Books

THE POLITICS OF GENDER, COMMUNITY AND

MODERNITY: Essays on Education in India by Nita Kumar.
OxfordUniversityPress,NewDelhi,2007.
SCHOOL
EDUCATION,
PLURALISM
AND
MARGINALITY:ComparativePerspectiveseditedbyChristine
Sleeter, Shashi Bhushan Upadhyay, Arvind K. Mishra and Sanjay
Kumar.OrientBlackSwan,NewDelhi,2012.
THE world of education has had a dual relationship with the
transitiontomodernity.Itgetstransformedbymodernityandinthe
process of being transformed it also develops as an instrument of
change.Thusitgainsandlosesindependenceatthesametime.The
two roles being a recipient of change and an agent of change
happenalmostsimultaneously.Modernnationstatesfartooheavily
rely on education for creating homogenized, modern national
societies. Education thus comes to be vested with unprecedented
rolesandresponsibilitiesundermodernconditions.
Itisbasicallythissetofissuesthatthetwobooksunderrevieware
primarilyconcernedwith.Thereismuchthatiscommoninthetwo
works. Their vantage points are of course different. Nita Kumars
approach is historical and she surveys a long temporal stretch of
overtwocenturies while retaining her focus on India. The second
book is more sociological in approach and covers a large area. It
has essays on education from societies as diverse as USA, UK,
South Africa, New Zealand, Sri Lanka and, of course, India.
Whereasthefirstvolumehastemporaldepth,thesecondhasarich
spatialspread.Itgivesusarichnessofacomparativeperspective.
In spite of a difference of vantage point, certain fundamental
questionsareimplicitinboththeworks.Iseducationaninstrument
for transformation or for the maintenance of status quo? Is it
possibleforeducationtobevestedwitharevolutionaryagendaoris
it merely a device in the hands of the state to ensure control and
conformity? Is education a part of pluralizing impulses or
homogenizingones? In other words, can it be used to nurture and
promote diversity, even as it creates uniformity and
standardization? These are difficult questions and the authors in
boththevolumeshaveattemptedtoengagewiththem.
NitaKumardoesnotlookattheworldofeducationinisolationand
enlargesthisworldbybringingfamilyandcommunityintoit.She

looksuponthetwoasimportanteducatinginstitutionsandtherefore
anintegralpartofherdiscussion.Thusherworkfocusesnotjuston
theformalinstitutionsoflearningbutalsoonthefunctionalones.
India was modernized broadly in the process of being colonized.
The two happened together. The stamp of colonialism was firmly
imprinted on Indias modernization. This implied, among other
things,thatunlikeEurope,Indiadidnotmakeaneattransitionfrom
predation to production. Both predation and production went
simultaneously. Education played a great role in this. It is
significanttonotethatthefoundationsofmoderneducationinIndia
werelaidduringthecolonialperiod.
Modern education in India represented an exogenous force,
completely divorced from the indigenous systems and traditions.
Incidentally this exogenous character of education was also
extendedtothecontentandnatureofeducationthatwasimparted.
As a result, the hitherto powerful though informal sources of
education (like family and community) got eliminated from the
verymannerinwhicheducationwasconceptualized.Inthecolonial
paradigm,itwasnotonlyindigenousknowledgethatwasexcluded
but also the family and the community as instruments in the
transmission of education. Women too were excluded from this
world.Moderneducationactuallyestablisheditselfthroughaseries
of exclusions carried out at many levels. Thus, education caused
thedisplacementofIndianbywesternmodesofthinking,butnotin
awaythatliberatedIndians,ratherinawaythatenslavedthem,or
moremildlyspeaking,disorientedthem(NitaKumar,p.11).
The colonial educational project of formalization, centralization
andintegrationwasonlypartiallysuccessful.Thedisplacementof
the local by the colonial happened smoothly in the metropolitan
centres. But the rural areas and the small towns retained their
autonomy where the family and the community continued to be
important agents in education. This incomplete and uneven
colonizationofeducationcreatedmultipleeducationaldomainsin
the country the colonial, the indigenous and, finally, the
nationalist.ThenationalistintelligentsiaincolonialIndiasucceeded
in making a distinction between the baby and the bathwater of
modern education. They gladly embraced English education and
through it the values of Enlightenment such as rationalism,
secularism and universalism. But they firmly rejected colonial
domination and also colonial education. They, therefore,
encompassedmoderneducationintheireducationalagendabutnot
itscolonialaccompaniment.
Nita Kumar suggests that this very incompleteness of the
colonization of Indian education was largely because the colonial
rulersrefrainedfrompressingintoservicetwopowerfulagenciesof
socialization family and community. In a way we were saved
fromacomprehensiveandallpervasivecolonialdomination,partly

