This is a longer version of an article published today in The Hindu. This version includes a section with illustrative examples that refute the contention of the petition that there is “inadequate representation of the role of Ambedkar” in the new textbooks.
At the end of this, I respond to the points raised by K. Satyanarayana and Anoop Kumar in their response to my article, also published today in The Hindu, to which I have linked below.
The petition against the Ambedkar – Nehru cartoon published in the Hindu makes for sad reading. Sad, because it bears the signatures of some of our best scholars, universally admired for their rigorous scholarship, who nevertheless chose to sign a petition short on facts. The petition asks the Thorat Committee to “reconsider the Ambedkar cartoon (and possibly other such insensitive material)”and urges “Kapil Sibal, the Union HRD Minister, to desist from seeking any major overhaul of the basic National Curriculum Framework on which the textbooks are based.” Perhaps the petitioners are not aware that the particular cartoon is now beyond the purview of the committee. A decision to remove it had already been taken by the Minister himself, and a commitment made to this effect on May 11 by Kapil Sibal on the floor of the Rajya Sabha. It was after this announcement that the parliamentarians intensified their attack and targeted other cartoons in all the textbooks claiming that they mocked and ridiculed the political class in general. It was in response to this outrage that the government announced the formation of a review committee to be chaired by Prof. S K Thorat to find out if there is any ‘educationally inappropriate’ material in the textbooks.
In fact, one expected the petitioners to criticize the manner in which the cartoon was removed, even before setting up of a review committee, disregarding all established procedures. Without such a critique, without making a strong demand for making NCERT academically autonomous, so as to enable it to deal with such issues through its own autonomous, established procedures, how do the signatories expect the Minister to honour their urge not to overhaul the NCF 2005? If he can delete the cartoon without any consultations and go unchallenged, what prevents him from ordering an overhaul of NCF?
It should be clear by now that the second part of the demand to reconsider ”possibly other such insensitive material” is now the only substantive thing left with the petition. That too, without doing any homework, without citing examples! What could other such insensitive material be? One has already been pointed out by Mr. Vaiko and the DMK. A cartoon supposedly ridiculing the anti-Hindi agitation in Tamil Nadu deemed to be insensitive from the point of view of Tamil pride. In this case too, a reading of the chapter in which this cartoon is located will demonstrate that the anti-Hindi agitation has been seriously discussed in the context of Periyar and his politics. But who cares to read the text-books themselves? A section in Rajasthan has expressed its hurt over inadequate representation of Maha Rana Pratap and would possibly use this opportunity to petition the committee with its own set of complaints against the textbooks. The right wing Hindu educational machine is in motion round the clock, scrutinizing the textbooks and curriculum to find sensitive spots. Ask the NCERT that has to deal with continuous petitions from this section. Till now the NCERT has been firm with them. However, with this storm, the NCERT has been made so vulnerable that it would be impossible for it to face any charge of “Insensitivity to sentiments” with academic self-assurance.
While talking about ‘possibly other such insensitive material’, it would be educative to recall a similar debate which took place six years ago, in August 2006 in the same Rajya Sabha. Portions from Prem Chand and Om Prakash Valmiki were read as violating Dalit and Constitutional sensitivity. Then followed hurt to girls, Hindus and nationalists by poets Dhumil and Pash, novelist Pandey Bechan Sharma Ugra, painter M F Husain and dramatist Jagadish Chadra Mathur. All political parties unitedly demanded action against those guilty of putting these passages in the textbooks. The result was formation of a review committee. Despite a well-argued defense of the textbooks and rejection of the objections against them by the committee, which had Yash Pal, Ananthamurthy, Krishna Sobti and Nirmala Deshpande as members, most of those texts were replaced. What is the lesson then?
We know from a long history of such interventions – although up to now, only from right-wing forces of different sorts – that once ‘sensitivities’ are made bench marks, democratic processes of debate and dialogue are the first casualty.
