Abolish grades, hated detention will disappear

January 23, 2019

Rohit Dhankar

[A shorter version of this article was published in Indian Express on 19th January 2019. https://indianexpress.com/article/opinion/columns/rte-amendment-bill-school-no-detention-cce-5545512/ ]

The passing of RtE Amendment Bill by Rajya Sabha again triggered the periodic paper debate between antidetentionists, i.e., votaries No-Detention Policy (NDP) and detentionists who want to do away with NDP. The amendment allows states to decide whether to deny automatic promotion at the end of 5th and 8th grade. It does not say that the states have to detain non-performing students, it only says that they are free to decide whether they want to or not. But the tenor of debate is as if the states are legally bound to use detention.

The detentionists’ argue from age old wisdom of ‘bhay bin hoye na preeti’ or ‘no love without fear’; emphasising that the fear of failure in examination is a necessary motivator for learning, all other motivators fail in its absence. That almost summarises their theory of learning. This is certainly mistaken. Self-motivation is an important factor in genuine success which comes from learning and awareness of one’s own achievements. The external motivation is a function of loving care, appreciation and respect for the child’s mind. Fear goes against both, and therefore, never produces genuine lasting learning. Success attributed to fear is because of other factors in the system and family. The scrapping of NDP, therefore, is a mistaken and retrograde step. However, the dentionists can advance another argument, that in absence of CCE, which the government failed to implement, examinations are the only thing which can put some meaning in certificate of completion of elementary education.

Flawed arguments of detentionists, however, hardly make demands and arguments of antidetentionists valid, even if their main charge against detentionists is true. It is not a case of binary logic, here X being false does not necessarily make not-X true.

The antidentionists are well-read people, they have a plethora of arguments supposed to be based on rigorous research. The main arguments of antidetentionists can be reasonably summarised under psychological, social justice, legal and achievement heads. The psychological argument is the loudest and proclaims that fear of failure in examination causes stress and trauma, actual failure demotivates and pushes children out of the system. Social justice argument emphasise the stigma attached with failure, lower self-esteem, and that the harm is mainly done to the Dalit and tribal children. The legal argument worries about weakening other provisions of the RtE related to admission in age appropriate class, freedom from fear and trauma, and section 29 provisions. The achievement argument begins with the battle cry of “failing children does not make them learn”, which is actually true, and then goes on to site researches that prove that no-detention produces better results in learning achievements. This argument at the best is of dubious worth as generalisations in education is a hazardous business. Children’s learning depends on a number of factors in the system and society. In a reasonably well functioning system where teachers are appropriately trained and are really concerned about every child’s achievements, no-detention may improve learning; while in a system where teachers are clueless regarding learning levels of their own students and not trained to use alternative ways of monitoring their progress, it may spell disaster; which unfortunately is the Indian case.

No one points out to the antidetentionists that their psychological, social justice and legal arguments are of little educational worth if the achievement argument is not valid. Self-confidence without capabilities is nothing but arrogance of ignorance, and education does not mean shielding from set-backs through pretended success; it actually means teaching how to learn from set-backs, how to see them in proper light and how to deal with them emotionally and performance wise. Certifying all children as educated without required capabilities does no one any good, Dalits and tribals included. Legal provisions of RtE are not sacrosanct in themselves, the curricular and pedagogical provisions are worthy only if they help achieve educational aims, which necessarily require appropriate learning achievements. Thus the psychological, social justice and legal arguments depend on the achievement argument.

The holy grail of antidetentionists is by now famous CCE, i.e., Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation. They rightly point out that replacing the system of pass-fail by CCE is a much better and progressive option. They site shortage of teachers and lack of training as the main reasons behind failure to implement this perhaps most progressive provision of RtE. In spite of both the factual claims of shortage in numbers and inadequate understanding and training of teachers for CCE, a very significant and fundamental contradiction of RtE is missed or deliberately ignored. And without first addressing that contradiction implementation of CCE and NDP will neither be successful nor will succeed in improving quality of education.

The contradiction

The term “class” is the fulcrum of vision of school and school education in RtE. It remains an undefined term in RtE, and still the norms for teachers, teacher-pupil ratio, infrastructure and elementary education, are all defined in terms of class. “Elementary education” says the RtE “means the education from first class to eighth class”. Further it says that “every child of the age of six to fourteen years shall have a right to free and compulsory education in a neighbourhood school till completion of elementary education.” (Emphasis added) Which implies that one class is of one year in duration. The teachers should “… complete the curriculum in accordance with the provisions … complete entire curriculum within the specified time.” All this makes it amply clear that class is of one-year duration, the curriculum is organised class wise, and that the curriculum of each class has to be completed in one year. Add with this no detention till completion of elementary education and admission in age appropriate class, and you have as confused a picture of elementary school as it can get.

On the other hand, CCE demands that assessment should be continuous and it should feedback into pedagogy to help the child learn better. It is not primarily for promotion or its denial. If children in any given class are bound to be at different levels of learning achievements, and if the CCE is to help every child learn, then it cannot be based on uniform tasks and criteria for assessment. Which demands individual attention in assessment and pedagogy. The class-wise teaching on the other hand leaves no room for such individual attention.  The help provided to the child cannot be considered ‘remedial’ as differing paces of learning is no ‘malady’, it is a natural way of learning.

Therefore, the class-wise structure of curriculum and school on one hand;  and CCE on the other, point in two opposite directions. That is why all schemes prepared for CCE turn out to be nothing more than smaller tests more frequently taken. Because summation at the end of the year is a demand of the class-wise structure, and assessment made part of pedagogy is not conducive to mechanical summation. Therefore, CCE will require a more careful analysis in writing annual progress report and the learning achievements may not fit into neatly divided year-wise range; the curriculum for that class may not necessarily be completed in that sacrosanct period of one year. As a result assigning class to children will become a meaningless arbitrary exercise having no connection with the specified curriculum and learning levels.

This is one thing for an educationist to recommend this bundle of contradictions in the name of RtE, and quite another for a teacher to run a school, implement the curriculum and complete elementary education on its basis. No wonder the teachers who are not close to academicians get thoroughly confused and oppose NDP. These recommendations put together make a mockery of elementary education, as it is possible for a child to complete 8 years in the school and therefore complete 8 classes without acquiring learning appropriate for elementary education. Certificate at the end guarantees nothing more than the time spent in school.

Resolving the contradiction

There are two ways of resolving this contradiction. One, accept the true definition of class or grade, which is to complete a defined curriculum in one year and if the learning levels are not satisfactory then remaining in the same class. This is what the government has done. Surely, this is retrograde and does no good either to the children or to the education system. But all said and done, resolves the contradiction in the teachers’ mind, and allows them to practice the age old authoritarian and rigid system in its true glory.

The another way is to carefully understand the implications of progressive and pedagogically sound CCE and take on the arduous task to reform the system to make it capable of implementing CCE. That would require defining elementary education in terms of learning standards and not in terms of classes or years; organising curriculum as a free-paced learning path, and not year-wise boxes; organising school as ungraded learning groups which are composed of children at various levels, and not as small homogeneous folks of sheep walking listlessly in the indicated direction; and the ideas of self-learning and peer-learning have to be refined and made common place is the schools rather than complete dependency on the teacher. This is not a small change. It cannot even be imagined without appropriate systemic reforms and massive and serious in-service professional development of teachers. If the nation lacks consensus or the will to muster energy and resources for this change, the status quo will remain.

In short, abolish grades so that CCE becomes possible and detention loses meaning and disappears altogether. Or remain content to accept detention as a logical demand of grade wise organised curriculum and school. As they say, one cannot have one’s cake and eat it too.

*****

Rohit Dhankar, Secretary Digantar, Jaipur & Professor, Azim Premji University, Bangalore.

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

Is mathematics an experimental inductive science?

