As religiously-motivated attacks increase globally, the concept that one man’s terrorist can be another man’s freedom fighter must be done away with
The multiple gun attacks in Vienna are the nefarious outcome of a deliberate misinterpretation of religious identity. This kind of narrative has led to the beheading of a history teacher in France and stabbing of three innocents in Nice and so on. All these incidents are clear indicators that post-modern terrorism is likely to haunt the world in general and Europe in particular. These attacks are also a reminder of an array of socio-political and global issues which Europe has to come to terms with. Austrian Chancellor Sebastian Kurz has already hinted towards Huntington’s Clashes of Civilisations theory coming true. He called the recent gun attack by an Islamist terrorist “an attack of terror driven by hatred of our way of life, our democracy.” This upsurge in religiously-motivated hitback attacks has marked the beginning of the pernicious era of terrorism. The rising tide of immigration and human smuggling across the borders in Europe has posed serious logistical and security challenges to France, Germany and Britain. Undoubtedly these are defining moments for the leaders of Europe. It is high time countries developed sophisticated mechanisms to handle the problem head on as it has already caused severe tension between various nations and compounded the problem of human trafficking and refugees across the globe. In certain pockets, the problems of migration and refugees have resulted in a quagmire. The influx of refugees, who have fled due to disturbances in Afghanistan and Uzbekistan, has added a new dimension to the existing problem of violence and crime in Central Asian Republics. In an era of globalisation, the world is becoming small and integrated but due to its inner paradoxes, it is getting fragmented and turning out to be a highly sectarian place.
The recent incidents cannot be viewed in isolation. History bears testimony to various such tragic events. A few years ago, the bombing of civilians in Oklahoma City (which left more than 200 people dead) sent shockwaves around the world. A mysterious gas attack at the main train station in a Tokyo subway, that killed 12 people and left nearly 5,000 hospitalised, also sent dangerous signals. All such acts were a violent culmination of plans that were carefully executed by terrorists. Similarly, most countries of the world, including India, Russia , Spain, the UK, US, Italy, Israel, and China, are suffering due to terrorist activities in one way or another. Although violence in itself is condemnable, very rarely is a terrorist attack a nihilistic act bereft of any deeper undercurrents. And the structure of violence is more often than not located in society and social conditions, which not only create them but also nourish and reinforce them. Recurrence of violence is symptomatic of a society’s body politic, torn asunder by varied threats and tensions.
Very often, the social conditions that generate conflict and violence have external coordinates. To many experts dealing with the terror driven by religiously-motivated thinking, it is on account of new challenges the post-modern world is experiencing because of the past mistakes of not calling a spade a spade till the spectre started creating havoc in their own backyard. To many social scientists dealing with terrorism in a globalised world, the matrix of power rests on the highly-visible, unequal structure of the international economy. Such inter-relations between socio-economic conditions in different parts of the world are becoming more and more obvious daily. At another level, the post-Cold War international political-economic order is still a victim of the power game that was thrust on the world by the then “Big Powers.” The power network woven by the US and its allies in the entire West Asian region has provoked the ire of the opposition forces in almost every State where the US has had an interest-based relationship. Thus, as societies globalise and the curtains of opacity are raised through increased inter-societal interaction at the international level, people in the underdeveloped countries are holding the “Big Powers” responsible for their inferior socio-economic positions. There has always been a smooth international network of collaboration among the various terrorist groups supported by a few countries throughout the world. For example, take Pakistan’s involvement in orchestrating terrorism in Kashmir and the Japanese Red Army’s collaboration with Italy’s Red Brigade. It is sometimes the wide coverage by the media which provides the rationale for terrorism and increases the problem by stimulating it. This is a classic example of how astute media management can reduce the level of moral opposition to counter-terrorism. The latest has been the obnoxious nexus between the Al Qaeda, the ISIS and LeT. Their deadly combination has laid siege to peace and security.
European nations alone have witnessed more than 8,500 terrorist incidents since 1990, representing about 29 per cent of the total global incidents. The situation has become vulnerable since 2016 and with the increasing rise in the cases of illegal migration across the European countries. The rise of modern terrorism with frightening ramifications has resulted in a demand for strengthening the national law and order machinery. Of late, the pressure on the police and security agencies has been mounting. But the existing laws still pose many problems. The use of police and paramilitary forces for combating terrorism has created an apprehension that it might lead to the oppression of the general populace. Surprisingly, a proper legal definition of terrorism is yet to be found. The widening gap between the various governments regarding evolving a common strategy for suppression of terrorism needs to be viewed in the context of the potential for threat that it holds. Even the European convention on suppression of terrorism is restricted by Article 5 and Article 13, which refuse the extradition of a terrorist on many grounds. In an environment where terrorist violence is endemic and the world stands hopelessly divided on various laws, all countries should shun their national prerogatives for dealing with terrorism.
Many efforts have been made by a number of nations to control State-sponsored terrorism, such as through economic sanctions, but so far they have not reached a consensus either at the national or global level. During the last two decades, increasing drug smuggling and the unholy nexus between drug smugglers and terrorists have posed a serious problem to the internal State-security networks and compelled various nations to organise themselves and wage a relentless war against such a nexus. But mere implementation of vigorous drug laws cannot become effective unless the judicial procedure is modified for ensuring speedy trials. The continuing uncertainties with regard to terrorism have encouraged various countries to launch psychological warfare against terrorism.
The London Economic Summit Conference, organised by NATO States and Japan a few years ago, proved to be another landmark for the eradication of terrorism, which decided that unless we attack the roots of terrorism, only superficial relief could be seen but violence would increase in the total quantum of its impact. Creation of general awareness and organisation of public support against terrorist acts could be of immense use.
While it is desirable to allow police and the armed forces to employ better informed judgment about local problems, there is, of course, a danger that this attempt of the Government could dilute the benefits to those deemed deserving and, thus, any possibility of peace and negotiation. Rapid international transportation and use of sophisticated weapons have helped the expansion of terrorist networks globally. Besides, the new suicide squads have left the entire security apparatus shocked.
As religiously-motivated attacks increase globally, the concept that one man’s terrorist can be another man’s freedom fighter must be done away with. The local populace should cooperate with the law enforcement machinery even at the cost of personal misery while prompt and strict decisions should be undertaken by various nations for controlling terrorists psychologically. In a changing environment, the security apparatus and police need to diversify activities by bringing together technical and professional expertise based on many decades of experience in maintaining internal security. In this regard, the most crucial aspect is to develop the capability to anticipate security needs.
This is possible by conducting specialised courses for monitoring security situations.Unless we attack the roots of terrorism, we would have only superficial relief and terrorism would magnify in the total quantum of its impact. The need of the hour is international cooperation to tackle the menace and forming an integrated team after minutely comprehending the inner dynamics of the problem.
