TO ‘DO’ OR NOT TO ‘DO’? MODI’S CLASSROOM

On September 5, Indian prime minister Mr.  Narendra Modi did something that was applauded as well as viewed with an opportunity of indirect political indoctrination.

Mr. Modi addressed students and teachers across India on the occasion of Teacher’s Day. In the speech, which was broadcast from state run television, Door Darshan and through online streaming, Mr. Modi spoke elegantly about the importance of education, recollected his childhood memories, and urged teachers to be a guiding factor in the lives of their students. Mr. Modi also pleaded teachers not to separate students from technology. He argued that doing so would be a “social crime”. Moreover, Mr. Modi explicitly spoke on girls’ education and expressed his dissatisfaction of high dropout rate of girls between fifth and seventh grade. Mr. Modi scorned the failure of building separate toilets for girls as a detrimental factor for such high dropout rates.

As a person nominated by the citizens, the prime minister has the right to be concerned about issues that plague citizens. The role diminishes the gap between political haves and haves-not, and shrinks its size to find itself in an example of a house. Just as our parents do not want to see ill prey on us, the prime minister, being the guardian of every citizen, too does not want to see the same. In this light, the prime minister, therefore, is seen to be bestowed with the right to select and suggest what is best for his children.

Agreed that a guardian has the right to select and suggest what is best for his children. But to what extent is forcing their children allowed?  The question of freewill versus freedom contradicts with one another. Rousseau, in his famous political book, “The Social Contract” argues, “man is born free, but everywhere he is tied in chains.”  And indeed, while the children who attended Mr Modi’s speech were free, they, however, were tied in chains.

Although Mr. Modi spoke from his heart and raised genuine concerns in the field of education, his address from Maniksan Bhawan, New Delhi is pulled on both sides. Rather than forcing all educational institutions to submit a report card of his one and half hour class attendance which commenced from 3 PM till 4:30 PM, Mr. Modi, prime minister of the world’s largest democracy, should have requested, and not made it mandatory for everyone to listen. In this view, Mr. Modi’s address to the students, through state operated media, could be seen as an authoritarian approach.

Mr. Yogesh Dhakal, a journalist from Nepal opines that one cannot force somebody to do something in a democratic country. “You cannot dictate somebody in a democracy.  It was his attempt to indirectly inject indoctrination,” Mr. Dhakal said, adding that the address was a populist move to find his place in next elections. Mr. Dhakal also remarked that Mr. Modi always was choosing his words carefully. “You could see his handpicked words in all the three foreign visits (Bhutan, Nepal and Japan) that Mr. Modi went after becoming the prime minister.” 

However, veteran journalist Prabhat Shunglu sees it the other way round. Mr. Shunglu believes that the address saw no harm at all. “The PM is trying to connect to the youth in his own way and there is nothing wrong with that,” Mr. Shunglu opines, adding, “the youth are builders of new India and the PM can choose to address the youth any day and any time.”

Nevertheless, Mr. Shunglu maintains that the move was “slightly breaking away from the traditional past of the Nehru-Gandhi line.” The Nehru-Gandhi establishment in Indian politics goes a long way through history. The Indian Congress, established in 1885, was the first to fight against the British colonialism which came through the East India Company after the Battle of Palssey in Bengal in 1757 AD. The British, who steadily rose to power consumed the country’s resources and exploited the Indian people for almost 200 years. The Indian Congress, led by Jawahar Lal Nehru and Mahatma Gandhi finally achieved independence on August 15, 1947. The very history of being the first party to make India free from British domination has been a pushing factor for the Nehru-Gandhi family to stay in power—until it suffered a humiliating defeat in the election of lower house four months ago.

In doing so, Mr. Shunglu believes that Mr. Modi is “trying to get the nation out of the mental and political paradigm”.  Years of failed “promised” developments by the Indian Congress infested by escalations in crime and corruption, and justice being a distant dream, the gap between Indian citizens and their representatives widened. As a result, after 50 years in power, the Indian Congress paid its price.

While Mr. Dhakal believes that the step was one of the several stepping stones to ensure Mr. Modi’s victory in future elections, Mr. Shunglu believes that it was too early to say whether the prime minister has next election in mind.

Regardless of the sides, teachers and students did appreciate what Mr. Modi expressed. “No government had ever pondered on the issue as Mr. Modi did. We are grateful to him,” one of the teachers expressed on an interview on television. Was the speech an opportunity to inject PM’s doctrine? Mr. Shunglu says, “likely not. We still are too early to decide on that.”