Proud Tamilian, Is This The Culture You Want to Preserve?

Proud Tamilian, Is This The Culture You Want to Preserve?

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 19 January, 2017

Copyright © 2017 Dr. Seshadri Kumar.  All Rights Reserved.

*********************************************************

Executive Summary:

There is currently a mass agitation protesting the Indian Supreme Court’s decision to make Jallikattu – the sport of bull-taming - illegal – a decision it arrived at in 2014. Protesters feel the judgement is an attack on Tamil culture.

This article explains why the protesters are misguided, based on the Supreme Court judgement and the facts contained therein. It shows how Jallikattu causes cruelty to the bulls involved in the “sport,” and why Tamil culture would be better off by discarding this savage practice.

******************************

Introduction

There is currently a massive protest ongoing in Chennai at the Marina beach. The protesters, of all ages and genders, have come together to protest the central government’s ban on Jallikattu - a ban instituted on the grounds that it is considered an event that is cruel to bulls. The ban was necessitated by a judgement of the Indian Supreme Court that declared Jallikattu as violative of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals (PCA) Act,1960.

Many prominent personalities in Tamil Nadu, such as politicians and cine stars, have come out in support of the agitation as support of “Tamil Culture.” Given the popular support for Jallikattu, it would have been career suicide for them not to support the agitation. One notable and praiseworthy feature of the agitation is that it has been largely peaceful. This is certainly something for Tamil people to be proud about.

The agitation has been presented as an issue of Tamil pride, which makes it difficult for Tamil people to criticize it. That also accounts for the large support it is getting. Everyone wants to be a proud Tamilian, whether or not they know the issues involved. People are saying on TV that Jallikattu is a sport that dates to the Sangam period in Tamil Nadu, and so it is an integral part of Tamil culture. Others are saying the sport can be conducted without inflicting cruelty to the bulls.

However, the entire agitation, and all these arguments in favor of it, are misguided.

The issue is about cruelty to animals. Talk about it being an ancient cultural practice dating from the Sangam period is absolutely meaningless. It only means that Tamil people have been cruel to bulls since the Sangam period. That is not a justification for cruelty. This is like saying that Hinduism should continue caste discrimination because it has been part of Hindu culture for centuries, or that Americans should have continued with discrimination against blacks because it was practiced for centuries.

But do not take my word that Jallikattu is cruel to bulls. Read the Supreme Court judgement. To make it easy for you, I have abstracted the key points from the judgement, as well as given you a link to the entire judgement, so you know I am not lying.

Why Jallikattu is Cruel to Bulls: Summary of the SC Judgement

Here are the facts that people who support the agitation should educate themselves on (I am giving the link to the Supreme Court ruling, which I have now read, so you can confirm for yourselves):

1.     There was an order by the Madras High Court in Madurai in 2007 that upheld Jallikattu.

2.     This was challenged in 2011 in the Supreme Court by two organizations: the Animal Welfare Board of India (AWBI) and People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA).

3.     What is AWBI? It is a statutory advisory body to the government of India on animal welfare issues, created in 1962 under the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act (PCA). This organization regularly advises the Central Government on such issues, and was started under the stewardship of Smt. Rukmini Devi Arundale, the well-known dancer and humanitarian.

4.     AWBI sent a team to investigate and document the allegations of cruelty to bulls in Jallikattu. The team prepared a detailed report that highlighted several instances of unarguable cruelty to bulls, and presented it in the Supreme Court.

5.     A lot of this cruelty is committed in the holding area called the "vadi vassal" – which spectators cannot see - where the bulls are held before being released into the arena.

6.     The Supreme Court of India considered all the evidence before it carefully and came to the conclusion that the "sport" of Jallikattu indeed did cause unacceptable cruelty to bulls. This verdict was issued in 2014, and made the sport of Jallikattu illegal, as it did bull racing in Maharashtra.

7.     The Supreme Court ruling made it clear that the bull is normally not a combative animal, nor does it normally run fast. It is a docile herd animal that runs only because it feels frightened and terrorized. Therefore, the idea that you can have a "regulated" Jallikattu is ridiculous. The bull runs only when it is terrorized. So, a sport that is predicated on the running of a bull is inherently cruel.