(The writer is a professor of political science, Visiting Professor, University of Leuven, Belgium)
The UNDP report recommends that Governments should consider the benefits and costs of migration on their strategies and plans
The last few decades have witnessed vast changes in political ideology and economic policies across the world. People of different countries have been affected differently, but always in a significant manner everywhere. Goa has achieved remarkable progress since liberation from Portuguese rule on December 19, 1961. The greatest gain of this freedom has been the feeling of self-respect regained, the opening of the portals of opportunity, particularly to the vast mass of people who were denied upward mobility over the centuries and perhaps millennia.
Great strides have been made in core sectors such as education. In 1961, the literacy rate here was 30 per cent. Goa is now a fully literate State if we exclude some people above the age of 50 and a section of migrant labourers.
This has been achieved mainly through private institutions. Regrettably, Government schools themselves are in an appalling condition. As a result, only those who cannot afford to enroll their children in private schools send them to the Government schools in the State. The Fundamental Right to Education for all children up to the age of 14 years is enshrined in our Constitution. What is required is a law to determine the facilities which the State Government should provide to the children so that they can exercise this fundamental right.
“Free education” means not merely freedom from tuition fees but also adequate classrooms and teachers, free uniforms, textbooks and other educational material. Inequalities in education will be accentuated in the computer age. The dangerous “digital divide” can only be prevented if necessary steps are taken right now. The ideal is the “Common School System” with quality Government schools, known as “neighbourhood schools”, in every locality where all children, irrespective of social class or religious affiliation can attend. This is the system prevailing in Scandinavia and other educationally-advanced countries.
The Goa University ought to be a centre of academic excellence at the national as well as at the international level. It should be a powerful instrument to enable the youth of Goa and of the country at large to deal with and thrive in today’s increasingly competitive world, the global “knowledge society” where education is the key to success. Turning Goa University into a Central University would have advanced this objective and would have improved significantly our university education.
The Official Language Act was enacted in 1987. It was intended to strengthen our common cultural heritage and achieve greater unity and harmony among our people. Yet, in the process of implementing the Act, those who write Konkani in the Roman script are entitled to the same protection available to those who write in Devanagari. This is their right and it flows from Article 29 (1) of the Constitution of India. Konkani writers in Roman script should have access to literary awards, representation in literary bodies, financial assistance and so on, to the same extent available to those who write in Devanagari. However, Konkani should be taught in schools through the Devanagari script only. The reason is that children learn the Roman script through the study of English, which is important for international communication and for availing the increasing employment opportunities in the country itself. Devanagari is equally important for access to Indian culture and other Indian languages. The importance of national languages and assertion of national cultural identity are growing everywhere in the world. India is not and should not be an exception.
In the 1960s, tourism was adopted as a key sector for Goa’s development primarily because of its potential to generate employment in a State with an increasingly educated workforce and limited industrial growth. The objective of employment has been achieved to a great extent in as much as almost one-third of Goa’s population is engaged in tourism-related activities, directly or indirectly. However, Goa being a small State, its carrying capacity in terms of its size, facilities available and ecological fragility should be considered.
Very little awareness existed until a decade ago among policymakers in Goa or elsewhere in the world about the need for sustainable tourism development. It is now accepted that tourism should be developed in a manner that meets the requirements of the present without compromising the ability of future generations to meet their own needs.
Sustainable tourism development considers three fundamental elements, economic, social and environmental. Economic sustainability consists in maintaining the growth rate at a manageable level to avoid consumer dissatisfaction. In Goa, it is necessary to upgrade the basic physical infrastructure. Social sustainability refers to society’s ability to absorb tourist arrivals without adversely affecting local well-being and value systems.
Environmental sustainability relates to the capacity of the environment to handle population impact without damage. Mega construction projects have transformed the landscape of Goa. Huge buildings have now progressed from the coastline into the hinterland and they have a negative impact on the lifestyle of the local population. Big buildings, especially in the villages, destroy the environment and should not be permitted. Non-disposal of garbage, particularly inorganic, in a scientific manner is also assuming menacing proportions. This matter should be tackled with a sense of urgency. There is apprehension in our State regarding the influx of people from other States who come here mostly for employment.
The Department of NRI Affairs published in 2008 the first-ever Goa Migration Survey. It identified the Goan diaspora in 43 countries and stated that “the actual number of countries would be much larger. Goans are found the world over and it would be difficult to name a country without a Goan community.”
The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) released its annual Human Development Report under the caption “Overcoming Barriers: Human Mobility and Development.” The report deals entirely with migration within and among countries. It finds that migrants boost economic output and, contrary to commonly-held beliefs, immigration generally increases employment in host communities, does not crowd out locals from the job market and improves the rate of investment in new businesses and initiatives.
The UNDP report recommends that Governments should reflect on the benefits and costs of migration on their strategy and plans. Migration from one region to another puts pressure on the existing infrastructure and social services such as housing, electricity, water and sanitation.
While Goans can be justifiably proud of the vast social and economic progress achieved over the last five decades, they do also face several challenges at this point of time. Goans ought to confront these hurdles with confidence and commitment to values that shape a forward-moving and progressive society. These values should be taught at school and at home so that our land is prosperous and free from oppression of any sort, where justice and fairplay do indeed prevail.
(The writer is a former Union Minister)
The law’s implementation suffers due to the lackadaisical and target-oriented approach of the Tribal Affairs Ministry, which is just content with settling claims
The conservation of forests in India has been a bone of contention for more than a century now, ever since the creation of a Forest Department in 1864. The British enacted the Indian Forest Act in 1865 and amended it in 1878 with detail prescriptions on how to control and scientifically work forests. The 1878 Act was again modified in 1927 and today it forms the basis of management of forests in the country along with the Wildlife Protection Act, 1972 and Forest Conservation Act, 1980.
The struggle for access and control of forest resources by tribals intensified after the forests of princely States were declared as reserved and protected areas. In 1989, the Government set up a dispute settlement mechanism at the district level with a committee consisting of a Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sub-Divisional Forest Officers and the Sub-Divisional Tribal Welfare Officer. But this committee remained either non-functional or did not do its job. The problem kept festering, with rival political interests taking centrestage after the Supreme Court’s order in 2003 on eviction of all encroachments on forest lands. After the General Election of 2004, the United Progressive Alliance enacted the Scheduled Tribes and the Other Forest Dwellers (Recognition of Forest Rights) Act, 2006. It recognised that forest rights on the ancestral lands of the tribals and their habitat were not adequately provided, resulting in historical injustice to the Scheduled Tribes and other traditional forest dwellers, who are integral to the very survival of the ecosystem.
For the last 14 years, the process of vesting forest rights is under way under the provisions of the Forest Act. As per the Ministry of Tribal Affairs, as on June 30, a total of 42,52,124 claims had been filed. Of this 41, 03,001 were individual claims and 1,49,123 were community ones. A total of 19,09,249 individual claims comprising over 16.69 lakh hectares (ha) of forests were settled and vested with the people. And 76,383 community claims over 35.22 lakh ha of forests were vested with the beneficiaries. Thus forest rights of tribal people and traditional forest dwellers on around 52 lakh ha of forests stand settled.
