is duty bound to provide opportunities through a legal framework to those who want to resist this unequal treatment.

The religions also have had ideals of not allowing other religions flourish or even exist. And the conversion of non-believers is mandated as sacred duty of believers in scriptures of some religions. That has been interpreted as theological legitimacy of conversion through force, fraud, fear and allurements; and is being practiced even today. A secular state that gives equal rights to practice their faiths to all its citizens can not allow this. And has to intervene even if the religious communities do not reflect and change themselves. And our students should understand these ideals and positions and should build a rational commitment to them. That is the duty of education.

Religions also put restrictions on people not belonging to their own communities. The present-day beef ban is an example. Not being able to buy meat on certain festival days is another example.   This is not about demanding from Hindus that they eat beef, nor from Jains that they eat meat. They are free to eat what they like; it is only about the rights of other citizens to eat what they want. It can not wait for the communities to change themselves and become open minded, it is about telling them that there are other people who live here, and they do not have any right to force their choices on them. And our future citizens should understand this, through education, of course.

Another issue in India, and in the world, has been of expressing one’s opinion freely without fear. This is part of liberty of thought, expression and belief. A citizen does have the right to critically analyse the doings and preaching of Ram, Krishna, Mahavir, Buddh, Christ, Muhammad and all such religious figures. And also has the right to express his/her opinion. If he/she finds something obnoxious in their behaviour or preaching, she has the right to say so openly and without fear. This does not mean asking believers to be critical about their religious figures or dogmas, it is not about forcing the believers to read or listen to such criticism. This is only about other citizens’ right to think and speak what they want to. Again, it can not wait till the communities themselves become wise enough to see that they should not try to control other people’s thinking. Citizens in a democracy need to understand and value this freedom.

This is about accepting others’ rights to live as they want, and not about wanting them to change their practices. If we want a multireligious and multicultural society to live in harmony, we have to get across these ideas and build commitment to them through education. That is where secular ideals are necessary in education.

This is true that these ideals can properly function in a society only when people accept them, and all the efforts about multicultural understanding and reflection within communities that Professor Santhakumar recommends are needed, and are very important. But that does not do away with emphasis on secular ideal in schools and in education.

In education and curriculum fair representation of all cultures and religious beliefs is another big issue. And that can not be avoided. I believe our education has been too shy (rather scared?) of critiquing cultural practices and religious dogmas in schools. If we want multiculturalism to flourish, we have to bring the critical understanding of religions in the curriculum and have to learn to call a spade a spade.

Professor Santhakumar is not correct when he claims that there is no evidence that ‘secular education’ makes people secular. Indian constitution is an example of people understanding the need to co-exist within the same country with multiple religious and cultural beliefs. And that was right after the country was divided on the basis of religion. And the education of the framers of constitution played a big role in that. His examples of educated Indians re-emphasizing their cultural roots do not negate this as long as they are not encroaching on others’ rights.

Another ideal that is necessary part of the secularism is using your own mind, being critical, being rational. The freedoms given to citizens and demand for responsible use of them necessarily requires development of critical thinking and demanding reasons and evidence for beliefs and actions. If education does not do it, democracy can not function. And that demands being fair in analysing all ideas religious or otherwise.

This also has to be done more seriously that the Draft National Education Policy recommends. It talks of the ‘skill’ of ‘critical thinking’ umpteen number of times, and even proclaims that “[T]extbooks will aim to contain only correct, relevant material; when unproven hypotheses or guesses are included, this will be explicitly stated.” Also talks of ‘evidence based’ thinking, again as a skill, many times. And then also makes claims like “India’s languages are … most scientific, and most expressive in the world”, and that “The concept of zero and its use in the place value system … also originated in India, over 2000 years ago”. (Emphasis added) By their own proclamation they should at the least have called them “hypotheses”. How do they defend the claim of Indian languages being most scientific and expressive? What is their evidence that zero was being used as a number 2000 years ago? One wonder how critically they have thought about these claims and what evidence they have for them. But then, when ‘critical thinking’ is taught as a ‘skill’ that is all you can expect. Our curriculum under secular ideals should have done better than that; and now will necessarily have to improve.

