Are we 'failing' our students?

Recently, the education minister of the state of Maharashtra gave a statement that henceforth no student of SSC and HSC (Secondary school and Higher-Secondary school) in Maharashtra will see a 'Fail' grade in one's mark sheet.

Immediately, there were two contrasting responses to the statement. One, that appreciated the minister's move as a measure to reduce the burden on school students. The other called it as a move that would encourage and perpetuate mediocrity as it removes all disincentives for performing poorly while also eliminating any potential rewards for good performance. The detractors' arguments do have some merit as there have been multiple reports (see this and this) about deteriorating quality of primary education in India.

Despite the overwhelming evidence to the contrary, I am personally inclined in favour of eliminating 'fail' grades for school children. However, I also admit that doing so in the current schooling system will inevitably lead to disastrous results. So, what's the way forward?

I have witnessed at very close quarters what a 'fail' grade does to the confidence of a student. Not only the self-belief of the student is shattered, it can also lead to anxiety, depression, and in some cases, even suicides.

What does a 'fail' grade even mean in the schooling context? Is it that the student failed to learn something by the time the examination was conducted? In that case, is it being implied that the student won't ever be able to learn it in future? If a student failed to answer a set of questions asked in an examination, is it fair to assume that the same student would not have been able to answer a different set of questions more 'successfully'?

What I am trying to highlight is that performance in an examination is a function of the time of examination, the set of questions, and the circumstances leading up to and at the time of examination. If one includes other external factors like physical and mental conditions of the students, distractions, pen/computer failures, pace of answering etc., we see that the notion of 'failure' becomes more and more questionable.

In the management institute I studied in, a certain professor of a managerial accounting course believed in subjecting students to quizzes with extreme time pressure. A student was typically required to analyze a balance sheet and calculate missing values in ridiculously short times. While some students did manage to do quite well in those exams, a large number could not do so even if they were equally capable of analyzing those balance sheets very well. But the system branded them as inferior to the toppers by awarding them lower grades. This was an absurd method of evaluation to say the least and completely unfair to many bright students.

The current system of schooling that pushes students through a tiered system of grade 1 through grade 12 perpetuates exactly this kind of absurdity.

Imagine a race around a track where each runner has to run 12 laps with each lap to be completed within the same time limit. Failing to complete a lap within the stipulated time will result in elimination, or worse still, repeating the same lap until the runner is able to run it within the stipulated time.

Those who have witnessed an Olympic race for long-distance running will know that not all runners run at the same pace. Not only that, a runner does not run all the laps at the same pace either. While some runners prefer to start the race at high speeds trying to build a huge lead over others, there are some who like to start slow and then increase their pace towards the end of the race. Needless to say, there isn't one single strategy to run the race.

Our education system does not need to be like a running race. Education is more like mountaineering. The objective is to climb the mountain. The success too is defined in terms of whether the objective is reached. All those who are able to reach the zenith are deemed successful. It does not matter whether one takes a couple of days or a few hours to reach the target. It also does not matter what clothes, equipment, shoe, or tools the mountaineer used to scale the summit.

Our education system, unfortunately, is so focused on the process that we have lost sight of the most important aspect of it - the purpose.

Success of a student, just like the mountaineer, is in learning; not in obtaining top grades in an examination. A student must be evaluated on how much one has learnt and examinations must only function as one of the tools to measure that.

While students who learn faster than others may be awarded or appreciated, others are not to be considered any less successful if they end up learning the same things over a longer course of time.

Learning is not a linear activity. It certainly cannot be time-bound either. Learning is complicated made more complicated by the fact that it can take place through various different kinds of techniques involving different kids of senses. If we add the inherent diversity in abilities, aptitude, and sensory endowments of different human beings, we will see the fruitlessness of streamlining education in a linear time-bound process.

Let's assume that there are two concepts - A & B - that students currently learn about over two years in school. While there may be students who are able to learn these concepts in 12 months each, there may be some who might take 18 months to learn concept A, but may require only 6 more months to learn the associated concept B. Similarly, there may be others who would grasp concept A in 6 months but may require 18 more months to grasp concept B.

It is evident now that the current schooling system will cause the second and the third set of students to 'fail' even though all three sets of students could have learnt both the concepts in the same amount of time, i.e. 24 months. And we haven't considered the possibility of some students being able to learn B first and then learning A.

It must also be obvious by now how the system is unfair to those students who might have been able to learn both the concepts in 12 months only. Such students are made to needlessly spend an extra year in the schooling system. An extra year that the student could have spent learning something more or something else.

