Thursday, May 24, 2007

Reflections after 5th May session, Prasanna

The debate on education is never ending, at least criticisms are not new. I would like to react to some of the observations made yesterday.

1. On relevance of this group
2. Meaning of Education
3. Who is being educated?
4. They Vs us
5. Tradition, families, values, and modern schooling.

This group I believe sets to achieve understanding of education, learning, schooling. This is not new; we have seen these kind of initiatives before, we very well understand the shortcomings of the curriculum, schooling, and one need not be a rocket scientist or traditional panchayat or caste (community) leader to understand. The relevance of this group is not understanding and learning, because many in the group have strong view points, inspite of lofty motives it will end up in debates, arguments, and any research undertaken will be to prove already existing views. I suggest let us join a group of active members who are working for the poor, whose sole aim in their life is to make others join mainstream schools, come out of traditional occupation and who aspire to attend English schools. Let us join them as participants not as a dialogue initiator, not as a moderator. Let us fight there, argue with them and try to convince them of our ideas.
For me need of education has three components:
1. Employability
2. Ability to face challenge
3. Grow as a concerned citizen

I am not bothered whether he understands atman, or whether it makes him eternally happy, or whether he understands tradition, history, or whether he is indianised. I am westernized, I am not ashamed of that fact. So far I have not read any Tamil classics. I don’t think I have missed any great knowledge or values. I may enjoy reading them, but still the values are largely western liberal, individualistic and rational thinking. Indian system may have it, advaita, naya, and Buddhist might have perfected the art of logic and rationalism, but I learnt it from the books of western authors, and films. I don’t think I am in any way worse than the traditionalist. "Kural" perhaps suggest that discerning truth is knowledge. Ironically Tamil Nadu doesn’t have a tradition of critique as an art, I have never seen or read any books critically examining Thirukkural, kambaramayanam etc. today there are voices questioning the relevance of those doctrines, this is essentially because of western education.

Who is being educated?

Well everybody is: questions like who are we to educate them, were not they educated before the schools were established, is not traditional wisdom superior. Points well taken but i don't think it serves any purpose. People send their children to schools for money, and career (apart from other things), they send them to schools hoping their children don’t meet the same fate, not just to get wisdom. To expect a school kid to have wisdom of philosopher is ridiculous. If an IIT student is asked about the possible solutions to solve problems of world, he would think in terms of technology. To expect a 17 year old student to critically examine the implications is a bit too much. Schools are not multi dimensional, it approves certain kind of intelligence and abilities, in fact it admits only certain kind of people, but I guess this will always be there. I wish to quote the old and famous pandit and boat man story.

Inspite of the shortcoming I refuse to believe that schools are bad. Schools have kept the spirit of questioning and learning. Today we find the kids more enterprising than before, every parent vouches for that. In fact it is better than ever before. It is in the school the child learns to be a rebel, the relationship with the teachers are better. The modern fathers and mothers are liberal, friendly they may read books about parenting that is because they want to do and be the best.
Traditionally sons and fathers never converse. Fathers and gurus were authoritarians. Perhaps under the strict guru and father, they learnt it better. Today we may not have produced great musicians and dancers but we have more musicians, dancers. Look around us people are experimenting with everything. I see this as the best period for art, music and literature. If schools were just schools as we assume to be, then how do our kids have their spirit?

Education and schooling to Dalits are not as same as these are for others. Concerns about he losing his traditional knowledge and occupation is farcical at best. In fact attempts are made to put them to schools to move out of traditional occupations. I am bored of listening stories about the dying art of pottery, weaving and other traditional community work. I would like to hear us talk about asking Brahmins to send their kids to veda paatashala, today we don’t find have enough sama vedis, how about we taking up this art. This would be much easier for us to do because many in the group are Brahmins, there are mutts teaching this, and this could be a lucrative one.

And I would like the communities to be referred as caste not as communities, Nadar is a caste, it is not a community. It is misleading to refer it like that.

Finally if we are to be sincere to the problems of education, we need address the fundamentals of all the "Caste". Vaidya is not a vaidya by chance, he is by birth. Nadars worrying about their children not taking up trade, is a genuine concern, but are they willing to teach it to other castes, this way they can save their traditional "Trade". The question is not just about preserving traditional wisdom, it is also about that caste people willing to teach and share it to others. Perhaps all traditions occupations can be saved this way. I am sure there will be a dalit who would like to learn and become a purohit, and Brahmins to learn weaving etc. Of course some traditions and rituals associated with the art or occupation may go, be it. In the pretext of preserving traditions we can perpetuate caste differences.

I sincerely believe that if the group has to have relevance we should disband this group and join other groups working for education cause perhaps groups promoting SSAs. I dont like the idea of just inviting others for a guest lecture. I hope the group motive is just not to talk about what is education, if be the case, i think should all buy JKs book and be satisfied with this.
- Prasanna, 6th May

1 comment:

Aks said...

I agree with Prasanna on the three objectives of education. I feel that it more than covers what one can hope to teach to children. It is a good enough foundation and any further wisdom, as the proverb goes, can only be caught and not taught.

Personally my interest in education and why i wanted to involve myself in the field of education comes more from a positive experience than a negative one. I enjoyed school and college. What i am today is what Ewart and WCC have made me (and don't any of you dare say, 'why blame the college'). I wanted to ensure that kids who were forced into child labour or kids who could not go to regular school for one reason or the other, had an alternate avenue of education. I wanted 24 hour knowledge-workshops open for kids like that to drop in anytime for whatever duration and pick up skills that were in tune with their talents and aspirations with the help of volunteer guides who would man (or woman) the study-stations. I am sharing this to emphasis the fact that my personal participation in the group is not because i believe our current system needs massive overhauling. What it needs is some intelligent reinforcements.

I agree that there is a lot of quality upgradation needed in terms of input, teachers, teaching methods, examining methods etc. etc., but one can help improve all this without thinking of large scale dismantling of the current system.

Also, i firmly believe education does not belong to schools alone. the family and society play an equally important part in the education of an individual and if we feel that new generations of students are not emerging as thinking and responsible individuals and citizens then we have to see that we don't lay all the blame on the shoulders of educational institutions alone. Unless of course we leave 'character' out of our definition of education and just define it as the passing on of knowledge, info and skills needed to make a living - in which case the onus largely rests on formal institutes. But then we should measure them in terms of performance in those areas alone, with respect to ensuring people a decent livelihood, and we shouldn't talk of anything else.

So i think Prasanna's defintion of objectives is pretty good. If we could define on which aspect of education we could have the maximum influence on, then we can work out micro and macro level solutions for these and actually see some action.