If we are asked to name a singular, monumental failure of
independent India, we can unhesitatingly point out that it was our inability to
forge a national spirit. Every institution contributed to this failure
including the education system. This essay excerpted
from ‘TWISTING FACTS TO SUIT THEORIES’ AND OTHER SELECTIONS FROM VOXINIDCA’
(pp. 290-298) examines the role played by text books written for school
students and how they contributed to exacerbate rather than reduce caste
schism. In particular it critiques the Class IX social science text book
published by NCERT in 2007.
In common understanding,
learning
means
the acquisition of knowledge and skills. In terms of behavioural sciences learning implies acquisition of
knowledge, skills and attitude resulting in permanent change in behaviour. It is attitude that informs thought
processes and character. This is the reason why traditional Bharatiya education focused on
shaping attitude
and character. Behaviour has two other modifiers:
experience
and conditioning. Experience is gained by repeated
application of knowledge and skills. Conditioning
is the
result of positive or negative experiences. Conditioning is the rationale
underlying the ‘carrot and stick’ principle of motivation. However, hardened attitude can sometimes override knowledge and skills in shaping behaviour. For example, erudition
may not bar a university professor from becoming a criminal; or a well-educated
highly-paid individual from becoming a terrorist. The focus of traditional Bharatiya education on behaviour and character was to defy experiential
conditioning. It was to tread the
path of righteousness irrespective of positive or negative experiences.
The three dimensions of learning are: education which helps in the
acquisition of knowledge; training
which
helps in the acquisition of skills and development which implies positive modification of
behaviour of
a permanent nature. Competence is the ability to selectively apply knowledge, skills and behaviour to suit the context, to
achieve desired results or performance. The objective of learning that we impart in
schools and colleges is to inculcate all three. Viewed in the light of this
preamble, how do the NCERT textbooks shape thought, attitude, character and
behaviour? The NCERT Social Science textbook for Class IX, published in 2007,
is rather grandiosely introduced to the reader:
“All too often in the past, the
history of the modern world was associated with the history of the west. It was
as if change and progress happened only in the west. As if the histories of
other countries were frozen in time, they were motionless and static. People in
the west were seen as enterprising, innovative, scientific, industrious,
efficient and willing to change. People in the east—or in Africa and South
America—were considered traditional, lazy, superstitious, and resistant to
change.”[1]
After reading this, the
reader is likely to be confused by the introductory part of ‘Section I’, as it
interprets the ideas that shaped India’s freedom movement. The latter informs
the reader that ideas like liberty and equality, products of the French Revolution and socialism, product of the Russian
Revolution, have informed anti-colonial movements in India and China. It
mirrors the Western view that Gandhi was inspired by Rousseau, the French
Revolution and Thoreau.
The chapter on
‘Socialism in Europe and the Russian Revolution’ (p. 25-48), written by Prof.
Hari Vasudevan of the Calcutta University, describes the origins of the Russian
Revolution in glowing terms:
“The political trends were signs of a
new time. It was a time of profound social and economic changes. It was a time
when new cities came up and new industrialised regions developed, railways
expanded and the Industrial Revolution occurred.” (p. 26)
To say that the chapter
is economical with the truth would be an understatement, as what it does not mention about the
Russian Revolution is perhaps at least as important as what it does. For
example it bypasses the more fundamental question that strikes anyone
interested in the history of Communism: “Why did a doctrine
premised on proletarian revolution in industrial societies come to power only in predominantly
agrarian ones, by Marxist definition those least prepared for ‘socialism’?”[2] Nor does it mention that “Communism’s recourse
to ‘permanent civil war’ rested on the ‘scientific’ Marxist belief in class
struggle as the ‘violent midwife of history’, in Marx’s famous metaphor”. (Ibid. p. xix)
The one party rule which
suppressed democratic rights, the reprisals, the forced labour camps, the
executions all get passing mention as if they were minor, insignificant
details. The chapter mentions the severe reprisals, deportations and exiles
meted out to those who were opposed to Stalin’s collectivization programme. But
there is no mention of the suppression of the right to free speech, an issue so
dear to the ever-agitating Indian communists. There is also no mention that an
estimated 100 million lives were sacrificed at the altar of the ‘class struggle
that was the violent midwife of history’, the world over, and about 20 million
deaths in the erstwhile Soviet Union alone. The Chinese version of Marxist Communism, to which a majority of
Indian communists owe allegiance, consumed a staggering 65 million lives in its
class struggles. (Ibid. p. 4)
The introductory part of
‘Section I mentions in passing that ‘[t]oday Soviet Union has broken up and
socialism is in crisis ...’ But the chapter on Russian Revolution was not
revised to reflect these changes in the 2007 edition, brought out a good
sixteen years after the implosion of the Soviet Union and the larger Communist world. The following
passage almost gives the impression that socialism (or Communism) continues to rule
about half of the world, as it did earlier and that the USSR is alive and
kicking:
“By the end of the twentieth century,
the international reputation of the USSR as a socialist country had declined
though it was recognised that socialist ideals still enjoyed respect among its
people. But in each country the ideas of socialism were rethought in a variety
of different ways.”
