[sacw] SACW #2 (30 Nov. 01) India: Communalism & Education Special

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #2
30 November 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

------------------------------------------

#1. India: Textbooks and communalism (Rajeev Dhavan)
#2. India: 'Vedic civilisation': learning an anachronism (Romila Thapar)
#3. Prejudice and pride (Krishna Kumar)
________________________

#1.

The Hindu Friday, November 30, 2001
Opinion

TEXTBOOKS AND COMMUNALISM
By Rajeev Dhavan

Manipulating textbooks for children is unacceptable. India has=20
suffered enough communalism. Leave textbooks alone.

HISTORY HAS always been written and re-written. But by whom? A Dutch=20
historian, Peter Gieyl, reflecting on various versions of the=20
Napoleonic legend rightly called history ``an argument without end''.=20
It is in that sense that Croce declared that ``all history is=20
contemporary history''. But, history is a discourse. Official history=20
by Government fiat is not history but propaganda. History by=20
Government propaganda is the death of learning - destructive of the=20
discourse of history and education itself.

The present controversy of the `Talibanisation' of textbook history=20
stems from the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) edict of=20
October 25, 2001, to delete certain passages from wellknown=20
prescribed textbooks. Students were warned that examiners ``will not=20
evaluate the students' understanding of the (excised) portions''. The=20
National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT)=20
obliged by deleting those passages not to the liking of the Sangh=20
Parivar. The Government's support - indeed, directive - for these=20
gross acts of censorship and propaganda is self-evident. On November=20
24, the Prime Minister, Mr. A. B. Vajpayee, said he was prepared for=20
a debate on this. History has been re-written at the bidding of the=20
Government. Students who deviate from knowledge of such history have=20
been threatened with failure.

Banning and censorship are increasingly becoming a pernicious part of=20
civil and political governance. The attacks on Husain's paintings,=20
and Deepa Mehta's films, the civil injunction on Professor Jha's book=20
on ``beef eating in Ancient India'', the illegal banning of Sahmat's=20
posters, the Shiv Sena's threatened censorship of ideas and many=20
other incidents reinforce an aggressive climate of banning thoughts=20
and ideas not to the liking of fundamentalists. It is true that=20
shades of Muslim fundamentalism led to India's ban on Salman=20
Rushdie's ``Satanic Verses'' - to be followed by disastrous global=20
consequences. But, the dominant fundamentalism that menacingly=20
threatens India today is an aggressive Hindu fundamentalism which is=20
pugnacious in its tone and posture; and wholly uncompromising in=20
according second class status to all other faiths and beliefs.=20
Politically aligned to the concept of a newly-invented `Hindu' India,=20
Hindu fundamentalism physically and ideologically threatens those=20
that oppose it or fail to accept its dominance.

The CBSE and the NCERT concentrated on the work of certain secular=20
historians and commanded certain specific deletions on the eating of=20
beef in ancient India, archaeological evidence rather than Puranic=20
and other texts to historicise the Lord Ram and Lord Krishna legends,=20
the role of brahmanical indoctrination to sustain the caste system,=20
facts relating to plunder by Jat rulers, new facts or assertions=20
relating to the martyrdom of Guru Tegh Bahadur and so on. It has=20
never been anyone's case that the textbooks are threats to public=20
order requiring immediate action by the Government under the banning=20
provisions of the criminal codes. In any case, fundamentalists=20
invariably create an atmosphere of threats and violence to sustain=20
their banning and censorship demands even where no controversy=20
exists. Thus, it is clear that the actions of the Government, the=20
CBSE and the NCERT constitute a politically-sponsored censorship of=20
books and ideas.

The state's entry into the domain of textbooks can be traced to the=20
landmark judgment of the Supreme Court in the Punjab Textbook case=20
(1995) to the effect that the `executive' power of the state extended=20
to selecting and prescribing textbooks for schools recognised by it=20
even without the authority of an enacted law in preference to the=20
books of private publishers. In the MP Textbook case (1974), Justice=20
Bhagwati's insightful judgment warns against arbitrary and capricious=20
actions by the Government. In our present case, there is a bigger=20
failure. Two other seemingly autonomous bodies have decided to=20
succumb to fundamentalist pressures. The CBSE is an examining body=20
which cannot play to political tunes. Its textbooks have stood the=20
test of time. For the CBSE to abjure its own books under Sangh=20
Parivar pressure is wrong. It is even despicable for a Board which=20
should be promoting the culture of critically examining ideas to send=20
a menacing message to young students on pain of failure that they=20
should not dare question the fundamentalist message of the textbooks.=20
The NCERT has been equally pliant.

