On Friday October 13, we had a thought-provoking session by Prof Rohit Dhankar, former Professor and Director of School of Education in Azim Premji University, Bangalore. Prof Dhankar spoke about political correctness.
An evening with About Prof Rohit Dhankar
Prof Rohit Dhankar is currently Secretary of Digantar Shiksha Evam Khelkud Samiti, Jaipur. He is also the founder secretary of the organisation.
Prof Dhankar began his journey in education through indifferently functioning government schools in rural Rajasthan. A graduate in science and a master’s in mathematics, he trained as a teacher in Neelbagh School established and run by David Horsburgh in Karnataka.
Prof Dhankar has been involved with many NCERT initiatives. He has also been involved with capacity building of educational functionaries at the national level and with various states as part of Digantar. He contributed to developing the M.A. Elementary Education program of TISS and the MA Education program of Azim Premji University. He has taught philosophy of education at Azim Premji University and at TISS, Mumbai.
Prof Dhankar’s interests lie in educational thought and practice, relationship between education and democracy, curriculum, pedagogy, and teacher education. He believes that educational practice without sound theoretical/philosophical background is blind fumbling and theoretical/philosophical ideas come alive only in actual teaching.
Currently he conducts capacity building workshops and short courses in pedagogy, curriculum, and philosophy of education in Digantar.
Understanding Political Correctness
The term originated in discussions among Communist ideologues after the Bolshevik Revolution of 1917. It was used to judge the degree of compatibility of one’s ideas or political analyses with the official party line in Moscow.
One current meaning is “Avoidance of expressions or actions that can be perceived to exclude or marginalize or insult people who are socially disadvantaged or discriminated against.” This is a legitimate concern. But when taken to extremes, it blocks free enquiry in academics and blocks freedom of expression in public sphere.
Today, due to political correctness, it seems reason and sanity, are always under attack, from the Left, from the Right, and sometimes from both simultaneously.
We must, however, be vigilant that the university remains the one venue where anything can be said fearlessly. In a university, political correctness has no place. Any restriction on intellectual discourse clashes with the central mission of the university, namely the critical examination of ideas, and creation and the diffusion of knowledge.
Some episodes
India Today, 3rd August 2023: A college teacher was arrested in Pune for hurting religious sentiments by making disrespectful comments about Hindu deities. This was a case of double political correctness as the media also did not criticise the unfortunate arrest.
BBC, 18th October 2011: A row broke out in the Indian capital over whether Delhi University should teach a controversial essay about the Ramayana. The essay had been part of the university's history course since 2006. Hindu groups had protested against its inclusion since 2008. Following an order from the Supreme Court, an expert committee was formed to investigate the issue. Three of the four committee members recommended that the essay should remain part of the syllabus. Nevertheless, the university's academic council voted to drop the essay from the syllabus. The real reason seems to be pressure from the rightists who were not comfortable with a reference to Ahalya. But Prof Dhankar pointed out that the reference made by the author was based on Valmiki’s Ramayana.
Indian Express, 9th January 2016: Students protested against a seminar on Ram Temple in Delhi University. This was clearly a move by the leftists.
The Times of India, 15th October 2019: Gulbarga University cancelled the permission to hold Kanhaiya Kumar’s program.
T J Joseph Issue: Prof. Joseph lost his job and a hand for setting up the following question in Malayalam paper, to correctly punctuate the dialogue, “Muhammad: O God, God! God: What do you want, son of a b**ch? Muhammad: If I slice a mackerel, how many pieces there will be? God: Hey dog, how many times I've told you it will be three pieces?
In public life too, there have been numerous incidents where legitimate freedom of expression was attached, sometimes violently.
The writers, Salman Rushdie (who has been physically injured) and Taslima Nasrin have been under threat from Islamic fundamentalists.
Drishti Tuition Centre: A teacher came under attack from Hindu fundamentalists for making supposed to be derogatory remarks about Sita.
