Education: Towards Utilitarianism, away from Egalitarianism

This year’s budget has once again been lackluster in terms of allocations made to the Education sector. The Kothari Commission recommendation of an allocation of 6% of GDP has remained far from realization, with the allocation hovering in the range of 3-4% every year. Within the education sector also, elementary education is the most fund-deprived and neglected sector. The priorities of the State being made amply clear, year after year and government after government, my purpose here is, however, to discuss the kind of education that is thought desirable to be imparted, who makes these decisions and the impact of these policy decisions on the general populace.

The term ‘education’ has various definitions attached to itself. I will highlight two of them here (Taken from Dictionary.com). The first one defines education as, “the act or process of imparting or acquiring general knowledge, developing the powers of reasoning and judgment, and generally of preparing oneself or others intellectually for mature life”. The second definition defines education as, “the act or process of imparting or acquiring particular knowledge or skills, as for a profession”. Both these definitions focus on two entirely different aspects of the importance of education in our lives, its importance for utilitarian purposes, for earning our living, and secondly, its importance for being able to lead an intellectually mature life, for being able to develop into reasonable human beings, who can think, reflect and reason and decide the right and wrong for themselves and to act according to these.

When India attained its independence in 1947, it comprised of a majority of non-literate population. According to the 1951 census, the literacy rate in India was 18.33% (Wikipedia). Due to a huge number of illiterate population, the entire effort came to be directed at ensuring that more and more population of the country was able to attain literacy as fast as possible. Thus, providing access to all became a core concern of the policy makers in the initial years of independence. The literacy rate, according to the 2011 census, is 74.04% (Wikipedia). “The working definition of literacy in the Indian census since 1991 is as follows: Literacy rate: The total percentage of the population of an area at a particular time aged seven years or above who can read and write with understanding” (Wikipedia). Thus, literacy rates deal with only the superficial aspect of the broad term education, i.e., being able to read and write with understanding. Education, on the other hand, as defined previously, is much broader. India, being a third-world, relatively poor nation, with increasing population, has still not been able to achieve 100% literacy rates for its population. Hence, the focus has somehow never been able to completely shift from looking at quality more than quantity. In trying to ensure that all its population is able to at least develop the basic skills of reading and writing, the larger and more important aspect of what kind of education should be imparted to the population, has somehow always remained at the back-burner. Although, there have been National Curricular Frameworks, which have provided guidelines for development of curricula that has been thought desirable for the population, yet, there has been a lack of efforts in terms of measuring/looking at the output/outcome in terms of quality. Most of the assessments and analysis of the education system has been in terms of the quantitative and basic aspects like to what level are children able to read and write, the enrolment ratios, the percentage of out of school children etc. There have been limited efforts that have focused on what kind of education is desirable for the population, and more importantly whenever such frameworks have been laid down, the assessment of whether the desired goals and aims are being actually met or not.

From an analysis of the Indigenous Education system prevailing in India before the colonial take-over of the education system, Brahminical hegemony emerges as the dominant theme. This was characterized by emphasis on oral learning, memorization, a limited curriculum, absence of women education and education for the lower castes, especially Harijans, lack of teacher training, Brahminical dominance among teachers and a dominance of higher castes among students.

The British presence in India began with the coming of the East India Company in 1600, as a trading company. After an initial period of familiarization with the Indian setting, the policy of Britishers shifted from one of accommodation of Indian culture, to that of imposing their own ideas and superiority. The culmination of this policy was the adoption of ‘Macaulay’s Minute’, by the then Governor General William Bentinck, in 1835.

The analysis of colonial discourse reveals many similarities with the indigenous Brahminical tradition in terms of perpetuation of the theme of moral uplift of the masses, perpetuation of rote memorization and absence of a spirit of enquiry, lack of encouragement to alternative teaching methodologies, standardized and centrally imposed curriculum and a perpetuation of a class divide based on the educational attainments. Mass education could still not become a reality and women’s education also lagged behind.

 

Indian education system, post-independence, has been modelled on the education system proposed by Macaulay in his ‘Macaulay’s Minute’. It has thus promoted rote learning and memorization rather than conceptual thinking, holistic understanding and logical reasoning.

 

The National Curricular Framework, 2005 has been the latest of the curricular documents. It has attempted to lay down the broad aims of education and the kind of curricula that is thought desirable to achieve those aims. In my opinion, it has been a path breaking document in terms of defining the aims of education. It has broken away from the traditional dominant perspective that has been visible in the Indian education system. NCF, 2005 redefined and radicalized the aims of Education and placed tremendous emphasis on “Education for Peace” (Position Paper by National Focus Group on Education for Peace, 2006). The National Focus Group on ‘Education for Peace’ proposes the concept of peace as the all-powerful aim towards which the education system should be geared. It explains ‘Education for Peace’ as, “Education for peace is holistic. It embraces the physical, emotional, intellectual, and social growth of children within a framework of human values. Recognizing peace as holistic carries two major implications for education for peace. (a) Peace involves all aspects and dimensions of human existence in an inter-dependent way. Only those who are at peace with themselves can be at peace with others and develop the sensitivity it takes to be just and caring towards nature. Spiritual and psychological peace is neither stable nor viable without social, economic, and ecological peace. (b) Peace implies reciprocity. Values like love, freedom, and peace can be had only by giving them to others. Peace for oneself that excludes peace for others is a dangerous illusion. Education for Peace, hence, has a two-fold purpose: (a) to empower individuals to choose the path of peace rather than the path of violence; and (b) to enabling them to be peacemakers rather than the consumers of peace. Education for peace is, in this sense, an essential component of holistic basic education that aims at the comprehensive development of persons” (Position Paper by National Focus Group on Education for Peace, 2006). Such an education will enable an individual to think, reflect and reason, to decide the right and wrong for himself and herself and to act according to these. It would also imply a tolerance for the opinions and viewpoints of others, an ability to ‘agree to disagree’, to be able to live in peace and harmony within diversity of opinions. It would imply developing an ability of self-introspection and an ability to engage with diverse ideas, in the process also subjecting one’s own ideas and opinions to test. It also implies the development of an ability to recognize an individual’s liberty over his/her own thoughts and actions, as long as they do-not affect others. The recognition of this ability would enable an individual to be able to live in harmony with diverging and even conflicting viewpoints, without feeling the need to force one’s own opinions on others. However, the liberty to hold opinions needs to be accompanied with a responsibility, that of subjecting those opinions to the rigor and turmoil of being debated and discussed, lest they turn into static entities. This is the spirit that needs to be developed and inculcated through creating an atmosphere of engagement, discussions, constant generation of new ideas and refinement of the existing ones. Schools and teachers have an indispensable role to play in this, along with families and the society.

