Religion and its impact on society - argument with reference to Christianity

 "ആധുനികത വന്നേ പിന്നെ ആണ് ഇതൊക്കെ ഉണ്ടായത്. " Weak analysis tending towards falsehood. Religion is the outcome of a search for answers by man for his deepest questions on what is life, what is a life worth living, what explains the world we see around us and what is true. Christianity is one answer based on the experiences of a tribe in modern day West Asia which later was taken to the far corners of the world where again conviction in the answers grew on account of lived experiences as well as historical and philosophical analysis. Within Christianity itself, you will see that faith does not confer sainthood on the person. Case in point, there is only one person in all of Bible whom God called as a man after his own heart, that was David, a man who was guilty of murder, adultery and disobedience to God. So, the Christian claim is not that the Church is guiltless (in fact, the weekly confessional that most Churches have would suggest that the Church is a congregation of sinners and not saints). Other religions, Hinduism for sure and perhaps Islam as well (I am not very informed about the Islamic Worldview) are equally important answers and have their own histories of how those answers play out in the world.

Coming to some of the specifics of the message above like Crusades, Galileo, Inquisitions and William Tindale.....as I said above, there is no intent to paint the Church and its actions as all clean and pure. The Church acknowledges errors of the past and it is not a modern day phenomenon. Let us not forget that Martin Luther was a priest who pointed out the error in doctrinal positions, let us not forget the numerous schisms that arose over multiple centuries leading to the formation of a number of autocephalous churches across the world. Or even better, remember how the Nicene Creed that most Christians recite every week came into being. 

However, to take the point about Galileo alone to point out the error of picturising it as a Catholic  Church's error(I am not a Catholic by the way, Mar Thomakkaaran aanu). The Church then was only taking a position that was held by the scientific community of the time, namely Ptolemy's position on geocentric cosmology. Heliocentricism was a new thing then and there was little scientific evidence to back it given the development of measurement technology. The rest was brute politicking by the Church. (For more details, refer to Thomas Kuhn's The Structure of Scientific Revolutions). However, it is not something that only the Church is guilty of. It happens in modern secular worlds as well. A good example is that of Ignaz Semmelweis, a scientist who contributed a breakthrough to child birth in hospitals was killed in a mental asylum. If you want more current examples, check the current universities and their academic research grant process, you will find very similar politics even today in thoroughly secular institutions. Again, what is to be kept in mind is that it is a very human error and the Church does not claim to be immune from such errors. 

Coming to the point about separation of powers. That is something that we see in France and I suppose only in France is that so clearly seen. Take the protestant countries like England; Church of England does consecrate rulers of England. In the US, there was never a period of rule by the Church, however, much of what we see in the US is a result of Christian activity, including almost all of its Ivy League Universities, its Anti-Slavery Movement, its Declaration of Independence itself. So, separation of powers sounds like an idea, however, it is not like one fine day the church and state was split and suddenly you had enlightenment. It was a slow meandering process spread across centuries in many states. (Check The Third Pillar by Raghuram Rajan). 

As to Pope's liberal humanism, it is a mistake a lot of liberals made. In the initial days, one got the impression that the Pope was being liberal. That was an error in understanding the Pope, Liberalism and Christianity. The Pope was never speaking as a liberal humanist. He was speaking as a Christian. Check the recent 20 point encyclical that is available on the Vatican website. it is fairly obvious. People confusing liberal humanism with Christian message has a reason. The quote below from Jurgen Habermas will tell you why. "Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk." 

Which brings me to the last point. Christianity is one of the largest actors in the past 2000 years and even today defending ideals like love of the agape kind, forgiveness and justice. Stan Swamy is an example, the numerous schools and hospitals that dot countries like India is a testimony to that. Our own WhatsApp group is a testimony to that.

Similar arguments can be made about other religions as well. Civilisations have been enriched by religion and it will continue to be enriched by religion.

A Christian's wait for the second coming of Christ

This is my response to a post that I came across in a WhatsApp group yesterday. I am stating where I depart from the views expressed in that post and why.

First, here is the post.

"Christians have been waiting for Jesus for 2000 years. Muslims have been waiting for a messiah from the line of Muhammad for 1300 years. Hindus have been waiting for Kali for 3700 years. Buddhists have been waiting for Maitreya for 2600 years. Jews have been waiting for the Messiah for 2500 years. Sunnah has been waiting for Prophet Issa for 1400 years. Shiite Muslims have been waiting for Imam Mahdi for 1080 years. Druzers are waiting for Hamza ibn Ali for 1000 years.

Most religions adopt the idea of a “savior” and say the world will remain filled with evil until that Savior comes and fills it with goodness and righteousness."

Maybe the problem with believers on this planet is that they expect someone else to come and solve their problems instead of doing it themselves."

It is difficult for me to speak for other religions. However, I can speak with some confidence about Christians. The wait for Jesus by Christians is not for a Christ who in his second coming will solve their problems. It is a wait for a Christ who shall redeem the world. The difference is this. In the Christian version, there is a belief in eternity and life after death (attending a funeral and listening to the service by the priest will reveal it or one can read the Bible). It is with that faith that Christians approach death. They also believe that the dead will arise when Christ returns. Given that it is fairly obvious that Christ's second coming has little to do with solving problems in our life on earth.

The second part is that the Christian also believes that he cannot solve his own problem because he is born in sin (the Original Sin doctrine) and it is God's saving grace in the form of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection and its acceptance that saves him (for Catholics, there may be some minor dispute here, however, this is pretty much what Martin Luther argued and what most of Protestant Church believes. The Eastern Orthodox traditions also subscribe to something similar.) Man's sinful nature and yet God's saving grace being available to him is not a New Testament story alone. There is only one man whom God declared as a man after his own heart; David. David's life is filled with sin of almost every variety, murder, adultery, disobedience to God's standing instructions and much more. And yet God declared him as a man after his own heart because David was constant in seeking God's will and repenting when made conscious of the error of his ways. 

A Christian life is akin to  Pilgrim's Progress, a continuous battle against the challenges put forward by the ever present evil. He is expected to put on the full armour of God; stand firm against evil with the belt of truth buckled around his waist, with the breastplate of righteousness in place, and with the feet fitted with the readiness that comes from the gospel of peace. In addition to all this, he is to take up the shield of faith, with which he can extinguish all the flaming arrows of the evil one. He is to take the helmet of salvation and the sword of the Spirit, which is the word of God. ( with due modifications to Ephesians 6:14-18) He awaits the second coming of the Christ when he along with the rest of the world shall be reconciled with God in eternity.

Lastly, the presentation of the Christian waiting for God in the manner described in the post and the subsequent suggestion comes from an idea that God is a man made construct. But the Christian God describes Himself as I AM; it is a statement of absolute existence, uncaused and unchanging. God exists and created man for his own glory.

What does it mean to have faith?

Have faith is a common advice from a lot of people. When a Christian says it within the rubric of the Christian worldview it has a specific meaning. It does not imply believe that things will turn out alright, it does not mean have faith in your self. It means have faith in God's purpose for you, know that he actively intervenes in the affairs of mankind and subordinate yourself to God's purpose purpose. That presupposes a belief in the existence of God and the existence of an afterlife.

Taking a look at the presuppositions, are they blind beliefs or are they justified true beliefs? Take the first, existence of God. Many have argued that it is the latter using a variety of arguments pegged on a beginning for time, existence of morality, life and its properties, explainable attribute of nature and the world around us etc. Listen to any debate between an atheist and a theist, you can see that it is a reasonable belief to hold. With regard to existence of an afterlife, Christ and his resurrection are seen as a historical event and that is a powerful evidence for existence of an afterlife. Again, refer to historians debating the matter of resurrection, there are grounds to hold to the belief of historical event of resurrection.

I have dealt with the presuppositions only summarily because they are vast topics in itself and many have dealt with it extensively in the past and I see no reason to go there again. I do a broad reference to the justification for those beliefs only to make the claim that these presuppositions are more justified beliefs and therefore more in the domain of reason and less a matter of faith.

Given the above, what does it mean to have faith in the Christian sense of the term at a concrete level. Stemming from the presuppositions and at a more flesh and blood level, have faith refers to believing in God's assurance and His love. And that is a matter of faith. Existence of God is not a matter of faith, what God is is a matter of faith.

A way in which I can explain that faith is to narrate a story an uncle once told me about my father (his younger brother) and my grand father. My father was involved in campus politics when he was into his graduation at a college in Kerala. There were instances when police came searching for him and there were perhaps the threat of some kind of minor violence. My grand father gave a word to my father then. "Eda evidelum kozhappathil chennu chaadiyal, vilichekkanam, njaan vannu kondokkolam." (Hey, if you run into some trouble, call me, I will come and take you home.) Now, the son can find solace in the words of the father and live life with that assurance. However, there can always be doubts about whether the father can cross the distances, overcome the challenges, whether the father will practice tough love or soft love, whether the father might take the wrong strategy or the right strategy, will the father misread the situation, have I gone too far in my ways so on and so forth. But the word of the father gives the son a sense of assurance that seems to transcend these doubts in some manner enabling the son to live with that assurance. And that I believe is what is implied by having faith. There is a word that we have from our Living God, our Father and we have a sense of assurance in that word. In other words, we must place our faith in the word and more importantly in the God and Father who gave the word. It is that faith which helps us live life to the fullest.

Yes, there are instances when we waver in our faith. We do not experience that sense of assurance. It is not uncommon. What we must realise is that it is not lack of evidence that leads to that absence of sense of assurance. For those of you familiar with the story of exodus of Israelites from Egypt, they had all the evidence of God being with them and yet they strayed and there were moments when they did not have the same sense of assurance when faced with trouble (response of Caleb compared to others brings out this rather sharply).