Now the question is, what is happening to these people? In the tribal belt of Madhya Pradesh, in the districts of Jabalpur, Seoni, Mandla, Umeria, Balaghat and Dindori, I met representatives of local NGOs, Jai Bharati Siksha Kendra, Kalyan Ashram and Bharat Vikas Parishad and a large number of tribal people, and discussed the implementation of the Act. On the positive side, in well-stocked forests, where mahua, chirongi and so on are available, the people have raised their income. At one place in Dabra Khurd in Jabalpur district, the management of 42 forest resources out of 75 has been transferred to 12 village communities. But these 3,500 ha of forests, from the point of view of the management, have become a no man’s land as neither is the forest department doing anything, nor do the communities have the wherewithal to manage them because of lack of funds and capacity. The proposal for the creation of a Van Dhan Centre by communities is being tossed between the Collector’s Office and the Divisional Forest Officer. Another proposal of the Dabra village community for preparation of the micro plan, as per the provision of the Act, has not been forwarded by the Tribal Welfare Department of Madhya Pradesh to the Centre, for funding under the tribal sub-plan, in the last two-and-a-half years.
Grassroot workers put this down to corruption in the Tribal Welfare Department where a huge amount of funds remains unutilised. Hence, out of frustration, social workers are leaving these communities in the lurch.
The villagers of Dabra Khurd are asking for tendu patta auction rights because in the existing process, the Joint Forest Management (JFM) committees get a part of the sale money and not the Community Rights Committees. The viability of continuing JFM committees in these areas is being questioned and there is talk of replacing it with a better, people-centric strategy.
There is confusion in these villages regarding the management of forests as the local forest officers feel that they are not allowed to operate in these areas and the people also do not approach them due to lack of mutual trust. While the local Chief Conservator of Forests has agreed to hold a meeting with the people to develop a model for the management of Non-Timber Forest Products, politics is making the people root for more individual rights. They are not focussing on managing community rights. It is ironical that 86 per cent of the growers in India are marginal farmers with less than two ha of land. The basic aim of the enactment of this Act has, therefore, succeeded only partially.
The Act’s implementation suffers due to the lackadaisical and target-oriented approach of the Tribal Affairs Ministry. It is just content with settling claims. The objective of this Act is to help both, the people and the ecosystem they are a part of. The Union Government must consider making the Forest Department responsible for preparing a micro plan and building the capacity of the people for managing the forests.
One major decision warranted is to continue JFM in other forest areas with second-generation reforms but in areas where the forest right Act is being implemented, it should be replaced with community forest management, with the communities having the freedom to manage the resources with the technical support of the Forest Department.
Grassroot level NGOs should be made stakeholders for more transparency and to support the communities in capacity-building. The basic flaws in the Act’s implementation must be rectified by making the Forest Department the nodal agency for the execution of management and development of resources jointly with communities. This is so that a single point delivery system with accountability exists.
There is a need for policy intervention by the Centre so that 52 lakh ha of forests produce sufficient resources for the people while remaining ecologically viable.
(The writer is a former civil servant)
Faith needs to be negotiated with empathy for the marginalised and the culturally-different by breaking through the glass ceiling of Europeanism and replacing it with cosmopolitanism
Sigmund Freud’s diagnostic work, entitled Civilization and its Discontents, explains how civilisations spawn neurotic responses. The French principle of laïcité (secularism) places the huge demand of strict separation between State and religion. Freud’s theory of neurotic response arises from the inability to follow such difficult and hard commands of civilisations. Essentially it means that France, as a State, has no other way but to respond with angst to the terrorist act of killing of a teacher, which precisely is an act of Freudian discontent, may be even neurosis. The subject of neurosis is necessarily misplaced or displaced. France’s specific problem with its principle of laïcité is that it finds the core values of Islam incongruent with the French national ethos. If freedom of expression in secularism involves the right to offend symbols of other religions by calling them antithetical to French national culture, it marks the effacement of a minority religion like Islam in the public space. This is how France cannot uphold a true laïcité by overriding the faith of erstwhile colonised Arabs from the Maghreb and other minorities, who comprise a diverse Muslim populace. So laïcité takes the form of political secularism that creates a hierarchy in which it decides which religious faith is acceptable and which one is not. Secularism, then, acts as a rule of the majority over minority faiths. This creates an apparent conflict between the majority world view and minority religions.
Placing the burden of tolerance on a particular religion after offending its symbols is certainly unwarranted in a secular State. This is a failure to establish equality between religions as well as a failure to ensure freedom of conscience. This also justifies reactive violence on a populace for their failure to come to terms with the offence committed on their faith. The French version of secularism, placing the demand on the State to remain strictly separated from religion, cannot heal the wounds of history of the erstwhile colonised.
The long history of colonisation of Black Africans and Arabs by France impacts the present shape of French secularism to create marginality and radical Islam together in the people from erstwhile French colonies. Political secularism lives through such contrarian moments of extremism and radical religious politics arising from a history of colonisation. Here, one needs to draw a distinction between “political secularism” and “secularism of values.” Secularism of values differs from political secularism as it promotes an attitude of “neither pro, nor anti-religion.” Political secularism polarises this secularism of values into something that is anti or against some practices of a particular religious group.
An attitude of neutrality towards religion does not stop the French State from turning against it, or turning selectively in favour of a religion. This brings into picture the logic of uniformity of symbols in public space that does not allow a difference of religious symbols. Political secularism relegates religions to the private, or at most to community spaces.
If the freedom of every religion in France is taken literally in laïcité, why is it so very hard for Muslims to follow their symbols or to ensure their faith? Derogation of the Prophet in any way cannot be considered as consistent with the practice of hard secularist neutrality. Secular neutrality of “neither for nor against” is supposed to remain neutral to the way a religion practises its belief. Instead of such a principled stance, what the French laïcité does is to allow the way a religion is reflected in the mirror of French State or public.
In effect, exercise of legal indemnity towards a distortion of symbols or image of a faith is a licence to undermine the specific character and practices of a particular faith or religion. This is projecting a wrong image of a religion in the public space. Taken to its extreme, French secularism posits religious identities into an adversary by allowing an underlying “war on religion” or by allowing a derogation of religious symbols. Such an outcome cannot be fully legit in a pluralist democracy. Seemingly France tweaks its legal, political and juridical concepts attached to secularism to legitimise constraints upon those religions that are considered as outliers. Hence the law of secularism is no guarantee for religious freedom, it rather is a way of tweaking and moderating religious expressions within limits of French neutrality.
Are certain identities, then, to be treated as antithetical to the principles of laïcité? Is treating every religion in an equal manner a way of cutting it to size by downplaying its core belief structure? In French President Emmanuel Macron’s language, “no totem or taboo”, referring to religious symbols. Is it then, a hard secular knock at others? Is there a secularism-inspired separation of the self and other as part of State policy? This is a denial or acceptance of the select values of religion, mixed with the secular cause, a certain fragmentation of laïcité itself. Rejection of the turban or the hijab interestingly turns an outsider’s gaze on French secularism that continuously undercuts the line of strict separation.
