Do you really care about the saffronisation of education?

Short answer: Most of you don't give two fucks unless it happens at an 'elite' institution. Bourgeois much?

Longer rant:
If you really want to know, this process of saffronisation has been going on for quite some time now. It's really shocking that people only start caring when it happens at places like FTII or IIT-Madras.

Gajendra Chauhan bothers you

As of 2014, the ABVP has control of the students' unions in 15 out of the 30 Central Universities and many of the appointments at the authority level in these universities are former RSS pracharaks. From what I've heard from friends in Silchar studying at Assam University, the ABVP regularly harasses students affiliated with the Students' Federation of India with threats to severely compromise their academic lives. What's more is that with RSS pracharaks in the authority, they can if they really want to. The situation is hardly going to be better in any of the other 14 Central Universities where the students' body is controlled by the ABVP. But of course, Assam University is not a 'premier' institute, so you hardly give a shit.

This doesn't...

People brushed off the presentation of 'Hindutva science' at the Indian Science Congress this year as a minor nuisance. While the entire scientific community was signing petitions regarding such a disturbing turn of events, where pseudoscience was being given a voice at the premier state sponsored scientific convention in the country, our merry band of pseudo-intellectuals decided not to give a fuck. No rallies there.

Neither does this...
(Hey! Isn't that College Street?)

Nobody gave even a minor fuck about the fact that the Union slashed the overall health budget, but increased funding for AYUSH. Yes, if you think American conservatives are bad for their evolution and global warming denialism, you should know that India actually spends a shitload of money on education and research in homeopathy of all things(Quite literally, 'টাকা জলে দেওয়া'). Amusingly, a section of our secular, progressive intellectuals actually supported the cause of homeopathy colleges.

And it doesn't stop there. All this is not even the tip of the iceberg as far as saffronisation is concerned. Here comes the whopper:

Our conscientous Left (including the statist Left, revolutionary Left, searchist Left, anarchist Left, Left but not quite Left, Rightist Left etc.) has somehow not gotten the memo regarding the saffronisation of the school curriculum which really is the biggest problem as far as saffronisation is concerned.

Nor that this guy, who had Wendy Doniger's book banned, decides what millions of kids study.

What do you think is a bigger problem? Injecting Hindutva faculty into a premier institute, or the brainwashing of millions of impressionable children into an ideology of irrationality and hatred? Because if you're going with the obvious answer here, I don't see anybody protesting on the streets about the latter. You can at least trust people in college with their own political beliefs, you cannot expect schoolkids to rise up in protest because they're being taught irrationality and hatred.

As a matter of fact, the fact that you do not attack the disease at its roots has a major contribution to the fact that the same kids grow up and then turn entire university campuses to the religious right.

But unless it's one of your elite cultural icons of education, you are hardly bothered with what happens where. Some of the posters being shared by students elsewhere read, 'Ritwik Ghatak was here' and unless everyone knows about Ritwik Ghatak and his cinema, this has no meaning for the vast majority of college students out there. This cancerous elitism is really a thing, it's a fact that students in elite colleges consider their counterparts elsewhere to be really beneath their level, despite quoting Marx, Sartre or Ritwik Ghatak at the drop of a hat (I now believe this ability is a reason for the elitism, the irony...)

If the Left(all included, once again) keeps practising its politics of self-interest and bourgeois elitism, it shouldn't come as a surprise that the cultural right is making massive gains all across campuses.This elitism is toxic and self-defeating, the vast majority go to institutions that are not meant for intellectual Mandarins and it is this mass that later forms the backbone of the nation state.

No, please don't pretend like you care about the saffronisation of education if all you care about are its manifestations in your intellectual space. If you really care, address the root of the problem, about how even the less elite Central Universities are being saffronised, about how pseudoscience gets the same attention as modern science and most importantly about how schoolchildren grow up believing all of this and then propagate the same once they grow up.

The Ideal of Scholasticism

So this article has been doing the rounds on facebook, and I understand that in the light of recent happenings across colleges in India, it offers up some thoughtful criticism of the state of education today. My point is not to counter everything said, but a particular ideal that I feel permeates the article and Liberal Arts colleges at large at every level of organisation.

The thing is, and although I'm certain the authoress understands education far better than I do, that in a way, it does justify a sort of ivory tower attitude towards what education should be and I disagree. It rests upon an assumption of free-thinking, that does not really exist, since the kind of culture being valorized is in itself, extremely normative despite its disregard for attendance criteria etc.