So what do we do when we find that assurance to be missing. Well, what would we do if it is our biological father? We will speak to him or we will remind ourselves of instances where he has pulled us out of trouble. Same with God our Father, pray and refresh your memory of his saving grace in the Bible and in your own life. 

Cricket Oh Cricket..........

Cricket, a game that I have loved ever since I can remember. The earliest memories of my childhood are related to playing cricket. Playing the game with a plastic bat and then by age 4 quickly graduating to a wooden bat. In fact, there was an occasion when, due to a miscommunication, both my parents ended up buying me a cricket bat each on the same day. Of course that was a happy miscommunication.

There are too many memories associated to cricket. Stories of celebrating an off day at school with cricket, coming back from embarrassing bowling performances by focusing on fitness and skill development, my insecurity coming to the fore and running away from a University Tournament, observation of leadership by cricket team captains and much more. But nothing beats the sheer joy of playing the game.

But what I have noticed is that what started as a love without reason has now reached a stage where I try to explain or maybe justify my love with reasons. I am not sure if it is a good idea to do that. Let me explain a specific instance. I once came up with the following reason to love cricket. In cricket, the tradition was for the umpire to ask the fielder whether the ball had bounced in front or behind the boundary rope; which determines whether to add 4 runs or 6 runs to the total of the opponent. Or the umpire can ask the fielder whether his body touched the rope at the time of making the contact with the ball or not. Again, the implication is how many runs to be added to the opponent's total. In both cases, the umpire goes with the word of the fielder when the fielder has a clear incentive to lie. Such a practice can be expected to give fair results only in an environment where a culture of integrity is valued and practiced by everyone; at the very least, a very very large majority. I keep coming up with reasons like this to explain the love for the game, a love that I have had since I was 4 or 5 and using reasons that would not have been appreciated by me until I was 12 or 13 even if were an extremely precocious child (which I was not sadly).

Love leads to discovery. And as we discover more, our love grows stronger.

Justice and Compassion

I came across an opinion piece in the Indian Express by Pratab Bhanu Mehta, a reputed academic with a number of acclaimed publications to his credit. The piece can be found here.

I found a point made by the author where he says "The widespread cooperation with the gruelling demands of the lockdown (countering COVID-19 in India), on some interpretations, can also be seen as expressions of solidarity. But this should not blind us to the fact that solidarity, in the true meaning of the term, is failing us, just at the moment we need it most. It is failing us because at the core of the idea of solidarity is not pity, compassion, or even care. It is justice.

Compassion and pity has been given a bad name in modernity's emancipatory discourse because it apparently fails to address the issue of power relations. I think it is slanderous. I am not going in depth into the reasons of why I think so. Partly because it is something that I am basing more on intuition rather than a carefully thought out argument.

Before I go into why I think so, I must also say that my own personal evaluation has been from justice to compassion. When I was working with Social Initiatives Group, ICICI Bank which later transformed into ICICI Foundation for Inclusive Growth, we had the opportunity to define a vision statement for the Foundation. I can claim credit for introducing the word Justice into the vision statement as I had brought in the word into the discussion by the group working on the vision statement. (The vision statement was later changed after a few years, but that is a different story.) Later, when I was heading Zyxware Technologies, where I am currently, again, an organisation with an ambitious social vision along with its business vision, I was in two  minds between what I felt where the competing pulls of the ideas of justice and compassion. This time, I included both the ideas into the statement. But the more I live, the more I feel that it is the latter that is at the heart of justice itself.

Now coming to my claim of giving compassion a bad name being slanderous. Justice usually requires a complex political, social and economic construct in ones mind and often two agents which can be individuals or formal and informal institutions who have a shared understanding of responsibilities. This understanding that is agreed upon can be called as a social contract. There are plenty of instances in human experience - of past and present - that suggest that human beings still have to act on behalf of others and for others in the absence of such a social contract. For instance, a war zone, a place under a civil war, dysfunctional state etc. Most of us ignore such experiences or treat that as temporary or as of the too distant past to be worthy of serious intellectual consideration in the context of ideas of justice (War Crimes Tribunals notwithstanding). But we are making a fundamental mistake there. We forget that the undergirding for social contract is compassion. It is compassion which gives us the idea of justice. Extreme situations reveal that to us. In normal times, we forget about compassion. Forgetting compassion is dangerous. Giving it a bad name is slanderous.



 

Religion, worldview and impact

There have been many an assault on religion from various quarters. The primary argument being that it is not rational, it is not scientific and that it leads to violence and oppressive structures and patterns. For starters, religion does not deal primarily with areas of science. And science should know better than to delve into areas where it has no competence. But that is a philosophical line of defense. I would let that pass and attempt a historical defense.

Modern world has not seen a greater violence than that brought about by Hitler's attempt at eliminating the Jewish race from Europe. It was an attempt that was markedly modern in its values and methods with one crucial difference. But first the similarities. It was materialist in its knowledge systems, scientific in outlook with it drawing on state of the art of genetics and eugenics for its ideological foundation, statist in its adoption of social engineering as one of its goals. It was modern in its method with design of a bureaucratic machinery that would rival any of the modern bureaucracies and their rational legal frameworks. Now, to the difference. The difference was the value of equality of human beings. He could not conceive of a world where all humans, including Jews, were of equal value. And on equality, I quote Jurgen Habermas. ""Universalistic egalitarianism, from which sprang the ideals of freedom and a collective life in solidarity, the autonomous conduct of life and emancipation, the individual morality of conscience, human rights and democracy, is the direct legacy of the Judaic ethic of justice and the Christian ethic of love. This legacy, substantially unchanged, has been the object of continual critical appropriation and reinterpretation. To this day, there is no alternative to it. And in light of the current challenges of a postnational constellation, we continue to draw on the substance of this heritage. Everything else is just idle postmodern talk."

The Christian influence is not just in Europe. Trace back the origins of the statistic of literacy in Kerala at over 40 percent when national average was approximately 16 as per Census of 1951, you will find additional evidence.

I cannot speak for the contribution of other religions. For I have not had as much of an active engagement with their world views and the comprehensiveness of their impact.

So the next time, someone says that religion's influence has been bad, ask him to get himself a cup of tea and read a little bit of history. Once he is done with that, he can then start on philosophy. And then once he gets his analytical tools and historical background in place, only then, start the conversation with him.

Being unfair to oneself

In this day and age of many having an opportunity to be heard by a reasonably large audience, many philosophies, prescriptions of attitudes and such float on the world of web. Being fair to oneself is one such idea that floats around on the web. It is seen as the touchstone for all decisions in one's life. Perhaps, amongst those with an undying concern for justice, the inclusion of the word 'fair' gives it a slight edge over the other popular ideal of 'pursuit of happiness'.

Being fair to oneself has given birth to a progeny – of Abrahamic proportions if I might add - of ideas with some leading ones being 'do what you love', 'walk away from exploitative relationships', 'enlightened self interest' etc. Apart from these positive ones, I believe even the cynical statement, 'cannot rise up from one's class interests' also has the same parent.

The idea is assuming a hegemonic status today in the informed circles. It would be interesting to ask the question, what is the alternative or is there an opposing idea. There must be one because ideas can emerge only in a context of multiplicity of ideas. So what is the other and what is the basis of the other. I will make an attempt to put together the other which can also be its exact opposite.

The sailor who refuses to abandon a sinking ship until everyone else is safely on the rescue boat and risks going down with the ship, the wife in an abusive relationship choosing to risk her life in all senses by staying in the relationship either by nurturing an irrational optimism of transformation in the relationship or believing that to be the demand on her on account of the commitment entered into on a happy day years before, the person who suppresses his voice out of concern about the impact his speech will have on different members of the audience and beyond. These are people, who I think, are challenging the 'being fair to oneself' idea.

To be fair to the idea itself and its proponents, the idea probably has many riders. There can be a moral boundary on what are one's legitimate interests, one can argue that one's interest is actually others' happiness and therefore, being fair to oneself would necessarily include others' happiness. While that might indeed be there, the practical usage of the idea has generally been about protecting the person's life, property, dignity, happiness and right to fair treatment.

There is a fairly dramatic counter example to this. The following is the description of the finest hour of Jesus Christ.At the age of 33, Jesus was condemned to death. At the time Crucifixion was the "worst" death. Only the worst criminals were condemned to be crucified. Each nail was 6 to 8 inches long. The nails were driven into his wrist. Not into his palms as is commonly portrayed. There's a tendon in the wrist that extends to the shoulder. The Roman guards knew that when the nails were being hammered into the wrist that tendon would tear and break, forcing Jesus to use his back muscles to support himself so that he could breath. Both of his feet were nailed together. Thus he was forced to support himself on the single nail that impaled his feet to the cross. Jesus could not support himself with his legs because of the pain so he was forced to alternate between arching his back then using his legs just to continue to breath. Jesus endured this reality for over 3 hours.

A few minutes before he died, Jesus stopped bleeding. He was simply pouring water from his wounds. From common images we see wounds to his hands and feet and even the spear wound to his side. But do we realize his wounds were actually made in his body. A hammer driving large nails through the wrist, the feet overlapped. And an even large nail hammered through the arches, then a
Roman guard piercing his side with a spear. But before the nails and the spear Jesus was whipped and beaten. The whipping was so severe that it tore the flesh from his body. The beating so horrific that his face was torn and his beard ripped from his face. The crown of thorns cut deeply into his scalp. Most men
Would not have survived this torture."He had no more blood to bleed out, only water poured from his wounds." The human adult body contains about 3.5 liters
(just less than a gallon) of blood. Jesus poured all 3.5 litres of his blood; He had three nails hammered into his Members; a crown of thorns on his head and, beyond that, a Roman soldier who stabbed a spear into his  chest. All these without mentioning the humiliation he suffered after carrying his own cross for almost 2 kilometers, while the crowd spat in his face and threw stones (the cross was almost 30 kg of weight).

