Saturday, August 6, 2011

Why Rabindranath is relevant for reviewing NCF-2005?

Why Rabin

Since NPE-1986 muted the idea of NCF, articulating the policy document remained an issue with conflict between tradition and modernity of the post-colonial India. Every post-colonised society tends to dissociate from its colonial past invoking its pre-colonial past even at the risk of reviving ideas that were obscure and rejected. Such rejections are embedded in colonial time that aspired for a post-colonial society. Aspiration of colonised society on the other hand expressed through Nationalistic polity the idea of a Nation that eventually it saw through the transition of political and economic power. Theoretical postulation on education that Rabindranath put forwarded in 1892, in the public domain was essentially for the de-colonised country (see: Shikshar Herpher, Vol 10, Rabindra Rachanabali). Such assertions actually were precursor for Nationalistic polity and saw the country through Independence movement. If freeing the country from colonial rule was one face of such movement, the other face was critiquing the ancient society, aspiring for moderation towards an equitable and resurgent India; modern without losing connect with its tradition.

NCF-2005 is remarkable in proposing a modernizing project, proposing a break from the colonial past, but in the process appears to have lost connect with the modernizing nationalistic projects that took off during colonial time. Modern in contextualising the idea of education in the contemporary world society, NCF-2005 proposes a curricular approach that takes on construction of personal knowledge. Indian tradition however, always articulated education on the other hand as a social surplus and for a purpose that is not necessarily argued by the immediacy of worldly needs. That puts the purpose of getting educated with an Eastern tone. There are quotes from Rabindranath to emphasize the point but the actual framework lacks direction. The very ethos of Indian tradition lives with the idea of sharing resources. The morality of such a decision of sharing common resource however is a subject of beliefs in human values—spiritual as one may say. Rabindranath’s consideration of education as social surplus has an argument for the just and equitable human society was aspired as a radical idea in pre-independent India, at the face of mechanistic mode of education. To contest such mechanization, Rabindranath had added the human value of morality and that is obscure in NCF-2005. Applying hard its head to establish the very curricular approach, somewhere it could not touch the heart.

As a rule, every curricular plan always projects a description of the socio-economic and cultural future of the country. NCF is after all a document on planning of human resource for the future society. Contemporary educational studies are divided between reproduction of knowledge and creation of newer. Continuing with the past knowledge value being a process of reproducing the production and other social, cultural relations, is again justified by the logic of maintaining status quo in the society and its power structures. Politically that has its own implications. Creating newer knowledge as a logical reflection to the past knowledge is to open up newer social and economic relations. Society in 1893 was not the same as today but Rabindranath’s proposition was a focused on critical discontinuation from the obscure past for a rejuvenated society (See: Adim Sambal, Vol. 10, Rabindra Rachanabali) As a matter of fact, his claim in that particular moment of time, that “by the rule of history, British rulers shall leave the country, one day”—is almost unnerving (See: Shikshar Herfer’er Punarabritti, and Prasngakatha, Vol. 10, Rabindra Rachanabali). But that were parts of his argument in proposing his educational idea that called for a break from the past towards a new knowledge system. His remarkable insight argued that in a new world order knowledge is flowing from West that reasonably control the societal, that we understand today as impact on political-economy of the colonised countries. We understand today, this knowledge dominance coupled with large capital accumulation interpreted through techno-economy puts de-colonised countries to blaze the tail only joining the global economic entrepreneurship at service sector. Rabindranath’s insightful call for construction of knowledge or নির্মান [Nirman] instead of acquisition of produced knowledge or উৎপন্ন সংগ্রহ [Utpanna Sangraha] (See: Shikhsar Herfer, Vol. 10, Rabindra Rachanabali) was addressed to break away from this knowledge dominance and proposing an alternative knowledge system characteristically local in attribute. (See: Karm’er Umedari, Vol. 10, Rabindra Rachanabali)

Present time puts up certain reality argued by economic liberalisation and global economic instability coupled with constant expansion of market and change in production especially for a primarily agrarian and rain-fed Indian economy. Acceptance of the reality puts up a rationale for educational planners—reproduction of knowledge shall be reviewed for construction or নির্মান [Nirman] of knowledge. In other words child putting their feet in the primary school shall learn ‘how to learn’ for they will have to learn throughout her life in order to be able to stay active with the changing economic life of the society. Surely, Rabindranath ever visualized such a scenario but his call for breaking away from the past practice of উৎপন্ন সংগ্রহ [Utpanna Sangraha] for নির্মান [Nirman] is perhaps most relevant that no curriculum planner could just ignore.