One of the things that keeps popping up in labellings of the university system as pandering to 'GDP growth' or driven 'market economic' logic is how certain things like MoUs with the industrial sector or a more job-oriented approach being somehow harmful to the intellectual climate of our Arts and Sciences colleges(hereafter, referred to as A&S colleges). This I believe, is somehow misguided and persistence of such an attitude may well be detrimental and counterproductive to the state of education today.

The first thing is that it is my personal belief that the purpose of the education system is to create socially responsible individuals who can potentially contribute to society either intellectually, economically or culturally by virtue of giving them scope to maximise the functioning of their capabilities. This is not to say that socially responsible individuals should pander to the status quo, but that to challenge such ideals requires a connection with greater society at large. The role of public intellectuals is not to sit within ivory towers and sermonise over cups of coffee and cigarettes(although I could very validly be accused of the same here), but to engage with this and such a role is profoundly political. That is one of the most important reasons for the existence of student politics, independent or otherwise. To that end, I find a normative discourse such as 'universities are supposed to produce scholars, not workers' unfortunate.

The trend has been to valorise scholasticism and ivory tower intellectualism while decrying engagement with industries or business as against a particular 'academic culture', or in a somewhat more paranoid manner, as an insidious attempt at privatising the public sector(the fear of which, while not baseless on a general scale, but is misplaced here). I quote this particular passage from the piece I mentioned at the beginning:

"This is what has always distinguished the public universities and colleges in the country from the IITs and IIMs and the professional law schools – that they have guarded and nurtured fiercely a certain romanticism about academics neither wisely nor too well. This bit of idealism is neither irrational nor lazy. Far from it: it is this spark that lays the foundation of thinking and doing big. It makes one argue, innovate and dream up fundamental changes in academia – not make hack-writers and technicians out of fine minds and generous souls."

This is not a singular instance of a person railing about how A&S colleges are intellectually superior to technical institutes, but a widespread chauvinism at every level in A&S colleges that indulges in chest-thumping regarding academic purity and the fact that such colleges are not 'nerd factories' and discourage people from becoming 'good little worker bees'.

I cannot speak for the humanities point of view(although I am certain a section of them might agree with me), but as a student of science and considering that science students form the majority of the student community in most A&S colleges while remaining a minority in the cultural discourse, let me say a few things:

1. The majority of academicians in any field aren't innovators or revolutionary paradigm-shifters, but the equivalent of what the writer of the article derides as 'hack-writers and technicians'. She misses out that such 'hacks' and 'technicians' are the backbone of the academic community, and it is due to the sum of their relatively smaller contributions to their fields that the innovators can often come up with 'big-bang' discoveries etc. There's nothing wrong with being a 'run-of-the-mill' nerd, although most of us still want to achieve greatness in some way or another.
2. With innovators and game-changers, there is no 'formula' to producing or laying the foundations for such people. Given the rarity of such individuals there's hardly any point in waiting for 'academic Messiahs'. Furthermore, it is often true, especially in the sciences, that such Messiahs displayed attitudes that are derided as being in common with 'hack writers and technicians'. 
3. At least in the present context of India, a lot of the truly 'world-class' scientists have backgrounds in more technical and 'job-oriented' universities. Ashoke Sen, Shiraz Minwalla, Rajesh Gopakumar in theoretical physics, K.H. Paranjape and Mahan Mj in geometry, Subhash Khot and Manindra Agarwal in theoretical computer science(I could add to that list and it would go on), have backgrounds in technical universities.
4. Some may raise a counterpoint regarding Satyen Bose and Meghnad Saha being students of Presidency, and they'd do well to remember that in those days, Presidency was indeed a machine, producing workers for the purpose of the British Raj. The environment was quite 'market-oriented', in a manner of speaking.
5. Economics departments across the country have produced leading academics on a regular basis, and in A&S colleges, they've been the least committed to intellectual purism, encouraging students to engage with industry etc. An ivory tower attitude never really helped in economics, but that's the nature of the subject.

But most importantly, engagement with industry and the public/private sector is not antithetical to scientific progress, but intrinsically linked to it, both directly and indirectly. The best departments of science have had strong links to the industrial sector, even in the USSR and there are very few exceptions to this. Even strong departments of Pure Mathematics(probably as Ivory Tower as you can get in any scientific discipline), are often found in universities with ties to industry.

