Class and Classroom: What's Wrong with India's Schools

22 January 1999
The Times of India

Class and Classroom

What's Wrong with India's Schools

By SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN

AT a public hearing on education held in the Capital
earlier this month, a young boy from one of Delhi's slum clusters took
the microphone and -- in a voice that was at once shy and angry --
asked: ``Is it fair that children of rich and poor parents should go
to different schools?''. It was late in the day and the Union
education secretary, who had been gamely fielding questions till then,
chose the easy way out. ``The answer to your question is in the
question itself'', he said, moving on.
Of all the things that make India a nasty place for the
majority of its citizens, the bifurcation of its educational system
into two streams solely on the basis of income is perhaps the most
distressing. Every society with huge income disparities will have
some families who want their children educated in exclusive
schools. But in India, the quality of public education at the
elementary level is so bad that all parents with means send their
children to private schools.
This secession of the well-to-do is fatal for state
schools because in our present political system it is only the
affluent and middle classes who have the political clout to force
governments to do anything. With no political constituency to speak up
for them, state schools flounder. Some do well because of a fortunate
constellation of local factors -- good district administration, an
active panchayat, committed parents and teachers. Most do poorly.
Familiar Story
While the educational picture nationwide seems
reassuring in terms of the number of schools built, teachers hired,
etc., the recently published Public Report on Basic Education in India
(OUP, 1999) paints a fairly grim picture of micro-level reality. Most
of the schools surveyed by the PROBE team in rural UP, Bihar, MP and
Rajasthan lack proper buildings. Roofs leak, walls are crumbling,
floors are in need of repair. They also lack proper teaching aids
and books, and sometimes even blackboards. As the report wryly
points out, ``the only teaching aid available in all the schools is a
stick to beat the children''. Nearly half the schools surveyed had no
teaching activity going on whatsoever at the time PROBE
researchers visited.
The PROBE report confirms the now familiar story of how
girls are marginalised but it also highlights the discrimination
within the schooling system along caste and class lines. This
discrimination works at four levels. First, the bifurcation between
poorly run government schools and better run -- but more expensive --
private schools means poorer communities invariably end up attending
inferior schools. Second, the so-called Non- Formal Education
centres -- which the PROBE team found to be totally dysfunctional
-- are generally concentrated in poorer bastis. Third, formal
government schools in more prosperous villages, hamlets or
neighbourhoods tend to be much better funded, staffed and
equipped than similar schools in poorer areas. Finally,
discrimination occurs within the same school, with Dalit children
being victimised by upper-caste teachers.
Mother Tongue
Another weakness is that often teaching does not take
place in the real mother tongue of the children but in some language
that administrators decide is their mother tongue. In an insightful
paper tracing the marginalisation of popular languages in India's
education system, Dr Naresh Prasad Bhokta of Gorakhpur University has
delineated the adverse consequences of imposing Hindi on
schoolchildren whose languages are actually Maithili, Brajbhasha,
Chattisgarhi etc. (See The Contested Terrain: Perspectives on
Education in India, Orient Longman, 1998).
All political parties pay lip-service to the need for
universal primary education at election time but fail to deliver when
in power. Now HRD minister Murli Manohar Joshi says that the draft
83rd constitutional amendment -- which will make education a
fundamental right -- ``is neither practical nor feasible''. He forgot
to add that it is not desirable either. Were the amendment to be
passed, governments would not find it so easy to get away with
underfunding primary education. It would be harder to fob children
off with such wonderful substitutes for books, blackboards and
school meals as the compulsory recitation of prayers.
Of course, the present government has only taken the
anti-education policies of its predecessors a few steps further.
Neither the Congress nor the UF governments could be accused of
wanting to provide universal elementary education. Public
expenditure on education as a percentage of GNP today is less
than it was in 1991. At 3.2 per cent, it is a far cry from the 6 per
cent of GNP promised way back in the 1960s.
Instead of remedying this situation, politicians argue
that improving the quality of schools is primarily the responsibility
of the ``community'' and that private schools can make up for the
inadequacy of government schools. The PROBE survey highlights
the importance of community participation in determining the
quality of a school. But given the heterogeneity of caste and class
in most Indian villages, community participation is not always
feasible and state commitment continues to hold the key. As for
the desirability of private education, the emergence of two tracks in
the schooling system in rural areas is one of the most disturbing
findings of the PROBE report. In Himachal Pradesh, where
state-run schools are good, there are virtually no private rural
schools. But in the `cow belt' countryside, private schools are
proliferating.
Two Scenarios
The 1966 Kothari commission report on education focused
on the `neighbourhood school' concept in which the state would run
schools that would be open to all children in a locality and where
proper -- if not excellent -- standards would be maintained. Over
time, most parents would be weaned away from private schools.
The reason such a common public system has not developed in
India is because successive governments never provided the
necessary resources to develop it. Unless the state spends money
to improve the infrastructure and quality of its schools, these will
never turn into genuine neighbourhood institutions where all
children study equitably. While decentralisation and community
participation would be essential for the proper working of such a
system, funding must not be based on the income (i.e. tax paying
capacity) of a community or locality, as in the US.
Looking into the future, the PROBE report suggests two
scenarios. The first is the scary one -- that the two track system
might become more widespread and entrenched. The second is that the
state takes bold initiatives to push for a schooling transition in
which quality elementary education is provided to all children. The
money is there; what is needed is political will. Or rather, public
pressure.