That is the description of the hours in which he surrendered to God's will and  sacrificed his life, dignity, happiness and right to fair treatment. Since he never had any property worth the name, there wasn't much to sacrifice on that front. Did he find happiness in undergoing crucifixion. Only in the sense of fulfilling his duty. For as C S Lewis states 'In Gethsemane the holiest of all petitioners prayed three times that a certain cup might pass from him. It did not.'

The question that one should is ask is, why the sacrifice? He sacrificed for redeeming humanity from the consequences of eternal death for lives drenched in a sinful nature. He opened a path out of those consequences and invited all to enter. What if we deny the whole need for such a redemption by saying that the 'consequence' is merely a figment of our imagination. In that case, can we have an ideal that would logically demand similar sacrifices out of us? My guess is no. If we remove that condition, we cannot really think of anything more than 'being fair to oneself' and calibrated sacrifices. Not the total sacrifice of the kind written above.

To further accentuate the contrast, one can compare the finest hour of Krishna in the Hindu mythology. The revelation to Arjuna at the end of the Bhagvad Gita where Krishna is revealed as the all powerful, all encompassing and omnipresent followed by his fulfilling the purpose of his incarnation by destroying evil in the form of Kauravas in the war in Kurukshetra. In the case of Krishna, the evil had a person in the form of Kauravas which had to be destroyed. In the case of Christ, evil did not have a personality and there was nothing to be gained by destroying the Jews or Romans. The Jews and Romans went about their lives undisturbed by the crucifixion and the resurrection. There was simply no material impact for the sacrifice. At least not for a few years. It is a different matter that today our newspapers proclaim the 'event' when they use the Gregorian calendar for dates.

There are many who have taken that path towards a complete, total sacrifice. Where they were unfair to themselves. Every missionary who has ventured into the unknown and suffered the consequences, a Mother Teresa who went out into the streets of Kolkata to take care of the leper, the dying, Paul Brand who treated leprosy all his life and made astounding contribution to understanding leprosy, a Gandhi who stood spellbound by a statue of crucified Christ at the Sistine Chapel and eschewed every protection other than that offered by God, a Socrates who willingly drank the hemlock in service of his beloved democracy. Closer home, my grandfather knelt in front of a knife wielding, drunk attacker who had come to take the life of a friend of his and said, 'take my life if you must.' They were not being fair to themselves.

Now that there are examples of individuals who lived a life that was the opposite of 'being fair to oneself', let us see what the left liberal calls these people and their sacrifice. “Professor Thapar’s public intellectual is not a Socratic or Christ-like gadfly with a raging death drive, but is embodied in the figure of the Buddha.” (http://www.thehindu.com/todays-paper/tp-opinion/the-rise-of-the-liberalright-intellectual/article6926683.ece). There is no glory in sacrifice. It is merely a 'raging death drive' for some. I would think that these are also the purveyors of 'being fair to oneself' as an idea. For they have effectively destroyed the foundational premise of 'glory in sacrifice'. There is no eternity, it is only the life on earth. There are no seraphs inviting you to be in their midst and glorify God, it is only a figment of imagination. There is no metaphysics, it is only a dead branch of philosophy. There is nothing before the beginning of time, nothing has no observational consequences (http://www.hawking.org.uk/the-beginning-of-time.html). I also suspect that there is the assumption of 'no natural limits' that underpins the 'being fair to oneself' idea. If life had zero sum games, then being fair to oneself might actually entail stepping on someone else's toes. But this assumption is not a necessary one.

It is important that we are extremely guarded when we proclaim the virtues of sacrifices. A simple test would suffice. Gandhi has given us that test. "Joy comes not out of infliction of pain on others but out of pain voluntarily borne by oneself." If you are asking another person to sacrifice, be warned that you are not glorifying sacrifice but denigrating sacrifice. If you are asking yourself to sacrifice, you are indeed glorifying sacrifice. But then there will be moments where others seek your advice on whether to sacrifice or not. Answer cautiously, with prayer, with faith. And do keep in mind the fate of the holiest of all petitioners. 

This is something I dedicate to a friend who has stood by me through my highs and lows, who has challenged me, who has comforted me and importantly listened to me. While I do dedicate this to her, it is by no means to be seen as suggesting her concurrence with these views. But this is for her. 

My grandfathers and me

The stories that I heard of members of my family, the stories that were played out in front of me in the family setting, both have had a profound influence of how I thought and acted. It has had its role in shaping the values that I live with or try to live with. I still remember the solemn promise I made to myself when writing my name on top of the answer sheet in exams. 'This answer sheet belongs to Thomas P. Thomas and it has my grandfather's name on it. (My paternal grandfather is Dr. P. M. Thomas and I am named after him.) I will not do anything that will sully his name.' Basically, it was just my prop to stop myself from cheating in the exam. Clearly, the unethical nature of cheating in the exam itself was not enough to stop me. And I must admit. This did not always stop me. I did have a couple of instances of cheating in exams in my time. But it did seem to work in most cases. But that is how I look at family folklore.

Now, it was not just Dr. P. M. Thomas, I also had another grandfather, the one on my mother's side. C. J. Palu. Now if you were to look at the two characters, they appeared very different from each other. One was a medical doctor working as a missionary doctor, initially for a short spell in Dahod in Gujarat and then later settling in with another missionary hospital in Vazhoor in Kottayam district of Kerala. He took  matters of Christian faith very seriously. I will rely on his nephew for a description of him. "Dr. P.M. Thomas who passed away in Oct. 1972 was a very extraordinary man. Six feet tall, broad shouldered and weighing over 80kg, he had an arresting personality. Always pleasant and soft-spoken, calm and unruffled, his eyes bespoke sympathy and tenderness. The papers have done scant justice in reporting his death, because in his lifetime he never cared to publicise his services; but the village (Vazhoor, near Kottayam) where he practiced medicine for over 30 years, held a condolence meeting and decided to perpetuate his memory. They wanted to construct a village hall in his name; but being short of funds, decided in stead to institute a foundation to help the poor children studying in schools."

Now C. J. Palu had fairly different pursuits in his life time. He was a businessman with interests in gold, agriculture and agri-commodities, chit funds (a financing mechanism), real estate and perhaps a few others as well that I do not know. In many ways he was a remarkable man. He grew up in a rather poor family. Was not educated beyond basic schooling, his grasp on matters of faith was perhaps not very high (Although he was fairly active in the church and my most enduring image of him is when I saw him through a partly opened door saying his prayers just before hitting the bed. He built a bit of a business empire during his time and he became a fairly well recognised person in Thrissur district. I came to know about the breadth of his influence only when I was typing address on invites to his death anniversary function. I was typing addresses of half the town of Thrissur and even senior politicians in Kerala turned up when he died. For me, he was the person who brought chewing gum for us in the evening when he returned from his shop, the leader of a silent pack of three (including his brothers) who sat quietly when there was any celebratory function at home. He was the one who took us to his farm early in the mornings and instructed the person in charge there to give us tender coconut water and raw mangoes with chilly powder and salt as accompaniments. He was the one who would address us in rather uniquely Thrissur ways like 'Kochappan' for boys and 'Kochammani' for girls, asked why we lacked 'chodi' (energy), moru kazhukiyo (did you wash your face?) and much more. His quietness was one of the most remarkable traits. As my uncle, his eldest son used to say, 'You should have seen him in his elements in his youth. He was a fairly fiery character.' But I did not get to see much of it. I still do not know much about him. But from what I have overheard about him at numerous alcohol driven conversations at home between my uncles, he must have been quite a character in his times, unafraid of anything, a visionary businessman and someone who always acted with a sense of fairness and in a spirit of compassion.

While, the two appear different on many fronts, there are two stories that I have heard about both of them which tells me that there was something which was common to both of them.

On one occasion, there was a theft at my grandfather's (Dr. P. M. Thomas) place. He knew who had done it. It became a bit of a talk of the town or rather the village. He did not file a police complaint because he felt that it was not required to harass the person on this theft which he was willing to overlook. The then Home Minister, who happened to be a friend dropped down in Vazhoor around the time and heard about this incident. He asked him to file a police complaint. However, he declined. The Home Minister then asked the police to send the beat police every night to their house. Thus was established a routine of two policemen coming to the house every night to sign the beat record kept at the house. Meanwhile, the person who committed the theft was not acted against.

Coming to my maternal grandfather, one of his friend's and supplier of gold for his business was arrested under a dreaded anti smuggling law of the time. The man was isolated by the gold business community as none of them wanted to direct the suspicion of the police towards themselves. My grand father was the one person who stood by him and helped him fight the case. He came down from Thrissur to Trivandrum to meet him in jail. The man, after the case was settled, went on to become a successful businessman in Thrissur. He remained a loyal friend of my grand father and his family since then.

What I see as common to both the persons is that they give primacy to their own moral judgment instead of legality and due process of the law. They had their own convictions about rights and wrongs and was not willing to 'let the law take its own course.' There is a boldness in asserting their sense of rights and wrongs and they had not 'outsourced' their ethical framework for operation to the 'law of the land'. Perhaps, I note this feature the most because I find myself often doing this outsourcing and being afraid to apply my own sense of rights and wrongs when the law says the opposite.

Resurrection and the necessity of the claim

The resurrection of Christ is a claim that lies at the heart of Christian thought. It is a claim that meets with a lot of questions. From historians, there is the question of is it true. From the theologian, the philosopher and the spiritualist, there is the question whether the truth of the claim is material to the idea of Christianity. It is the second question that I am going to write about here.