Nupur Sharma: Ms Sharma’s comments about the Prophet Muhammad, based on Quran and Hadith, made in a TV debate incensed Indian Muslims and outraged Islamic nations, resulting in several murders.
Autonomous judgmentFreedom of expression & action
Judgment is making a decision in one’s mind based on some principles, facts and reason. There are different types of judgment:
- Epistemic judgment: Was Ram Setu built by Rama? Was Quran revealed by God?
- Ethical judgment: Is conversion with allurements morally justified? Is homosexual relationship morally degrading? Can caste be morally justified?
- Aesthetic judgment: Is fair more beautiful than dark skin? Is desert less beautiful than a lush green valley?
A judgment needs to be expressed, debated, criticized, defended openly to approximate the truth as well as to create shared opinion. Without this, judgments will be subjective and flawed. Moreover, a judgment, once made, needs to be acted upon. Otherwise, our power to make judgments as well as live lives according to them is diminished.
Democracy demands equal opportunity in deliberations on policies and political social organization. If expression of opinion and action of one side is restricted for wrong reasons, and that of the other is allowed, it becomes an uneven playing field. Freedom and equality are two fundamental principles of democracy. If they are abandoned, democracy cannot survive.
Free enquiry and autonomous judgment are related. A judgment without proper and rigorous enquiry is nothing more than an uninformed opinion. Living a life with such opinions is like walking blind-folded in the dark. We can have an opinion on anything, but if we do not have appropriate justification for our opinions, we ourselves are blind and we are likely to oppress others.
Thus, autonomous judgment, freedom of expression, free enquiry and democracy go hand in hand together in a very significant manner. If we restrict the freedom of enquiry, we are trying to diminish people intellectually and morally. A democracy of fools cannot survive.
Political Correctness as a tool
Political correctness is a means to silence the counter view. It is not in the interest of the truth, but of the powers that be. It is to silence reason. Indeed, as poet Uday Prakash says, political correctness is a weapon to kill us, certainly intellectually, if not physically: “कुछ नहीं सोचने, और कुछ नहीं बोलने पर, आदमी,मर जाता है।” If we cannot think or speak freely, we will be dead, at least as choice making rational animals.
Universities and political parties are trying to enforce political correctness and suppress free enquiry. One would have expected universities to protest against political correctness. Unfortunately, they seem to be fostering this kind of environment.
Q&A
Prof Dhankar clarified that freedom does not mean we can do arbitrary things. Our actions must be within certain boundaries.
Up to a certain extent, we are governed by instinct. In such cases, there is no possibility of choosing what to do or not to do. When we are driven by a craving (think of a drug addict), we are not making a judgment using a thoughtful process. Sometimes, we may be forced to act in a certain manner. In all these cases, we are not free.
Freedom means making choices guided by moral and epistemic principles we ourselves have adopted. Forced by internal desires/cravings or by external pressure/force against our self-adopted principles is unfreedom. Many ideas are floating in social space. They might influence us. But we are not obliged to follow them. We can exercise our rational judgment to accept or reject them. We cannot be absolutely free. But we do have enough latitude for exercising our free will.
Education plays an important role in developing our mind and enabling us to make our choices wisely. All of us have mental and physical resources at our disposal. Freedom is not randomly picking up something. We must be driven by purpose. Our judgment should enable us to achieve this purpose.
We should not become vulnerable to indoctrination. To take an example, Gandhiji stood for nonviolence. We should neither reject everything he said nor blindly accept it. We must try to understand why Gandhiji spoke up for nonviolence and in what context.
At home, we should not discourage children from asking questions. When they have a question, we should explain as much as possible. Our answers should not block the pathway for further investigation.
It is also important for parents to spend quality time with children and listen to what they have to say. Children should have freedom of expression. Prof Dhankar gave the example of his own daughter who was wearing torn jeans. Instead of scolding her, he tried to understand what about this dress fascinated her.
In school/college, the job of a teacher is to offer a theory or piece of knowledge or opinion in a rational manner. It is the right of the student to ask questions and accept or reject what the teacher is saying. The teacher should be humble enough to take disagreements in her stride.
