In the wake of attempts to polarise public-opinion, the current government has shown an inclination towards Sanskrit but the controversy around this language subsists around the suppression of the lower-castes. Despite the spellbinding and beautiful sounds of the character set, we cannot ignore the widespread prejudiced parameters, social stigmas, educational subjugation of lower-castes and some bigoted tendencies evident in the processes of appointment of Sanskrit teachers, professors or pandita (scholars) in temples.

Fundamentally, a language is meant to develop the freedom of expression and imagination, and provide a space for diverse thoughts. The snag of Sanskrit is not caused by the profound and flamboyant entity of the dialectal showground but through the discriminatory approaches of a particular sect.

Academics and historians have emphasised the primeval roots of Sanskrit with other ancient Indo-European languages. Apart from an enhanced vocabulary and mesmerising tenor it preserves a strong scientific and reflective grammatical pattern which matches with that of Persian structural arrangement. The initial Greek, Latin and Persian and the contemporary modern languages like English, Spanish, French & German, both have the imprints, traces and essence of Sanskrit. Hindi is not quite close enough in the match.

Today, in Hindi, English and south-Indian languages, we use many Sanskrit words on an everyday basis. For instance, the English words like ‘Mother’, ‘Father’, ‘Brother’, ‘Path’, ’Yoga’, ‘Mantra’ have been directly taken from the ‘Matra’, ‘Pitra’, ‘Bhrata’, ‘Patha’, ‘Yoga’ and ‘Mantra’, which also bear a similarity to the parallel terms in Hindi dictionary. Then what has led to the dismantling of the “divine” Sanskrit?

On August 31, 2023 PM Narendra Modi requested the Indian public to tweet in Sanskrit language to celebrate World Sanskrit Day. Does Sanskrit symbolise Hindutva? Does Modi really believe in the democracy of language? Do contemporary promotion techniques to boost Sanskrit really respect the ideas of equality and justice? Or is this just one more diversionary tactic to sow confusion and affect voting-behaviour?

विश्वसंस्कृतदिवसे मम शुभकामनाः। अहं सर्वान् अभिनन्दामि ये एतदर्थं भावुकाः सन्ति। संस्कृतेन सह भारतस्य संबन्धः विशिष्टः।

— Narendra Modi (@narendramodi) August 31, 2023

Despite preserving its place among mother-languages, Sanskrit is nearly irrelevant in everyday life.

According to the prominent Urdu author and researcher Gopi Chand Narang, languages which exclude the impression of other pertinent languages and don’t change with the times get diminished. It is precisely this orthodox approach towards other languages and a prejudicial urge towards dominance by a particular community that can turn out to be a slow poison. In contrast, a growth- aptitude can flourish the flow of expressive- strength! So, who slayed Sanskrit? …. Those who play the politics of words!

It’s also crucial to take note of the current chauvinist trends regarding the alleged ‘purity’ of the Hindi- language which highlights the Sanskrit-oriented approach by prohibiting Urdu, Punjabi, Bengali expressions, words and epithets nor the influence of the south-Indian languages. All through the initial phases of her literary career, the famous Hindi author Krishna Sobti was asked to remove Punjabi- words from her writing, by Rajkamal Prakashan. She refused to do so.

The fresh scars of the Sanskrit skirmish  

The past has witnessed numerous such brutal incidents when Dalits have faced humiliating violence and the incidents of caste-based slurs & derogatory terms for simply reading the Sanskrit scriptures. Even after independence, when untouchability has been declared illegal; by the Constitution, people have faced several such incidents and the drive continues till now! In November, 2019, a controversy over the appointment of a Muslim professor Feroze Khan at the Sanskrit department in Benares Hindu University (BHU) broke out. At the end of the attacks, he was forced to resign and change his faculty. Similarly, in September 2022 a Dalit Sanskrit teacher at a government school of Barabanki, Uttar-Pradesh got mistreated by staff. A staff-member cut his choti (A segment of hair on the head-top known as a symbol of Brahman-roots) in order to degrade him for his choice of language!

According to The Hindu, there are around 14,000 people in India who treasure the remnants of Sanskrit in their own regional dialects. Most of them are locals from the states of Uttar-Pradesh, Rajasthan, Telangana & Uttarakhand. Hence, a country which celebrates the diversity of culture and language, the sense of dominance over a language seems ridiculous. The claim of nourishing a supremacy of ideas is even more abhorrent. Those who see Sanskrit as a pious language need to raise their voice against the attacks on the very entity of the language and with a belief in the democratic right to education.

The wounds of a Vedic past

Manusmriti, a significant scripture –read dominant caste Hindu dogma—has, arguably, played a dominant role in building the foundation of such classifications by dividing people in four separate parts and deciding their roles, limits and contributions. We have the story of Karna and Eklavya who faced snags in acquiring appropriate education, despite their bursting passion for education. Some Vedic texts speak of the hegemony of Brahmans over Shastra (Theology).  A Shudra (ST/SC) who dares even touch the holy scriptures was considered blasphemous who earnt inhumane and violent punishments.