Many commentators from different disciplinary areas have admired the Sermon on the Mount and assorted sayings of Christ for its clarity, the continued relevance of the sayings to the present days and philosophical consistency. Often, they detach it from the claim of the resurrection and say that it is not material for our spiritual development. In this, there could be two categories of people. One, for those whom the speaker and the spoken are two different things and for others the spoken (and the done) are the only ways of defining the speaker and often the spoken is the speaker. For the latter, the saying from Christ, 'Before Abraham, I AM' is a strong indicator of his claim that he was indeed divine. For them, it has to be either true or false and if it is false, the questions about other things he said about kingdom of God, God etc becomes difficult to accept at face value because here was an intentional lier. And then the ethics that flows from it will have to be examined carefully. Clearly, I am taking a side on the issue of whether he actually said that. I am also talking specifically about taking the word of a person because you know him to be a truthful person. Not about applying your reason to examine what he said and then taking a call on the truth of it.

Now, for those to whom the speaker is immaterial and the spoken words are the only matters at hand, those who want to apply their reason.......it is to them that I have to make an argument and a claim. There is a part in Christ's statement about turning the other cheek. When faced with violent action, do not defend yourself, let alone counter attack. What is the basis for it? It is a clear call to adopt non violence as a principle and not merely as a principle. What can be the world view in which that is doable. When faced with the massive scale of violence of a Hitler, Winston Churchill called for arms against Hitler, Gandhi wrote letters to Hitler. What explains the difference. In my view, this one call from Christ to turn the other cheek is the clear marker of the boundaries of the temporal earthly kingdom and the glorious eternal kingdom of God. Without a glorious eternity, it is difficult to conceive a reasoning for turning the other cheek. Our history of the world does not give us enough reasons to do that. The demands of establishing peace and a reign of fairness and love in any time bound manner (whatever be the length of time) demands some form of violence to counter the 'violence of the evil'. The more massive the scale of violence, the less time we can tolerate. Which is why Barack Obama, in spite of his best attempts to adopt the Gandhian world view on non violence, had to concede that he cannot abjure violence as the Commander in Chief of the United States of America. He chose to concede this when accepting the Nobel Peace Prize.

But when you do have a glorious eternity to think about, one has the option of turning the other cheek. Without the belief in a glorious eternity, one cannot cross the final frontier of the earthly kingdom and turn the other cheek. And I am not saying eternity. I am saying glorious eternity. For if there is no value for eternity, again one is left with no meaning or purpose for turning the other cheek. That begets the question, what is eternal. It is timelessness and what exists eternally. The only thing that is eternal is God. And God is glorious in himself. There is no cause for God's glory. He is uncaused and his attributes are uncaused. If there is a glorious eternal and it matters to us (if we take turning the other cheek seriously), then we must think of what is beyond death. And it is here that the Christian claim of resurrection comes in. There is eternity and death is not an end. There is a God who can transcend death. And the only basis we  have for that claim is the resurrection of Christ. In the absence of that, one questions the claim of eternity. When one questions the claim of eternity, one questions the sagacity of turning the other cheek. So for that saying of Christ to hold true, resurrection is his only argument. Of course, you can choose to apply your mind and pick what you want and leave what you dont want from what Christ said.

Compassion as the well spring of action

This has been bothering me for a few years now. The constant battle in mind between the idea of fairness and compassion. When I observe a waiter's error at a hotel and my mind goes into an over drive thinking of whether to forgive or punish in the interests of systemic improvements, the inherent sense of revulsion that I feel for a discussion on positive and negative incentives, when I find decisions on terminating an employee as a major cause of heart burn........

The primary basis for Christian action has to be  a  well spring of compassion and not really a framework of fairness. In fact, the framework of fairness has to come from that well spring of compassion. If the framework of fairness collides with the demands of compassion, perhaps we should change the framework of fairness and cede to the demands of compassion.

Cricket and me

As someone who fell in love with the game of cricket long time ago, it is a shame if there is nothing on cricket on my blog. So here is something on it. It is about what I love about the game, how I look at organised cricket's recent set of controversies and why it does not really shake my love for the game.

This was written first on facebook as a response to a comment of a friend of mine which was in turn a response to my status update on the issue of 'walking' in cricket.

First the comment from my friend. Here it is.

"am reminded of my legendary school correspondent, who ppl say, used to strain his neck while in his car to see if any school students are playing cricket in some corner of a play field.. he considered cricket as a waste of time and there are instances when he beat up such children then and there..that's ridiculous and i'm not saying lets do that ... but commercial cricket that ppl were crazy abt (so intense that some fans died of heart-attacks while watching matches) ..where thr's also lot of money and controlled by an orgn that pays no taxes and once said the players don't represent the country.. the players who let us down.. these guys shd walk rather than wait to be shown the way out.. don't we have better things to do than cheer for fixed matches ..........."

And then my response to it.

People and their support for the game, the organisation that runs organised cricket in India which does not pay taxes, claims of not representing the country, and corruption. Those are the issues that I see in the status update.

First, the support thing. Cricket is a game for heaven's sake. Not something worth dying for. The average cricket fan has that perspective. It is only the story of the extremes that finds space in media. Let us not ourselves lose a sense of proportion.

The organisation that runs cricket in India does do its job well. Its side has won the highest accolades of the game. It supports its past players through pensions, has invested in development of the game through better grounds with improvements in spectator comforts, cricket academies for kids, negotiations with sports goods companies for sponsorships for upcoming players, remunerative system of tournaments for players etc. Not to mention organising games which provide entertainment to quite a few people. Even if it is not paying taxes, it seems to be doing a pretty job as far its institutional purpose is concerned. And I think there are other organisations which do not pay taxes but dont have any major impact.

I have personally heard ex footballers and atheletes who have played at district or state level lament the government of India's affiliated sports bodies which are not able to take care of them and how they admire the cricket associations taking care of its players. So clearly, BCCI seems to be getting a few things right.

On the issue of representing the country. If the Government of India says that whoever claims to represent India must be authorised by GoI, well I dont think I need that. The Constitution is about 63 years old. So is GoI. The last time I checked, the 'India' that I have in my mind has a history of at least 2,000 years. So I am good if BCCI says take a hike to GoI. There are organisations, institutions and cultures which GoI do not like but I call them Indian enough. And I see some of that India in the Indian team and the way it plays and performs on and off the cricket.

Now, my love for the game does not stem from some kind of 'nationalism'. Me watching the Indian team does not have anything to do with patriotism. I will wake up early in the morning and watch England play Australia. I will sit late at night to watch a Lara take on McGrath and Warne. My love for the game has to do with the design/structure of the game. Just to explain, I like the switch on, switch off format of the game, the time it gives a person to think and perhaps the test of concentration involved. Or the fact that the boundary is circular and not linear like in football, basketball or badminton which creates the necessity to trust a player's call about the ball crossing the boundary or not. In football, it is always the referee who takes those line calls, there is not much space for test of moral character of the player. I love the elegance of the bodily movements of a cover drive, the gentle curve of a ball swinging, mesmerising spin of the cricket ball....all of it. I like to watch all that. I love the game.

I am not oblivious to corruption in the game. I am as aware about corruption in cricket as I am aware about corruption in Government, Corporates, NGOs and in me. I have not discarded any of those and I am not discarding cricket or the cricket establishment on the basis of corruption.

Someday I hope to write something about cricket that is well researched, structured and elegant. Till then, something like this will have to do. 

Religion in childhood

This is primarily a response to the criticism against children being taught about their religion. Initially, I considered writing about religion in education. Then I came across the Parliamentary debates on teaching of religions in school education. It is a fairly convincing argument that public schools are not the best places to teach children about religion. For reasons of competence and feasibility. Not so much the issue of confining religion to private spaces.

The argument that religion should not be introduced to children until they attain an ability to judge for themselves based on reason is an often heard one. The basis being that beliefs are to be chosen by a rational mind. To begin with there is a practical difficulty. How does a parent then answer the question from a child, "Why do you go to the Church/Temple/Mosque?". But going deeper, what is the nature of beliefs, how are they acquired, what is the role of reason, can it be a choice. Secondly, what is religion and does it mean to introduce religion to children.

But before getting into, let me list what I understand as the reasons for criticising introduction of religion to children. One, it stunts thinking because it is based on beliefs. Two, religion leads to much strife because it tends to be exclusive of sections of society who do not subscribe to the same set of beliefs.

The oft repeated examples of religion and its impact on thinking are the stories of Copernicus (Heliocentricism and  Geocentricism) and Galileo. What is to be kept in mind in these stories is that what the Roman Catholic Church was defending was Ptolemy's propositions which predates the Church itself. And the criticism was in keeping with the traditions of scientific debate of the time. That opposition was suppressed by the Roman Catholic Church through house arrests and destroying records is condemnable in the interests of open debate. But can an honest evaluation of history say that it is only the Roman Catholic Church which has suppressed dissent? Second, is that the experience with other Churches? The Churches themselves have had rather strong debates on everything under the sun and God itself. What about other religions? Islam, Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism. They have also contributed to what we call as progress. We should not forget that the decimal system that we are so dependent on emerged is Arab in origin when religious beliefs were popular. Also, we do have periods of strong movement in disciplines like science, philosophy and literature even during the periods of religious dominance. The contributions of religion to the emergence of many universities and centres of academic pursuits cannot be discounted. So, to assume that religion stunts thinking is to ignore that history.

The second aspect of this criticism is the ascription of religion as the primary cause for strife in the world. Pray, I ask what was religious about World War 2 or World War 1 or the fight for supremacy between the capitalist block and the communist block? Mankind's history is replete with stories of violent elimination of differences. And that is not always religious differences.

So, the question that I have is why single out religion for all that is bad with the world.

Coming to the question of religion and children. Most religions are about the following aspects.

1. Description of a God (theism, deism, pantheism etc etc)
2. Man's origin and relationship with God
3. God's expectation from Man and conditions for achieving the 'eternal good life' (generally boils down to a moral framework)

These three aspects together contribute to the development of a world view and a disposition or attitude. The major religions having varying differences on these three aspects. That has very practical implications on how people behave or act when subscribing to different religions. Just like people of different ideological dispositions are likely to different in behaviour and actions. What is particularly remarkable is that the theological frameworks of most religions will have an impact on almost all aspects of human activity and social institutions. Therefore, to shield a child from the influence of religion seems extremely impractical unless we are presupposing the desirability of a non religious society and we are slowly moving towards taking religion out of society.

