EDUCATION TO LEAD - A CHALLENGE -2

We CMIs make a claim : we aim at 'forming leaders'.  Our earlier policy statements used to have this. I am not sure what is the status of our education policy now, and whether this tall claim is still retained. 

It is true when we scan the history of our schools and colleges, we can list a few social/political/religious leaders or leaders in other walks of life - say, business and industry, research.  However, I feel this aspect requires a closer scrutiny, assessment and articulation. Is our system of education and the model of management geared to promoting leadership beyond positions? Is leadership part of the DNA of the institutional formation? 

But before that, listing those who have an acknowledged leadership status, works as a feel-good factor. This list is exclusively, based on SH experience.  There are very many stalwarts from other CMI institutions 

In socio-political leadership we have (have had) veterans to young leaders - parliamentarians, legislators, administrators - Dr. Lata of Chalakkudy Puzha Samrakshana Samiti, M.M. Jacob, Prof. K.V. Thomas, K.M. Mani, Baby John, P.J. Joseph, P.P. Thankachan, Dr.. T.M. Thomas Isaac, PC George, PC Joseph, former Kochi Mayors - Dinesh Mani, K.J. Sohan, Soumini Jain, present Mayor Anil Kumar, Opposition Leader V.D. Satheeshan, MP Hibi Eden, MLA Roji John, Joy Cherian (in the US)...

In judiciary, we have had several leading jurists Narayanakurupp, Antony Dominic, Anil Narendran, Mary Joseph, Abraham Mathew, Bhavadas, Devan Ramakrishnan, Ramachandran, Sateeshchandran, P.S. Gopinathan, Jayasankar Nambiar, and lastly, Shobha Eapen Varghese

In the science field we have some eminent scientists recognized world over Thomas Thundat, Anirudhan, Isaac Chakkalaparampil, Peter Kuzhikandathil and several others in the leading science institutes of the country

In the field of education with several people in higher education, some heading positions of a VC or a registrat of a universityand many of them heading HEIs in and beyond Keralam, a few in the bureaucracy like the author M.P. Joseph IAS, Dr. Antony, Deepesh Sehra, Anish P Rajan, Gopinath Panangad...,several people in the field of media and communication and cinema, with megastar Mammooty as the icon. 

There are several industry leaders of Keralam who had been our students: Nawas Meeran of the Eastern, Viju of the Synthite group, the spice producer Varghese Moolan, Prof. P.C. Thomas who initiated an edupreneurship in the form of entrance coaching revolution

Several religio-spiritual (more religious than spiritual) leaders including Sadhu Ittiyavirah, late young Ajna, Cardinal Parecattil, Bps Januarius, Gratian, Chittilappally, Gregory, Vadakkel, Rev. Thomas Chathamparampil, prior general of CMIs and one of the chief architects of the modern Christ University... 

The list could be expanded with several CEOs, educationists (heads of HEIs), social activists and so on....

I am glad that some of them did vouch for the training they received at Sacred Heart as a major influence in their career.  But was there a planned and conscious effort at grooming leaders? In the general framework of being a 'good institution', some such components were perhaps there. 

I was made to think of all these, against the background of a very solemn investiture ceremony held at Rajagiri Doha on Monday, May 16th. Prior to this, the only other time I had witnessed anything of this sort was at Global Public School, Kochi, where I was privileged to be invited as the chief guest.  That was about 6 years ago.  I vaguely recall that it too was a solemn function. 

I am forced to draw a comparison with my experiences in this regard in the higher education scenario.  In Rajagiri College, this was not taken very seriously, but the processes were in place.  Even, I had the opportunity to be the presiding officer of college elections once. There used to be some subtle lobbying along the lines of various disciplines - management, computer science or social work - and very often the management stream emerging victorious, based on their numbers, but without any animosity and not really playing a very influential role on the campus life. Earlier, the DSS, the one year diploma programme of Rajagiri, was seen by some potential political leaders, especially of SH college, as a launch platform for their future career.  There had been some successful individuals through this channel, outstanding among them might be V.D. Satheesan, the present opposition leader. But it never affected the campus in any adverse manner. 