Sanskrit language educational institutions, schools and universities are still governed by upper-caste Hindus and this dominance is the real obstacle in the linguistic growth of Sanskrit. As the promoter of this ancient language has or will the government remedy this exclusivity?

Attempts to impinge on linguistic rights

India has 22 official languages protected under the VIIIth schedule of the Indian Constitution. This government has shown, however, a distinct partiality for Sanskrit and Hindi. The slogan of  ‘Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan’, has been ill-received especially with Kannada, Bengali and Urdu speakers. Southern states have spoken sharply against Hindi supremacy.

Custodians of ‘Shastra’(Scriptures) do not merely limit Sanskrit’s growth but damage the country’s plurality and cultural harmony.

The possibilities

Citizens and netizens, both, need to understand these manipulative political tactics Twitter-trends, however flashy, can never calculate, estimate or wipe away the marks of the past. What we need is fair and equal treatment of all languages in the VIIIth schedule, diversity not uniformity. This will ensure an inclusive  freedom of both expression and equality.

Related:

Can Sanskrit ever be India’s national language?

Assam to shut down gov’t run madrasas, Sanskrit tols?

The post Sanskrit & the democracy of language appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Recently, a comment by former CJI S.A. Bobde raised eye-brows. He famously  said “Sanskrit can do exactly what English can do, namely be the link language throughout the length and breadth of the country,” speaking at the Akhil Bhartiya Chhatra Sammellan organised by the Sanskrit Bharti. Apart from the fact that Sanskrit is a dormant and almost unspoken language across the country, there are various problems that make this proposal not worthy of any consideration. Curiously, however, this is not the first time a prominent person has made a comment about a ‘link language’. The debate over a national language – having the potential to be a the link language across the country – has been widely discussed since Independence and even before. The Constituent Assembly discussed the importance of language, national language and other issues to arrive before it arrived at some solution. It is important to revisit the discussions that occurred and the arguments that were made at the time so that references can be made to those early discussions. This would enable a more informed evaluation with a proposal such as the former CJI’s.

Human civilisation without language would have been shallow and slow in terms of its progress. As the depth and varieties of languages grew, even in terms of words and vocabulary to express complex phenomena, it became easier to propagate ideas and discuss them. With varying factors, and speed, diverse sets of languages developed across the world. In India too, different languages such as Sanskrit, Pali (Prakrit), Urdu, Hindi, Tamil, Kannada etc developed at different periods of time. Languages are in many ways, representative capsules of information of the time in which they flourished. A simple indicator is the way how Portuguese trade with India and their control of Bombay has influenced many words that we have today in Hindi such as the word Pineapple- is ananás in Portuguese and ananas in Marathi, Chai- is Cha in Portuguese and Chai in many languages including Hindi, Soap –Sabao in Portuguese, Sabun in Hindi, Sabbu in Telugu.^[1]

However, their similarity of words or vocabulary is not enough to be tool to bind them together as the same language. For every word that develops in a language, there is also grammar, syntax and etymology, a context; and, for every dialect within such language, there is a complex history. The kind of literature that develops in a region is interlinked to how well developed the language is and the socio-economic features of that region. A region that is plush with agriculture and irrigation would likely develop a romantic literature while a region experiencing scarcity and oppression would more likely develop radical/revolutionary literature, thus contributing different sets of words, phrases etc. The Indian Subcontinent witnessed different cultures, kingdoms and sets of customs- and consequently different languages developed (emerged) over centuries. Moreover, there was no unifying imperial power for centuries combined with an unwaveriing strength to have given India a uniform culture, religion and language. Therefore, when such a union of states was being formed in 1947, a debate on language was inevitable for administrative and unification purposes. The discussion over a national language had occurred even before the Constituent Assembly was formed.

The Language Question during the freedom movement

Gandhi supported a national language in India to unify communities and support the independence movement. However, it’s unclear what type of language he meant, as he used terms such as “link” and “common” interchangeably. He aimed to bring people together and achieve independence through nonviolent tactics and promoting a single language.

Gandhi pushed for Hindustani (a spoken mix of Urdu and Hindi), which then resulted in Hindi being chosen as the official language of the Indian National Congress in 1925. This was criticised by former Congress President Annie Besant as ‘provincial’. Gandhi defended his stance, stating that Hindustani, a combination of Hindi and Urdu, was the best option as a national language after attending Congress sessions and speaking with delegates.^[2]

In response to the exclusionary Simon Commission and the notion of the British that Indians cannot govern themselves, the Motilal Nehru Committee was formed after an All Party Conference. The report submitted by the committee, famously known as the Nehru Report, asked for dominion status to India. Additionally, it also had provisions regarding language that Hindustani, either in Devanagari or Persian,          shall be the language of the commonwealth, with provinces having a principal language of their own.^[3]

Constituent Assembly and the Language Question

The debate in the Constituent Assembly can be divided into three groups. One is the group which advocated for Hindi to be the national language. Second is the group that did not want Hindi to be the national language. Third is the group which worked for a compromise between the former two groups. Although there were various other propositions, this was the composition of the assembly on the question of language.

