Adapting to socio-economic realities

THIS IS a response to the article ``No clear conception of curriculum for disabled'' (The Hindu, Sept. 5) by Vasanta Duggirala, Aditi Mukherjee, Rekha Pappu & Jacob Tharu of Anveshi Research Centre for Women's Studies, Hyderabad. Their article examines the ``National curriculum framework for school education'' prepared by the NCERT. The Anveshi article, we feel, sidelines certain critical issues that need to be addressed in the context of education in India today. We are of the opinion that the oppositional relationship that seems to exist between different categories in the context of education - NGO- government, cultural-political, local-global - needs to be re- examined. For any constructive move in the present context, one needs to go beyond these easy binaries.

In our very first scrutiny of the NCERT document, what was striking was its equivocal nature. On the one hand, it uncritically invokes Brahminical tradition as India's great tradition; it celebrates ``the fairly advanced system of education'' of ancient India without a mention of its exclusivity; and it articulates the goal of education being a woman-centred family. - all pointing to the peddling of a retrograde Hinduising agenda through school education. But at the same time it also speaks of the need for equality of access to education, education for the disadvantaged, education for women's empowerment, learner-centred, pedagogical and evaluative practice, a curriculum sensitive to specificity and innovation.

Fuzzy distinctions

Our problem is what to make of these overtly modern principles and premises informing the document? We feel that a cynical dismissal of these democratic objectives as merely ``notional'' or as part of an upper caste middle class Hinduising/ homogenising agenda is too simplistic. Also at this juncture, we feel a serious discussion of the scope, objectives and composition of a national decision-making body, such as the NCERT is called for. Moreover, we feel that any critique of national policy must make a distinction between the philosophical foundations and the functions of the modern nation-state and its mediation. Hence, this response to the Anveshi article.

The article mounts a critique of the ``strong monolithic cultural conception.... (that is) the driving force for the document''. It claims that the normative subject of the document is the upper- caste middle class Hindu male and makes much of the adverse impact of this `imposition' on a heterogeneous student population. However, a look at the discussion document shows that the subjectivity that the document hopes to constitute is one who has multiple identities - global, national and local. Currently this easy movement from one identity to the other is possible only for the upper-castes. Hence today the `global', `cosmopolitan', `secular' `Indian' is marked upper-caste - one who is IT savvy and at the same time cheers for Kargil heroes `protecting' India from `enemy' Pakistan and swears by the `universality of the Bhagwad Gita'. And sees no contradiction in invoking these identities according to convenience. In other words, the point we are trying to make is that when it comes to upper-castes, these identities don't seem mutually exclusive. So when it comes to the question of identity of lower castes and tribals, why do we, speaking on their behalf feel the need to protect their identity from the `homogenising' tendencies of the national and the global? Making cultural identity of lower castes and tribes an issue will only prevent mobility (currently possible only for upper castes) for them and is actually doing a disservice to them. An over-arching national vision need not necessarily translate into ``cultural violence'' or destruction of heterogeneous cultures. We have had enough evidence in recent times to see how upper-castes have stakes in national and global without giving up on local. So when the national curriculum envisages a similar mobility for a heterogeneous student population, to criticise this move on the grounds that the national curriculum perpetrates cultural violence, will pave the way for consolidating upper castes gains at all levels - global, national, and local.

Moreover, that the document certainly takes into account the heterogeneity of student population is borne out by its objectives: ``While identifying objectives it is necessary to proceed to various degrees of specificity from very general objectives of the curriculum'' (28). In a separate section titled ``Using culture specific pedagogies'', the document argues for diverse pedagogical approaches keeping in mind the plural nature of the Indian society: ``Since there is no one universal way in which the children learn, there is strong need for looking into the cultural context in which the child is placed. A child in a tribal society may process information in an altogether different manner as compared to the one from the urban areas and high socio-economic stratum. Pedagogy, therefore, should be culture- specific. Instead of using one uniform mechanistic way of student learning, cultural practices such as story telling, dramatics, puppetry, folk play or community living, should become a strong basis of pedagogy. Cultural specificity should get embedded in the pedagogical practices which should be evolved for tribal, rural, urban and other ethnic groups and communities'' (18).

Also NCERT only provides some kind of structure/guidelines to the States. In statutory terms, every State is free to adopt the syllabus it wants. The director of NCERT, in an article in TheHindu (Dec. 28, 1999) points out that ``with the introduction of constitutional amendments 73 and 74, there has been a basic shift in approach towards decentralisation of education up to the panchayat level... States and regions now have the added responsibility of developing context-specific curricula and syllabi''. In fact, in a seminar titled, ``Gender, Change, Representation'', jointly organised by Katha Regional Academic Centre and Bangalore University in February 2000, Ms. Gayathri Kumar Dutt, Joint Director, DSERT presented a report of a DPEP project, that conducted a study of existing texts at the primary level in order to identify gender stereotyping and then undertook to revamp the syllabus, based on the study.