Assuming that the critics are not talking about a religion less society, we need to see how religion will indeed be taught. As mentioned earlier, religion is a world view. It is not merely a set of 10 commandments. Such a world view or attitude is formed over long periods of time. Beginning from childhood. It does not happen through reading alone. It happens through experiencing events, learning about events and through reflection, discussion and debate. The prayer and worship by another person, the views expressed by someone about a person from a different religion, the texts, the expositions, the acts driven by the religious framework, religious institutions - it is this whole cosmology which leads to the development of this world view and disposition.

While much of the development of the world view can happen subtly as socialisation, there are vast elements which require exposition. For example, why a Christian might take a position against capital punishment will require explanation. A discussion on that with a child will lead to religious conversations. Similarly, when a child sees a priest or a missionary do something and ask for an explanation, he will talk about God, Christ and salvation. Without which he cannot be true in his explanation. It is that explanation which will possibly make the child explore about it a little more. He will encounter concepts like fruits of the spirit  which are love, joy, peace, forbearance, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, gentleness and self-control. In the Christian world view, these are acquired through prayer and submission to God's will. There is a strong theological framework which supports this. I would assume that a Christian parent would want to talk about this to his or her child. And if he or she considers this to be true, can he not talk about it and deprive the child of this knowledge? Religion, when taken in its entirety, is not a specific set of beliefs that can be chosen like picking the flavour of an ice-cream. It is a world view and it includes an attitude. Saying that children should not be taught religion is akin to saying ban religion. It is a position that can be taken. But then express it as such.

The other aspect that I would like to point out is that there is an assumption somewhere in the criticism that children cannot apply their mind. Indoctrination is a form of pedagogy that hampers thinking. It is not restricted to religion. And importantly, religion is not restricted to indoctrination. Critical pedagogy and religion can go together. In fact, much of the methods of critical theory emerged  from the study of Bible. 

Abraham, Isaac, God and an explanation

There is a question that is often asked by those skeptical and dismissive of the Christian God. “How can a loving God ask for the sacrifice of the son of a believer just to test the strength of his belief?” A tentative answer to that question can be given by a Christian based on the meta-narrative of Christianity. This will be acceptable only within that meta-narrative. Outside of that, any answer to that question merely subjects the answer giver to the charge of speaking gibberish.

The first part of the meta-narrative is that while God is loving, he also created everything that we see and therefore has absolute right over everything. And the loving God also demands us to give glory to him, he has absolute distaste for anything being given more value than himself by any of his creations. A believer attributing allegiance to anything including his own son is not acceptable to such on omnipotent God. So there lies the grounds for a test of a believer's faith.(Why does an omnipotent God have to test to know? Because, there is a matter of free will.)

Secondly, in the meta-narrative, there is a concept of eternal life. So even if Abraham's son were to be killed, it is not an eternal death. Our body and our existence on earth is valuable only from the point of view of whether it sings glory to God. There is no other reason for our existence. If the act yields glory to God, that in itself is a necessary and sufficient justification. In short, in the context of an eternal life, a father sacrificing a son for the glory of God does not sound so untenable.

Now, this need not surprise any of us. We all, at least most of us including non believers, believe in a variant of this. In matters of public good, we all believe that the father son relationship is subservient to public good. For example, when a senior police official in Odisha tried to protect his son from prosecution in a criminal case (rape), we all shook our head in disapproval because here was a father who was shielding his son from the long arm of the law, the enforcer of public good. Now if we were to replace public good with God's glory, we will get the same hierarchy.

But all of this makes sense only in the context of God as the creator and the idea of eternal life. Else, it looks untenable and perhaps gibberish.

Another type of intelligence

The other day, when bowling at the nets, I managed to get some prodigious swing off an old ball. The reason why it is significant is that old ball generally does not swing that much. The next day I began by bowling rubbish. So someone who acts as a bit of a coach (he is a BCCI certified Level 3 coach) said, "You are a brilliant bowler. But you should not be thinking of yourself like that." When I heard the comment from the coach, I was thinking why did he use the word "brilliant". Normally that word is used for intellect I thought.

That night I was having a conversation with my cousin about how I could almost visualise and sense how my body was working and could predict what would happen to the ball when I deliver in a particular style. The next day I corrected myself and bowled a lot better.

Then I realised why the word "brilliant" is not as misplaced as I thought. There is an imagination, sensitivity, feedback analysis and corrective action. It indeed displays the characteristics of what we normally call as intelligence. We, as society, do appreciate this in sportsmen and pay millions for it. But we do not when it comes to kids and others who do not often go on to become big name super star sports persons.  There, it is seen as a second class intelligence and does not receive the credit it should.

I was reminded of the cognitive, affective and psychomotor domains of learning (Bloom's Taxonomy). We celebrate the first, grudgingly acknowledge the second (Emotional Quotient) and  ignore the third. It is time we brought about a better balance in that.

The meta narrative of Christianity............

Every now and then there is the question that people ask. Why does God permit injustice and inequity on earth? There have been many attempts to answer the question. The one that I can recollect is the Harold Kushner book, 'When bad things happen to good people.' (I have not read the book. And interestingly Wikipedia does not have a commentary on the book either.) But those answers simply do not either reach people or convince them.

Some religions have answered this question through their core stories. For example, in the Hindu tradition, the 10 avatars of Vishu are answers to this question. Vishu comes as an avatar when evil reaches its pinnacle of influence and destroys them. This is direct action by God.

My interest is in Christianity and therefore, I shall write in detail on that. In Christianity, the narrative is a little different. There is only one instance of direct action by God. That is the flood in the times of Noah. In the rest, it is always a case of God taking his shield off his people, namely Israelites, and letting them face the ire of their enemies. But these are not really addressing issues of inequity and injustice. They seem more about establishing primacy of God's will and the demand for absolute obedience. The only instance where one gets very close to an explanation on Why God permits injustice and inequity on this earth is in the story of Job. Here, the answer from God is more like "I made you, you have no right to question me, I have my own reasons which I am not answerable to reveal to you."

Having said that, I think it is possible to formulate an answer to the question by putting together various ideas presented in the Bible. It may not satisfy every man, but it will have a logic. Only if one accepts some fundamental axioms. If one is looking to establish the existence of God through an answer to this question, then he or she will not be able to.

The first part to the answer is the meta narrative of Christianity. This is absolutely critical. That there is a God and that human life is only temporal. That human life is not an end in itself. But it is only a means to achieve eternity. That human life is only a means to establish God's glory and victory over evil. The moment one accepts this, the rest becomes logical. The moment one rejects this, the rest sounds like mumbo jumbo.  So if you reject this, go no further. If you are willing to consider it, then let us go a step further and see what it implies for human conduct.

The first part above has to be taken on faith. There is no way anyone can prove it. However, the next part is more amenable to reason. That all human beings are of sinful nature. The very fact that all of us are susceptible to temptations of various kinds and we do fall into some of them once in a while (anger is possibly the most common one), should convince us of our sinful nature. This is where there is a difference between Hinduism and Christianity. In the Hindu tradition, there are good people and bad people. In Christianity, there are only bad people. This immediately makes the question of justice a little tricky. In effect, bad things dont happen to good people. Bad things happen to only bad people and all people are bad.

So where does that leave us? In between a rock and a hard place. Well, it is not all that bad. God does give us a way out. He does not use sin against us. He forgives and transforms us. Moses, David, Peter, Paul, Mathew etc should convince us of that. None of them were quite saints. They had their share of faults. The first was a murderer, the second was an adulterer and murderer, the third was a betraryer, the fourth was an oppressor of the weak, and the fifth was supposedly corrupt and an extortionist. So now what do we do. That is where one has to read the following verses and piece together the answers.

1. Luke 6:37 - Judge not, and you shall not be judged. Condemn not, and you shall not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.

2. Isaiah 53:7 - He was oppressed and He was afflicted, yet he opened not His mouth; He was led as a lamb to the slaughter, and as a sheep before its shearers is silent, so He opened not His mouth. (This is Isaiah's prophecy about Jesus Christ and his crucifixion.)

The first one is on account of the sinful nature of ALL human beings. The second is a clear directive on how to model our life. The crucifixion of Jesus Christ is the ultimate message of Christianity  as it embodies the central tenets of the Christian beliefs. It gives us a living real example of what it means to be a Christian.

While the picture of a lamb to the slaughter conjures up an image of passivity, it is a misleading imagery. We only need to think of how the lamb ended up being taken to the slaughter. Jesus' life was not one of inaction or passiveness. If he were passive, would his detractors waste 30 pieces of silver, their vocal chords and their scheming minds on his extermination. It was more a result of evil sensing danger in what Jesus was doing and working to eliminate the threat through Jesus' detractors. Now, there is gross injustice that is being inflicted on the person of Jesus' and what does he do. Submits meekly to the ire of his detractors and accepts the punishment that is inflicted on  him.

What was his explanation for accepting the injustice being meted out to him? My guess is he was holding on to the axioms and the meta narrative I had mentioned earlier. God, his Father was in control and he was using Jesus as a pawn in his battle against evil. He was not to be tempted to react in anger, not tempted to sin. The final triumph over evil is to be by God. Not by man. Man can only be a pawn in this game of chess.

It is important to note that it is evil acting THROUGH his detractors. And God acting THROUGH Jesus. It indicates the necessity to surrender ourselves to God and also provides the basis for why we should forgive others if we feel they are acting against us or doing evil. Because it is evil acting through them and not they acting. Free will? Not quite I think. You have the Free Will to submit yourself to God and seek relentlessly and passionately His Grace to live like Jesus Christ. Beyond that, it is God's game.