As already stated above, both Gandhi and the Congress were firm on Hindi having a unifying status. One issue that surfaced after India was partitioned, was the unfortunate extrapolation of the ‘religious’ with language: therefore Urdu with the Muslims and Hindi with Hindus, thus communalising the debate around language.

A compromise, famously called the Munshi-Ayyangar formula, was proposed by N.G. Ayyangar, in the form of an amendment, which would give Hindi the official language status, with English accompanying it for the first 15 years after the Constitution came into force. This was met with both support and opposition in the Constituent Assembly.

Naziruddin Ahmad, a Sanskrit scholar stated that Hindi cannot be the national language immediately and therefore, until then, then English should be an accompanying national language for some time. Pandit Lakshmi Kanta Maitra, quoting the example of Israel having Hebrew as their official language, stated that Sanskrit should be the national language while accepting the suggestion that English should continue for 15 years. Algu Ram Shastri, a member from the United Provinces stated Sanskrit is not spoken on a mass scale, and Syama Prasad Mookherjee stated that the question of language should be decided through a consensus. P. Subbarayan proposed that English be added to the list of languages under the Eighth Schedule.

Nehru also spoke about national language with a distinct tilt towards Hindi while rejecting Sanskrit as a potential national language. He invoked Gandhi’s bid for Hindustani as a national language and gave his support for Ayyangar’s amendment. Durgabai Deshmukh, a member elected from Madras, argued for Hindustani as national language as an extension to her efforts in the south to propagate Hindustani and adhering to Gandhi’s call to propagate Hindistani. Shankar Rao Deo, a member from Bombay stated that Hindi was not spoken among all people of the country and therefore, whatever assumptions are there within the assembly that Hindi is spoken by the ‘majority population’, these should be re-considered. He quoted the example of people from Bihar not speaking in Hindi. The difference between Hindustani and Hindi is that the former is a mixture of Hindi and Urdu. Gandhi advocated this so it can not only unite Muslims and Hindus together but find a resonance among all Indians since this was the closest to a mass spoken language.

Purushottam Das Tandon, despite being an admirer of Sanskrit, said that it being the national language would not be a practical solution. He stated“Then, Sir, something was said about the adoption of Sanskrit. I bow to. those who love Sanskrit. I am one of them. I love Sanskrit. I think every Indian born in this country should learn Sanskrit. Sanskrit preserves our ancient heritage for us. But today it seems to me-if it could be adopted I would be happy and I would vote for it–but it seems to me that it is not a practicable proposition that Sanskrit should be adopted as the official language”

It can thus be stated that although there were advocates for Sanskrit, it was clear then that Sanskrit cannot be the national language and the only language that had such potential was Hindi. And finally, the Ayyangar-Munshi formula of Hindi being the official language with English accompanying it for 15 years, was adopted.^[4]

Ambedkar on Sanskrit as National Language

Though it is widely reported that Ambedkar actually supported Sanskrit as national language, but he did not speak for any such adoption in the Constituent Assembly. All we have as evidence is, newspapers reporting on September 11, 1949 that Ambedkar supported the amendment to make Sanskrit the official language. However, two years before, Ambedkar had supported Hindustani in Devanagari Script as the national language, and we do not find a rationale as to why Ambedkar’s stance suddenly changed.^[5]

Conclusion

There was an unopposed understanding during the movement for Independence and thereafter that, the adoption of a national language is/was a necessity to bind the nation together. Partition experience was a grim reality and keeping India united was important. Today, we need to ask whether the same factors hold. India is more united and cohesive today, politically at least, than ever before. The consolidation of all provinces and cultures under one Indian identity has been a success. At this juncture, to somehow push for a new national language with a ‘special identity’ or a single official language with more privileges would be detrimental to the unity that India enjoys now.

The post Can Sanskrit ever be India’s national language? appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The post Assam’s plan to make Sanskrit compulsory draws flak from teachers, but the RSS is pleased appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 
During its first tenure, a minority NDA I government, also dominated by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) had first tried its experiment with influencing the manner in which Value Education was taught, the way learning in the Social Sciences, especially History, would unfold. Under the previous HRD minister, Murli Manohar Joshi, the first experiments in a narrow and exclusivist rendering of our past had been attempted. Allies in the then NDA I government, including Chandrababu Naidu had protested. Then as now it was the ideological fountaindead of the regime, the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) that guided these policy moves.
With a far more aggressive NDA II, backed by a 282-seat BJP minority, the present Modi regime is furthering an agenda already attempted during NDA's first stint. This article written at the time in Communalism Combat, therefore assumes relevance today.