Another surprising point made by the petitioners is that many sections of the society were not privy to the content of the textbook and it is only now that they are being debated. The textbook is not a secret document. It has been practiced in the schools for the last six years across India, adopted by more than 17 states, translated in different Indian languages, available in public domain through different media. Students and teachers have been discussing and debating them all along. It is quite different a matter that they did not have the privilege of the attention of our colleagues all these years, who have discovered them only now, via the debate in the Parliament.
The petition is unhappy with the inadequate representation of the role of Ambedkar in the textbook and asks the Thorat committee to make necessary amends in the text. It seems that over obsession with the cartoon did not allow it to appreciate that this is not a stand-alone book. The NCF that the petition wants to defend has set some curricular goals, and the syllabus for different stages of schooling is designed to achieve these goals. Textbooks like other pedagogical devices and strategies are geared towards this end. Thus, all students, not only the ones who are studying Political Science as an optional subject in Class XII, are expected to develop an understanding of the issues of diversity, discrimination, identity, equality, fight for self-respect and empathy. They engage with these ideas and concepts not only in the Political Science periods but across subject areas. This is the unique feature of this NCF.
At every level then, students compulsorily come across Dr. Ambedkar in different chapters and subjects, and by the time they reach Class XI and choose to study Political Science, they are well aware of the significance of Ambedkar not only for the Constitution making process, but also for Dalits and other struggling classes and identities. Much before encountering the now deleted cartoon, they have established a good visual familiarity with him with the help of photographs and sketches. They have gained a conceptual confidence to engage with the textbooks, questioning and critiquing them. The textbooks do not present themselves as The Text. At the very least, this is what the NCF aspires to . But to understand this, one will have to patiently engage with the curricular process and look at all its stages at a relaxed pace. Getting fixated on one cartoon in one text-book does not help.
In their rush to condemn this textbook, the petitioners missed what students have already studied from Class VI onwards. The very first Unit of the first textbook (Part I for class VI) is entitled ‘Diversity’. The second chapter of this Unit, ‘Diversity and Discrimination’ discusses notions such as ‘prejudice’, ‘stereotypes’ and the problems of inequality and discrimination. This section (pages 19-23) discusses the term ‘Dalit’ – who are dalits, why they reject terms like ‘untouchable’ and then goes on to say this about Dr Ambedkar, quoting from his own words after this passage:
“Dr Bhimrao Ambedkar, one of the great leaders of India, shares his first experience of caste-based discrimination, which took place in 1901 when he was just nine years old. He had gone with his brothers and cousins to meet his father in Koregaon which is now in Maharashtra.”
Chapter 3 of the Class IX textbook, which would have been read by every student, including those who may not go on to study Political Science in Class XI-XII, has a chapter titled Constitutional Design. Section 3.3 of this chapter (Making of Indian constitution) introduces prominent members of the Constituent Assembly. Here that the student reads that:
“The Constituent Assembly worked in a systematic , open and consensual manner…A drafting committee chaired by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar prepared a draft constitution for discussion.”
Sketches of fourteen members of the constituent assembly accompany the text. Ambedkar is one of them, introduced with these words
“The Chairman of the drafting committee, social and revolutionary thinker and agitator against caste divisions and caste based inequalities.”
In the section ‘Guiding values of The Indian constitution’ students read the views of only three national leaders, Gandhi, Ambedkar and Nehru and learn that
“The dream of an India that has eliminated inequality was shared by Dr. Ambedkar, who played a key role in the making of the Constitution but he had a different understanding of how inequalities could be removed. He often bitterly criticized Mahatma Gandhi and his vision.”
A student entering Class XI is already thus well-aware of the significance of the role of Ambedkar.