December 23, 2018

Rohit Dhankar

Recently I again came across a strongly made claim that making of mathematics is an experimental inductive science. As justification it is claimed that the practice of creating/making mathematics requires one to look at patterns, make a hypothesis, generalise, prove etc. The claim here is about “making of mathematics” or “actual practice of mathematics”. I think these phrases mean investigations and finding/creating mathematical knowledge. And then this claim is used to prepare a plan to teach mathematics, in which mathematics is seen as an experimental inductive science, not only in making but as it is and its pedagogy.

Are these claims true? I see many problems which might mislead mathematics teaching and therefore, worth paying attention for a teacher. Problems are mainly concerned with nature of mathematical knowledge and pedagogy of math.

The nature of mathematical knowledge:

As stated above, the claim is that creation of mathematics is an “experimental inductive science”. Yes, there is such a view that mathematics is a social activity in which the experience of concrete world is translated into abstract knowledge through induction and social (or community of mathematicians’) consensus. But the claims do not seem to be tenable on closer examination.

All knowledge formation is a social activity in the sense that it reflects social needs, it is used for social purposes, it’s creators are accorded social recognition and are supported, as well as it is transmitted through social organizations in the present day world. But this is not an epistemic claim and does not give any indication about the nature of mathematical knowledge. This claim only states the social situation in which mathematical knowledge, actually any knowledge, is created and transmitted. It says nothing about what mathematical knowledge is.

The two claims in the above mentioned view which indicate something about nature of mathematical knowledge are not tenable. The role of consensus in accepting or rejecting a mathematical claim is not epistemically very important. Consensus in mathematical issues is strictly governed by accepted axioms and logical principles. The consensus is more about whether the principles are correctly applied or not, in other words, to eliminate human error in application of principles.

The other assumption that mathematics is an “experimental inductive science” is plainly wrong. No mathematical statement (proposition, theorem) is accepted to be true or false on the basis of induction. Acceptance always requires deductive proof. Examples from applied mathematics will not work here, for reasons discussed later in this note.

Has this been always the case historically? Do Sulva-sutras use deductive logic to prove their results? Did ancient Egyptians deductively prove their rules of measuring land? Perhaps not. But mathematics has moved far from that position and mathematicians today see the pitfalls in accepting inductive results without support of deductive proof.

To my mind the idea of mathematics as an experimental inductive science arises because of conflating three related but epistemically significantly distinct processes in mathematics: (1) Historical evolution and investigations in mathematics, (2) Pedagogy of mathematics, and (3) justification in mathematics.

Evolution and investigation:

All human knowledge necessarily involves sense impressions at the level of basic concept formation, if they be communicable to others and usable in this world. Observation, organization of observations, hypothesis making, generalization and justification of generalizations form part of the evolutionary process. They are important in mathematics as well. But mathematical concepts have a strong tendency to gradually eliminate physical matter, and therefore observation of the outside world. In a sense mathematics through abstraction brackets out physical substance. Even the idea of number, such a simple thing, which we use today has got nothing to do with physical objects. Therefore, the nature of mathematical objects changes, they are no more concrete objects which could be felt through senses and measured in the same manner as physical objects.

Investigation in mathematics:

Mathematical investigation involves both invention and discovery. When you are conceptualizing a line, an angle, a triangle you may be using observation of physical object and abstracting these ideas from that observation. But once you have defined and fixed them your invention ends, and this invention becomes independent of you. The relationships between the angles, lines and triangle etc. are already determined in defining them. Now you have to discover them.  This is the confusion and perplexity Lockhart is talking about when he says “… not because it makes no sense to you, but because you gave it sense and you still don’t understand what your creation is upto”.

Justification

So then, ‘does’ or ‘does not’ investigation in mathematics involve observation, patterns, hypothesis making, generalization, and induction? Yes, it does. Both of physical objects to create abstract notions of mathematical objects, and then of mathematical objects to arrive at propositions. But the observation, hypothesis making and generalization of mathematical objects is quite different in nature than those of physical objects. In physical objects you observe with sense, you observe their physical proprieties, you generalize about their behaviour, and postulate abstract notions (example force, friction, magnetism) to explain the behaviour of physical objects. In mathematics you notice patterns of logical conceptual relationships only through your mind, and look for conceptual relationships between mathematical objects. In physical objects their relationships have to be discovered through the observation of world outside, and the relationships are contingent, inductively established, and imagination of different relationships remains possible. In mathematics no outside observation is needed, they emerge out of the concepts themselves, and are therefore necessary. Using the idea of observation, patterns, hypothesis, generalization etc as if they are the same in mathematical and physical world is mistaken. Calling mathematics an experimental inductive science is like calling “mathematical induction” an inductive process in the same manner as we use induction in sciences. Therefore, justification of mathematical statements which are about relationships between abstract objects and can never be captured by senses, is impossible through experimental and inductive processes. But fortunately is also unnecessary. Because the deductive logic itself is enough to establish such relationships. The process of justification is internal to mathematical systems, while this is external to theories of physics. In its evolution mathematics has to breakout of the limitations of the physical, while physics has to again and again ground itself in the physical reality, even when it often dares to take flights with mathematics. Mathematics has to cross the limits of induction to realize itself, while physics has to worship induction to retain its worth. That is why physics can say something substantial and useful about the world as it is, and mathematics on its own is incapable of any knowledge of the physical world.

Pedagogy of mathematics:

Use of concrete objects in concept formation and initial visualization of relationships in primary mathematics is essential. and may be useful throughout mathematics teaching. Observation, hypothesis making, generalizations etc. are all very important abilities and tools in learning and creation of mathematics. But the justification and critique in math breaks free of observation etc. of the physical world. Therefore, the pedagogy of math has to be such that it facilitates this gradual independence from observation and not its opposite. The process of learning and process of criteria for truth on one hand, and process and criteria for justification on the other differ substantially. While in sciences that gap is relatively smaller.

Applied mathematics

Are my claims of mathematics being abstract, deductive etc. true for applied mathematics? Depends how one understand applied mathematics. In my view applied math saddles two horses: pure math and the discipline in which this is being applied. The physicist while using s=ut+1/2vt^2 is using pure math in derivation of the equation, with idealized concepts of s, u, v, and t. These concepts are capable of relating to the real world phenomena, when the physicist supplies particular values for them s/he is using approximations of physics. Also when s/he claims that this equation is applicable in a particular context it is a claim from physics and not from math. For example, this equation does not take into consideration other forces that may be influencing motion of an object in real world environment.

It seems to me curriculum and pedagogy of mathematics cannot be built entirely on the idea that it is an experimental inductive science. But this idea can be used in some situations with caution to go beyond it; as this is also partially true in investigation and historical evolution. However, as said earlier is patently false in justification and therefore fails to capture nature of mathematical knowledge and even in reliable characterization of mathematical procedures.

One may say that this is not how mathematical activity happens in the real world or society, in this note mathematics is being abstracted and one aspect of math is being ballooned ignoring many others. There is time and space constraint here to go into detailed of this. But in short, educational worth of the discipline lies in the specific human capabilities it may develop. The core of mathematics is axiomatic deductive systems. and development of math even historically as well as in an individual mind has a very strong tendency to move in this direction.

Math is useful in other disciplines because this is empties out of all concrete substance, and therefore, giving appropriate meaning to its symbols by different disciplines through conventions and propositions from those disciplines becomes possible. Students’ attention should be drawn to the use of conventions and principles which come from the user discipline, and they should not be dubbed as mathematical.

This view of mathematics is fiercely contested, and one can reject it. But then that person also loses the soul of mathematics.  J

******

23 December 2018

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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

Foundations of Education Programme

December 16, 2018

Teaching is not a random activity in the classroom, nor is it making children mug up a textbook, neither is it entertaining children’s whims or stultifying their minds and habits into fixed dogmas. Teaching is awakening young minds to moral principles, ways of knowing and modes of action so that they can find their own path and pursue it with confidence.

Curriculum is not random collection of content straight jacketed into grade wise organisation and guided only by fashion, custom or political winds. Curriculum is a well-considered route map from where the child is to a rationally autonomous person.

Teaching learning material is not a collection of colourful tit-bits to attract children and teachers. It is thoughtfully organised collection of things and actions that provided most meaningful experiences to children so that they can arrive at epistemically sound concepts and principles.