Calling secularism completely an alien ideal does gross injustice to Indian culture and its openness. It is true that the modern formulation of it as ‘separation of the state and the Church’ comes from Europe and is negatively inspired by Christianity due to its stranglehold on the state and people’s minds. But the ideals of people professing and practicing different faiths living together and state treating them equally—that does not necessarily mean treating ‘well’—is an age-old norm in India. A historian friend of mine told me that Ashok was fair to Buddhist monks and Brahmins in giving grants and donations, in spite of himself being a Buddhist. Ashok’s 12th Major edict gives an interesting peek into Indian mind in this regard, it is worth quoting in full here:

“The Beloved of the Gods, the king Piyadassi, honours all sects and both ascetics and laymen, with gifts and various forms of recognition. But the Beloved of the Gods does not consider gifts or honour to be as important as the advancement of the essential doctrine of all sects. This progress of the essential doctrine takes many forms, but its basis is the control of one’s speech, so as not to extoll one’s own sect or disparage another’s on unsuitable occasions, or at least to do so only mildly on certain occasions. On each occasion one should honour another man’s sect, for by doing so one increases the influence of one’s own sect and benefits that of the other man; while by doing otherwise one diminishes the influence of one’s own sect and harms the other man’s. Again, whosoever honours his own sect or disparages that of another man, wholly out of devotion to his own, with a view to showing it in a favourable light, harms his own sect even more seriously. Therefore, concord is to be commended, so that men may hear one another’s principles and obey them. This is the desire of the Beloved of the Gods, that all sects should be well-informed, and should teach that which is good, and that everywhere their adherents should be told, The Beloved of the Gods does not consider gifts or honour to be as important as the progress of the essential doctrine of all sects. Many are concerned with this matter – the officers of Dhamma, the women’s officers, the managers of the state farms, and other classes of officers. The result of this is the increased influence of one’s own sect and glory to Dhamma.”[2]

This is from an all-powerful emperor about 250 years before Christ was born, addressed to the general public as well as to the state officials. It may not be articulated in the exact terms as modern secularism quoted in the beginning, but comes as close to “a mode of political organization in which the state is neutral with reference to all established religions” as would have been possible at that time.

About openness and changes, yes, there is much resistance in changing practices in the society. There is also much injustice to sections of society and that is not giving way, often only changing form. But neither is it an absolutely ironclad rigidity. How the new age couples are changing Hindu marriage ceremony can be an example. I know at the least two couples personally who considered the practice of ‘kanyadan’ as demeaning to women and did not include that in their marriage. One couple used preamble of Constitution of India as ceremonial vow in their marriage. These changes have come about through secular ideals taught in the schools and colleges.  

Finally, there is no necessary dichotomy between emphasis on secular ideals and having one’s own religious or cultural identity. One can happily be a Hindu, a Muslim, a Jain, a Boddh, a Sikh, a Christian or an atheist; and be true to secular ideals as far as public behaviour is concerned. One has to compromise only on the religious beliefs and practices which restrict others’ freedoms. And that in any case has to be accepted if one is not living in a theological state. Those who want to force precepts of their own religions on others have to be prevented from doing so, even if they don’t like it. This much is necessary under any kind of modern state today, and is a necessary condition for existence of multireligious societies. If the future citizens of India are to understand all this appropriate emphasis on secular ideals in the school education is absolutely a must.

******

[1] International Encyclopaedia of Social Sciences, Second Edition (2008), Volume 7, p277-378.

[2] Romila Thapar, Asoka and the decline of the Mauryas, OUP, 1997, p255

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

Sundry thoughts on political tirth-yatra

July 5, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

[The only things that can save our future as a proud democratic and secular nation are clear thinking and courage to act. Otherwise we will continue to be duped by various devices as our history of last 70 years has proved.]