It is also disappointing that the physical assault on Prof. Palshikar has been described as an ‘aberrant act’. It has been suggested that over-discussion of this minor incident is a design to divert attention from the atrocity of the Shankar cartoon. Counterposing this with his being defended by Dalit students leaves one with a deep sense of disquiet. We have seen similar assaults on the Head of the department of History in Delhi University by some overzealous Hindu youth distressed by the Ramanujan essay. It was similarly underplayed by interested parties arguing it was more important to discuss the hurt caused to Hindus, than this “minor” and “aberrant” assault.
It is very clear now that the hapless textbooks and the whole vision of the NCF 2005 are up against different kinds of sensitivities, all of them formidable and equally valid for the state. The ultimate loser in this battle would be the new curricular vision and the children who might have benefited from it.
Response to K Satyanarayana and Anoop Kumar
K Satyanarayana and Anoop Kumar insist that the cartoon is still under the purview of the committee. One has only to go to the Rajya Sabha Website and read the verbatim proceedings of the debate to see the actual statement of the Minister. I do not know how the petitioners got the impression that it can still be reconsidered. In this case, reconsideration would only mean review of the decision of the Minister, announced on the floor of the Parliament.
Of course, I would only be happy if the committee is in a position to make such a suggestion.
They say that representation of Ambedkar is important for them. So it is for us. And as can be seen from my post here, Ambedkar is introduced and represented right from Class VI. It is perplexing that the petitioners consistently refuse to take this into account, despite this having been pointed out by others before.
They then go on to assume that the textbooks contain, or might contain, some other “insensitive” material and leave it to the committee to look for it!
The attack on Palshikar has been referred to by the petition as an “aberrant act”. In the eyes of the RSS and BJP, Babri Masjid demolition, burning of Graham Staines and his sons and the Gujarat massacare were also aberrations.
We do need to use words with responsiblity.
KAFILA - COLLECTIVE EXPLORATIONS SINCE 2006 
Please click on this link to read an altogether different perspective on this and other related matters
http://www.countercurrents.org/umakant060612.htm
LikeLike
Dear dr umakant, your article though well researched , begs the question – what is it really answering? If you say that the delay in constitution making was because of good reasons – then the textbook in no way negates that. The text next to the cartoon very clearly endorses that delay in celebrating public reason ( refer to parthshil’s response in nivedita menon’s article on kafila). I’m sure there is a lot of material you can dig out which could be included in these textbooks- the possibilities are infinite . But there are limitations on inclusions and exclusions – and periodic reviews are in order to discuss and debate and deliberate these matters. That is all that was being asked , that there is a need to work on a process of review when asking that a cartoon or any other such material be reconsidered . The petition fails to engage with a critique of the process while asserting the right of a group of voices belonging to a community to speak on behalf on an entire community. It is irresponsible on part of the academics concerned to endorse an action which clearly goes against the spirit of a democratic academic enterprise by asking redressal through such methods.
Apart from that, the facebook profile of one of the respondents to this very article in hindu is a clear srategic build up towards a slander compaign to assert their voice as authentic against the so called left liberals. The level of bad faith, rhetoric and the absence of any reflexivity, the use of every ammunition possible from every quarter to create an image of the other (the ‘liberal left’, the ‘elite upper caste intellectuals’ who can never be counted upon in any real struggle). Wild charges like – they never spoke against dalit atrocities in higher education then why come around a cartoon? i wonder if the person himself or anyone else for that matter is not guilty of this charge vis-a-vis some cause or the other, but does that deny their right to critically question others actions on grounds of a larger shared politics ? Can feminists say , men have no right to question a demand raised by a group of women or even the movement because they were not there raising voices against other issues of gender discrimination ? That they will also not acknowledge that many of these voices might have also stood with them against such discrimination, and this critique might arise out of the sensibility that arose therein, rather than because they cannot but be men in the last analysis ? I’m sure everyone feels the need to establish their distinct voice, but there is something else going on if solidarities are being forged on such grounds by deliberately lampooning and even demonising any dissenting voice – even if those very voices have stood for the cause in several other cases.
