Biased Opinion On Political Parties - SUPRIYA DUDI

BLIND FAITH:

 

No metro city is doing well in school education, but Mumbai and Delhi are easily the worst. One had expected that Delhi would turn the bend when a young political party came to power a year ago. It was anticipated that mistakes would be made before sense and sanity could be established. It now seems that Delhi’s road to learning will remain bumpy like the city’s real roads. We can extend the metaphor, covering the capital’s flyovers. Many of them were completed in a rush to meet the deadline for the Commonwealth Games. In its hurry to improve schools, the new government is ticking one arcane move after another. First it wanted to delete portions from textbooks in order to reduce the curriculum. Now it wants CCTV cameras installed in classrooms and some 90 principals sent to Cambridge for a 10-day training in leadership. Though politically correct, both ideas show desperation to show that something is being done. One didn’t expect that from a young party that has wide, if not deep, social roots.

If CCTVs could improve teaching standards, we would have seen a revolution by now in many schools which invested in this technology more than a decade ago. All they can lend is what we already have in plenty in our schools, namely control. The principals who will visit Cambridge will learn that their British counterparts have greater autonomy and freedom. And that message can’t be a pleasant surprise even if it is received in a cooler climate. Every principal in Delhi knows it already. Not just those serving in government schools, even private school principals are constantly controlled by the Directorate.

The idea that a school head has a mind and should therefore be given the space to exercise it is alien to the Indian system. Our system is based on the importance of controlling others who are placed below you. The hierarchy that puts the principal on top at school offers the right to be cussed and little else. A British principal selects her own teachers; a Delhi principal can’t select the cushion on her chair. No matter how prestigious a private school in Delhi is, its principal cannot choose to keep her school open on a day the Directorate wants it closed for political reasons. In government schools, you become a principal by seniority. No special criteria are used to decide who can serve as a principal. School administration is regarded as a generalised role associated with a rank attained through age. You attain the rank by ageing as a teacher, implying that when you become a principal, you will stop teaching. This trajectory has a symbolic meaning quite alien to Western schools. Administration is regarded there as a professional job, and so is teaching. And every level is equally respected, both in the system and the wider society. When our principals tell their hosts in Cambridge how the system works in Delhi, perhaps some of the hosts will hear an echo of history. They will realise that little has changed in India since colonial days in the organisation of teaching in schools.

According to news reports, our principals are being sent to Cambridge for “training”. The idea that senior hands can be trained to look at their job or role differently is quite problematic. An 8-10 day visit to Britain can at best give exposure to a different system, but it can hardly impart training. If the exposure arouses interest in how the British system works, that will be nice; but a greater outcome will be achieved if the visit lets our principals notice the problems Britain is facing in managing its schools. Such an outcome might encourage critical reflection, something we just don’t allow. Assuming that the British

system is better, an opportunity to examine the factors that make it better can be useful. But a week-long systemic comparison of this kind can hardly be called training in leadership. For that to occur, the participants would need the space to ask questions like these: “What space do I have to take decisions?” “How am I using that space?” “How do my colleagues perceive my role?”

You need leisure to reflect on such matters. You also need to be in your own setting. That’s why one wonders whether the Delhi government first considered an Indian institution for training its principals before choosing to send them to Britain. The decision to opt for offshore trainers is hardly puzzling in our age when patriotism is high but confidence is low. Apart from a lack of trust in our own institutions, there is blind faith in foreign institutions, especially the ones with names like Cambridge and Oxford.

It might have made more sense to send Delhi’s principals to London. A few of the problems that London faces looking after its vast and varied population of children are somewhat similar to those we face in Delhi. Aggressive behaviour is one such problem. British teachers are trained not to use physical force to contain aggression. This will surely intrigue our principals. So will the considerable autonomy British teachers enjoy in shaping the curriculum despite the changes that have made Britain’s broadly child-centred system increasingly test-driven.

It will be sad indeed if our principals return with mixed feelings about progressive practices that have barely begun to find space in our system. That space is already under threat from CCTV cameras. The Delhi government wants to install them in every classroom.

CONSTRUCTIVE CRITICISM ON GOVERNMENT :

It is something which keeps the true essence of democracy alive in a country

Supporting one’s country policies and decisions is one part of keeping it on the path of prosperity and development, while keeping track of government activities, being vigilant about them and highlighting loopholes in policies are also needed in a democracy.

In our country, we have people with different ideologies — some criticise the government policies and some support it, while others remain at the top of it appreciating the good policies and highlighting the drawbacks to improve governance. It’s common nowadays to see society divided into segments each with a different perspective about the policies undertaken by their governments; it is something which keeps the true essence of democracy alive. There are many instances in the past of governance and society improving because of the positive criticism by some people or group of them. These examples give democracies around the world a chance of improving the quality of governance and hence create a better society.

In recent years in India, there has been a gradual change in perspective of the people regarding their governments. While some of them are a very good sign of a progressive society, some of them are quite worrying too. There is a common notion among some citizens that if they speak something against the actions of their government, then it’s probably against the nation too.

This idea which is significant in numbers need to be thoroughly assessed. Chances might be there that some of the criticism may not be on the right note, but many of it if considered by the governments can be helpful in the real-time assessment of the needs and expectations of the people from the government. Unfortunately, there is a decline in these voices nowadays because of the type of mandate which India got in the 2019 election. People who voted for the NDA government think that it's wrong to speak against the government which they elected to power.

People should realise that it is not the driving force of praise and overwhelming support which keeps the wheels of a government moving but also the steering force of people’s participation which keep a check on government, and modify it, if the policies fail to meet the expectations of society as a whole. If people’s criticism reaches the government’s ear at an appropriate time and in significant numbers, then a lot of resources of the governmental machinery can be utilised wisely for some other activities which are brought to notice by the people itself.

Some experts believe that praise and support of people are very crucial for maintaining efficient governance as it keeps leaders and bureaucrats motivated to work more to increase the overall output of governmental activities on the ground. This is true in practice too but it should be kept in mind that the power vested in the hands of people in a democracy is not only utilised for blindly praising the government but it should be used as an aid, to advise and correct the government whenever required so that the efficiency and quality of governance is maintained.