becausethecolonialrulerscouldnot,orchosenotto,colonizethe
innerdomainsoftheIndiansocialorder.
Is there a lesson for us in all this today? The colonial model was
unidimensional and exogenous it eliminated the indigenous. The
indigenous model incidentally too was unidimensional it rejected
thecolonialbutalsothemodernalongwithit.Itthrewthebabyout
with the bathwater. Both the models, based either on omnibus
acceptance or an overall rejection, have something common: they
arebothunselective.They are unselective either in choosing or in
rejecting. The way out lies precisely in being selective, in both
choosingandrejecting:
Itseemscleartousthatwestandatamomentintime...wherethe
onlyvalidchoiceofpathseemstobeoneleadingtowardsscience,
but environmentally sensitive science technology, but culturally
appropriate technology and development, but development aimed
atredressinggenderandotherinequalities(NitaKumar,p.305).
NitaKumarsconcernsregardingthecontentandtheobjectivesof
educationtieupwiththeconcernsofthesecondbookunderreview.
Thedilemmafacedbytheauthorsofthesecondbookisclearand
explicit: how to make the world of education socially inclusive
without making it integrative. The search for an answer to this
question has taken the authors of the volume to different parts of
the world. It is now widely recognized that all modern societies
contain within their fold marginal groups and communities, even
thoughtheirsizemayvary.Therecentthrustinthesocialsciences
on multiculturalism is simply a way of recognizing the significant
presenceofgroupsandcommunitieslivingatthemargins,evenin
thedevelopedcountries.Allthepeople,groupsandcommunitiesat
the margins have faced fundamental dilemmas relating to the
prospects of their upward mobility. Their precise dilemma can be
understoodasthefollowingsyllogism:
a) The awareness that their backwardness or marginality is
historically constituted and is a carryover from the traditions and
historiesoftheirsocieties.
b) Modernization in general and modern education in particular,
providesthemauniqueopportunitytomoveawayfromthemargins
andtowardsthemainstreamofsociallife.
c)Theresultantintegration,thoughincrementallybeneficial,entails
thelossoftheircultureandaperpetualhumiliationthroughcontact
with cultural superiors. Thus the breakdown of isolation and
marginalitycomesatagreatcostlossofcultureandfreedom.Itis
painful to have to give up ones culture and freedom it is also
painfultoremainpoorandatthemargins.Whattodo?
This,inanutshell,hasbeenthedilemmaoftheDalitsandtribalsin