Lastly again the use of sentences”‘It is a cheap trick to equate us to “the right-wing Hindu educational machine” while describing us as “some of our best scholars.” Again this is a tactic used to create further divisions by deliberately and wilfully misreading what was being said in the article – “We know from a long history of such interventions – although up to now, only from right-wing forces of different sorts – that once ‘sensitivities’ are made bench marks, democratic processes of debate and dialogue are the first casualty.” it was a statement cautioning against endorsing such interventions , even if to represent a dalit voice , while not recognizing the dangers involved therein.
The petition clearly used all the arguments which emerged in the course of the debate towards its own goal- to just slam the ‘liberal left’ under the garb of a petition, without it leading to any self reflexivity , questioning or genuine engagement on their part.
LikeLike
Umakant,
please do note that some of the criticisms you have made on the textbook and the representation of ambedkar in this textbook has been responded to in this post. so while it is good that you have linked up your piece you should also have responded to the contents of this post.
LikeLike
I hope the learned author has not read this(link below) …because the author fails to answer any of the concerns raised. The author does not appear to have any insight in the issue and the ejaculation of white intellect is utterly disgusting.
http://roundtableindia.co.in/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5130:inside-the-mind-of-one-fanatic-dalit-a-cartoon-controversy-i-&catid=119:feature&Itemid=132
LikeLike
Naash Qx, Anoop Kumar’s article you link to has been referred to and linked to, several times in kafila during the course of this debate. If you have just woken up, drink a hot cup of tea, catch up on how far these debates have gone, and if you still have anything meaningful to add to what has happened so far, do come back with some substantial argument that addresses the issues raised by Apoorvanand here.
LikeLike
According to the NCERT website, these are the exact terms of reference of the “committee for reviewing the textbooks of social science/political science of Classes IX-XII”:
1. To review the Classes IX-XII social science/political science textbooks of NCERT from the point of view of identifying educationally inappropriate materials in them.
2. Providing suggestions for alternatives to be placed in the textbooks so that the material can be immediately made available to the learners concerned.
LikeLike
I wonder whether we should permit our parliamentarians to decide on issues pertaining to education. Given their electoral compulsions, they are apt to disturb and damage permanent framework of education on which depends our future generations, on account of momentary impuses. Till they mature, education except primary education should be withdrawn from the purview of the government. If the govt. is able to bring our primary education on par with the best in the world, we can permit them to take up secondary education next. On secondary education reaching world best standard, we can permit them to deal with higher education. Had I been a cartoonist, I woud have drawn a cartoon to make my point more easily but then our rulers are allergic to cartoons so I am writing this in the form of text.
LikeLike
“It is in this context that one must view Thirumavalavan’s views on the cartoon: if it were the1990s, he would have steered a rich polemical debate on the subject, raised questions, urged people to write, but since that time is past and the energy of the last decade and more has come to invested in rousing symbolic gestures, we have him leading an argument in parliament on this subject. Neither the Bathani Tola judgment nor the gruesome Paramakudi killings of last year prompted Thirmavalavan to act with as much verbal alacrity”
This is V. Geetha Position on 17th May
It is time we realised that there is a permeable boundary between the symbolic violence of such a cartoon and the tolerance of such cartoons by academics on the one hand, and atrocities like Bathani Tola, Melavalavu, Chunduru or Khairlanji on the other. Quite often the iconicity of Dr. Ambedkar has been used by Dalits to assert their democratic rights. And the struggle against the cartoon is indeed a democratic struggle…
This is V Geetha position on 8th June.
I have doubt whether both positions are similar, or whom should i believe either Thiruma or V. geetha, not both? I am confused , can somebody help me in understanding these positions whether they are same or different?
