SUNDARAYYA MEMORIAL LECTURE

‘Communalism Poses Serious Threat To Nation’

M Venugopala Rao

COMMUNALISM and its impact on education posed serious threat to the existence of Indian nation and inequality in Indian schooling system would ultimately subvert democracy in the country, warned Professor Arjun Dev, former professor of history, department of education in social sciences and humanities, NCERT.  He said this while delivering Sundarayya memorial lecture on “Education: Issues of Communalisation and Equality” on the occasion of the 20th death anniversary of Comrade P Sundarayya, former general secretary of the Communist Party of India (Marxist), at a function organised by Sundarayya Vignana Kendram in Hyderabad on May 19. Arjun Dev paid rich tributes to Comrade Sundarayya. He reminded the audience about Comrade Sundarayya’s  total dedication, which began from very early years of his life,  to the cause of the downtrodden throughout his  life, and said it had perhaps only a few parallels even in the history of the communist movement in India.  

Communalisation of education and use of education as an instrument of communalisation was a matter of serious public concern during the past six years, said Arjun Dev. Concern had been expressed even earlier, though sporadically and mainly as a reaction to isolated developments. Communa-lisation of education and history was  attempted by the former incarnation of the BJP, the then  Jan Sangh, which merged with the then Janata Party in 1977. For the first time, the State machinery was sought to be used to communalise history by the Jan Sangh, but that attempt had failed to do too much damage, as the then government had a short span of life. Scant attention was paid to the danger of communalisation of education, except in a very few academic studiess, Arun Dev said.  Recollecting the speech he delivered in 1993 at the Andhra Pradesh  History Congress held at Tirupati, he said that history as a form of knowledge was under attack for vicious communal purposes and that the then BJP governments in Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh and Rajasthan had initiated the process of rewriting textbooks, including history textbooks,  on communal lines.  However, those attempts had remained incomplete, as those governments were dismissed, following the demolition of the Babri masjid.  Before those governments were dismissed, Rajnath Singh, the then minister for education in the government of UP, had claimed that all mathematics was absolutely vedic mathematics. Text books in Rajasthan had glorified Deendayal Upadhyaya as the greatest national leader! The present sarsangchalak of the RSS, K S Sudarshan, had written an article at that time in which he had claimed that Brahmastra was a nuclear weapon, known to the ancestors, and that there was a non-proliferation treaty then. When a committee of the NCERT with which Arjun Dev had associated with then had gone into  the role of communal organisations during the freedom movement and  recommended it as a chapter in the history text books, explaining the disruptive role of the communal organisations like the Hindu Maha Sabha, the RSS and Muslim communal organisations, the then Rajasthan government of the BJP had decided to remove that chapter and incorporated a chapter, lauding the role of the RSS and other Hindu communal organisations as one of nationalism and patriotism, explained Arjun Dev.

When the Babri masjid was demolished and the then BJP state governments were dismissed, a large scale review had taken place on what kind of education was being taught in different states. It had become public knowledge that the educational institutions set up by the RSS had their books full of communal venom and through such books communal venom was spreading, denigrating the Muslims and Christians.

In 1993, nobody imagined that a full-scale communal government led by the BJP at the centre would be elected within five years, and that such a tragedy was possible in the country. Communalisation of education had become the national policy of the NDA government, although not announced formally because it was to be discussed in parliament, the National Development Council, the conference of the state ministers for education, etc. Giving some examples on how education was communalised during that regime, and finally how it culminated in the communal genocide in Gujarat, Arjun Dev said communalism had become a major issue during the 2004 elections. Therefore, the defeat of the BJP-led coalition in the elections was extremely important.  But there was no reason to believe that the threat of communalism had receded, he cautioned. Though it was promised in the common minimum programme of the United Progressive Alliance led by the Congress party, there was no frontal attack on communalism from the side of the government of India, he said. There seemed to be complacency that the threat of communalism had gone away, thereby creating a false sense of optimism, he commented. Publications of those communal organisations  prepared during the BJP rule are still being distributed. Some text books of history were changed.  A report of the  committee appointed by the ministry of human resources development  was published by the NCERT titled “Teaching history without burden”, not without communalism, he said.

Explaining how the communal organisations of the sangh parivar had spread their tentacles in the filed of education, Arjun Dev said that the first report on the Vidya Bharati public schools of the RSS in 1991 had stated that their number was 6,000 and last year they increased to 20,000 with over 2 million students and one lakh teachers. He explained how the RSS-affiliated organisations like friends of tribal society, Vanavasi Kalyan Ashram, Sewa Bharati for dalit children, Adhyapak Parishad, ABVP, etc. have been working on communal lines. Then there are 14,000 single teacher vidyalayas for tribal children, with a target to reach one lakh by 2010, he said. Arjun Dev lamented that the situation in states ruled by the secular parties was not substantially better. He stressed on the need for massive and comprehensive campaign against communalisation of education all over the country. A sub-committee of the NCERT was appointed to work out a regulatory mechanism for textbooks in private schools. Textbooks used in the government schools were no better than those used in the private schools. The approach of confining regulatory mechanism to private schools would prevent it from scrutinising the government text books in the BJP-ruled states, pointed out Arjun Dev. Communalism, which was the Indian version of fascism, was defeated in the elections but not vanquished.  The defeat that the communal forces had suffered was reason enough to celebrate the first anniversary of the UPA government, irrespective of our perceptions regarding its achievements and failings during the last one year, he said.

Dwelling on the role of education in the process of production, Arjun Dev explained that education or deliberate organised instruction was an important part of the process of socialisation through which human beings learn to live in social groups to participate in their productive activities and cultural life.  All education has a dual character. Although education as a process of socialisation, generally socialises individuals to conform to the norms and values of society and its establishment, it also has the capacity to liberate the human mind and the shackles of the past and the present, of generating a spirit of enquiry and questioning of the accepted tenets. Arjun Dev explained that education had the potential to make human beings question the ruling values and norms in society to make them rebel against the existing social continuity, and seek solutions, outside the framework of the established system, to the contradictions that had developed.  Even the limited amount of autonomy and independence in the modern system of education could provide some opportunities to set off that process of questioning, demystification, and  demytholisation, he said. Thus there might arise focal centres which anticipate, germinate or support, within the educational system, the movement for social liberation actually taking place, or likely to arise, outside in the society, he explained.

Education is often seen by most people – educationists most of all but also by scientists, planners as well as politicians – as the main instrument of social change, meaning radical social transformation. The report of Education Commission (1964-66) starts with the opening statement: “The destiny of India is now being shaped in the classrooms”. It is often forgotten that it can play this role only when it is accompanied by social, economic and political change. The domination of the socio-economic and political elite’s interests in Indian education was clearly seen in the persistence and deliberate nurturing of what was generally referred to as the dual structure in education. Although the system was not merely dual, it had several hierarchical channels of education. At one extreme of the rather wide spectrum of inequality, were the select, elitist English medium schools, generally called public schools, and at the other, the ordinary low standard government, municipal or panchayat raj schools and miserable indigent institutions of secondary education. To these have been added a number of other categories of schools – the non-formal education centres, which are now called alternative schools, a euphemism for schools that impart no education whatsoever and para teachers, etc. There was perhaps no other schooling system in the world which was as unequal as the present Indian one, criticised Arjun Dev. The present system of school education in India presented the classic example of a system reproducing inequality, a system which legitimised and nurtured inequality, he said. This had been reflected in the reports of the committees and commissions appointed by the government of India.

The education commission, which had submitted its report in 1966, had gone into those questions in some detail and made appropriate recommendations. It said: “It is the responsibility of the educational system to bring the different social classes and groups together and thus promote the emergence of an egalitarian and integrated society.  But at present, instead of doing so, education itself is tending to increase social segregation and to perpetuate and widen class distinctions.”  Further the report said, “good education, instead of being available to all children, is usually available to a small minority, which is usually selected not on the basis of talent but on the basis of its capacity to pay fees… The position is thus undemocratic and inconsistent with the ideal of an egalitarian society.” All such recommendations have been conveniently relegated to the dustbin, though some of them were hypocritically made a part of the statement of national policy on education, regretted Arjun Dev. The first resolution on national policy on education issued by the government of India in 1968 stated: “To promote social cohesion and national integration, the common school system as recommended by the education commission should be adopted.  Efforts should be made to improve the standard of education in general schools.  All special schools like public schools should be required to admit students on the basis of merit and also to provide a prescribed proportion of free-studentships to prevent social segregation of social classes.”  The 1986 policy, which is an elaborate statement of national policy on education merely said, “Effective measures will be taken in the direction of the common school system recommended in the 1968 policy.” No reference again to the neighbourhood school or even free studentships in public schools and the objective of preventing social segregation of social classes figured in it, he pointed out. He further explained that unlike in the case of 1968 policy, the 1986 policy was followed by the adoption of two programmes of action, in 1992 and in 1996. The ‘effective measures’ promised in the 1986 policy in the direction of common school system did not even find a token mention in the two programmes of action, he said. There were no provisions for free studentships either. There was a judgement of the Delhi High Court many months back directing the public schools to admit 20 per cent of students on free studentship basis, because they were provided land at concessional rate on that condition.  The concerned schools had so far refused to abide by the High Court’s order, said Arjun Dev.

Dr Atlury Murali, department of history, University of Hyderabad, and member of the trust board of SVK, presided over the function. Koratala Satyanarayana, managing trustee of SVK, felicitated Arjun Dev with a shawl.  Secretary of SVK, C Sambi Reddy, welcomed the audience and Kameshbabu proposed a vote of thanks.