The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

Women Nobel laureates
Women Nobel laureates

The three women — Tawakkul Karman of Yemen, and Ellen Johnson Sirleaf amd Leymah Gbowee of Liberia — who share the Nobel Peace Prize for 2011 have played interesting roles to get the most coveted honour known to the world. Incidentally, the three are, perhaps, the first African women to have earned the prize that carries with it a citation and $1.5 million in financial terms. But the example Tawakkul, just 32, has set through her determined fight against the Yemeni dictator, Ali Abdullah Saleh, may give greater strength to those behind the Arab Spring, the movement that may lead to the fall of most Arab autocrats soon. A committed journalist, she has emerged as the most prominent symbol of the youth power in the fight against the 33-year-long repressive rule in her poverty-stricken country. She is a liberal and yet Islamist. She has used her professional skill to galvanise Yemeni youth to rise in revolt against a dictator who refuses to leave his disgraced throne.

President Ellen Johnson Sirleaf of Liberia is a unique person in the sense that she has survived and fought for women’s rights in a country which has not seen peace for a long time. The Liberian civil war that claimed nearly 2,00,000 lives ended in 2003, but the peace that prevails is fragile. In such an atmosphere, it is a herculean task for a woman gathering courage to challenge a warlord-turned-President, Charles Taylor, and trounce him in elections. She was elected Africa’s first head of government in 2005.

But Ellen could not have been what she is today without the campaign for women’s rights in Liberia by Leymah Gbowee. Leymah has not only been fighting for an end to repression against women, but has also made them forget their ethnic and religious identities to earn a life of dignity. She brought Muslim and Christian women to one platform to ensure that warlords were discredited by society. This led to a landslide victory for Ellen Johnson Sirleaf in the 2005 presidential elections. The three women who happen to share this year’s Nobel Prize for Peace are truly amazing personalities.

Restoring self-esteem
NSD dropping deemed varsity status is healthy

The irony facing hundreds of alumni of the NSD (National School of Drama) could not have got worse. For over 50 years, they could earn the highest civilian honours like the Padma Vibhushan and the Padma Bhushan from the government for excellence in their respective fields — like acting, costume design, or direction. What they could not get was a Ph D degree from universities in India. Hence, they could not qualify to become professors of dramatic arts in their own country. And the faculty at NSD — some of whom are outstanding thespians — could not get pay parity with their counterparts teaching dramatics in other universities of India. When weighed on the scale of progression, both financial and hierarchical, the excellence of this institution could not get them rewards.

This dichotomy came into play by a flawed approach to creative arts wherein performing and creative arts are weighed on the same scale as are academic subjects. This ends up putting a grammarian and a poet in the same league. In 1959 when NSD was established, it came under the Central Sangeet Natak Akademi and was merged with the Asian Theatre Institute, which was funded by UNESCO. Under Ebrahim Alkazi’s tenure, as director of the institute, it overhauled the syllabi and in 1975 became an autonomous body, dropped the Asian Theatre Institute and came under the erstwhile Ministry of Education and the Ministry of Culture, fully funded by the government. Later, when several universities started offering postgraduate degrees in theatre, signs of a crisis began to show at NSD. It offered an extensive three-year diploma course in theatre — which was not at par with a PG course offered by universities.

Indeed, surrendering of the deemed university status by the NSD Society is a healthy step. By aiming to get the status of an Institute of National Importance or a Special University to be established by an Act of Parliament, NSD will be able to retain professional autonomy and flexibility required in a creative field like theatre.

Thought for the Day

Discontent is the first step in the progress of a man or a nation. — Oscar Wilde

ARTICLE

Dialogue with Pak Army
More disadvantages than advantages
by Kuldip Nayar

A US think-tank has proposed a dialogue between India and the Pakistan Army. The proposal has merit to the extent that the army is a stark reality in Pakistan’s polity and it has been there in one form or the other for more than five decades. On the other hand, the problem that India faces is how it reconciles its democratic credentials to the character of unelected army. One is answerable to the people while the other seeks their obedience. It is not possible for the two to be on the same page. Yet, if issues like Kashmir have to be settled, the army’s nod is necessary.

There is probably a case for an unofficial, behind-the-scenes contact with the Pakistan Army. Even this contact will evoke criticism in some circles on both sides. Once, during General Zia-ul-Haq’s regime a proposal to have talks was mooted. I recall how let down the liberals at Lahore felt when they heard this. They argued that such a step would give credibility to the khaki. New Delhi abandoned the idea. There was also a belated thinking within the establishment about the effect on the Indian forces over the “recognition” of the Pakistan Army as a political entity.