Is there a deliberate
attempt to downplay the excesses of the Moguls and the Communists, and the decline of Communism on the one hand and
magnify social distinctions in the Hindu society on the other? The two
anecdotes ‘Caste and cricket’ (p.151)[3]
and ‘Caste Conflict and Dress Change’ (p. 168)[4]
are pointers. ‘Caste and cricket’ is about the Indian cricketer, Babaji
Palwankar Baloo (1876-1955). It repeatedly says he played for ‘Hindus’ and
despite being very talented, never made captain of ‘Hindus’ because of caste
discrimination. In point of fact he played for the Hindu club, Deccan Gymkhana[5] in Pune. In those days
there was the European Gymkhana, the Parsi Gymkhana (the first non-European
club), the Hindu
Gymkhana and
the Muslim
Gymkhana,
as the British refused to recognise India as a single national entity. The four
played the ‘Bombay Quadrangular’ tournament which eventually expanded to the
‘Bombay Pentangular’ with the inclusion of the ‘Rest’. Palwankar was initially
rolling, watering and tending the pitch in a European sports club. The
Europeans used him in net practice where his bowling talent was noted. He
recounted that the Europeans never allowed him to bat even in the nets.
Eventually he was included in the Deccan Gymkhana team. Palwankar later
moved to Bombay and played for the ‘Parmanandas Jivandas Hindu Gymkhana’ club.
The anecdote omits several important facts which would have put the ‘caste’
issue in its proper perspective. There was a tussle between the conservative and progressive members of the Hindu
Gymkhana for the inclusion of Palwankar in the team and the progressives eventually prevailed. It
would be more appropriate to point out that Palwankar’s talent prevailed. At a function
to honour Palwankar, the well-known freedom fighter Mahadev Govind Ranade, a
Brahmin, garlanded him and chided his teammates for their caste discrimination.
At about the same time, Lokmanya Bal Gangadhar Tilak (another Brahmin) praised him.
There was a tussle (again) between the conservatives and progressives in the Hindu Gymkhana
when it was time to appoint a new captain for the team. What was left unsaid
was there was a valid cricketing reason[6],
at least in those days, for not making him captain:
“[Palwankar] Baloo was the team’s
main bowler, and it has traditionally been thought that batsmen make better
captains than bowlers. Bowlers, it is thought, have to think about their own
bowling while on the field while batsmen do not have any personal
responsibility and can thus focus on the broader game.”
The progressives won again and
Palwankar’s brother Vithal was eventually made captain in 1924, by which time
Palwankar retired. The Hindu Mahasabha fielded Palwankar in an election to the
Bombay Municipality in 1933, against an upper caste candidate. The Congress party fielded Palwankar
against B. R. Ambedkar in the Bombay Legislative Assembly elections in 1937.
On page 145 there is
another boxed anecdote, about Tom Brown’s Schooldays, a novel published a
hundred and fifty years ago. The anecdote has been included because there is a conversation
about cricket in it. The book has been prescribed as a non-detailed text for
high school students for decades, as a legacy from colonial pedagogy; just as
sections of the Bible were included in syllabi for university students pursuing
masters in English. The excerpt of the conversation between Arthur and Tom
discussing the virtues of cricket is perhaps understandable. But it is
difficult to comprehend the objective with which the following introduction of
the novel was included:
“Thomas Hughes (1822-1896) [...]
wrote a novel, Tom Brown’s Schooldays. The book
published in 1857, became popular and helped spread the ideas of what
came to be called muscular Christianity that believed that healthy citizens had
to be moulded through Christian ideals and sports. [...] In this
book Tom Brown is transformed from a nervous, homesick, timid boy into a
robust, manly student. He becomes a heroic figure recognised for his physical
courage, sportsmanship, loyalty and patriotism.” (Italics added.)