Rabindranath’s proposition of claiming education as a social surplus was a radical idea as it is today. Economic planners have already recognised this as a fact in formulating developmental parameters. But the dumb numbers of literacy rate however do not recognize the quanta of knowledge increment, a certain increase in literacy rate had created. But that is important for any developing society. Developing after all is a subject of gaining an economic height than others, which shall reasonably try to bring entire population under the process educating which other than empowering an individual shall make her education relevant for others as well getting engaged with the larger society. Education must flow freely across the breadth and width of the society and beyond school buildings. NCF-2005, engrossed with addressing the school somewhere missed the idea of educating the society, to create social surplus. Education today must produce and construct newer knowledge as surplus to make it meaningful and relevant for the society which sustains it; claiming this is only recalling Rabindranath in his 150th Birth anniversary.

Brining in the entire educable population under the same fold has no history in this country till this day. Traditionally Indian education, not exactly in British connotation is ‘Elite’ in the sense that only the financially elite society always could afford it; the knowledge content always justified the need of the same elite society. Such knowledge content being the mainstream never considered knowledge with the ‘plebeian’ society important to be accessed institutionally. This schism effecting on the equity is already creating noise while economy of the decolonised country is transforming from farm economy to manufacturing and service economy. Institutional education remained confined for the benefit of for secondary and/or tertiary economy only. The economic life in the primary sector following the tradition remained outside institutional education as always. Reasonably that emerged with a huge population in the unorganized sector, without any structured system of knowledge acquisition or skill building opportunity and depending on traditional knowledge for delivery of physical labour only. Moderation of education requires addressing this socio-educational schism through integrating both the knowledge system with a democratic justification. NCF-2005 could only consider ‘vocational education’ for that purpose as a separate system, reproducing the tradition of socio-educational schism. There it rather remained with the tradition.

A break is needed badly from the past for every education today is vocationally justified. A mason or carpenter, uneducated institutionally in his trade/vocation is after all wastage of human potential but at the benefit of its employer who only pays for his labour much lower and cares for her professional benefits than a similar worker in service sector. This again recalls the issue of manual reproduction of skills ignoring the knowledge content of such human endeavour. Apart from deprivation of adequate compensation this tradition fails to construct new knowledge as surplus. A break from tradition here is badly needed for a modern India. This again reverberate Rabindranath’s idealization of education that rejected ‘educational caste system’ and considered education in its entirety suspecting the undemocratic tag of ‘vocational education’. NCF of modern, de-colonised India should be democratic at first instance. Among the fore fathers of Indian nationalism, Rabindranath radicalised this idea by brining democratic value in it, not only in ideation but in praxis.

Democratization of education as a praxis was the major achievement of educator Rabindranath during his engagement with the school at least for ten years, when he spend his creative mind in action research in school education. That took the major note while conceiving the classroom, teaching and even school management. Later, he proposed this as a model when the country was in search for a National education system. The legacy of elitism could not gather enough insight to accept this as an acceptable idea. Historically Rabindranath disassociated himself from National Education Movement. During this time, in a personal letter to Ramendra Sundar Trivedi (1909) he expressed his dismay-“I am sitting by the window, I kept the lamp burning and I shall wait till my countrymen accepts the worth of this idea.” The year that celebrates his 150th Birthday could be a better time to look back at the lamp that is waiting long by the window.

Bratin Chattopadhyay

31st July 2011

No comments: