 |
||
|
||
|
||
Though the controversy over the newly-overhauled syllabi structure for schools still hasn't simmered down, it has Human Resources Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi's blessings. In fact, Joshi even says the NCERT has corrected the method of teaching civilisation. Combative as ever, Joshi fields questions on the history debate, the inclusion of terrorism as a subject for school texts, and the study of religion ''in its right prespective''. Excerpts from an interview with Santwana Bhattacharya:
One unit of the new Social Science syllabus, which compresses history, geography, civics-specifically the one meant for Class VI, looks at the features, spread and basic values of 'major religions' - Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, Confucianism, Zoroastrianism, Judaism, Christianity. Why has Islam has been left out?
ISLAM arrived in India much later. Christianity, for instance, arrived here in the 4th Century, much before it spread in Europe. Similarly, Zoroastrianism and Judaism came with the practitioners of those religions who took asylum in India. Every religion will be taught according to its sequence of arrival in India. When the time comes to teach that part (Islam) of our religious history, we will teach it by all means. But in its right time-frame.
The 'Advent of Islam' has been included in the Social Science syllabus for the next Class (VII). It is put in a unit alongside West Asia and the emergence of Arab civilisation, not as part of any religious study.
THAT's because it grew of out that area - its history is linked with the history of the Arab civilisation, its spread and emergence. But do not worry, major tenets of Islam will also be taught. No one denies that there is need to inculcate respect for all religions.
Then you want to teach students about 'terrorism'. How do you plan to tackle this contemporary, unfolding issue?
WE have to make our children understand that violence is born out of lack of understanding of the 'other'... lack of understanding for the other's point of view. This is what we plan to teach : terrorist goals and methods and their effect on world civilisation, on the rule of law, on democracy, on freedom of movement, on harmony. How it disrupts the convergence of ideas, true globalisation.
But don't you think several issues will crop up on the cause of terrorism - socio-economic dominance, lack of rights...
NO one can pinpoint the exact cause or the root of terrorism. I strongly feel our textbooks can handle the task of providing exposure to the phenomenon. How the 'understanding' of a particular kind is imposed (upon the unsuspecting) by force or the barrel of a gun.
Some time ago, you were quoted as equating Leftist historians with terrorists.
A TYPE of aggressive method, of imposing a certain ideology, has been the aim of Leftist authors. Exactly the way terrorists impose their views on people.
It's also felt that a disparate group of historians has been fallaciously clubbed together as 'Leftist' or 'Marxist'? For instance, Romila Thapar.
LET her say she is different. Let her come out and declare her stand clearly. What's been done to history books in Kerala and West Bengal via the Left historians, is sheer intellectual dishonesty. It is a most reprehensible act, what they have selected and removed. For them, Lenin is the torch-bearer of Indian Renaissance and Bankim Chandra, Mahatma Gandhi, Subhas Bose, Rabindranath Tagore have secondary positions. School children are asked to reply to strange questions, like 'Is democracy a farce?'.
How different is this new approach?
WHAT the NCERT has done is to correct the approach to teach civilisation.
But why is it refusing to disclose the names of its history writers?
NEVER before in the history of the NCERT has there been such unnecessary desire to know the names of writers writing schoolbooks! All I can say now is that nothing will be concealed.
There are also complaints that teachers aren't quite equipped or trained to handle the new course material.
THAT is incorrect. The NCERT will hold conferences with state councils and prepare training material and inputs. The syllabus has been formulated after due considerations of the needs of the time and the new National Education Policy.
In a recent interview to a newsmagazine, Amartya Sen has said India was never a Hindu rashtra.
INDIA was never a theocratic state. From the ancient times, it never had a state religion. There was always freedom of worship to all. That way, it is historically the most secular country of all. No religion or its practitioner was ever persecuted in India, take the Jews and Parsis.
But that's not how the RSS describes the encounter between Hinduism and Islam.
THE conflict in that is because of the equation between an invader and the invaded, where religion does not matter though it can be used as an additional weapon. For instance, encounters can be between countries, like India and Pakistan, not necessarily between two religions.
How and when do you see the situation between India and Pakistan de-escalating?
IT all depends on Pakistan. When
I was PAC chairman of the SAARC countries, I discussed a common plan of
political accountability. They were not interested. If the common people
of Pakistan truly want to avoid conflict, let them organise themselves,
put pressure on their government and demand a change of policy.
|
||
|
||
|
||