During the elections the Prime Minister Narendra Modi was beckoned by his god to meditate in Kedarnath cave, in solitude. But since he is the PM the cameras in the cave did not violate his solitude. This was a confirmation to the voters that he is a Hindu before being the Prime Minister of India. Of course, he has the freedom to ‘practice’ his religion and no one has the right to question his religious beliefs. But one wonders if symbolic use of religious acts to remind the voters their shared faith is all that innocuous. One also wonders if the government paid for his private visit to Kedarnath, and if that is legitimate expenditure for a secular state.

The so-called secular parties which took pride in cosying up with Islamic practices like iftar parties and usually down played their Hindu practices are now catching up. It started with ‘secular to the core’ politicians flaunting their multicoloured pooja threads on their right wrists. The pooja thread works as a symbol to remind the public that the person bearing it is a Hindu or at the least respects Hindu practices. In the times gone by this thread used to be a thin single strand wrapped around the religious ceremony participants’ wrist in such a manner that it automatically unwrapped in the first bath or washing of hands. As per the custom one is not supposed to deliberately break or remove it. Now for some inexplicable reason it has become thick like a rope and tied with such care that is impossible to come untied by itself. And since it is not supposed to be deliberately removed and the politicians attend numerous religious occasions, the multiple coloured ropes around their writs proclaim their respect for the Hindu rituals as well as bread germs as they become quite dirty in a few days.

Now it seems a very very secular son of Dilli called Aravind Kejriwal has proclaimed “To all the elderly citizens of Delhi, I want to say, this son of yours will send you on at least one ‘tirth yatra’ in your lifetime” (The Hindu, 5th July 2019). By this time I am sure the images of Shravan Kumar taking his parents on pilgrimage on his shoulders are vivid in the minds of many of the devote Hindus of Delhi, or that is what this avatar of Shravan Kumar hopes. One wonders if a secular Delhi Government is within its legal bounds in spending hundreds of crores in such a flagrant act of luring voters on their religious sentiments.

Till 2014 all parties used Muslim religious sentiments to assure the Muslim community of their ‘secularism’. This was under the belief—true or not—that Muslims vote en-block and thus can act as a veto to making government at the centre, even if cannot by themselves ensure coming to power. In last two general elections the BJP has countered this ‘secular’ strategy by consolidating Hindu votes by the same trick played on the larger community; and Hindus being in overwhelming majority can actually ensure coming to power, as they did, over riding so-far believed Muslim veto.

The awakening of ‘secular’ parties to a need to dupe Hindus by playing with their religious sentiments started becoming visible through the thick pooja threads on political wrists. Now that gesture is being taken to the next level by Mr. Kejriwal through his Shravan Kumar act.

This act certainly is against the spirit of secular constitution, I am not sure if it is downright illegal and whether can be taken to the court.

Our politicians have proved themselves man and women without principles. We as voters so far have been easy to dupe, have proved ourselves excessively selfish, completely devoid of thinking of greater common good and myopic to the core. This has brought our democracy to a perilous situation. Every single retrograde practice of the society is being used to the hilt to capture power, be that caste or religion or any other kind of conflict in the society. The crude force that was used in a feudal setup to control populace has been replaced by chains in the mind, which are even more dangerous to humanity.

There is an all-round attack on clear thinking, rationally held convictions and courage to act. The tools come in all imaginable kinds of shapes and sizes. Ranging from blatant play on caste and religious sentiments, drawing people into cycle of consumerism and leaving no place to think by bombarding people with half-truths and dubious opinions. Sadly, this very post is likely to add to the last-mentioned tool of dumbing down clear thinking.