 

In my view, the above aims are the ones that need to be reinforced through our education system, for it to be meaningful in any manner. Even if we succeed to ensure 100% literacy rates, complete access and nil dropout rates, still if the content of what is being delivered to students is lacking, it will be a total waste of all the efforts put in.

 

However, what is thought of as essential to be imparted vide the education system depends to a large extent on the political dispensation and its ideology. Education is the most potent tool in the hands of any political dispensation, with the help of which it can propagate its ideology and mold the future of the nation in a manner it desires. The current political dispensation is leaving no stone unturned in making full use of this tool. The New Policy on Education is already in the pipeline. It is being touted as a policy that, once formulated, will be the result of a holistic consultative process. However, the framework for the consultation process has already been provided by the Central government, and is hosted on the website of Ministry of Human Resource and Development. Thirteen themes that have been listed down for discussions and feedback. The first theme is titled “Ensuring Learning Outcomes in Elementary Education”. The entire focus in this theme is on the need to develop basic language and numeracy skills in schools, improving reading, writing abilities etc. of children. Elementary education refers to the first eight years of schooling of a child. The entire discourse of elementary education is, in most of the discussions, limited to only how basic skills can be developed in children. When it comes to the theme of higher and secondary education, the focus is entirely on skill development, ICT, improving Science and Math education, use of PPP model etc. The overarching aim of education that has been fore fronted by the present dispensation is the utilitarian aim with focus on skill development, ICT etc. The aim of education to establish a just and humane society, which was emphasized by NCF, 2005, has been relegated to the background. This is no surprise though, and is completely in line with the ideology of this political dispensation, which has made it amply clear as well. The idea of a just and humane society, as per the current dispensation, is a society that believes in jingoistic patriotism, Hindutva nationalism, caste superiority, religious bigotry and so on and so forth. The proposed National Education Policy is a step in the direction of reflecting this political ideology in the school curriculum. Certain steps have already been taken in this direction, for example, the Rajasthan state government, has recently decided to distort and twist historical facts themselves, as a result of which, in the new history that children will now learn, Akbar, an outsider Muslim ruler, was defeated in the Battle of Haldighati, and the Indian/Hindu pride was upheld against the Muslim alien.

 

Another way in which this dispensation is trying to impact the minds of the young in schools is through the hidden curriculum. Post NCF, 2005, the NCERT textbooks that have been published are revolutionary in nature. There are certain other organizations as well that are working towards providing a meaningful learning experience for children. However, the teaching-learning of students is not limited to the stated curriculum itself. The hidden curriculum plays even a greater role in molding the minds of the young. To completely utilize the space of hidden curriculum, the present dispensation is leaving no stones unturned. I visited certain municipal schools in Mumbai, for a field study of mine, wherein I wanted to elicit from them their understanding of the term ‘patriotism’. These Municipal schools in Maharashtra are also taught a supplementary curriculum, called ‘Sangati’, for three years, (Classes V-VII), brought out by the Avehi Abacus Organization. This is an integrated curriculum, comprising of six kits, and aims to provide links between different subjects taught at school, help children integrate all that they learn in school and outside, build children’s self-confidence and develop skills of observation, analysis, articulation and decision-making, and provide a perspective based on values that emphasize interdependence and the need to live together in harmony. Equality, sensitivity, celebration of diversity, concern for the environment, and respect for work and the dignity of labour are some of the fundamental values that are emphasized throughout the Sangati series (this is the stated aim of the organization, which can be found at their website). Through this curriculum students are being exposed to pretty mature understanding of various issues like caste, religion, democracy, patriotism etc. However, during my field study I found that the actual impact of this curriculum was muted as compared to its potential impact. This, according to me, was firstly because of the interface between curriculum and students, i.e., teachers, who have been trained to teach the dominant perspective, and find it difficult to deal with their own prejudices and biases that are continuously fed in a society that rewards conformity to dominant viewpoints. Secondly, hidden curriculum played a major role, in the impact of the curriculum being muted. For instance, all the municipal schools had been instructed to celebrate Independence Day in a particular manner, wherein they were instructed to conduct various programs/competitions like patriotic songs singing, painting, declamations, speeches etc. (related to ‘patriotism’/’nationalism’) and send a proof of the same (photos/videos etc.) to the concerned officials. The schools were busy doing this work even till the twenty third of the month of August (the last day to submit their reports and proofs). Such forced celebrations of Independence Day in certain particular manners obviously left no room for imagination for the students to think about the meaning of the term ‘Independence’, or what else could be done on this day etc. Such directives purposely shifted focus towards jingoistic and loud and slogan chanting patriotism, rather than allowing the children to actually understand and internalize the meaning of patriotism, which could also mean, for instance, striving to do one’s best in every situation, living in peace and harmony with others, trying to build a just and humane society etc.

With the intentions of the political dispensation sufficiently clear, it is only a matter of time however, when the entire discourse would have been completely tilted more and more away from justice, egalitarianism and humanity. That day, however dreaded and dreadful, does-not seem very far. Considering the bleak scenario, it becomes an urgent duty of all who are concerned to at least try and de-accelerate the process of deterioration of the societal mindset and continuously provide and highlight alternate and more accommodative and just ways of thinking and acting.