Zia rationalised that the army’s control in Pakistan as a necessity in the absence of any other stable alternative. He wanted his forces to have the same status that the army enjoyed in Turkey. He assured me that they would intervene only when the constitution broke down. I told him that the case of Turkey was different. Over the years, it has created conventions and has drawn a Laxman Rekha beyond which the Turkish armed forces do not act. In Pakistan, the army has intervened whenever it has thought it fit to do so.

That may have been the reason why Zia would often tell me that you (India) would be better off in settling Kashmir and other matters with the army because if and when democracy returned to Pakistan “you would have problems.” It is true that New Delhi has not reached anywhere with the “democratic” government in Islamabad. But it is equally true that the army never left Pakistan alone.

Pakistan has a “popularly elected government” at the helm with the Prime Minister, the National Assembly, the Senate and other symbols of parliamentary democracy. Yet there are no two opinions that the Pakistan Chief of Army Staff is the last word when it comes to dealing with India and Afghanistan.

Taking up India first, there is no movement on any issue, reportedly because of the army’s disinterest. Militant training camps have not been dismantled despite assurances by Prime Minister Yousuf Raza Gilani to Prime Minister Manmohan Singh. Nor is there a change in the pattern of militant activity. For the army, this is a low-cost war, bleeding India through a thousand cuts. According to the US media, the ISI is reportedly helping the Lashkar-e-Toiba, a group of terrorists, responsible for the Mumabi blasts. It is more than two years since Pakistan Home Minister Rehman Malik promised Indian Home Minister P. Chidambaram to curb the Lashkar effectively. Till today, the case has not had a proper hearing. Either its dates are postponed or the judges are transferred.

Islamabad has no heart in the case. India’s Defence Minister A.K. Antony is not given to making false statements. He has alleged that the Pakistan Army has blessed the opening of more training camps and developing newer routes for infiltration into Jammu and Kashmir. Islamabad may not like the charge. But it is not explainable why attempts by militants to cross into India are increasing and why the clashes on the border are getting uglier with casualties on both sides? India lost an army official a few days ago in an area 100 kilometres away from Srinagar.

As for Afghanistan, Pakistan treats the country as its “strategic depth.” Islamabad’s main grouse against New Delhi is that it does not lower its presence in Afghanistan. President Hamid Karzai, who visited New Delhi last week, has established firmer relations with India, which will train and equip his forces, much to the chagrin of Islamabad. However, Karzai’s problem is similar to the one which US Admiral Mike Mullen has raised: “Militant Haqqani network acts as a veritable army of Pakistan’s Inter Services Intelligence agency.” Mullen has gone further by warning that if Pakistan does not discipline the Haqqani Islamist militia, America will do that, meaning thereby that it may operate in Pakistan territory from where the Haqqani network operates.

Islamabad’s hostile reaction to America is natural. General Ashfaque Parvez Kayani enunciated at a meeting of NATO military chiefs that while his country was committed to the struggle against terrorists, Pakistan had the “sovereign right to formulate policy in accordance with its national interest and wishes of the people of Pakistan.” There can be no exception to that. But Islamabad should have learnt by this time what Secretary of State Hilary Clinton has said: “You think that you can keep a wild animal in the backyard and it will only go after your neighbour?” India is paying for it. Pakistan itself is a prey to it.

Former Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif reads the situation correctly when he says that there is something “fishy”. At an all-party conference he has said that when everyone is pointing at Pakistan, it should do soul-searching as there must be some reason why other countries do not accept Pakistan’s contentions. The Asif Ali Zardari government or General Kayani may reject his viewpoint. But he has gone against the tide and told the people that Pakistan may be at fault when it finds most countries in the world not taking it on its face value.

Prime Minister Gilani may be right when he says, “they (US) cannot live with us, nor can they live without us.” Yet the American government has lowered its tone but not the tenor. It has gone ahead with the operation against the Haqqani network. Washington has announced that it will start pulling out its forces from 2014.