Teacher Education is grinding young graduates into half understood theories of learning and Herbertian classroom practices. It is expending the horizons of would be teachers to entire field of educational thought and practice; and teaching them the art of understanding children’s minds so they they can create a unique path for each one of their students to achieve educational aims.

Therefore, be it teaching, curriculum development, material creation or teacher education; educational practice to be educational at all has to be guided by framework of principles. No principles, no educational practice; it is only habitual routine.

Foundations of Education Programme explores dialogically these fundamental principles and practices; their appropriate relationships and their moral and epistemic foundations. The dialogues are based on participants own understanding and thoughtfully selected reading material that presents most fundamental concepts and ways of thinking.

It is rigorous and demands hard work. Medium of instruction shall be English and Hindi.

During 2019 there shall be two batches (12th and 13th respectively) of Foundations of Education Programme.

For details go to http://www.digantar.org/uploads/pdf/FoE_2019.pdf

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

On Mander-Guha Debate-1

July 31, 2018

Rohit Dhankar

There was a long debate in the pages of Indian Express stared by Harsh Mander’s article “Sonia, sadly”on 24th March 2018 and concluded with Mander’s another article “Our threatened humanity”. The debate was actually sparked by Ramachandra Guha’s aptly titled response “Liberals, sadly” to Mander.  I missed the debate almost completely when it was actually raging, due to some preoccupations. After it ended, collected all the articles with help of a friend and read them recently. About 20 well known public intellectuals, virtually all media celebrities, of our country participated in it. Mander thinks of the debate as “rich and textured”, “thoughtful” and that it has established “a benchmark for public discourse”. (“Our threatened humanity”, 10th April 2018, Indian Express).

Sure, the debate brings to the public notice many important issues concerning Muslims in Indian politics. And still, I strongly feel that it is a debate between more or less likeminded people for the benefit of themselves and their confirmed followers. For someone who does not think on the lines already drawn—by the same public intellectuals—for Indian political discourse, it leaves too many questions unanswered and too many arguments only half explored. I have made this comment with some hesitation, as the collective weight of the participants in the debate is rather overwhelming for an ordinary mortal like me. Also, I have no proper credentials to question opinions of such well recognised people.

The debate, as mentioned, is on current position of Muslims in the Indian political action and discourse; more accurately on marginalisation and even exclusion of Muslim community. I am not a historian, nor a political scientist, nor a sociologist, nor even a politician or civil rights activist. As a result, have no standing to be writing on this sensitive issue. The only ground I can advance to defend my audacious action is that I am an Indian citizen, and happen to think, even if not very well. I also interact extensively with ordinary Indians in daily course of life, not as a researcher or as their saviour, but as ordinary an Indian as they themselves are. And sometimes express my thoughts.

My primary reason for writing this piece is, as mentioned above, that this debate does raise important issues, but leaves the general public where it was. It is a debate in a self-contained group. The second point, is that the debate completely ignores the role religious dogma/beliefs may play in creating socio-political situations, in spite of Guha’s attempt to draw attention in this direction. When history is taken into view it seems to be recounting events and intentions of parties/individuals without ever touching the “why?” of those events and intentions. It takes history as a kind of mysterious force, unfathomable. Actually, I will argue further down in this article that the gravest sin of Ram Guha was that he tried to explain “why” in a certain manner that did not go well with liberal intellectuals. It just scratches the surface of history of communal disharmony and divergent political directions Hindus and Muslims took.

I will try to raise some questions to substantiate what I have claimed in the above paragraph. A complete and in-depth analysis of these issues is beyond my competence; therefore, raising questions and justifying a need for further analysis is all I am attempting here.

Harsh Mander’s article “Sonia, sadly” is rightly referred to as a lament by Mukul Keshwani, Abdul Khaliq and Gazala Jamil; for that is exactly what it is. However, a lament can be justified, informative and a powerful cry for attracting attention to some dangerous situation. Mander’s article does all that. Even if his opening line is not entirely justified, he does point out the increasing suspicion and intolerance for Muslims in politics and public space. His claim “Muslims are today’s castaways, political orphans with no home, for virtually every political party” is obviously exaggerate if one keeps in mind Mamata Banerji’s TMC, Mulayam Singh Yadav’s SP, Lalu Prasad Yadav’s RJD, and of course Nehru-Gandhi family’s Congress. The real problem with Mander’s article is not its exaggeration however, as exaggeration might be arguable in certain crisis situations. His real problem is one-eyed vision. He blames only BJP and RSS for this sorry situation, and is completely unwilling to notice, or even pose as a question, if there could have been something in the Muslim politics itself that brought about this predicament. He writes “It appears, at least for the present, that the BJP has succeeded in a toxic majoritarian reordering of the rules of India’s political game” and that “The poisons released by the RSS into the veins of Indian social life are powerful, addictive and heady.” Thus making the BJP and RSS the sole source of the poison and indicating that the majority Hindu public is either gullible enough or is bigoted enough to have eagerly lapped this poison up, never stopping to think what actual or perceived reasons this population might have had to fall prey to BJP and RSS. Other parties are simply forced into sunning Muslims because of the fear of misguided or bigoted Hindu majority. This makes Hindus responsible for this Muslim plight (in the concluding article the blame is on secular political parties and secular civil society), and gives a clean chit to the Muslim politics. I have absolutely no intention of defending BJP and RSS, and am fully aware that they have unleashed a hate campaign that is harming India, and in the process are destroying Hindu community. But when one is analysing a political situation, leaving the responsibility of Muslim politics out is a gross mistake and actually an endorsement of the communal line it has been taking right from the early 19th century.

His defence for painting this one side picture is interesting. In his own words “There are, no doubt, “medievalist”, misogynist and regressive elements within the Indian Muslim community. But so also there is no dearth of similar elements among Hindus, and indeed, other socio-religious communities in India. His motive “The debate that I wished to help raise was about what I see squarely as the culpability and the responsibility of secular political parties, and indeed secular civil society, for the unprecedented predicament in which Muslim peoples find themselves in India today.” I will try to discuss in this article below that the nature of Muslim politics in India cannot be compared with presence of obscurantist elements in other communities. Muslim politics in pre-independence India was based on certain principles allegedly derived from Islam and those principles are visible, even if not overtly argued for, in the present day Muslim politics in the issues it revolves around.

 

 

 

This attitude of liberal intellectuals—‘yes, there may be problems with Muslim politics but others are squarely responsible’—leaves common people completely baffled. And they pay no further attention to their arguments, as it sounds unfair and biased to them.

Guha tried to respond to this serious lacuna through his article “Liberals, sadly” and made a mistake right in the beginning. He compared burka and trishul, found both objectionable; and claimed that the political leader who advised Muslims to come to rallies without scull-caps and burkas may have motivated by progressive ideals of not flaunting one’s identity in politics and act more like an individual citizen of India. Putting burka and trishul on equal footing was clearly a mistake (which Guha graciously accepted), and excited the liberal intellectual mind so much that much of the debate is focussed on this. One does not need to go into details of this mistake and its criticism, it is flogged enough in all articles.

What is more important is that Guha makes an attempt to see the issues within Muslim politics which may have contributed in bringing about predicament of the Muslim community, which is so eloquently articulated in Mander’s article. To my mind that is more substantial part of Guha’s article; however, that part is either ignored or responded to in a completely unsatisfactory manner throughout the debate.

Guha quotes Dalwai to make a few points. One, that Mulims have a communal leadership. Two, that Muslims need a class of liberal intellectuals. Three, that Hindu-Muslim communalisms feed on each other. Four, that Hindus do have a liberal intellectual class among them which constantly attacks Hindu obscurantism. Five, that unless all liberals—Hindus, Muslims, and other faiths—combine to fight with all kinds of communalisms, they will not succeed. He cautions that if Muslim community does not develop a liberal intellectual class among themselves even the Hindu liberals will lose their ground and will be taken over by the Hindu communal elements. It has actually happed.