India,theMapucheinChile,theMaoriinAotearoaNewZealand,
andtheRomainEurope.Isthereaframeworkofeducationthatcan
ensure their autonomy, break their isolation and yet prepare them
pedagogically for modern life? This is one big question the book
tries to critically engage with. It is a complex question and the
authorsofthebook,totheircredit,havedealtwithitinacomplex
manner,withoutreducingittoanysimpleformula.
In a search for answersto theirquestions,the editorsofthebook,
however, place an unreasonably heavy burden on education: it
should liberate and transform the underprivileged it should equip
themwithnecessaryskillsforthemtoclaimtheirshareinmodern
lifeitshouldalsosensitizethemtowardstheirownmarginalstatus
and offer strategies for overcoming this: What we need, and this
book offers, is a view of school education that is informed by
analysisofthematerial,political,andideologicalunderpinningsof
inequality, and analyses that are articulated by communities that
experience oppression directly and understand how specific forms
ofinjusticehavebeensuccessfullychallengedinthepast(p.3).
Eventhoughthetwobooksareconnectedintheirbasicpremise,the
articles in the second book operate with a different set of binaries
fromthefirstbook.Thecolonial/indigenousbinarydominantinthe
bookbyNitaKumarisreplacedbyadifferentsetofbinaries,e.g.,
the elite/disprivileged, inclusive/exclusive, plural/integrative,
pedagogic content/social orientation among others, in the second
book.Thenewbinarieshelpenlargethescopeofthediscussionand
bring a whole range of important issues within the range of the
concernsoftheauthors.
Thebasicproblemsthatbesetourschoolshavebeenidentifiedby
the editors as poor learning achievements, low retention, high
dropout rates and indifferent attitude of the parents and
communitiesfortheschool(p.4).Thewayoutoftheseproblems
is to place the emphasis on social inclusion and pluralism as the
core principles of the pedagogic conceptual framework, practices
andprocesses(p.4).This,however,iseasiersaidthandone.The
basictroubleisthatitisnotalwayseasytoachievethecorevalues
ofsocialinclusionandpluralismsimultaneously.Thebookdisplays
asomewhatambivalentattitudetowardsmodernitybutsettlesdown
toarticulatethecoresolutionswithintheframeworkofmodernity.
Itthenbecomesnecessarytorecognizethecontradictionsbetween
thenormativeframeworkofmodernityandthelivedrealitieswithin
it. Modernity normatively celebrates plurality but the essential
processes of modernity engender homogeneity. This is as true of
educationasofotheragentsofmodernity.
Pluralityasaconditionwascertainlynotinventedbymodernity.It
is a pervasive carryover from premodern times. But modernity
doesbringinanewinsistencethatthispluralitybepreservedsans
itshierarchy.ThisinsistenceactuallyimpartsaJanuslikecharacter

to modernity. Its basic processes (industrialism, mobility) tend to

erode plurality and homogenize people, cultures and communities
by destroying their cultural nests and flattening out their cultural
distinctions. At the same time it introduces a new insistence that
plurality be preserved and nurtured. And that education should
serveasoneoftheinstrumentstopreserveandcelebrateplurality.
Thus the world of education under modern conditions gets deeply
dividedbetweenthenormativeandthereal.Thereisgenerallyabig
gap between what it endeavours to do and what it ends up doing.
Under premodern conditions, education was seen as a marker of
stabilityandnotofchange.Itwasmeanttounderwriteandendorse
the status quo, not question or challenge it. Modern education, by
contrast, is expected to be a vigilant watchdog, and question and
critique rather than accept and endorse. The issues become much
more complicated when the specific case studies under discussion
arecolonialsocietiessuchasIndia.
ForIndia(andcolonialsocietiesingeneral)moderneducation was
an exogenous influence, as mentioned earlier. Modern education
wasintroducedinIndiabyaliencolonialrulers,notbyblendingthe
modern with the traditional, but by displacing the traditional.
Moderneducationalinstitutionsbegantobeestablishedaroundthe
beginning of the 19th century and, by the end of the century, the
traditionalsystemsofeducationhadvirtuallydisappeared.Thenew
education was pressed into the service of colonialism. The
justification for colonialism was provided above all by new
education.
The education system in modern India thus brought about change
without betterment, and expansion without any structural
transformation.Educationbecamemerelyatoolinthehandsofthe
state.Itacquiredaninstrumentalrelevancetoaccomplishandfulfil
the modern and colonial agenda. The educational system that
developed in independent India after 1947, carried strong
resemblances from the colonial system. The task of transforming
thissystemsoastofulfilsomeoftheprioritieslistedbytheeditors
ofthevolumeisindeedquitegigantic,andrequiresafundamental
reorientation,bothatthephilosophicalandpedagogicallevels.
The book is divided into four parts. Part I focuses on Marginal
Communities,SocialExclusionandSchooling.Itraisesimportant
questionsofwhyschooleducationhasfailedtoreachouttogroups
that need it the most. Why is it that the major expansion of
education in independent India has failed to be inclusive? The
answer provided by R. Govinda and Madhumita Bandyopadhyay
(Achieving Universal Elementary Education) is that it entails
much more than expansionandresource investment it requires a
changeinthemindsets.Objectivesofeducationwillhavetofocus
more on collective rather than individual excellence that supports
the position that all are capable rather than a few intelligence is

