Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 150
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Deprecated (16384): The ArrayAccess methods will be removed in 4.0.0.Use getParam(), getData() and getQuery() instead. - /home/brlfuser/public_html/src/Controller/ArtileDetailController.php, line: 151
 You can disable deprecation warnings by setting `Error.errorLevel` to `E_ALL & ~E_USER_DEPRECATED` in your config/app.php. [CORE/src/Core/functions.php, line 311]
Warning (512): Unable to emit headers. Headers sent in file=/home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php line=853 [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 48]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 148]
Warning (2): Cannot modify header information - headers already sent by (output started at /home/brlfuser/public_html/vendor/cakephp/cakephp/src/Error/Debugger.php:853) [CORE/src/Http/ResponseEmitter.php, line 181]
LATEST NEWS UPDATES | The Constitution, Cartoons and Controversies Contextualising the Debates by Kumkum Roy

The Constitution, Cartoons and Controversies Contextualising the Debates by Kumkum Roy

Share this article Share this article
published Published on May 29, 2012   modified Modified on May 29, 2012

A close reading of the Political Science textbook shows that it is complex, moves beyond pat answers, and treats the Constitution as a living document. It was produced in the light of the National Curriculum Framework 2005, which in itself was a major attempt to democratise education, and reverse the National Curriculum Framework 2000 which was casteist and sexist.

Kumkum Roy (kumkumr@yahoo.com) is with the Centre for Historical Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

The Political Science textbook for Class XI, prepared by the ­National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) in 2006, has come into the limelight for all the wrong ­reasons. Titled Indian Constitution at Work (henceforth ICW), and meant for senior students who opt for Political Science at the senior secondary level, the team, including school, college and university teachers as well as ­inde­pendent researchers, produced a text that has been challenging in a ­variety of ways.

The book begins with “A letter to you”, inviting the reader, whether teacher, parent, or learner, to a dialogue. The ­letter was written by the chief advisors, Suhas Palshikar and Yogendra Yadav, who have since resigned, in the midst of the cartoon controversy. The last paragraph of the letter reads as follows:

    Whether this textbook fails or passes is for you to evaluate. We would be eagerly waiting for our exam result with your comments, criticisms and suggestions to make better ­attempt next time (ICW: viii).

As is obvious, the team had no pretensions to having the last word, in itself a virtually unprecedented stance in textbook writing. The letter also drew attention to three relatively novel structural elements introduced in the chapters – quotations from the Constitution, cartoons (by some of the best cartoonists the country has produced), and puzzles or problems, compelling the learner to struggle with ways and means of reconciling ideals with realities. In other words, the book promised to be, and is complex, moving beyond pat answers, and treating the Constitution as a living document.

As may be expected of a book dealing with the Indian Constitution, it includes chapters on rights, elections, the executive, legislature, judiciary, federalism and local governments, apart from general discussions on the Constitution. These are standard elements – what ­obviously demand more attention are the new features: the citations from primary sources, the cartoons, and the problems or puzzles posed for the learners. I will focus on these before turning to the question of context.

Citations

The very first chapter ends with a quotation from B R Ambedkar (from the Cons­titutional Assembly Debates) highlighting the complexities of the process of constitution-making (ICW: 21). The citation in the next chapter (ICW: 32) is from Article 16(4), explaining how provisions for reservations are intrinsic to the Constitution. Also cited in the same chapter (ICW: 34) is Article 21, on the protection of life and personal liberty, explaining how this has been expanded in some situations to include issues of livelihood, but has also often been curtailed in the name of preventive detention. Decades later, many of these are ideas that we take for granted – how­ever, highlighting them for the learners is of crucial importance.

It is possible that some of us will be less familiar with the excerpt from Jaipal Singh’s speech in the Constitutional Assembly Debates (ICW: 64):

    But I have come to say a few words on behalf of the Adibasis of India...In the past, thanks to the major political parties, thanks to the British Government and thanks to every enlightened Indian citizen, we have been isolated and kept, as it were, in a zoo...We are willing to mix with you, and it is for that reason... that we have insisted on a reservation of seats as far as the Legislatures are concerned. We have not asked...(for) separate electorates;...Under the 1935 Act, throughout the Legislatures in India, there were altogether only 24 Adibasi MLAs out of a total of 1,585,…and not a single representative at the centre.

Other citations (ICW: 84) deal with the relations between president and prime minister, quoting Article 74(1) and between the centre and the states (ICW: 162), citing Article 257(1). In neither instance is there an attempt to depict these relations as inevitably harmonious. In talking about the role of the judiciary, likewise, the book draws attention to Articles 137 and 144 (ICW: 133), which highlight the powers of the Supreme Court. There are citations from crucial judgments (ICW: 137) such as that of justice Bhagwati in the Bandhua Mukti Morcha vs Union of India case:

    It must be remembered that the problems of the poor…are qualitatively different from those which have hitherto occupied the ­attention of the court and they need…a different kind of judicial approach. If we blindly follow the adversarial procedure in their case, they would never be able to enforce their fundamental rights.

