On the verge of saffronisation?

THE NATIONAL Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has developed a new `National Curriculum Framework for School Education.' The document is important mainly because the curriculum framework indicates the direction in which the education system of the country is to proceed for implementing the policy. More so, the present curriculum framework, in a certain way, goes to re-orient the thrust of the educational endeavour at the grassroot level - school education. In view of the decisive nature of school education, the school curriculum enjoys an extremely crucial position. The present curriculum framework acquires added significance for it happens to be the first formulation of its kind under the stewardship of the Union Minister for Human Resources Development, Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi, also a leading ideologue of the Hindutva/Sangh Parivar philosophy. Moreover, it has been given shape under the chairmanship of eminent educationist, Prof. J. S. Rajput. whose appointment as Director, NCERT, evoked mixed reactions. It was then feared that Prof. Rajput was made the head of the premier institution with the express purpose of gearing the education system to translate the Sangh Parivar's ideology into action. Under these circumstances, a discerning person may naturally view the present curriculum in context, and ask whether it has been manipulated as was feared? To put it squarely, if the school curriculum manifests the `Hindutva' ideology.

Infused with the grace of intellect and beauty of expression, the curriculum framework is not per se that simple as it appears to be. It is not so easy a task to appreciate its aims and far- reaching implications to a nicety without taking into account the contextual clues which presumably may help us find its real import.

The present curriculum aims at correcting two well thought-out flaws which are said to have crept into our educational system before and after Independence. It is claimed that India had an `indigenous advanced system' of education which was based on its `philosophy' and `religion.' But, the system suffered a setback under the colonial rule when the education system led to alienation of Indian education from the `wisdom, the beliefs and the value system' of the people who were `uprooted from their tradition.' It is further asserted that a sizable segment of the Indian society has, as a consequence, distanced itself from the `religio-philosophical ethos' and the `understanding of the past heritage.' In this analysis, it is obviously presumed that even the post-colonial system of education has not taken care of the problems, at least effectively and, therefore, the present curriculum framework focusses on the issue.

The solution is provided through a well-deliberated instrument characterised as `indigenous Indian curriculum' which aims at achieving the lofty goals of nurturing a `sense of pride in being an Indian,' `a national identity,' `a profound sense of patriotism,' and the like. In spite of the fact that Indians are not lacking in these qualities, the necessity of nurturing them is felt and, that too, very strongly. Why? presumably because these qualities are either perceived differently or proposed to be routed through a different channel. The curriculum seeks to strengthen national identity and unity through the study of the cultural heritage of India, by integrating indigenous knowledge or `traditional' or `civilisational knowledge system.' In this, education is assigned the role of conservationist: ensuring an appreciation and `continuity of cultural tradition.' What these beautiful expressions imply is a million dollar question and may be better answered only after the textbooks are made public. It is, however, evident that the past, presumably the ancient past, is sought to be revived. The view of identifying culture with Indianity is not that new. The Hindutva concept of cultural nationalism is too well-known to be mentioned in any detail.

The `constant erosion of essential moral and spiritual values' during the five decades after Independence is the other major flaw that the curriculum is geared to correct. And it may be read in conjunction with others such as the alienation from the `beliefs' and `value system' and `religio-philosophical ethos', as mentioned above. How are these to be corrected? Value education, with religion constituting its major source, is the prescribed solution.

Value education is envisaged to`restore and sustain eternal values, oriented towards the unity and integration of the people', `their moral and spiritual growth through education `about religions' and the comparative study of the philosophy of religions. It will also incorporate `experience and innovation' rooted in indigenous tradition' which may play an important role.

Moral education and acquaintance with the true culture of all people, through the ages, may be assigned a place in the curriculum for our own good, for the good of Indian society and, ultimately, for the good of humankind. But there is the question of motives. On the face of it, the provision(s) may not arouse suspicion. But, suspicion falls naturally on the person who has a motive. In this regard, Dr. M. M. Joshi's predilections became evident when, in 1999, an attempt was made to restructure education according to the RSS ideology and make it `Indianised,' `spiritualised' and `nationalised.' Further, the views of those who matter add weight to the suspicion that the education is on the verge of saffronisation. It is going to be `Indianised', `nationalised' and `spiritualised', even though these `religio- philosophical' expressions are conspicuous by their absence in the present curriculum framework.

The present framework assigns a key role to culture. But the content of culture, of composite culture in particular, is not yet a consensual matter. During recent times it has become all the more contentious. The culture of the Sangh Parivar's perception, as based on the Hindutva ideology, is radically different from that of the rest. Even our national struggle, which is to form a substantial portion of the national curriculum, has no single valid or consensual interpretation. Whether a balanced or judicious approach will be adopted in the selection, handling and presentation of contents thus emerge as a matter of grave concern. This concern emanates particularly from the motivated approach towards the Indian past as a whole in which present-day ideology is sought to be imposed upon the past.

Re-writing history and doctoring textbooks have been a passion with the RSS and this shows its bent of mind. Whenever the BJP has come to power, the first thing it has done is tamper with the school curriculum. The history textbooks are found to have been re-written to project the RSS/Hindutva viewpoint. The NCERT's own committee (1993) discovered that the chapter dealing with the freedom movement refers to the RSS and its founder in a way as `to provide respectability and legitimise the role of the Hindu communal organisation and their leaders.' In this, history is given a `blatantly communal orientation.' Medieval history was found to be full of falsehood in these books. If this is so and is going to be projected at the national level, its far-reaching implications are not difficult to perceive.