 

 

 

IGP Kalluri asked to proceed on leave: A necessity, not a virtue

IGP Kalluri, the man alleged to have committed untold atrocities on clueless tribal people in Bastar, and the scores of human rights activists who have tried to intervene time and again in order to demand at least a semblance of justice for these innocent people, (who have been mercilessly mass-murdered, raped, beaten ruthlessly, maimed etc.) has been very graciously asked by the government to proceed on ‘medical leave’. This, after the activist Bela Bhatia was openly threatened and forced to leave Bastar, and the NHRC took notice and put the government and IGP Kalluri in the dock. This is not the only incident though, where the man has been accused of hounding human rights activists. In the recent past, there have been a series of incidents where any human right activist who has tried to stand up for the people of Bastar, has been either abused and hounded out of the state, and in some cases, even slapped with a murder case, by the State actors themselves, under the able leadership of IGP Kalluri.

It is pertinent to understand here that any action or inaction by the police force under Kalluri’s leadership has to be read as the action and inaction of the State as well. The declared agenda of Kalluri against the tribal population of Bastar, and any human rights activists trying to represent the concerns of that tribal population, could not have been practiced so blatantly without the implicit and tacit support of the State. It is in fact the best indicator of the State policy. Keeping in line with this very policy, Kalluri has been asked to proceed on leave. There has been no requirement felt by the State to suspend the man and at the least institute an enquiry against him. Instead, he has been rewarded with a gracious period of long leave, on medical grounds (where none existed), after which he can be quietly asked to re-join service at some other place and the horrific crimes committed by him during his tenure at Bastar, can be easily forgotten about.

In all this hogwash, where should one look even for a ray of hope for justice, even if delayed, for the innocent tribal population that has faced wrath at the hands of the State itself, the State which is constitutionally and legally bound to protect them? How will justice be delivered to those who dared and keep daring to stand up to this State repression, incidentally forced to step in because the State chooses not to do its job? This whole ‘proceed on leave’ drama is just another wily step by the State to wriggle out of the mess it has created for itself.

The big question, however, still remains unanswered. The Constitution and the legal-justice system emanating out of it has divided the State into three organs, the Executive, the Legislature and the Judiciary. The Legislature is responsible for passing laws and ensuring their compliance. The Executive is responsible for implementing these laws and maintaining law and order in the State. It is responsible and answerable to the Legislature. The Judiciary is responsible for administering justice to the common man when their rights are trampled upon by the State or the non-state actors. All these three organs are collectively responsible to the Constitution, and finally to the people of the nation, as it is “We, the people” who have given ourselves this Constitution. Now, if this very State and the humungous system created (at least theoretically) by the people and for the people, turns against those very people, to whom should the people turn to? Why is it that justice should have to be demanded and struggled for and snatched from the system, by few individuals and groups who care? Human rights, as the term itself indicates, are rights that every human being has, just by virtue of being a human. Why is it then that there is a need for a special category of people called the ‘’human rights activists”, fighting incessantly (against the State itself) for these basic minimum human rights to be guaranteed to the people?

The proceeding on leave by Kalluri may be a brief respite for the harassed people of Bastar, however, in effect it is only a tactical move by the State, a move out of compulsion. The State should not be allowed to get away with trying to mask a necessity as a virtue.

The Culture of Impunity

It is unnerving to even think about the culture of impunity that is taking deep roots all around us. It has not happened overnight but has slowly strengthened itself, step by step, one incident after the next, and has gained enough in size to threaten the very essence of a nation priding itself on its distinct cultural identity. What are these incidents that I am referring to here? I will try to list some here, the list of course not being exhaustive.

The first set of incidents that I would like to talk about here is the exponential rise in casual and stray religiously intolerant remarks by sitting MPs and MLAs of the ruling dispensation themselves. The tacit encouragement to such unworthy and unacceptable behavior by the senior leadership, especially the Prime Minister of the nation, by an avowed silence on the matter, did-not help matters much. The mob lynching of Mohammad Akhlaq for allegedly storing and consuming beef was a result of this culture of impunity, carefully promoted bit by bit. To rub salt on the wounds of the Akhlaq family, the irreversible secular credentials of the nation and the ‘rule of law’ in place (at least on paper), one of the murderers of Mohammad Akhlaq was given a martyr’s treatment after his death, his family being duly compensated.

The mockery made out of the whole incident of Rohith Vemula’s tragic and untimely death, and the treatment being meted out to his surviving mother even today, is out in the open for everyone to see. Again, the Prime Minister of the nation publicly honoured the Vice-Chancellor of the University involved in the entire incident, making the present dispensation’s motives and priorities amply clear.

As if religion and caste were not basis enough for oppression, the excesses committed and being committed on the tribals of Chhatisgarh, especially Bastar, are so unimaginable that it is difficult to even mention them. The sordid tales of rapes, murders, abductions and so on and so forth of these people have become so routine that they have even lost the power to horrify us. Another practice has become routine in Bastar, of late, the illegal threats, arrests and detentions of any and every human right activist who has the courage to stand up for these innocents. It is the State versus the human rights crusaders. When the State itself starts committing excesses, breaking all rules and laws blatantly and openly, then ‘Rule of Law’ turns into a sham, an English phrase of three words that means nothing but all the same is used very often to mean something that is an irrevocable principle for the existence of the State. Numerous rules and laws can also be invented and created by the State to defend all its actions resulting in undue excesses and unmatched suffering for the ordinary, and equally, even the existing rules and laws cease to exist when ordinary men and women dare to question peacefully and legitimately the illegal actions of the State.

The intellectual fraternity, digressing from the dominant perspective and standing up to the bullying of the State has again and again been snubbed in no unclear terms. FTII students protesting peacefully against the dilution of their alma-mater’s legacy of excellence, by the appointment of a mediocre (to say the least) individual to head the institution were worn down by an undue and disgraceful use by the State, of its power. The JNU fraternity, students, faculty, ex-faculty, their sympathizers, all were and are continuously targeted. A JNU student remains missing, vanished into thin air to date, and no one seems to be bothered in the least.