In the NCERT case (1992), the Supreme Court respected the autonomy of=20
the NCERT by refusing to identify it with the state on the assumption=20
that the Government's role was simply confined to overseeing the=20
proper utilisation of funding grants. Today, the NCERT is unashamedly=20
propagating the Government's and the Sangh Parivar's fundamentalism.=20
The object of this entire exercise is not just electoral gains but a=20
deeper quest to establish a Hindu hegemony to subordinate all other=20
faiths, beliefs and ideas. This sets up an awesome nexus between=20
education politics and religion which is contrary to the intrinsic=20
secularism which holds a fragile India together. It is not for the=20
NCERT to play politics. Concerned with academic excellence, it cannot=20
act as censor or edit texts because the Sangh Parivar and its kindred=20
spirits are upset. If the NCERT can be held to political and communal=20
ransom, it does not deserve to exist or occupy the pivotal positionby=20
the Indian education system.

This is not a matter of parliamentary banter. Valuable parliamentary=20
time was wasted in considering whether the term `Talibanisation' was=20
unparliamentary. Even though used as a political catch phrase, the=20
term `Talibanisation' cannot be said to be inappropriate. The=20
Government supported censorship by the CBSE and, the NCERT is a form=20
of `Talibanisation' - both in terms of encouraging closed minds and=20
the ferocity with which the new `learning' is threatened to be=20
inflicted on young examinees. It is to the credit of the Congress(I)=20
Government (1991-96) that it refused to implement even the=20
recommendations of a committee of historians to review, ban or censor=20
history books though it was under pressure to do so. There is a=20
discipline about textbooks. Stray passages cannot be extracted for=20
political scrutiny and censorship. No self-respecting academic will=20
ever write textbooks if his or her work is excised peremptorily for=20
political reasons and without any consultation.

In Unnikrishnan's case (1993), the Supreme Court declared education=20
to the age of 14 to be compulsorily provided. For the vast majority=20
of students, the provider of such education will be the state through=20
Government schools. The NCERT's job is to assist in this task with=20
examinations to be conducted by objective agencies such as the CBSE.=20
The pending 93rd Constitution Amendment Bill seeks to provide=20
`education for all'. This programme cannot be hijacked by the=20
Government and political parties for disbursing communally-slanted=20
education.

So far, India's textbook system through the CBSE and the NCERT has=20
worked well precisely because it has striven for excellence to get=20
the best known authors (and not any politically-selected rabble) to=20
independently write good books. The `Talibanisation' of textbooks put=20
this system under threat. Till now, no one thought NCERT books were=20
not good books or argued that texts cannot be updated or changed. But=20
this cannot happen for political or fundamentalist reasons. India's=20
Ministries of Education and related institutions were not created to=20
be instruments of propaganda. If this continues, a new system=20
insulated from political interference would have to be devised immune=20
from communalisation and politicisation. But any new system must be=20
carefully crafted so that the solution does not spread the disease.=20
No doubt in the market place of ideas, each issue must be openly and=20
strongly discussed - fairly and fiercely. But with the advent of=20
fundamentalism, India is losing its capacity for such discussions.=20
Manipulating textbooks for children is unacceptable. India has=20
suffered enough communalism. Leave textbooks alone.

_____

#2.

Tehelka.com

'VEDIC CIVILISATION': LEARNING AN ANACHRONISM

The NDA government's education policy is an effective barrier to the=20
professionalisation
of knowledge, as also the critical use of knowledge, says Romila=20
Thapar, stressing that states can afford to be free of Central=20
control, and more creative, in the management of education policies

New Delhi, November 23

Let me begin by asserting that those who do not understand the past,=20
or refuse to understand it, invariably end up by misunderstanding the=20
present, and are unable to move forward into the future. We are faced=20
today with the makers of educational policy in the Central=20
government, who seem not to understand the Indian past.

There is a constant harking back to the remote past, encapsulated in=20
the phrase "Vedic civilisation". This has been constructed into a=20
capsule - a saffron coloured capsule - and irrespective of its=20
historical or civilisational authenticity, it is being forced upon us=20
with the claim that all knowledge is contained in the Vedas and=20
therefore the Vedic capsule amounts to a total education.