The point is not whether this would happen ultimately, but whether the proposed exit by the US can bring Afghanistan and other countries in the region to chalk out a joint strategy to root out terrorism in the absence of American and NATO forces. Pakistan is deluding itself if it is depending on China. It would not want to enter the arena where it could get hurt. In this scenario, General Kayani’s mistrust of Kabul and New Delhi will not help because they will be on the Pakistani side if and when it decides to eliminate terrorism in the region.n

MIDDLE

Nostalgia
by Renu Saigal

Fortyseven years back in 1964 I joined the Chandigarh College of Architecture. I remember watching a movie ‘Tere Ghar Ke Saamne’ in which Dev Anand was playing the role of an architect, and I was so impressed by his studio sketches and Dev Anand himself that I decided to become an architect. My parents’ dreams of me becoming an IAS or engineer were shattered though.

My first day at CCA is very clear in my mind. I was so naïve and shy. I parked my cycle in the entrance lobby (yes, imagine cycles in the foyer) and didn’t know where to go. Boys were passing remarks. Then Dalbir Singh Bhui came forward and guided me.

I distinctly remember the ragging. During introduction, I told the college that my hobby was dancing and I was immediately asked to make a dancing pose, which I did readily and everybody was very quiet and decent about that.

Those days there used to be only one large studio for all the classes and the effect was that of a large family. Interaction amongst seniors and juniors was easy. Girls were very few, only two in our class, and eight in the whole college. Dr S. S. Bhatti named us Pakistanis, being a minority. We Pakistanis used to sing and laugh together. In every class, the youngest looking boy was called ‘Bachcha’.

Mr Prabhawalkar was the principal. Our seniors considered him the ultimate person and nicknamed him ‘Baba Ji’. We were in awe of our seniors. I personally admired Madhu Sarin a lot. She became a very close friend later.

Gradually, I was drawn in a world of points, lines, planes, volumes, spaces, proportions, rhythm and balance. I fell in love with architecture. My perception was totally changed and I remembered Mr Bhatti’s words he once told us in our first year, “Final year tak tuhada dimag change ho jana hai, koi cheez pasand hi nai auni!”

During the course many famous personalities lectured us like Mulkh Raj Anand, Balwant Gargi and Chetan Anand. Mr Aditya Prakash lectured us on Modulor and Tagore Theatre.

One day Madhu Sarin introduced me to P. Jeannret, Corbusier’s cousin and also the first chief architect of Chandigarh. I shook hands with him. At that moment I did not realise what a great honour it was, and that one fine day I will also be the chief architect of Chandigarh.

Mr R.L. Malhotra was an all-time favourite. I used to wait till the end of the annual day to listen to Prof Ramesh Kapoor’s beautiful songs. Many more teachers from whom we learned so much also come to my mind.

We were lucky enough to enjoy short and long tours throughout our five years of studying in CCA, and travelled to many parts of the country.

Those days there were no computers. So we depended on our hands and mind for all the work. The Glass Topo was a very relieving element. Effect aa gaya, vekheya te, chak de fatte along with many other phrases were a part of the CCA lingo.

There is a special bond and lingo amongst CCA students, wherever they are. So many fellow students are big achievers now, and when I take my students to show their buildings and works, it really feels great!n

OPED EDUCATION

To reform the education system we need to overturn all the assumptions on which it is based. Students should work in a free, non-coercive environment which is totally devoid of fear, punishment, comparison and competition and they should be allowed to pursue their interests and aspirations rather than those of the parents and society
Make learning stimulating
Kanwarjit Bindra

The purpose of education is to make sense of the world around us. Most child psychologists agree that learning a language for the first time is the most difficult neuro-physiological task the child will ever do in his/her life but the child does it effortlessly without much direct help of the parents.

The learning model they follow has no fixed curriculum, no fixed time and no fixed space for learning. They just learn all the time and for them learning is not separated from life. They have no fear of making mistakes and in fact they self-correct themselves after listening to others. They learn at their own pace and in fact learning difficulties (like stammering) originate when over-zealous parents start interfering with the natural learning pace of children and start correcting them.

This early childhood learning model can serve as a basis for further education of children but modern schools work on a totally opposite model and that is why learning slows down as children start going to school.

True education should help us make “conscious” and informed choices about our lives. These could be about our career, about our life partner, about where and how we want to lead our lives and many other important decisions. To make these choices one must find out what one really likes to do and what one’s hopes and aspirations are.

In fact, India’s ancient traditions of learning encouraged a rigorous learning for the discovery of self. Needless to say, modern education gives no importance to this aspect and actually induces individuals to suppress or downgrade their own interests and aspirations so that they can implement the projects designed for the economy or even by the government. Education must treat children as the masters of their destiny, as persons capable of taking charge of their lives rather than being passive objects that can be moulded and fitted into a previously determined framework.