Caste and religious thinking charge our minds. The cycle of loan-buy-earn-pay-more-loan leaves us with no time to reflect. In such a situation reasoned convictions get no chance of forming, and if formed erode quickly. Bombardment of half-understood half-truths through social media serves in creating a false belief of being well-informed, knowledgeable and produces an illusion of thinking for ourselves. The only way to break free of the sinister web is to reflect. And reflect we don’t.

Gita warns against loss of clear thinking:

क्रोधाद्भवति सम्मोहः सम्मोहात्स्मृतिविभ्रमः | स्मृतिभ्रंशाद्बुद्धिनाशो बुद्धिनाशात्प्रणश्यति || २.६३ ||

“Anger produces confusion, confusion produces loss of memory, loss of memory produces destruction of the mind, and because the mind is destroyed, he perishes.”

The cycle does not need to start with anger, though that is being stocked through religion and caste. It can actually start directly with ‘sammoh’ (confusion or bewilderment). The politicians and mass media presently focus on this. The rest of the cycle progresses to logical end by itself.

Socrates declared unexamined life as unworthy of living. But was also aware that his audience is unlikely to believe him: “you will not believe that I am serious; and if I say again that daily to discourse about virtue, and of those other things about which you hear me examining myself and others, is the greatest good of man, and that the unexamined life is not worth living, you are still less likely to believe me. Yet I say what is true, although a thing of which it is hard for me to persuade you.” He was right, and he could not persuade his audience. Nor are we persuaded by him today, we do not examine our beliefs about what our politicians say and do seriously enough.

The only things that can save our future as a proud democratic and secular nation are clear thinking and courage to act. Otherwise we will continue to be duped by various devices as our history of last 70 years has proved.

******

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

Do exams throttle India’s education system?

June 14, 2019

THE HINDU, 14 June 2019

The importance accorded to school-leaving examinations in India puts enormous pressure on students to score the highest possible marks. Bagging a rank among lakhs of students is accepted widely as a mark of excellence. But how scientific is the examination system at determining the progress of students? In a conversation moderated by G. Ananthakrishnan, Krishna Kumar and Rohit Dhankar talk about the education system and possible reforms. Edited excerpts:

G. Ananthakrishnan: The school-leaving exam is a defining one in the life of a student. What outcomes do these exams actually achieve?

Krishna Kumar: This examination system is something that reminds us of the beginnings of the modern education system in India. The school-leaving examination was designed in the latter half of the 19th century as a way to determine who can be selected for further education, which was very scarce at that time, and also for lower-level jobs in offices. It was basically a means of elimination. And it has remained that all the way up to now. The Grade 10 exam, for instance, fails a large number of children and stops them from going any further. This is a kind of structural arrangement in a system in which secondary education is not very widespread and higher secondary education is even less so. Opportunities for further education at the undergraduate level or various kinds of technical education are also relatively scarce.

So, the exam system acts as a custodian which doesn’t permit a vast number of children to go forward. It has acquired its legitimacy over the century, and therefore it is not questioned, but it has very little scientific basis, and it is not a system of any kind of valid assessment of the potential of a young person. Rather, it is a means of keeping out [children]. In what manner can you be stopped from going further? Grade 10 is the most draconian barrier, Grade 12 also fails a large number of children.

That is one function of the examination system. The other big function is to create an illusion of equal opportunity in an otherwise highly unequal society. It is in the exam that all children — no matter what their background is, or whether they study in a posh school or a poor school — face the same test of three hours. Their names are turned into roll numbers. The identity of paper-setters and evaluators is not revealed. Thus, confidentiality enhances the legitimacy of a situation where children from contrasting circumstances are given an equal-looking opportunity.

Rohit Dhankar: I agree. The problem is well-known for quite some time. The first mention of the educational system being throttled by exams was in 1904 in the Indian Educational Policy, at the time formulated by the Governor General in Council. After that this was mentioned in every commission and report. They always try to say exams should be reformed and something should be done about it. As far as reliability of children’s understanding, acquiring knowledge and ways of formulating knowledge are concerned, I don’t think the examination system leaves much scope. Children do acquire snippets of information, but whether they construct that into knowledge remains seriously doubtful. I feel that this is also an outcome of intense competition in society. As long as the school structure and the structure of the curriculum remain as it is today, where every child has to finish certain kinds of learning in a given time, and at the same time the possibility of children exploring on their own is limited, it seems that the exam system cannot be changed.