There isn't even the recognition that in the course of Indian=20
history, various Indian thinkers debated and discussed the knowledge=20
contained in the Vedic corpus, and there were doubts and differences=20
about various aspects of Vedic knowledge. This process of debate and=20
questioning, the presentation of views and counterviews, has been at=20
the root of advances in knowledge. Much that we pride ourselves on,=20
as Indian contributions to world civilisation, developed=20
independently of the Vedic corpus, sometimes even in opposition to=20
it. And many advances in knowledge, as for instance in mathematics,=20
astronomy, alchemy and medicine, were the result of centuries of=20
interaction between scholars in various parts of Asia - South Asia,=20
West Asia and East Asia. Significant contributions from the past are=20
thus set aside in this obsessive concern with the Vedic capsule.

In saying this, I am not denigrating the study of the Vedic past, but=20
I am insisting that all aspects of the past have to be assessed in a=20
historical context, and I would further insist that the context has=20
to be, that critical, rational enquiry. This is now being denied by=20
replacing enquiry with a received version of the past, which is then=20
treated as the authentic version. The claim is made that this is a=20
return to indigenous knowledge, but what the new curriculum is=20
putting out is not an indigenous system. It draws its legitimacy from=20
19th century colonial views of India, and from the priority that=20
European Indologists gave to brahmanical texts, and the brahmanical=20
world-view. This is not a return to any indigenous system. It is=20
inspired by a return to nineteenth century colonial views of India.=20
The attempt is to go back to an ideological reading of Indian society=20
and culture, and this reading was in no way indigenous.

Instead of further professionalising the subjects taught at school=20
and college, there is now a distorting of the contents of subjects,=20
and their being replaced with subjects that have virtually no=20
pedagogical relevance or rigour, such as Yoga and Consciousness or=20
cultivating a Spirituality Quotient, whatever these may mean. These=20
are merely frills, and cannot form the core of knowledge. What I mean=20
by professionalising a subject is that each subject should be taught=20
in such a way that it demonstrates its own methodology, which draws,=20
as much as possible on evidence of proven reliability, on logical=20
analysis and on rational generalisations. This demands an=20
intellectual rigour in setting out the structure of the subject.

The training that results from such teaching, as for example in=20
history, enables both the teacher and the student to be aware of the=20
difference between mythology and evidence. When primacy is given to=20
these processes, there is also a greater use of impersonal knowledge,=20
which treats the subject in a secular way. There is now a retreat=20
from these processes, and mythology is taking over from knowledge. As=20
concerned citizens, we have to investigate this agenda, and the=20
politics being propagated through this agenda.

This propagation is being attempted, in part, by giving a single=20
definition to Indian culture and society, and projecting this through=20
educational channels, and describing it as the sole heritage that is=20
of any consequence to us as a society and a nation. Yet, this goes=20
against one of the fundamental concerns of the Indian experience -=20
both of the past and of the present.

Among the more significant questions that have continually been at=20
the core of Indian activity, is that of the relations between the=20
needs and control of the central power in a state, and the=20
articulation of variant forms of control manifested by regional and=20
local powers. At the most obvious level in the past, this=20
relationship determined various structures relating to administrative=20
and economic policy. It is also evident in cultural expression, where=20
a distinction was often maintained between the mainstream culture and=20
the culture and language of the region.

Relations between the two varied from close interlinks on some=20
occasions, to tensions or even confrontations on other occasions.=20
What is relevant to us today is that in the past, cooperation between=20
the Centre and the regions needed an immense degree of sensitivity to=20
social and cultural variations and understanding why they arose. We=20
are facing a similar problem today. The question is whether we should=20
accept the kind of homogenisation of education and culture that is=20
being imposed on the country, or should we attempt to define the=20
modern, educated Indian through an educational policy sensitive to a=20
range of social and economic concerns, and to new systems of=20
knowledge, a sensitivity that will provide us with a worthwhile=20
present? Can the interface between the Centre and the states in a=20
federal policy, help us in this matter?

If secularism is being eroded today, it is largely because of the=20
assault on secularism by the Sangh Parivar, and the assault rides on=20
the wave of the power of the Central government. Nevertheless, those=20
who have wished to uphold secularism have failed to defend it to the=20
degree that we should have. We have allowed a slippage in the secular=20
agenda of political parties that were willing to compromise on this=20
issue. And where these compromises affected actions of educational=20
and cultural policy, we did not protest with sufficient opposition.=20
Secularism became a kind of mantram, and the process of secularising=20
education was not carried through with enough rigour. Our hope today=20
is that there are many advances in knowledge that require a critical=20
enquiry and a secular view of knowledge, and these will assist in the=20
ultimate return to professionalisation and secularism. We have yet to=20
explore the secular moorings of our society, and in this exploration,=20
an understanding of regional and local cultures will undoubtedly be=20
helpful.

