Changes from the Conventionalism

WE all would have heard the saying from heraclitus, that change is the only constant. Its a statement of far reaching consequence. Though the statement has been applied to our lives in many ways, the effect on professional factors has been very recently been factored on.

The Growth in professionalism was in line with the baby boomer generation. Now as Gen X, Y and Z are passed, so has the practices begun to change. Companies want to change their policies in order to keep themselves with changing psyche.There is however an interesting thing to observe in all of these. In spite of resounding success of change in the industrial sector, we are yet to see the same changes in the educational sector. We are holding on to the tried and tested method of conventional teaching, afraid and perhaps rightly so about its success.

Theory X and Y represents the the successful implementation of the industrial change. The below images will give you an insight about the differences between the two

The education practices followed today is Theory X. Just replace management by Education, perhaps one can co-relate to the existing practices. As mentioned, there is no disadvantage with the the theory, what is holding us back is the step forward.
Here at NITIE, we  have an inititator, who dares to think for a change. The pictures below changes one's mindset about learning. A more practical way of teaching, without the hierarchy aspects binding us.

A picture is worth thousands words, the pics tell a lot . The scenes are from our classroom way different than the conventional ones.

Time will tell whether these methods turn out fruitful for us. It may enhance our way of learning, or perhaps leave us with nothing gained. However, time shall be a judge of it, and we shall be fools to ponder about it.

I end by saying "THE INTENT TO CHANGE IS BIGGER THAN THE CHANGE ITSELF"

The Fallacy Of Secularism

For some time now, I wanted to start a blog to pen down the thoughts that come up during the course. It’s now that I have finally done!!

There is a wide array of topics to write about. Yet, it could be only apt that my first post will be the related to the most important thing that has happened to most of us- The 2014 General elections.  Pages have been written on the win- the euphoria and the disappointment, based on which side one was in his belief. Reasons for the victory are discussed, debated, agreed and disbelieved upon. I believe though Modi was the greatest factor, there was one factor that was the undercurrent of the elections.  It is the same that has thrown words like ”Hitler”,  “Bhakhts”, “Pseudo”,” sikular”, “Internet hindus” and stuff, as part of a great name-calling exercise.

The term “SECULARISM” is used, misused, polluted and vindicated by various political parties in the course of history, prominently in the last 10-12 years, coinciding with the rise of NARENDRA MODI. It is not my intention to discuss the validity of the arguments, or dwell into 2002, or any riots as a matter of fact, but to merely state how the concept has been perverted.  Before I begin, I must emphasise that India is truly secular, going by the native usage of the word- corroborated completely that we have debates on it every single day. “India is secular, not because of few liberals, but because majority of Indians are”.

Secularism was not included in the original preamble, as our makers felt it needed no reminding. The Indian thinking, dominated by Hinduism and interactions with all the major religions of the world, is based on pluralistic ideas, which encourages debates on the belief, and the freedom to follow what one believes. It was only during Indira Gandhi’s regime was the term added in the preamble and thus paving way to its present understanding. Pro-Minorities (read Muslim) as secular and the rest as communal. The fact that most of the major TV channels used the same line of arguments, made the understanding as valid. What was strategically created as a vote block has continued into a new political set-up, the “umbrella of secular parties” and the NDA. This is the pollution. What was meant to be that states (politics) should be independent of faithis now completely based on it.

People, who target BJP as being a communal party, forget that the state never became one under them. Muslims have a freedom to say their Namaz 5 times a day, on loud speaker without any issue. The way the fear is built around BJP that the secularism will be destroyed, is trying to portray as if we are as bad as keeping our minorities, the way some other countries does. ( A look on Muslim improvement in India, vs the Hindus improvements in Bangladesh and Pakistan will give good insights) . Such are our pathetic political opportunism, that a national security issue of infiltration is converted into a secular one.

The appeasement done in the name of secularism is the reason for the polarization, culminating in the strong division in the name of Modi. The majority, which has developed  a fear complexion and the minorities out of a mix of genuine fear and created hysteria are both worried. ( I suggest everyone to see AB Vajpayee speech on secularism, available on Youtube which explains this point very succinctly). Look at this way, Modi who speaks about One India, India first, Sabke saath sabke vikas etc, is invariably drawn as a figure of polarization, and people from both the sides are responsible..  If a system which has actually made the divide between communities more profound, instead of reducing, it means the system is flawed.  Somewhere we should realize, things done in the name of secularism, might not be the correct one. Perhaps a revisit should be done.

Of every speech made by every politician this season, one spectacularly stood out. Modi in Patna said “Hindus and Muslims have two options. Fight against each other, or fight together against poverty. The first option will destroy all, the second will destroy your problems”. Contrast to what Manmohan singh said “Minorities, especially Muslims, have the first right on natural resources of India”.   Which statement is all inclusive, and which is more divisive?

Among attacks from various quarters and religious killings in medieval India and modern day polarization India has remained secular, to the true definition. The majority of the majority population does not want to throw away the minorities. Also its only when everyone is happy, true secularism is met. And I believe Modi can deliver it to us.

I end by wishing 2 instances that did not happen in modern India, as I feel they were the biggest side effects of so called Indian Secularism. One was the Over ruling of the Shah Bano case and the other Babri Masjid Demolition. While the Shah Bano case played to the Muslim fundamentalism, the Babri Masjid demolition-as Advani himself says has badly dented BJP’s image among many-, was a case of Hindu Fundamentalism.