multipleratherthanamatterofsolvingpuzzleswithonlyoneright
answerimaginationandemotionalengagementareasimportantas
technical expertise ability to imagine alternative futures and to
solveopenendedproblems,andinterpersonalskillsareintegralto
thedefinitionofintelligence.Schoolperformanceisimportantbut
notthefinalbenchmarkofpersonalgrowthandexcellence(p.49).
Part II engages with a discussion on Hegemonies, Formal
SchoolingSystems,andtheChild.Itraisescertainkeyissues,ata
theoreticallevel,onsomeofthemajorstructuraldeterminantsthat
shape the trajectory of education. Thus the range of options
available for educational transformation is quite limited and
severely constrained by the overarching structures of power and
production. Education, after all, carries with it the stamp of the
broad context within which it operates. Hence, within a social
democraticwelfaristframework,educationcontinuestoplayakey
roleincontinuing,reproducingunequalandexploitative economic
and social relations, reproducing the labourcapital relations,
capitalismitself(DavidHill,Caste,RaceandClassInequality:A
MarxistAnalysis,p.199).
Part III extends this discussion to Pluralism, Citizenship and
School Education. It includes a number of important casestudies
from parts of Europe and South Africa. This section describes the
kindofchallengesthatareconfrontedbyeducationwhiletryingto
transmitvaluesofcitizenshipinpluralandconflictriddensocieties.
Thetaskisbynomeanseasyandsomeoftheessaysinthispartof
thebookhaveexploreditinthecontextofSouthAfricawithdeep
insightandsensitivity.
Part IV of the book is on Developing Teaching and Learning
Methods: The Social Context. It is more in the nature of an
overview.Itpicksupthequestionsraisedinthepreviouspartsand
proceeds to construct concrete models of pedagogic practices that
are rooted in specific experiences. The major focus here is on
culturally responsive or culturally appropriate schools (p. 12)
whichmustmakegooduseoftheculturalresourcesofcommunities
for pedagogic purposes. This principle is adequately substantiated
bythelastessayinthevolumebySanjayKumarandRafiulAhmed
(Alternative Schooling for Children from the Musahar
Community: An Innovative Experiment), which describes the
experiment of an alternative schooling system, developed in Gaya
inBihar,foranoppressed,lowcastecommunity.Thisexperiment
focused on building the social and cognitive capacities of the
communitybyusingitsownculturalresources.Thishashadthebig
advantage of linking education to peoples own experiences. As a
result, the transformative potential of such an education is much
higher compared to the alien and the externally constructed
pedagogicprocesses,expectedtotransformfromwithout.
The book in its entirety can be easily divided into an empirical

componentandagenericconceptualone.Theempiricalcomponent
in which different case studies from different countries are
presented and the problems posed in the context of existing
practices is easily the richer part of the book. The generic
conceptual component is, however, not always rooted in the case
studiesanddoesnotalwaysemanatefromthem.Italsoappearsto
be spreadeagled between a pluralist pull and an integrationistone.
And so, even as the values of citizenship and social cohesion are
generallyupheld,soarethevaluesofdiversityandpreservationof
cultural richness and autonomy. This is perhaps inevitable in a
volume in which the contributors are drawn from different
persuasions and ideological locations and often speak from
differentvantagepoints.Thebookgenerallyrefrainsfromimposing
a single perspective and is basically multiperspectival in nature.
On the whole, the volume dabbles into three different territories:
one,somekindofalooselyheldblueprintofwhatideallytherole
ofeducationshouldbeincreatingadesirablesocialuniversetwo,
a recognition of the multiple problems and obstacles in education
which act as barriers in the realization of certain cherished social
goals and three, rich and instructive descriptions of actual case
studiesdrawnfromdifferentcountriesandsocieties.Thereislittle
doubtthatthebookisatitsbestinthethirdventure.
Overall,thebookisanextremelyvaluableresource.Itssignificance
isthreefold.One,atanoperativelevel,itdiscussestheinnerworld
of education teachers, students, curriculum, textbooks
examinations. At the same time, it also looks at the world of
education in a wider setting democracy, pluralism,
multiculturalism,nationstateandmodernity.Retainingthefocuson
the pedagogic aspects intrinsic to education, but also on the
multiple sociopolitical aspects extrinsic to it, imparts a richness
andcomplexitytothevolume.Two,themanycasestudiesenablea
comparisonacrossculturesandsocieties.Thisenlargestherangeof
possibilities, both at the level of problems and solutions. And
finally, all the discussions and case studies are eventually geared
towards building a solutionbased approach. All the problems and
constraints are examined in the light of what can and ought to be
done. Admittedly such a focus has made the book unrealistically
optimistic at places. But that the exposition of all the problems is
withaviewtofindingasolutiongoestothecreditofthebookand
itsauthorsandeditors.
SalilMisra