The hope that is held out at the start of this millennium is that=20
there are new ways of advancing knowledge now accessible to many more=20
people. But education is not merely about making millions literate,=20
it also involves teaching young people to cope with a changing=20
society, which today means being more aware of the world than ever=20
before, and to creating a worthwhile life for themselves. Therefore,=20
to impose a syllabus oriented to studying an imagined past utopia, is=20
to condemn the next generation to remaining essentially without=20
education. Insisting on a utopian past is also a mechanism of=20
diverting attention from having to improve the present in order to=20
provide a better quality of life.

Accountability to the public is necessary in formulating educational=20
policies. Transparency in governance means that we must know who is=20
drafting educational policy, and who have been consulted in doing so,=20
and what has been the participation of professionally-qualified=20
persons in the determining of the curriculum in a subject. It=20
requires responsible people, and these in turn, have to be=20
responsible for what they are doing. Educational policy is both=20
important and sensitive and cannot be left to the whims of a small=20
circle of politicians and bureaucrats.

A sensitive understanding of the interface of Centre and regions is=20
essential to any educational policy. Let me demonstrate this by an=20
example. Two states with high rates of literacy are Kerala and=20
Himachal Pradesh. Each is very different from the other in terms of=20
economic resources, and the way they are used; the hierarchy of=20
castes, and the distribution of classes, religions and religious=20
sects; and languages. Kerala has an economy of horticulture in the=20
production of pepper and spices, paddy cultivation, fisheries and=20
maritime trade. The economy of Himachal focuses on pastoralism and=20
terraced agriculture.

Caste hierarchies and their link to class status are different in=20
each state. Himachal has religious sects largely drawing from forms=20
of Puranic Hinduism, whereas Kerala has a variant on these, as well=20
as large populations of Islam and Christianity, going back to the=20
early centuries AD. Where Kerala has a mix of Sanskrit and Tamil, the=20
languages of Himachal relate to Punjabi, Dogri and Tibetan. Can we=20
really set aside all this, and merely insist on children in both=20
areas studying Sanskrit, Vedic Mathematics, Social Sciences, Yoga and=20
Consciousness and such like? The imposition of the Vedic capsule=20
would be a major disruption in the overall culture of both regions.=20
This will be educationally negative for most people, will be resented=20
by some groups, and will undoubtedly cause social strife.

But what they do have in common? Schooling and curriculum would have=20
to related up to a point to the local conditions and ethos, and these=20
would involve a degree of interest in regional concerns. The question=20
would be how best these can be introduced without denying the=20
importance of national concerns. Educational policy has to be such=20
that regional concerns are recognised as an intrinsic part of those=20
that are of national interest. This would ultimately be more viable=20
than forcing everyone to conform to a top-down policy.

Educational policies in states that do not have a Bharatiya Janata=20
Party (BJP) government have a greater responsibility to defend=20
secular education, and the continuance of multiple cultures. This is=20
often easier at the state level, where multiple cultures are more=20
visible. This would require considerable thinking about education, in=20
terms of what is being taught, and which groups are appropriating=20
educational facilities. Where parties not belonging to the National=20
Democratic Alliance (NDA) tie-up with the Sangh Parivar to harass=20
those supporting secular education, the acts of such parties have=20
also to be challenged. Education cannot be made the scapegoat for=20
dubious political manoeuvres.

The new policy is aimed at replacing some of the existing subjects at=20
school that are a burden on the student, and introducing some new=20
ones. There is neither an attempt to improve the quality of existing=20
subjects by professionalising, and thereby secularising, them, nor=20
are the new subjects conducive to reducing social disabilities, and=20
reaching out to the wider needs of students as is claimed. Let's take=20
a few examples.