One can ask, what does one do when one sees injustice being inflicted on others. The Biblical answer would be to throw in your lot with the oppressed. This is what Jesus had in his mind.

Then Jesus, looking at him loved him and said to him, "One thing you lack: go your way, sell whatever you have and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven; and come, take up the cross and follow me." Mark 10:21

I think this is what the women in Chipko movement were also shooting for, their treasure in heaven, when they decided to embraced the trees that were about to be cut down.

V. R. Krishna Iyer, T. P. Chandrashekhar and Jesus

The murder of T. P. Chandrashekharan has been a much discussed topic in the current Kerala society. It has drawn unequivocal condemnation from a wide spectrum of society including laypersons, intellectuals and politicians. While the investigation is still on, a response attributed to V. R. Krishna Iyer in the course of an interview with him turned up in Facebook. 

V. R. Krishna Iyer, for those of you who do not know, is a legal luminary par excellence. A pride of the Indian Judiciary, his concern for social justice reflected in his judgments at the various courts which he served including the Supreme Court of India. He had also been a minister of the CPI(M) government in Kerala in 1957. His writing on various issues, which regularly appear in The Hindu also reflects his nuanced understanding of law and were always impassioned appeals for social justice. I would say that he was someone who I looked forward to read. I might add that apart from his expertise in jurisprudence, he has an excellent command over the English language. 

In an interview, he apparently said that "The realisation that CPI(M) was behind the murder of T. P. Chandrashekaran  is saddening and if he had realised that this was politics, he would not have ventured into it." According to the report, he was overwhelmed with emotions when he said that. I shared this on Facebook with the following comment. "Unbelievable. Would a judge of his standing with his awareness of history of the modern socialist movements and revolutions be surprised at the alleged involvement of a Left Party in a political murder. At best, they are tears of a remarkable naivete. Incredible."

I must admit I was angry when I commented like that. In fact, it was also a venting of a pent up anger at some of his articles which seemed to be in praise of the left wing politics and parties. I have always had a major problem with the left.

But coming to the question of what lies behind the anger and what explains my deep rooted dislike for the left wing ideas. (Not sure it is just the left.) Apart from my Christian upbringing (with inadequate exposure to Liberation Theology), exposure to Reader's Digest at a very young impressionable age,  management education and a slightly privileged upbringing, what were the other factors. Or perhaps what was the world view that I developed based on these and other influences which made me so against the left. In spite of the fact that some of my best friends are of the left persuasion. 

I think one of the key elements of the anti left world view, apart from a rejection of materialism, class war and the enthusiasm for revolution, is manifested as my natural tendency to defend the accused whoever it is. (It has been a source of much consternation to my friends that I tend to defend whoever is being accused. This disturbs them to no end as I seem to not have a stand on issues.)

The left has been some of the most vociferous critics of others in the world that I inhabit. It is often not just the 'system', but it is also the people who are part of the system that have been targeted. Also, they have always projected themselves as an alternative and have provided arguments to justify their positions. But going further, it is not just the left which I have had a problem with on this issue. Liberals, right wingers, left wingers and all those who have criticised what ever system that exists, personalised the criticism in their politics and projected themselves as an alternative have been major sources of discomfort for me. It might very well be impossible for any political agent to survive in a democratic polity without developing a critic of others and projecting themselves as an alternative. Therefore, it does seem to me that my dislike for criticism is inherently anti democratic. You can very well ask me whether am I not myself criticising people in this article. Good question. I hope to answer that one through this article as well. 

Now coming to criticism and how I view it. Criticism of any kind requires an intellectual foundation. There has to be a system of rights and wrongs or at least appropriateness and inappropriateness. The development of this system in most progressive groupings require an assumption of this being possible, a particular understanding of human nature and the ability to be a slightly objective observer. One also has to justify ones stand in public in order to garner support for one's views. Inevitably this includes personalised criticism of particular sections of society and also individuals who belong to opposite camps. And this is where I have a problem.

I have generally been of the view that most systems or rights and wrong are themselves wrong or at best incomplete. They are simply incapable of addressing the complexities of human existence. In such a scenario, any system with the subsequent political action of its adherents will lead to judgments of self and others which are problematic. And as a person, I am yet to find the perfect ideology across the systems that I have been exposed to over the years. However, this does not seem to dissuade one category of people in continually attempting to do this. That is the progressive intellectuals. Their or the category's raison d'etre is perhaps this attempt. Their political action is premised on justification of the self, vilification of the other and power politics of varied kinds (electoral, violent, non violent action). 

In my view, which is decidedly Bible inspired, I see all three as problems. Problems due to a belief in our ability to offer moral justifications that are free from error. And it cannot be argued that these are not claimed to be free from error for one does not see that caveat in operation in the political theatre. Going to the Jewish society of Jesus' times as per the Bible, this function of progressive intellectuals were performed by the Pharisees and the Saduccees. (I do not think that the pursuit of rationality and secular values by modern day progressive intellectuals make them different from the comparison with the Pharisees and Sadduccees. The conviction in the possibility of arriving at moral justifications which are perfect and actionable is what makes the two sets alike in my view.) It is worth noting that apart from the Pharisees and Sadduccees, the other major category of people in Bible were the Romans, businessmen and tax collectors and the commoners. The modern equivalents of these four would be the intellectuals, the state and its functionaries, entrepreneurs and the rest of society. It is safe to assume that it is the first three which are the drivers of action in society with the last being the driven mostly. It can also be noted that the thought leadership including justifications for systems of rights and wrongs are supplied the category of intellectuals. The remaining two of the first three are primarily playing within the systems of rights and wrongs for they do not generally develop extensive and society wide systems of rights and wrongs that govern all political, economic and cultural activity. 

It is remarkable that Jesus sought to serve his strongest criticism for the Pharisees and Sadduccees. The criticism was not that they were murderers, robbers, were greedy, adulterers or any such thing. What he criticised strongly was their tendency for self justification. And the continual vilification of others. When Jesus narrates a parable of the Pharisee and the Tax Collector praying, this clearly comes out. The message is further reinforced by his sayings of justified by faith (not reason), seek ye first the kingdom of God, sinful nature of human beings and many more. It is from this understanding that he asks us to refrain from judging others, asks us to bow before God seeking forgiveness. The message is very clear from his side. When viewed in this light, one gets to see what is the problem with the intellectual activity of defining systems of rights and wrongs. One simply is not in a position to do that. (And yes, what the intellectuals inevitably do is propose a system of rights and wrongs not just explanations.) 

Assuming this to be right, does this mean that no stances can be taken or that one cannot act. No. This claim is proved by none other than Gandhi and his politics. As Akeel Bilgrami argues in an insightful paper on Gandhi and his philosophy, the fundamental premise of Gandhian politics and philosophy is simply eschewing of criticism from his lips and heart and mind. ("His (Gandhi's) integrating thought is that violence owes to something as seemingly remote from it as this assumed theoretical connection between values and criticism. Take the wrong view of moral value and judgment, and you will inevitably encourage violence in society. There is no other way to understand his insistence that the satyagrahi has not eschewed violence until he has removed criticism from his lips and heart and mind." - Akeel Bilgrami). 

This reading of Gandhi, which I agree to, convinces me that it is possible to act without justifying the self, vilifying the other and being violent.

Now coming to the issue of the murder referred to above, CPI(M) as a party and left wing intellectuals in general are known for their definitions of rights and wrongs. Therefore, the seeds of the murder of T. P. Chandrashekharan is sown in the fertile soil of the left wing ideology. It is surprising and disappointing that a person like V. R. Krishna Iyer could not see this. 

It is not just the left winger, every ideology which relies on building a moral justification of themselves and their positions have an inherent violence in them. It is perhaps an inherent trait of human beings. However, it is possible to move away from this. This is amply demonstrated by the lives of people like Gandhi, Mother Teresa and many others. It must be noted that these are people who have be accused of not being radical enough or for not having a political ideology that challenged the status quo. However, in the two names that I did write, one was shot dead, the other made the lives of millions a little better. 

What I have outlined above is my tentative first steps towards building an idea of a Christian engagement with society.

Engaging with Elementary Education in India

The following note was written for a voluntary organisation which was looking to develop their strategy for working in the area of elementary education. This paper was to be one input for their decision. The paper primarily draws on what I learnt while working with Social Initiatives Group (SIG) of ICICI Bank. I am thankful to my colleagues at SIG and members of SIG's partner organisation for whatever I have learnt about elementary education in India. Of course, if these sound stupid, blame it on me. Not on SIG or its partner organisations.

A BRIEF NOTE ON SCHOOL EDUCATION IN INDIA

ROUGH SKETCH OF HISTORY OF EDUCATION IN INDIA

The idea of education has been close to the heart of many who sought to define and contribute to the development of a good society. Be it Socrates description of education for the philosopher king in The Republic or the more recent pronouncements of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan on the necessity of education and its purposes, they all stand testimony to the importance that philosophers and social reformers have given to education as a necessary instrument of shaping the good society. The premise for this belief is the definition of childhood and its importance as a preparatory phase for the adult life where individuals have to contribute towards a good society. It is a truism, but worthy of being stated, that often the kind of education proposed is founded upon the ideal of the society proposed. History and study of education systems do reveal a strong connection between the nature of society as it exists and how education happens in such a society. Therefore, it is only to be expected that proponents of reform will seek to achieve those reforms by impacting the system of education in that society.