8.    The cruelty is mentioned clearly in the Executive Summary of the judgement (all actual excerpts are shown in italics in this article):

Investigators observed that bulls were forced to participate and were deliberately taunted, tormented, mutilated, stabbed, beaten, chased and denied even their most basic needs, including food, water and sanitation. The findings of this investigation clearly show that bulls who are used in Jallikattu are subjected to extreme cruelty and unmitigated suffering.

These are discussed in detail in the section below. But first see the video that the AWBI presented as evidence in the SC, below.

Details of the Cruelty to Bulls Mentioned in the Judgement (With Actual Extracts)

1.     Cutting the Ears of the Bulls:

At least 80 per cent of the bulls observed had their ears cut, with three-fourths of the external ear pinna absent. When asked about the reason for the mutilation, many bull owners explained that by cutting the ear, the animal would be able to hear sounds even from the back, which they deemed to be very important while the animals are in the Jallikattu arena. Cutting the external ear in no way helps to improve a bulls hearing. Instead, the bull loses his natural ability to receive sounds signals with appropriate positioning and movement of the ear pinna. Cutting the ear causes intense pain and distress as the external ear pinna consists of cartilage and is highly vascular with a rich nerve supply. The procedure leads to physiological, neuroendocrine and behavioral changes in the animal.

2.     Fracture and Dislocation of Tail Bones:

Many bulls suffered from dislocated or even amputated tails caused by deliberate pulling and twisting. The tail, which has nearly 20 small bones, is an extension of the spinal cord and vertebral column. Dislocation and fracture of the tail vertebrae are extremely painful conditions.

3.     Frequent Defecation and Urination by Bulls:

Ninety-five per cent of the bulls were soiled with feces from below the base of their tails and across the majority of their hindquarters. Bulls were forced to stand together in accumulated waste for hours on end. Frequent defecation and urination are indicators of fear and pain in cattle.

4.     Biting a Bull's Tail:

On many occasions, bulls’ tails are bitten by the organizers and owners of the animals in the waiting area and inside the vadi vassal. The vadi vassal is a chamber that is closed off from public view. Abuse runs rampant in vadi vassals. Bulls are poked, beaten and deliberately agitated before they are forced into the Jallikattu arena, where more than 30 bull tamers are waiting. Considered an extremity of the body, a bulls tail has many vertebrae but very little muscle or subcutaneous tissue to protect it. Any direct pressure or injury to the tail bones causes extreme pain that sends bulls into a frenzy.

5.     Twisting a Bull's Tail:

Owners routinely beat the bulls and twist their tails in order to induce fear and pain while they are in the waiting area and the vadi vassal. Many bulls had dislocated or even amputated tails. Frequent pulling and bending of the tail causes extreme pain and may lead to a dislocation and/or fracture of the tail vertebrae.

6.     Poking Bulls with Knives and Sticks:

Many bulls were poked with sticks by owners, police officials and organizers inside the vadi vassal and near the collection yard. People inside the vadi vassal often poked bulls on their hindquarters, aces and other parts of their bodies with pointed wooden spears, tiny knives, sticks and sickle-shaped knives used for cutting nose ropes. Poking bulls with sticks or sharp knives causes immense pain and agitation. Distressed bulls often adopt a flight response and desperately try to escape through the half-closed gates of the vadi vassals. While attempting to flee from people in the arena, agitated bulls often injure themselves when they run into barricades, electric poles, water tanks, tractor carriages, and police watch towers placed inside the Jallikattu arena.

7.     Using Irritants:

Irritant solutions were rubbed into the eyes and noses of bulls inside the vadi vassal in order to agitate them. Eyes and noses are very sensitive, sensory organs, and the use of any irritating chemicals causes pain, distress and an intense sensation. Bulls who try to escape from such torture often end up injuring themselves by hitting walls, gates, fencing and other erected structures inside the vadi vassal and Jallikattu arena.

8.    Using Nose Ropes:

Nose ropes were frequently pulled, yanked or tightened in order to control bulls before they were released into arenas and collection yards. Some animals were even bleeding from the nose as a result of injuries caused by pulling the rope. Pulling or twisting the nose rope exerts pressure on the nerve-rich and extremely sensitive septum, causing bulls pain and making it easier for handlers to force them to move in a desired direction. According to one study, 47 per cent of animals whose noses were pierced had lacerations and ulcerations, and 56 per cent had pus in their nostrils. The study also pointed out that 57 per cent of cattle had extensive and severe nose injuries.