Young backs burdened  with heavy texts. Tomes  of homework and pressures of examination that make a mockery of  the meaning of words  like knowledge and learning. Rigid rows in classrooms that are structured to take the bounce out of her step and the shine out of her eyes.The day our daughter joined formal school, her brush strokes that were quite special earlier, mysteriously ceased. It was as if something somewhere had clamped her down, destroyed the desire to splash colour and form onto canvas.

Which of us in our sane minds would ever really question any initiative that seeks to redeem the approach and content of education and learning, re–vitalise our schools as an institution, re–emphasise the curriculum’s commitment to diversity and pluralism of values and actually seek to make this happen through drastically re–fashioned texts and other materials? Especially if aspects of the proposed changes emphasise the child and her world, stress creativity and openness, encourages a process that risks allowing serious challenges to be posed to the rigid and selfish norms set by the adult world.
It is a need crying out loud to be heard.

Large parts of the NCERT’s National Curriculum Framework on School Education, released formally by the Vedic physicist, proud swayamsevak of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh and Union minister for human resources development, Murli Manohar Joshi, contain broad homilies on a value–based, child–centric creative curriculum, in which teacher training and orientation has been emphasised, as also diversity and non–sectarian contents within the curriculum. 

However, the policy contains enough space to legitimise unscientific, irrational half–truths and to establish the undisputed hegemony of Sanskrit and Hindi. It celebrates the inculcation of “patriotism and nationalism” through an emphasis on teaching of values based on “our own philosophical and cultural tradition”. 

Without a scientific and a rich sense of history and vibrant knowledge of social studies, how will the much–needed education in values be achieved? According to the makers of the policy, by reducing, not enhancing, our sense and knowledge of history (!) By reducing “substantially the content and scope of the history and social studies syllabus”, while introducing “education about religions” and value education through religious values. 

Before examining the policy document in detail, a few lines are necessary to tackle the hard–sell of the policy document by the minister himself, even as his cohorts in the HRD ministry make confusing and contradictory declarations of intent.

The document itself has welcome emphasis on a creative and child–centric, culture–specific curriculum, even though other aspects are downright problematic. But accompanying it’s release have been the confident declarations of intent by the faithful swayamsevak Joshi, in two separate musings to the The Pioneer this month. 

The first was in an interview with the editor of the paper for Doordarshan. During his interview, Joshi surprised us all by declaring his firm commitment to tolerance and pluralism. Through another exchange with the same paper, published in The Pioneer on January 14, 2001, Joshi actually exhorted all state governments not to include texts in schools which failed to encourage religious tolerance. To quote, presiding over the general body of the NCERT while the policy was being discussed, Joshi said, “The state governments should see to it that any reference that belittles any religion is not included in school textbooks”.

A case of the devil quoting the scriptures? A sworn soldier of the Hindu Rashtra ideology singing hymns on tolerance, pluralism and against hatred. Why? 
The answer lies only weeks away. The state education ministers’ conference scheduled for January 29, 2001 at which this policy document needs to be approved. Joshi’s statements are cleverly aimed at obfuscating his own ideological position, to avoid, at any cost, a repeat of the humiliation he had to suffer in November 1998. 

Two years ago, the same minister had made a brazen attempt to make sharp policy shifts in the national curriculum policy. The proposed innovations included compulsory rendition of Vande Matram and Saraswati Vandana in schools, thrusting Sanskrit as a compulsory subject nationally. Several state education ministers simply stormed out of the meeting in protest. 

 
The critical question now is whether 28 state education ministers, representing divergent political, ideological and regional positions will call the bluff of Joshi and his clan on January 29. Or will they swallow the document without reading it, choosing to be misled by the reassuring noises on pluralism and tolerance and against hatred being made by the minister.

To avoid a repeat of the humiliation he earlier suffered, Joshi’s recent statements have been addressed to an ideologically sympathetic publication (The Pioneer) and a senior scribe who has let him off lightly without probing whether he says what he means or only means what he says! 

On January 30, 1993, the date of Gandhi’s assassination and weeks after the demolition of the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992 (at which incident he was physically present), Joshi, in an interview to the Observer of Business and Politics had said, “There is an increasing realisation in this country that all religious dispensations should accept Hinduism as a geo–cultural concept and not just as a way of worship
or a purely ritualistic religion. The basic question now is of Hindutva”. 

The first poser to Joshi. Does this statement reflect your notion of pluralism and tolerance or have your views undergone a drastic change? Several more posers could be added, especially after his heart–warming declarations on pluralism and tolerance and against hatred and bias. 

For example:
Does the RSS worldview, that has nurtured you ideologically and politically and to which you still belong, support notions of tolerance, pluralism and abjure hatred and violence?

Or, with your apparent shift to reason and dialogue, Mr Joshi, have you parted ways with the RSS, an organisation who’s leading spokespersons continue to speak the language of the bully, threatening violence from a position of hegemony and superiority?

Where do you, Mr Joshi, stand on the content and quality of Gujarat state social studies text-books (Std V to X), which far from speaking the language of pluralism, reflect the same hegemonic crudity. They equate the Indian with the ‘caste Hindu’. There are appalling assumptions and statements on issues of caste (“The Varna system was the most glorious gift to mankind”, “Muslims, Christians and Parsees are foreigners”, etc; see CC October 1999) in these texts. 