Teachers need to encourage rational and dispassionate judgment. These are not philosophical questions but pertain to daily behaviours.
Prof Dhankar recalled how a student brought a poster of Saddam Hussein to the school during the first Gulf war. Prof Dhankar tried to understand why the student was doing this. Initially, she said she belonged to the same “Jati”. But on further probing, she admitted she was doing it to support a fellow Muslim. Thus, when the question was framed to support either a justified non-muslim friend or an unjustified Muslim, she chose the just cause. When we are navigating through tricky issues, we are trying to find an anchor. But we should not give up fairness/ truth.
When Brigadier Ganesham returned to Hyderabad, he took three decisions.
- He would not earn any more. He would live on his pension.
- He would not try to use his past knowledge. He would start life fresh like a learner joining school.
- He would not work for any organization but would form a volunteer group. That is how Palle Srujana was set up.
When Brigadier Ganesham returned to Hyderabad after almost 35 years, he had to start from scratch and mobilise volunteers. The idea of holding yatras was borrowed from Prof Anil Gupta. It was about creating an opportunity to interact with people and nature.
A yatra is not an organized event but a spontaneous gathering of people who go to an unfamiliar place through an unknown path with an unknown agenda. In these yatras, people sleep in temples, schools, etc. During the three days, they first unlearn. Then they keep listening to the villagers and learn the truth on their own. They see villagers living in harmony with nature. They understand the strengths of the villagers and the problems they face. Each individual picks up his or her insights. These insights incorporate the fundamental truths of nature and greatly enhance the quality of their decision making.
Our constitution guarantees the freedom of expression and the propagation of ideas. As long as people do not cross the boundary and do not violate law and order, such freedom should be allowed. Protests should not be blocked with force in the name of national interest.
Ideological battles should be fought with ideological tools using intellectual arguments to counter rather than through force and arrests. Of course, if there is a danger of an armed rebellion or harm to people, strict action should be taken.
While feeling concerned about the anti-India discourse, we must also accept that there is an ultra-nationalist discourse. Both have a role to play, if they stay within the appropriate constitutional boundaries.
Earlier also, there was violence on the campuses. But now political parties are playing a greater role in instigating violence. There is no need to ban political discussions on the campus. However, exchanges between people with opposing positions should happen professionally and peacefully.
India is divided at all levels. We take sides and chose our own discourse. Rather than advancing our own discourse, we should be fair in our judgment.
There is still room in India for corporates to fight the government. One problem is that many corporate houses have not conducted themselves well. They have evaded taxes and violated the laws of the land. Many NGOs for example violate the provision of FCRA. In such a situation, they may not have the moral strength to fight the government.
Corporates should conduct their business in an ethical manner. If a group of ethically upright corporates come together, there is no reason why they cannot oppose unjust moves of the government.
Freedom never comes cheap. So speaking against the government calls for courage and honesty.
These are very important for India. Unfortunately, the mindset of prestigious educational institutions is not in favour of vocational education. Parents are also not in favour. They prefer to send their children to professional courses such as engineering, medicine, management, and law. With vocational skills, people can be employed and also generate jobs.
We have defined secularism as equal respect for all religions. But the real meaning of secularism is maintaining equal distance from all religions. We have fallen into a trap by stating that all religions say the same thing. But religion is an ideology. All ideologies cannot be respected equally. Equal respect for all people irrespective of their religion is a sound principle. But equal respect for all religions is a problematic idea.
Openmindness is the key. We must be clear that given the situation, and the level of information and reasoning capabilities we have, this is our conclusion. We are rational but not perfectly rational. We are by design imperfect.
We must have the metacognitive ability to look into our mind and understand what is going on in our mind. Once we do that, we will become more tolerant and inclusive of other views.
We must also expose ourselves to a wide range of views. It is important to have a civilized discussion using a language that does not hurt others. But simultaneously being committed to truth and reason. One idea paraphrased from Kant can be “argue as much as you please, but obey the constitution”.