If one changes these two things — the structure of the school and the curriculum — and somehow an alternative way is found which ameliorates the high competition in the parents’ mind, there is a possibility of reforming the system in such a manner that it is more insightful and less stressful.

GA: How does India’s exam system compare with the systems of other countries?

KK: Our system compares very poorly with the evaluation and assessment systems which are in place in other societies, including European and North American societies as well as China. These societies have reformed their evaluation systems from within by improving teachers’ understanding of what they are looking for in a child right from the start. In our case, we don’t equip our teachers with a deep understanding of how children learn and how to assess a child’s growth. Our system right from the beginning becomes intensely competitive and stressful and starts promoting cramming as a way to move forward with high marks.

A recent attempt made in the Right to Education (RTE) Act to introduce Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) was an important step but this was not welcomed by a large number of schools and State authorities. And the idea that the RTE introduced — that we will not have a Board examination up to Grade 8 — has now been amended by Parliament. States are now once again free to introduce a Board exam. Some have already moved towards that by reintroducing at Grade 5 and Grade 8 levels an exam that can classify children into pass and fail categories. This was the old system. This reversal of a progressive step that the RTE had taken also shows how accustomed our system is to this old and rigid practice of examining children one against the other. And how dependent it is on certain time-honoured skills like cramming and preparing for an exam through coaching.

In comparison, European systems, including the British system on which we were modelled originally, have moved on to far more holistic and humanistic ways of assessing each child’s own growth trajectory right from the beginning. Even where there are public exams, they are taken with much greater care for objectivity and justice for every child. The GCSE [General Certificate of Secondary Education] in Britain, for example, makes sure that each child’s work and performance gets a fair chance to be assessed properly by more than one evaluator. Internal reforms in the system in these directions have taken place in all those societies and they have been ignored in India.

GA: You have written about the role played by model answers coming in the way of students creatively answering an exam question. Could you tell us how it affects the process?

KK: These model answers are prepared to provide the evaluator with a yardstick to see how many marks will be given to a child’s answer. So, since the whole process is so hurried, the evaluator looks at the model answer, and looks for an exact replication of that in the child’s answer sheet. If a child has written something sensible in slightly different words — for instance, instead of the word ‘architecture’, if a child has used the word ‘structure’ — the evaluator will strike off a mark simply because the model answer says the correct answer should use the word ‘architecture’. The model answer is rigidly applied and thereby the chances of any justice being done to a child’s original answer which carries the child’s own creative use of language or her own way of expressing something is likely to be ignored — not just ignored but punished and evaluated poorly. Sometimes so poorly that gross injustice is done to the child’s answer.

RD: I have some information about the assessment systems in Finland, the U.K., and some States in the U.S. When we compare some of these systems, one or two things stand out clearly. A kind of continuous assessment which feeds back into the teaching-learning process and a kind of taking care of the child’s continuous progress is in place.

The second and more important thing, perhaps, is that in the public exam, the questions are on concepts, critical thinking and various ways of looking at the avenues of knowledge, and [there are] criteria for judging the veracity of that knowledge. Our emphasis is on speedy reproduction of information. It seems that the approach of looking at the conceptual side and critical analysis and justification is a much more constructive and better way for the child’s learning.

Our system is rigid. We never give adequate time for these ideas to take root in an institution. We think that a document when prepared and given to the Board, it [the Board] has the capability to translate that document into action, which is not the case. Similarly, we never pay attention to helping the teacher understand the new system. Giving certain words and ideas to people is one thing, and exploring with teachers what their views, assumptions are, and what the problems are with that understanding and how to move to a better understanding has never happened.