Most of the citations underscore issues that are dealt with in the text; they allow us to hear the voices of different men, from different perspectives, and give a sense of their concerns, expressed in a language that may not always be ­familiar to the learners located in the 21st century. But that precisely is one of the goals of learning – to familiarise ourselves with what we did not know, to try and grasp the perspectives of others. Other citations reiterate formal statements – useful reminders of rights that have been cherished for decades in a rapidly changing world.

The Cartoons

In all, there are 25 cartoons in the book, apart from Unni and Munni, two young learners who pop up on several pages, posing questions, bringing insights, and perhaps a smile on the face of the learners. Some of the cartoons deal with constitution-making in countries other than India (ICW: 5, 9, 14), and we will leave those aside for the moment. The others deal with the Indian situation. The very first of these (ICW: 7) depicts a Janus-faced Nehru, facing both ways, caught between a group of relatively westernised advocates of change and those who would prefer more “traditional” resolutions. This is followed by two open-­ended questions: “Can you identify what these different groups stand for? Who do you think prevailed in this balancing act?” What makes this text distinctive is that there are no quick, easy, formulaic answers that are provided to the questions, compelling the learners to think through a variety of possibilities. Nehru also figures in another cartoon, grappling with the elephantine possibility of adult franchise, shown tugging at the tail of the elephant (ICW: 67). He is also shown literally leading a motley lot of ministers into the Lok Sabha (ICW: 89, 108) and grappling with the language ­issue (ICW: 165).

Politicians in action or out of it figure in other cartoons (ICW: 90, 93, 113, and 120). There are comments on MPs being thrown out of Parliament and on others being kicked up into governorships (ICW: 166). There are sharp comments on centre state relationships as well (ICW: 167).

Expectedly, there are several cartoons on elections. One (ICW: 52) draws attention to the chaos that often accompanies electoral campaigns, once again relevant even after decades. Yet another one, on the opposition (ICW: 61) is an ­interesting statement on the relationship between the ruling party and the rest. A third (ICW: 71) draws attention to the code of conduct that accompanies the announcement of elections, while another (ICW: 73) focuses on the criminal-politician nexus.

As has been pointed out time and again, the cartoon depicting Ambedkar seated on a snail and trying to drive it faster (ICW: 18) is a comment on the fact that the Constitution took so long to be put in place. Like all visual (and textual) material, it can be understood in a variety of ways, and provides scope for ­debate and discussion, rather than foreclosing these possibilities by doling out received wisdom.

How do we understand these cartoons? Ever since the controversy erupted, there has been an undercurrent of discussion – were the cartoons really necessary, which ones are funny and which are not, why were they included in the first place, etc. In trying to engage in this process of evaluation and sifting, we have perhaps lost sight of two issues.

First, the cartoons have the potential, unfortunately perhaps inadequately exploited in the classroom situation, of opening up questions for debate, of encouraging learners to view and explore strategies of analysing and responding to the visual medium in a variety of ways, and of discussing their responses, which will hopefully be different, in constructive ways, learning from one another’s pers­pectives. It is, fortunately, unlikely that all of us will find the same things funny – that would be like canned laughter resounding through our television sets and reverberating in our heads. But, discussing why we do not find something funny whereas others do in itself opens up pedagogical possibilities and spaces that can be creatively explored.

Second, the cartoons open up spaces that are less developed in the text itself. For instance, the cartoon on page 52 describes the pre-election scenario in a way that does not happen within the scope of the text, where the procedures and stages of an election are carefully delineated. In some ways, the cartoons reminded me of the vidushaka of Sanskrit plays, whose dialogues were invariably in Prakrit, the language of the ­people, and who almost always punctured the high pretensions and sentiments of the lofty Sanskrit drama. In other words, the cartoons create space for questioning the text itself, and thus suggest that it is not sacrosanct. This, I would think, is a message that is absolutely crucial for future citizens of the country.

The Puzzling Questions

There are several questions posed at the end of each chapter, arranged in order of increasing complexity. Note, for inst­ance, question 7 (ICW: 50) at the end of the chapter on rights:

    Several reports show that caste groups previously associated with scavenging are forced to continue in this job. Those in positions of authority refuse to give them any other job. Their children are discouraged from pursuing education. Which of their Fundamental rights are being violated in this instance?

Here, questions of caste discrimination are not left as pious platitudes but are carefully woven into a discussion on fundamental rights.

In another instance (ICW: 195) the learner has to identify a suitable site for the meeting of the gram sabha and ­provide reasons for his/her choice. The options given are as follows:

(i) Venue suggested by the circular of the district collector.
(ii) Religious place in the village.
(iii) Dalit mohalla.
(iv) Upper caste tola.
(v) Village school.

There are many more that could be ­cited, but these are simply examples of the ways in which theory and practice have been brought into a dialogue that is at once creative, constructive and challen­ging.

The puzzling questions are in fact ­related to the tentative and complex concluding statements that mark several chapters. These emerge, for instance, in the discussion on the relationship bet­ween the bureaucracy, politicians and people (ICW: 96-97), where a hope is ­expressed that this tangled relationship will improve with the Right to ­Information.