Prof. J. S. Rajput, at the forefront in the exercise to evolve a culture-based approach, which would serve as the backbone of the education system, prescribes the inclusion of stories from the epics, mythology and history to lead to an understanding of the culture and heritage and promotion of national identity.

With regard to content, he thus sets doubts to rest and reinforces apprehensions. Recently, the Union Minister of Human Resources Development, Dr. M. M. Joshi, contended that India was a `dharma pradhan desh'. Here `dharma' was part of governance but was unfortunately forgotten in recent times. He discovered that even the freedom struggle was fought under the garb of `faith' and `religion'. Hence, `it has to be preserved and practised.' Thus, what could be expected is that our children would have to study the unfolding of dharma and its operation to acquire the desired vision of values, culture and Indianness and to imbibe it as a norm for guidance and governance.

The others, who are branded as `noveau intellectuals,' could perhaps face a 1979-like situation when a serious but unsuccessful attempt was made to ensure withdrawal of the NCERT series of history textbooks under pressure exerted by the Jan Sangh segment of the ruling Janata Party. But what could not be achieved in 1979 has been managed now - the fate of the present set of textbooks is a foregone conclusion.

The Secretary, Minister of HRD (Dept. of Education) Mr. M. K. Kaw's views on religions as they appear in the first issue (November 2000) of the NCERT's Journal of Value Education deserve a serious consideration. The journal contains `basically conceptual and theoretical reading material' and `provides perspective to value orientation of education.'

In his article Mr. Kaw singles out certain identifiable religions for making scathing attack - when he says that `greater damage to our intellectual freedom has been caused by traditional religions, especially by those which have a single book', obviously Judaism, Christianity, Islam and perhaps even Sikhism. And that ``what they said is a mixture of truths and untruths.'' If certain religions and the teachings of their founders are to be viewed in such a perspective, then the purpose and consequence of moral education and education about religions may be imagined without much difficulty. With regard to the term `religion' it may be clarified that it is not equated with or used as a substitute for Dharma which in the words of Dr. M. M. Joshi stands for `righteousness, concern for humanity and compassion for all.' Therefore religion should not be confused with Dharma and thus may be treated to the exclusion of the `traditional religions' of Mr. M. K. Kaw's view. With this nature of religions in his view, Mr. Kaw implores `move away from traditional religions to a universal philosophy.'

And what is the philosophy of his liking? It is the Vedic philosophy - the philosophy of India that does not `have the artificial distinction between religion and philosophy. He finds many of the (Indian) religious texts as `penned in the style of scientific treaties.' And that India does not have even the concept of heresy which means prevalence of complete religious cum intellectual freedom.

To be more specific, he identifies the Vedantic tradition as the product of `open minded discourse and argumentation.' Thus it appears to be an open invitation to embrace the Vedantic tradition, which seems to be what the curriculum calls `religio- philosophical ethos'. With this freedom thus given, he proposes to abolish the entire freedom of conversion for he views the practice of conversion in any manner whatsoever as a major cause of interfaith rivalries. In this, his call for moving away from traditional religions and to embrace the philosophy of his perception does not amount to conversion. Nor, even the abolition of the freedom of conversion signifies a ban on freedom of spiritual consciousness.

In the same vein, Mr. Kaw adds a rider and which is equally pregnant with far reaching implications. He pleads that and it is in the same context, if there is a clash between the interest of `one group and one larger than it, normally that behaviour which tends to contribute to the welfare of a larger group needs to be preferred.' Will the same norm be applied to the world of pluralism? Any way, it smacks of an inclination to establish a dictatorship of the majority and imposing cultural uniformity.

Pluralism is an asset. Diversity is crucial to a dignified survival of man. There is then, no inconsistency between pluralism and political unity. The two can co-exist. Any organised and deliberate fostering of a particular set of values and culture-form from the state platform, even if well intended, is doomed to be forging uniformity. Culture and morality do not need tuitoring or governance. The two are incompatible. Let us make education a means to reduce disparities, instead of doing away with diversities.

Diversity can be cherished by bridging the knowledge gap by promoting an attitude of respect. Mere tolerance, which is repeatedly stressed in the present curriculum framework, will not do. One must learn to respect differences. What is needed is behavioural change to cosmopolitanism, and no single community of the world, howsoever, large and old or great it may be, can arrogate it to itself.

Let us learn to appreciate various religious traditions. In this, we should fight those powerful and aggressive forces which try to transform knowledge as an instrument of domination and exploitation and attempt to smother diversity for ulterior motives.

It is certainly not a crime to have a particular ideology. But when an attempt is made to impose it upon others, it has to be decried.

These are the times of child-centred education and the state is not child-centred. Its ethics is frequently Machiavellian. Even if it presents itself in the garb of a priest its real face remains unchanged. It has its own political interests to serve, where as, the purpose of education is not to serve the state, but to create cohesive communities where children flourish. Simply to acquiesce to the politicisation of education is morally bankrupt.

SHAUKHAT ULLAH KHAN

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Tobacco-free initiatives in India
Next     : Legend of a lady Sufi saint