Fifth column: Cultural renewal

Inevitable, since mass education is such a mess that most children leave school without learning to read a storybook.

Written by Tavleen Singh | Published:November 2, 2014 12:27 am
When the RSS leaders turned up in Delhi last week to tell the Minister of Human Resource Development that they wanted changes in school education, they had a point. When the RSS leaders turned up in Delhi last week to tell the Minister of Human Resource Development that they wanted changes in school education, they had a point.

It is hard to think of a time when India has been more ready for an Indian-style cultural revolution. The political party that gave us socialist feudalism is in the throes of defeatism. Leftist parties who gave Congress intellectual and moral support are in disarray. And a new political order has replaced the old in Delhi. In every sense, the time has come to talk of many things, and one of these things should be the cultural desert that young Indians grow up in today.

The realms of high culture that in more civilised countries resonate with literature, music and art are occupied in India by Bollywood and trashy TV serials. Inevitable, since mass education is such a mess that most children leave school without learning to read a storybook. Reading is so out of fashion that most small towns in India have no bookshops, most villages have no libraries and, in our bigger cities, bookshops stock mostly books and magazines written in English.

So when the RSS leaders turned up in Delhi last week to tell the Minister of Human Resource Development that they wanted changes in school education, they had a point. Unfortunately, because the RSS is led by doddering old bigots and provincial intellectuals, this ‘cultural’ organisation is in no position to give the HRD Minister worthwhile advice. The RSS leaders who met the minister reportedly confined their concerns to history books that they claim portray a ‘Western’ view of history.  They demanded that these books be replaced by those written by historians with an Indian view of history. They have a point, but they make it badly.

It is true that in the decades in which India was ruled imperiously by the Congress, the task of writing history textbooks was allotted to Leftist historians who chose to view India’s past through a distorted lens. The most celebrated of these historians, Romila Thapar, has gone so far as to deny that Muslim invaders destroyed the temples of us idolatrous infidels. Undoubtedly, if she were writing about more recent history, she would deny that the Taliban blew up the Buddhas of Bamiyan — and would say that they fell to pieces of their own accord.

In the interests of ‘secularism’, most Indian schools and colleges provide only limited courses for the study of ancient India, Vedic Hinduism and Sanskrit literature. So the vast majority of Indian children grow up with a sense of being Indian that is restricted to a religious identity. When this gets infused with a toxic sort of nationalism, as happens in RSS educational institutions, the result is bigotry of a lethal kind.

If this ‘cultural’ organisation could find itself better leaders, it would realise that the way for Indian children to grow up being proud of their heritage is to provide them a real way of seeing what this heritage is. This can only happen when we build institutes of classical studies, museums, art galleries, libraries and halfway decent schools. Not just in our metropolises, but in small towns and even villages.

The solution lies not just in altering history books, but certainly there should be new historians and scholars given the task of examining Indian history with new eyes. This is a monumental task and can only been done by trained scholars, not by prejudiced pamphleteers from the RSS stables. These gentlemen (no ladies!) have not even been able to understand the importance of Indian religious thought in today’s troubled times. We live in an age when prophets and the certainties of received wisdom are being questioned. An age in which journalists are beheaded and women stoned in the name of religion. If Hinduism and Buddhism seem increasingly attractive, it is because the fundamental principle of the Indic religions is the right to question all fundamentals.

Even here the RSS misses the point. So its religious ideologues believe that our ‘sanatana dharma’ needs to become Islamised. The RSS is a font of bad ideas, so in their talks with ministers last week there were reportedly noises made about ‘swadeshi’ economics at a time when the Prime Minister asks foreign investors to come ‘make in India’.

With such obsolete ideas about life, love, economics and religion, it is no surprise that in recent years the RSS morning ‘shakhas’ have been running almost empty. Now that India is led by a powerful BJP prime minister who has never denied his links with the RSS, we are suddenly seeing more khaki knickers in the public square than we have for a long while. Can we hope that among this plethora of Hindu nationalists there will be one or two who may understand how vital a real cultural revolution has become at this point in Indian history? One or two who will see that this has to embrace Indians of all castes and creed?