Also significant is the conclusion to the chapter on Federalism (ICW: 172):

    National unity cannot be built by streamlining differences. Such forced unity only generates greater social strife and alienation and tends finally to destroy unity. A responsive polity sensitive to diversities and to the demands for autonomy can alone be the ­basis of a cooperative federation.

Equally interesting is the way in which the discussion on local self-government draws attention to the fact that both Nehru and Ambedkar were oppo­sed to decentralisation – the former ­because he thought it would disrupt the unity of the nation and the latter ­because he felt that the purpose would be defeated by the faction and caste-ridden nat­ure of rural society (ICW: 180). What is significant is that local self-government is not presented as a static, eternal structure, but as part of a process that evolved through debate and discussion and can mutate further.

Consider, too, the concluding paragraph of the chapter on Legislature (ICW: 121):

    Have you watched the live telecast of the proceeding of the Parliament? You will find that our Parliament is truly a rainbow of colourful dresses symbolising different regions of the country. Members speak different languages in the course of the proceedings. They come from various castes, religions and sects. They often fight bitterly. Many times an impression is created that they are wasting time and money of the nation. But we have seen in this chapter that these same parliamentarians can effectively control the executive. They can express the interests of various sections of our society. On account of its composition, legislature is the most representative of all organs of government. The sheer presence of members of diverse social backgrounds makes the legislatures more responsive to people’s expectations. In a parliamentary democracy, legislature, as a body representing the wishes of the people occupies a high position of power and responsibility. Herein lies the democratic potential of the Parliament.

Realising that potential is something one can hope for.

Questions of Contexts

In the heat of the moment, many of us may have forgotten that the textbook produced by the Political Science team was written in 2006, in the light of the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) 2005, which in itself was a major attempt to democratise education, and reverse the NCF 2000. That framework was, as some of us had argued, implicitly and explicitly casteist and sexist.1 Here is what the 2000 document had to say about the location of women within education:

    Education of women is an important key to improving health, nutrition and education in the family (p 9). It will be most ­appropriate to recognise and nurture the best features of each gender in the best ­Indian tradition (p 20).

Further, we were told that “the small percentage of students that reaches the tertiary level” would provide “the eventual leadership” (p 79).

And, more explicitly (p 90):

    The vocational education programme designed to meet the varying needs of the socially disadvantaged groups such as women, scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and physically challenged persons, would help them acquire suitable productive skills.

The implications of that document were obvious in terms of its social agenda. Women were to be trained and ­retained within the domestic framework, as ideal mothers. The physically challenged, and the scheduled castes and tribes would receive vocational education and provide services for the elite, presumably upper castes/classes, who would provide “leadership”. It is indeed both sad and ironical that the political parties that produced this document have now turned into vociferous supporters of the purported attack on the image of Ambedkar. We have lessons that remain unlearnt.

Contrast this agenda with the Position Paper prepared by the National Focus Group on Teaching of Social Sciences, produced for the NCF 2005. This listed (pp 2-3) four issues to be addressed. These inclu­ded content load, scientific rigour, normative concerns, interrelationship amon­gst disciplines. I will cite the normative concerns, as a reminder of what was ­expected of the Political Science team amongst others:

    The social sciences carry a normative ­responsibility to create and widen the popular base for human values, namely, freedom, trust, mutual respect, and ­respect for diver­sity. Given this, social science teaching should aim at investing in children a critical moral and mental energy to make them alert to the social forces that threaten these values. Through the discussion of concerns such as threats to the environment, caste/class inequality, state repression, thr­ough an interdisciplinary approach, the textbook should stimulate the child’s thought process and creativity.

As one can see, the shift from the agenda of NCF 2000 to that of 2005 was fundamental. From reinforcing caste differences through vocational training to treating caste as something that ­required critical thought was a major shift. Translating the shift into syllabi, textbooks and pedagogical practice was and is an immense challenge. As many of us have realised, we need to intervene at a variety of levels – board examinations, for instance, still remain more or less rote learning oriented. The textbooks represent just one intervention into what must become a major movement if it is to transform the educational scenario and the wider worlds that learners inhabit. While revisions, updating, modifications and more have been, can and need to be initiated, these must be informed by the transformative vision that made the initiative possible. In the absence of such a vision, we will be trapped in polarised positions, offensive and defensive.

Note

1 Narayani Gupta and Kumkum Roy, “Educated Illiteracy”, The Asian Age, 13 March 2001, p 13.

Economic and Political Weekly, Vol XLVII, No. 22, 2 June, 2012, http://beta.epw.in/newsItem/comment/191397/


Related Articles

 

Write Comments

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

Video Archives

Archives

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

Im4Change.org हिंदी वेबसाइट का परिचय. Short Video on im4change.org...

"Session 1: Scope of IDEA and AgriStack" in Exploring...

"Session 2: Farmer Centric Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

"Session 3: Future of Digitalisation in Agriculture" in Exploring...

Objectives | About Us | Workshops | Disclaimer
share on Facebook
Twitter
RSS
Feedback
Read Later

Contact Form

Please enter security code
      Close