This creates a political issue of adjustment between a religious victim’s perception of being denigrated and the demand placed on him/her to not show difference of identity in the public sphere. This also turns French laïcité into a “misuse of secularism to stigmatise people.” Clearly President Macron’s statement, “Islam is a religion in crisis all over the world” or a highly visible crackdown on Islam as a religion border on a near anti-Islam positioning that goes against the grain of neutrality and freedom of conscience.
A mea culpa anti-Islam version of French secularism has its internal victims. The French Council of the Muslim Faith (CFCM) stated, “We are sometimes targets of anti-Muslim acts but others are also victims of hostile acts. In the face of these provocations, we must remain decent, serene and clear-sighted.” If the public sphere is not supposed to carry the remnants of any such mea culpa version from any side, as per French secularism, the exact opposite has happened. Stigmatisation, racial othering and lampooning of the doctrines of faith assume the garb of French laïcité. So what remains unresolved is this lack of criticism against an anti-Islam stance of President Macron, often known as “Macronism.”
This Macronist secularism misdirected against a religion arises from the French President’s political secularism that wrecks equality of faiths. It further causes an emotional and grief-based solidarity that provides a fulcrum for new laws for monitoring schools and mosques in Muslim areas of France. Acquiescence by Saudi Arabia to the Macronist stance on Islam in terms of his “counter-terrorism and deradicalisation” measures strengthens the pre-emptive fixing of the guilt on Muslim immigrants in France, especially if they are of Arab origin.
The deficits of laïcité cannot be supplemented by such externalisation of an anti-Islam stance. Should secularism turn Islamophobic, it brings back an image of an anti-Semite European world view, which ultimately undermines the secularism of values by a version of political secularism.
France has to overcome the present antagonism by building more bridges with Muslims on its soil and dispelling the image of being at war with Islam. Macron cannot afford to become a mascot of Right-wing Islamophobes. A liberal State ultimately needs to accommodate differences and return to unifying nationalism that promotes love and co-belonging. Faith needs to be negotiated with a special ecumenism and empathy for the marginalised and the culturally-different by breaking through the glass ceiling of Europeanism and replacing it with cosmopolitanism.
Cosmopolitanism in Europe places the demand of adopting a value-neutral position to both one’s own religion as well as to other religions. Catholic churches of France, irked by a certain mockery of their faith, filed cases on Charlie Hebdo, but, unlike Islamists, never indulged in terror attacks. However, Islamists and certain conservative clerics create an atmosphere of backlash on the slightest slight of their religious symbols. Islamic nation States, too, are particularly intransigent towards people of different faiths and compel them to comply with codes of Islam in everyday life.
The value-neutral and secular cosmopolitan European culture allows for acceptance of symbols of religious traditions as a universal heritage of mankind. The French version of secularism insists on the separation of the sphere of faith from the sphere of common and shared public life, that is supposed to extol virtues of tolerance and unconditional respect for the other. It is here that reactions to freedom of aesthetic and artistic representation of religious symbols and prophets is supposed to be beyond any dogmatic condemnation.
France stands for not restricting freedom of satirisation or artistic freedom to be unconstrained by religious dogmas. It is here that French laïcité ensures that France will not side with any faith, be it Islam, be it Sikhism or Christianity in allowing freedom of choice, conscience and individuality to all people.
(The writer is a philosopher and political analyst based in Shillong)
Bollywood in Mumbai would have been neither as rich nor gifted without the many bounties of Bengal, like the late Soumitra Chatterjee
Having seen a few of Soumitra Chatterjee-led films, I cannot forget him, or conceptually, Tollywood as a whole. The only film studio I have seen was at Tollygunge in the days when the actor had to wear a light blue dhoti so that it showed up as white on the screen. Bollywood in Mumbai would have been neither as rich nor gifted without the many bounties of Bengal, like the late Soumitra Chatterjee.
There was Anil Biswas, who discovered Talat Mahmood, the silken voice; even Talat was first discovered singing Bengali songs as Tapan Kumar on All India Radio, Kolkata (called Calcutta in those days). There were the unforgettable Hemant Kumar, the versatile Manna Dey and many other artistes, musicians and directors. The wonderment is that these men and women, born, bred and having turned artistes in Kolkata, came to what was then called Bombay (the Mumbai of today) to blossom. Arguably, the proudest name of Indian filmdom has been the late Satyajit Ray, India’s only Oscar-winning film-maker. Yet, it is Bollywood that has flourished whereas Tollywood has merely survived. What makes this paradox viable?
Tollywood is art plus art, while Bollywood is craft plus business. In some ways, Tollywood reflects the essence of what has been the Bengali elite for the best part of two centuries. To begin with, it was presumed that theatre and cinema were for the classes, while for the masses, the answer was the jatra (a popular folk-theatre). A simple song from a popular movie called Harano Sur appealed to most listeners. I tried it once with the servants, also of the neighbourhood, but their response was cool. The song was sung on screen by Suchitra Sen: “Aykbaar bolo, tumi je aamar.”
For the Bengali ethos, the businessman was a “byabshadar” and the “banik” was an OBC, unlike northern and western India, where he is a twice born and permitted to wear the sacred thread. My belief is that Tollywood film-making has been influenced by this ethos.
Once, when the Rajya Sabha proceedings were awaited to begin, I got a chance to have a 15-minute chat with Mrinal Sen, who has been rated second only to the distinguished Satyajit Ray. Among the two or three questions I happened to pose, one was on why Bengali film themes seldom cater to the masses, although they are often about poor people. His reply was that, “When we began, it was presumed that our market was not large enough like the Hindi cinema.” When I pointed out that West Bengal plus Bangladesh would be 20 crore people, he was slightly taken aback and merely said, “We must think about it.” My impression is that many a film was a reflection of the director’s choice without sufficient consideration for what the audience would love to watch. When the director and the audience happened to coalesce, the film would be a hit. The Bengali language is melody when spoken and probably poetry when written. So far, wonderful; but it has in the past discouraged even prime ministerial aspirants from learning Hindi with any degree of accuracy.
The late Jyoti Basu, Siddharth Shankar Ray and Pranab Mukherjee could not speak Hindi spontaneously. Priya Ranjan Dasmunsi was the first Bengali I heard speaking in Hindi. Any educated person among the elite spoke English. The second emotional preference was for French. Now, no doubt things are changing as we have heard Babul Supriyo, Minister Of State in the Narendra Modi Government, speaking fluent Hindi.
The West Bengal economy does need a boost and the film industry could well be the one to bring in employment. It does not require much investment by the State and Bengalis generally are naturally artistic, be it in acting, music and what not. The only real requirement is that of attitude and priority. Bengali film-makers must take into account that all films are not media of artistic expression. Most of them must have a large dose of popular entertainment, too. The market extends from West Bengal to Bangladesh and several districts of Assam. Suitable movies in Bengali could be dubbed in Hindi and other languages, which could extend the market considerably.