The 12-year schooling system with its linear structure of syllabus and an artificial notion of time-bounds brackets all students with their different abilities and learning capacities in the same category and evaluates them on artificially defined time and examination-based platforms.

Essentially, the current schooling system does a great disservice to all the students. In a country that celebrates the legend of a teacher who turned three foolish princes into wise men through the art of story telling, it is a travesty that students are now being deprived of reaching their true potential by branding them as 'failures'. It's time we did a serious rethink of our schooling system.

भाषा और हम

पूर्व प्रकाशन: फेसबुक पर

आज घटित घटनाओं के सम्बन्ध में एक विचार आया।

आज हमें पहले से अधिक आवश्यकता है भारतीय भाषाओं को बचाने की। यह कोई अंग्रेज़ों के विरोध में अथवा स्वदेशी मूल्यों पर आधारित टिप्पणी नहीं है। भारतीय भाषाओं की कोख में भारत का इतिहास एवं भारत की संस्कृति छुपी हुई है। आज अंग्रेजी का दौर ऐसा चला है कि पढ़ा लिखा व्यक्ति अपने विचार भी अंग्रेजी भाषा में ही सोचता है। आधायत्म हो विज्ञान हो कला हो या राजनीती ही हो इन सब की व्याख्यान आज अंग्रेजी से ही आरम्भ होती है। कुछ दिन पहले मैं अनुपम खेर द्वारा दिए गए एक भाषण को सुन रहा था जिसमें उन्होंने आरम्भ में ही कह दिया था कि वे हिंदी भाषा में ही बोलेंगे। परन्तु विडम्बना यह देखिये कि ऐसा कहने के तुरंत बाद वे अगले ५ मिनट तक अंग्रेजी में ही बोलते रहे। मुझे नहीं पता कि उन्हें इसका आभास भी हुआ कि नहीं।

हम जैसे लोग जो ज़्यादातर अंग्रेजी पढ़ कर स्कूल से निकले हैं और विदेशी लेखकों द्वारा लिखे गए उपन्यासों को पढ़ कर समय व्यतीत करते हैं अब धीरे-धीरे अंग्रेजी सभ्यता एवं संस्कृति को भी अनजाने में अपनी विचारधारा में अंतर्ग्रहण कर रहे हैं।

अंग्रेजी संस्कृति में ग्रीष्म ऋतु को खुशियों से जोड़ा जाता है अथवा शीतकाल एवं वर्षा को दुःख से। भारतीय संस्कृति में ठीक इसका विपरीत है। भारतीय संस्कृति में ग्रीष्म काल को दुःख और पीड़ा से जोड़ा गया है तथा वर्षा एवं शीतकाल को खुशियों और उत्सवों से। आज जब Art of Living के कार्यक्रम के समय जब बारिश हुई तो कई लोगों ने इसे बुरा शगुन अथवा भगवान का दंड माना। परन्तु यह भारतीय संस्कृति में वास्तव में भगवान का दिया आशीर्वाद और शुभ माना जाता।

हिंदी के मुहावरों एवं लोकोक्तियों को अगर जाने तो इनमें भारतीय समाज के इतिहास की एक छवि प्रकट होती सी दिखती है। घी के दिए जलाना, घाट घाट का पानी पीना, गुड गोबर कर देना, चिकना घड़ा, छटी का दूध, ढोल का पोल खोलना इत्यादि हमें हमारे पूर्वजों के जीवन के बारे में कई संकेत देते हैं।

जितना हम अपने देश की भाषाओं से दूर होते जायेंगे उतना ही हम हमारी सांस्कृतिक और ऐतिहासिक धरोहर से दूर होते जायेंगे। हमारे पूर्वजों के प्रति इस से बड़ा द्रोह और कोई नहीं होगा।

इस पर विचार कीजियेगा।

Disclaimer: हालांकि मेरे पूर्वज तमिल भाषी थे यह मेरा दुर्भाग्य है कि मेरी उस भाषा में कोई निपुणता नहीं है। लेकिन मेरे विचार तमिल पर भी उतने ही लागू होंगे जितने हिंदी पर होते हैं।

योग एवं धर्म

पूर्व प्रकाशन: फेसबुक पर
अंग्रेजी अनुवाद यहां पर

कुछ समय से मेरे मन में यह प्रश्न उठ रहा था कि धर्म एवं योग की उचित परिभाषा क्या है। इनका क्या अर्थ है। निस्संदेह धर्म योग एवं कर्म भारतीय आध्यात्म प्रणाली के तीन विशाल स्तम्भ हैं।