Discrepancies

The Anveshi article also seems to make a strange distinction between the technical on the one hand, and the ideological- political on the other, when it says that the document ``refuses to acknowledge the political developments... if the issues raised are taken into account at all, it is only within a technical framework and not a political or ideological one''. However, the curriculum has a very clear ideological orientation. The curricular concerns of the project are stated as ``(providing) an education that would reduce inequalities and respond to social, cultural, and economic concerns of the learners and society and promote excellence'' (6). The curriculum, according to this document, should stand on three pillars - relevance, equity and excellence. It sees education as playing a very significant role in ``minimising and overcoming these (caste, class, gender) differences by providing equality of access to education and opportunity'' (emphasis-original) (7).

Given this stated agenda, providing language skills, communication skills, scientific temper, information and communication technology to a student population that increasingly comprises the disadvantaged can hardly be merely technical. Given the fact that upper- castes have almost monopolised these newer knowledge-power systems, it is immaterial whether access to these is provided within the formal school curriculum or not. They have enough resources to access these outside the formal space of the classroom. However, it is precisely for those disadvantaged sections that formal schooling is the only space for access to resources. Equally importantly, formal school is the only space where interaction/exchange/contestation between the diverse student populations is possible - a democratic set-up in the miniature.

The Anveshi article, rightly points out a glaring insensitivity on the first page of the discussion document where one of the premises for realisations of the Panchasheel in the present context is a `woman-centred' family. But the same document on page 8, under the section ``Education of the girl child'', also highlights the need for education, for women's equality and empowerment. It points out that the State has the ``right to practise protective discrimination in favour of disadvantaged population groups including women... Besides increasing access of girls to education, especially rural girls, there is a greater need that gender discrimination and gender bias in school curriculum in text books and its transactions are eliminated.'' (8) How do we understand the two contradictory roles envisaged for women in the same document? The pro-woman moves can be understood as in keeping with certain democratic goals and objectives. The modern nation-state, being premised on equality and social justice must respond to demands made by democratic movements such as women's movements. In order to understand the blatant status quoism on page 1 in the document regarding women, we only need to take a glimpse at the committee that has worked on this curriculum, as well as the advisory team.

The composition clearly implicates upper-caste men for whom `woman-centred family' is part of common sense. In fact a series of discussions of MP's Consultative Committee for Human Resources Development Ministry regarding this document clearly expresses dismay at infiltration of RSS ideology into State-funded institutions of higher education. One such RSS functionary, K.G. Rastogi's presence on several NCERT bodies, including its executive committee, general body and a host of advisory boards of various departments came in for strong criticism, resulting in his removal from one of the selection committees (TheHindu, May 2, 2000). This domination of upper caste Hindu ideology also explains why the document is strewn with references to Chandogya Upanishad or Vasudeva Kutumbakam, where every time tradition is invoked, it is almost by default upper caste Hindu tradition, again pointing to the mediation of the upper-castes.

The point is to press for greater representation for women, dalits and OBCs in such national decision making bodies as the NCERT and not to brand modern nation-state per se as undemocratic.

Practical approach

A distinction therefore needs to be drawn between the philosophical foundations of the modern nation-state and the specific mediation of its policies. In fact the same body, NCERT, in 1993 brought out a report indicting the BJP government in UP for giving the textbooks a ``blatantly communal orientation''. The report reproduced passages from numerous books to show how the BJP Government ``doctored'' history.

The evaluation concluded that the books were ``designed to promote bigotry and religious fanaticism in the name of inculcating knowledge of culture in the younger generation'' (TheHindu, Oct. 31, 1999). The point to note is that as a national decision making body, NCERT has to fulfil certain objectives and goals of democracy, which it can do only by resisting appropriation by upper-caste agenda setters.

The article accuses the document of educational policies that streamline students. But the insistence on a local-culturalist, fragmentary approach to education, on `informality', `flexibility', will only serve to streamline various categories of students, thereby denying them the opportunity of creatively participating in national and global life.

Such a celebration of cultural-specificity fails to take into account the changing socio-economic realities. Moreover, participation in wealth generating market activity will continue to remain the preserve of upper-caste men. This will only ensure that political competition gets nullified and will result in maintenance of status quo.

SHASHIKALA SRINIVASAN & NIKHILA HARITSA

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : Romance of dance and melody
Next     : Beware of spelling demons!