Remember, the film industry in India began with Kolkata at its centre, with New Theatres founded by Birendranath Sircar and the great Kundan Lal Saigal as its outstanding star. Incidentally, Saigal had come to Kolkata from Punjab. He picked up Bengali quite well and acted in seven Bengali films, produced by New Theatres. Rabindranath Tagore first heard Saigal before giving consent for the first time to a non-Bengali singing his songs. Saigal endeared himself to the whole of Bengal through his 30 Bengali songs.
(The writer is a well-known columnist and an author. Views expressed are personal)
In India, women’s struggle to gain working space continues. They form only 19.9 per cent of the total labour force, much below the halfway mark
Is gender stereotyping a thing of the past? No way! There are instances of sexism galore even in the “post-feministic” world. A widely circulated video on a popular social media platform showed how a “work from home” husband, hassled by his wife’s never-ending demands for participating in domestic chores, longs to get back to the office. The images, no doubt, reinforce the notion that domesticity is the women’s domain and the external world belongs to men.
In Justice Amy Coney Barrett’s recent Senate Judiciary confirmation meetings, her large brood found frequent mention and her commitment to motherhood was part of the public narrative. However, in the case of former Justice Antonin Scalia, his fatherhood and large family never found any mention.
During the present pandemic, a handful of women political leaders earned applause for their effective containment strategies. In a crisis, their humility, inclusiveness, decisiveness and empathy touched the right chord with their beleaguered compatriots. It certainly unsettled the existing presumptions about leadership, which is often associated with “macho” qualities.
Roshee Lamichhane, Professor, Kathmandu University School of Management, rues that “gender stereotyping is deeply ingrained in the very process of child rearing, which, often metamorphoses a girl into a submissive creature, and endows a boy with overbearing character traits.” Saira Shah Halim, a social activist, author and film-maker, says that “the school curriculum and textbooks further sustain the rigid construction of gendered roles and condition the young minds with many cliches. For instance, D stands for a doctor, depicting a man, N for a nurse, with the image of a woman and that father goes to office and mother cooks at home and such gender expectations act as a deterrent in nurturing aspirations, choices or freedoms for many girls.” She further says that “even emotional responses are gender-specific, such as aggression, anger and violence are signs of manly behaviour, and consequently, women bear the burnt, despite a host of protective laws, as malefactors often find social support.”
The role of socio-religious forces cannot be undermined in fostering an inequitable power play in gender relations. The sacred Hindu literature, Manu Smriti, whose tenets still hold sway, spoke of imposing “tight control over women’s autonomy” and ordained women to be under the protective care of male guardians like a father, husband and son in different phases of their lives. Festivals like Karva Chauth, Raksha Bandhan, Shiv Ratri, et al are perhaps the outcome of such diktats. Some States in India are now mulling a law against inter-faith marriages or the so-called “love jihad”, possibly another attempt to impose a patriarchal writ on sisters and daughters in the name of saving family honour.
The popular entertainment industry is no less responsible in keeping alive gendered myths through its scripts, casting and dialogues. In 2014, a UN-sponsored study in the 10 most-profitable global film industries, including India, found that films often prop up beliefs that masculine traits and behaviour are more valued than feminine ones. In Hindi movies, women were only in 11.9 per cent of the films as central characters (2015-2017), which was only about seven per cent in the 70s, according to a study by the IBM and two Delhi-based institutions.
Katherine Coffman, a Harvard Business School Professor, asserts that “gender stereotypes determine people’s beliefs about themselves and others. If I take a woman who has the exact same ability in two different categories — verbal and math — just the fact that there’s an average male advantage in math shapes her belief that her own ability in math is lower.”
Researchers from Illinois, New York and Princeton Universities also found that girls as young as six years old tend to believe that brilliance is reserved for men, while a University of Warwick study says that “girls feel the need to play down their intelligence to not intimidate boys, pretending to be less intelligent than they actually are, not speaking out against harassment, and withdrawing from hobbies, sports and activities that might seem unfeminine.” Undoubtedly, trying to live up to such unreal ideas of masculinity and femininity leads to a tragic loss of potential in young people, especially in women.
In the US, women comprise half of the labour force, but only 26 per cent of them are employed in computer and math jobs, and occupy fewer seats in the C-suite than men, particularly in male-dominated professions like finance and technology. They earn almost 60 per cent of advanced degrees, but bring home less pay, due to “occupational sorting”, as men go for higher-paying jobs than women. While gender gap in pay is a universal reality, the recent case of the Princeton university paying lesser to its women professors proves that even renowned institutions are not immune to gender prejudices.
In India, women’s struggle to gain working space continues, being only 19.9 per cent of the total labour force, much below the halfway mark says the World Bank. Women remain poorly represented in core sectors of the economy like oil and gas (seven per cent), automotive (10 per cent), pharmaceutical and healthcare (11 per cent) and information technology (28 per cent). They earn, on average, 65.5 per cent less than their male colleagues for the same work, says a India Skills Report 2020.
In the STEM disciplines, women constitute nearly 43 per cent of the total enrolments but only three per cent enrol in PhD in science and six per cent in engineering and technology. A meagre 14 per cent of them work as scientists, engineers, technologists in research development institutions.
A 2018 IMF study indicated that women are prone to being displaced by technology as they perform more routine tasks, and about 11 per cent of them are likely to suffer from job losses for want of the required STEM skills by 2030. Kelly’s Workforce insights reveals that about 81 per cent women in the STEM sector confronted a subtle gender bias in performance evaluations. A large proportion of them felt that they wouldn’t be offered top positions and faced exclusion because of the presence of fewer women peers and leaders.
While commenting on prevalence of sexism in academia, Lamichhane says that issues like women’s looks and their linkage with career prospects remain contested, but, such a purported perception, often makes an impact on employees’ quest to look attractive. This proclivity has gravely impacted the sanctity of meritocracy and commodified the looks of women, while it is not a debatable issue at all for male employees.
Nevertheless, a recent lab research finding on the pre-historic skeletal remains excavated from the Andes Mountains has upset the applecart for gender stereotyping, which confirmed that women in large numbers used to be the big game hunters, and not gatherers alone, demolishing the millennia-old belief. Hasn’t this put into question the origin of gender binaries?
Sadly, the WHO and John Hopkins University’s joint study affirms the existence of all-pervasive “gender stereotypes around the world regardless of their country’s level of development.” Yet, many women, known and unknown, dared to defy the status quo and carved a new path for themselves. The milestone for bridging the gender gap may be a century away, a long journey, but not unachievable.
(The writer is a retired Indian Information Service Officer, and a media educator)
‘Talentship’ is the term coined for decision science on staff talent resources. It is to HR what finance is to accounting and what marketing is to sales
Human Resource (HR) management is considered secondary to finance and marketing. Corporate leaders do not spare as much time for talent management as they do for investment allocation, customer service, marketing, product line and technology. Hence, the HR function is limited to delivery of programmes like skill development, incentives, hiring, learning, development and so on. This limits its scope exponentially. Therefore, there is an urgent need for a paradigm shift to enhance the function of HR managers to include decision-making about talent, as one cannot emphasise enough the importance of relevant human capital for the success of any organisation. Current business trends like globalisation, adoption of digital technology, labour scarcity, mergers and acquisitions, expanding and scaling down simultaneously and the changing demographic profile of workers make this transformation vital.