Further down in this analysis I will argue that Guha is basically right, in spite of most of the articles attacking his position.

(To be continued …..)

******

31st July 2018

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

Religion in public schools

July 29, 2018

Rohit Dhankar

“I teach in a government senior secondary school in Faridabad Haryana. Last session we had only 2 muslim students in a total strength of 100. This year school’s strength has gone up to 600. Muslim students are about 10 now. Last friday two muslim students came to me with a request for half day leave for offering namaz at a nearby mosque. This incident started a heated discussion among staff members. The point was – should students be allowed to practice/showcase their religious beliefs?”

This was written by Mr. Sanjay Sharma as a comment on my blog-post titled “An interaction with students”. I find his question important enough to merit a separate blog post. Rather than answering directly I would like to narrate three short episodes in a school, then give justifications for final decisions in those episodes and then answer Mr. Sharma’s question as per my thinking. Those who do not want to read all this can go directly to the last section of this piece. 😊

I actively taught in a voluntary agency ran school called Digantar for 15 years and am part of this organisation, established in 1978. The three episodes I am going to narrate are of this school. The episodes are nothing extra ordinary and if you get bored in reading them then I would request your indulgence, as they illustrate secular outlook in a school, even if there is nothing special about them.

Episode 1

Digantar has shelf-space allotted to students in the classrooms, something like open lockers. In these spaces students keep their learning material including books and stationary and whatever other little interesting things they usually collect. The school had a practice of big cleaning every Saturday in which children cleaned and decorated their own individual spaces as well. On one such Saturday a student affixed a picture of Shiva at the back wall of his own space. Teachers saw and smiled.

In those days Digantar campus had a thick jungle of berry-shrubs (called “jhad-beri” in Hindi). During the 40-minute lunch break children eagerly ran to the shrubbery and collected berries (simply “ber” in Hindi). The boy who put the Shiva picture in his space started offering a few bers to Shiva, offering simply meaning putting the bers in front of the picture. Teachers saw and smiled.

In a day or two some other children started offering bers to the Lord Shiva. Teachers saw and smiled. In a few days the boy who established Shiva started objecting to other children if they were passing in front of his space with their shoes on. This time, teachers saw and asked him to take his Shiva home, if he did not want it to be thrown in the dustbin.

Episode 2

Digantar always had Muslim children in majority, as it was situated in a Muslim majority area. In the local community children learn to read Quran—actually learn to recite without understanding and learning to read Arabic. When a part of Quran—I think called ‘Sipara’—is completed there is a minor celebration. Once 6-7 girls in Digantar finished a particular part of Quran and started offering Namaz 5 times a day. When they came to school they wanted to offer Namaz at a particular time and wanted the school timetable changed accordingly. It so happened that I taught mathematics at the time they wanted to offer their Namaz. Children were in the habit of talking to either Reena or me when they wanted something of this nature. This time since I was the teacher at the time in question they came to me as a group. I listened to them. Then told them that the school has got nothing to do with Allah or Bhagwaan, and time table cannot be changed for this reason. However, school has no objection if they want to offer their Namaz in some of the vacant spaces in the school, without disturbing anyone else and without designating that space as some kind of Namaz space. They have to choose between Allah and mathematics.

The girls started offering Namaz at the appointed time. There was no change in the school timetable, mathematics moved in its own way. No one paid any attention to their devotional activity. In about a week the attraction of mathematics proved to be stronger than Allah and the Namaz stopped on its own.

Episode 3

Digantar had a tradition of monthly meetings of all teachers and other functionaries. In one of such meetings a teacher raised the issue of going for Friday Namaz in the nearby Mosque. The time table was such that the lunch break did not coincide with his Namaz time. There was a thorough debate on the issue and the teacher was not allowed. In case he wanted to go he was suggested to take half-day leave every Friday.

The school was in a Muslim majority area, about 80% children were also Muslims. Next Friday the teacher talked to some community members after the Namaz and complained that Digantar did not allow him to offer Namaz. We had very clear and good relations with the community. No one believed him that Dignatar objects to his Namaz per se. When he told them that the school does not change the timetable to facilitate his Namaz nor does allow him to be absent for that time, the community was with Digantar and they saw the reason why it cannot be done.

Why did Digantar took this attitude to religion?

The people associated with this school had made a clear decision that it is a secular school in every respect. We had no religious prayer in the morning, no Saraswati pictures blessing the walls, no religious quotes. We also had no problem with religion as a private matter. But if someone wanted to discuss religious views or beliefs in the school they were discussed exactly in the same manner as magnetism or big-bang theory or any political ideology. No special considerations of showing any extra respect for religious figures (including Allah and Ishwar) or doctrines.

Our view of secularism was not of “equal respect to all religions”. In any case, I personally find it impossible to have equal respect to all beliefs, if one takes religion only as a system of belief (religion is more than that); as one has to make epistemic and moral judgments regarding beliefs. Beliefs can be true or false, and it is very difficult for a thinking person to “respect” the belief that the earth is resting on a tortoise or the world was created by a bored God in seven days. They are plainly wrong to me. But we did have a strict policy of equal respects for rights of all people, irrespective of their belief systems. This way our definition of secularism was not of “equal respect to all religions” but of “equal respect to all people”. This gave us room to have a discussion with all with complete candidness and telling him/her in clear words that we do not share his views—political as well as religious, as the case may be. However, as person we recognise his/her rights exactly equal to our own.

Government school to my mind ought to be secular if we adhere to our constitution. And the definition of secularism should not be “equal respect for all religions”, but “equal distance from all religions”. But if we do that then the morning prayer (the devotional prayer songs) will have to go and all the Saraswatis and Gayatri Mantras have to be removed from the school walls.

We should understand that Saraswatis, gayatri mantras and celebrating religious festivals in the schools invite demands for Namaz and tomorrow will demand aaratis in schools. Therefore, in my view: no change in the timetable to facilitate Namaz.

Mr. Sharma’s case

But the students in this case are not asking to change the timetable or anything else from the school. All they are asking is half day leave. It seems to me one cannot stop a student from taking leave. However, the schools may have policies regarding attendance; for example, any one below 70% attendance does not qualify for participating in the examination.  No leniency should be shown for religious reasons in the requirement of attendance.

Mr. Sharma also asks: “should students be allowed to practice/showcase their religious beliefs?” Actually, practice and showcasing are two different issues. Indian constitution gives its citizens right to practice as well as preach their beliefs, faiths. And that is one of the strengths of this constitution. Therefore, one cannot stop anyone from either practicing or preaching their religious belief; unless they contradict other peoples’ rights.

But schools are not places of religious practice or preaching; therefore, ought not to allow religious practices and preaching in the schools.

“Showcasing” might mean many things: including using burka, a cross or aum in a locket, a tilak or a scull-cap. If students come wearing these symbols naturally, there seems to be nothing wrong, nor can one stop this in India. But if students from a particular community start making it a point to flaunt these symbols some action depending on the situation may have to be taken.

In the particular case of taking half day leave I don’t think school has the right to deny. However, it is a case of opening a dialogue with the community and students regarding sanctity of school practices. It could be rationally argued that students should not be absent for religious reasons. The issue is of a dialogue and not of a rule, it seems to me. I also feel that the schools have the duty to make students understand that in a pluralistic society public institutions cannot accommodate religion, and by bunking classes every day they are harming their own studies. It is a failure of education system and society in general if we cannot make this point to a community. But, as I said, it can be made only through a dialogue, and not through a rule.

*******

29th July 2018

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

An interaction with Students

July 28, 2018

Rohit Dhankar

For last about 8 years I have been out of touch with the government schools in rural India. Had somehow started feeling that my feet are no more on the ground and my imagination of real educational action had started to become rather dated, if not hazy. (I say this because I consider the “real education action” is in the school classrooms. Explanation of this, some other time). So I visited two government schools yesterday. One Senior Higher Secondary in a block headquarters and second an upper primary in a very remote village.

Both the schools have beautiful and adequate campuses. The Upper Primary School (UPS) is rather stunningly beautiful, green well managed and very serene environment. I don’t think any private school can match that.