Specific to India, education systems of varying kinds have been in existence over the centuries. This includes the gurukul system, the universities established by Buddhists, the madrassas of the Islamic establishment, community schools and home based schooling amongst others. Within these, often the gurukul system and the universities established by the Buddhists are generally represented as the prime examples of achievements in the area of education by Indian society. However, both of these were losing their relevance towards the 18^th century. The gurukul system had reached a decline and was slowly dying out by the 18^th century. The universities established by Buddhists had died down much earlier. The more common and widespread form of education was the village schools. This consisted of a teacher, normally from the community who taught a few children in the village. Many of these were established along communal lines (linguistic and religious) in that the support for these schools came from certain communities. However, it generally had children from other communities as students. They received patronage from the parents, wealthy people in the community and at times from the rulers. While the earlier gurukul system focused on preparing the students for future life as priests and rulers, the community schools were more about learning to read, write and do basic arithmetics. Hence, it attracted not just Brahmins or Kshatriyas but those belonging to farming and trading communities as well. Even through these community schools, the education of lower castes was a rareity if not non existent. Female participation in these schools was also minimal. The curriculum or decisions on what is worth teaching in these schools and the mediation of access to these schools closely reflected the prevalent political, economic and social characteristics of the time. Another aspect of the education system that requires mention is that of the acquisition of occupational skills. The training in these skills were primarily through a system of apprenticeship often within the household or with a skilled practioner of the craft. It is also of value to note that teaching children at home either by the parent or a hired teacher was also not an uncommon practice.

What is of value to note is that education was delivered through a diverse set of arrangements and the system for education was diffused within the 'school', household and the community. This evolved system that existed in India gave way to the modern public school system under the British rule. Many of the diversity and strengths of the earlier system was lost as a uniform system of schooling was sought to be established. At the same time, some of the rigidities of the earlier system in terms of caste and gender could also be challenged in the new system established by the British as it was premised on the belief of universal education.

The British implemented public school system was characterised by government funding, a common curriculum and a centrally administered schooling system. The government funding meant that the teachers were regularly paid and people without sufficient means could also access a school. (The social barriers still kept many communities out of schools.) It also affected the linkage between the teacher and the community in that the teacher became more an agent of the government unlike the teachers of a community run school. Again the uniform curriculum also meant that the caste based dissemination of knowledge was challenged in theory. However, it also meant that many of the trades did not find a place in the curriculum. The emphasis of the curriculum was on learning to read, write and do basic arithmetic. Economically productive skills were seldom taught in school. In the emerging society, ability to read, write and do arithmetic became critical skills which enabled one to acquire influential positions within the government. The social barriers to schooling ensured that people from lower castes were denied this opportunity. The central administration of schooling led to the establishment of administrative processes like recruitment of teachers, inspection systems, training and certification systems, central curriculum and syllabus formation etc. The public schools began to compete with the earlier models of schooling and ensured the death of the latter.

In looking at the history of Indian education system under the British rule, it is important to note the contributions of Mahatma Gandhi and Rabindranath Tagore to the cause of education. Mahatma Gandhi through his Basic Education programme and Rabindranath Tagore through his Santiniketan experiment of 'education aligned with nature' were two of the most influential 'educationists' who had an agenda for social reform through the process of education. In the Basic Education Programme, Gandhi tried to challenge the hierarchy of labour and question the hierarchy of castes, emphasised the necessity of a holistic approach to education with emphasis on overall development and tried to bring back the idea of oneness of the mind and body. The Santiniketan experiment's contribution came in the form of its emphasis on learning in an environment of free and non authoritative environment, emphasis on aesthetic development of senses along with intellectual development, nurturing empathy and sympathy, achoring education in the natural and cultural environment of the child and a global outlook. While listing the contributions of Gandhi and Tagore, one must not lose sight of the contributions of many others like Jyotirao Phule towards women's education and education of lower castes.

EDUCATION SYSTEM IN INDEPENDENT INDIA

Independent India began its tryst with education by making Universalisation of Elementary Education one of the Directive Principles of the Constitution of India. The leaders of the newly independent India viewed education as an important ingredient of the efforts at developing into a society envisioned in the Preamble of the Constitution. It began with a series of attempts over the decades. This has resulted in the school education system that India has now. It is described in brief below.

As per the then Constitution of India, education was a state subject with the provision for a few central institutions of higher learning. It was the responsibility of the respective state governments to finance education, develop curriculum and curricular material, recruit, train and deploy teachers and run the education system. The central government was only expected to play a supportive and at times advisory role. However it became evident that due to economic distress in many states and specific socio economic histories of different states, the development of the education system was uneven across the country. In order to address this, education was moved to the Concurrent list of the Constitution in 1976. This meant that the Central Government also played an influential role in school education and was able to provide resources for resource poor states, albeit limited.

All states have the following institutions with different responsibilities at the state, district, block and cluster levels. It is through this system that the government runs its school system.

State Council for Education Research and Training (SCERT) or its equivalent: The SCERT is expected to provide the academic leadership to education in a state. It is a body responsible for developing the curriculum, syllabus and textbooks for classes 1 to 8, facilitate training of teachers and develop the curriculum, syllabus and reading material for the teacher education programme, Diploma in Education (D.Ed)

Directorate of Public Instruction (DPI) or its equivalent: The DPI is responsible for the administration of the education system in the state. Their responsibilities include creation of school infrastructure, recruitment of teachers and non teaching staff, deployment and general administration of the school education.

District Institute of Education and Training (DIET): The DIETs were established under a central programme which was initiated in 1987 by the Central Government called the Centrally Sponsored Scheme for Restructuring and Reorganisation of Teacher Education. This was in the wake of the National Policy on Education, 1986 brought out by the Central Government. The aim of the DIETs is to provide academic leadership to the schools at the district level. It is expected to run the D.Ed programme, regular inservice teacher education programme and do educational research. The DIETs are generally financed by the Central Government but administered through the SCERT which is a state level body.

District Education Office (DEO): This can be treated as the equivalent of the DPI at the district level. Similarly at the Block level, there is a Block Education Office.

Apart from these, there is also the structure of the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, which is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme. Each state has a State Project Office at the state level, a District Project Office a the district level, a Block Resource Centre at the Block level and Cluster Resource Centre at a cluster level. The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan is an attempt to by the government of India to Universalise elementary education (classes 1 to 8, age group of 6 to 14) in a time bound manner. Started in 2001, the programme had the objective of achieving unversalisation by the end of the decade. It focused on varied aspects like girls education, infrastructure for schooling, teacher training, creating academic support structures for teachers and education for the marginalised.

While the above is a rough sketch of the state level institutions, at the national level, there are bodies which play an advisory role. It is important to note that many of them have only an advisory role and their recommendations are not binding on the state institutions.

National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT): The NCERT is expected to play the role of a thought leader in the area of school education at the national level. It comes out with its own versions of curriculum frameworks, curriculum, syllabus and textbooks for classes 1 to 12. These are primarily used by the Central Government administered Kendriya Vidyalayas across the country. There are many schools and state governments who have adopted this as well. They also organise many training programmes for the government education functionaries across the country.

National University of Education Planning and Administration (NUEPA): The NUEPA is expected to develop knowledge in the area of Education Planning and Administration. This is a particulary complex task given the diversity across the country. They also conduct training programmes for the government education functionaries in India.

Ministries: At the state level, there is usually a Ministry of Education and at the national level, school education comes under the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD). While the Ministry of Education in the states are responsible for the functioning of SCERT, DIETs, DEOs and schools in the state, MHRD regulates the NCERT, NUEPA and Kendriya Vidyalayas. In the case of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the Ministries at the state and national level work together as it is a Centrally Sponsored Scheme with administration responsibilities for the respective states.

Private System of Education

The above description focuses on the government system of education. While it can be safely assumed that for the majority in India are covered through this system, there also exists a strong private education system in the country. Historically, India has seen many educational attempts emerging from the non governmental space. This includes religious organisations, caste based groups and philanthropists. A characteristic of these schools was that they were generally premised on a social reform agenda. A more recent tradition has been the practice of setting up schools to meet the demand of quality education from parents. This demand is often premised on a widely held belief that the private schools tend to offer better quality education as these schools are in a competitive environment on account of existence of choice for parents. However, there is very little evidence to support this belief.

Right to Education Act

Today, with the passing of the Right to Education Bill in the Parliament in April, 2011, it is a fundamental right of every child in the age group of 6 to 14 to be educated in a school. This represents a major change in the status of education in India. From making its first appearance as a directive principle of the state policy, elementary education has now become a fundamental right of every child. This entails that the government shall be liable to provide for quality education to all children in that age group. It is a justiciable right. By stipulating conditions on what should be the nature of a school, defining training and certification as an imperative for a teacher, it can be seen as an attempt at strengthening the school education system. Also, by prescribing a child centred pedagogy, it creates a window of opportunity for many to remove some of the ills of the present day schools.

Having said that, it is also important to note that the capabilities to fulfill the promises of the Act are not present in all the state governments. Understaffed DIETs and SCERTs, untrained teachers in large numbers, inadequate number of teachers are some of the challenges. Apart from this, deeply held cultural views in the society regarding education can also be a deterrent at a deeper level in ensuring the fulfillment of the commitment, not least among them being the educability of children from certain sections of society.

PRESENT STATUS OF EDUCATION IN INDIA

The present education system in India is diverse and large. The diversity is in terms of the nature of provider (public or private), curriculum and pedagogy, facilities available in the school and many others. With approximately 1.2 million schools and about 220 million children in the age group of 6

to 14, the Indian education system is possibly one of the largest in the world. This comes with its own set of challenges in ensuring good quality education for all. There have been many initiatives from the government and non government space. As we stand at the beginning of a new decade in 21^st century and complete our 64^th year of independence, it is of value to assess the situation of elementary education in India. To begin with, it is important to get a sense of some basic numbers that tell their own story.