Even when it performs well, traditional HR function falls short of expectations. Unlike finance, operation and marketing, there appears to be no clear distinction between strategic and tactical HR. While strategic HR is more of a vision to be considered the best employer in the industry, tactical HR concerns the daily operations of managing employee benefit programmes and various rules and regulations. There are several areas that are left unanswered in traditional HR, like a thin plausible association between the core business principle and the talent management process. Employee management goals are mostly general in nature, such as headcount, labour costs, standard HR programmes and so on. These have no correlation with competitive success and shareholder value.
Although sizeable investments are done in HR management techniques, like balanced scorecards, analytics and so on to enhance staff capabilities, they rarely play a significant role in mergers and acquisitions and new market entries. They also provide insufficient understanding of a company’s competitive advantage developed through engaged employees. HR programmes are more like “one-size-fits all.” For instance, in marketing, it cannot be suggested that all products should have the same number of hours of advertising. Because, how can that be? Some may require it more than others. However, this way of functioning is prevalent in HR, that is, “50 hours of quality training” can be a standard statement for all workers. This type of training is less precise and may not be fully effective. Hence, traditional HR functions do not help leaders make better decisions about those resources to drive organisational effectiveness.
Where does the solution lie? Many researchers believe that the key is better metrics. As discussed above, HR measurements are limited to Return on Investments of programmes, balanced scorecards and improvement in Six-Sigma scores. Metrics like HR accounting, quality, branding and balanced scorecards are, no doubt, useful systems, if applied correctly, but they rarely address the fundamental challenge of improving talent decisions. However, according to the Corporate Leadership Council (2001), the two most significant and crucial areas of HR measurement, that is to augment decisions about human capital and associate HR to strategy, are seldom taken care of. Decision science has long been used in marketing, finance and operations and can be extended to HR functions too. It helps by providing a valid, dependable and steady framework that boosts the decision-making capability at all levels. Similar to finance and marketing function, HR helps in another critical aspect — talent. For organisations to achieve success, effective and professional decision-making is required in finance, marketing and talent markets.
“Talentship” is the term coined for decision science on staff talent resources. In fact, “talentship” is to HR what finance is to accounting, and what marketing is to sales. It is believed that from the point of view of HR, organisational success can be improved by enhancing the decisions on talent resources. As this concept of talentship evolves, success will come to companies not because of HR practices but due to the improved decision-making quality about talent resources throughout the firm. Similar to the finance and marketing department, talent decisions exist at various levels within a firm, with supervisors and managers deciding about the available staff and their personal talent. To gain any say in influential and strategic business planning processes, HR should focus more on a unique approach, focussed on talent, with a perspective of improving decisions and not just a process of implementing decisions. Every firm must make the “talentship” decision science workable by creating tools that facilitate decision-makers to make the right choices and develop interlinkages with strategic success. Without a proper framework, it is easy to get lost in myriad information and opinions and lose sight of the key issues, and therefore, the strategic vision.
(The writer is Associate Professor, Amity University, Noida)
There is nothing wrong with the Indian cricket team captain wanting to be beside his wife when she delivers their baby
Paternity leave is a serious issue even if we do not think of it much in India. In many developed nations, working men are given time off, time that is often mandated by law to be with their new-born children and share parenting responsibilities. This is where India’s patriarchal society actually counts against men as culturally they are not expected to be part of the child-rearing process as much as their Western counterparts. So much so that the concept of paternity leave is considered alien in all but a few Indian companies. Indeed even the Indian subsidiaries of many multinationals find extended paternity leave difficult to comprehend. And it is even tougher for many professionals. We even have women going back to work days after giving birth, let alone men.
Yes, many Indians do not have the luxury of taking maternity or paternity leave but in case they can afford that privilege, why do we bemoan it? So what if Anushka Sharma’s husband happens to be the Indian cricket team captain and will leave a tour halfway to be with her when she delivers their child. Virat Kohli has achieved huge milestones in his career and owes nobody, other than his family, anything. Those who have come out and questioned his professionalism and patriotism are talking nonsense. We do not talk like this of other athletes, even cricketers, in developed countries. Yes, it is apparent that Sharma and Kohli can afford the best help money can buy but why shouldn’t the two of them be together when they do the single most important thing that a man and woman do together, that is bringing a new life into this world? Kohli is assured of his talent and his place in the Indian team. However, if afterwards, he wants to quit the sport to be with his child, so what? He is unlikely to do that but we have to all grow up and understand that fathers have to play a bigger role in the child-rearing process. Maybe Kohli doing what he is doing will inspire other men to stand up and be a stakeholder in their child’s development. Sharing the first few months of a new-born’s life may not be remembered by the child when he/she grows up but will definitely be cherished by the father and mother for the rest of their lives. So let Virat do his thing.
Every world leader leaves behind a legacy. What kind of legacy has US President Donald Trump left? His successor Joe Biden has now inherited some bad and good policies, which he has to tackle. A Reuter’s report sums up his legacy thus, “Saying that he knew best what ailed America and often governing by executive order, President Donald Trump dismantled or disrupted multilateral pacts, overhauled tax and immigration systems and, with the help of Senate Republicans, reshaped the judiciary. Trump’s actions may be undone in many areas over time, but win or lose, his legacy will endure in the federal courts where his conservative lifetime appointees will influence every aspect of American life for decades.” The recent poll results have revealed how divisive the US has become. It is currently divided vertically on class, racial, economic, political, urban-rural and gender basis. Trump himself is alleged to be a divisive figure. President-elect Joe Biden has stressed his priority of uniting the country but he will have a huge challenge ahead.
The second is the Covid legacy. No doubt Trump did not create the pandemic but he could have handled it much better. Biden’s main issue during the campaign against him was how he ignored the outbreak, as a result of which the US has recorded the maximum number of cases in the world. Linked to the contagion is the shattered US economy. Former President Barack Obama left behind a thriving economy four years ago and even Trump was doing well in the first three years. Covid indeed shattered his dream of retaining his presidency. Had the elections been held last year or a year later, he might have returned to the White House. But today people are suffering from a sagging economy. Then there is the foreign policy, where he has left behind a mess. Though he did not start a war with any country, the US confronted North Korea, Iran and Venezuela. Israel’s relations with Arab States demonstrate unprecedented progress but Palestine has been ignored. His hard line on Iran led to an avoidable confrontation. Afghanistan, too, needed a better strategy.
The relationship with China deteriorated the most, raising fears of a new Cold War, especially after Trump called Covid a Chinese virus. He adopted two main strategies for tackling Beijing. The first was cultivating an alliance with India and the second was selling weapons to Taiwan to check the rise of China. India revitalised the Quad, invited Australia to a naval exercise with Japan and the US. Two other important foreign policy legacies were questioning the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation and alienating European allies. Despite being a votary of democracy, he also indulged some authoritarian rulers.