 

Talking of protests, Kashmir has been witness to the worst form of State repression since decades. The impunity with which the civilian population was dealt with in recent times though, blinding many civilians through the use of pellets, and feeling righteous about the same, forces one to shrink with a sense of horror, a deep horror at one’s vulnerability at the hands of a powerful State, adamant on wearing that power as a badge of honour. The multitude of atrocities committed by the State under the complete and unquestioned protection of AFSPA and such absolute laws, do-not even surface that frequently in discussions even, so routinized have they become. Unable to make the deaf State hear her plea for sixteen long years, Irom Sharmila finally decided to break her hunger strike, fully well understanding the futility of her struggle.

The redefinition of ‘patriotism’ is a stated agenda that the present dispensation has embarked on. So patriotism now means standing in attention position whenever you hear your national anthem being played, standing in long queues for withdrawing your own hard-earned money, to the limits that have been fixed for you (through an illegal Executive Order, because fixing of any limits on withdrawal of money from one’s own account does not have any backing in law), indecently celebrating acts of destruction (surgical strikes) as if these were festive, rather than extremely sad and unfortunate occasions, trolling celebrities for voicing their anxieties, or for naming their kids as they wish, demonstrating outrage against those very Pakistani artistes whom one adored and worshipped till the previous day and declaring everyone not agreeing with the status-quo as an anti-national, not fit to be called an Indian national.

The most disruptive action of the State was carried out with the most impunity, with blatant disregard to any established rules, laws or procedures, in a totally autocratic manner, the best part being that it was disguised and projected as the most virtuous act possible. Millions and billions were taken in by the false narrative, many not for long, when the charade started unravelling. However, the State continues to co-opt the 125 crore population of the nation in its most disruptive and autocratic act, and continues to project the demonetization exercise as an act for the people, with complete support of the people. The culture of impunity is so strong that even a cursory need to maintain at least a semblance of democracy is not felt.

Why is it that this culture of impunity has become so entrenched? Why are we the people allowing ourselves to be led down a path where a conscious attempt is being made to fabricate a false fear of the ‘other’? Why suddenly a culture that prided itself on being like a sponge, absorbing the best of all, co-existing peacefully with all, feels the need of creating binaries out of every situation? So Mughals, all of a sudden, become the hateful outsiders who ruined our civilization, Pakistani artistes become the nationals of an ‘enemy’ country, fit only to be condemned, all the tribal population of Bastar and their sympathizers become Maoist supporters, out to destroy the country from within, the Kashmiris, the eternal outsiders, become even more responsible for their own fate, by wanting to have normal lives for themselves and all of us who do-not agree with the status quo, become the anti-nationals, unworthy of being called Indians, fit to be abused, who should be eternally grateful for not being shorn off their citizenship and being allowed to continue to exist as equal (really?) citizens of this nation, as a proof of its utmost tolerant spirit. What is it that we are insecure of? Have we lost all faith in the values of humanity? Do we really believe all the world to be a horrifying place, so that we need to protect ourselves by delegitimizing and derecognizing the ‘other’, whosoever that ‘other’ might be? I don’t have the answer to any of these questions, but the culture of impunity must stop before it takes the form of a Frankenstein’s monster and engulfs all humanity in its throes.

 

The Fascination with Ram Rajya

In his recent speech in a rally at Faizabad, PM Modi stated, “…When people asked Mahatma Gandhi how good governance should be, he would reply in one word, a welfare state should be like Ram Rajya…”. This fascination with equating ‘good governance’ with ‘Ram Rajya’ is not new, so much so that the two are almost used interchangeably. It would be worthwhile to dig a little deep into this ‘Ram Rajya – Good Governance’ equation. I am interested in examining the following aspects of the PM’s statement, namely, the origin and meaning of the term ‘good governance’, ‘the meaning of the term ‘Ram Rajya’, the justification, or otherwise, of equating the two terms and the current PM’s invocation of Ram Rajya, Good Governance as well as Mahatma Gandhi in the same sentence.

The concept of ‘Good Governance’ found a formal mention in the 1992 World Bank Report titled “Governance and Development”. The term was defined as “the manner in which power is exercised in the management of a country’s economic and social resources for development’. This concept has been variously used and interpreted by various national, international and regional organizations and institutions. Some of the key elements that have been present in most of the interpretations are accountability, transparency, rule of law, appropriate legal and judicial frameworks and participation. This is not an exhaustive list, but a list of certain elements that find a mention most frequently when good governance is talked about.

Accountability, has been used variously to mean the responsibility of the Government, various institutions and the public servants and employees for their actions, towards the public, from which they derive their authority. Talking in context of one of the most recent and major decisions of the current regime, it has definitely not shied away from taking responsibility for the overnight demonetization of Rs. 500 and Rs. 1000 currency notes. It has presented this exercise with utmost pride, conveniently coopting the 125 crore population of the nation, making it seem as if this was some sort of a national fight against all the possible vices of corruption, terrorism, black money and what not. Some ‘minor’ details have however been overlooked in the process. The government has not bothered to hold itself accountable for the death of between a hundred and a hundred fifty people, the closing down of small businesses, the loss of thousands of jobs, the innumerable difficulties faced by the poorest sections of the society due to cash crunch and the nationwide dissatisfaction and unrest among the people towards the entire exercise. The Government has also failed to hold itself accountable for the daily shifting goalposts, the justification for this exercise sometimes being fighting black money, at other times fighting terrorism, then removal of counterfeit currency, then a push towards digital transactions and so on and so forth. The Government has failed to hold itself accountable for undermining the authority of independent autonomous institutions and acting like a dictatorship in the garb of democracy. The Government has failed to hold itself accountable for misguiding and misleading the public and the complete failure of this totally disruptive exercise. So much for accountability.

Transparency, the next element that is a prerequisite for good governance, has been the forte of this government. The entire demonetization exercise was carried out overnight, without even the stakeholders being in the know, let alone the general public. Further, the Government has very transparently followed the agenda of promoting symbolic nationalism, destroying dissent and dissenters, upholding the ‘’Hindu Rashtra”, coopting historical personalities like Gandhi and Ambedkar, one turned into a crusader for cleanliness (Swatch Bharat Abhiyaan), and the other a crusader for digitalization (BHIM App).

