The thrust of my argument is not “clear,” alas, even to a person of Neeladri Bhattacharya's perspicacity. It is not “to declare illegitimate the arguments against government action on the recent textbook controversy”: I have explicitly criticised the “government action” in a collective public statement (The Hindu, May 17, 2012).
But I oppose the view, frequently articulated in the media, that Parliament's jurisdiction must not extend to questions of curricula and textbooks; that classrooms must be insulated against the “political class” which presumably peoples Parliament.
It is incorrect to take “government” and “Parliament” to be synonymous, as Bhattacharya does: indeed the “government” too has shown keenness to curtail Parliament's jurisdiction, by-passing it on crucial issues like external treaties. No democratic teachers' or students' movement to my knowledge has ever demanded curtailment of Parliament's jurisdiction in the name of “autonomy”; nor was it the issue when the NDA “government's” decision against earlier textbooks was being opposed.
I do not claim that Parliament always uses its jurisdiction wisely. (Incidentally, the editorial summary of my article in The Hindu (May 22) that “it was entirely correct for the Lok Sabha to have intervened…” was misleading: I was arguing that it was “within its jurisdiction”; I did not enter into the question of its being “right” or “wrong”.)
The check to Parliament, when required, has to come by mobilising people, not by hiving off its jurisdiction in public matters to “experts.” Bhattacharya does not distinguish between different senses of accountability:
Parliament alone is accountable to the people, in a way that “experts” obviously are not. (Even members of a club are accountable to one another, but that accountability is not comparable to that of a publicly elected body).
Restricting jurisdiction of elected bodies and promoting a “cult of the expert” heralds the institutionalisation of an undemocratic and inegalitarian order. Finance capital for instance demands everywhere the “autonomy of the Central bank” from Parliament, which is a negation of democracy. I oppose such negation even when it is advanced for “creative pedagogy.” In India this “cult of the expert” is particularly objectionable since the “experts” are typically drawn from a small, upper caste elite.
Keywords: NCERT, Ambedkar cartoon row
R. Ganesh above is right. The writer should simply say, "I don't like the cartoon because XYZ. I am glad the parliament got into the act and killed it. Serves them (eggheads) right. Case closed"
Mr. Patnaik's arguments are half-baked at best.
1. Granted, parliament is more accountable than expert academics. But is parliament competent in the subject matter in the same way as an 'expert body'?
By this argument, we should make parliament supreme over even the judiciary. After all, the higher judiciary is not strictly accountable being 'typically drawn from a smaller, upper caste elite'.
2. Granted, experts could be biased due to their elite roots. But is parliament not biased? In any electoral democracy, the elected class is highly prone to band-aid solutions.
This is precisely what happened - MPs hastily undermined institutions and experts for cheap political gains.
Until we learn to respect experts, our textbooks will change with every general election. We will remain a backward society which cannot agree upon its own history.
Mr. Patnaik reveals his own bias. He camouflages his dislike of the cartoon as a defense of parliament's jurisdiction.
Prabhat Sir has been devil's advocate. However, remaining within the
framework of his argument, he cannot be proven wrong.His point is that
it is under the "jurisdiction" of the parliament to intervene in the matter of textbooks contents. He also says parliament can be right or wrong. Now the check to parliament's decision,to quote him "...has to come by mobilising people, not by hiving off its jurisdiction in public matters to 'experts'". It is to be pointed out that people's activity is highly endogenous to their environment. In capitalism, market mechanisms such as exit from a system has been favored over political ways such as raising voice against it.Poor polling percentage in the general elections in India can be one of the instances where people of the country have opted for 'exiting' from the very act of 'voting' on account of being dissatisfied with the ways of politics in the country.
Eventually parliament is also accountable to the Indian Constitution.
Any discourse on accountability has to be build around the legal-
ethical ethos of this document. The argument that parliament is
supreme is untenable. Under this constitution there are constitutional
bodies like UPSC, Election Commission etc. Parliament has limited
jurisdiction over these bodies. Similarly what Prabhat Patnaik will be
teaching in his political economy course should not be decided on the
floor of the parliament. And probably Prabhat will agree with the last
point. As NCERT deals with school education no expertise is needed for
farming the curriculum and writing the textbook ! If at all 'experts'
need to be consulted, not respected. This is crux of the prabhat's
argument. It is one extreme to suggest that all the policy issues
should be handed over to 'experts', but it is again another extreme to
suggest that all spheres of life (except university curricula!) should
be determined by 'elected' members.
Mr John Nikos, why not send your children to schools where upper castes are neither the teachers , nor do they write the textbooks?
Going one step ahead, why not send your children to a school where our honourable MP's are teachers? Parliament?
The writer's statement is quite wordy. Here is my understnding of it. The parliament is accountable to the people. Experts are not. Therefore parliament must write text books, if necessary, consulting experts. You don't like a text book written by the parliament? Then "the check to Parliament, when required, has to come by mobilising people", meaning you should get out, do a bundh, a hartal, a gherao, Gaadi Roko or some such thing. Quite simple!