9.     Cramped Conditions:

Bulls were packed so tightly into narrow waiting corridors that they were unable to take a step forwards or backwards. Forced to stand for more than eight hours in line at the waiting area for a health examination and in the vadi vassal, bulls had no protection from the blistering sun and the crowds of people, who shouted and hooted at them, harassed them and frightened them. Bull owners start lining up the night before the Jallikattu event, and they are given serial numbers. Some were in line until the events ended at 2 pm the next day.

10. Forcing Bulls to Move Sideways:

The animals were forced to move sideways at a slow pace for more than eight hours over a distance of approximately 500 to 1000 meters. Forcing bulls to walk sideways, which is an unnatural gait for any animal for a long duration, causes them extreme discomfort.

11.   Lack of Food and Water:

All the bulls observed were not offered food, water or shelter from 8 am, when they were forced to line up, until the jallikattu events ended at 2.30 pm. Though concrete water troughs were available at the registration area and collection yards, none of the animals were offered water. Bulls were so terrified and focused on surviving at the collection yards in Palamedu and Alanganallur that they did not drink water. Several bulls became recumbent and were unable to stand up because of dehydration and exhaustion. Many people kicked, beat and bit the bulls in order to force them back onto their feet.

12.  Forcing Bulls to Drink Liquids:

On many occasions, bulls were forced to drink fluids that were likely liquor. Animals’ heads were raised by pulling on the nose ropes, and the fluids were forced into their mouths using a plastic bottle. Forcing bulls to drink causes them physical discomfort and fear. They often become excited and frenzied as the alcohol affects their central nervous system. Forcing them to drink can also cause the aspiration of fluid in the upper and lower respiratory tracts (lungs). This can cause pneumonia, a serious respiratory disease that can lead to death. Normally, bulls drink water at their own pace from a bucket, but no such allowances were witnessed during any of the Jallikattu events.

13.  Forcing Bulls to Stand in their Own Waste:

In the waiting areas, bulls were forced to wait for more than eight hours while standing in their own feces and urine. No sanitation facilities were made available, and bulls were forced to stand together in the accumulated feces and urine for hours. The accumulated waste attracts flies that bother the animals and cause them discomfort. The eggs laid by the flies may lead to maggot infestation of any wounds the bulls may have.

14.  Spectators Beating and Agitating Bulls:

When collection yards were not present or not used, injured, exhausted bulls were tormented by spectators as they exited. Parallel Jallikattu events happened at each venue as the aggressive crowds agitated the bulls exiting the arena by shouting at them, beating them and jumping on them. Many people, including police officials, beat exhausted bulls with sticks and jumped in front of the bulls in an effort to frighten them. Running for their lives, terrified bulls ran amok, stumbling into shops and houses and slamming into barricades and vehicles parked nearby. Both the bull who died after a head-on collision with a passenger bus in Avaniapuram and the bull who fractured his leg after jumping off a road in Palamedu were running loose when their injuries occurred. Parallel Jallikattu is often considered to be the real Jallikattu, as the most risky action takes place during the deliberate harassment by spectators.

15.  Restraining and Roping:

When bulls entered the collection yard, they were caught using looped rope that was attached to a long stick. At no point were the frightened bulls allowed to calm down. After a long struggle, bulls were captured by handlers who inserted two fingers into their noses and pulled them to the nearest tree while three to four men held their horns and necks using multiple ropes. Once an animal was tied to a tree, a new thick nose rope was forcefully inserted through the existing hole in the nasal septum. Often the rope was very thick, and pulling it vigorously caused injuries to the nasal septum, which led to profuse bleeding in many animals.

The Supreme Court considered all these arguments and evidences carefully and decided that Jallikattu is violative of the Prevention of Cruelty to Animals Act, 1960, and therefore ruled Jallikattu illegal, along with bull racing in Maharashtra.

