We are destroying the spirit of education in India – the spark of attached pedagogy, critical thinking and humanistic sensibilities. Possibly, the dominant political culture observed by sections of the media in this ‘post-truth’ era – is not in line with the art of debate and dialogue. Moreover, as ‘willpower’ often characterizes our leaders, it becomes difficult to accept concrete facts and truths that may destabilize their images as the ultimate savior of the nation. It’s no surprise that avoiding the truth becomes the new normal. And this distortion seems to have paralyzed the academic sensibilities of our academic bureaucrats.
the poverty of imagination
So, is it surprising that CBSE issued an apology for “unfair” Question on Gujarat riots asked in class XII Sociology board exam paper, The question read: “Under which government did the unprecedented level and spread of anti-Muslim violence in Gujarat take place in 2002?” Why is this unfair? Social science students should reflect on the dynamics of culture, politics and society. They must learn, ignore and think critically about the complex trajectory of socio-political ideals such as secularism, cultural pluralism and religious nationalism. What is the point of studying sociology if they are not aware of the violence inherent in the caste hierarchy or the tyranny of majoritarianism?
However, our academic bureaucrats are not enthusiastic teachers or educationists. See poverty of imagination in justification for forgiveness. We have been told that this “unfair” question is in violation of CBSE guidelines. We are told that a question should be purely “academic oriented”, “class and religion neutral”, and not on domains that “may harm people’s sentiments based on social and political choices”. If we go by this strange logic, our children should not be told, or encouraged to debate, historical/political episodes that influenced the trajectory of the post-colonial Indian state – Propagation of ‘Two Nation Principle’ by VD Savarkar. and Muhammad Ali Jinnah; The brutality of human consciousness in the violence of Partition, depicted with utmost sensitivity by writers like Saadat Hasan Manto; The assassination of Mahatma Gandhi by a Hindu fanatic; the magnitude of the emergency; Anti-Sikh riots in Delhi in 1984; Demolition of Babri Masjid in 1992; Or the rise of feminist/dalit/working class/environmental/civil society movements in the country. It is possible that the technical managers of CBSE may argue that all these episodes are “political” and therefore not “academic”. Furthermore, they would argue that debating these would hurt some group or the other. They may say not to mention anti-Sikh riots as it would hurt the sentiments of Hindus or not to talk about Gandhi’s assassination as it may hurt the sentiments of many Hindu nationalists. So, as seems to be the logic of CBSE, children should grow up with the belief that no one demolished the mosque in 1992; There was no riot in Gujarat in 2002; And there were no COVID-19 related deaths due to lack of oxygen cylinders during the pandemic.
critical pedagogy ability
Imagine Paulo Freire and Bell Hook reacting to a CBSE argument. They will probably make three points. First, they will destroy the perception of value-neutral academics. He would argue that in the name of value-neutrality, we often legitimize the status quo. In fact, the spirit of critical pedagogy awakens young minds and enables them to reflect on Shakti’s discourse. Therefore, a young student should not simply remember the Preamble of the Constitution as a fact; Instead, they should be inspired by teachers to look at the harsh reality and wonder why there is blatant inequality and caste/gender violence in our secular, socialist republic. Education is about asking tough questions and striving for a just social order.
Second, they will emphasize the creative agency of a young learner. The idea is not to memorize facts like a parrot nor to master the strategy to crack the pattern of multiple choice questions of standardized tests. In our classrooms, they must find their voice, their reasoning spirit and their willingness to walk alongside teachers as co-travellers and critical thinkers. There is no harm if in our classes they ask: Does the cult of narcissism negate the ethos of democracy?
And third, they will remind us of the art of building a bridge between the ‘self’ and the ‘world’, or the ‘personal’ and the ‘political’. When you are introduced to the thoughts of Gandhi, BR Ambedkar and Savitribai Phule, you go through a process of inner brainstorming; You begin to strive for a new world.
Our political teachers want to deny this liberating potential of critical pedagogy. And the irony is that our academic bureaucrats despise the spirit of emancipation education.
Avijit Pathak is Professor of Sociology at JNU, New Delhi
,