Trump has left behind a diminished role for the US in multilateral institutions. He threatened the World Health Organisation by withdrawing the US’ contribution. He even threatened the United Nations that the US’ contribution would not come if the world body did not reform itself. He terminated important arms control agreements and the Paris Agreement on climate change. Thankfully Biden has already announced that the US would be rejoining the Paris climate accord and restore its primacy in these world bodies.
On trade-related issues, he played the hard-nosed businessman that he was and negotiated hard. He promised to shrink the trade deficit with other countries, particularly China, by introducing new taxes and other hurdles on imports. He challenged the multilateral alliances and the World Trade Organisation’s rules. In fact, within the first week of his taking over, Trump quit the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a trade deal negotiated by Obama. Then, the Trump Administration tightened immigration and reduced refugee admissions and access to asylum. He also made it much more difficult for immigrants from Muslim and African countries to enter the US. Now, Biden has announced a more relaxed immigration regime. Whether this is good for the US in the long run or not, only time will tell. Last but not the least, many analysts point out that though he is gone, “Trumpism” will remain at least for some time. After becoming the President in 2016, he dominated the Grand Old Party (GOP). He finished his rivals in the party and led it without challenge. The Republican establishment is gone but his base will still be there. After all, he managed to get half the country to vote for his party. Though he never delivered his key promises, the GOP base stayed with him. The New York Times points out, “Until a new generation of Republicans steps forward, Mr Trump could position himself as the de facto leader of the party, wielding an extraordinary database of information about his supporters that future candidates would love to rent or otherwise access.” What would Trump do now that he is defeated? He could return to his family business, set up a foundation, launch a new television network, go on a speaking tour, and write a memoir, which is what most of his predecessors have done. He could also run in the 2024 presidential elections but he is keeping his cards close to his chest.
(The writer is a senior journalist)
President Donald Trump may no longer be in the White House, but his influence is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. As for relations with India, Prime Minister Narendra Modi has an extraordinary capability to forge personal bond with key world leaders with a view to promoting India’s national interests. He did that with President Obama, President Trump and now he can do so with Joe Biden, presumably the next US President
Although it will take a few weeks for a formal declaration of results of the November 2020 presidential election in the United States, the results and lead reported so far make it quite clear that there will be a change of guard in the White House. On January 20, 2021, as the new President, presumably Joe Biden, takes oath as the next President of the United States, a post-Trump era will dawn with substantial challenges for the American people and even for the world. This election was contested in the midst of a global Covid-19 pandemic that hit the American people the hardest in terms of lives lost, livelihood in jeopardy and health security in absolute red zone. Yet the voters’ turnout was the highest in more than a century. Physical security of people, economic security of the nation, and Americas standing in the world were all in stake.
Analysts had begun to ponder whether the Trump era in the country’s history would be an aberration or a new trend. But the fact that about four more million people voted for Donald Trump in 2020 than they did in 2016 speaks volume of the post-Trump phase of events in the US even if a Democratic candidate assumes office in the White House. The race has been very close and Trump supporters have proved all poll survey results wrong the way it did in 2016. Significantly, a new presidency without adequate support in the US Congress is bound to face political hurdles in achieving the policy objectives. The pious intentions of uniting the country, preserving the American values and giving a healing touch to the nation may prove to be a Herculean task.
Today’s America is less white and much younger with changing values of Generation Z. The role of the Baby Boomers and Generation X has declined and role of the Millennials and Generation Z is becoming increasingly prominent. There is notable demographic shift in the society and the political dynamics have changed with people of colour and minorities being more conscious of their rights and political role. Donald Trump’s immigration policy, attitude towards racism, views on the white supremacists, the Black-Lives-Matter movement with supports from a large number of white population are all indicative of an America that is divided. The priority of the next American President will, of course, be providing a healing touch to the bruised and wounded society in an utterly divided nation. But how? It is not going to be easy. President Trump may no longer be in the White House, but his influence is unlikely to disappear anytime soon. Sooner the Republican Party is able to discover a more temperate, tolerant, classy and compassionate leadership better it would be for the country to face the shifting reality of a changing demography and settle down with a new societal consensus.
The next US Administration will also have to ensure health security, improve economic wellbeing of the masses and promote racial equity. In all these, the role of the Indian-American community is going to be crucial. And this is where the roots of the socio-economic connection between India and the United States can be located. The Indian-American community has of late provided the strong social bridge between the two countries and the political and the economic role of this community in the US are critical to sustaining the momentum of India-US strategic partnership. This is a complex connection and it cannot be explained in plain language. But it needs emphasis that the Indian Government under Prime Minister Narendra Modi has successfully engaged the Indian-American community in a manner that serves the interests of India as well as the United States.
Detractors would likely spread their discourse that Prime Minister Modi through the Indian-American community endorsed President Donald Trump in an election year and thus Joe Biden may play hardball with India. They may also draw attention to Pakistan bestowing “Hilal-e-Pakistan” on Joe Biden in 2008 and thus argue that a Biden presidency may be friendlier with a Pakistani Government. The reality is quite different. First, Prime Minister Modi had gone to America to bolster India’s ties with that country and sought to impress upon the President the role of a vast number of Indian-Americans in promoting American society and economy. He would have done the same thing in the Houston rally or Ahmedabad roadshow, had it been a different person in the White House. Reasoning that Biden’s policy towards Pakistan will be influenced by an award he received about 12 years ago is likewise untenable and fallacious. After all, Biden was the Vice President when Osama bin Laden was killed in Pakistan!
Significantly, India-US strategic partnership began to take shape since President Bill Clinton’s path-breaking trip to India in March 2000 and signing of a Vision Statement with Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee. It is that partnership envisioned by an American President and an Indian Prime Minister about 20 years ago that has borne fruit today and India-US relationship has never been better than what it is today. Twelve years of Republican Administration since end of Bill Clinton’s Democratic Administration have not erected any barriers to America’s strategic partnership with India. Eight years of Obama Administration and now next four years of Biden Administration cannot but further strengthen the US-Indian ties.
It was President Clinton who established a strategic partnership with India not long after India went nuclear. It was President George W Bush who signed the 123 Agreement to bolster India-US civil nuclear cooperation. It was President Obama who considered India a “lynchpin” of his “Asia Rebalancing” strategy and it was President Trump who made India a key anchor of his “India-Pacific” strategy. It was the Obama Administration who started the Defence Dialogue between the Pentagon and the Ministry of Defence. It was President Trump who expanded it into 2+2 dialogue to include the State Department and Ministry of External Affairs. What else example can be given to underscore the robust bipartisan support in the US for having a strategic partnership with India!
Prime Minister Narendra Modi has an extraordinary capability to forge personal bond with key world leaders with a view to promoting India’s national interests. He did that with President Obama, President Trump and now he can do so with Joe Biden, presumably the next US President.