GA: In the draft National Education Policy 2019, there is an idea that we can shift to modular exams rather than one single exam. Is this actual reform?

KK: This idea has been given many times earlier. And the National Institute of Open Schooling does provide the facility for taking one subject at a time, when completing your examination process over three-four years if necessary. I don’t think this idea is going to make any impact on this very highly competitive system.

In fact, the draft policy has ignored a number of very good reforms within the various Boards that have been recommended over the last 20-25 years. Many of the Boards don’t have adequate staff, enough academic faculty to monitor their own procedures. Many of the State Boards are actually in very poor shape as far as their academic infrastructure is concerned. Even the CBSE and ICSE operate as bureaucratic, mechanical set-ups. Unfortunately, the policy draft doesn’t even look at this phenomenon of improving the institutional functioning of the Boards.

RD: Exam reform doesn’t come alone in the draft education policy; it comes along with the changes recommended in structure, curriculum, choice of subjects. A lot is written about curriculum reform. At this moment, in the first reading, it was somewhat confused, and talks of too many things simultaneously and repetitively. For example, if we give more flexibility to children at the secondary level [it proposes to do away with secondary-senior secondary distinction] with eight semesters and around 40 courses, for 24 courses students should take Board exams. With how much understanding I don’t know, but they also say the exam will shift from testing rote memory to basic concepts and their relevance to life, situations and problem-solving. If the bulk of the recommendations are implemented, then there seems to be a possibility that we will get a kinder and better assessment system.

But I must point out that on the curricular reforms to the subjects, for example, there are 14 or 15 different kinds of courses and subjects for 6th to 8th standard students, but there doesn’t seem to be that much room in the time table. So, at this moment it seems the situation is not very clear. However, as far as examinations are concerned, if the policy understands what they are writing, the emphasis is more on the fundamental concepts in subjects and more on understanding. Through a modular kind of Board exam, it might help. But then this comes along with a whole bunch of recommendations, and piecemeal implementation is not going to help.

******

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

Faculty for FoE Batch 13

March 8, 2019

Brief introduction to faculty for Batch 13 is here

Faculty for FoE Batch 13

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

Foundations of Education Batch 13

March 3, 2019

Batch 13 starts on 22nd April 2019. 

Workshop schedule and fee structure FoE 13 Communication

Brief introduction to all modules Intro to Modules

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

जन-बहस की मुश्किलें

February 18, 2019

रोहित धनकर

पुलवामा में सीआरपीएफ़ के जवानों पर हमले और इस में 42 जवानों की मौत के बाद गली-कूचों में फिर से वही बहस शुरू हो गई है जो इन दुखद घटनाओं के बाद हमेशां शुरू हो जाती है। इस बहस में बहुत से सवालों पर उप-बहसें चल रही हैं। काँग्रेस और बीजेपी का व्यवहार, बीजेपी का अतीत और वर्तमान व्यवहार, कश्मीरी लोगों से देश के विभिन्न भागों में दुर्व्यवहार या आक्रमण, आदि।

जब भी ये बहसें होती है मुझे जॉन ड्यूवी की एक बात याद आती जो वे अपने एक प्रसिद्ध लेख “बच्चा और शिक्षाक्रम” के आरंभ में कहते हैं।

“सिद्धांत में गहरे अंतर कभी भी अकारण या आविष्कार नहीं होते। वे एक वास्तविक समस्या में परस्पर विरोधी तत्वों की उपज होते हैं, कोई समस्या जो केवल इसलिए वास्तविक है क्योंकि उसके तत्व, जैसे वे वर्तमान में हैं, परस्पर विरोधी हैं। किसी भी महत्वपूर्ण समस्या में ऐसी स्थितियाँ शामिल होती हैं जो एक दूसरे के विपरीत होती हैं। समाधान केवल शब्दों के उन अर्थ से दूर हो कर आता है जो पहले से तय होते हैं, और किसी अन्य दृष्टिकोण से स्थितियों को देखने से, अर्थात समस्या को ताजा रोशनी में देखने से आते हैं।”

