Tamil Nadu school’s ‘motivational speaker’ fiasco raises questions

Should governments give autonomy or exercise strict control over state-run schools?

Students from a Chennnai school listening to a demonstration at a literary event in the city in January 2015. | Photo Credit: RAGU R

A recent controversy over an inappropriate speech given by a “motivational speaker” to students at two government schools in Tamil Nadu has prompted the State government to announce a committee to decide what kind of programmes can be organised in state-run educational institutions and to specify what kind of guests and speakers are suitable for such events.

The announcement came after the guest, Mahavishnu of Paramporul Foundation, invited to address the students of Ashok Nagar Girls’ Secondary School and Saidapet Model Higher Secondary School in Chennai, spoke about the apparent consequences of people’s deeds in their “previous lives”. Mahavishnu told the students that people are born poor or disabled because of the misdeeds of their “past lives”; that it is karma at work.

Accusing the British of destroying the Gurukul system, he claimed that they wiped out the knowledge we had of verses/mantras that could conjure up rain or cure diseases and even help humans fly. When a disabled teacher challenged these claims, the speaker mocked and humiliated him.

Mahavishnu should have known that times have changed and that one cannot command respect after disparaging women, disabled people, or Dalits in modern-day India, particularly in this age of social media virality. Nowadays, a speech like the one he gave is not only considered rude, it is also a crime.

The speaker also seems to have forgotten that he was speaking in Tamil Nadu, known for its rationalist movements, and not in a north Indian State, considered by some to be more amenable to mythical teachings. The moment the news about the speech spread, it drew widespread condemnation, resulting in a case being filed against the speaker for “spreading false information, discrimination and spreading hatred” in the society. He was subsequently arrested.

With the Tamil Nadu government getting flak for promoting irrationality in schools through such speakers, it quickly announced the formation of a committee to set policy on the nature of programmes to be organised in schools.

However, questions arise: Is the Tamil Nadu government’s decision democratic? Does it not interfere with the freedom of schools? But one can make the valid argument that children are impressionable and what they are told in their school-going age can impact their development and future. Comments such as Mahavishnu’s can have profound and long-term psychological effects on students, especially those with disabilities, those who are from minority communities, or those discovering their sexual orientations.

Further, when such a talk is delivered by someone the school has invited, obviously because it considers him or her a respectable guest, then some teachers and students who themselves suffer from prejudices, may feel emboldened to humiliate others they consider “different” or disagree with. Hence, it is necessary to protect students from such influences. But can it be done through prohibitory measures? Should it be done at all?

The government says there is no place for casteism, irrationality, or unscientific ideas in a State like Tamil Nadu. Hence, there can be no place for speakers like Mahavishnu. But he was an invited guest of the school administration, perhaps because the headmaster found his ideas powerful and wanted him to speak to students on an important occasion like Teacher’s Day. Speakers like him are popular with several others in the State, including possibly the parents of the students. As such, does the government have any means to prevent children from being influenced by them? If the ideas of people like Mahavishnu find endorsement in society, how can children be shielded from them?

Schools often invite “inspirational” figures for programmes so that children may learn something from them. Successful athletes, scientists, senior military or administrative officers, writers, and artists usually make the cut. People engaged in organic farming, tree planting, sanitation, and other activities that benefit society also find a place on this list. People who are critical of the ideology of the party in power are often avoided.

While schools encourage students to emulate these respected figures and follow their ideas, they tend to discourage dialogue or debate with the invited guests. Rarely do students get to question the speakers, who are often treated as preachers.

Without such feedback, these “preachers” may develop an exaggerated sense of self-importance and keep churning out the same irrational ideas that students neither connect with nor areinterested in.

Schools should not be a place to imprint society’s prejudices onto children. They should instead help students develop critical thinking. Schools are expected to provide students with intellectual tools to test every idea, even those implicitly believed by their family and community. Schools are expected to help children develop independent views. Pedagogues have been repeatedly saying that it is wrong to think of students as passive vessels into which you pour knowledge. Even so, the state treats schools as a means of passing on the official line of thinking and producing “ideal citizens”—those who do not question authority but follow what the authorities say.

That is why school curricula are designed centrally, with teachers having a minimal role in formulating them. Teachers are not free to suggest reading material other than the prescribed textbooks. The state is careful to ensure that only officially approved material is used in schools.

Students listen to a speech by NASA scientist Antony S. Jeevarajan at Subbiah Vidyalayam Girls Higher Secondary School in Thoothukudi on December 26, 2011. | Photo Credit: RAJESH N / THE HINDU

In a departure from this, the National Curriculum Framework of 2005 suggested in a bold move that schools and teachers be given autonomy to frame curriculum and organise activities. But it was met with resistance from many well-meaning academics who feared that societal prejudices and regressive ideas would then find their way into the school spaces. The idea of caste superiority and inferiority, misogynistic ideas, communalism, and unscientific knowledge might thus be imparted as authoritative knowledge. Academics therefore prefer that curricula and school activities are conceived by those thought to be wise and enlightened in a rational and progressive sense.

They contend that this is the better way as social prejudices should not be passed on to children through the teacher. But in the past 10 years, this idea of control and central guidance has changed to mean disallowing teachers from doing anything that questions the authorities. For example, are schools free to have sessions where the idea of a “Hindu rashtra” can be put to debate?

In a state with authoritarian tendencies, both teachers and students tend to be treated as “suspects”. The state and the school take on the responsibility of protecting impressionable minds from “unwanted” ideas and thoughts. From curriculum and textbooks to extra-curricular activities, care is taken to ensure that children do not “go astray”. From teaching how humans came into being and how the earth came into existence, to religion, tradition and history, the state fences the borders so that students don’t explore “dangerous” areas.

But ideas that don’t conform to the official line exist in society. Often, children find their perspectives clashing with those of their families. I have heard parents lamenting about this. Even today, if a girl rejects marriage, her parents might say that it is education that has led her astray! But we know that education need not only be liberating, it has the power to condition and control minds as well. That is why most of the students in institutions administered by Hindu nationalist organisations learn to be casteist and anti-Muslim.

So, should schools promote nationalism or scientific consciousness? Should they teach children to respect traditions or give them courage and tools to test them? Should they function free from the beliefs of society or be subject to them? These questions were raised during the formulation of the school curriculum in India in 2004-05. After 20 years, we seem to be taking a reverse journey: from questioning to obedience.

The episode from Tamil Nadu can be used to restart this conversation. The Tamil Nadu government itself can take a step in this direction. Instead of imposing its outlook or controlling its schools by government decree alone, it could explore other ways to ensure that government school students get a scientific and rational education.

Apoorvanand teaches Hindi at Delhi University and writes literary and cultural criticism. His latest book is Muktibodh Ki Lalten.