The Senior Higher Secondary (SHS) has 48 classrooms, well maintained building with about 1700 students. All the classes were running, teachers were present. However, in many classes number of students exceeds 100 and in two three classes some students were sitting outside the doors, listening intently and taking notes. The Principal told me he has all the needed furniture for students but cannot use it as that will limit the classroom capacity to around 50 students. Students sit on durries, teachers have a small table and a chair. Also the science laboratories are inadequate.

The Principal interacts with children in assembly every week, and emphasises moral development in which harmonious living with all Indians and getting rid of ahankara (ego) seems to be his focus.

This is a block headquarters town, and the old town had Muslim majority. Now after several new colonies around the old town population ratio is about 35-40% Muslims and 65-70% Hindus. The town has faced three serious religious riots between 1992 (Babari issue) and 2005. According to a friend working in education in this area now both the communities have suspicion of each other, though there is peace on the surface.

The Principal said there used to be Hindu-Muslim brawls between the students in the school, which thankfully are no more. But then now there are only about 150-200 Muslim students in the school with strength of 1700, in a town having 35-40% Muslim population. It seems the Muslims of this town are very aware educationally, there are many students studying abroad, high percentage in government jobs and traditionally having large land holdings. So why so few Muslim students in this well running school? The Principal thinks that recently the Muslim community has opened their own senior secondary school and the government has opened another secondary school with Urdu medium. One wonder why these two development were needed?

Principal tells inspirational stories from the literature of both religions in his talks with students. However, has a Saraswati statue and two large Saraswati pictures in his large and beautiful office. There is nothing indicating Islam in the office or the school, or at least I did not notice it.

Principal narrated two inspirational stories he used with students in his sermons to get rid of ego, ahankara. One about a Muslim saint and his pupil. In this one the Muslim saint argues that those who have big ego are to be pitied rather than being angry with them, because their soul is ill. In the other Vashishtha gives the title of Brahm-Rishi to Vishwamitra only when the later leans to bow, jhukana seekhata hai. After narrating the stories on Gurupoornimas (27th July this year) he asked the students can you give example of some big Indian leaders who have learnt to shed their ego (examples of jhukana), students gave two examples: Abdul Kalam and Narengra Modi. Modi as he touched the parliament steps as he entered there for the first time. The Principal thinks Rahul Gandhi provided another example recently in the parliament when he hugged Modi.

The Principal kindly allowed me to interact with 12th standard student who study political science, history and geography. The interaction was in Hindi, I am trying to reproduce it from memory.

The Principal took me to the class. A teacher was teaching there. The principal introduced me to the students (did say nothing to the teacher) saying “aap bahar se aaye hai, aap logon se baat karenge, theek hai?” Students stood up and there was some murmur which seemed like “theek hai” or something. Then the Principal and the teacher both left. I sked students to sit down. It was about 25X20 room with about 60 students, roughly about 20 girls and 40 boys. Girls sat clustered together.

Me: Mera naam Rohit hai. Main bachochon ko padhata raha hun pahali kaksha se koi 12vi tak. Aaj kal university men padhata hun. Aap log 12vin men hain?

Some students: Han.

Me: aap men se kuchh to 12vin ke liye bahut chhote lag rahe hain. Hamare jamane men to 12vin me kuchh bade bachche hote the. Aap log kuchh jaldi to nahin aa gaye is class men?

Many students: Nahin. (An emphatic nahin with smiles)

Me: tum men se kuchh ko koi pareshaani to nahin 12vin men jald aane se?

Many students: Nahin. (An emphatic nahin again with smiles)

Me: achchha, kaya-kya padhte ho school men?

Many students: political, history, geography, Hindi, English.

Me: political? Political kya?

Students: political (one voice: rajaneeti shatra)

Me: achchha, political science?

Students: haan.

Me: theek hai. Batao tum men se kisi ne koi aisi kitaab padhi hai pichchhale 2 saal men jo tumhare course men nahin ho? (I had to repeat this)

(Only one boy in the front row raised his hand)

Me: kitab ka naam bata sakate ho?

Student: (stud up)

Me: baithe baithe bhi bata sakate ho.

Student: (sat down) Inspirational Talks. 

Me: ohh, kisne likhi hai?

Student: Swami Vivekananda.

(I have not read the book and knew nothing about it. On internet search I found a book of Vivekananda’s talks, it is titled “Inspired Talks”, maybe I heard the student wrong as saying “Inspirational Talks” or he may have remembered the name wrong.)

Me: (to the class) achchha. Inspirational mane kya? Inspiration kya hota hai?

Some students: (several words) motivation, utsahit karna, prerana, ….

Me: achchha, theek hai utsahit karna aur prerana maan lete hain.

Me: (to the student who had read the book) ye kitab angreji men hai?

Student: Angreji men bhi hai aur hindi men bhi.

Me: tumene kaunsi bhasha men padhi?

Student: dono men.  

Me: (with some surprise in voice, but below the level of indicating disbelief) ohh, dono men? Pahale kaunsi bhasha men padhi?

Student: Hindi men.

Me: are, Hindi men padh li thi to fir angreji men fir se kyon?

Student: achchhi lagi is liye.

Me: achchha. To us kitrab men kya likha hai? Kuchh bata sakate ho?

Student: apani shanskriti aur rashtradharm ka samman karna chaahiye.

Me: (saw the opportunity for which I was looking 😊 Wanted to write “sanskriti” and “rashtra-dharm” on the black board which was of reasonable quality and clean. Looked for chalk, there was none.) achchha chalk to hai hii nahin, main do cheejen board par likhana chaahata tha.

One student: main office se lata hun.

Me: theek hai, do hii lana.

Me: (to all students) achchha yeh rashtra-dharm kya cheej hoti hai? Jisne kitab ka naam bataya use hii akele batane ki jimmedarii nahin hai. Koi bhi bata sakata hai: rashtra-dharm kya hota hai?

(Answers started coming…By this time the student who went to get chalk came back with two good quality chalk sticks. I started writing on the board, the board and chalk both were good quality to write clearly and easily. I wrote “rashtra-dharm” on the board, underlined it and again asked “ye kya hota hai?”)

Students: (many)

  • Rashtra ka samman karna
  • Rashtra ke prati apane kartavya pure karna
  • Rashtra men samanvaya banana
  • jaruratmandon ki madad karna
  • rashtra dhvaj aur rashtra-gaan ka samman karna
  • rashtra ki sampatii ki raksha karna
  • ektaa kii raksha karna ….

Me: wah, kaafi hain. Achchha, yah aur batado ki ye “rashtra” kya hota hai.

Students: (sannata)

Me: rashtra kya hota hai? Jamiin, nadi-nale? Pahad?

Students: (many) haan, jamiin. Desh.

Me: theek hai, man lo ham saare hindustaniyon ko kisi tarah chand par lejaayen. Kuchh mushkil to hoga, par sab ko lejaayen, ek bhii bakii nahin bache. To bhii bharat desh yahin raha jaayega kya?

Students: (a few voices) haan. (Overwhelmiong majority) nahin.

Me: badhiya. To rashtra logon ke bina nahin hota. Log to uske jaruri hissa hain hii.

Student: (one) rashtra nagarikon se banata hai.

Me: theek. To rastra ke prati kartavya ka matlab uske nagarikon ke prati kartavya? Rashtra ka samman mane uske nagarikon ka samaan? Rashtra ki ekata mane uske nagarikon ki ekata? Main theek kaha raha hun kya?

Students: (many voices) haan.

Me: theek hai. To thoda yah aur batado ki rashtra ke prati kartavya kya kya hai hamare?

Students: (many)

  • Rashtra-dvaj ka samman.
  • Sab se samanata ka vyavahar
  • Bhedbhav nahin karna
  • Samanvaya banana …..

Me: theek hai. Tumne mool kartavyon ke baare men suna hai kya? Fundamental duties ke baare men?

