LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT-. 72 EDUCATION AND 'SKC'!

LITERATURE-LIGHT AND DELIGHT

72. EDUCATION AND 'SKC'!

Good news, simple celebration!

In our younger days, in the small towns, we had a standard form of celebrating good personal tidings. When we disclosed some good news, friends would ask: Oh, so good! When are you giving us SKC? SKC meant 'sweet, kaaram, coffee'- a small treat of some snacks we used to share in the small restaurants, called 'coffee clubs' those days! Such were the simple pleasures of the lowly train, from the essentially lower middle class friends! In the high-tech and fast moving world of today, our youngsters cannot even imagine such simple delights, cannot certainly experience such intimacy among friends- which was confined to the same sex. Look around the colleges of today in a city like Bangalore, or watch the youngsters come out of an 'Infotech' establishment- they are not alone, and most of them move in boy-girl pairs. The modern world, fed on trash in the name of literature, and used to base newspaper reporting, cannot even understand innocent intimacy among mates of the same sex, and calls it gay! It is distressing to find that even Shakespeare's sonnets are interpreted in this manner by modern 'scholars' when we know that in the Elizabethan world, intimate friendship prevailed only among people of the same sex.

Knowledge, Character, Society

'SKC' came to mean something different to me as I grew up. I used to take the letters to stand for 'Society, Knowledge,Character'. I used to reflect on how education had impacted these.

Faith in the essential goodness of education and its indispensability as civilising influence are articles of unquestioned belief today. Perhaps like all beliefs, this too turns into mere superstition?

With so much of education, we do not know what is knowledge! Eliot sang of the wisdom lost in knowledge, knowledge lost in information!

Education does not seem to have beneficially influenced our character. Most of the corporate financial frauds are committed by people with considerable education and technical competence. Many politicians in high levels accused of misdeeds are not uneducated people. Most scientists who invent things  routinely suppress the bad long term consequences. Medical profession long denied any direct link between smoking and lung cancer, as the nuclear scientists are today promoting atomic energy even as they know that they do not have a method of safely disposing of the nuclear waste. The medical profession is routinely advising needless surgery.

Perhaps the biggest blunder is that of the much remunerated practitioners of the dismal science- the economists- who still advocate endless and unlimited growth, in a finite world. Scientists have turned their accomplices in crime by downplaying global warming and other signs of distress, or even by denying them altogether.

Our men of letters, and the magazines and newspapers, the visual media and entertainment sector cater to the baser elements of human nature, promoting direct violence and sex in the name of art, freedom of expression, etc. Producers of cheap movies justify it on the ground that it is what the public or audience wants.

I find editorials in newspapers or op-ed pieces advocating unrestrained freedom for youngsters to roam about semi-clad on the streets in the name of Valentine Day- just as the dogs do. Yet I used to wonder if the editor would permit his own sister or daughter or wife to do so! Recently we had a hue and cry about kissing in public! What a pity these gents cannot realise that kissing- such a delicate mark of personal intimacy- when done in public can be as vulgar as pissing in public! Just as repugnant to good sense!

Our sensitivity has been steadily lowered. I remember that in our college days, our lecturers and professors used to be highly embarrassed when dealing with certain passages or expressions in Shakespeare. Yes, Shakespeare has such passages. This even in a class of only boys. They used to assign such portion for private study, and avoid or postpone the topic as much as possible. Such portions would never be covered in the tests or exams, so we could safely omit them. But today, people tell me: What is there! What is the big deal? We discuss it so openly in the class! And in a co-ed college! 

We were so careful in our language and choice of words.And so restrained in our gestures and expression. Once I used the word 'bastard' in some weak moment of heated conversation with a friend, referring to a fiendish politician, a known devil. His mother, who had been a school teacher, heard it from the adjacent room, felt shocked, and immediately conveyed her disapproval; 'Mr, I never thought you would use such a word in conversation. Never do it again-cultured people do not use such words even under extreme provocation.' Of course, a good dictionary would state that it is a taboo word, not to be uttered in public. Now, our movies and TV serials have made the word commonplace. And we have a govt appointed censor board, paid out of people's taxes! Now, any idea of public morality is anathema to our great English newspapers and secular guardians of our democracy! This leads us to a bigger question.

