When organisations of the
Sangh Parivar periodically rail against “Macaulay’s children” and propose a
review of the hold of western knowledge systems over Indian education, it
should be widely welcomed. After all, indigenous(native,स्वदेशी) knowledge, as preliterate communities in
India, for instance, have begun to point out, and as those who know our rich
literary traditions have shown, have been monstrously ignored in the education
system we have inherited. Why then does this announcement produce disquiet?
This is because the overall context of such pronouncements is
one that is markedly anti-intellectual. Before this is decried(condemn,निंदा) as a baseless charge, let me provide some examples. Earlier
this year, several “academics” denounced
the overall editorship of
the Murty Classical Library series under Professor Sheldon Pollock because he
was not sufficiently “imbued with a sense of respect and empathy for the
greatness of Indian civilisation.” Neither Prof. Pollock’s formidable(fierce,दुर्जेय) knowledge
of Sanskrit and other Indian languages nor his acknowledged stature as an
academic could pass the litmus test of a worshipful loyalty to “Indian
civilisation” as the foundational ground of all pursuits of knowledge. Were the
signatories of the petition alarmed that Buddhist women poets have been allowed
to be heard in that series? That Sufi singers have found new audiences? That
Akbar’s life and times are being read by more than medieval historians?
A ‘cultural revolution’
Of late, many distinguished intellectuals have been replaced by dubious(doubtful,संदिग्ध) dabblers(lovers,शौक़ीन) as chiefs in premier institutions of higher education and research across the country.
Of late, many distinguished intellectuals have been replaced by dubious(doubtful,संदिग्ध) dabblers(lovers,शौक़ीन) as chiefs in premier institutions of higher education and research across the country.
It would be a lazy error to read this as a mere change of guard,
of places once ruled by some version of the luxuriantly varied Indian Left
falling under the rule of the monotonous(dull,नीरस) Right. No doubt, English-speaking
intellectuals owing allegiance(loyalty,निष्ठा) to one or another stripe of the Left/Congress
enjoyed disproportionate power for decades, particularly in Delhi institutions,
but normally no one doubted their intellectual abilities. The same cannot be
said of the new appointees, who are taking major Indian institutions in
directions that are not necessarily dedicated to the production and promotion
of knowledge.
The home-grown “cultural revolution” that is under way is
increasingly encouraging only obedience. The distinction between former leaders
and the new heads lies not only in formal academic credentials; they must be
placed within the larger framework of “national intellectual warming” that too
loudly expresses doubt and distrust about intellectual life as we know it.
A senior Minister has openly called for an isolation of those he
identifies as “intellectual terrorists”, internal enemies of the state who may
critique the actions of governments and their armies. A good sign of the new hostility(enmity,शत्रुता) was the breathtaking declaration, in a
pamphlet issued by the Jawaharlal Nehru University’s Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi
Parishad unit to welcome new students, that departments of social sciences and
humanities, whether in the Indian Institutes of Technology or in other
universities, are the source of all agitators and should therefore be closely
surveilled.
Now, for the first time in the last two centuries, we are
witnessing a virulent(poisonous,विषैला) form of
anti-intellectualism which will leave a lasting impact on the future of a wide
range of activities from filmmaking and art to other forms of
knowledge-production. The visions that have been spelled out for programmes of
research and for educational institutions put a low premium on open-ended,
rigorous(strict,सख्त), creative intellectual
activity of any kind.
Some recent examples will suffice(enough,पर्याप्त), but they can be multiplied. The newsletters
of the Indian Council of Historical Research are generously peppered with
photographs of the current Chairperson and his pious(holy,पवित्र) homilies
on a wide range of subjects. Here is a sampling of what appears more like a
moralising discourse in a temple courtyard: “Our ancient literature vouchsafes(decorate,विभूषित) that Indian social institutions enjoy solid
cultural base reinforced(strengthen,सुद्रढ़) by Dharma unlike modern intellectual
propositions. As argued today, social institutions like marriage, family,
community, tribe, society and state should not be understood as contractual…
the Vedic marriage system is qualitatively different from the marriages of
other religious belief systems or modern social marriages or live-in
relationships where both enter into a conditional agreement unless they bind
themselves for life.”
Generally, what does the Chairman see as the purpose of
historical knowledge? “To shape the character of the people and in turn the
nation.” Here we have a rather frank admission of what higher educational and
research must be made to foster(encourage,प्रोत्साहित): nationalism of the kind dictated by the
ruling party. No wonder, asProf.
Kumkum Roy has
shown in her analysis of Rajasthan textbooks, Gandhi doesn’t get killed at all;
he merely disappears from the book.
Obedience was on full display in some universities during the
celebration of India’s Independence. Enjoined by the Ministry of Human Resource
Development to record their “compliance”, the heads of premier educational
institutions showed zeal at rangoli as well as national song renditions, as if
to atone for the possibility of the university otherwise living up to its duty
of encouraging critical thinking.
In other more predictable quarters, the attack on intellectuals
has been reduced to unadorned(plain,सादा) abuse, as in the Organiser’s recent “review” of the book co-authored by
Professor Romila Thapar on nationalism. When the “review” denounces the book’s
“stinky logic of provincialising(narrowness,संकीर्णता) the
otherwise wide-ranging cultural nationalism or Hindutva”, we realise that even
intelligibility has become a dispensable virtue in such excoriating(scratch,रगड़ना) attacks.
Some robust memories
This is very bleak(colourless,बेरंग) scenario. Still, we are left with some robust(strong,मजबूत) memories of how institutions could think under inspired leaders. In the 1990s, early years yet of the National Law School University in Bengaluru, Professor Madhava Menon invited human rights lawyer Nandita Haksar and feminist legal scholars Flavia Agnes and Ratna Kapoor to teach and conduct research. He recognised, in short, the intellectual importance of engaging with those whose views he may have cordially(willingly,मन से) disliked, even opposed.
This is very bleak(colourless,बेरंग) scenario. Still, we are left with some robust(strong,मजबूत) memories of how institutions could think under inspired leaders. In the 1990s, early years yet of the National Law School University in Bengaluru, Professor Madhava Menon invited human rights lawyer Nandita Haksar and feminist legal scholars Flavia Agnes and Ratna Kapoor to teach and conduct research. He recognised, in short, the intellectual importance of engaging with those whose views he may have cordially(willingly,मन से) disliked, even opposed.
A more recent instance was
that of the former Vice Chancellor of JNU, Prof. Sudhir Sopory, a celebrated
biologist who respectfully followed not just the rules, but the norms that
govern the university. He showed the greatest respect for disciplines, methods,
and perspectives he knew not much about. In a farewell that endeared him to the
teaching community, he declared his desire to return as a student of the School
of Arts and Aesthetics at JNU, a relatively new and flourishing department. No
greater compliment could be paid to the intellectual culture of the
institution.
The current insistence on obedience, and the impoverished ideas
of nationalism which university spaces are beginning to propagate, have already
dented the intellectual agendas of such spaces. By turning universities and
institutions of learning into places of unquestioning worship, we run the risk
of being brought to our knees, in more ways than one.
courtesy:the hindu