Students: (a few) han, (started repeating the same thing as above)

Me: theek hai. Ek aur duty hai: vaigyanik chintan (scientific temper) ka vikas aur vaigyanik tarike se jaanch karna. Yah suna hai?

Students: (sannata)

Me: theek hai. Chalo to maan len ki rashtra-dharm ka samman karne ka matlab:

  • Rashtra ke logon ka samman
  • Logon men samanvaya banana
  • Sab ko saman samajhna
  • Bhedbhav nahin karna
  • Jarurat ho to madad karna

Students: (many) haan.

(Here I wrote “sanskriti” on the board.)

Me: achchha, inhone bataya ki Inspirational Talks men swami Vivekananda apani sanskriti ke samman kii bhii seekh dete hain. Yah “sanskriti” kya hoti hai?

Students: (many voices)

  • Bhasha
  • Sahitya
  • Khan-paan
  • Vesh-bhusha
  • Riti-rivaj
  • Rahan-sahan
  • ….

Me: are wah, to ye sab sanskriti hoti hai. Theek.

To ye batao hamari sanskriti men ye cheejen hain kya:

  • Jaati-pati?
  • Chhua-chhoot?
  • Auraton ko kam haq?

Students: (many) haan hain.

Me: aur vivekanand ji kahate hain ki hamen apani sanskriti ka samman karna chaahiye. To matlab hamne jaati-paati, chhooachuut aur auraton ko kam manana chaahiye, apani sanskriti ke samman ke liye?

Students: (sannata)

Me: aur vivekanand ji yeh bhi kahate hain ki rashtra-dharm ka samman karna chahiye. Rsahtra-dharm ka samaan mane uske nagarikon ka samman, unko barabar maanana, bhed-bhav nahin karna, yah aap logon ne bataya. To dono cheejen kaise Karen? Chhua-chhoot, jaati-paati, auraton ko man bhi manen aur unko saman bhi mane, bhed-bhav na Karen? Yeh to Vivekanand ji se poochhana padega? Kya Karen?

Students: (kuchh der sannata. Then one voice…) sanskriti samay ke saath badalti hai.

Me: achha, sab manate hain kya sanskriti samay ke saath badalti hai?

Students: (many voices) haan, badalti hai.

Me: theek hai, to rashtra-dharm ka samman kane ke liye sankriti se jaati-paati, chhua-chhot aur auraton ko kam haq ki baaten hatanii padengi. Yah theek hai?

Students: (many voices) haan.

Me: to maan len ki rashtra-dharm aur sanskriti men virodh ho, takarahat ho, to sanskriti ko rashtra-dharm ke anusaar badal lena chaahiye?

Students: (many) haan.  

Me: tum sab manate ho kya yah? Sab sanskriti ko rashtra-dharm ke anusar badalne ko taiyaar ho kya? Chua-chhoot nahin manate? Auraton ko barabar maananete ho? Sab ka barabar samman karte ho?

Students: (almost all) haan.

Me: (with a smile) tum speedometer janate ho? Jo motorcycles aur gaadiyon men laga hoita hai.

Students: (with surprise) haan.

Me: usmen speed dadhatii hai to suii aise ghumatii hai na? (I indicated by moving my finger and then drawing on the board)

Students: haan.

Me: (with a smile) mere dimaag men ek ‘jhootho-meter’ laga hai. Uski suii bhi jhooth badhane par aise hii ghoomati hai. Jab tum sab ne sab ko saman maanane ki, sab ke riti-rivajon ko samaan samman dene kii baat kii aur khaka ki tum aisa karne ko taiyaar ho to vah suii bahgut ghoom gai.

Students: (general giggles, amiles. Some spoke) nahin.

Me: suii to ghumi. Mera jhootho-meter galat hai ya aap logon ki baat?

Students: (laughing. Many) aap ka jhootho-meter galat hai.

Me: theek hai. Maan lete hain.

Me: (after thinking for a few seconds, and moving about in the classroom to buy some time) ok. Maanalo ki main apane ghar men ek parti dena chaahata hun aur usmen kuchh doston ko invite bhi karta hun. Main parti men beef bhi parosna chaahata hun. Tum beef janate ho kya? kya hotii hai?

One student: han.

Another student: gau-maans.

Me: haan to main gau-maan bhi parosana chaahata hun. Kuchh logon ko pata chal gaya. Ve mujhe maarane aa rahe hain. Tum logon ko bhi pata chal gaya. Tum kya karoge?

Students: (sannata) (ek dheemi aadhi majak men aawaz) marenge. (general laughter)

Me: (smiling) batao, tum kya karoge? Lagata hai ek ne to sach bola hai.

Students: (sannata.)

Me: tum mujhe yeh gau-maans wali parti karne doge ya nahin?

Students: (majority) nahin.

Me: kyon? Tum political science ke vidhyarthi ho, nagarikon ke mool adhikaron ke baare men padha hoga. Bharat ke sab nagarikon ko apane khan-paan, riti-rowaz aur vishwason ki swatanhtrata mool adhikaar hai. Tum mera mool adhikaar kyon cheenana chaahate ho?

One student: kisi dharm men nahin likha ki gau-maans khana chaahiye.

[I knew Quran recommends it: “And remember when Moses said to his people: ‘Allah commands you to slaughter a cow,’ they said: ‘Dost thou make a jest of us?’ He said: ‘I seek refuge with Allah from being one of the ignorant.’ (2:68, The Holy Quran, Translated by Maulvi Sher Ali, published by Islam International Publications Limited, 2004). But wanted to make the point that this kind of argument cannot be accepted, therefore, rather than going into what is written or not written, took a different direction.]

Me: kisi dharm men to yeh bhi nahin likha ki moog ki daal khaani chaahiye. To kya yah bhi na khaane den?

Students: (sannata)

Me: sawal yah nahin hai ki kisi dharm men likha hai ya nahin. Sawal yah hai ki kuchh log khana chaahate hain. To samanata aur swatantrata ke naate un ko haq hai ya nahin?

Another student: gau-badh ki kanoon men manaii hai. To aap gair-kanooni kaam kar rahe hain.

[Here I had two choices: either take the point that even if it is against the law, who should enforce the law? Crowed or the state/police? You complain to the police if you think it is unlawful, why hurt me? But I took another direction.]

Me: gau-badh adhiktar rajyon men mana hai, par sab rajyon men nahin. Jaise Rajasthan men mana hai par Mizoram men nahin. Aur mana “gau-badh” nahin kar raha, gau-maans khana kahin bhi mana ya gair kanooni nahin hai. Rajasthan men bhi mana nahin hai. To maan lo main gau-maan Mizoram se laya hun ya America se laya hun, sirf parti yahan de raha hai. Gaubadh yahan nahin kar raha.

Students: (uneasy, but sannata) (one voice) aap kisi ki dharmik bhavanaon ko aahat nahin kar sakate.

Me: main apane ghar men party de raha hun. Kisi ko khaane ke liye nahin kah raha, kisi ke ghar nahin jaa raha. Bhavanayen kaise aahat hui, main kuchh khata hun ya nahin khata hun se?

One student: aap logon ko invite kar rahe hain.

Me: Unko kar raha hun jo khate hain ya main samajhta hun ki khate hain. Nahin aana chaahate meri parti men to mana kardo. Marte kyon ho? Mujhe rokte kyon ho?

Students: (fir chup)

[I had taken a lot of time, so wanted to end the integration.]

Me: abhi bharat men ek badii rassa-kasi chal rahi hai. Ek taraf kuchh logon ke vichaar se Hindu-sanskriti hai, ek taraf kuchh aur logon ke vichar se Muslim personal law hai aur ek taraf Bharatiiya Samvidhaan hai, jise aaj tum logon ne rashtra-dharm kaha hai. Ye rassa-kasi ham logon ne shuru kii hai, meri peedhi walon ne. 10 varsh men tum bade ho jaaoge, kai mahatvapoorna nirnay kar rahe hoge. 10 varsh men yah rassa-kasi khatm nahin hogi. Tum logon ko is ke nateeje bhugatne padenge. In tikadi par sochana.