What would you, Mr. Joshi, have to say about compulsory Sanskrit teaching being introduced in Gujarat? About compelling Sanskrit teachers from all schools in the state to attend residential camps conducted by the Deendayal Institute (An integral part of the sangh parivar)?

More specifically, what would you and your friends have to say, Mr. Joshi, about the history that is taught in thousands of RSS affiliated schools spread over the length and breadth of the country. For example:

• “Arabs were barbarians who advanced to convert other people to their religion. Wherever they went, they had a sword in one hand and the Quran in the other. Houses of prayer were destroyed. Mercy and justice were unknown to them… Innumerable Hindus were forcibly made  Musalmans on the point of the sword. The struggle for freedom became a religious war. We never allowed foreign rulers to settle down but we could not reconvert our separated brethren to Hinduism.” (Gaurav Gatha, published by RSS Shishu Mandirs for Std IV).
• “Lakhs of foreigners came during these thousands of years… but they all suffered humiliating defeat. There were some whom we digested. When we were disunited, we failed to recognise who were our own and who were foreigners, then we were not able to digest them. We were not able even to digest those who for some compulsion had separated from us. Mughals, Pathans and Christians are today some of these people”. (Itihaas Ga Raha Hai, for Class 5 in Shishu Mandir schools).
• “Islam spread in India solely by way of the sword. The Muslims came to India with the sword in one hand and the Quran in the other. Numberless Hindus were forcibly converted to Islam on the point of the sword. This struggle for freedom became a religious war, Numerous sacrifices were made in the name of religion. We went on winning one battle after another. We did not let the foreign rulers settle down to rule, but we were not able to reconvert the separated brothers to Hinduism’ (Itihaas Gaa Raha Hai).

Does Mr Joshi describe these RSS texts as conveying the message of tolerance? Is there no generation of hatred here?

• “The Kshatriyas, followers of the Vedic religion, were feeling frustrated. The ruler of Magadha was a Buddhist. So he did not come forward to fight. But then was the country enslaved. Did the enemy become victorious in the birthplace of Bhagwan Rama? No, no”. (Gaurav Gatha p. 31).
• “With the finds of bones of horses, their toys and yajna altars, scholars are beginning to believe that the people of the Harappa and Vedic civilisation were the same”. (High School Itihaas Bhaag 1, p. 43, history textbook for secondary schools, Government of U. P. revised in 1992 to suit the communal interpretations of Indian history. This book deals with the history of India from pre–historic times to 1526.) 
• Aryan culture is the nucleus of Indian culture, and the Aryans were an indigenous race. But about the Aryans who were the builders of Bharatiya Sanskriti in Bharat and creators of the Vedas, this view is gaining strength among the scholars in the country that India itself was the original home of the Aryans.” (P. 48, Itihaas Bhaag 1). 
• Is this pluralism or hegemony, Mr Joshi?
• “Ashoka advocated ahimsa. Every kind of violence came to be considered a crime. Even hunting, sacrifices in yajnas and use of arms began to be considered bad. It had a bad effect on the army. Cowardice slowly spread throughout the kingdom. The state bore the burden of providing food to the Buddhist monks. Therefore people began to become monks. Victory through arms began to be viewed as bad, Soldiers guarding the borders became demoralised”. (Gaurav Gatha p. 30).

Is this not a deprecation of non-violence that suggests restraint and dialogue?

Joshi and all his faithful appointees to key posts in the HRD ministry have been, and are, proud members of the RSS, an organisation that controls the single largest education enterprise in the country. Through the Vidya Bharati Akhil Bharatiya Shiksha Sansthan, the RSS runs anywhere between 14,000–20,000 Saraswati Mandirs and Shishu Mandirs all over the country. 

Of these, it is reported that as many as 5,000 are recognised by and affiliated to either the CBSE or state education boards, most of them in states with BJP governments in power! However, there are also hundreds of RSS schools using textbooks with a completely motivated and vicious syllabus functioning in states with so-called ‘secular’ political dispensations.

In stark and revealing contrast to the hold that the RSS has over education, the Central Board for Secondary Education (CBSE) itself has a total of 5,391 schools affiliated to it (805 Kendriya Vidyalayas, 1,400 government schools, 2,817 independent schools and 369 Jawahar Navodaya Vidyalayas). 

The RSS–affiliated Vidya Bharati organisation has an overwhelming 18 lakh pupils under its tutelage, annually, and employs 80,000 teachers across all states, except for Mizoram. It also controls 60 colleges of graduate and postgraduate studies and 25 other institutions of higher learning. 

If the example of Gujarat and Uttar Pradesh are anything to go by, the assumption of political power by the BJP has made it possible for this party to use its political clout to promote its worldview of India’s past, present and future, on who and what constitute Indians and Indianness and what constitutes Indian culture.