What is the effect of
these lines on young, impressionable minds? If one were to put it bluntly, does
it or not promote ‘muscular Christianity’? If the authors wanted to introduce a
cricket anecdote from literature there are many to choose from. A funny,
satirical account of the game “A Village Cricket Match” appeared in A. G.
Macdonnell’s ‘England, Their England’ (1933). In fact, the book became immensely
popular because of the description of the cricket match between a village
cricket team and a London team. Christopher Nicholson wrote in 2004:
“No other account of a cricket match,
or indeed any sporting occasion, has been as amusingly described nor is as replete
with historical, social and political allusions.” (Italics
added.)[7]
The history that is
taught in our schools appears to be replete with inaccuracies, flawed,
incomplete or politically slanted narratives. The syllabus does not seem to
have been revised, going by the information available in the NCERT website. The
rewriting of history in India does not have the brazenness associated with the
rewriting of history envisioned by Orwell in his dystopian Nineteen
Eighty-Four.
It is far subtler and for that reason more insidious. In the novel, the
function of Minitrue
(ministry
of truth) was to constantly rewrite history to suit the current philosophy and
objectives of the rulers. One should remember, Orwell wrote about the rewriting
of history in Oceania, a nation with a one-party rule. If India were ever to come under a
one-party rule, well, the mind boggles to imagine the consequences! It would be
naïve to dismiss the writing of history in contemporary India does not have
anything to do with such an objective! Fortunately, there is no need to wrestle
with a boggling mind about the consequences of one-party rule under Communism. Betrand Russell summed
it up for us, eight decades ago and about six-and-a-half decades before the religion
called Communism
imploded:
“Communism is not democratic.
What it calls the ‘dictatorship of the proletariat’ is in fact the dictatorship
of a small minority, who become an oligarchic governing class. […] To suppose
that it will always act for the general good is mere foolish idealism, and is contrary
to Marxian political ideology.” (Italics added.)[8]
Russell disabused the
gullible of any mistaken notions they might harbor about Communism being some kind of
democracy in which all citizens would have a say:
“Communism restricts
liberty, particularly intellectual liberty, more than any other system except Fascism. The
complete unification of both economic and political power produces a terrifying
engine of oppression, in which there are no loopholes for exceptions.” (Italics
added.)[9]
As if he was answering
the snake-oil salesmen who have been extolling the virtues of Communist dogma, he unequivocally explained
why there would be no progress under Communist rule:
“Under such a system, progress would soon become
impossible, since it is the nature of the bureaucrats to object to all change
except increase in their own power. All serious innovation is only rendered
possible by some accident enabling unpopular persons to survive. Kepler lived
by astrology, Darwin by inherited wealth, Marx by Engel’s ‘exploitation’ of
the proletariat of Manchester. Such opportunities of surviving in spite of
unpopularity would be impossible under Communism.” (Italics added.)[10]
[1] Bhattacharya, Neeladri. “History and a Changing
World” In India and the Contemporary World—I (Textbook
in History for Class IX. (2007). Publications Department, NCERT. New Delhi.
[2] Courtois, Stéphane, Werth, Nicolas, Panné, Jean-Louis, Paczkowski,
Andrzej, Bartosek, Karel and Margolin, Jean-Louis. (1999). The Black Book of Communism—Crimes Terror Repression (Translated by Murphy, Jonathan and Kramer, Mark. Consulting Editor:
Kramer, Mark). London. Harvard University Press. p. xix
[3] Kesavan, Mukul. “History of Sport: The Story of
Cricket” (pp. 141-158).The chapter is drawn mainly from: Guha, Ramachandra.
(2002). “A Corner of a Foreign Field: The
Indian History of a British Sport.” Picador. Chapter VII.
[4] Nair, Janaki. “Clothing: A Social History” (pp.
159-178) (Textbook in History for Class IX. (2007). Publications Department,
NCERT. New Delhi.
[5] Guha, Ramachandra. “Cricket and Politics in
Colonial India”. Past and Present. No. 161.
Nov. 1998. (pp. 155-190). p. 170. Accessible from http://goo.gl/FUq6Rc
[6] Ansari, Muneeb (2011). “The Bombay Quadrangular:
Cricket as a Political Forum in India.” May 2011. Accessible from https://goo.gl/FXB9ox p. 11 Footnote.
[7] Nicholson, Christopher. (2004). “The Funniest Cricket Match Ever”.
Accessible from https://goo.gl/UqoXVN
[8] Russell, Bertrand. (1935). “IN PRAISE OF
IDLENESS AND OTHER ESSAYS”. Sixth Impression (1970). Unwin Books. London. p. 70.
