CBSE AND POVERTY OF CONSCIOUSNESS

                    Need to educate the educators

                               By AVIJIT PATHAK

A sane society requires an open and democratic culture of learning. It requires the ability of the learner
to dissent, question the established truth and see beyond. But then, the CBSE, it appears, is
determined to kill this emancipatory ideal of education. It is tragic and dangerous that this otherwise
prestigious board of education has begun to dictate the contents of learning as well as the mode of
teaching. For example, all CBSE schools have been asked to delete from history textbooks all that does
not fit well into the paradigm of an ‘ideal’ Hindu society.

Historical insights

As the CBSE circular suggests, the students should not study or even discuss, say, what Romila
Thapar has written about beef eating in ancient India, or what Arjun Dev has written about the Jats and
their plundering riots when they established a state in Bharatpur! Possibly this taboo on historical
insights is yet another effort towards what many would like to regard as the saffronisation (or
Talibanisation) of education. Even if one does not indulge in this ‘political rhetoric’, it is difficult to
overlook the damaging consequences of this closed/exclusivist pedagogy.
The ruling establishment does not seem to be happy with Romila Thapar, Arjun Dev and Bipan Chandra.
But then, these are great names whose contributions to the development of our historical imagination
cannot be denied. This is not to suggest that they are infallible. It is possible to find sharp critiques of
their historical perspectives and findings.
For example, one may argue that these left/secular historians have not always tried to understand
divergent possibilities in Hindu cultural traditions: say, the deeper spiritual meanings of the
Vedic/Upanishadic prayers, or the tremendous logico-philosophical development that great minds like
Sankara and Ramanuja demonstrated.
Furthermore, the Nehruvian perspective that is clearly visible in the NCERT texts has not necessarily
been appreciated by the historians known for their ‘subaltern’ orientation. In fact, all these academic
disputes, scholarly contestations and conflicting interpretations have enriched the milieu knowledge and
learning.
That is why, the ethics of intellectual life requires a critical/democratic mind that, instead of silencing the
opponent’s point of view, listens to it and allows it to grows. It does not fear multivocality; it grows
because of that. And this intellectual training must begin from early days of schooling. It is, however, sad
that the CBSE/NCERT is negating this very spirit of creative learning: one’s ability to negotiate with
multiple and even conflicting perspectives.
It seeks to censure and repress whatever does not please the ruling establishment. None is denying that
history texts - even when written by eminent scholars - may be incomplete and one-sided. But banning
or repression is no answer to this ideological character of knowledge.

Multiple perspectives

What is needed is to allow the learner to come across multiple perspectives, even the perspectives that
are supposedly hostile to what is being regarded as an ‘ideal’ Hindu culture!
Well, one can argue that education ought to intensify one’s cultural sensitivity; it should not make one
rootless. And particularly at a time when, because of the legacy of colonialism and the forces of
hegemonic globalisation, traditions and memories get repressed, it is necessary to re-emphasize the
cultural component of education.

Cultural sensitivity

It is in this context that we wish to recall Gandhi and Tagore known for their extraordinary cultural
sensitivity. In their experiments with education, both emphasised the spiritual element, raised their voice
against the colonial arrogance and created a new cultural ideal. While Gandhi sought to unite the
aspirations of the rural peasantry with the great tradition, Tagore with his universalism wanted to
accommodate the folk, the classical and the humanism of modern Europe. In other words, they were
rooted, but not sectarian; because their cultural sensitivity did not prevent them from having a dialogue
with alternative cultural traditions.
As a matter of fact, the pedagogic potential of dialogue (mind it, fundamentalism is necessarily
anti-dialogical) has been reaffirmed time and again. Some of our ancient texts - say the Upanishads -
emerged out of dialogue. Recall the beauty/intensity of the dialogue between Yajnavalkya and Gargi or
Nachiketa and Yama. Or, think of the Bhagvadgita. It emerged out of a therapeutic dialogue between
Krishna and Arjuna. Not solely that. In our own times Paulo Freire - a latin American educationist with
immense radial potential - did speak of dialogic education.
That is why, we must assert that, instead of dictating what should be taught and how it should be taught,
the CBSE/NCERT should create space for a creative/autonomous teacher to flourish: a teacher who
would sensitise the child, go beyond the limitations of a monolithic text (no matter, whether written from
the leftist/rightist orientation), pose multiple perspectives before her and allow her to evolve her own way
of seeing.
A child may be born in a conservative/caste/Hindu society; but a democratic classroom and a lesson in
the history of protest as launched by Phule and Ambedkar or Buddha and Kabir might enable her to look
at the world from the perspective of the ‘other’.
Likewise, a child may came from an utterly anglicised/elitist family, but a decolonised classroom milieu
might inspire her to see the cultural capital of an Upanishadic sage, a bhakti poet, or a rural peasant of
Champaran who contributed to the making of Gandhi.
All these wonders are possible only if we respect the creative potential of the teacher and the critical
faculty of the learner. And this requires not authoritarianism, but sustained efforts to attract the finest
minds (as teachers, writers and planners) to the domain of education.

Poverty of consciousness

Indeed, at a time when we need more and more openness, plurality and dialogicity, it is sad to witness
the poverty of consciousness that characterises the educationists and bureaucrats of the CBSE, the
NCERT, and, above all, the Human Resource Development Ministry.