The changes made in the textbooks used in the state–run schools in Gujarat, UP and even other states are stark, worrying, reflections of this trend. We also know that the VHP, has been busy setting up it’s own brand of schools, encouraged by the political patronage of the BJP. It is the same outfit that has proudly led the demolition of the Babri Masjid and violent campaigns on the life and property of Indian citizens. Today, it endorses the outrageous idea of disenfranchisement of Indian religious minorities. 

We also have some idea of the notions of history, past and present, transmitted by these outfits and their leaders, including Murli Manohar Joshi, through the spoken word and in writing – pamphlets, books and school textbooks perpetuating the RSS worldview that incidentally challenges and violates the Indian Constitution. These text–books are in circulation and use in a staggeringly large number of schools, influencing no doubt the outlook of a significant section of its 18,000,000 students annually. 

The 1993 report of a high–powered NCERT Committee that investigated both RSS schools and madrassas “identified textbooks brought out by the Saraswati Shishu Mandir Prakashan and the Markazi Maktaba Islami as representative of historical distortions”. These text–books continue to be used by these outfits as if an acquiescent government is in power.
If push came to shove, there would be a few last questions for Mr Joshi.

Why, as a BJP minister, controlling the HRD ministry, have you, Mr Joshi, not used your persuasion powers and commitment to pluralism and tolerance to de–recognise and revise such poorly authored texts whose concern seems as much to be with the perpetuation of irrationality and a non–questioning mind as with the subjugation and humiliation of sections of our population through hate generation and the perpetuation of derogatory images? 

The 1993 report of a high-powered NCERT Committee that investigated both RSS schools and madrassas “identified textbooks brought out by the Saraswati Shishu Mandir Prakashan and the Markazi Maktaba Islami as representative of historical distortions”.
 
This is not simply an academic argument for quality, reason, balance and free enquiry. It is to show the link between hate thoughts lodged in the minds of the young through text–books and hate speech by exponents of a worldview that espouses intolerance and violence that results in blood–letting on the streets as we have all been witness to.

What goes into textbooks taught in schools run by outfits like the RSS and VHP finds repeated reflection in the sense of perverted history that drives the public declarations of people like Joshi and Advani at a more benign level and those like Sudarshan and Seshadri, Thackeray, Singhal and Vinay Katiyar at the crude level. These perversions become an important vehicle to raise passions that spill into violence. Or is it the other way around?

For example:

Ø “This is yet another epic war — between Hindus and anti–Hindus, a veritable Mahabharat in which sometimes Abhimanyu will fall, sometimes Ghatotkacha, or it may be Jayadratha’s turn yet another day. (KS Sudarshan, newly appointed RSS chief in the Organiser, April 2000)

Ø “Christianity is not a religion, it is a devious conspiracy to serve colonial interests. You dream of building a church in every village and taking a Bible to every house. The Bajrang Dal activists will destroy your dream completely.” (Ashok Singhal, VHP working president, addressing a BD camp at Vrindavan aimed at setting up a special people’s security force (Prateyak Suraksha Samiti), in the Frontline).

Ø “Muslims can never be trusted. They are like snakes, you can never know when they can turn around and bite you”. (Bal Thackeray, SS chief lashing out at top film stars, Khans and Mohammed Azharuddin in The Asian Age, June 2000)

Ø ‘There can never be harmony or peace until the Koran is drastically revised.” (Vinay Katiyar, chief of Bajrang Dal, Lucknow, July 1999)

Ø “I reiterate my commitment towards the construction of the Ram Temple in Ayodhya and the day a BJP government is installed at Delhi, we will remove all hurdles for temple construction”. (LK Advani, The Asian Age, July 4, 1997). 

Is the lip service being paid to pluralism, tolerance and against hatred a mere waiting game until an absolute power can be realised by the BJP? Is it too farfetched, then, to suspect a sinister plan to erode public discourse as much as educational curricula with untested, historically problematic notions of past events? 

A case of the devil quoting the scriptures? A sworn soldier of the Hindu Rashtra ideology singing hymns on tolerance, pluralism and against hatred. Why? 

It is within this wider scenario that the New Curriculum framework must be situated. A policy document that emphasises education about religion, stresses value education as that which obtains exclusively from religious frameworks, drastically reduces the quantum of social studies/sciences and history syllabi and accords a disproportionate and compulsory place to Sanskrit.

The critical question now is whether 28 state education ministers, representing divergent political, ideological and regional positions will call the bluff of Joshi and his clan on January 29. Or will they swallow the document without reading it, choosing to be misled by the reassuring noises on pluralism and tolerance and against hatred being made by the minister.
In November 1999, we were told that: 

Ø “The content of education from the primary level to the higher education stage should be “Indianised, nationalised and spiritualised”; 

Ø “Courses  at all levels, including vocational training courses, should  incorporate the essentials of Indian culture”;

Ø “Sanskrit should be made obligatory for students between classes III and X”. 