Follow Tavleen Singh on Twitter @ tavleen_singh

For all the latest Opinion News, download Indian Express App

  1. K
    Kuber Sharma
    Nov 2, 2014 at 9:47 am
    Ma'am with due respect but your views about are wrong.
    Reply
  2. K
    Kuber Sharma
    Nov 2, 2014 at 9:47 am
    Ma'am with due respect but your views about are wrong.
    Reply
  3. B
    Bharet Vij
    Nov 2, 2014 at 8:56 pm
    Religion gives man a unique ideny which is shared by others of the same religion. This unique ideny has also led to the concept of them being a "nation" of sorts as most religions are in essence a "way of living" carrying with them their own unique civilizational ethos. Geographical boundaries and language in particular groups have defined the boundaries of these nations which then become streams flowing into the vast ocean of their particular religion. For e.g. one has a number of Islamic states bordering each other as distinct units instead of being one, but one they are in terms of their ideny as followers of the same way of life. Politically they may be combined differently but culturally there is much in common multi-religious or "secular" societies - for any particular religion - the way of life of its followers is different, its history begins only after the birth of the religion, its icons are different as ped down from one generation to the next, even its values may be different, etc. To reconcile different religions and to combine them into one nation, that is the challenge. Sweeping things under the carpet is no way of dealing with the situation, neither is maintaining a "festering superficial peace" and by that I also mean no discourse, no consensus, no converging of different viewpoints, etc., nor avoidance or postponement of any kind.So which history is one going to identify more closely with? One where Babur (Guru Nanak made an illuminating comment on him) is the murderous, marauding foreign invader or one where Babur is an Indian king, the forefather of the great beneficent Mughal dynasty of Indian Emperors? Indian Emperors or Indian-ized and India-based foreign rulers of India because they felt no compulsion to do good for their subjects? Somewhat similar to the British (who in my opinion were much better rulers on hindsight even though they were greedy) but with the difference being the Mughals "adopted" this land as one which they would rule and keep enslaved for eternity? These questions have not been settled as yet. A discourse and consensus is required so that the right kind of "truthful" History is taught, and historical figures are judged based on universal and timeless human values. As a result, the right kind of atudes will prevail amongst various religions.Take Babri Masjid for example. A foreign invader modified an existing Hindu Temple and built a mosque on it. A wrong of History. The Govt.'s archaeological department could only state that the mosque was built on an existing structure but could not ascertain verifiably what that structure was. Isn't it sufficient that a structure pre-existed? Knowing the secularism of the foreign Babur and the wont of invaders especially those from Central Asia who professed Islam, why is it so hard to acknowledge something that most certainly happened? And I hear it is against Islam to do something like that done in Babri.The same is true for many other temples converted, strategically at times, to mosques. This is a free India, these wrongs have to be addressed. Maintaining status quo is just not right nor enough and that too for a defunct mosque not even in use as in the case of the Babri. Why did all of these things happen? Undoubtedly because these so called emperors for whom I only have utter and complete contempt (descendants of that "langra" Timur) were not in it for the uplift of their subjects who were the "other". Let us all acknowledge the truths so that we may have national consensus on many such issues that this nation is facing and will face in the years to come. The Right History will just be the beginning. That is true "secularism". I couldn't agree more with Ms. Tavleen Singh.
    Reply
  4. B
    Bharet Vij
    Nov 2, 2014 at 8:56 pm
    Religion gives man a unique ideny which is shared by others of the same religion. This unique ideny has also led to the concept of them being a "nation" of sorts as most religions are in essence a "way of living" carrying with them their own unique civilizational ethos. Geographical boundaries and language in particular groups have defined the boundaries of these nations which then become streams flowing into the vast ocean of their particular religion. For e.g. one has a number of Islamic states bordering each other as distinct units instead of being one, but one they are in terms of their ideny as followers of the same way of life. Politically they may be combined differently but culturally there is much in common multi-religious or "secular" societies - for any particular religion - the way of life of its followers is different, its history begins only after the birth of the religion, its icons are different as ped down from one generation to the next, even its values may be different, etc. To reconcile different religions and to combine them into one nation, that is the challenge. Sweeping things under the carpet is no way of dealing with the situation, neither is maintaining a "festering superficial peace" and by that I also mean no discourse, no consensus, no converging of different viewpoints, etc., nor avoidance or postponement of any kind.So which history is one going to identify more closely with? One where Babur (Guru Nanak made an illuminating comment on him) is the murderous, marauding foreign invader or one where Babur is an Indian king, the forefather of the great beneficent Mughal dynasty of Indian Emperors? Indian Emperors or Indian-ized and India-based foreign rulers of India because they felt no compulsion to do good for their subjects? Somewhat similar to the British (who in my opinion were much better rulers on hindsight even though they were greedy) but with the difference being the Mughals "adopted" this land as one which they would rule and keep enslaved for eternity? These questions have not been settled as yet. A discourse and consensus is required so that the right kind of "truthful" History is taught, and historical figures are judged based on universal and timeless human values. As a result, the right kind of atudes will prevail amongst various religions.Take Babri Masjid for example. A foreign invader modified an existing Hindu Temple and built a mosque on it. A wrong of History. The Govt.'s archaeological department could only state that the mosque was built on an existing structure but could not ascertain verifiably what that structure was. Isn't it sufficient that a structure pre-existed? Knowing the secularism of the foreign Babur and the wont of invaders especially those from Central Asia who professed Islam, why is it so hard to acknowledge something that most certainly happened? And I hear it is against Islam to do something like that done in Babri.The same is true for many other temples converted, strategically at times, to mosques. This is a free India, these wrongs have to be addressed. Maintaining status quo is just not right nor enough and that too for a defunct mosque not even in use as in the case of the Babri. Why did all of these things happen? Undoubtedly because these so called emperors for whom I only have utter and complete contempt (descendants of that "langra" Timur) were not in it for the uplift of their subjects who were the "other". Let us all acknowledge the truths so that we may have national consensus on many such issues that this nation is facing and will face in the years to come. The Right History will just be the beginning. That is true "secularism". I couldn't agree more with Ms. Tavleen Singh.
    Reply
  5. A
    Anonymous
    Nov 2, 2014 at 8:47 am
    In the past the so called trained scholars have been secular fundamentalists whose main push has been to demonize Hinduism. It is now time for the pendulum to be in the centre .
    Reply
  6. A
    Anonymous
    Nov 2, 2014 at 8:47 am
    In the past the so called trained scholars have been secular fundamentalists whose main push has been to demonize Hinduism. It is now time for the pendulum to be in the centre .
    Reply
  7. I
    IndianWellWisher
    Nov 3, 2014 at 3:10 am
    Excellent and well thought out.
    Reply
  8. I
    IndianWellWisher
    Nov 3, 2014 at 3:10 am
    Excellent and well thought out.
    Reply
  9. Load More Comments