LikeLike
in the course of this debate over the text, it has been pointed out that well written textbooks could be useless given the nature of the classroom and the institutional capacities of school education in india. would like to just point out that , indeed feedback to NCERT on the textbooks produced under NCF 2005 has drawn attention to the need to engage with teachers, and the NCERT has embarked on a process to produce teaching manuals aimed at teachers. it is nobody’s case that these textbooks are above criticism or review, but the process of feedback, review and improvement in all aspects of the teaching-learning-writing process has been continuously happening. it is this process that has been threatened by the constitution of the thorat committee.
LikeLike
This is for Senthil – my position continues to be what it was when this controversy broke out. My first comment has to do with the sad truncation of dalit politics in Tamil Nadu. The second is a position that was outlined by those who circulated the statement about the cartoon to which I was a signatory. I signed that appeal for the simple reason that I think that howsoever one reads the cartoon it is ultimately, and will be read and negotiated in a classroom context: where neither students nor teachers are free from caste biases, prejudices etc. As recently as yesterday dominant caste parents (in the Tamil south-west) demanded that dalit children who had been admitted to a state run school be sent back to the ‘adi dravida’ school, where they had studied earlier and not allowed to study in a mixed school.
In such a context, there is not much room for explanation or negotiation – yes, one can re-position the cartoon, and I did argue with my co-signatories if we should not ask for this; whether we should not provide children the means to understand how a joke is not always that, and can and does feed into unexamined prejudices. I had also wondered in my conversations with them, if we would not want to use the cartoon itself as a pedagogic device and speak of the charge of ‘slowness’ that was directed at Dr Ambedkar – who slowed down proceedings in the Constituent Assembly? Did it have to do with the desire to have consensus on all matters, or was it also because of the routine and often disturbing prejudicial views expressed by several members of the Constituent Assembly that retarded discussion and delayed consensus. My co-signatories felt that while this was in order, at present they would like to ask for the cartoon to be removed. I agreed to that.
True the cartoon has been around for 6 years, and no one has objected to it one way or another – but since then, it has been in the news, debated, discussed and unless we have a way of anchoring the richness of these discussions in the classroom context, we cannot make them part of meaningful classroom exchanges. In such a situation, the cartoon is not likely to remain the silent detail in the text that it has been until now… and unless we can meaningfully intervene in its afterlife in the classroom, we cannot insist on its staying there.
About the complicit links between the tolerance of such a cartoon and crimes such as unfolded in Bathani Tola: I read this not as an indictment of those who worked to produce these textbooks, but as a description of how humour and tolerance with regard to caste matters cannot be viewed outside of the context of the violence that caste society authorises against dalits.
Eva Hoffman in her brilliant book, Shtetl shows with a wealth of detail how Jewish-Polish interactions, marked by prejudicial humour did not always lead to violence, but in a decidedly anti-Semitic context do become complicit with more horrid hate crimes. In our times, dalit lives continue to be shaped by prejudicial hate and violence – in this sense Bathani Tola on the one hand and the cartoon on the other become drawn into an overall culture of violent disregard for dalits, including Dr Ambedkar. And this complicity has nothing to do with individual intentions, sadly – it is something we all fight, in different ways, but we cannot anticipate it entirely.
LikeLike
..”there is a permeable boundary between the symbolic violence of such a cartoon, and the tolerance of such cartoons by academics on the one hand, and atrocities like Bathani Tola, Melavalavu, Chunduru or Khairlanji on the other”…. The statement leaves no ambiguity in its indictment of academics ( dalit and non dalit) who dared to claim that the cartoon was not offensive and could be subjected to other far more progressive readings. Its not the prejudical humour itself , but its interpretation, appropriation and reappropriation which allows for subversion of dominant frames in public domain, and the petition’s indictment of all such readings merely stifles all such attempts.