Now it is possible that all these are lies and never happen. If you wish to claim that, please also let me know what could possibly be the motive of the AWBI to lie about what they saw? On the other hand, how many of those who are protesting this judgement have actually seen what happens in the vadi vassals? I have not, and am relying on the testimony of the AWBI. I find it difficult to believe that they have lied to the SC.

So, proud Tamilian: Consider what culture you want to preserve. Is this - this culture of cruelty - what you are protesting to keep alive? I am a Tamilian, and I am not proud of this cruel culture. I don't care if it has come down from the Tamil Sangam period. It should be stopped.

*********************************

Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the article.

India's National Language Dilemma

India’s National Language Dilemma

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 20 September, 2015

Copyright © Dr. Seshadri Kumar.  All Rights Reserved.

For other articles by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, please visit http://www.leftbrainwave.com

Disclaimer: All the opinions expressed in this article are the opinions of Dr. Seshadri Kumar alone and should not be construed to mean the opinions of any other person or organization, unless explicitly stated otherwise in the article.

*********************************

Since independence, India has faced a major dilemma.

As probably the most diverse democracy on the planet – a multi-religious (Hindu, Muslim, Sikh, Christian, Parsi, Jewish, and other minorities), multi-linguistic (today there are 22 official languages in India), and multi-ethnic democracy characterized by community and caste, India faced the formidable challenge since its formation of how to create unity in this incredible diversity. Other countries can barely fathom the complexity of this challenge. One goes from one state to another – like Tamil Nadu to Karnataka, or Maharashtra to Gujarat, and the language of communication changes completely. It is like saying that when you drive from Kentucky to Ohio in the USA, you have to speak a different language. Another way to imagine this complexity is to imagine what Europe would be if it were a country rather than a continent composed of many countries. Such cultural complexity as seen in India is not seen in any other country.

One of the solutions proposed to create unity within this diversity was the creation of a national language. This solution was proposed by the Indian National Congress (INC), the party that spearheaded the nonviolent freedom movement in India. Prominent leaders like Jawaharlal Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, and Chakravarthi Rajagopalachari (aka Rajaji) mooted this idea so that the whole of India could communicate in one voice. This would lead to administrative clarity as well as cultural cohesiveness, they argued, and forge a nation of multiple, multi-dimensional identities into a whole.

Historical Opposition

However, this idea has faced serious opposition from its inception. The idea was introduced by the INC in 1937 when they were in charge of the Home Rule government under British authority. Rajaji introduced it during his tenure as Premier of Madras Province and made education in Hindi compulsory, leading to protests organized by EV Ramasamy Naicker (aka Periyar) against what Periyar considered the imposition of north Indian values and ideas on the people of the south – the domination of the Dravidians by the Aryans, as Periyar viewed it.

Periyar was a giant in the world of Tamil Nadu (the state that was formed based on language from the Madras state for speakers of the Tamil language) politics, and he left a legacy that has survived to this day, and will likely continue for a long time hereafter as well. Periyar was one of the leading pro-Dalit (Dalits are the lowest strata – the “untouchables” – in Hinduism’s notorious caste system) voices in the country, and he saw Hindi as an offshoot of Sanskrit, the language of the upper castes in Hinduism. He saw the people of Tamil Nadu as the original inhabitants of India – the Dravidians, who were subjugated and assimilated in a gradual process by the migrating Aryans from outside India. He saw the caste system in Hinduism as a construct by the Aryans to subjugate the native Dravidians in their own land, and therefore argued for the rejection of all Sanskrit-based culture as symbols of oppression of the Dravidians.

Periyar’s efforts in raising a Dravidian consciousness led to the formation of parties that claimed to stand for the rights of the “Dravidian people” – essentially, the non-Brahmins – parties such as the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) (lit., “Dravidian Peoples’ Progress Party”) and its chief rival, the All-India Anna Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (AIADMK), where the name “Anna” refers to a prominent leader of the Dravidian movement – CN Annadurai, the disciple of Periyar who became chief minister of Tamil Nadu following Periyar’s ideals on Dravida empowerment. The hold of the Dravida empowerment philosophy evolved by Periyar is so strong that for the last 48 years, power in Tamil Nadu has only been in the hands of either the DMK or the AIADMK.

Following independence in 1947, the Central Government tried to make the teaching of Hindi compulsory throughout India. This evoked widespread protests in Tamil Nadu, led by Periyar, eventually forcing the government to relent and make Hindi an optional subject in Tamil Nadu in 1950.