Christianity as Crime

8 January 1999
The Times of India

Christianity as Crime

Nailing Citizenship to the Cross

By Siddharth Varadarajan

THE most disturbing aspect of the anti-Christian
terror campaign being waged by various political formations linked
to the ruling BJP is not the violence itself but the attitude of
the Vajpayee government towards it. Bucking the general wave of
revulsion that has swept through India, senior BJP leaders
continue to prevaricate and dissemble, adulterating their criticism
of the violence with toxic sermons on the evils of Christian
missionaries and religious conversion. Listening to them blaming
the victims for their misfortune, one is reminded of a famous
exchange which took place in an English courtroom. ``Did you kick
the prisoner in his face, sergeant?'', a policeman was asked by
the prosecutrix. ``No I did not, ma'am'', he replied. ``What
happened was that the prisoner kept banging his head against my boots
with great force''.

`Forced Conversions'

Even as he made a show of condemning the attacks on
Christians in Gujarat, for example, I&B minister Pramod Mahajan
``accused'' Christian missionaries of indulging in conversion under
the garb of service to the poor (TOI, 31/12/98). How a minister
-- who has sworn to uphold a Constitution in which religion plays
no role in citizenship whatsoever -- can presume to question a
citizen's right to convert to Christianity is something the Election
Commission or some other competent body should look into.
Other BJP leaders have been more circumspect, reserving their
fire for ``forced conversion''. Listening to the number of times this
phrase has been used recently, one could be forgiven for thinking
India is being put to the sword by Baldwin of Edessa or Richard
the Lionheart.

For the past few weeks, we have been told that ``urgent
steps'' are being taken to bring the situation under control. A
`fact-finding mission' of the Union home ministry went to Gujarat
but, curiously, refused to meet any Christian or civil liberties
organisations. Not surprisingly, the sangh parivar's
low-intensity-conflict against Indian Christians continues with the
Christians of Nashik the latest to fall victim.

So fervidly does the parivar believe Christians are
foreign to India that it is only the fear of adverse publicity abroad
which finally goaded the BJP into a more forthright condemnation of
the violence. In its drive to appear moderate and inclusive, the
Vajpayee government is now considering declaring 2000 as the
`Year of Christ'. One really has to marvel at the magnanimity and
courage of the men who think of such bold steps.

The secularism of the Indian state is indeed a peculiar
construct. One year, it watches over the massacre of Sikhs, another
year over lavish celebrations to mark the tercentenary of the Khalsa.
It can declare the Prophet's birthday a national holiday at one time
while at another it can look on benevolently while the Babri
Masjid is demolished. As far as the `Year of Christ' proposal is
concerned, however, some senior BJP leaders are opposed even
to such bromides because Christianity is not `native' to India and
because they feel this will encourage conversions.

The reason why religious conversion and the provenance
of religions are subjects of so much political controversy in India is
because the BJP -- and most of our political parties -- do not
believe in the concept of citizenship. They do not subscribe to the
notion that a citizen in a democratic state is defined by the rights
and duties she or he shares with other citizens and not by any
other criteria. For most political parties in India, however, an
Indian is defined by her or his religion, caste and language. It is
precisely the ghettoisation of the polity into `Hindu', `Muslim', and
various caste-based votebanks that has allowed these parties to
get away with violating the rights of all Indians these past 50
years.

Defining an Indian

As we go in to the 21st century, we must decide what it
means to be an Indian. Is the term to be defined in relation to
membership of the polity or in relation to a person's religion, caste
or language? If India is to be a modern, democratic polity based on
the sovereignty of its people, Indianness can only be defined on
the basis of common participation in the body politic known as
India. To say somebody is an Indian, then, will be to say that that
individual enjoys common political, economic and social rights.
The only notion of majority and minority in the political sphere of
such a society is what emerges from the democratic
decision-making process. Such a democratic body politic would
have no room for religious or caste-based definitions of `majority'
and `minority'. Nor would it allow political parties to play the kind
of divisive and self-serving role they are today.

Such a modern definition of citizenship would mean that
in India the polity would not recognise categories like `Hindu',
`Muslim', `Christian' etc. If I were to say more, I would say that
India as a body politic would remain the same even if all its citizens
were to become Christians, Hindus, Muslims or atheists. It might not
be the same culturally but then national cultures constantly undergo
change in one direction or another and it is fallacious to posit a
unidirectional and unidimensional link between religion and
culture.

Tribal Culture

At any rate, it is often forgotten that Christian
organisations are not the only ones conducting missionary activity in
India. In most tribal districts, Hindu missionary organisations are
also active. Often, organisations like the Ramakrishna Mission and
others proselytise with the assistance of the state, while Christian
missionaries are harassed. Some anthropologists argue that at a
time when the culture and identity of tribal societies is constantly
being undermined by `secular' forces such as the government's
forest and land acquisition policies, and exploitation by state
officials, contractors and moneylenders, the activities of Hindu
and Christian missionaries can further weaken their capacity to
resist. This is especially true of the more aggressive proselytisers
like the Gayatri Parivar, the Brahmakumaris, the various
RSS-linked outfits and the Evangelicals.