LikeLike
Also its important to remember that in delivering a judgement on complicity of ‘academic tolerance’ , the petition gives no benefit of doubt and disallows any critical engagement by non dalits which is not merely celebratory and safe and hence patronising. The cartoon itself , more so its contextualisation within the text, did not allow for such simple, unambigous, clear indicments of tolerance towards a violent disregard for dalits. Despite our caste baggages,there are limits to possibilities of causing offence which differ in different images, and if we do not differentiate between images and their locations within texts on this basis even where dalit sensibilities are concerned, we come close to endorsing other acts of intolerance such as withdrawal of A.K.Ramanujam’s text.
LikeLike
‘1. To review the Classes IX-XII social science/political science textbooks of NCERT from the point of view of identifying educationally inappropriate materials in them.
2. Providing suggestions for alternatives to be placed in the textbooks so that the material can be immediately made available to the learners concerned.’
So it is presumed that there are some, educationally inappropriate materials in them and the committee is free to decide on the basis on which it can decide whether any material is educationally appropriate or not and can suggest for alternative materials. But it is obvious that it will be NCERT that will take the final decision on this as committee’s job is just to review and suggest. But I wont be surprised if another committee is appointed for the same purpose in wake of controversies that may arise in future.There is a demand to delete the cartoon on anti-hindi agitation.This is likely to be conceded.Tomorrow there may be a demand to delete the cartoon on making of Iraq’s constitution as it may offend the sensibilities of some persons.So there will be ample opportunities for more committees in future to deal with such issues. Some may call this as process of revision and some may call this as a process that will aid revamping text books in the name of revision.
The debate has reached dead end.It has exposed the chinks in the armors of the progressive liberals-dalit intellectuals alliance. It should result in a serious introspection by left liberals about their over-enthusiasm in supporting identity politics and political correctness.They should re-examine dalit intellectuals’ response to other issues like Lokpal, 2G scam, performance of Mayawati government and ask critical questions on them.
LikeLike
Mary John in The Hindu: “By far the most positive and transformative aspect of the debates so far has been the manner in which the cartoon itself has been subjected to critical interpretation. Many of us who did not find anything wrong with the cartoon to begin with, have had to revise their ways of seeing in the light of the kinds of readings of the cartoon that Dalit intellectuals and activists have provided….
However, given that it has had the benefit of hindsight, and especially because it takes the consistent stand that nothing is above critique, it is disappointing that the petition mentions only two polarized positions – those of the defenders of the textbooks on the one hand and the voices in Parliament demanding a wholesale withdrawal of all the cartoons or of the textbooks themselves. But surely there has been another pole in this debate about which the petition is silent…”
Read her piece here.
LikeLike
quoting out of context and publishing a catoon without informing its typical background is to be defeated; Simulteneously, we should also raise our voice against the insult, assault, killings, rape etc on dalits which happened in Bathanitola; There must be a fair, phased, continuous struggle in each and every state by dalits.
Manglura Vijay,
LikeLike
Historian M S Pandian dissents with the report’s reccomendations.
http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/news-by-industry/services/education/thorat-panel-member-files-a-dissenting-note-favours-use-of-cartoons-in-textbooks/articleshow/14521559.cms
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1120630/jsp/nation/story_15674656.jsp#.T-6f6HB0FaU
Its important now to rethink seriously on questions of relative academic autonomy and institutionalised processes of review with adequate safegaurds in place besides other things . Since this was what had been feared all along , its also imperative to think on how to intervene at the current juncture , once the full contents of the report are out. It should be clear now that its no longer about the Ambedkar cartoon. The committee was obviously working under immense political pressures given the manner in which the controversy unfolded. We simply cannot have such ad -hoc reviews coming out of arbitrary and unlilateral state action unsettle a collective academic exercise everytime a controversy unfolds , even if the cause seems right .
LikeLike
And here is one of the original articles on the report that has been submitted by Thorat comittee and its reccomendations. M S Pandian ‘s note of dissent is to be read against this report.
http://www.indianexpress.com/news/junk-inappropriate-cartoons-sibal-panel/968129/0
LikeLike