At Sacred Heart college, it was very different, with the entire effort being invariably influenced by political overtones, with hardly anything serious to do with making campus life positively vibrant.  We tried out presidential form, where student political outfits based panels were presented and voted for.  Though 'political party based activities' were banned 'on the campus', the students deftly manipulated the situation to make the campaign just outside the campus walls, and behind the back of the staff, even within the campus walls.  And there was now handy electronic media, beyond all boundaries, working as an apt platform for spitting venom! Preparation for the student body election began from the very week of reopening, or sometimes even during the vacations and during the admissions.  There were overt and covert campaigns to canvas the new students to the fold of a particular outfit by offering 'helplines' for admission.  When college initiated student involvement in admission procedure, the party outfits took over the same in no time, and made that a platform, and college had trouble in getting rid of that unhealthy involvement. 

The campaigns were accompanied by severe animosity and acrimonious attack on the 'rival' groups and individuals.  And often the slogans bordered around being verbal abuse. Some standard campaigns were on 'protecting student rights', 'having several student development programmes' (usually confined to entertainment shows, and rarely rising to the level of fests or contests or tournaments).  There was hardly a healthy and balanced initiative to create a critically and creatively responsive student community.  The struggle was to create an impression, usually by calling for 'protest marches', boycott of classes and impertinent behaviour towards those in authority - especially, the teachers and the Head of the Institution. Some tutored phrases like 'fascism' 'student rights' 'questioning and disobeying the authority', 'justice' etc. were parroted, and to rebel against authority was equated to being revolutionary. A successful boycott of classes on some flimsy grounds and coercing the entire college to be closed, or having a sit-in in front of the Principal's office etc. were regarded as the success measures as far as a student body was concerned. The typical programmes they would organise were: the annual cultural contests, an invited lecture usually with a political agenda (theme), a film festival with an insistence on converting the auditorium into a dark room, for projecting some popular movies on a bigger screen - sometimes even charging the students for the same - hardly any effort for a critical appreciation of different genres of film! And an inaugural day and an arts day - the success of which usually measured by the performance of a professional music troupe. The programmes were invariably meant to cater to strengthen the split in the student community on the party lines - one group to organise and the other group to play the detractors by trying to make the programme unsuccessful - and the administration had the constant head ache of preventing clashes. 

The surprising thing is that in spite of the animosity and indiscipline that was created on account of this leadership platform, I guess most of the students enjoyed it, and considered this fight and rivalry and the consequent indiscipline as part of having freedom and fun, and of enjoying the college life. It became a breeding ground for learning the existing patterns of manipulative politics and political maneuvering. Usually, the animosity got over once they were out of the college, but there used to be undue and unhealthy influences on the student community by some elements even after their passing out. And most of them would have nothing to do with following any political party or ideology thereafter, though such group affinity and friendship on the basis of that may remain among some of them. I have found some very argumentative and outspoken left leaning students, joining institutions and programmes, which according to their ideology would be bourgeoise and capitalist, and meekly submitting to the regimentation and discipline required in those settings, without any questioning. 

Unfortunately, in the literate state of Keralam, the experience is that majority of the legislators have come up in politics through this channel.  A few exceptions to these are there - who usually managed to make an entry based on their parental  heritage in politics.  Apparently their lack of this sort of democratic (read, political) training has not made them or their performance worse or better. (e.g., Jose K Mani, Sabareenathan).  This majority is bent on perpetuating this system where higher education is treated as the platform for training in democracy and the sole method for the same, that of 'electoral party politics'.  The damage done by diluting the higher education scenario of deeper learning and research is almost irreparable! In the eleven years of my experience with this scenario, I have found that out of the odd 20% of the students getting actively involved in such activities, just 2 or 3 have continued to be involved in politics and just about the same showing some remote prospects of emerging as leaders in political domain. The achievement would be that of being a populist leader on the campus, apparently standing up for the student community and having vitiated the learning atmosphere. 

I recall the student agitation incited by the university led manipulation by not approving the new modalities of evaluation legitimately introduced under the provisions of the autonomy.  The students specifically told that there was assurance for them if they made a demonstration of protest (that is boycott of classes), the issue would be resolved in a day.  The students boycotted the classes, made representation to the university... but there was no any effect. It was finally the college submitting to the university's unjust demands and some court ruling that led to the resolution of the issue. (Incidentally, the brazen stupidity of the Vice Chancellor in affirming a very wrong notion as the principle is remembered: the issue was merely that of college having increased the proportion of Continuous or internal assessment from the existing pattern of 20% to 25%, an increased weighttage being  encouraged by the UGC and scientifically a better mode of assessment. But he asserted that increasing 5% means you are giving 5% more marks to your students when compared to the rest of the students of the university!! So that was the level of leadership the university was having - the generally accepted wrong trend, was accepted as the norm by the VC. Never bothered to look into the genuineness of the process in the college. After all, he was a stooge of the political lobby of the university)

