( In 2006 the Parliament had debated and lambasted  Hindi NCERT textbooks prepared as part of the NCF, 2005 process . Our Parliamentarians were then offended  by Premchand, Pandey Bechan Sharma Urg, Dhoomil, M. F. Husein,  Avtar Singh Pash and Omprakash Valmiki. The argument of hurt sentiments had united political parties from left to right to demand action against  the culprits. In the eyes of MPs like Sushma swaraj , Ravi Shankar Prasad and Sita Ram Yechury ,  Hindi textbooks  were full of offensive and abusive words and descriptions which could hurt Brahmin, Women , Dalit and Hindu sensibilities. They were also very concerned about the the effect that these books were to leave on the impressionable minds of our children. The extra-ordinary unity seen this time in the Parliament in   the case of  the  ‘offending’ Political science texts books is not unprecedented. What we need to ask is that why did we not react to This debate and assault on Hindi textbooks then.

Back then I had published this open letter to our MPs in Tehelka. I am re-posting it here to bring historical context to the ongoing debate on an NCERT political science textbook.)

In an open letter, Apoorvanand asks members of Parliament to stop politicising education

Do we really need to legislate on how languages should be used by our writers? Should the State be given authority to issue licenses to our poets?

This is to draw the attention of the honorable members of the Parliament of India to the current debate on the Hindi language NCERT textbooks to be used in the schools all over India in Hindi language classes from 2006-07. We are greatly anguished by the tone and tenor of the debate raging in the Parliament and outside of it. It is a real pity that the books prepared after a rigorous process of consultation, discussion and debate involving school teachers, academics, poets and writers of varied hues of ideologies are being given a hurried and summary trial.

Words chosen with utmost care by a poet or prose writer and then weaved into a poem or prose piece with creative deftness are being torn apart mercilessly by taking them out of their context and robbing them of their meaning. It’s absolutely shocking to hear a suggestion that the Punjabi poet Avatar Singh Pash, whose popularity knows no language boundaries, should not be included in the textbooks on the ground that he was a supporter of the Naxal politics. It is tragic that he is being condemned as anti national and not suitable for any kind of State recognition. He was killed by the separatist militants of the Khalistani movement for propagating the ideology of unity of all people. To dub him anti-Indian, from whom our children should be kept away is killing him again.

We were also dismayed when we learnt that Mochiram, written by Dhumil was being trashed for the crime of containing few words and expressions unacceptable to some of us. Let us not forget that Dhumil along with some of his contemporaries was responsible for revolutionising the diction of Hindi poetry during 1960s and Mochiram is regarded as one of the landmarks of modern Hindi poetry.

That the expressions of the young dalit writer Om Prakash Valmiki were found unpalatable to some honorable members is yet another instance of the reluctance to let the voice of dumbed sections of our society enter the annals of language and literature. The newly edited books are trying to turn the tide by including the autobiographical pieces of dalit writers. These are self-expressions resulting out of a painful struggle of the dalit society and any demand to exclude them is nothing less than a conspiracy to keep the emerging dalit voice out of the social discourse.

Those opposing the inclusion of the autobiographical piece by the artist MF Husain written in beautiful Hindi with a typical Indore flavour, calling him anti-Hindu have forgotten that it was Nirmal Verma, eminent Hindi writer considered a great advocate of the values of Hindu and Indian culture who had released the book under attack and praised it in glowing terms.

Opposition to a piece by Pandey Bechan Sharma Urg, one of the pioneers of autobiographical writing in Hindi again results from the historical amnesia. It would do us some good to remember that none other than Mahatma Gandhi thought it necessary to steal time to read carefully one of Urgji’s writings. His stand, in fact, was in consonance with our other leaders who refused to judge creative writing by the moralistic standards. They appreciated the autonomy of the laws of creative writing and would refrain from imposing their own worldview on writers. Rabindra Nath Tagore continued to be held in high esteem by Mahatma and other national leaders though he was a bitter opponent of the Non Cooperation movement.

Let us imagine a situation where some people decide to teach Ghare Bhaire and include it in a textbook. Then if a few zealots demand its withdrawal, as it is critical of the national movement, what would have been Mahatma’s response? We can safely assume that he would have been unwavering in his support for poetic truth to be uttered in the face of the national or moral questions.

I plead all of you to ponder over the question of academic and creative autonomy, the deeper questions of how are languages born and how they evolve, what are the principles of language learning and artistic creation? Do we really believe that we should legislate on the manner in which languages should be used by our writers? Should we fetter our poetry and prose with the politically and morally correct terminologies? Should the State be given authority to issue licenses to our poets and artists?

We are proud that Indian democracy has come of age and have seen the rise of the hitherto unheard voices. To many of us it was unsavory and chaotic for some, who wanted political expressions to be disciplined. Do we deny that it is exactly this ‘unsophisticated’ political uprising that has revitalised our polity? We should in fact applaud the editors of the new school textbooks who have toiled to capture the richness of the complex linguistic variety of our society.

Based on the trust in the innate linguistic capacity of every child, this is an effort by the pedagogues to locate our school textbooks in the thriving realities of everyday lives. Only by doing so would they be able to develop strategies to transform these realities. A morally and politically purged language pedagogy only cripples the imaginative faculty of the learner.

Writers have been revered traditionally as Prajapatis who rival Brahma. As humble inheritors of this great tradition is it too much if we plead you to grant autonomy and let creativity flourish in an otherwise barren landscape of education struggling to keep itself on its feet?

We are confident that when the temptation of scoring short-term political points over each other’s rivals is overcome and reason returns, all of us would be able to see and enjoy the linguistic dreams, our language textbooks are weaving now. Let the new school textbooks be allowed to fulfill the promises they have made to the children of India.

Hopefully together in Dreams,
Apoorvanand