Laws, rules and ‘rule of law’ – these terms have been interpreted and re-interpreted to suit the situation and the person. FTII students, Rohith Vemula and his mother, human rights activists fighting for the tribals of Chhattisgarh, Priya Pillai, Nandini Sundar, Mohammad Akhlaq, JNU fraternity, and so on and so forth have had a taste of the Rule of law of the land. In fact, every common man has had a taste of the constantly changing ‘rules and laws’ of the land with respect to demonetization. Every citizen has been sufficiently guided about the rules that govern the modes of showing respect to the National Anthem.

The legal and judicial frameworks have been so strengthened that voicing one’s opinion against the dominant perspective and going against it has become the most serious crime, requiring forceful detentions, refusal to grant bails, years and years spent in jails etc. while causing death of innocents (provided they are ordinary non-influential people, or in some cases, deer), being involved in communally motivated crimes, etc., are not even seen as crimes.

Lastly, participation, which is the hallmark of a vibrant democracy, is in the most strengthened position, because 125 crore Indians are coopted into every decision that one man takes, speech after speech it is made clear that everything that is being done is in the name of those 125 crores, for those 125 crores and with full support of those 125 crores. Autocracy had never before been masked so completely with democracy.

Having discussed ‘Good governance’ and its implementation in the current political regime, it would be useful to turn our attention to ‘Ram Rajya’. What is the reason for such fascination with this term? The term ‘Ram Rajya’ refers to the rule under King Ram of Ayodhya. With our propensity to adduce historicity to mythology, Ram Rajya is talked of as if it was a historical kingdom, existing at some point in history. This, however, is itself a myth, as no concrete historical proof of the existence of any such kingdom has yet been found. On the contrary, we have had in our history, numerous great kings and kingdoms whose administrative competence and other abilities have been recognized and lauded. Yet, these kingdoms have not been made synonymous with ‘Good governance’. Secondly, setting aside the ‘God’ status adduced to Ram for a moment, can and should Ram Rajya be called an ideal state, something worth emulation? Not going into other details of how this kingdom was organized and how it functioned, I would like to point out just one aspect, the treatment that was meted to Queen Sita by the King as well as the citizens of Ayodhya. Can a state in which women are treated in such a disgraceful manner, be called an ideal state? Should it be called so? King Ram justified his actions on the pretext of fulfilling peoples’ wishes. If this was the true meaning of democracy according to King Ram, then why did he not bow down to peoples’ wishes when they were exhorting him to become the King rather than proceeding towards forest, when he was exiled by his father for fourteen years? King Ram, till the very end, stated that re-exiling Queen Sita was in deference of peoples’ wishes, despite him being fully aware of his wife’s chastity. Was it not his duty as a king to protect someone whom he knew was innocent? Can an ideal state justify punishing the innocent in deference to the majority? Is this what the Rule of Law states?

Coming finally to the Modi-Good Governance-Ram Rajya-Mahatma Gandhi combination. How justified PM Modi is in talking about Good Governance is amply clear from his track record of Good Governance as stated above. Equating Ram Rajya with Good Governance is highly questionable to say the least. Taking refuge behind Mahatma Gandhi in invoking Ram Rajya is again a replay of the old tactic of the present regime, of trying to coopt yesteryears leaders for its own petty gains. Even otherwise, Mahatma Gandhi’s stamp of approval on ‘Ram Rajya’ as an ideal state to vouch for cannot be absolute. Even the beliefs and utterances of the great need to be opened up and questioned, if and when such need arises. Lastly, even if the PM truly believes in striving for Ram Rajya, the actions of the current regime, in practicing total autocracy, despite protests by millions, are in complete contrast to those of King Ram, in his practice of blind and unhindered ‘democracy’ (as he believed it to be).

Haraamkhor (Film)

It was a lonely place where she had called him to meet. The place had to be lonely as they wanted to maintain anonymity to the world. Anonymous because they were respectable in the society and to maintain that identity they had chosen a lonely place where all their wrongs will be blown with the wind. And he did come because his hunger and satisfaction knew no boundaries. And as they met, the wind turned violent and the sun hid itself under the clouds. Slowly, he pulled her closed to himself and looked her in her eyes. The hunger in his eyes was so frightening that she surrendered herself in his arms transitioning into a state of complete satisfaction. It was as if, she had got what she expected and was now sure to feel it. And he hugged and kissed her, thrashed her completely in act of a savaging attack on the 15 year old minor girl. She had to be a part of this act because she had reached the age of adolescence and wanted to feel everything that can be labelled as “adult”. And he, a 35 year old adult had to do this because he knew she was vulnerable and would surrender to him. During this act of utter disgrace, the word “INTERMISSION” appears on the screen…

The lights were switched ON and I felt like vomiting. The film takes you to a very uncomfortable zone and who else other than Nawazuddin Siddiqui can do justice with this kind of role? Shweta Tripathi was equally phenomenal and did complete justice to her role. It was especially difficult for her because she being a 30 year old female played a character half her age. Before the movie started, I tried to avoid using the word "Haraamkhor", but during the movie, I must have used this word at least 10 times.

There were schools kids who add some light to this dark movie but in summary, the film handled the subject very delicately and did not cross over to obscenity. I felt the movie was somewhat dark for me but I also think that it had to be like that to pass on the message. After all, we do live in a dark world and the film just shows the reality!! The realities have a tendency to be darker than they seem!!!

