Sunday, June 20, 2010

Spare the rod, save a child

A few five year olds are waiting for their class to begin. They are chanting the class prayer before the period starts, and the teacher is lighting an agarbathi for the alter. Suddenly, the teacher notices that one of the kids in the first row opens one eye to look around. Immediately, the agarbathi is poked into his cheek. The child is scarred for life and years later, no one tells believes him when he says that it is actually a small dimple!

Like most of my generation, getting punished was a part and parcel of education. More so in my case as I studied in a spiritual school. Very early in life, we were taught about good and bad. About rewards in heaven and punishments in hell.

So when there is a lot of debate on the recent suicide committed by a child at a school in Kolkata, I was talking about it with people around me. My sister used to go to a tuition master and he was popular among parents because he used to hit his students. He used to go to Puri once in a while so he could a special variety of thin canes that were very effective. The parents would ask the teacher to resort to force if the student was lagging.

It worked for us. We listened to what the teacher had to say, did our homework in time. We thought thrice before breaking a rule, and had immense respect (and fear) for our teachers.

Look at the other extreme of the spectrum - the system of education in other countries, like the US. There, the teacher cannot touch the students. The standard of education is much lower than the standard in India. The children are worse behaved, and there have been numerous instances when children carry guns to school and begin shooting people.

Are we better off? Is it because we were scared of our teachers and this fear helped us in not committing mistakes? Most of the elders I have spoken to feel that this is indeed the case. One teacher also said that it is easy for us to sit and discuss morality in our homes, but a teacher who has to control a set of 35 young imps running about here and there, cannot do it by cajoling and coaxing.

However, there is a thin line between what is acceptable and what is ethical. Just because it is common does not mean that it is right.

Twisting a child's ears, or rapping him on the knuckle might seem alright once in a while. But for a child who is not good at studies, it happens everyday, in every period. Not only is his self-esteem at its lowest because of the incessant pressure put on him by his parents, teachers, and peers, the beating adds to his complex.

And we are talking about children who are about ten years old. An age where academic proficiency does not mean success in life, and failure does not mean a child is doomed. Most of the time, the children who are hit are weak in studies. They are the silent, introvert children who are also bullied in class. The stronger, more popular children think that since the teachers are hitting them, it must be alright for them to do so too. The child gets drawn into a shell, and before he has even matured, he has become a shy, reserved young man.

Also, we have grown up in cities and towns, where we had to go to school no matter how strict the teacher was. But in rural areas, if the teacher hits the students too much, the child drops out of school. Is it really the way this is to be done?

If we think about our school days, each of us will remember this one teacher who was the most loved among the students. She was kind (and mostly taught English), she never hit anyone, and yet everyone listened to her when she spoke. We had one teacher like that. Her name was Loka mam.

Loka mam was my first English teacher. She never shouted at anyone, leave alone hitting. She was kind, always smiling, and always spent more time with the weaker children, rather than boost the ego of the children good at studies. If a child wasnt great at studies, but had a good handwriting, she would point it out to the entire class. She had a large repertoire of stories, and in free classes, we would ask her to tell us those stories.

She taught me in class 1, and then again in class 5. By then, I had developed a reputation of being a pest. But I was good at English and was developing an interest in the subject. Loka mam did encourage me in class. She introduced me to crosswords, and suggested books I could read during holidays. But she never tolerated my indiscipline. I remember one incident when I was caught in a huge fiasco and her class was going on when I was called to the Principal's room. After her class, she came to ask what had happened. When I told her, she just looked at me, and I could see her disappointment. Since then, it was the look on her face that made me feel guilty. I made it a point to behave in her class, and generally avoided getting into trouble when she was around.

I have seen many teachers since and none of them, no matter how strict they were, never seemed to have as much control over the class as her. I sometimes think what was it that made all of us listen to her. We were never scared of her, she seemed incapable of hitting anyone. Why then did we behave? Why was English our favourite subject?

It was because with her, we saw that she wanted to teach us. She loved talking to each and every student, she wanted each and every child to do well. Children can be called immature, but even the most heartless child would not want to trouble such a person.

So do we really need caning?

Rajneeti




You can understand why Prakash Jha would make a Raajneeti. He has been making gritty political movies for years, but has acquired as much fame as Laxmi Ratan Shukla for all his efforts. He has also contested elections in Bihar twice and lost. Finally, Mr. Jha falls back on the most used formula in Hindi films - multi starrers.

Ok, now that that is out of the way, what do we need next? A story. A kickass story that can stand the test of time. How about picking an action packed epic about warring brothers fighting for power that is nearly 2000 years old? The Mahabharat? Bingo!

So we have Naseruddin Shah in flashback who is in a cottage with a young female party member. It starts raining, and this has an aphrodisiacal effect on Shah'. Within seconds, Shah does his thing, and leaves the girl with the lamest excuse. As it is with Bollywood films, the guys who do their thing are supremely fertile, and there is no surprise that the incident leads to the girl conceiving and giving birth to a child. Nana Patekar, who is an upcoming party member gives the child to the party boss' driver and gets the girl married to one of the sons.

Cut to 30 years ahead, and you have the Mahabharat in front of you. The child who was given to the driver grows up to become Surya (The Sun God, from whom Karna was born) and to make things more subtle, wears earrings - kundalas. He is some sort of Bradman at kabaddi in his village and he is shown lifting a cup that he won for his village. Meanwhile, in the party boss' house, the elder brother has a son, Manoj Bajpai who always groans, frowns and seethes. Arjun Rampal is the son of the younger brother, and Ranbir Kapoor has returned from the US to visit his father. Obviously, he has no interest in politics and wants to return to his firang girlfriend (who surprisingly looks like Sonia Gandhi in her earlier days). Katrina Kaif plays a chirpy, irritating daughter of a rich dad. No prizes for guessing she is the Draupadi in the tale, and sorry, 'that' scene is not there in the movie!

The two factions are unmistakably Pandavas and Kauravas. Now, Jha must have thought things would get predictable. Or may be he thought the Shiv Sena, the trustees of Hinduism in our country, would take offence. So here's what he does. Have you heard of this movie called 'The Godfather?'. Yes, that movie Ram Gopal Verma has squeezed to the last drop. Jha tweaks the characters so that Arjun Rampal is Sunny Corleone and young Ranbir is Michael Corleone.

There, you have it. You have created a movie that is supposed to cater to the 'intelligent Indian', who has somehow neither read the Mahabharat, or watched The Godfather. And you have a big cast of actors to cater to fans of all categories and sizes.

The only confusion for me was the character essayed by Nana Patekar. Was he Shakuni Mama? Or Krishna? He showed traits of both. I was a tad disappointed there were no scenes of a younger Nana doing the raasa with some gopis. Imagine him going about dancing, clapping his hands, and talking about the effects that ek machhar can have on an aadmi.

But since there are such large gaps, Rajneeti turns out to be a very predictable movie. By the time you are through with the interval, it is more like a game where you can link characters and situations to its two inspirations.

The performances are alright, but the story being extremely unoriginal, I was terribly disappointed. Go watch it if you wish, but don’t blame me for not warning you that it is no masterpiece.