हालाँकि कर्म को संपूर्ण सृष्टि के कर्म चक्र के सन्दर्भ में हमारे द्वारा किये गए क्रियाओं के रूप में समझ पान उतना कठिन नहीं है। परन्तु धर्म एवं योग की न केवल परिभाषाएँ अपितु उनके अर्थ भी विभिन्न पाये जाते हैं। मेरे अपने अनुसन्धान विश्लेषण एवं चिंतन से मैंने इन दो मूल्यों को समझने का प्रयास किया है। मेरा विश्वास है कि निम्नलिखित विवरण अन्य कई परिभाषाओं से सामंजस्य रखेगा।

योग

संस्कृत में योग का अर्थ होता है जोड़ना या मिलाना। इस शब्द का मूल 'युज् ' है जिसका अर्थ है जोड़ना। योग को गणित में addition के अर्थ में भी प्रयोग में लाते हैं। परन्तु अधिकतर इसे जोड़ने या मिलाने के अर्थ में ही इस्तेमाल किया जाता है। अंग्रेजी में yoke शब्द का मूल भी संस्कृत 'युज् ' ही है। योग स्वयं के अस्तित्वा को सम्पूर्ण सृष्टि से मिलाने का एक अभ्यास व एक साधन है। एक सरल सा उदहारण प्रस्तुत करता हूँ। हमारा व्यक्तिगत जीवन कई इच्छाओं से भरा हुआ है। अधिकांश हमारे विचार कथन एवं क्रियाएं हमारी इन इच्छाओं की पूर्ती की ओर निर्देशित रहते हैं। परन्तु कदाचित हम अपनी इन व्यक्तिगत इच्छाओं को अपने परिवार समाज मित्रों गाँव नगर देश अथवा पर्यावरण के हित के लिए पूरा न करने का निर्णय लेते हैं। ऐसे कचित क्षणों में ही योग का बोध छुपा हुआ है। उदहारण के लिए जब भी हम अपने व्यक्तिगत हितों को अपने परिवार के हित के लिए त्याग देते हैं तो हम निम्नलिखित दो विचारों का अनुसरण करते हैं।

1. हम स्वयं को अपने से एक बड़ी इकाई का अंग मानते हैं। इस उदहारण में वह इकाई हमारा परिवार होगा।
2. हम यह समझते हैं कि अपने हितों की अपेक्षा इस बड़ी इकाई के हितों की रक्षा में अधिक लाभ है।

ऐसा करने से हम स्वयं को अपने से एक बड़ी इकाई से जोड़ते हैं और अपने व्यक्तिगत हितों को अपने से बड़ी इकाई के हितों के सन्दर्भ में देखते हैं। योग के अभ्यास के द्वारा व्यक्ति धीरे धीरे स्वयं को अपने से बड़ी से बड़ी इकाइयों से जोड़ने लगता है। अंत में व्यक्ति जब अपने अस्तित्व को संपूर्ण सृष्टि के सन्दर्भ से जोड़ लेता है तब उसका प्रत्येक विचार शब्द एवं क्रिया संपूर्ण सृष्टि के हितों की रक्षा में लग जाता है। ऐसा करना सरल नहीं है। इसी लिए योग को अभ्यास अथवा साधना कहा जाता है। यह एक प्रक्रिया है जिसके फलस्वरूप व्यक्ति संपूर्ण सृष्टि से ऐक्य प्राप्त कर लेता है।

धर्म

धर्म शब्द का मूल संस्कृत में 'धृ' है जिसका अर्थ पकड़ना अथवा संरक्षण सम्भालना पोषण आदि के रूप में है। इसी मूल से 'धरती' 'धारणा' आदि शब्दों की उत्पत्ति भी हुई है। यही अर्थ माने तो यह जानना अनिवार्य है कि धर्म से हम किसके संरक्षण की बात कर रहे हैं। धर्म सम्मिलित रूप में हमारे वे सारे शब्द क्रियाएं एवं कर्तव्य हैं जो प्राकृतिक व्यवस्था बनाए रखते हैं। 'व्यवस्था' इस शब्द को हमने ध्यानपूर्वक समझना है। 'व्यवस्था' को अधिकतर लोग अच्छे-बुरे उचित-अनुचित के मानवकृत संकल्पनाओं की सीमाओं में देखते हैं। यह गलत है। धर्म के सन्दर्भ में व्यवस्था को मानवीय संकल्पनाओं से हटकर एक प्राकृतिक रूप में देखना चाहिए। परन्तु यह प्राकृतिक व्यवस्था है क्या? क्या हम अब भी मानवकृत अच्छे-बुरे बातों की चर्चा नहीं कर रहे? इसका उत्तर हमें योग के अभ्यास से मिलता है। जब हम स्वयं के अस्तित्व को संपूर्ण सृष्टि के हितों से जोड़ लेते हैं तब जिन विचारों शब्दों अथवा क्रियाओं की उत्पत्ति होती वह धर्माचरण कहलाता है। और इन विचारों शब्दों एवं क्रियाओं को सम्मिलित रूप में धर्म कहा जाता है।