History is to be discontinued from class six to 10, and replaced by=20
Social Science. But because there has been little consultation with=20
social scientists on whether or not to make the change, or on the=20
contents of this new subject. Few know what will be taught under this=20
label. One fails to understand the pedagogy in removing History at=20
Middle and Lower Secondary school level, and then suddenly=20
introducing it at High School. Rumours are rife about the garbled=20
contents of the textbook on Social Science. Many of us who recognise=20
the direction of the change are apprehensive about the slant that=20
will be given to the new subject. The Social Sciences are again=20
disciplines that have developed some professional foundations, and=20
not anyone and everyone can draw up a stimulating syllabus on Social=20
Sciences, let alone write textbooks on these subjects. Updating a=20
subject such as Social Science at school level will be very complex,=20
given the fact that it integrates so many subjects. Yet updating is=20
essential.

Schoolteachers, like all the teachers, require periodically update=20
their knowledge of the subject they are teaching. The holding of=20
workshops, which should be part of a teacher's curriculum, has now=20
been relegated to the occasional NGO activity. If such workshops were=20
held regularly in the states, and involved participants across states=20
as well, they would generate much thought on teaching a subject.=20
Workshops such as these could become the source of generating new=20
ideas and new methods on encouraging independent thought among=20
students.

It is claimed that the new policy will reduce social disabilities.=20
Social disabilities can be met to some extent by professionalising=20
what is taught, in other words teaching mainstream subjects as=20
systems of knowledge, without mystifications. The way a subject is=20
taught has a social context and this has a bearing on social=20
disabilities. Will Vedic mathematics be taught through memorising=20
shlokas in Sanskrit or as methods of calculation? If it is the=20
former, then obviously upper caste children will have a built-in=20
advantage, if it is the latter it will have to be assessed in terms=20
of other mathematical methods, which may not go in its favour. We=20
have not been told what advantages Vedic mathematics has over=20
conventional mathematics, nor whether this kind of maths will equip=20
the child to handle contemporary technologies requiring mathematics,=20
such as Information Technology, computer studies and such like.

We may well be taking a risk with the future of the next generation,=20
by giving them the type of schooling that will not equip them to=20
handle the technology of our times. These are serious matters that=20
concern the future of an entire generation of young Indians, and=20
should be much more widely discussed and reviewed than they have=20
been. But then the Indian middleclass is notoriously unconcerned=20
about what is taught to its children through schooling.

Another way of reducing social disabilities would be to subsidise=20
those children that normally would be put to work to contribute to=20
the family income, and would not therefore be able to go to school.=20
There is little attention given to ways of doing this in the new=20
policy. This again is an area that can be handled more effectively by=20
educational institutions in the states. One wonders then how subjects=20
like Yoga and Consciousness and Spirituality can reduce social=20
disabilities. Nor can they improve the values by which our society=20
now lives, as is the claim.

Children merely through their being taught at school do not acquire=20
values. They have to be demonstrated through the role models that are=20
held up to the children. Our role models of today, more often than=20
not, are those who control the system through money power and have=20
been shown to be corrupt. No amount of teaching of values in school=20
will change the current admiration for those who beat the system=20
through corruption. Only when the system is cleansed of corruption=20
and respected, will social ethics be nurtured. The cleansing will=20
have to go together with the teaching of values. And we seem to be a=20
long distance away from cleansing the system.

There is a huge financial outlay on the teaching of Astrology in=20
universities, in the face of serious opposition from all manner of=20
academic and scientific opinion. But no attention is paid to this=20
objection. Finances that would better go into setting up more schools=20
or equipping libraries and establishing school laboratories, are=20
being squandered on Astrology departments at Universities teaching=20
what many have called a dubious and spurious subject. Far from=20
successfully predicting the future, and thereby eliminating personal=20
stress, as the UGC circular claims, it is more likely to increase=20
insecurity and the uncertainty about the future, which is already a=20
cause of acute social disturbance.
Education is related to the social structures that it endorses or=20
wishes to change. The suggested curriculum is essentially intended to=20
construct a middleclass ideology producing pliant citizens, doubtless=20
good for enrolment into the cadres of the Sangh Parivar. The subjects=20
to be studied Sanskrit, Vedic Mathematics, Yoga and Consciousness and=20
some garbled social sciences, would hardly prepare a student for=20
professional training at a later level.

The problem will however be intensified when this regimen is imposed=20
on the under-privileged, and when they become aware of this package=20
being a further denial of quality education to them. With this kind=20
of schooling, Dalits and Scheduled Tribes and other marginalised=20
groups such as women will continue to be employed only for=20
lower-level jobs. The package makes no concession in the curriculum=20
to societies that function differently and require adjustments to=20
educational programmes, such as a greater emphasis initially on=20
technical courses. It would seem that the new curriculum has another=20
agenda as well: namely, to restrain the Dalits, OBCs (other backward=20
castes) and Scheduled Tribes, from access to quality education, which=20
would help them towards a better social status. The Dalits and the=20
OBCs are now nationally visible. But the Scheduled Tribes have not=20
had the same breakthrough. The attacks on Christian missionaries in=20
tribal areas are a mechanism of preventing such groups from=20
mobilising for better conditions.