Schools do not allow real learning to take place because they are based on totally wrong assumptions. It is assumed that children don’t want to learn on their own and they will not work with discipline and rigour without the use of force. Further, it is believed that children learn only when they stay with others of the same age and learning ends when one grows up.

These assumptions imply that learning is separated from life. The truth is that all children are talented but we squander their talent quite ruthlessly. Learning is in our genes but the problem is that different children want to learn different things. When we force them to learn something they are not interested in at that time, they respond with their own strategies of coping with the given situation. Such a coercive situation leads to minimal learning.

Learning takes place in a comfortable, loving and trustful environment but schools convey a message of distrust and contempt to students. Children belonging to poor families have to face additional debilitating conditions, which make learning even more difficult and such that they eventually drop out of school. They are given the impression that their parents are more interested in using their children to earn money rather than to educate them. Their experience, skills and background are given no importance. The high dropout rate of students in villages is often because they find the school boring and much below their high expectations. The government and the beaurocracy find it convenient to attribute the high dropout rates to parental poverty and apathy. Even the children in cities feel happier outside the school but their parents don’t give them the option of leaving the school.

Let us now critically analyse some of the salient features of our education system. Our education system follows a uniform curriculum. This assumes that all children of the same age have same needs and interests and therefore need to know the same information and learn at the same pace. By forcing children to become good at subjects they dislike, we affect their learning in subjects or topics they like.

Another sacred cow in our education system is the notion that competition, rather than cooperation, is critical for learning to take place. Competition creates learning difficulties in children who don’t do as well as other children by lowering their self-esteem and self-worth. But it is even more harmful to successful children in the long run because it conveys a message to them that learning is not for oneself but for some external reasons like marks, job, etc.

The purpose of education is to prepare a child towards life-long learning but competitive people stop learning when an external stimulation ceases. Children learn a lot from each other but competition makes every child an enemy of every other child and this does not allow shared learning to take place.

Moreover, learning is always a cooperative endeavour where a person builds up on knowledge he has learnt from others directly or indirectly through books, people and different kinds of media. To encourage competition we use examinations as a way to evaluate the students. Our examinations encourage rote learning. Isn’t memorising answers and forgetting very soon afterwards “cheating” which our system legitimises and encourages?

Road towards reform

The National Curricular Framework 2005 prepared by the NCERT has talked in detail about problems and has suggested many ways to reform the system but these have not been implemented. However, most of the recent discussion on the proposed reforms has not focussed on the type of environment which facilitates the learning process.

Let’s start with parents, who hold the key to reforms because schools just respond to desires of parents. Most of the parents are caught up in the rat race. They have fears about their future and their children’s future and their experience tells them that earning a living and being happy are not possible in today’s world. Because of this fear they are not willing to take risks and challenge the existing system or seek alternatives.

The role of the teacher is to facilitate the natural learning process of the students by creating a conducive learning environment, where children get enough opportunities to question, challenge, experiment, reflect and internalise their learning. For this the training and motivation of teachers is very important.

Most of the teachers work under the compulsion to earn a living and this compulsion can be converted into a choice by giving them autonomy to frame their own curriculum and plan their own activities. They should be encouraged to share their interests and skills with children and allowed to innovate keeping in mind the local needs and environment. This will improve their self-esteem and keep them happy, which is essential for their productive involvement.

Our economic system is quite happy with the current education system since it is producing workers for them. Independent thinking people are a threat to the economic system since they might question the status quo. Children need the reforms urgently but they have absolutely no say. They cannot even decide what books should be purchased for their school libraries.

Learning must be rooted in their immediate surroundings, concerning their daily lives and children must be encouraged to participate in community projects like watershed projects, forest regeneration programmes, check dams, rainwater harvesting, compost pits and biogas plants and many other such projects.

Education must be in the local language so that the child understands what he is learning and stays firmly rooted to his culture. All kinds of local resources like crafts, dance, music, pottery, weaving, theatre, puppetry and others can be integrated in the learning process.

The children should be exposed to other regional and international languages as each language functions as a window to a particular culture. Teachers need to be given autonomy to design their curriculum which suits the needs of the students. The management of schools must be decentralised and the community should be involved. We need to move even from “child-centred education” to child self-directed learning.

The writer is a teacher in the Department of Physics, Panjab University, Chandigarh