उदाहरणतः यदि हमारी मछली खाने की व्यक्तिगत इच्छा हमें समुद्र से अधिक से अधिक मछलियां पकड़ने के लिए प्रोत्साहित करती है तो इस से समुद्री पारिस्थितिकी पर दुष्प्रभाव पड़ सकता है। परन्तु जैसे ही हम स्वयं के हितों को पर्यावरण के हितों से जोड़ लेते हैं तो वैसे ही हम पर्यावरण संरक्षण को ध्यान में रखते हुए अपने आचरण और अपनी आकांक्षाओं पर नियंत्रण रखने लगते हैं। योग प्रक्रिया के इस एक कदम से हम धर्म के अनुकूल जीवन की ओर एक कदम बढ़ा लेते हैं।

सारांश यही है कि धर्म योग की अभिव्यक्ति है। योग एक अभ्यास है तो धर्म उसका परिणाम है। धर्माचरण व्यक्ति या अपने योग अभ्यास से सीख सकता है अथवा किसी योगी के शब्दों विचारों एवं क्रियाओं का अनुसरण कर के। हम जितना धर्म को समझने लगेंगे उतना ही हमें अधर्म भी समझ आएगा। धर्म एवं अधर्म प्रकाश और अंधकार की भांति हैं। जहां प्रकाश है वहां अंधकार नहीं हो सकता और अंधकार होने के लिए प्रकाश को पूरी तरह मिटाना ही पड़ेगा। एक का अस्तित्व दुसरे के अस्तित्व की समाप्ति पर ही टिका हुआ है। अर्थात् धर्म को जीवित रखने के लिए अधर्म का विनाश अनिवार्य है। अधर्म का नाश भी धर्म है।

Dharma and Himsa

A few months ago, I had written a post explaining my understanding of Dharma and Yoga, and how while Yoga is a practice, Dharma is what manifests out of it.

It is in this context of Dharma that I want to further explore the concept of Himsa and Ahimsa.

Himsa and Ahimsa are roughly translated as violence and non-violence respectively. Any act of aggression on any other living creature is an act of violence. In usual public discourse, this violence is used to refer to only physical aggression. Non-violence is the opposite of violence, and a typical example that is given to explain this is to 'turn the other cheek'.

In India, Mahatma Gandhi exemplified non-violence through his words and actions by imploring Indians to participate in the struggle for freedom against the British rule and by responding to the cruelty of the British administration by turning the proverbial other cheek. He believed in this theory of non-violence to the extent of pleading with the Jews to happily embrace the atrocities that Hitler was committing on them, and return his hatred with love if that were possible.

However, is the principle of non-violence applicable universally? Consider what happened in Mumbai on 26 November 2008, or what happened in Orlando or Dhaka a few days ago. If the theory of non-violence was applied against the perpetrators of these horrific attacks, would the terrorists have stopped, or would they have continued with their manslaughter unperturbed? Would risking the lives of innocent people at the hands of the terrorists justified, or would it be more prudent to kill those terrorists with violence and protect the lives of other innocent people?

By indulging in violence to kill the terrorists, are we following the principles of Dharma or Adharma?

Let us consider another example. In a dense forest with rich ecological bio-diversity, a new weed gets introduced. This new weed grows and spreads rapidly, and extracts inordinate amount of water from the ground. Soon, the existing plants and trees in the forest are run over by this fast-growing weed in a vicious cycle. The more the weed spreads in the forest, the more water it draws from the soil, thereby causing more plants and trees to dry up and die, leaving more areas for the weed to spread to. This rapidly changing ecology causes distress to animals too as they are now deprived of their natural source of food, shelter, and camouflage. Soon, the animals start dying too, and the forest with a rich diversity of fauna and flora ends up being a vast grassland covered with the invasive weed. A popular example of this is the vilayati keekar (विलायती कीकर) that was introduced in the lands around Delhi.