Those who are privileged, and can afford private schools, will=20
continue to have quality education, but the rest, in terms of=20
educational requirements today, will remain virtually uneducated.=20
Such a two-tier system is envisaged in the schemes suggested by the=20
corporate sector as well, as was discussed on the first day in the=20
reference to the Ambani-Birla Report. This is likely to be a bigger=20
problem in schools run by individual states and at local levels,=20
since the disaffection will be closer to the ground reality in these=20
schools. Yet the curriculum in the states can explore the links=20
between education and the social context more closely, as also the=20
links to aspirations through education. This does not mean a=20
tailor-made education for each caste, religious sect, or tribe, but=20
can consider incorporating variations in different kinds of=20
knowledge. Such juxtapositions would in them have a liberating=20
influence.

The question of the preferred language for education poses other=20
problems. There is today a relationship between English and the=20
regional languages, between Hindi and English and among the regional=20
languages. Regional languages have become basis to the administration=20
of the states. But given the aspirations to managerial jobs and=20
corporate sector jobs, English is likely to remain dominant,=20
especially in management training and the sciences and in various=20
technologies. The greater the investment of the multinationals, the=20
greater will be the demand for professional English. Economic polices=20
will dictate educational demands.

A current misconception lies in the belief that education in the=20
medium of English automatically introduces rational thought. But=20
rationality has to be cultivated. Rationality is necessary for the=20
study of technologies, for instance, but those who use it for this=20
purpose do not necessarily apply it to understanding other aspects of=20
knowledge. Those that theoretically should be more enlightened, often=20
support distorted views about Indian society, culture and the past,=20
without a second thought. Education in the sciences and technologies,=20
instead of enlightening other areas of thought results in a dichotomy=20
between scientific and technological knowledge and knowledge related=20
to the social sciences and the humanities. The integration between=20
the two is frequently absent and for a variety of reasons.

An interesting case in point is the India Diaspora. NRIs=20
(non-resident Indians) are often a demonstration of this dichotomy,=20
where despite holding highly technical jobs, they also propagate the=20
most obscurantist views about Indian society and culture. This is=20
startlingly evident from their websites and their popular=20
publications. Some of the most untenable theories about the past come=20
from Indian computer scientists, astro-physicists and such like,=20
working in the United States. And they also make the absurd claim=20
that because they are scientists, their theories are value free. Such=20
persons are among the role models of the Indian middleclass. And we=20
in India give legitimacy to their obscurantism because they are=20
technically qualified in the sciences. We fail to recognise that=20
obscurantism among many NRIs is because of their problems of social=20
adjustment in an alien culture. If we are now going to have=20
University courses in religious rituals, such as the Karma-kanda, to=20
help NRIs create their imaginary cultural roots, then surely we have=20
to concede that the tail is wagging the dog. If the essentials of=20
critical studies and rational enquiry in the sciences and the studies=20
of technologies could be linked to similar studies in the social=20
sciences, this would result in a far greater awareness of what is=20
means to be educated and how one looks at the world.

To say the educational policy should legitimately change with every=20
change of government is to make a mockery of the process of=20
education. It is not the monopoly of any government; it is the=20
responsibility of those who are involved in education the young. What=20
would be useful would be to work out an essential educational=20
structure that should preferably not be tampered with whenever there=20
is a change of government. Changing the content of subjects would=20
have to be recognised as being a professional matter, and not a=20
matter of political ideology.

It is argued that education widens the mind and brings the world=20
closer. But if education is not free, and is so controlled as to=20
confine thinking to a single track, then it closes the mind. The=20
closing of the mind would be the greatest danger in allowing the=20
saffronisation of education to succeed. The generation now in school=20
will know of only the recently constructed Hindutva culture, growing=20
in tandem with an equally recently constructed Hindutva Hinduism -=20
which I have elsewhere called Syndicated Hinduism, and which is=20
travesty of what has been historically an open and creative Hinduism.=20
The new educational policy is an effective barrier to the=20
professionalisation of knowledge, as indeed also to the expansive and=20
critical use of knowledge. Yet, ultimately heterodoxies will have to=20
be acknowledged, since the debate between orthodoxies and=20
heterodoxies is essential to advancing knowledge. This debate is a=20
lynchpin in education. And perhaps heterodoxies will arise through=20
alternate educational systems in the states, if these are encouraged.

If education is properly geared to the exploration of knowledge, then=20
many of the social values which now seem absent, would automatically=20
surface. This has to be a process of encouraging young people to=20
think independently rather than converting them into tadpoles in a=20
well. And in this, the educational policies of the states can afford=20
to be more free of control from the Centre and more creative. To that=20
extent, they will also be more conducive to expanding knowledge in=20
the context of national interests. This is a matter of some urgency=20
if the direction of change points to a federal polity. The interface=20
between the Centre and the states in the context of a federal polity=20
relates not just to education, but also to many activities, although=20
educational policies often highlight the problems. If a federal=20
polity is what is required, it cannot be brought about accidentally;=20
it has to be forged. Hopefully, this will be a process that=20
strengthens healthy nationalism, secular in its essentials, and=20
drawing on creative inter-relations between the Centre and the states.

(A lecture delivered by Romila Thapar at a SAHMAT convention on=20
communalisation of education)

_____

#3.
The Hindustan Times
Friday, November 30, 2001

PREJUDICE AND PRIDE
by Krishna Kumar

A mong the essays written by Indian children one can identify the=20
following two extremes within which most other arguments fit. On the=20
one extreme we find children who feel that the Partition was forced=20
upon us by the British. These children feel that the consequences of=20
Partition have been terrible, but we must now learn to live in peace.

On the other extreme are the children who think that India was=20
divided because of pressure from Muslims; that the division was=20
allowed to take place without ensuring that all Muslims went to=20
Pakistan. Children who hold this view apparently accept the Partition=20
as final but do not accept the pluralist and secular character of=20
Indian society. They feel that if Muslims chose to have their own=20
country, the rest of India ought to be a country of Hindus alone.

Children who represent the first extreme, on the one hand, feel that=20
India was divided mainly because the British wanted to do so, in=20
continuation of their 'divide and rule' policy. These children find=20
the ongoing conflict between India and Pakistan quite unnecessary and=20
harmful. Even though they do not agree with the creation of Pakistan,=20
they are anxious to establish peaceful relations with it=8A

...It is clear from the two extremes described above that all the=20
Indian children who wrote these essays resent the division of India.=20
It is in the context of this consensus that we notice the range of=20
stances taken. The stand that India was divided at the behest of the=20
British who had weakened India much earlier by encouraging divisive=20
tendencies is quite consistent with the overall view taken in many of=20
the textbooks analysed in this study, and also with the=20
constitutional policy of giving an equal status to all citizens,=20
irrespective of their religion or faith.

This latter consistency is a general one, in the sense that quite a=20
few criticisms of the State policy can be accommodated within it.=20
These criticisms may be directed towards issues as different as the=20
handling of Kashmir or the removal of poverty.

Similarly, the general view of Partition as a British strategy=20
accommodates differences on detail. Children who hold the British=20
responsible for Partition perceive Jinnah as a British instrument=20
while others mention a tussle over prime ministership as the main=20
reason why the British had to divide India.

These different views are put forward in the context of a common=20
argument which supports India's multi-religious ethos. The majority=20
of essays written in all three types of Indian schools echo this=20
argument at one level or another.

Children who disagree with the general argument that the British were=20
primarily responsible for Partition, also present an interesting,=20
though smaller range of their own. Among such children, the extreme=20
position is held by the ones who categorically want India to be a=20
Hindu nation because Pakistan is a Muslim one.

Even these children criticise the Partition and call it evil, but=20
their ire is focused on Muslims. Children who take this position are=20
very few in all three schools. The ones studying in the upmarket=20
public school express themselves in sober words; those studying in=20
the ordinary public school apply rather harsh, sometimes abusive=20
language.

Among the government schoolchildren who favour a Hindu India, there=20
are some who believe that before 1947, India was ruled by Pakistan.=20
This belief would seem totally at odds with the history syllabus and=20
textbooks if it did not accompany the contention that Pakistan ruled=20
over India with the help of the British.

Apparently, these children are using the term 'Pakistan' as a synonym=20
for Muslims - a practice not confined to just these few children. As=20
a word, 'Pakistan' has become a synonym for divisiveness in Hindi,=20
and is quite often used to connote a tendency to cause division -=20
allegedly a special quality of Muslims. Thus, 'Pakistan' becomes a=20
stereotype of Muslims, of their history and nature.