[I drew a triangle on the board with “Kathit Hindu sanskriti”, “kathit Muslim Personal law” and “rashtra-dharm/samvidhaan” as three vertices.]

Me: achchha maine bahut sawal pooch liye. Tum kuchh poochana chaahate ho?

One student: aap kahan rahate hain?

Me: mahane men ek saptah Jaipur aur teen sapatah Bangalore.

Another student: mausam Jaipur ka achchha hai ya Bangalore ka?

Me: log kahate hain ki banagklore ka achchha hai, vahan sardi-garmi ka kasht nahin hota, mausam kuchh beech ka sa hii rahata hai. Par main to Rajasthani hun. Mujhe to yahan ki sardi-garmi ki yaad bhi aatii hai.

Another student: aap kya padhate hain?

Me: maine primary men aur upper primary men to sabhi Vishay padhaaye hain. Par aajkal university men shiksha-dharshan padhata hun.

Another student: haan mujhe aisa hii laga tha?

Me: matlab? Kya laga tha?

Student: ki aisi baate darshanik hii karte hain.

Me: (smile) matlab falatu baaten darshanik hii karte hain?

Students: (general smile) (the same student) nahin, itane share sawal.

Me: (smiling) achchha abhi mujhe jaana hai. Tum logon ne shuru men socha hoga ki chalo aaj padhai se chhutii mili kuchh der, vo bhi ab bore hogaye honge.

Students: (general smile, some giggles) (many voices) nahin, bore nahin hue.

Me: namate, dhanyavaad.

Students: (stand up) (many voices) dhanya vaad.

This dialogue raises many questions in my mind. Student seem to generally understand the constitutional spirit of equality, justice, respect for all, etc. They also seem to have a general idea that what is called sanskriti may need critical look and may need to change. And that when the constitution and so called sanskriti come in conflict one has to weed out unconstitutional part of that sanskriti. But when it comes to particular beliefs and issue they care about, their loyalty to the constitution seems to falter and they want to interpret constitutional value of equality etc. according to their own belief systems. This problem cannot be address simply by reading books. Something more is needed. One of those things could be the kind of dialogue/interaction given above.

But who should conduct such dialogues? Where? When? What kind of preparation would it require of teachers if they are supposed to conduct such dialogues?

*******

28th July 2018

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

देशप्रेम और शिक्षा-२

July 24, 2018

रोहित धनकर

अपनी पिछली फेसबुक पोस्ट में मैंने अपनी स्वयं की सामान्य समझ के आधार पर निचे लिखे प्रश्नों पर विचार किए लिए आम-जनों को आमंत्रित किया था. वह पोस्ट ये थी:

“देशप्रेम और शिक्षा-१

आज कल देशप्रेम, देशभक्ति, राष्ट्र और राष्ट्रीयता को लेकर बहुत विचारोत्तेजक समझे जाने वाले संवाद चल रहे हैं. उन्हें पढ़े से लगता है कि लोग बड़ी सिद्दत से और कुछ उत्तेजना के साथ बात कर रहे हैं. पर शायद संवाद में शामिल लोगों के मन में देशप्रेम आदि कि अवधारणाएं बहुत अलग अलग हैं.

  • आप के विचार से “देशप्रेम” का क्या अर्थ है?
  • देशभक्ति का क्या अर्थ है?
  • दोनों में क्या फर्क है? (यदि है तो?)”

कुछ लोगों ने अपने विचार रखे. कोई इन में समन्यध्वनी देखना चाहे तो मेरी समझ से वह कुछ इस प्रकार अभिव्यक्त की जा सकती है:

  • देशप्रेम अपने देश से, उसके लोगों से प्रेम करने का नाम है. इस में उसकी कमियों और खामियों को देखने कि गुंजाईश है. देश से प्रेम तो इसमें है, पर इसे सर्वश्रेष्ट और सब तरह से निष्कलंक और संपूर्ण मानने कि भावना नहीं है. सुधर कि गुंजाईश देशप्रेमी देख सकता है और सुधार कि कोशिश करना भी अपना कर्त्तव्य मानता है.
  • देशभक्ति देश के सामने नतमस्तक होने कि भावना है, जिसमें उसे सर्वश्रेष्ट और सब तरह से उत्तम और संपूर्ण मानने कि भावना भी है.

बहुत से लोग देश-प्रेम में कुछ भी आपतीजनक नहीं देखते पर देशभक्ति में कुछ आपत्ती जनक देखते हैं.

इन विचारों को मैं अपनी तरह से स्पष्ट करना और सुलझाना चाहूँ तो पहले देश और प्रेम की धारणाओं पर विचार करना चाहूँगा. देश शब्द का उपयोग कई बार मात्र स्थान विशेष या भूभाग विशेष को इंगित करने के लिए किया जाता है. जैसे “मानव देश-कालबद्ध प्राणी है”. पर जिस अर्थ में हम यहाँ देश शब्द का उपयोग कर रहे हैं वह केवल स्थान या भूभाग को इंगित नहीं करता. उसमें और भी बहुत कुछ है. यह ठीक है कि देश कि धारणा में एक निश्चित भूभाग लाजिमी तौर पर शामिल है. जैसे हम लोग कुछ अधुरा और त्रुटिपूर्ण संकेत “कश्मीर से कन्याकुमारी” तक कह कर देते हैं. हमारा संविधान इस भूभाग को अधिक स्पष्ट और सटीक तरीके से परिभाषित करता है. भूभाग के अलावा देश कि धारण में उसके लोग भी आते हैं. अपनी भाषा, संस्कृति, चिंतन्धराओं के साथ. संपूर्ण सचेत स्वायत्त व्यक्तियों के रूप में. साथ ही इस भूभाग में प्रचलित सामाजिक व्यवस्था और स्थापित राजनैतिक व्यवस्था भी देश कि धारण का अनिवार्य हिस्सा है.

तो फिर देश का अर्थ होगा: एक भूभाग में रहने वाले लोग. उस भूभाग की संपूर्ण प्राकृतिक सम्पदा, लोगों की सामजिक-सांस्कृतिक मान्यताएं, उन की भाषाएँ, उनकी विचार-धाराएँ और वो राजनैतिक व्यवस्था जिस में वे अपने आप को शासित करते हैं.

अब प्रेम की धारणा पर कुछ विचार करते हैं. यहाँ हम किसी व्यक्ति (इंसान) से प्रेम की बात नहीं कर रहे. बल्कि एक संश्लिष्ट अमूर्त सत्ता (entity) से प्रेम की बात कर रहे हैं. प्रेम अपने आप में एक बहुत जटिल, अस्पष्ट और व्यक्तिपरक भाव है. फिर भी शायद सार्वजनिक संवाद के लिए इस जटिल धारणा के कुछ तंतुओं को हम चिन्हित कर सकते हैं. मुझे लगता है प्रेम में एक भावना जिस सत्ता से प्रेम करते हैं उस के लिए शुभ-चिंता या उसके भले की सोचना या उसकी वेलबीइंग (welbeing) की फिक्र करना या होना होता है. यह फिक्र सिर्फ भाव के स्तर पर नहीं हो सकता, इसमें यदि देश के लिए कुछ अवांछनीय है तो उसे दूर करने की प्रतिबद्धता भी होनी चाहिए. अर्थात हम कह सकते हैं कि प्रेम में दूसरा भाव भले के लिए कुछ करने का संकल्प या प्रतिबद्धता भी होती है. तीसरा भाव, जिस सत्ता से प्रेम हो उसके सानिध्य में सुख, सुकून महसूस करने का होता है. यह सुख सुकून किसी प्राप्ति का नहीं बस सानिध्य में होने भर का होता है. शायद चौथा भाव—विशेष रूप से देश-प्रेम के सन्दर्भ में—अपनेपन का, बेलोंगिनग्नेस (belongingness) का होता है. कि यह देश मेरा है और मैं इस का हिस्सा हूँ.