ड्यूवी की इस बात में हम “सिद्धान्त” की जगह “लोगों के मत” पढ़ें, तो यह वर्तमान बहस में मदद कर सकती है। हालांकि इस के साथ दो लोकतान्त्रिक मूल्यों को भी मिला कर देखना होगा। लोकतंन्त्र का एक महत्वपूर्ण मूल्य “fraternity” या “भाईचारा” है। इसी की अन्य अभिव्यक्तियाँ “concern for others’ wellbeing” या “दूसरों के लिए सद्भाव” भी हैं। हम इस तरह की सारी बहसों में अपने विरोधी को मूर्ख या बेईमान या किसी राजनैतिक विचारधारा द्वारा भटकाया हुआ मान लेते हैं। यह लोकतन्त्र में “सद्भाव” के सिद्धान्त के विरुद्ध है। इस प्रवृत्ति में हम समस्या में निहित विरोधी तत्वों को देखने से इंकार करते हैं और दूसरे के विचारों और मान्यताओं को गलत या देश-हित के विरुद्ध करार देकर छुट्टी पालेते हैं।

लोकतन्त्र का एक और मूल्य “अभिव्यक्ति की स्वतन्त्रता” केवल “अभिव्यक्ति कर्ता” के लिए ही नहीं है। यदि हम सच में इस मूल्य का अर्थ समझते हैं और इसके लिए प्रतिबद्ध हैं तो यह उस अभिव्यक्ति के श्रोता से भी कुछ मांग करता है: कि हम दूसरे की बात को उसे काटने या नकारने से पहले उस के कारणों, तर्कों और भावनाओं को समझें।

इस दृष्टि से देखें तो हमें बहस के दोनों तरफ सच्चाई के (या औचित्य) के कुछ तत्व नजर आ सकते हैं, और दोनों ही तरफ कुछ भ्रम और गैरवाजिब आग्रह या मान्यताएँ भी। इन से बाहर निकले बिना हमारी बहस केवल वितंडा होती है।

उदाहरण के लिए लोगों का मोदी और उसकी पार्टी के पुराने वक्तव्य याद दिलाना आतंकियों का समर्थन नहीं है, जैसा की मोदी समर्थक मान बैठते हैं। न ही ये पक्के तौर पर काँग्रेस का समर्थन कहा जा सकता है। यह एक राजनैतिक पार्टी के मौकापरस्त व्यवहार की तरफ इशारा करना है। और इस इशारे की आम जन में बहस और चिंतन के बेहतर बनाने में बहुत जरूरत है। दूसरी तरफ, बीजेपी समर्थक जब इसे आतंकी समस्या से ध्यान हटा कर बीजेपी पर आक्रमण का हथियार मान लेते हैं तो वे भी आंशिक रूप से सही हैं, क्यों की ऐसी चीजें जो लोग प्रचारित करते हैं वे सब पार्टियों के अतीत के व्यवहार को सदा ही निष्पक्ष रह कर प्रचारित नहीं करते। वे भी कुछ राजनैतिक लाभ के लिए करते हैं। तो कोई साझी समझ बनाने के लिए यह देखना जरूरी है कि पार्टियों के मौकापरस्त और दोगले व्यवहार (जिसकी वर्तमान में बीजेपी दोषी है) को जन-स्मृति में रखना लोक हित में है, क्यों कि वह उनके निर्णयों में मदद करेगी। साथ ही यह याद दिनलना कि ये मौकापरस्त और दोगला व्यवहार केवल बीजेपी का ही दोष नहीं है, ये दुर्भाग्य से आम बात है। साथ ही राष्ट्र की आतंकवाद के विरुद्ध एकजुटता को भी ध्यान में रखना होगा। मौकापरस्ती की याद दिलाना जरूरी है, पर उसके तरीके में इस एकजुटता पर आक्रमण नहीं होना चाहिए। दोनों को अपने बद्ध-दायरों और अंध-भक्ति से बाहर निकालना होगा।

