By – Amar Yumnam
Three experiences led me to ponder over this question of polity led by the Educated or by the one Claiming to be Educated. First, is the unprecedented emergence of a healthy and emphatic expression of dissidence by youths of the Z generation emphasising education. Second, I heard the Independence Day Address of the Prime Minister. Third, I have the report on the Address by the Chief Justice of India.
From these experiences, I feel for sure that the educated appreciates context and inherent issues faster and more comprehensive way. The PM did mention quality without specific mention of education. When it comes to the CJI, his education made him realise the social costs incurred on his use of a particular term and reactionary statement on July 20 to a submission. Besides his reaction to a Bar Council of India order on registration, on the Independence Day he said: “The profession is more competitive today, the learning curve has become steeper, and the pressures of building a practice weigh heavily in these early hears. And yet, I have also seen in our young colleagues a remarkable resilience, a sharp intellect and a genuine commitment to justice.” There is a big qualitative difference reflecting the content of education in the relative personalities of the two.
Here I would like to recall the contributions Immanuel Kant made in formulating the idea of having universities; contributed significantly on Civil Society and Social Welfare issues too. In The Conflict of the Faculties published during heavy censorship in 1798, Kant discussed three Higher Faculties of Theology, Law and Medicine. The censorship on Theology writings sounds like the use of ‘Intellectual Naxals’ by the PM: “A subject of the Prussian state is declared free to hold what religious views he likes, so long as he quietly performs his duties as a good citizen of the state and so long as he keeps any peculiar opinion to himself and carefully guards himself from spreading it or persuading others, making them uncertain in their faith or leading them astray.” In the very first chapter, he writes what it looks like what had been happening to knowledge and thinking in India during the last twelve years: “King Frederick William I-a courageous, sincere, benevolent and (except for certain peculiarities of temperament)and altogether excellent ruler, who knew me personally and, from time to time, gave me expressions of his favour-issued in 1788 a religious edict, followed shortly afterward by an edict of censorship which sharply restricted literary activity general and so reinforced the earlier decree. This he did at the instigation of a clergyman, later promoted to Minister of Spiritual Affairs; and to him, again, we have no just grounds for imputing any but good intentions based on his inner convictions. It cannot be denied that certain signs, which preceded this explosion, must have warned the government that reform was needed in that field-a reform that should have been carried out quietly, through the academic instruction of those who were to become the people’s public teachers; for young clergymen had been preaching their sermons in such a tone that no one with a sense of humour would let himself be converted by teachers like that.” On his many writings, there were many communications between him and Royalty and Censorship Commission; he prevailed leading to the establishment of the Higher School Commission. “The choice of a wise government has fallen upon an enlightened statesman who has, not a one-sided predilection for a special branch of science (theology), but the vocation, the talent, and the will to promote the broad interests of the entire scholastic profession and who will, accordingly, secure the progress of culture in the field of the sciences against any new invasions of obscurantism.” In the following chapters he argued for the necessity of universities.
While Jawaharlal Nehru was a student, Kant was one of the very highly discussed and debated scholars. Nehru’s emphasis on two aspects of education (from primary to the research level) and nation-building in a very neutral way reflected the lessons he absorbed. Starting the significant research institutes is very often mentioned. Let me go for another. While we were growing up as kids, there used to be films shown in villages by government officials. We knew nothing about the language used, Hindi, and the romances and others being shown could never be digested. But still we loved the occasional coming and films being shown. We took it just as occasional drama, but now we realise that those shows did play an important role of integration. What has been the characteristic of governance during the last 12 years: 1. Destroy the benefits of Nehru’s learning without the people going to the West; and 2. Taking us back to a kind of governance Kant was fighting against.