Caste Question in India: As I understand it

What follows is not meant to be an academic analysis of caste and its operation in India. Such an analysis has been done time again by experts who have studied the operation of caste in India in great depth and are thus qualified to engage in a worthwhile discussion in the matter. What follows is, thus, my personal understanding of caste in India from the vantage point of belonging to a well-off Hindu Brahmin family. Why I felt the need to put across my point of view on this issue and even if I did, why anyone should bother about the same, are both important and very relevant questions which need to be answered. To answer the first part of the question, I felt like putting across my point of view on the caste question in the public domain because this issue (like many others) has and continues to trouble me immensely. This discomfort led me to read more on the subject and even a minimal study on the question would necessitate one to read about Dr. B.R. Ambedkar and Mahatma Gandhi’s views on the subject. The exposure to these views coupled with the current status of different castes, decades after these two stalwarts had debated the issue intensely, pushed me to look at this question in the current context. The second part of the question is a bit more complex. Why should anyone bother to read anyone’s personal views on any subject? There are two arguments that I can give to convince people to even attempt to read what follows. The first is that I think it is important that the voice of ‘non-experts’ is given due space and credence, for it can immensely contribute in enriching the understanding and debate on any issue, and also because it should be of utmost importance to the experts to know and understand the doubts and questions that a common person might be grappling with, while forming an understanding of an issue. This will help both the non-experts and the experts, the former in at least getting across their understanding, doubts and questions and hoping to get at least some of these redressed, and the latter in further refining their knowledge and ensuring that their expertise does-not remain a mere academic exercise, and reaches the masses. However, as a note of caution, I should mention here that while propounding any such views, it is the duty of both the expert and the non-expert alike, to back the views propounded with reason, and not indulge in mere rhetoric. The second reason that I want to give in order to convince people to give a hearing to my views is the social background that I come from. My writing below follows from a complete understanding and acknowledgement of my privileged social background and the knowledge that anything I put forward on the question of caste will always lack the authoritative voice and backing of personal experience. However, this lack of the authoritative dimension of personal experience is not something that I ever had any control on, and hence, I refuse to surrender my right of voicing an opinion on this subject for this reason alone, or for my opinion to be delegitimized on this sole account.

Caste, as I understand it, is a hierarchic division of society on the sole basis of birth. One is thus, born into a caste by sheer accident and is ordained to bear the name of that caste, for good or bad, throughout one’s life. It can be argued that primarily the Hindu religion is the progenitor of the caste system, and has legitimized the same, so a conversion to any other religion would nullify one’s caste identity. However, in practice, this theory has not quite worked, firstly, because the caste label is so deeply entrenched in our society that it refuses to go away by any act of voluntary or involuntary renunciation of a religion and secondly, because almost all the religions have somehow managed to legitimize and adopt the institution of caste, as if it was a very emancipatory and progressive institution and hence required emulation. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar’s rejection of the Hindu religion and conversion to Buddhism was an act of rejection of the ghastly principles on which the abominable caste system is based, yet it is doubtful if merely this act could have granted him a freedom from his caste label (if we assume that it did) and the indignities coupled with the same, if he had not been the authority that he was. The voice and the social standing that he acquired resulted from the education he pursued and from the intellectual ability that he developed, in the face of all adversities that he was subjected to by virtue of being born into an untouchable caste. That he (and some others) could acquire this social standing despite all odds is many a times used as an argument for maintaining the illusion of merit. It is argued that if one, or a few, individual(s) can succeed despite odds, what is the hindrance in others doing the same? The hindrance, it seems, is not one but many. First and foremost, it is a lame argument in justification of a totally irrational system that guarantees certain privileges to some solely based on their birth, and vehemently denies them to certain others for the same reason. Secondly, the sheer grit and determination of one can surely be lauded and celebrated, however, it cannot be used as a constant reminder for the others of their worthlessness, for the sole reason, that it is not so. One individual’s success or failure is the culmination of a multitude of factors that form a part of that individual’s struggle. Other individuals have to tread their own individual paths. The law of justice would say that the state and the society should ensure that this path has equal obstacles, if their presence is necessary, for every individual, no more and no less, for any reason whatsoever. If this is not the case, and all the obstacles of all the paths are combined together and put on one path, and if still the individual on that path is able to cross all those and achieve success, it is not a legitimization of this inherently unjust system, but only an ode to that individual’s perseverance.

Now that this ghastly inhumane and unjust system is the basic infrastructure on which our societal structure is standing, what is it that can be done to change the situation? Dr. Ambedkar, as I understand, would argue in favor of uprooting the entire structure and rebuilding it on more egalitarian terms, whereas Mahatma Gandhi would argue for reforming it and fixing the cracks that have emerged with time and faulty execution of a project that was otherwise intended to be a pretty strong structure. In line with his thought process, Dr. Ambedkar denounced the Hindu shastras, renounced the Hindu religion and argued for separate electorates for the untouchables. Mahatma Gandhi, in line with his thought process, denounced untouchability and called for its abolition but upheld the Hindu religion and shastras, as also the Varnashramdharma, which he differentiated from the caste system. (It has been argued by some that he changed his belief in varnashramdharma also at a later stage, but I could not find any conclusive proof of the same). According to Gandhi, the Hindu shastras talk of varnas and not castes. There were, according to him, four varnas, which were meant for the purpose of hereditary division of labour, and this system, was as such desirable for maintenance of a stable society. The work prescribed for each varna, according to him, was equally respectable and a Brahmin’s work was no more or no less worthy and respectful than that of a Shudra. The argument for a pre-ordained hereditary division of labour, even if not hierarchical in nature, cannot be justified to any reasonable extent. Every individual has a different aptitude and inclination and should have the complete freedom of choosing the work through which one wishes to earn a living. Secondly, equating the work hereditarily prescribed for Brahmins, with that hereditarily prescribed for Shudras and calling them equally respectable can at best be considered as an individual opinion, and not a statement of fact. The facts are entirely to the contrary, and speak for themselves. I, for one, if I was born into a Shudra family, would never be convinced into cleaning and doing such menial jobs to earn my living, by the argument that this job was equally respectable as reading, writing, teaching, trading etc. Neither am I convinced with this argument now, having being born into a Brahmin family. Thirdly, whatever the correct interpretation of the shastras, the fact is that these have been used to propagate and justify the caste system since time immemorial, and people with contrary interpretations have always been outnumbered. I am no authority on Hindu shastras. Though I wish to read them first hand and form my own opinion, I haven’t been able to do so as yet. I also don’t know if denouncing the shastras would mean an end to the caste system, or any improvement in the social status of those who still suffer the injustices of this system. One thing, though, is aptly clear to me. Even those who have left the fold of the Hindu religion are no better off than they were before. They continue to suffer the same indignities as they used to earlier.