बीजेपी इस वक्त इस घटना का उन्माद फैलाने के लिए उपयोग कर रही है। और देश के किसी भी नागरिक (कश्मीरी सहित) को बिना प्रमाण के इस घटना के लिए दोषी मानना वास्तव में देशप्रेम (patriotism) के विरुद्ध है; क्यों कि देशप्रेम में एक प्रमुख भाव देशवासियों के प्रति सद्भाव और उसके हितों की परवाह और रक्षा करना है। अतः इस वक्त देश के विभिन्न भागों में रह रहे कश्मीरियों से दुर्व्यवहार या उनपर आक्रमण न केवल घोर कानूनी अपराध है बल्कि देशप्रेम की दृष्टि से घोर अनैतिक भी है। ऐसा करने वाले लोग हम सब का और इस देश का अहित कर रहे हैं। उन्हें न तो उचित ठहरा सकते हैं, नही विधिसम्मत दंड से मुक्त रख सकते हैं। भारत के सभी नागरिकों की सुरक्षा भारत के अभी भागों में राज्य की ज़िम्मेदारी है। और प्रत्येक नागरिक की नैतिक ज़िम्मेदारी भी है।

पर साथ ही जो लोग ये उन्माद फैला रहे हैं या इस के कारण अनुचित रूप से कश्मीरियों से दुर्व्यवहार कर रहे हैं वे भी भारत के ही नागरिक हैं। इन के साथ व्यवहार में भी “बंधुत्व” के और “wellbeing” के मूल्यों के कारण आम नागरिक के (अर्थात हम सब के) कुछ कर्तव्य बनाते हैं। जहां कानूनी रूप से गलती करने वालों को कानन सम्मत कड़े-से कड़ा दंड जरूर मिलना चाहिए; वहीं उन को समझने-समझाने के लिए उनकी भावनाओं को समझना और उन से संवाद भी जरूरी है। उन्हें सिर्फ मूर्ख या भटकाये हुए मानना भी देशभक्ति और लोकतन्त्र के मूल्यों के वुरुद्ध है।

अतः केवल ऐसे उदाहरण देदेना कि छत्तीसगढ़ में नक्सलियों द्वारा 70 सीआरपीएफ़ के जवानों की हत्या के समय देश के अन्य भागों में छत्तीसगढ़ियों पर आक्रमण नहीं हुए, अब कश्मीरियों पर आक्रमण केवल फैलाये जा रहे उन्माद के कारण हैं, सही तो है पर येथेष्ट नहीं है। यह भी देखना होगा कि छत्तीसगढ़ की घटना में किसी आम छत्तीसगढ़िए ने उसे उचित नहीं ठहराया, जश्न नहीं मनाया, उसका समर्थन नहीं किया, खुशी नहीं जताई। जब कि कश्मीरी भारत के अन्य भागों में रहते हुए भी ऐसे करने के उदाहरण प्रस्तुत करते रहे हैं। यह नोट करना किसी भी तरह से कश्मीरियों से दुर्भाव को उचित ठहराना नहीं है। पर कुछ लोगों कि भावनाओं और उनके पीछे कारणों को समझने की कोशिश है। और साथ ही कश्मीरियों के व्यवहार में अनुचत्य के तत्वों को इंगित करना भी, जो कि विवेक-सम्मत संतुलित संवाद के लिए जरूरी है।

ये सब कहने का तात्पर्य यह है कि हमें एक न्यायोचित और समरस समाज चाहिए तो अपनी प्रतिबद्धता को पार्टियों और राजनैतिक विचारधाराओं की अंद्ध भक्ति से हटा कर सचेत रूप से चुने हुए मूल्यों को समर्पित करना होगा।

******

18 फरवरी 2019

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »