To know or not to know

Politics of pedagogy

In our arduous contemporaneity, what is worth knowing is no longer a philosophical question but has become a political one. Being ‘politically correct’ is also no longer a virtue but has become a compulsion, and what is “politically correct” is being defined with a hegemonic stance of majoritarianism.

The recent Indore Law College squabble by the student wing of a cultural organisation about a book in the library of their college that is neither prescribed as a text in their curriculum nor a reference to their syllabus has ruffled the feathers of people at the helm.

The silver lining in the above incident is that those who created the ruckus had apparently ‘read’ the book. Apparently they have reading as a habit or hobby, but one of the complainants about the book has reportedly flunked his exams continuously for two semesters.

The question of which book should be in the library or on the reference list of any prescribed syllabus or what is worth knowing gains poignancy because it is political. As in this case, the principal asserted that the said book was purchased five years before he joined the institute. This begs the question of whether a book critical of an institution, person, or ideology can make it to the library at all. Conversely, whether a book eulogising dictators or despots should make it to the shelf of a library or not. What should be the criteria for selecting books for the library or as prescribed texts in the syllabus?

The incident could have simply been dismissed and quelled as another manifestation of growing rowdyism in society, including on campuses. But when both the principal of the college and the author of the book in question are Muslims, it is quite easy for those with vested interests to craft and propagate it as ‘Shiksha Jihad’ in the most misused and perverted sense of the word.

Such slogans serve a particular constituency well when the purpose is to divert and divulge the core issues of education in general and higher education in particular. It becomes a catchy phrase to convince the gullible that the minds of innocent college-going Hindus are being indoctrinated by anti-Hindu literature that shows Hindutva and its champions in a poor light.

At their worst, they could accuse their teachers and institutions of instigating Muslim students for rebellion and revolt against the State or attempt to demean and insult the Hindu religion or hurt the sentiments of religious Hindus. How else could one explain the principal of the college being booked despite his assertion that the book was acquired many years before he took over as principal?

Louis Pierre Althusser, the famous French philosopher, offers a more profound understanding of what is happening in the institutions of higher education in India. He writes that the State always exercises hegemony over its subjects, not only through repressive State apparatuses but also through ideological State apparatuses like schools and universities. But then this meant using these institutions to indoctrinate impressionable young minds to perpetuate a specific ideology or approach to life.

What is happening here is the use of a political party’s student wings to manoeuvre and micromanage institutions in order to perpetuate pseudo-nationalism and religionism. They are used to censor the academic autonomy of their institutions and control the contents and curriculum of their courses. They might thus end up excluding what could otherwise be worth knowing for them and their friends.

Martha Nussbaum warns about the catastrophic consequences of producing technically competent people with little ability to think critically, examine themselves, and respect the humanity and diversity of others. The least that the institutions of higher education could do for the good of the nation is to facilitate unhindered and unrestricted access to as many diverse sources of knowledge as they can afford.

Universities are already seriously constrained in their decisions to design their curricula, pedagogy, and syllabi, as these fundamental duties are now being increasingly discharged by state-level committees and the central regulatory authorities. Even if they are only referred to as a model, most higher education institutions find it easier and safer to adopt them in their entirety and thus avoid any liability.

No less are they restrained in their ability to acquire books and learning resources for their central and departmental libraries. For most public higher education institutions, buying books and subscribing to journals have become a luxury. Hard-pressed for funds, they are hardly able to meet the committed expenditure on salaries and establishment.

Even when they can save some funds for the books, they are so constrained in their capacity that they simply give up the idea of acquiring any more or restrict their purchases to the bare minimum number of books in the professional and technical areas they specialise in.

Cardinal Newman argues that higher education institutions must be schools of universal learning. They must provide a physical and intellectual space for communication and the circulation of thoughts through social interaction and personal intercourse.

Students are indeed one of the major stakeholders in higher education, and their views and voices could make or mar their alma maters. What happened in the law college in central India and the way the passions were fanned and the issues handled might serve certain vested interests.

Even in a pure managerial sense, which presently guides the governance and administration of universities, colleges, and institutes, oxymorons like Shiksha Jihad and its proponents may end up patronising indiscipline, rowdyism, and unrest on the campuses and thus vitiating whatever little is left of what is verily called academic environment.

(Sharma teaches in the Dept of Education, Central University of Himachal Pradesh, Dharamshala; Qamar is a professor at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi and a former advisor for education in the Planning Commission)