The Constituent Assembly considered the question of a national language and finally decided against it. Instead, it advocated that two languages, English and Hindi, be used for all official business in India for 15 years. In 15 years, Hindi would be widely promoted and eventually after 15 years, English would be dropped as an official language and Hindi would be the sole official language.

While this kept tensions under the lid for some time, people started getting worried once the 15 year deadline approached. The government instituted first the BG Kher committee in 1955 and later the Parliamentary Committee on Official Language (chaired by Gobind Ballabh Pant and hence also called the Pant Committee) to study the issue in 1957. The Pant committee recommended that Hindi be made the primary official language and English the subsidiary official language. This was again greeted with protests. To quell the agitation, PM Nehru stated in Parliament that the arrangement of English as the second official language would not end in 1965.

To keep good his word, Nehru introduced the Official Languages Act in 1963, two years before the 15-year deadline of the Constituent Assembly ended in 1965, to clarify that English would continue to be an official language beyond 1965. The act recommended that the then-existing system continue for another 10 years, after which a committee would examine how much progress Hindi had made in its spread through India and make recommendations to the President.

However, this did not satisfy the DMK, because of the language of the bill, which they viewed as ambiguous. The bill stated that:

Notwithstanding the expiration of the period of fifteen years from the commencement of the Constitution, the English language may, as from the appointed day, continue to be used, in addition to Hindi,--

(a) For all the official purpose of the Union for which it was being used immediately before that day; and
(b) For the transaction of business in Parliament.

The difficulty the DMK had with the bill was the use of the word “may” in the sentence reading, “the English language may, as from the appointed day, continue to be used…” The DMK argued that “may” was ambiguous, and could just as easily be interpreted as “may not,” and so rejected the bill.

Soon after this, Nehru died, and his successor Lal Bahadur Shastri and his cabinet ministers Gulzarilal Nanda and Morarji Desai were strongly in favour of making Hindi a national language. This prompted the DMK, who feared that Shastri would not keep Nehru’s word, to intensify agitations. Things came to a boil when the Congress CM of Tamil Nadu introduced a bill to make compulsory in Tamil Nadu a three-language formula (English, Hindi, Tamil.)

The 15-year deadline for the continuation of English as a second official language would end on Republic Day, 1965 (January 22). Therefore, the DMK intensified anti-Hindi agitations in January 1965. Eventually Shastri backed down and agreed to honor Nehru’s commitments.

In 1968 a National Policy on Education was implemented by the Indira Gandhi government after the death of Shastri. This suggested a three-language formula, where children in all states in India would learn three languages – the language of the state, Hindi, and English. In states where the state language was Hindi, the students would have to learn any one of the many other official languages of India, preferably a South Indian language for the purposes of national integration.

However, this policy was not followed faithfully by most states. The Tamil Nadu government unilaterally passed a law not requiring compliance with the central law, and said that only Tamil and English need be taught in Tamil Nadu. In Hindi-speaking states, parents chose not to learn any southern languages, but use the provision to teach their children Sanskrit as the third language. The issue was thus never resolved.

Although Tamil Nadu has been at the forefront of efforts to block Hindi as the national language, many other states have a similar objection, although they do not state it so vocally. One such state is Bengal, which takes great pride in Bengali, considers it culturally more advanced than Hindi, and sees no reason for Bengali to play second fiddle to Hindi. Many other states have similar regional pride and do not see a reason to strongly opt for Hindi as a national language.

Thus, at many levels, there is opposition within India to naming Hindi as the national language. Many attempts have been made to reintroduce Hindi as the national language, but there has always been opposition to it. A recent Gujarat High Court ruling in 2010 affirmed that Hindi was not the national language and could not be imposed as such, even though Hindi had penetrated through most of India.

English as a Possibility?

Given the difficulty with Hindi as a national language, if one needs a link language throughout India, why not use English? After all, English is the lingua franca of the world. Even in countries with strong local language traditions, such as France or Germany, learning English is compulsory. In China, the government is making a very strong push to make its citizens learn English to be more competitive globally. In India itself, even poor people have understood well that English is the ticket to prosperity, so more parents want their children to go to a school where English, rather than the local state language, is the medium of instruction.

