 |
||
|
||
|
||
Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Digvijay Singh had irked our "progressive" intellectuals some time back. Half way through their campaign against imagined "saffronisation", in November 2001, he rose above politics to blow his whistle on this group when it was clear that they had taken their game too far. Mr Singh made it clear that he was not against universities offering courses in astrology in the UGC's offering of subjects, which students may choose in study. A number of educationists, staunch Leftists among them, had appreciated the rationale behind the move. After all, astrology is a popular, quasi-scientific profession and regulation through certification made sense. But to our Delhi-based intellectual elite, it was revivalism, obscurantism and a compromise on secularism.
That was when Mr Digvijay Singh told them to get off. And did he spoil their party! The next day Sahmat, a Leftist forum, sent him a plaintive epistle requesting him to withdraw the statement. But Mr Singh not only refused, but also had some words of wisdom for them. His open reply ended with the memorable words: "Those who proscribe and prescribe will be washed away by history." Committed progressives and columnists would do well to ponder the letter and spirit behind it.
Academics and journalists insulated from reality may loudly disagree, but there is nothing fundamentally wrong about a popular leader responding to the wishes of his constituents. Those who could not care less about people's sentiments can get around ridiculing and abusing age-old precepts and practices, even the most harmless ones. But a democratically elected leader survives on the power of the popular mandate. If he works against the interests whether political, spiritual, moral and economic, of the people, he will be rejected by the people. A popular leader knows the pulse of his people. The cow is sacred to most Indians and if Go-mutra, the medicinal benefits of which have been known to seers for centuries, had not been patented, it would have followed the same course as neem whose appropriation by the Western scientific industrial complex is well documented.
Mahatma Gandhi had once openly stated that one of the first laws to be passed by free India would be to prohibit cow slaughter. If those who claim direct political lineage from Gandhi transgressed his line, it is the duty of some to remind them of it. Few Indians like the sight of cows being marched to abattoirs where they know these animals they epitomise for their motherly qualities, are put to slow, horrible deaths. Anyone who stresses the need to stop this mockery of democracy automatically rises in the esteem of the people.
A culture of belittling the collective will of the people seems to have overtaken certain groups of intellectuals of Delhi. Sitting in their ivory towers, these notables would like their less fortunate countrymen to transform themselves into robots devoid of a sense of belonging and respect to their heritage. Such arrogance is rooted in two factors. One, these denizens of our institutions of "liberalism, progressive, etc.", know fully well that all their noble virtues had been acquired through a structured education in the best centres of learning in India and abroad. In their imaginary secular and liberal paradise, which apparently lasted exactly 51 years up to the election of the present Central Government, access to such learning was the monopoly of the top five per cent of the population.
The vast majority of Indians were denied access to this liberalism, which, as a result, became the monopoly of a few. So this lucky few feel entitled to dictate to the hoi polloi that cow worship is a lot of bull, so too is almost everything revered by him. Such patricianism in the 21st century is unbelievable. Second, much like the ancient regime of pre-revolution France, this elite knows it has thrived on the politics of cooption. Their intolerance towards democratic institutions is rooted in a sense of dismay at the political eclipse of the former masters who had sustained such arguable intellect for three decades. Articles like `The People are not always right' smacks of this angst.
Granted Indian society is mired in superstitions and illogical customs and practices - but can these be swept away without demolishing the socio-economic support structures which sustain them? Scientific temper cannot be spread by writing articles in English-language newspapers because the vast majority of Indians lack the wherewithal to read them. The right vehicle is education. We must ensure that an education system based on equity must be installed in every nook and corner of the country. The content of school texts must be planned in such a way that every hour spent in learning history or physics or biology, must throw up interesting aspects on humanism, pluralism and accommodation of the next man's ideas. Value education is sweeping global schoolrooms of the 21st century world as nations are preparing to fight the forces of fundamentalism and intolerance.
All progressive societies now realise that the new generation has to be given the right information, including points of convergence and disagreement between religions. Open discussion, not silence, on religion is the only antidote to intolerance. The road to a scientific temper is, after all, paved with questions. A questioning society, where there is a perfect harmony between science and spirituality, is the contemporary educationists' Utopia. India is not out of this movement - it forms the latest episode of a history of endeavours which began with Mahendralal Sircar's founding of the Indian Association for the Cultivation of Sciences in the 1870s.
As NCERT's Director, I was the recipient of the first blast of the same campaign that has now been upgraded for the Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister. I had upheld the National Policy on Education, 1986, and the recommendations of the Parliamentary Consultative Committee which prescribed, with remarkable urgency, the need to spread Value Education and education about religions. So I factored this suggestion into the National Curriculum Framework for School Education which has developed through wide consultation in 2000. But, much like the religious zealots they damn, our "progressives" went off on a tangent, spreading all kinds of canard against the Government's "intentions".
It was actually a specious plea for their continued dominance. I watched with dismay as they even cast aspersions on the Supreme Court's verdict. Now they are launching their diatribe against a democratically elected Chief Minister, Mr Digvijay Singh, for standing up to their unreason. But, thanks to democracy, which is so sacred to even the poorest of the poor of our ancient land, fitting replies are always handed to those who proscribe and prescribe.
(The writer is Director, NCERT)
|
||
|
||
|
||