If the principle of Ahimsa means that one must not inflict any violence on any living creature whatsoever, then does that mean one must not kill the weed and protect the forest? Must one let the entire forest be lost to the invasive weed and put the native flora and fauna at severe risk?

Here is where I would like to draw your attention to the definition of Dharma - Dharma can be understood to be all those actions or duties that help in maintaining the natural order of all things in cosmos.

Before the weed was introduced, the forest had maintained its delicate ecological balance for perhaps thousands of years. No one species, plant or animal, had overridden the forest. Every species, plant or animal, had found a place to survive in the forest and was able to ensure the continuity of itself while not impinging on the survival of other species.

Animals that were hunted more, reproduced more off-springs (e.g. rabbits), while animals that were predators, or were hunted much less, had possibly much slower fertility rates (e.g. elephants and tigers). Similar phenomenon could be observed in plants too.

Furthermore, predator species like tigers do not prey on all animals, and do not hunt indiscriminately either. A tiger, for example, would hunt only when it was hungry, and only as much as was needed to satisfy its hunger. This meant that the tiger would not hunt again until it was hungry. Even though the tiger is indulging in an act of violence through hunting, it is not disturbing the ecological balance of the forest.

This system of co-existence of different species is what is called the 'natural order'. It is our duty through our actions, words, and deeds to ensure that this natural order is maintained.

With this understanding, one can now see that the destruction of the weed becomes a paramount act of Dharma. The weed is a symbol of Adharma that seeks to destroy the natural order of cosmos. It is an act of corruption in a delicately balanced system of co-existence. It needs to be destroyed. The weed cannot seek a non-violent treatment by invoking principles of dharma. Destruction of adharmic entity is one of the fundamental principles of dharma; the other being nurturing and maintenance of dharmic entities.

Therefore, while one does well to remember अहिंसा परमो धर्म:, one must also remember धर्म हिंसा तथैव च.

The whole of Bhagavadgita expounds on the need for Arjun to take up the war against adharma as a necessary duty to uphold dharma.

अथ चेत्त्वमिमं धर्म्यं संग्रामं न करिष्यसि 
ततः स्वधर्मं कीर्तिं च हित्वा पापमवाप्स्यसि (2.33)

Therefore, while non-violence is a preferred state of affairs in a dharmic system, one must not hesitate to use violence when faced with an adharmic entity. Kill the weed, as it were. 

Love and Law

Love is free. Love is not bound by the laws of nature, person, species, gender. Love can happen between any two individuals. It doesn't even have to be a person whom one chooses to love. Seers and saints have expressed love for Gods. Poets have expressed love for liquor. There are people who love trees, animals, motherland etc. Similarly, love can happen between two persons whether they are of the same gender or different genders.

Love manifests itself in different ways. Expressions of love are as varied as the people expressing it and the people it is being expressed for. For some, it could just be a touch, while for others it could be a smile. Unfortunately, the law in India tries to define what forms of expression of love are legal, nay natural, and which are not. The legal notion of expressions of love are based on a number of assumptions about the gender, the general health, the physical condition, and personal preferences of the members involved. Do these assumptions apply to all the people under all circumstances? What happens to those who do not fulfill the assumptions made in the law? Are they to deprive themselves of any kind of love? How does a couple where one person is paralytic from waist down express love for each other? Does that expression fall in line with the legal notions of love? Perhaps it is time we re-look the laws and give everyone the freedom to express love in whatever way they wanted. This is the least a country that promises freedom to its citizens must do.

There is however a caveat and I would like to point it out without being judgmental. While an individual may have the freedom to do or say something, it does not automatically mean that there is a social sanction for it. Social sanctions evolve over a long period of time and undergo changes in an organic fashion. Therefore, while the law allows for a certain word or action, there has to be space for the society to make its choices too. 

For example, while a law may permit members of the same gender to marry each other, it must make allowances for social organizations and institutions to choose to accept or reject them, or be indifferent to them in the existing social setups. So if a social organization refuses to conduct marriage of same-sex couples, or refuses to offer children for adoption to same-sex couples, they must be allowed to do so, or if they welcome them, they must be allowed to do that too. 

Any attempts by law to force a concept down the throats of social organizations can effectively destroy any constructive path for the society to evolve organically. Essentially, the concept of freedom must not only apply at the level of individuals, but also at the level of the society.

That’s as far as the law must go. Neither short of it nor further.