Could separate electorates for 10 years as desired by Dr. Ambedkar, have led to real emancipation of the untouchables? With the benefit of hindsight, I feel it would have further solidified the caste system, and segregated and isolated them forever. The higher castes would have found out a way to keep them perpetually as a separate category of people, not worth mingling with the rest of the society. Would this have been desirable? Would they have had the political strength at least, so that they could improve their social and economic standing? For them, may be yes. But for the society as a whole? I am not so sure. Are we happy to perpetually live with this unjust, hierarchical and abominable mind-set forever? At least I am not. I am not prepared to live in a society that treats some of its members as lesser human beings, by the sole virtue of their having been born in a particular home, which was anyway never of their own choosing. Dr. Ambedkar was pessimistic about the situation ever changing, Mahatma Gandhi could not convince the higher castes of treating the lower ones as their equal human beings; as a common individual, should I harbor any hope of truth and realization dawning upon the many, any time soon?

 

Respecting the National Anthem

With the meaning of the word “respect” having been defined for us by the Honorable Supreme Court of India, it is pertinent to also look at the ‘’lawfulness’’ of the said judgment. The only reason I feel this is pertinent is because we are talking about a “Court of Law” here. In commonsensical understanding, a Court of Law would be expected to issue judgments that seek to uphold the implementation of a particular Law. The purported Law in question, in the extant case, is The Prevention of Insults to National Honour Act, 1971. I am quoting below, verbatim, the exact provisions of this Act, with respect to the National Anthem:

Section 3 of the Act states, “Whoever intentionally prevents the singing of the Indian National Anthem or causes disturbances to any assembly engaged in such singing shall be punished with imprisonment for a term, which may be extended to three years, or with fine, or with both.”

Section 3A of the Act (Inserted vide The Prevention of Insults to National Honour (Amendment) Act, 2003), states that, “Whoever having already being convicted of an offence under Section 2 or section 3 is again convicted of any such offence shall be punishable for the second and for every subsequent offence, with imprisonment for a term, which shall not be less than one year.”

As is amply clear from the above, the provision in Law that the Honourable Court is seeking to uphold is itself non-existent.

An invocation to “Fundamental Duties” as specified in Article 51A of the Constitution has also been made in the said judgment. Incidentally, these Fundamental Duties were a subsequent addition to the Constitution. This Article was added to the Constitution vide the 42^nd Amendment Act in the year 1976 (during the prevalence of Emergency in the nation). Co-incidentally, this Amendment Act has been the most controversial one in the history of the independent nation, primarily because it sought to strengthen the Executive and weaken the Judiciary, thereby tinkering with the delicate “balance of powers” of the three organs of the State. The only intent of highlighting this piece of information here is to underline the fact that the Fundamental Duties were not a part of the Original Constitutional document and secondly, these were included in the Constitution by the Act which was the definition of Executive over-reach. Interestingly, one of the provisions included in the Constitution by an act of Executive over-reach against the judiciary, is now being invoked by the Judiciary in a judgment that ranks among the top in the ones defining Judicial over-reach. The only difference between then and now is that the Judiciary had opposed the 42^nd Amendment Act tooth and nail then, but the Executive today is delighted and is promoting this act of Judicial over-reach, to the best of its abilities.

I am in no way trying to mean that the very act of amending the Constitution itself is questionable and should not be resorted to. On the contrary, it is a necessity. No document, be it the Constitution of the nation, can be fossilized in time and space. It has to be a living document, changing with the needs of the time. 42^nd Amendment has been questioned only because of the manner in which it was forced upon the nation. The addition of Fundamental Duties was only a small portion of the sweeping changes that were sought to be brought about through this undemocratic Act.

Yet again, nothing in the above is to suggest that Fundamental Duties should not be a part of the Constitution. The question here is the interpretation we want to attach to these and the manner in which these shall be implemented and invoked. Let me first refer to Clause (a) of Article 51(A) of Part IVA of the Constitution, which states the Fundamental Duty in question here:

“It shall be the duty of every citizen of India – (a) to abide by the Constitution and respect its ideals and institutions, the National Flag and the National Anthem”.

The Honorable Supreme Court has, in its judgment, interpreted the abovementioned Duty as follows:

“From the aforesaid, it is clear as crystal that it is the sacred obligation of every citizen to abide by the ideals engrafted in the Constitution. And one such ideal is to show respect for the National Anthem and the National Flag. Be it stated, a time has come, the citizens of the country must realize that they live in a nation and are duty bound to show respect to National Anthem which is the symbol of the Constitutional Patriotism and inherent national quality…..”

The judgment does not take the pains to decipher any of the following to us ignorant beings:

• How does mandatory playing of the National Anthem in cinema halls amount to showing respect to the National Anthem?
• How is showing of respect related to standing up or sitting down?
• What is the meaning of the term “Constitutional Patriotism”?
• What does one mean by the term “inherent national quality”?

Also, if the ‘’non justiciable’’ fundamental duties deserve a mention in a Supreme Court judgment that all the citizens need to abide by, then I would like to mention below only a couple of other Fundamental Duties which deserve the same level of abiding by:

• To promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India transcending religious, linguistic and regional or sectional diversities; to renounce practices derogatory to the dignity of women
• To develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform

My humble plea to the Honorable Supreme Court is to kindly consider passing some landmark judgments forcing the citizens of India (including those in power), to abide by the abovementioned Fundamental Duties in letter and in spirit. Abiding by only these two duties will amount to nothing less than a revolution (to say the least).

In the end, I would also like to make a mention of certain Orders of the Ministry of Home Affairs. I extracted these from their website. These are titled “Orders relating to the National Anthem of India”. In the first Para, this document talks about the full and short versions of the anthem. It envisages the playing time of the full version to be of about 52 seconds and the short version to be of about 20 seconds. I would request the Ministry of Home Affairs to depute its personnel to all the cinema halls of the nation and see for themselves the various “creative” versions of the National Anthem being played in each one of them (which actually are not complying with these Orders). Paragraphs II and III talk about “Playing of the Anthem” and “Mass singing of the Anthem” respectively. Nowhere in these is a mention of cinema halls as appropriate or necessary places for playing of the Anthem. Paragraph V (1) states, “Whenever the Anthem is played, the audience shall stand to attention….”. This is the only place where ‘standing in attention position’ is mentioned with respect to the National Anthem. However, two observations need to be strictly noted in this context. Firstly, these are Executive Orders, not calling for invocation of penal provisions in case these are not followed. Secondly, I would like to mention verbatim the next very clause mentioned in the same Paragraph, which states, “As in the case of flying of the National Flag, it has been left to the good sense of the people not to indulge in indiscriminate singing or playing of the Anthem.” I leave it to the Readers’ good sense to themselves judge whether or not playing of National Anthem compulsorily in all the cinema halls of the nation before each and every show of each and every movie released, amounts to “indiscriminate singing or playing of the Anthem.”