यदि हम देश प्रेम की यह धारणा लें तो कह सकते हैं कि किसी देश का हिस्सा होने कि भावना, उसके लोगों के भले कि परवाह करना, उस में लोगों के जीवन को बेहतर बनाने के लिए प्रतिबद्धता, इस की सामाजिक, सांस्कृतिक, राजनैतिक व्यवस्था में कुछ पसंद करना, उस की उपलब्धियों में गर्व महसूस करना, आदि देश-प्रेम कि भावना के हिस्से है. क्या इस का यह अर्थ है कि उसकी कमजोरियों, खामियों और गलतियों को न देखना भी देशप्रेम का हिस्सा है? मुझे ऐसा नहीं लगता. किसी भी चीज को सर्वांग-शुभ समझना बेवकूफी के आलावा कुछ नहीं हो सकता. हर सामाजिक व्यवस्था में, राजनैतिक व्यवस्था में, सांस्कृतिक मान्यताओं में बहुत कुछ गलत, सड़ाहुआ और बहुत बुरा तक होता है. मानव समाज अपने आप को बेहतर बनाने की कोशिश कर रहा है, हजारों सालों से. इस कोशिश में उसने बहुत कुछ किया है जो अन्याय पूर्ण है, भद्दा है, गलत है, बुरा है. वह हमारे विकास की राह का हिस्सा है. उसे देखना, उसको बुरा कहना, उसकी आलोचना करना और उस से लड़ना, मिटाने के लिए, देशप्रेम की भावना के विरूद्ध नहीं, बल्कि देशप्रेम की भावना की आवश्यक शर्त है.

देश एक व्यक्ति से नहीं बनता. और लोग देश का सबसे महत्त्वपूर्ण हिस्सा होते हैं. उन में सहमतियाँ, असहमतियां दोनों होती है. देशप्रेम की यह आवश्यक शर्त है कि आप उनलोगों की इज्जत करें, उनके भले कि कोशिश करें. उन की भी जो आप से असहमत हों, जिन की भले की परिभाषा भी आप से बहुत भिन्न हो, उनको भी अपने सामान देश का नागरिक मानें. यदि आप किसी को गलत समझते हैं, तो उस से बन्दुत्व की भावना के साथ संवाद करें—साझे हित के लिए. पर उसे नकारना, उस को हीन मानना, उसको बल से दबाना, उसे मारना देशप्रेम की भावना के विरूद्ध है; क्यों कि देश के सब लोगों के हित की, भले की परवाह और उसके प्रति प्रतिबद्धता देशप्रेम का आवश्यक हिस्सा है.

अभी तक हमने अपने सहज बोध से देशप्रेम की कुछ आरंभिक बात की. अब थोड़ा यह भी देखलें कि क्या यह कोई ऎसी बात है को देशप्रेम की अन्य लोगों की धरना से एकदम अलग या विपरीत है.

जो लोग आम नागरिक के तौर पर देशप्रेम को इतना समझना चाहते हैं उनके लिए स्टैनफोर्ड इनसाइक्लोपीडिया ऑफ़ फिलोसोफी में पट्रीओटीज्म (partiotism) नाम से एक अच्छा लेख है. यह दार्शनिक दृष्टि से देशप्रेम कि धारणा, उस में वैविध्य, हर प्रकार के देशप्रेम की नैतिक हैसियत, उस की राजनैतिक जरुरत आदि पर विचार करता है. यह शायद उन विद्वानों के लिए नहीं  है जो इस धारणा की समग्र बौद्धिक विवेचना करना चाहते हैं. पर, एक, जो अपने लिए कोई सुविचारित निर्णय लेना चाहें, और दो, बोद्धिक होने का नाटक करने वाले लोगों के अधकचरे विचारों की थोड़ी विवेक सम्मत जांच करना चाहें, उनके लिए अच्छा लेख है. मैं इस लेख से पूरी तरह सहमत न होते हुए भी इस की विवेचना को बहुत उपयोगी पाता हूँ. यह लेख स्टेफेन नाथानसन के हवाले से देशप्रेम (patriotism) की एक परिभाषा देता है:

“देशप्रेम में निम्न चीजें होती हैं:

  1. Special affection for one’s own country (अपने देश के प्रति विशेष स्नेह)
  2. A sense of personal identification with the country (देश के साथ एक व्यक्तिगत पहचान)
  3. Special concern for the well-being of the country (देश के भले के लिए विशेष चिंता)
  4. Willingness to sacrifice to promote the country’s good (देश के भले के लिए त्याग करने इच्छा)”

यहाँ अनुवाद कुछ जल्दी में किया और भोंथरा सा है, पर शायद यहाँ के लिए काम करेगा.

सेकेंडरी एजुकेशन कमीशन रिपोर्ट में देशप्रेम (patriotism) के बारे में कहा है: “True patriotism involves three things–a sincere appreciation of the social and cultural achievements of one’s country, a readiness to recognize its weaknesses frankly and to work for their eradication and an earnest resolve to serve it to the best of one’s ability, harmonizing and subordinating individual interests to broader national interests.” अर्थात: “सच्चे देशप्रेम में तीन चीजें होती हैं: अपने देश की सामाजिक सांस्कृतिक उपलब्धियों की सच्ची सराहना (शायद सच्ची/ऑब्जेक्टिव पहचान?), इस की कमियों को स्वीकारने को तैयार हिओना और उनको दूर करने के लिए काम करना, तथा, एक प्रतिबध्धता इस की बेहतरी के लिए यथा शक्ति काम करने की. व्यक्तिगत हितों का व्यापक राष्ट्रीय हितों के साथ सामंजस्य बनाना और जरुरत हो तो उन्हें व्यापक राष्ट्रीय हितों के अधीन स्वीकारना.”

इन दोनों परिभाषाओं के ऊपर हमारी विवेचना से तुलना करके देखना उपयोगी हो सकता है. इन की समालोचना करने की जरुरत है. जो आगे भी चलती रहेगी.

पर यहाँ अगले चरण में जाने की भी जरुरत है. यदि हम देशप्रेम की ये परिभाषा या इन में से कोई परिभाषा स्वीकार करें तो कुछ सवाल उठाते हैं.

  • क्या देशप्रेम सार्वभौम मानवीय नैतिकता के साथ सांगत है या मानवीय नैतिकता से इस की कहीं टकराहट होने की संभावना है? (आज कल बहुत लोग मानते हैं कि देशप्रेम व्यापक मानवीय नैतिकता से संगत नहीं है. उन में बहुत से बड़े नाम भी हैं, जैसे टॉलस्टॉय. क्या ये लोग देशप्रेम की आलोचना में न्यायसंगत (justified) हैं?)
  • क्या देशप्रेम एक नागरिक के लिए नैतिक आवश्यकता है?
  • क्या देशप्रेम शिक्षा का एक अनिवार्य उद्देश्य होना चाहिए?

इन सवालों पर आज कि स्थिति में साफ़ विचार करने की जरुरत है. आप सब के विचार इस लेख पर और विशेषरूप से अंत में लिखे सवालों पर आग्रह के साथ आमंत्रित हैं. क्यों कि उन्ही से अगले लेख की दिशा तह होगी.

******

२४ जुलाई २०१८

1 Comment | Pratyutpann-Mati | Permalink
Posted by Rohit Dhankar

Dialogue: Concepts-1

July 1, 2018

Concepts-1

I am interested in peoples own thinking regarding concept formation. Not in theories they might have learnt and not in received wisdom. But completely their own thinking, presently. That thinking and beliefs about concept formation may be a result of their experience, reflection or extensive study in psychology, epistemology or whatsoever. The issue here is what are their own views on the question written below, and not what theories they can mention in this regard.

I invite you to express your views on the question below, try to express in less than 200 words please, but if you find necessary write as much as you can. This is the first question in a series. Hope you will participate in the whole series.

Concepts-1: What are the necessary conditions for, say X, to form concept of a tree? (Considering X as a human being.)

अवधारणाएं-१: किसी मानव के लिए पेड़ कि अवधारणा बना पाने कि क्या आवश्यक शर्तें होंगी?  

**********

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

« Previous Entries
Next Entries »