No of children in the age group of 6 to 14 : 220,000,000 (approximate)

No of schools imparting Elementary Education : 1,303,812

Percentage of Schools in Public Sector : 80.37

Percentage of Schools in Public Sector : 19.44

Proportion of children in Public Schools : 69.51

Proportion of children in Private Schools : 30.42

No of children enrolled in schools : 187,872,996

Proportion of children enrolled in Public Schools : 69.51

Proportion of children enrolled in Private Schools : 30.42

Pupil to Teacher Ratio : 33

Literacy in India : 75.06 % (Wikipedia)

Women Literacy : 65.46 % (Wikipedia)

The above set of numbers are national averages. There is a lot of disparity across the states. For example, in Bihar the PTR would be 57 whereas in Kerala it would be 24 with the national average being at 32.

While there has been great achievement in ensuring enrolment at the primary levels (classes 1 to 5), there is a need to be seriously concerned about the quality of education that happens in schools. The Annual Status on Education Report brought out by Pratham for the year 2010 states that based on their study only about half the children (53 percent) in Class 5 could read Class 2 text. Many other studies of learning achievements point to a similar state of affairs. (A word of caution regarding the learning achievement tests. Generally, the learning achievements survey are based on a very small set of indicators that are comparativey easier to measure accurately. For example, ability to read, arithmetic abilities, ability to answer multiple choice questions etc. It seldom tests higher cognitive abilities, value orientation of children, ability to perform tasks like scientific experimentation, ability to articulate etc.) Understanding this failure indicated by learning achievement tests require us to explore the issue of education and schooling in India at a deeper level. It requires us to open the black box of school to examine closely what happens inside a school and what is supposed to happen.

For us to move in this direction, it is important that we first articulate our position on the aims of education and how we see the educational methods lead to these aims.

Aims and Methods of Education

The ideals aspired for by independent India found its expression in Preamble of the Constitution. The Preamble underlines our commitment to a society where its citizens have political, social and economic justice. The prerequisite for such a society is individuals who have a love of truth, a sense of compassion, a commitment to justice and ability for independent thought and action. The ability to reflect on oneself, appreciate knowledge in its diverse forms, an empathy and a sense of connect with people in society, an ability to engage with diverse cultures stem from these qualities. These are vital in a country like India with its rich history and diversity. (National Curriculum Framework 2005)

Education, primarily through formal schooling, is an important preparatory process for children to develop into such individuals. The school is a space within a society where children spent a large part of their growing up years. The boundaries of the school mark an artificial space where the child can learn and develop unfettered by the constraints of life outside. This is important for the child's full development into an adult that understands the self, has an orientation to learn and appreciates democratic values.

The schools, therefore, have a formidable challenge as it has to develop these qualities in children and at the same time protect children from the infuences that are contrary to these values and deter the development of these abilities. The school must draw upon the scholastic disciplines like sciences, social sciences, mathematics, languages and non scholastic activities like sports and crafts for the education of its children. Apart from these aids, the context of the school is itself to be an educative experience for children. Interactions with teachers and peers, natural environment of the school, the events that are celebrated in schools, the evaluation systems etc are some of the key aspects of the context of the school. The experience of the child of these aspects is going to be an extremely critical determinant of his or her educational outcomes.

The curriculum, syllabus, the teaching material and the education system itself is to be geared around these aims of education. To state the obvious, this is the essential challenge that India faces in education.

ENGAGING WITH SCHOOL EDUCATION IN INDIA

While the earlier sections dealt with the status of education and then went on to briefly describe what could be education in India, the following sections would focus on how to get there. As some of the data above indicate, all is not well with the Indian School Education system. As mentioned earlier, the reasons for problems that affect the education system are found in the political, economic and social systems of India. The visible manifestations of these problems are consistent inadequacy of public financing of education in India (expenditure less than 4 percent of GDP as against the prescribed 6 percent of GDP on education), administrative inefficiencies (average of 25 percent of teacher absenteeism in schools in India), unwarranted political manipulation in education (rewriting of history textbooks to advance narrow political agendas), poor training of teachers, caste and class based discrimination in schooling etc. This is not to discount some of the major advances that have been made in the area of education in the past few decades. Some of them have been mentioned earlier. However, a detailed analysis of these reasons is beyond the scope of this note. Having said that, it must be mentioned that an understanding of these aspects is the premise for some of these suggestions.

An attempt at engaging with school education in India must be premised on a clear vision of the educational experience of children. An attempt had been made earlier to describe such an experience earlier. A set of simple, but non negotiable requirements for the same are

• Children of the relevant age group must have access to schools
• The curriculum for their education must be appropriate to the aims of education
• The schools must be adequately staffed with teachers who are well trained and are oriented towards the aims of education

While they can be easily stated, the challenges in putting in place these requirements are the ones that all organisations dedicated to education in India are grappling with. However, these challenges do not lend themselves to a 'neat' problematisation and prioritisation. However, one can briefly described the contours of the major challenges at a very broad level. Organisations that are looking to engage with school education in India can choose to tackle any of these challenges.

Public Funding for Education in India

The government financing of school education in India has consistently been on the lower side since Independence. The Kothari Committee report of 1964 recommended an allocation of 6 percent of GDP for education and later it was asserted by the Majumdar Committee report in late 1990s. However, we have never had an investment of more than 4 percent of GDP since independence. In fact, the average would be close to 3 percent of GDP. This history of consistent under funding of education, specifically, school education has resulted in the sorry state of schooling infrastructure and weak academic and administrative support networks (DIETs, SCERTs, DEOs, BEOs, DPIs etc.). Additionally, in some of the states, this has also resulted in the inability of governments to attract qualified people to teaching profession.

School infrastructure in India is an area that requires tremendous inputs. This inspite of the significant progress that has been made by Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan in the last decade. Poorly constructed school buildings, absence of boundary walls and playgrounds, lack of drinking water, absence of separate toilets for girls, absence of libraries and books, absence of desks and benches, inadequate and at times inappropriate teaching and learning material etc are some of the major problems on the infrastructural front. Some of these also result in problems of access. For example, the absence of separate toilets for girls result in drop out by many girls from schools. The overall poverty of large sections of Indian population puts additional demands on schools like providing at least one nutritious meal a day. The National Mid-day Meal Programme is an attempt in this direction. However, the quality of the meals could be improved in terms of nutrition content and taste.

The inadequate public funding has also resulted in weak institutional structures for academic and administrative support. At present, by various estimates, over 90 percent of expenditure on school education is spent on teacher salary with very little of investment in education research and professional development of education functionaries. This is visible in the poor functioning of DIETs and SCERTs in many states. Absence of good quality research, weak systems for training needs assessments, poor D.Ed curriculum and implementation etc are some of the very visible manifestations of the problem.

While on the one side there is lack of sufficient public funding, there is also the problem in efficient management of existing funds also. This is reflected in the under utilisation of budgeted amounts in education, especially in the Central Government budget.

Governance and Management System for Schooling

The current system of governance and management can be assessed at multiple levels. In terms of provider of education, there are two kinds of providers – public and private. While public provisioning accounts for atleast 70 percent of education, private education accounts for about 30 percent or less. There is a desirability of having a robust universal public provisioning system for school education in the country from the point of view of affordability, social integration, equality, perpetuation of democratic values etc. But, an initiative aimed at contributing to development in India has strong reasons to consider engaging with the public school system and not focus on the private school system. The coverage is one major reason. Also, the more secular and inclusive character of public schooling makes it a desirable option in the long run. This is not to suggest a strategy to roll back private schooling. Private schooling has spread wide in India and a roll back would be undesirable in the near term. A suitable approach would be look at regulation of private schooling in India and strengthening of public school system. The Right to Education Act provides a framework for this. It would be a good opportunity for organisations in education area to work towards developing a regulatory framework for ensuring good quality education for all.

Expertise in Education

Education has received the attention of many social reformers over the years in India. However, most of these have resulted in what one could call as 'islands of excellence' with a few set of experimental schools being set up. Shantiniketan, Rishi Valley, Gandhian Schools and many such are good examples. But it has remained a challenge to achieve educational transformation at a large scale. As J P Naik, a renowned educationist, put it, the challenge of Indian school education is best described as an elusive triangle of equality, quality and quantity. A key shortcoming that has been observed over the past many years is the absence of adequate number of people with expertise in education. Education is interdisciplinary in character and expertise in education requires one to undergo professional training in such a manner. Apart from the specific subject knowledge, a teacher is expected to have an understanding of child psychology, philosophy and sociology. When one is able to bring all these different domains together, one has the potential to be a good teacher who is sensitive to the child and the context and is able to teach. The current B. Ed and D. Ed programmes across the country attempt to do this. However, the curriculum is outdated and the training institutions are unable to provide a good quality educational experience for aspiring teachers. There has been severe dilution of standards in teacher training institutions with many colleges not have the mandated infrastructure and faculty and still continuing to operate.

This is further compounded by the distance between centres of higher education like colleges and universities from these teacher training institutions. Since, the teacher training institutions are separate from the universities, often the essential confluence of disciplinary experts to share the developments of disciplines amongst others fails to happen. Therefore, curriculum formation processes and actual training process do not have the vibrancy that is required.

Another issue, is the absence of expertise in people working in the area of education. There are numerous organisations that work in the area of education. However, the lack of proper training and proper orientation to the cause of education is often seen in their work. Primarily through adoption of improper training methods for teachers, lack of depth and quality in teaching learning processes, insensitive handling of concerns of children and parents from cross section of society etc. Some of the recent attempts in the Indian Education scenario are attempts to address this issue. Prominent amongst them being the Bachelors Level courses in Elementary Education started in select colleges in Delhi University, Masters Level course in Education initiated by the Azim Premji Foundation and Masters Level course in Elementary Education by Tata Institute of Social Sciences in partnership with Sir Ratan Tata Trust and ICICI Foundation for Inclusive Growth. However, these are very small compared to the requirement.

The above are some of the key challenges that school education in India faces at the moment. These challenges have a social, political and economic background. On the face of it, many of these appear insurmountable given the scale and scope of issues. However, theses challenges must be taken on and solutions must be built brick by brick.