The idea of Hindu India is inevitably linked with a stereotype of=20
Muslims which is based on hatred and distrust. In one essay by a=20
child from the ordinary public school, the expression of dislike for=20
Muslims goes so far as to transform Partition into a benign event -=20
one by which India got cleansed. This is the only essay out of the=20
113 written by Indian children in which the division of India and=20
Pakistan is not directly condemned.

The essays by Pakistani children revolve around the question of=20
whether Partition was worthwhile or not. Their interpretation of the=20
topic seems to be more introspective than the one we see in the=20
Indian essays. It would be hasty to see this as evidence of=20
Pakistan's much-discussed crisis of identity.

Going by these few essays I can say that Pakistani youngsters have no=20
problem identifying themselves with their country, in much the same=20
way as the Indian children who show no sign of an identity problem.=20
The pensive mood most of the English-medium Pakistani schoolchildren=20
and one or two of the Urdu-medium schoolchildren display in their=20
essays is indicative of a wider concern. It is born out of the=20
recognition that India was divided at the behest of the Muslim=20
community and its great leaders, Jinnah and Iqbal.

The young writers of these essays accept the ownership of that=20
legacy, but their acceptance does not stop them from wondering=20
whether Partition was a good idea after all. The answers range from a=20
definite 'yes' to a prevaricating 'may be, may be not'. Rather, more=20
children take the first position; those who take a hesitant stance=20
are mostly from an English-medium school.

Children from the Urdu-medium school include in their essays a far=20
greater number of historical details, which may be a reflection of=20
the style favoured in their school. In India too, the opportunity to=20
write expressively and go beyond factual details is associated with=20
English-medium schools, although not all such schools are able to=20
provide a chance for reflective writing in the course of their=20
curricular routine.

Studies of Pakistani education and society suggest that the division=20
between English-medium schools and the others is wider there than it=20
is in India, at least at present. The essays written by Pakistani=20
children bear this out.

All these essays reflect a studied stance. Unlike their=20
English-medium counterparts, who flaunt their psychological distance=20
from history, the Urdu-medium children stuff their essays with=20
historical detail, leaving little room for commentary or spontaneous=20
reflection=8A

...The children who uphold the Partition as a good decision apply the=20
same arguments that we find in most Pakistani school textbooks. These=20
contentions are the same that were originally used from the late=20
Thirties onwards by the leaders of the Pakistan movement.

The first among these refers to the religious differences between=20
Muslims and Hindus. Then comes the argument about the Muslims not=20
getting the same opportunities in British India that the Hindus got.=20
Interestingly, and quite understandably, the specific reference to=20
educational employment opportunities is made mostly by the=20
Urdu-medium schoolchildren.

Apparently, Pakistan's ongoing economic crisis and its sharply=20
divided social structure make the Urdu-medium schoolchild acutely=20
anxious about employment. Other children make a general point about=20
discriminatory practices.

All the essays say that Partition helped to end the discrimination=20
suffered by Muslims and allowed them to become first-class citizens.=20
One of the essays ends with a reference to Kosovo, saying that=20
Partition averted a Kosovo-like situation in India.

At the other end, we find the view that the culture of Hindus and=20
Muslims was and is really the same. The children who use this=20
argument acknowledge a sense of confusion regarding the basis of=20
Partition, but they perceive no problem in accepting it as a=20
historical fact. Some of them mention what they have heard from their=20
grandparents about the harmony and neighbourly relations that=20
prevailed between the Hindus and Muslims before Partition.

This knowledge is held in balance with the general awareness,=20
apparently acquired at school, that Hindus wanted to dominate the=20
Muslims and that the British favoured the Hindus. If Hindus and=20
Muslims could live peacefully together in the past, why can't they do=20
so now as separate nations, these children ask. Their argument=20
incorporates the challenges of economic development that both=20
countries face.

The nuclear bombs tested by both the countries and their missile=20
programmes are criticised. In this matter, the extent of disagreement=20
with State policy that a few Pakistani children convey is greater=20
than what we find in any segment of the Indian children.

The writer is Professor of Education, Delhi University. Excerpted=20
with the permission of Penguin India, from Prejudice and Pride:=20
School Histories of the Freedom Struggle in India and Pakistan=20
(Viking, Rs 395). The book is due to be released in December.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. To=20
subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--=20