Ø “Moral and spiritual education” should be introduced that would inculcate “desirable social and national values.” 

Today the new and finalised policy document on education says: 

Ø There should be an emphasis on “Education about religions”  (p vii) and “values with an emphasis on religious values”. The “Inherent values of all religions to be taught at all stages of school education”;

Ø “A profound sense of patriotism and nationalism tempered with the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam (being one of the world/earth family) must be infused into the students”;

Ø There should be an emphasis on our “own philosophical cultural and sociological tradition” and “an indigenous Indian curriculum that would celebrate the ideas of the country’s thinkers such as Sri Aurobindo,
Vivekananda, Dayananda Saraswati, Mahatma Phule, Gandhi, Tagore, Zakir Hussain, Krishnamurti and Gijubhai Badeka.” (Ambedkar and Periyar are given the go–by, as are so many others!)

Ø There is a clear–cut promotion of Sanskrit (2.8.3) and Hindi (2.8.4) and their compulsory inclusion within the syllabus all over the country at the primary stage. Clear pointers to attempted cultural hegemony as also to the backward looking vision that guides this sectarian worldview.

Ø “Sanskrit has a special claim on the national system of education because it
l Has consistently been used in India for thousands of years and is still inextricably linked with the life, rituals, ceremonies and festivals of vast Indian masses; (it was just such an emphasis on Sanskrit hegemony that had been angrily resisted by representatives of so many states in India, especially the South, in 1999);

l Contains a great store of knowledge and wisdom that needs to be revived, reformulated and enriched with whatever is the best in modern disciplines of knowledge;

l Has the universal appeal all over the country;

l Has very close structural, lexical, and semantic relationship with Hindi and most other regional languages of India which makes the learning of these languages easier and better; and

l Has been internationally accepted as the most scientifically structured language and is increasingly being acknowledged as the best suited language for computer use”.

For all these reasons, the new policy states that it is important to provide for and encourage the study of Sanskrit: “It may be introduced as part of a composite course of Hindi and the regional languages as mother tongue at a suitable point of the primary or upper primary stage…Open school courses for Sanskrit may also be designed for learners at all levels”.

The New Curriculum Framework accords Hindi a special place, too, on grounds that “the Indian Constitution has given it the place of the Official Language of the Union…it is necessary that courses in Hindi are suitable for opening up channels of integral communication in all parts of India.”

Incidentally, even as Joshi appears before us through the pages of The Pioneer in a liberal and tolerant garb, the forked tongues within the wider ideological family cannot be so easily silenced. The formal release of the NCERT’s National Curriculum Framework on School Education in December 2000 has been adequately caricatured by the secretary of the HRD ministry, MK Kaw. In his article in the official NCERT journal on Value Education, titled ‘Education in Human Values, released at the Jawaharlal Nehru stadium barely a week after the policy document, on December 20, 2000, Kaw tells us that, “The greatest damage to our intellectual freedom has been caused by traditional religions especially by those which have a single holy book from which they derive their authority!” 

There is more. Sister bodies under the control of the HRD ministry that include the Indian Council for Social Science Research (ICSSR), the Indian Council for Historical Research (ICHR) and even the Council for Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), in varying degrees and through different actions, have had their representatives once again publicly declare their allegiance to the parent organisation to which Joshi, Vajpayee and Advani belong – the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh. 

In the same month (December 2000), the director of the ICHR made a declaration that embarrassed even the body he heads. He stated that since the Babri Masjid had been an unused structure and had no religious significance, the site should be handed over to the Hindus on the premise that as “the location of Rama’s birthplace cannot be changed, the temple cannot be moved.” 

The same ICHR has also been embroiled in a serious controversy for withdrawing mid–way through publication a volume, Towards Freedom, authored by two renowned historians, Sumit Sarkar and KN Panikkar, eighteen months earlier. 

The reasons are not far to seek. Among other things, the book offered incontrovertible evidence (including British intelligence records) to show that the RSS was not merely a non-participant in the Indian freedom struggle; it actually collaborated with the colonial powers! 

The director general of the CSIR, RA Mashelkar was felicitated by the RSS’ Rashtriya Suraksha Mahashivir last month. This created some public discomfort for the ministry because it was more evidence (if any were needed) of the growing influence of swayamsevak Joshi’s influence over the orientation of the CSIR. 

A girl from a Dalit neighbourhood, still bitterly experiencing the daily humiliations and segregation based on caste that legitimises a cruel concept like sprush-asprush (pure and impure) and “so impure as to be untouchable. A tribal boy who plays his drums and knows his icons and idols but would like to see them reflected in the social studies syllabus. A Muslim boy who has witnessed brute violence and lost his father to hatred. A Muslim girl who is compelled to drop out of education at eleven years of age because puberty is around the corner and she sits in a mixed classroom.

These few examples reflect events of the past month or so. To enumerate all the actions of this ministry of the NDA government since it took charge in 1998, the list would spill into several pages.