EDUCATION AND INEQUALITY IN INDIA: A Classroom

View by Manabi Majumdar and Jos Mooij. Routledge
ContemporarySouthAsiaSeries,LondonandNewYork,2011.
THE issue of inequality in education has been with us for a long

time.Foroversixtyyearsresearchersinthefieldofeducationhave
tried to grapple with inequality in access to schools access to
similarkindofschools,therighttonondiscriminationinthechoice
ofschoolsandtowhathappensinsidetheschools.Whilethereare
indeedalotofgoodresearchstudies,neverthelessonecanbesure
thatinequalitywillremainanimportantareaofresearchforyearsto
come. However, this volume is unique because it tries to unravel
thetextureofhowinequalitymanifestsitselfintheclassroom.Itis
aviewfromtheground.
The book is based on intensive qualitative research in two states,
AndhraPradeshandWestBengal.Thefirstaspectthatstandsoutis
the methodology adopted by the researchers to understand and
unravel the texture of inequality in Indias education. The
researchers have been able to interact with different actors in
education in their own contexts and have used interactive
interviews,ethnographicmethodsandqualitativeanalysis(p.9)to
gobehindthesmokescreenofquantitativedata.
Startingwithathoroughreviewoftheliteratureonthesubject,the
book explores segmentation and segregation of the schooling
systemandhowitnotonlymirrorsexistingsocialdivisionsbutalso
strengthensandreproducesthem.Poverty,accordingtotheauthors,
is clearly present in the village schools right from the
infrastructure,thepresenceabsenceofcertainkindsofchildren,the
teachinglearning materials, and most importantly, the teachers.
That is not all even within an already impoverished school we
observedabehaviouralpatternonthepartoftheteachertofavour
goodstudentsandtoneglectthesocalledslowlearners(p.14).It
isnoteworthythatthestudynotonlylookedatgovernmentschools,
butalsoprivateonesandfoundthatthelowcostprivateschools
that cater to the poor are a far cry from the highend schools that
cater to the rich, the powerful and the ones with voice. The very
poor and uneducated parents are in no position to hold
malperforming schools, in both the government as well as private
sector, to account. As a result, children from diverse poverty
situationsendupreceivinglittlebywayofeducationintheschools.
Thisisanimportantfindingofthestudy,especiallyinlightofthe
vigorous campaign in favour of school choice. There is really no
choiceforpeoplewithnovoiceorpowerwhethertheirchildren
go to government schools or private. The bottom line is that they
emerge five or eight years later, barely having learnt to read or
write,farlessacquiringaworkingknowledgeofEnglish(thegreat
desire)eveninthesocalledEnglishmediumschools.Theauthors
compel the reader to revisit their own understanding of education
and in particular prejudices and stereotypes. There is a common
beliefthatthehomeenvironmentofthechildrenisanimpediment
toeducationratherthanassomethingthatmayassistthem(p.36)
andthisbelief(orshouldonesayprejudice)worksagainstchildren
from families in poverty. Teachers (and administrators too)