(The writer, Prof Chintamani Mahapatra, an expert on US studies, is presently Rector, JNU, New Delhi)
Quality education and initiatives like Right to Education Act are fine but they are incomplete without competent and qualified teachers, something he emphasised
India celebrates its National Education Day on November 11, the birth anniversary of Maulana Abul Kalam Azad — a great scholar, freedom fighter, politician and a firm believer in the unity of India — but do we honour his passion and ideals? Azad is also remembered as our first Education Minister. Born in Mecca in 1888, his family moved to Kolkata in 1890. He was self-taught and never went to school. He started teaching at the age of 16 and continued his scholarly pursuits even while in the thick of national politics. He wrote poetry, translated the Quran and even authored several books.
Young Azad was influenced by revolutionaries and was deeply impressed by Sri Aurobindo. In 1908, he visited Iraq, Egypt, Syria and Turkey and was pained to find that while in these countries Muslims were fighting for freedom and democracy, Indian Muslims were favouring the British, keeping away from the nationalist movement. To change the Muslim mindset, he started a journal, Al-Hilal, in July 1912. He joined the Indian National Congress and became its president in 1923 at the age of 35. After the two-nation theory and the demand for a separate nation for Muslims gained ground, Azad could envision its conceptual fragility and disastrous future consequences for the nation, particularly for the Muslims. Unfortunately, India was partitioned and even Mahatma Gandhi and Azad had to become a party to it. What followed at the time of the Partition and the near permanency of the India-Pakistan conflict clearly indicate how sound and pragmatic ideas are sometimes lost in the political arena, resulting in unimaginable damage to future generations. Both India and Pakistan are perpetual victims of this scar.
Pakistan — fully submerged in religious orthodoxy and ignorance — inflicted several self-destructive wounds, suffered a couple of humiliating military defeats and was even decimated. It is propagating worldwide terrorism, and ironically, suffering its venomous consequences as well. Azad and Khan Abdul Ghaffar Khan are two outstanding luminaries of the freedom struggle, who presented the real — liberal and dynamic — version of Islam before their countrymen. Had the Muslim community paid heed to them, the world would not have been put under debilitating violence, insecurity and distrust that have engulfed humanity today.
The recent murderous attacks in France have stirred diametrically opposite reactions, indicating how serious the issues of religious bigotry, blind fundamentalism, terrorism and global insecurity are. The only ray of hope lies in education, formal education of the young and simultaneously the education of people in positions of power and decision-making in their “trusteeship role” for the generations ahead.
This year, the National Education Day celebration could very well focus on the role of education in achieving social cohesion and religious harmony. The recently launched National Education Policy 2020 (NEP) has considerable connect with the basic principles of Buniyadi Talim, which was proposed by Gandhi in 1937. Delivering the presidential speech at the fourth session of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) on January 13, 1948, Azad, the then Education Minister, said: “In connection with the scheme of basic education, the question of religious instruction had cropped up at that time. Two committees of the board pondered over it but they were unable to come to an agreed decision. I should like this question to be reconsidered in the light of the changed circumstances. For our country, this question has a special meaning.”
A realistic comprehension of the spirit and intent of Buniyadi Talim was indeed missed by those under the influence of “all that was Western and British.” To them, the existing transplanted system was doing fine. So why disturb it? It is only now that the consequences of this approach are before us: Unemployment, poverty, hunger, internal migration, neglect of villages and farmers and much more.
Everyone talks of a lack of moral, ethical and humanistic values. Corruption is a consequence of diminishing emphasis on character-building. Luminaries like Azad had anticipated such concerns. After posing the problem and putting it in the context, Azad articulated its elements: “It is already known to you that the 19th century liberal point of view concerning the imparting of religious education has already lost weight. Even after World War I, a new approach had begun to assert itself and the intellectual revolution brought about in the wake of World War II has given it a decisive shape. At first, it was considered that religions would stand in the way of free intellectual development of a child but now it has been admitted that religious education cannot altogether be dispensed with. If national education was devoid of this element, there would be no appreciation of moral values or moulding of character on human lines. It must be known to you that Russia had to give up its ideology during the last World War. The British Government in England also had to amend its education system in 1944.” With a crystal clear comprehension, Azad was convinced that the West felt the need of religious education as without religious influences, people become “over-rationalistic.”
In India, we are surrounded by “over religiosity.” How secularism is being interpreted in India leaves much to be desired, clarified and comprehended to bring people of varied religious affiliations to accept the equality of all religions: “Ekam sat viprah Bahudha Vadanti” (There is only one truth, learned ones call it by various names). What Azad articulated in the meeting on education has a global contemporary relevance: “Our present difficulties, unlike those of Europe, are not creations of materialistic zealots but of religious fanatics. If we want to overcome them, the solution lies not in rejecting religious instruction in elementary stages but in imparting sound and healthy religious education under our direct supervision so that misguided credulism may not affect children in their plastic age.”
Azad was India’s Education Minister for about a decade. His concern on the issue of religious instruction indicates his seriousness on social cohesion, religious amity, unity and integrity of the country, and that all of these depend on the right approach to education in human values and continued insistence on character formation. He was convinced that Indians would like their children to get religious education. If the State refused, they would do so privately. He was concerned that private sources were already working and were entrusting religious education to those teachers “who though literate are not educated. To them, religion means nothing but bigotry.” To save the “intellectual life of our country,” Azad emphatically warned all concerned not to entrust the imparting of early religious education to private sources. Further, no national Government could shirk the responsibility of moulding the “growing minds of the nation on the right lines” as it is its primary duty.
Here, Azad offers a global education policy guideline: Imparting quality education and initiatives like Right to Education Act are fine but these remain incomplete without a clear mention that such education shall be provided only by competent and qualified teachers. Further, nothing that distorts the sensitive young minds in any way shall be allowed to permeate the educational endeavour.
Education must be free from vested interests that believe in the supremacy of any single religion, which does not subscribe to the equality of all religions and refuses to introduce transparency in their schools — in approach, content and pedagogy.
It is well-known that schools of certain denominations are not preparing children for a world of peace and tranquility, for acceptance of diversity, for social cohesion and religious amity. And it is not a new phenomenon, as would be clear from Azad’s description given over 72 years: “The method of education, too, is such in which there is no scope for a broad and liberal outlook. It is quite plain, then, that the children will not be able to drive out the ideas infused into them in their early stage, whatever modern education may be given to them at a later stage.” At this stage, it is a global phenomenon that terrorist and fundamentalist organisations suffer no dearth of highly educated and technically qualified and competent young people.
The implementation of the NEP 2020 has begun in earnest. The growth, progress and development of India would depend on the quality of its education and the level of social cohesion and religious unity, seeds of which are to be sown in its schools, classrooms and playgrounds. The NEP 2020 must equip every Indian to stand up and repeat with full conviction what Azad had declared in 1940: “I am part of this indivisible unity that is Indian nationality. I am indispensable to the noble edifice and without me this splendid structure of India is incomplete. I am an essential element which has gone to build India. I can never surrender this claim.”
The great visionary paved the path for every Indian to move ahead and in the process made a singular contribution in the human march towards a world of peace, non-violence and love.
(The writer works in education and social cohesion)
FREE Download
OPINION EXPRESS MAGAZINE
Offer of the Month