Given all this, it makes eminent sense for English to be made the national language of India on pragmatic grounds. However, this offends the nationalist spirit of many Indians, who point out that English was the language of the foreign rulers (the British) who ruled India for 200 years. They also point out that while many people in India may speak English, it is actually the native language of very few in India. For many, this seems like a colonial hangover.

In addition, people fear that, if English becomes the national language, literature in local languages will start to be neglected because local languages would cease to be taught in schools. Even in present-day India, the focus seems to have irretrievably shifted from regional languages to English, purely because of the job market. This has advocates of local languages and cultural diversity concerned (and rightly so) about the vast treasure of literature in local languages vanishing from India and about a generation of Indians, in the not-so-distant future, that is incapable of reading or appreciating any literature in regional languages. That would certainly be a huge cultural loss.

One could point out that opponents of Hindi also fear a similar cultural loss – that Hindi literature and poetry would benefit at the cost of the literature and poetry of other states.

Being Novel by Coming Full Circle

As we have seen, it is unlikely Hindi will ever be accepted by the entire nation currently. English also faces opposition from many angles, no matter what the pragmatic value it adds. One clearly needs a different approach.

Some have argued for Sanskrit as an alternative to Hindi, but there are two problems with it. One, it is a dead language. No one, apart from one small village in Karnataka, actually uses it for everyday language. Two, introducing Sanskrit will not satisfy Tamil Nadu – for, recall that the main objection of Tamil Nadu is that they did not want a Brahminical, “Aryan,” language thrust upon them. So Sanskrit will not work.

Here I propose a novel solution – actually an old solution that time has made novel.

I propose to introduce Hindustani – the mix of Hindi and Persian that was the dominant dialect of Hindi at the time of independence – as the national language.

This may seem like a foolish proposal, given that this was the language that Rajaji and Nehru wanted implemented in 1937 as the national language, and opposed passionately by Periyar. However, consider these facts.

·       Hindustani was being proposed as the national language only until 1947

·       Once Pakistan was separated from India, the Congress dropped the demand for Hindustani and switched to “pure” Hindi, whatever that means (in practice it meant replacing well-known Hindustani words like “maafi” with esoteric Sanskrit words like “kshama.”

·       Today’s Hindi bears very little resemblance to Hindustani because all the Urdu/Persian words have been stripped out.

·       If Hindustani becomes the national language, it will be a learning burden on both Hindi speakers and non-Hindi speakers alike because the “official” version of Hindustani that everyone will learn will contain substantial amounts of Urdu and Persian words.

·       Not only this, the inclusion of Urdu words means that this will be a good national unification bridge between Hindus and Muslims as well.

·       If Hindi speakers agree to this, it will be a big concession from them, and then Tamil people may not mind making a concession in turn.

·       Hindustani is not the language of Hinduism. There are plenty of non-Sanskrit words. The vedas do not use words like ijaazat, matlab, or kaamiyaab. Hence there is no need to think that this is an effort by Brahmins to thrust their culture on Dalits.

·       Hindustani is the language of Bollywood, and this is the greatest unifier in India today.

·       Hindustani may have been the common language of north India in 1947; today the official language is pure Hindi and Hindustani has been de-emphasized, leading to relative ignorance among the people of north India in Hindustani.

·       Hindustani, unlike English, is a uniquely Indian language. It is a blend of languages that was achieved in India. Nothing foreign about it.

·       And finally, (I will elaborate on this point in the next section), Hindustani is a much prettier language than Hindi. 

The Beauty of Hindustani

One of the key reasons I prefer Hindustani is that it is a far prettier language than Hindi, especially Sanskritised Hindi. Sanskrit is full of hard sounds that do not flow easily for music and poetry. This makes pure Hindi a difficult language for poetry and songs. Recognizing this, most poets who work in the Hindi film industry actually use Hindustani abundantly to make the language more musical. Perhaps some examples will help to understand. 

Below, Hindi phrases from songs are marked in red, and Hindustani phrases are marked in blue, so you can see the difference. See if you can even hum the pure Hindi equivalents.

1.

Intezaar, aitbaar, iqraar, aur pyaar

Pratiksha, bharosa, sweekruti, aur pyaar

2.