Education and Ethics

Education is highly segmented, leading to very high levels of specialisation in each. In the end, we have highly qualified people in every field with varying degrees of specialisation. But no one has any sense of responsibility to the society as a whole. Every profession has a concept of professional ethics, but this is a  specialised usage of both the terms involved, and perverted at that, and has nothing to do with the common idea of ethics- simply good conduct, proper social behaviour, relating to the straight forward idea of what is right and wrong.

Scientists deny any connection with ethics at all. They are not concerned with how their discoveries or inventions are made use of. But there is a more basic question: what if the product is inherently dangerous? Plastics and nuclear energy provide the best example. Both are inherently bad in the sense that Nature cannot deal with and neutralise their effect on the environment. Can they invent something in the name of science, and let it loose on Nature, when Nature has no mechanism to handle them?

Take economics or politics- what in the olden days used to be called-properly- political economy. Is it ethical for a govt to make schemes now, when the future generations may have to bear the cost of meeting their adverse consequences, without having enjoyed any benefits? Is it ethical for the govt to exhaust the natural resources now, and deprive the future generations of their use? Is it ethical for a govt to engage in war, and tax the people, when a little diplomacy might have avoided the war altogether? Is it ethical for the govt to run transport, and tax people who do not travel, to recover the loss? Is it ethical for the govt to run  factories making bread out of maida, when it is proven scientifically that white bread is not good for health? Is it ethical for govt to distribute white sugar through the system, when white sugar is shown to be unhealthy? Is it ethical for the govt to tax liquor and tobacco and derive income, when both are injurious to health? Will it not be really ethical to ban their use ? Above all, is it ethical for a govt to run liquor shops, so that they can derive the profit which otherwise would have gone to a 
trader? Which politician or economist will face and answer these questions?

The medical profession has its own notion of ethics. A hundred year old person is admitted into the hospital with multiple organ failure due to old age.The hospital resorts to all high-tech treatment and give astronomical bills. Is it ethical?

Ivan Illich, in his illuminating book: 'Medical Nemesis- The Limits to Medicine' pointed out that  an in-patient in a hospital ward is subject to cross-infection due to the hospital atmosphere. Often the medicine prescribed by the doctor has side effects . These are known as "Iatrogenesis" - that is, illness caused by the medical profession.But these have to be treated with further consultation and medicine at the expense of the patient. Is it ethical?

The legal profession has its own idea of its ethics. They have to fight for their client, even if they know he is in the wrong. (If they cannot judge even this, what kind of lawyer are the?) Is this ethical? Is it ethical to take up the case of a known criminal as in the case of a murder committed deliberately in full public view? Of course, the criminal may have his reason for the murder, so will any one have for any crime. I feel the FM is not justified in taxing a pensioner. May I murder him?

And the judges. Is it ethical to go on giving postponement? Is it ethical to permit out of court settlement in cases involving financial fraud?

It will be seen that both in theory and actual practice, education has not led to ethical conduct. Professional ethics simply means that all will lurch equally, so that all will stand protected by self-made rules. It is really nothing more than criminals deciding how they shall be tried and punished. Every one may treat his profession as 'noble'. In the olden days, even thugs used to worship their deity before embarking on their work! Their professional ethics demanded that they pray before they loot!

This is the point- education and culture, education resulting in culture or cultured conduct. Has it happened- individually, in society at large?

Education and conduct

See how educated people behave in crowds. Is the child or the elderly treated with deference? Do we move over and let them pass first in a queue? Do we stand aside and let the passengers alight first before boarding a bus or train? One has to be careful before showing such deference to women now- they want equality, not respect! Germain Greer has pointed out that women started by demanding freedom-liberation but have settled for equality, thus  admitting male dominance and playing into their hands!

We really have to study the effect of education on family and social conduct and relationship.

Marriage and settled family life are the foundation of any civilised society. All societies took extreme and extraordinary care in protecting women. Conversely, invaders always targeted women and girls. Yet, can we say that education has strengthened this foundation?

We find that as education spreads or advances, family life- the family structure- the very institution breaks down!