I would say that the main purpose of the student body elections, appeared to be about 'capturing power', a crude imitation of what happens at the state or national level political party circles. And the main agenda of activities appeared to be capturing power in the next year. The leadership, with rare exceptions, never grew to embrace the student community as a whole, involve them in creative debate, and promote a healthy and friendly campus life. The leadership generally worked on the principles of divisiveness, fault finding, creating problems, maintaining a student-faculty or student-administration rift, entertainment and fun, and freedom from discipline (with promoting class bunking in the name of all such activities), non-involvement or non-cooperation in the activities guided by faculty or college administration.  Creative efforts in the decade plus experience were very few: an effort to have a leadership interface - student leaders and accomplished people in various fields; an effort to have some installations and one wall painting in the name of a campus biennale, which I extended to the entire campus walls (but was later on thoroughly contaminated with that being projected as the product of a particular student outfit - another item for campaign), a rare effort to respond to the disaster situation (again being coloured by its political undertones), a mega event involving a big band, which turned out to be a fiasco....With the generous financial support from the management and very active involvement of a few teachers, when the college consistently made progress on the cultural front by being an unquestionable leader in the university, the students' unions tried to take the entire credit making it a totally student-political outfit based success.

At SH, though technically campus politics was not permitted, there was conscious effort to influence student body on political lines, chiefly on the leftist (SFI) and centrist (KSU) lines.  Apparently, there was a sort of balancing between the two, often getting turns alternatively.  While both the streams appeared equally stupid and common place, with hardly any original thinking or desire to put the institution and campus on a higher pedestal, of the lot the SFI stream appeared more organised and trained and wicked and violent; while the KSU stream exhibited these on a much lesser degree, and appeared less inclined to the rebel-revolutionary framework.  Both the stream were tended to be exclusive and partisan in their approach to guiding the student community. I wanted them to be sent for really insightful leadership training programmes, which I could not materialise.  But I found some befitting training with the Universal Solidarity Centre at Indore, and I recommended that elected leaders of the I DC were sent there for a training, with the college bearing the expenditure. 

I am still unable to see how promoting this is helping the political parties to grow into vibrant democratic entities.  It is an illusion that creating a disturbed and violent academic atmosphere is helping the political parties to flourish.  I am very skeptical regarding this.  I think the parties could grow by creative campaigns locally, and involving and attracting members from all walks of life, based on their creative and growth promoting agenda. In the student politics of Keralam, creativity was promoted in the direction of applying it to disturb the learning environment of campus, and in finding ways and means by which to disturb regular functioning of the colleges, especially classes. The political imagination has not gone beyond the stereotypical intimidatory and confrontational model of creating disturbance bordering violence as the sole means of training in 'this version of democracy', healthy debates, raising of concerns, communicating protest on policies or programmes, suggesting alternatives - these are hardly ever attempted. The sole attempt is to 'strike work' and 'boycott classes' and if needed use coercion, physical violence and damage to institutional and public property.  This last strategy was found to be very minimal as far as SH was concerned, and I consider that a virtue on the part of the student body.

Many of the initiatives for the all round development of the students had no role or involvement of the students' union, or when such matters were proposed or announced, there was a conspicuous absence of the leaders of the students' union. I consider it as one of my gravest failures that I could not guide the student community beyond this vicious circle of divisive campus politics! 

In Sahu Jain College, Najibabad, a grant-in-aid private college by a Jain group, in the three years I studied, there was no election or students' union.  If you wanted you could attend classes, even if you didn't, no body bothered.  I also recall, how with no political party, one of my class mates was able to sit in the exam hall, with a knife openly on his desk, and do malpractice in the exam without any difficulty. 

I found a rather active students' union in my alma mater TISS, Mumbai, where the elections were held with various panels, after a healthy round of campaign.  The elected body had the possibility of leading the student community in a creative fashion, if it wanted to, though I did not find it all that creative..  There was no animosity or (lasting) rivalry on account of such elections.  In my visit to various colleges as a peer team member for accreditation outside Keralam, I found hardly any place where there was a vibrant students' union, irrespective of the college being private, government or self-financing.  Very often the body was just for namesake, and thought of boycotting classes or any other revolutionary thinking was usually far from their thinking frame. Some of them have grown to be national and international level leaders (Medha Patkar as one example), less in the party line - more in the development initiatives, human and civil rights sector, in media and in evolving new models of participatory democracy, without having the political education of Kerala model.