ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

Search Rediff

The Rediff Special/ Shalabh Kumar

Sonia and Macaulay's children

For a couple of weeks now, much before the Pawar-trio instigated political drama, Sonia Gandhi was the topic of a number of emails I have been receiving from resident and non-resident Indians. Quite obviously, her Italian origins and earlier reluctance to take Indian citizenship have caused tremendous turmoil in the hearts of many. Interestingly, there are quite a few advocates for the other side of the story -- that where she was born is irrelevant to the discussion, she is an Indian and should be judged on the same parameters that we judge our other politicians.

This discussion, mostly among educated Indians, has opened an interesting facet of our thinking, our education, our beliefs to me. Sonia's suitability as the PM of India is a debate I will steer clear of in this article, though I do believe that her past behaviour suggests that her commitment to India is suspect. But a little more on the thinking of educated Indians I feel that Lord Macaulay must be delighted in his grave.

Most Indians who express the point of view that Sonia's origins are irrelevant, simultaneously also take the 'moral' high ground of rationality and objectivity. There is an implicit belief, nay conviction, in them that by not espousing 'nationalistic' views, they are being both rational and objective. A number of refined intellectual offerings are made to buttress the point -- that to discriminate by colour of skin is racism; that in an increasingly borderless world, birth and origins are irrelevant; that commitment to the country is not determined by birth; that an educated Sonia is better than a crass Laloo or Mulayam...

Macaulay must surely be chortling away.

His education system was originally designed to create a class of people who would be the intermediaries between the British rulers and the ruled natives. They would be indoctrinated through an education system to be Indians only in appearance -- they would have complete belief in the good intentions of British rule and the philosophy of 'the white man's burden', thus making the task of ruling this vast country easier. They would, without question, believe that the British were there for the upliftment of the Indian people from centuries of ignorance and backwardness. Over a period of time, they would associate all things British with superiority -- their physical appearance, their attire, their language, their culture, their religion...

The education system was to be a self-perpetuating one. Once indoctrinated, the converts would carry the torch. Incentives were built to ensure that the system spread reasonably far and wide. Christian missionaries were encouraged to open educational institutions, though the 1857 war of independence made them back off from overt conversion attempts.

The system has got refined and modified in the hands of the latter-day practitioners. The overall quality of education remains of a high order in these institutions. As a student of missionary schools all my life, I can vouch for the fact that they teach you the three Rs very well, apart from building good human qualities like honesty, discipline, etc.

But it is an amazingly insidious system -- if these institutions were designed to be overtly religious with little emphasis on overall educational excellence (say, like the madrasas), they would have had only limited success. The good quality of education ensures that they are accepted. The relative absence of other quality education institutions -- another malaise of the Nehruvian socialist system -- has helped them retain their pre-eminence. The children in these schools get good education -- they also get indoctrinated.

Over a period of 15 years, these institutions work on impressionable minds -- the agenda set out by Macaulay remains broadly unchanged, except instead of the superiority of all things British, the children are told about the superiority of all things Western and Christian.

The products of the system were originally the bulwark of the bureaucracy and military which were the lynch pins of the British rule. They continued to dominate these two arms of governance for the first couple of decades after Independence, aided in no small measure by mechanisms designed to keep others out (for example, the Civil Services entrance examination till the late 60s had a 33 per cent weightage to two English language papers). In time, they have also come to control other public areas -- higher education, media, business -- often due to the same good quality of basic education.

Unfortunately, the baggage of the early indoctrination remains with most. As adults, we also get exposed to the current inadequacies of our country. The failed governance model of the post-Independence era reinforces the indoctrination of those early years. Coupled to that is the undoubted economic success of the Western world in the 20th century. The result is that we not only accept, without questioning, the messages given to us in those early, impressionable years, we actually become strong advocates of the same.

We start believing that what we were told are indisputable truths. The superiority of the Western economic model, evidenced in their material prosperity, applies to other areas as well -- to their cultural values, to their language, to their society, to their religion, etc. Everything native and Indian is inferior -- it is shameful to be a nationalist, you should be global in your outlook. It is shameful to be proud of your ancient cultural heritage, look how badly it compares with the modern, Western civilisation. It is shameful to be a proud Indian, what have you to be proud of?

And the final denouement -- what's wrong with a foreign-born person ruling the country, why should her commitment be suspect?

Yet, I don't blame these friends of mine. Not all of us as adults go back to question what we were taught. We carry the good and the evil of our education with us for our lifetimes. It is difficult to repudiate one's own education -- after all, one's identity is based on that. Public information could make us more aware, but as I mentioned earlier, most public arenas are controlled by 'converts' in any case. People like Arun Shourie may cry themselves hoarse and write reams about the lies we have been brought up on. But how many people actually read his books and other similar works?

We do, however, have a responsibility to the coming generations.

To be denied the right to be proud of one's own heritage is the worst wound that one can inflict on a society, especially a society that has so much to be proud of. We owe it to the coming generations an education which instils pride in being Indian; where the English language is a currency to global mobility, not a badge of superiority; where the poetry of Harivansh Rai Bachchan and Ramdhari Singh 'Dinkar' is quoted with greater felicity than that of William Wordsworth and Lord Tennyson, where the achievements of Ramanujam and Aryabhatta are celebrated as much as those of Einstein and Newton.

Where patriotism is a badge of honour, not a value sniggered at.

Sharad Pawar, Purno Sangma and Tariq Anwar got it right for a change. It is an issue that "hits at the core pride of every Indian."

The Rediff Specials

Tell us what you think of this feature