Demonetization and Gandhi

The entire demonetization story has been parsed, discussed, analyzed and commented upon in detail, by its supporters and non-supporters alike. There is not pretty much left that can be contributed to the debate, however, I wish to attempt a Gandhian analysis of the move in the following paragraphs.

Why did I feel the need to take up such an analysis? Probably because, close to seventy years into our independence, India, as a nation has still not been able to detach itself from the Gandhian legacy, even when it has made an attempt. Gandhi has been furiously debated, loved and hated, but his impact on the Indian psyche has not diminished. The most visible proof of this is his consistent and continuing presence on the Indian currency (be it the demonetized 1000 rupee note or the newly minted 2000 rupee note, though he has this time chosen to look in the opposite direction).

The present political dispensation has made a valiant, but I would say a hollow, attempt to redefine Gandhi solely as a ‘crusader for cleanliness’. His preference for keeping one’s surroundings clean was the only thing that they could (rather wanted to) pick up as worthy of emulation. Gandhi, today, has been reduced to a poster boy for the “Swachch Bharat Abhiyan”. The reason for this might not be very difficult to gauge. The current political dispensation, visibly averse to Gandhian thought and legacy, would of course not want to have anything to do with that legacy, but Gandhi being so entrenched in the heart and soul of the nation, they also cannot be seen to be openly anti-Gandhi. Hence, this whole farce of Gandhi and the Swachch Bharat Abhiyan.

Howsoever may the political dispensation of the day like to believe that Gandhi is synonymous to cleanliness, we all know that Gandhi was and still remains such a cult figure that very few can legitimately claim to even understand and talk about him with authority. Although, each and every one of us might claim an expertise on him, yet more often than not we only succeed in misunderstanding and misinterpreting the man.

What I am going to attempt further, is thus, based on my limited understanding of the man and his thoughts and I do not claim that understanding to be infallible. However, I do want to make an effort to present my analysis, all the same. The most sacrosanct principle for the Mahatma, in my view, was the principle of non-violence. One clear example of the value that this principle had for him was the stand that he chose to take by calling off the Non-Cooperation Movement, when it was at its peak, in the face of one single non-violent incident. He stood through all the dissent that he faced at the time, and continues to face even to this day, but refused to budge from his stand. Violence, for him, did-not only mean physical violence but included all kinds of violence. I would like to quote some of his views on the relationship of democracy and violence:

“Democracy and violence can ill go together. The States that are today nominally democratic have either to become frankly totalitarian or, if they are to become truly democratic, they must become courageously nonviolent. It is a blasphemy to say that nonviolence can only be practiced by individuals and never by nations which are composed of individuals” (Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan, 12-11-38).

India, prides itself on being called the biggest democracy in the world. This word ‘democracy’ is used mostly out of habit I believe, without understanding the true meaning or import of this term. The term ‘democracy’ has a Greek origin. It is a combination of two words – Demos, meaning people and kratia meaning power. In effect, it means ‘power to the people’. Talking about democracy in sheer political terms, it has existed, in all practicality, as representative democracy, which means political power being exercised by a set of elected representatives (elected based on universal adult franchise in India). The majority party or a coalition of parties forms the Executive, helmed by the Prime Minister of the nation. The Executive, however, is constitutionally responsible to the Legislature. This is how the functioning of democracy has been envisaged in India theoretically, however, the interesting thing will be to understand how it is working practically, on the ground, especially in the recent times, in context to Demonetization.

The announcement of this completely disruptive move of demonitization was made by the Prime Minister of the nation on a particular day. The effect of this move was to suck out 85% of currency out of the system with effect from the midnight of that day. As India is an avowed democratic nation, the announcement was in the name of the masses, with a huge fanfare, convincing the masses that after a very short period of inconvenience of a few days (which was essential to face if anyone was to pass the litmus test of ‘patriotism’), they would be the utmost beneficiaries of this move. I don’t want to get here into an analysis of the legitimacy of those promised benefits and to what extent they have materialized or could materialize in the future, because many more talented and experienced people have already analyzed it threadbare. My focus here is on the practice of democracy in this case. This decision, as it soon unfolded, was taken in the most autocratic of manners with the immediate stakeholders and the institution responsible for monetary policy also mostly being taken by surprise (except for the very top echelons, who were co-opted into the decision, totally destroying the autonomy that is essential for the functioning of this autonomous institution). There was absolutely no need felt to be answerable to the Legislature, to which the Executive is constitutionally responsible. The move led to the disruption in the life of millions (most of them from the poorer sections of society), and hundreds lost their lives. But the interesting thing in all this is that this move is being hailed and projected as the most democratic move ever made, because it is being proclaimed to have been carried out in the name of the masses and for the whole and sole benefit of the masses. How further from the truth could one really get?

Coming back to the question of democracy and violence, is this not the practice of the worst kind of violence possible? If not, then what else can be termed as violence? But I don’t think we should be surprised by this act of naked violence. When acts like standing in a queue for withdrawing some pittance from your own account and standing up for national anthem at cinema halls becomes a proof of patriotism, then of course this form of democracy can be the only form that can be possibly practiced.

Mahatama Gandhi’s response to the practice of this form of democracy could be imagined to be something on the below lines:

“True democracy cannot be worked by twenty men sitting at the centre. It has to be worked from below by the people of every village” (Mahatma Gandhi, Harijan, 18-1-48)

But then, who cares about democracy, or for that matter, for the Mahatma anymore?