The state ministers of education need to keep these myriad factors in mind when they respond to the new curriculum policy document. What, in a nutshell, will the new NCERT text books, written in pursuance of this new worldview, contain? 

There is good reason to fear that such an approach, approved by the national education policy, will legitimise and stress on religious education over scientific and historical inquiry. It will, in fact, serve to legitimise the content of texts circulated by such backward looking outfits like the RSS and Markazi Maktaba Islami, as they will now not even be required to meet the criterion of neutrality, scientific temper and frank inquiry. 

What notions of values would be contained, what understandings of faiths, what extrapolations to the ideal of patriotism, nationalism and national unity would we find within the new textbooks, then? 

We have been mute witness to the Hate and Bully projects in public life in the past few decades, projects that have misused religion and religious labels to perpetuate threats and strong arm tactics against sections of our own population. All these actions have amounted to contempt for the law of the land. A law based on the Indian Constitution that above all enshrines a rich and pragmatic concept of equality to all, that makes matters of faith answerable to broader, deeper and more universal concepts of the individual and basic rights of the citizen. The rights of an individual Indian citizen to dissent, to free speech, to life and equality et al are inalienable. It cannot be taken away by group rights, religious rights, community and caste rights.

The brazen attempt to replace history and social studies within the curricular framework with religion-based values is also aimed at the destruction of a sense of historical search and belonging, a journey that is the source of empowerment to sections that may be grossly disempowered and disadvantaged today. Why this overpowering desire to wipe out or snatch away a sense of history from the vast majority of our people?

To gain control over the mind of a large section of the people you need a clean slate, uncluttered by contradictory facts and emotion, a situation that enables you to brainwash through unreason, with ease. Such a clean slate is vital for control over the fortunes, aspirations and dreams of large sections of the population who are then made to believe what they are told by the controlling few — that there exist no inequities, no schisms, no oppressions.

How will they deal with questions of genuine inquiry, issues of the history of science and technology, the paths that ideas, innovations, faiths and convictions took and travelled? Will they be able to release historical knowledge and inquiry from the shackles of identity, caste and class control? Or would history and its transmission get mired with and influenced even more than it is now by a narrow political worldview? 

A girl from a Dalit neighbourhood, still bitterly experiencing the daily humiliations and segregation based on caste that legitimises a cruel concept like sprush-asprush (pure and impure) and “so impure as to be untouchable. A tribal boy who plays his drums and knows his icons and idols but would like to see them reflected in the social studies syllabus. A Muslim boy who has witnessed brute violence and lost his father to hatred. A Muslim girl who is compelled to drop out of education at eleven years of age because puberty is around the corner and she sits in a mixed classroom. 

These are the multi-hued emotions of our children, our present and our future. To enthuse them into learning processes, these processes must find a resonance within each of them.

How will our textbooks tackle the questions of internal shades and hues and conflict? How will they address the issues dividing populations within India and South Asia? How will the books look at the issue of motivated, pre–mediated history writing and generation that stifles the critical and questioning mind? 

Uninformed and non–creative interpretations of events and periods in history writing have deteriorated, in past decades, into outright hate–writing inculcating prejudices, limiting our knowledge and understanding of the past. Instead of surging forward towards unshackling knowledge from myriad pre–conceptions by deepening our knowledge of the subject, the current political dispensation appears determined to confine learning to religion–based values, not free inquiry. The resultant situation can then be used to unleash half–truths, suspicions and finally hatred and divisions.

The suppression of history and historical inquiry, then, has a dual purpose. Wiping the slate clean creates a tailor–made situation, fertile ground for nasty manipulations, for colourfully woven tales of woes that are made to pass as history with no concessions to historical veracity and genuine inquiry. 

We are now catapulted into an explosive every day scenario of emotion–driven, non–scientific visions of the past. These half–baked, explosive notions are not based on knowledge or history, but are made to pass as such. They are manipulations and distortions that freely allow for hate-filled half–truths to fill the curriculum and resonate in the public sphere.

We have then entered the realm of darkness, of suspicion, of constructs of hitherto non–existent states of historical trauma and wrong–doing; states of being that easily raise passions, that can even wield trishuls and swords. Such states of being have in recent times broken real historical ground with distortions that have justified crimes of crude passion leading to the destruction of lives and homes, property and places of worship. All justified by abusing history.

Hysterical and narrow notions of patriotism in this era of darkness can also be used to justify nuclear war and the creation of weapons for mass destruction. Shameful acts like female foeticide, infanticide and caste and community driven incidents of sexual violence can all be traced back to the misdeeds of ‘foreign marauders’ of over nine hundred years ago. In this era of darkness, we loose forever the ability to search deep within ourselves for solutions to shameful facts of continuing discrimination, of violent humiliations, because all of this would mean pinning the blame, even accepting responsibility. 

The finger of blame would then be turned firmly on us and us alone. 

Archived from Communalism Combat, January 2001. Year 8, No. 65, Cover Story

The post Education with values appeared first on SabrangIndia.