questiontheeducabilityofsomechildrenthetragedyisthatmany
children often internalize this view and begin to believe that they
cannot learn. The authors have been able to bring to the fore the
voicesofchildrenwhoaretrappedinthiskindofselfbelief.
The book then moves on to explore in some depth the role of the
state and how active/inactive it has been to ensure all children
regardless of social and economic status receive quality
education. The authors explore four contradictions: (i) the formal
rulebased arrangements versus the less formalized, yet
institutionalized practices that undermine the formal system (ii)
simultaneous tendencies to both centralize (teacher appointments,
accountabilitysystems,planning,teachertraining)anddecentralize
(school level committees/ village level committees) (iii)
coexistenceofactivism on a few fronts and inertia on others and
(iv) simultaneous existence of different modes of public
management whereby new structures are created to efficiently
administer central sector projects (many of them donor funded)
whileatthesametimeneglectingessentialsystemicreforms.This
chapterofthebookdrawsuponawealthofliteratureonthesubject
andprovidesavaluablesynthesis.
The chapter on teachers explores the ambivalence and
contradictions in the life of government school teachers starting
fromthe environment in which the teachers are expected to work,
their status in society and in the education system, the prejudices
thattheycarryandtransmitandthelackofaprofessionalidentity
and pride. There have been a plethora of recent studies on how
children from extremely disadvantaged communities especially
AdivasiandDalitchildrenexperienceschooling.Thisliesatthe
heartoftheequityqualitydebate.Thetragedyisthatmanyteachers
questiontheeducabilityofsomechildrenandasaresultdonotput
in the required work to enable children from poverty situations to
copewiththedemandsofformaleducation.Equally,theinservice
trainingregimedoesnoteventouchthisissue,focusinginsteadon
what are considered hard spots in teaching of language,
mathematics or science. Attitudes, prejudices and daily practices
are not even acknowledged as important barriers to universal
education.Interestingly,thesituationisnotdramaticallydifferentin
the two states, West Bengal and Andhra Pradesh, though the
authors have relied essentially on secondary literature and far less
insightsfromfieldwork.
Therelationshipbetweenteachersandthechildrenremainsahighly
debated issue. Notwithstanding the introduction of new child
centred pedagogies, the situation on the ground has not changed
much. The authors reinforce the findings of several other studies,
arguing that caste and gender play themselves out in teacher
childrenrelationship.Teachersgetthechildrentodoawiderange
of chores and caste and gender identity play a major role in
allocation of duties. Equally significant is the fact that teachers

actively ignore a substantial proportion of children the socalled

backbenchers,frequent absentees and latecomers. The regular and
thebeststudentssitinthefrontandtheteacherrelatesprimarilyto
them.Theauthorspointoutthattherewereschoolswhereteachers
genuinelyinterestedineducation,defiedallstereotypesandworked
to ensure all children participated. However, such instances/cases
werefewandfarbetween.
Themostinterestingchapteristheoneonqualityandequitythe
authors present an excellent analysis of textbooks used in West
Bengal and Andhra Pradesh. Textbooks are important in so far as
they provide teachers and children with a starting point.
Nevertheless,thereis no guarantee that what is in the textbook is
actuallytaughtandwhatistaughtisactuallylearnt.Whatmattersis
the quality of engagement and a textbook comes alive or fades
awaydependingonhowtheteacherusesit.Howthechildrensown
experience could be intertwined in the teachinglearning process
remainsinadequatelyunderstoodandthusremainsoneofthemore
formidablechallenges.
The book concludes with a discussion on the work being doneby
thePratichi(India)TrustinWestBengalandtheM.V.Foundation
(AP).Thissectionisabitofaletdownbecauseitdoesnotbuildon
the arguments of the preceding chapters. It seems like an add on,
but could still be an interesting read for those interested in
understanding the world of education activists. While the M.V.
Foundation has been instrumental in gettingthousands ofchildren
whowereoutofschoolbackinto the mainstream,theyhave been
unable to address the inherent inequality that pervades the
educationsystem.Inparticular,theyhavenotbeenabletoturnthe
spotlight on what and how much children are learning in schools
andthedailyrealityofthousandsofDalitandAdivasichildrenwho
are excluded from active participation. Equally, whilethePratichi
(India)Trusthasdonecommendableworkwithschoolteachersand
teacher unions, they have also failed to change mindsets among
teachersabouteducabilityoruneducabilityofsomechildren.
Theauthorsarguethatinordertofindwaysandmeanstoaddress
the multiple layers and different textures of inequalities, we must
first acknowledge differences and diversity, understand how they
inhibit educational processes, the needs and challenges specific to
each group/situation, and then devise situation/group specific
strategies to help children realise their right to education. While
somedegreeofstandardizationmaybeessential,thereislittlesense
in designing national programmes and schemes that end up
standardizing everything. This holds true for both the government
(throughprogrammeslikeSarvaShikshaAbhiyan)andtheprivate
sector (voucher system/school choice). It is high time we
acknowledge that India is a country of vast diversity and
tremendous inequalities and one size just cannot fit all. This only
resultsintheverypoor,theAdivasi,theDalit,themigrants,andso

onbeingleftoutorpushedout.
VimalaRamachandran