Mere mehboob tujhe meri mohabbat ki qasam

Phir mujhe nargisi ankhon ka sahaara de de

Mera khoya hua rangeen nazaara de de

Meri priyatama mujhe meri prem ki vachan

Phir mujhe halki peeli netron ka sahaara de de

Mera gum hua rangeen adbhut drishya de de

3.

Sham e gham ki qasam

Aaj gamgeen hain hum

Aa bhi jaa, aa bhi jaa aaj mere sanam

Dukh bhari sham par satya

Aaaj dukhi hain hum

Aa bhi jaa, aa bhi jaa, aaj mere premika

4.

Seene mein jalan, ankhon mein toofan sa kyoon hai

Is sheher mein har shaqs pareshaan sa kyoon hai

Hriday mein jwala, netron mein aandhi sa kyoon hai

Is nagar mein, har vyakti chintit kyoon hai

5.

Aap ki nazron nein samjha pyar ke kaabil mujhe

Aap ki vichar nein samjha prem ke yogya mujhe

6.

Ajeeb dastan hai ye, kahan shuru kahan khatam

Ye manzilen hain kaunsi, na wo samajh sake na ham

Asaamaanya kahani hai yeh, kahan prarambh kahan samapt

Ye lakshya hain kaunsi, na wo samajh paae na ham

7.

Khwab chun rahi hai raat, beqaraar hai

Tumhara intezaar hai

Sapne chun rahi hai raat, utsuk hai

Tumhari pratiksha hai

See my point? Because of all the lovely sounds in Hindustani due to Persian and Urdu influences, Hindustani sounds a lot prettier than Hindi. Given the other advantages I have listed for Hindustani in the bulleted list, and given that for 68 years we have struggled with this dilemma, I urge the nation to give this thought careful consideration.

Jai Hind!

On Women's Education in India, and Government Employees Who Take Themselves Too Seriously

On Women’s Education in India, and Government Employees Who Take Themselves Too Seriously

Written by Dr. Seshadri Kumar, 01 July 2012

Copyright © Dr. Seshadri Kumar. All Rights Reserved.

Please visit http://www.leftbrainwave.com for more articles by Dr. Seshadri Kumar.

Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this article are the personal opinions of the author alone, and of no one else, unless specifically mentioned otherwise.

************************************

Recently, a school in Tamil Nadu in South India disallowed two girls who got married immediately after finishing their Xth in that school from joining the XIth standard in the same school on the grounds that they would set a bad example for other girls and encourage them to do the same.  This was reported in The Hindu.  There are no other higher education institutions in the area for the girls and this action would effectively put an end to the education of the girls.

Many people were shocked by the attitude of the school in denying education, now legislated in Parliament as a fundamental right to all Indians, to girls, widely recognized as the one segment of Indian society in greatest need for education.  While it is sad to see Indian parents still parcelling off their girls to their husbands’ homes so early (and, in this case, below the legal marriageable age), it is usually the case that after marriage, it is the parents or in-laws who put a stop to the girls’ education.  However, in this case, the girls applied for admission to standard XI, only to be rejected by the principal of the school.

Distressed as I was by all this, I was even more distressed by a response to this action, also published by The Hindu in its Opinion section, written by a Professor Krishna Kumar, a Professor of Education at Delhi University and a former director of NCERT (National Council of Educational Research and Training), which actually defended the action of the said school principal.

According to this response, the fault does not lie with the principal.  The author of this piece believes that the principal is trying to fulfil the school’s social contract and their response is just a way of “conveying her inconsequential anger” at being unable to do so.

Noble though this sounds, there are many flaws with Professor Krishna Kumar’s arguments.

First, the author refers to a 1988 study by Prof. Leela Dube.  Accurate though the work may have been then, it is 24 years old, and many things have changed.  Importantly, that study was done before the opening up of the economy in 1992.  Society, especially urban society, has changed significantly since then.  Just look at how many women work in the IT sector alone.  Yes, Prof. Dube is right that women get a very different message in the home from what they do at school, but two things have changed how much of the home message they are willing to accept.  One is that there are so many employment opportunities available for women.  The other is that families need the extra income that women bring to the home and are not inclined to discourage women from working.  Both of these are different from the the situation in 1988.