Modern society is taught to think in terms of individual rights, so called freedoms. Yet, collective life is not possible unless people think in terms of working together which invariably involves some compromise, some surrender of some freedom somewhere, some sacrifice. It is a mark of maturity of a civilisation that this principle can be embraced willingly, and a formula to make it work is found. It was a common experience  that we were posted outside our native states in  our all-India service. Visits to our native place had to be made only during summer when children had school holidays. Those days, we had to book our train tickets 2 months in advance- exact to the date. We had to apply in advance for sanction of leave. All employees faced the same problem: we had to seek leave during the same period, but all of us could not be granted leave at the same time! Good managers would always tell us: talk among yourselves and settle your dates, so that all could be accommodated. It involved adjustment- we would find that some cases were more urgent than others, some unavoidable or postponement not possible, etc. We would discuss and reach understanding. It also involved a commitment- that we would not prolong our leave and report on the due date, so that the colleague could proceed on leave! It also led to better understanding and relations among us- we could understand and appreciate each other's problems and difficulties! We realised, as they said, that every house had a door! On paper, we were entitled to the leave; in practice it was subject to administrative convenience; in effect, it meant adjustment among ourselves- a voluntary accommodation of competing interests! How cultured this arrangement is, compared to a situation where administration could decide things arbitrarily on their own! Though done in good faith, it would have led to resentment.

Education, women and marriage

Modern writers think of rights of respective parties in the marriage which is taken as a contract. It is a contract of convenience, each party fully safeguarding its 'rights'. There are two individuals and so they have to remain!

Yet, marriage as an institution is an instrument of society for its own cohesion and perpetuation! Old societies thought of the interests of society- some type of individuals should not be allowed to marry, some type of marriages were not permitted etc.

Whose responsibility or sacrifice is greater in marriage- the man's or woman's? I think this is a wrong question. It involves responsibilities and sacrifice for both.

Perhaps, it starts with the woman's sacrifice. The English saying expresses the important role of the woman clearly: a hundred men may make an encampment; it takes a woman to make a home!

Men, or women- we may look at them from two angles: that of individuality, that of relationship. Family involves relationship, and that revolves round women, more than men! The child cannot even know who the real father is, unless the mother tells! Even the father does not know!

Man has to maintain his individuality in the world outside. But woman has to immerse in relationship more and more if family is to survive and flourish and prosper.

This is where modern education hurts. It teaches woman to be independent, to assert her individuality.Now they are educated, employed and thus economically independent. They think of careers and advancement in professional life. The idea of sacrificing individuality on the altar of relationship does not appeal to them. So we see that in highly educated western societies, marriage is breaking down. It is becoming a short lived, short term arrangement of mutual convenience. Where the mutuality or convenience breaks down, the marriage falls.Since it is the western type of education that prevails in India now, this western approach to marriage has also taken root among the younger generation, with similar consequences.

Women's education has been a subject of intense debate in India for more than a century among the reformers. Vivekananda desired that this subject must be handled by Indian women, but today educated woman in India is more westernised than Indian! I do not think they have thought over the matter deeply, but are echoing western ideas.

Though marriage is still taken as a religious sacrament by the main sections, it is just a formality. Marriages are now required to be 'officially' registered and this has already given it a decidedly secular colour. The mainstream  secular English media is very eager to propagate 'modern secular' thought (read: western ideas) among the Hindu masses, while they dare not touch Muslim and Christian marriage practices and prejudices. The Hindu religious leadership, whether the old Math heads or modern 'gurus', is also very cautious in discoursing on the subject. I have found that  only Satya Sai Baba had the courage to visit women's colleges and tell the young girls on their face that womanhood was mainly meant for motherhood, and that their education should prepare them for the role of mothers.

There is no doubt in my mind that with the spread of modern (western) eduction among Indian women, marriage as an institution is doomed to go the western way here too. Being imitators, Indians are not likely to think originally on the subject. Divorce cases are already on the rise among the younger generation.

One peculiar result of westernised education among Indian girls is that most of them insist on marrying those who wish to go and work abroad. Since such chances are more common for the engineering graduates, especially in the IT sector, this is resulting in the rise in the average age of marriage for girls, and difficulty of finding marriageable girls for boys without engineering qualification!  Generally girls with qualification in a discipline want to marry only boys with similar qualifications- eg engineers with engineers, doctors with doctors, management graduates among themselves!This is particularly so among the higher castes, especially South Indian Brahmins. The long term consequences are hard to imagine.

But am I merely being a male chauvinist Brahmin pig here?