While it is legitimate to entertain doubts about the
desirability of any and all forms of proselytising activity, it is
totally unacceptable for ministers and politicians to express
misgivings about the spread of one religion. Even more unacceptable
is the subtle rationalisation of the attacks against the Christians.
The anti-Christian campaign might well be the handiwork of an
extremist fringe of the sangh parivar but by equivocating on the
issue, the ruling BJP has not done itself any credit. It has
demolished the myth of its supposed moderation. In a variation of
Gresham's Law, the `bad' communalists have driven out the `good'.

© Bennett, Coleman & Co. Ltd. 1997.

L'affaire Bhagwat: The Armed Forces are not a 'Disputed Structure'

1 January 1999
The Times of India

Armed Forces Are Not a `Disputed Structure'

By SIDDHARTH VARADARAJAN

THE dismissal of Admiral Vishnu Bhagwat as Navy chief is an act without
parallel in the history of our `Secular Republic'. If anything, the communalist
overtones and arbitrariness of the government's decision are reminiscent of the
Dreyfus Affair, when an upstanding officer of the French army was vilified and
falsely accused of betraying his country because he happened to be Jewish. The
stated accusation against Admiral Bhagwat is no less defamatory. And the real
reasons for his ouster no less obscure.

No one is questioning the right of the government to sack a service chief. But
has it substantiated the grave charge that Admiral Bhagwat ``threatened the
established structure of democracy, traditional neutrality and objectivity of
the armed forces as well as national security''? The mere assertion of
``civilian control'' does not, by itself, make the government's decision
democratic. Indeed, other than referring to Admiral Bhagwat's ``defiance of the
established system of Cabinet control over the defence forces'', the defence
ministry has revealed nothing. All it says is that there is a need to preserve
the balance between the interest of national security and the right of people
to be informed.

What the government feels it is not in the ``interest of national security'' to
divulge is the fact that Admiral Bhagwat has been dismissed for refusing to
accept as his deputy Vice Admiral Harinder Singh, a man who -- in a writ
petition -- has given ample proof of communalist, anti-Muslim bias. No matter
what spin is put out, this is the long and short of the entire affair.

In a letter to Defence Minister George Fernandes on August 13, Ms Niloufer
Bhagwat, wife of Admiral Bhagwat and a leading civil rights lawyer, drew
attention to certain objectionable statements made by Vice Admiral Singh in his
petition filed in the Calcutta high court on June 10, 1998. In that petition,
the vice admiral complained that Admiral Bhagwat had ``a hidden denominational
agenda'' in rejecting his appointment as deputy naval chief and made the
`accusation' (if that word can be used in this context) that: the navy chief's
wife is ``half-Muslim''; she had served as counsel for the CPI before the
Srikrishna Commission investigating the Bombay riots; Admiral Bhagwat did not
perform the proper funeral rites for his father (and hence was not a proper
Hindu); Cdr A A Lone, staff officer of the navy chief and the only Kashmiri
officer in the Indian Navy, is ``related to a terrorist''; `Muslim' naval
officers are ``close'' to the family of Adm Bhagwat.

No Reply

Such `allegations', Ms Bhagwat pointed out, ``are not only malafide but
uncalled for as they have the potential of dividing the Armed Forces on
religious grounds''. The defence minister, however, did not reply to her.
Instead, he and the Prime Minister insisted that Vice Admiral Harinder Singh be
foisted on the Navy chief and made no attempt to discuss the matter with him.

Even though the present controversy has ramifications that go beyond the fate
of one man, it is unfortunate that a service chief with a broad vision of
security policy in an increasingly complex global environment has been eased
out in this manner. In a speech entitled `The Emergence of the Indian
Scholar-Warrior' in November, Admiral Bhagwat said that there are vested
interests who would like the military to be ``hide-bound, hawkish, inflexible
... and ignorant of the subtleties of issues other than military''. He berated
the culture of anti-intellectualism prevalent in the bureaucracy and the armed
forces and said that unless there was a change in attitude, India would not be
able to face up to the challenges of defending its sovereignty in the 21st
century. Elsewhere, he has spoken of the link between social justice and
national security.

Serious Risk

Apart from explaining why it chose to violate the Navy Act -- which states that
senior appointments are to be made on the recommendation of the service chief
-- the government must tell the country why it wants to promote a man whose
`allegations' smack of disrespect for the Constitution. Indeed, by sacking
Admiral Bhagwat for asking the Cabinet to reconsider its decision to appoint
Vice Admiral Harinder Singh, the government wittingly or unwittingly projects
an image of sanctioning the communalisation and politicisation of the armed
forces. Tomorrow, there is no telling which political group will knock on North
Block's doors with its wish list and blacklist. Unless this process is nipped
in the bud, the armed forces run the risk of being turned into another
`disputed structure'.