Second, Prof. Kumar mentions (via Prof. Dube’s work) that there is a fundamental contradiction between expectations of girls in schools which, in an ideal world, encourage freedom of thought, freedom of action, and develop confidence in girls that they can do anything, just as boys can; and expectations of girls in the home - obey thy father and mother, obey thy husband, devote thy life to thy children.  Sure, this is true, and exists even today, but the intensity of the conflict is decreasing.  More and more parents are trying to give their girls a strong educational base so that the girls can stand on their own legs.  This isn't only in upper middle class homes - our maid servant in Pune was proudly telling us how she had big plans for her daughter, who seemed to be doing very well in school, much better than her son.

Third, the author assumes that teachers have taken upon themselves the mantle of reforming society and that the government also expects this out of them.  As anyone who has interacted with government employees of any kind, including teachers, knows, most of these employees do their job as a contractual obligation.  It is hard to believe that they truly think that the transformation of society rests upon them.  There may be some sincere teachers (yes, I have had some good teachers in my school as I grew up, as I assume many others have had too) who want to do a good job of teaching what they are supposed to teach, but to presume that they believe that the transformation of society is in their hands is a bit too much.

Fourth, let's think about education in India.  In his idealistic world at NCERT, Prof. Kumar loves to revel in illusions that Indian schools actually think of education as a means of teaching students to think and reason.  The truth of the matter is that Indian students all over the country, by and large, are NOT taught to think at all.  They are taught to memorize and learn by rote.  They learn an essay in English and then memorize answers to stock questions such as "explain with reference to context" that are dictated to them by the teacher.  And Prof. Kumar is telling us that teachers are trying to inculcate critical thinking in students?

The truth of the matter is that parents in India send their children to school for the certificate they get at the end of 12 years and the hope of getting a marketable degree in a college thereafter.

Fifth, how is denying the girls admission after they have been married helping anything?  What was the principal expecting, that she should have been consulted and her approval obtained before the marriages were fixed?  And how is denying women education helping with the mission of empowering women, even if we were to accept Prof. Kumar's thesis that that is the perceived mission of the teachers?

Sixth, and finally, what is this gibberish about "she is right in indicating that she is not equipped to run a school for married women. If the government is concerned about the education of child brides, it should develop a curriculum for them and start institutions where it can be taught."  What is there about history, geography, mathematics, civics, physics, chemistry, biology, English, Tamil, Hindi, or most of the other subjects that are standard in XIth or XIIth standard schools that are to be taught differently to married women than they are to be taught to single women?  When the same syllabus applies to boys and girls, why make a distinction between single and married women?

The whole essay by Prof. Kumar presents a distorted (and idealistic) view of what the purpose of a school is.  It is as though Prof. Kumar believes that the sole purpose of a school is to engineer social transformation of a certain kind, and since getting such young girls married violated the objectives of that transformation, the girls should be expelled.  This is such ivory-tower and impractical thinking, and so out of touch with reality – and the irony is that the author prefaces his article by speaking of Prof. Dube, whose writings he claims to like because “her view ... derived its perspective from a deeper commitment – to social reality, rather than to activism or political correctness.”  Yet Prof. Kumar’s own article is completely divorced from the social reality of women in our country today!  It should have been discarded on arrival at the office of The Hindu - yet, it has been published - maybe just because it is a contrarian position?  Just because something is controversial is not reason to publish it.  For a paper like The Hindu, the arguments must also make sense.  There has clearly been a lack of proper editorial involvement here.

Note that I am not advocating that girls should be married off young.  I'd rather that people take their time before getting married, get an education, get to know themselves a bit, and obtain some qualifications to stand on their own before marrying.  But the decision to not allow them to pursue their education because they married early is an attempt to impose the teachers’ own morality or vision of society on others.  Prosecute the parents for arranging a marriage of minors if you will, but you have no right to stop their education.

If what you are teaching in school is worth anything, then in time, it will have the desired effect.  Maybe not in this generation, because the girls are forced to bend to their parents' will, but perhaps, when they grow up, they will think differently about their children.  But it is education that will empower them to change.  Maybe it will take a couple of generations, but it will happen.  Let them get that education first.