I fully agree with Prabhat Patnaik regarding his last point regarding the "cult of the expert". In India, the "intellectual class" is heavily dominated by "upper" castes. A look at the composition of teachers in central universities would be sufficient to prove this point.
The last line "In India this “cult of the expert” is particularly objectionable since the “experts” are typically drawn from a small, upper caste elite" is very interesting. It seems Mr. Patnaik has run out of shelter and is justifying with all the bombastic words he can find.
At the risk getting a permanent flag from thehidu website, I must say that your comment updation really needs working. I think while it is important to moderate comments, It will also do a lot of good to publish most of the unoffensive ones on your site. I dont know how you actually identify "personal" and "irrelevant" comments. But I am quite pissed to note that my "relevant" comments have not been put up on the site after 5 hours of clicking on "submit".
Also, I know one thing for sure, This comment is not getting through!
Children must be taught how to think , not what to think - Margaret Mead. Now where do both of you stand ?
After all, Parliament is only a place of assembly for the elected members from
various parties to transact the business of governing. A single party or coalition of
parties with majority of seats, form the government. In the cartoon text book case,
it so happened that all parties were ganged up against that book, as no party
wished to be seen as supporting what looked like the dalit icon being ridiculed.
But, it is the government which has banned the book, not Parliament. Parliament
was only a forum, where all members agitated against it. The government,on its
own,could have banned even if there was no demand from parties to ban the book.
The question was whether govt,other than constituting a committee of experts for
preparing text books,should get involved with its nitty-gritty ? I think, Mr Patnaik
has failed to understand this,as much as the elected members failure to know
about existence of the cartoon book all these years, till someone showed it to
them, sparking the agitation.
@Saurabh Sharma
I completed my schooling more than 60 years ago, but even at my current age, I found the impugned textbook exhilarating. (It is available for legal, free download from the Internet.) The cartoons, including the one by Shankar under discussion, have been well chosen, and add lustre to the text. It should be read by adults also, by those who want to know more about our Nation, or want to refresh their knowledge. It is absolutely wrong to condemn the cartoons or THE cartoon, or the textbook.
In parliamentary democracy there is no difference between government (executive) and parliament in practice, as far as decision making is concerned. Can anybody say that the judgment of the supreme court in Shah Bano case was subverted by government, not by parliament or vice versa.
Second thing, the uncritical celebration of parliament cold be grounded only on the conservative theory of representation, which says once representative are chosen they are free to take decision as they deem fit; if people are not satisfied with them they should reject these representatives and their decisions in next election only. How can we accept this? Can the damage done to the people of Gujarat and to the idea of India by elected representatives be undone? Can all the incidents of imposition of President Rule in states be justified because each such incident was ratified by parliament composed of elected representative?
On the matter of appointing experts only this much can be said that people should decide broad policy parameters and rest should be left to experts. People should decide whether the nation needs to build rockets or not. Once it is decided that we need them, the task of developing them should be left experts and people should have no interference in that. This is not anti people or anti democracy.
First of all thanks to Hindu to start such initiative as it helps us to understand different views on an issue. However, I am cautious about the type of comments we are receiving from the readers. I think Hindu should not allow such illogical and ill-manner personal attack on any writer. So please filter respond more cautiously. After following through the issue I now completely agree with Prof Prabhat Patnaik's concern over cult of expert and undermining the democratic structure of the Nation. In all our actions and critique we need to be cautious about our action and its consequences.
Mr. Patnaik, your arguments are certainly valid and a large segment of academia also agrees with you. But your arguments are largely based on governance of academic institutions and the role parliament has to play in that. I think the central theme of your argument is faulty in that it does not consider the effects it would and is having on the output of such institutions. Ultimately, are we looking at thoroughly compliant institutions, or the kind of institutions that would help affect the intellectual capacities and understanding of generations to come. It may be said academic institutions do need a lot of autonomy and the political class should develop a sense of atolerance, and that expanding public understanding about the twisted realities of politics and economic situation of the country, and world in general is going to help us in developing as a society. Its not just about some offensive looking cartoons; are we saying that we are disagreeing with the message?
Very much agree with Prof Patnaik. The nuances in his arguments are easy for the agitated to miss.
I rate this article is on par with Prof Andre Béteille's article appeared in the Hindu recently. perspicacious, brilliant and instructive.
They are guidelines for Indian Democracy today.
Mr Patnaik,your highly verbose piece deals with the rare stratospheric heights of democracy, governance, pedagogy,experts,non-experts, villification, regulation, jurisdiction, institutionalization, rights and duties among other things.
As a parent and a citizen of this country I would like to know from you if you can give me good textbooks. If no one else can do so, can you write them? I shall buy them from you. If you cannot give me good textbooks, go away and do not give lectures.
" In India this “cult of the expert” is particularly objectionable since
the “experts” are typically drawn from a small, upper caste elite."
-- A thousand cheers to this statement. Neeladri Bhattacharya and his
"expert" friends should memorize this line.
Please Email the Editor