The applied sciences cannot get by without cooperating with industry or exposing their students to such an environment anyway. How on Earth are you supposed to conduct advanced computational research in atmospheric sciences, the understanding of which is essential to understanding climate change, without supercomputers? And concentrating resources in certain thrust areas in applied science will automatically lead to complaints from people involved elsewhere regarding bias and being ignored as far as funding goes. How is such research supposed to take place without tying up with private agencies? Any institution seeking to fulfill its potential in the sciences should encourage cooperation with the industrial sector instead of shunning it. Else, there is a severe risk that they will be left behind in the dust.

To return to what I was saying earlier, universities should ideally encourage people to expand upon their capabilities and people should realise that academia may not be everyone's cup of tea. Surely, if someone is talented in that respect and does not recognize it, he/she should be shown that they can fulfill their potential in that regard, but that's not a general thing. There are people, across departmental barriers, whose talents lie elsewhere, in the corporate sector, in the Government, in industry and otherwise, and the dominant culture would do well to take note of that and encourage these too, instead of normatively passing judgement on them. This isn't really 'market-oriented rhetoric' or 'GDP growth fetishism'. Not everyone wants to study for the 'heck of it' and they shouldn't be culturally encouraged to do so, ignoring their personal and general social realities. The pursuit of an abstract idea of excellence that almost every university and college aspires to as a whole, depends on this.

It needs to be remembered that a vast majority of people coming to A&S colleges, come to such places in the hopes of getting a job eventually and I see no reason to 'correct' such a view because that is contingent on their social realities. One shouldn't forget that a large percentage of people in these colleges ultimately end up in the private sector anyway, and that a dominant culture of deriding such attitudes only contributes to some of them not being able to maximise the functioning of their capabilities and creates a confusion with regards to their own understanding of fulfilling their capabilities. And this does happen, with people who come to certain departments wanting to eventually get into a more 'professional' sector, but thanks to the idealism, start believing academia is right for them, before realising it isn't and missing out on valuable internships etc. that they could have pursued at the time.

Tie-ups with private sector industries are not a foreshadowing of eventual fees hikes and privatisation of a particular university. It's not encroaching on any place where the public sector is active, but filling a niche where the public sector is not active. This is plain alarmism and revoking such agreements will end up harming students whose inclinations lie in that direction and rob them of a chance at a well-paying job.

It should be realised that those who join industries with high-paying jobs do end up contributing to society economically and ensure a secure future for themselves and their families. It also needs to be remembered that while you and I do not want or need luxuries in life, there are some who do, and they shouldn't be discouraged from pursuing any course of action that would make them happy, unless it involves harm to anyone else.

Thinking of engineers and workers as machinistic and unimaginative or snarking at people desiring a cushy well-paying job at a private company, is matched by the attitude that perceives Professors of Literary criticism as people freeloading off the State. Neither attitude is particularly healthy and both are counterproductive to an academic culture.

Others may point out that such a culture is specific to the humanities disciplines such as Literature and History, and not the sciences and economics, and truly, I know nothing about the necessary 'cultures for success' in those areas. However, that raises questions regarding whether or not such normativity is necessary or beneficial in the larger context where there are departments of sciences too.

Neither has such an environment in the country's top colleges helped encourage major political movements beyond the scope of campuses. Very few academics in such universities are involved with framing political policy or actively involved in thinking about how to solve problems of society beyond the occaissional activism to ease one's conscience, and criticising market economics from one's armchair(usually without looking at a single book on economics). The ivory tower excesses coupled with college-centric idealism often causes myopia in the political visions of its adherents.

The fact is, one cannot divorce political activism from society. Disassociating academic spaces from society at large only serve a purpose of greater depoliticization that is not necessarily dependent on the existence of campus politics. A student from JU might find an IIT or a National Law College to be apolitical by her standards, but we're seeing a time when graduates from such institutes are becoming far more politically active(both on the left and the right) than an average graduate from an A&C college and this should not come as a surprise anymore.

The lesson that these colleges 'teach' apparently, regarding a culture that eschews 'cushiony job placements' is a recent phenomenon as I had mentioned earlier(perhaps post-Naxal era?), or at least, indications of where people end up demonstrate so. This is not a culture intrinsic to the fabric of A&S colleges and is something that needs to change with time. The neo-Brahmanical chauvinism needs to end and give way to a more pluralistic culture, one that encourages fulfilling capabilities and not an imposition or valorization of a certain scholarly ideal.

CET 2014

So the news is in........ Mamata Banerjee agrees to have West Bengal join Kapil Sibal's pet project, the CET for admission to courses in science and engineering, by 2014.

The intention is to make life for students much, much easier, but the way I see it, it will make life miserable for the students of West Bengal.

The first clarification that one requires is what languages will the exam be offered in..... So far, Mr. Sibal has stubbornly refused to accede to the demands of various state governments in holding the examination in 'regional languages', i.e. the exam shall only be held in English and Hindi.

At present, the majority of students in West Bengal study in Bengali-medium schools, even at the higher secondary level. The standard of English in this large student population is quite variable, to put it mildly.

'National' exams like the IIT-JEE, AIEEE, AIPMT etc. are only held in English and Hindi. This puts students from Bengali-medium schools at a severe disadvantage as compared to their English-medium counterparts. Moreover, it also puts them at a severe disadvantage as compared to students who come from Hindi-medium schools.

Now obviously, those who come from a Bengali-medium background will be forced to take the exam in their second language, English, as their knowledge of Hindi would be theoretically next to nothing(and practically much, much worse than their knowledge of English).... On the other hand, students from a similar background, but from Uttar Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh or Bihar would take the examination in their first language. In case you were wondering why West Bengal doesn't have any 'Super 30' stories, this may be a huge contributing factor.

Institutes like the IITs, IISERs, NITs etc. are supposedly 'National Institutes', but in reality, they cater to a particular section of the nation's population...... Students from any system, whose language of instruction is not English or Hindi, are effectively excluded from these 'National Institutes'....... In my opinion, this is open discrimination and I am quite surprised that no one raises this issue at all, instead lamenting how students from Bihar are 'smarter' than their Bengali counterparts.

With the doors already shut to these institutes, most students of West Bengal train their sights on the institutions that are under the aegis of the state government, institutions that wouldn't openly discriminate against them on the basis of their mother tongues....

But now, with the CET on the horizon, the hopes of thousands of students across the state may be dashed, if the test is conducted in Mr. Sibaal's languages of choice...... Of course, this is not the first time Sibaal has openly expressed his partiality to a particular part of the country, even though he is supposedly a Minister of the Union. Around 3 years back, he proposed something that is bigoted, chauvinist, discriminatory and if implemented, would effectively be cultural genocide........ I won't go through the trouble of explaining it, but I think the link will suffice-
http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/Sibal-wants-all-schools-to-teach-Hindi/506424/

So what were to happen if the state adopted the new CET(Sibal's version)? Let's assume an overwhelming majority of seats would be reserved for students of the home state. Under these circumstances, a selective advantage would be enjoyed by the students studying in English-medium schools, who usually come from well-off family backgrounds, especially in urban areas. Students from smaller towns and villages would be left out.

If we assume there is little or no reservation of seats(which is less likely), the students from poorer and/or rural backgrounds would be totally marginalised by their urban counterparts along with people from other parts of the country. Not a very encouraging thought.

Many of the most successful engineers, doctors and scientists from West Bengal have come from the villages and/or from very poor backgrounds...... This would effectively stop were the government to go ahead with its plan of action.

However, if the Central Government did agree on holding the exam in 'regional languages'(How I hate this term! Bengali is an international language, more so than Hindi), it would open a new chapter in equality for all racial and linguistic groups in the country. This would effectively open the gates of the IITs, IISERs and NITs to students from non-English, non-Hindi educational backgrounds and somewhere down the line, this MUST happen.

But there will always be the Hindi-chauvinists who'll consider it a Fundamental duty of every Indian to learn Hindi, and if he/she suffers because he cannot or will not(on principle, such as myself), he/she deserves it. They would have us all learn Hindi, even at the cost of our Mother tongues and English. To them I'd like to point out that the name of the country is 'India' and not 'Hindia', the nation is supposed to represent all of us, not just the North. You must remember, that in principle, we have the same rights that you enjoy, among which is our right to have our language and reject yours. You should not forget that we are not your colonies, but an integral part of this country. In my humble opinion, our students deserve the same rights and opportunities that your students enjoy......