Cultural historian and noted educationist Rajan Gurukkal knows what is plaguing Kerala’s education system and has often courted controversy with his opinions regarding the reforms needed in the sector. Currently vice-chairman of the Kerala State Higher Education Council, Gurukkal shares with TNIE his views on reforms required in higher education, why it’s high time the four-year undergraduate programme was rolled out, lessons we should learn from history, and why he doubts Shankaracharya was a Keralite. Excerpts.
Reforming the higher education sector is a focus area for the second Pinarayi Vijayan government. What are your views on the reforms introduced?
True. We are working towards that goal. Reforms are being introduced from the top, but the preparedness for them should evolve from the base. There is a lack of learning culture among students as learning has become exam-centric. A culture of engaged learning that increases the student’s self-confidence and self-esteem needs to be cultivated. We should understand that our children are going out into a global environment after completing a course. Education itself is now part of a global industry. In that scenario, if we speak about panchayat-level aspects, it won’t be appropriate.
Three commissions were appointed by the government to recommend reforms in the higher education sector. How much progress has been made in implementing those recommendations?
One such reform was the introduction of a four-year undergraduate programme (FYUGP). This is not merely an extension of the existing three-year course into four years but a thorough overhaul. Both teaching and learning cultures are set to change. A teacher should be a scholar who facilitates the learning culture of students.
When you speak of teachers being scholars, we are talking about teachers who have secured jobs in aided institutions after giving huge donations...
(Smiles) We need teachers who can put what we said earlier into practice.
There is a view that proper groundwork hasn’t been done to equip teachers to embrace the reform…
That is not true. Teachers were being trained in outcome-based education, digital technologies, course designing, and specifically, in FYUGP details. They were given the Curriculum Framework a year ago through the public domain. But they hardly have the patience to read it. Anyway, nothing can be implemented after full preparation. FYUGP is an uncharted path. You start walking and then it becomes the path.
Teachers say that it is too early. So the question is: when are you going to prepare yourself? At the same time, there is a section of teachers, who are alumni of reputed institutions such as IITs, willing to accept the reform. But they are not appointed to the Board of Studies as they are juniors or because of their non-affiliation to teachers’ unions. Unfortunately, everything works in a trade union culture. I am not being disrespectful when I say trade unions.
Has the firm resolve of the government to roll out FYUGP silenced student unions who are generally opposed to reforms?
The government is introducing a system of globally benchmarked standards. It gives students a lot of freedom. Students too must understand that they are going out into a global environment after the programme. Through digital technology-based learning, they can become part of the global community of learners today. Education is now part of a global industry act at the panchayat level.
What about student mobility? Is the academic bank of credits and credit transfer seamless across universities?
The Higher Education Council has prepared statewide regulations on student mobility, which the universities have been asked to follow strictly for uniformity in FYUGP. These regulations are not meant to interfere with the autonomy of universities but to prevent varsities from blocking the provisions for students’ credit transfer and multiple entry and exit.
As the head of the Kerala State Higher Education Council, what’s your take on Malayali students’ exodus?
Let them go. We don’t have any right to block them. It’s wrong to say that these students should stay back in Kerala. We have to ensure their welfare after moving overseas. Therefore, we have formulated rules for the agencies here to make disclosures.
Don’t you think that students are going abroad because of a lack of quality in education here?
I don’t believe so. The students are not looking at the quality of education, rather they are looking for job opportunities abroad. They are on the lookout for a programme which would enable them to stay there and get a job.
But here we don’t look for quality as the authorities are being liberal and give cent percent pass in schools...
It’s primary-school teaching which has to be done exceptionally well. It’s the foundation that a student gets at the primary level that helps them emerge successful in higher education. They must acquire the mother tongue properly and learn English in a grammatical way. They should be able to distinguish between metaphors and words, with clarity on the former. Corrective measures have to be taken at least at the higher education stage, though tough.
Class 10 exams are being conducted liberally, with Plus-II exams being more of a qualifying exam...
(Interrupts) At the Plus-II level, writing skill and language power have to be clear. We see people pronouncing words as their mother tongue allows them to, which is OK. But pretentious accenting without knowing phonetics is bad. That will not keep them in good stead in the long run. Phonetics has to be taught properly.
We have several seats lying vacant in engineering colleges...
Ninety percent of our students don’t know what’s quality. It’s only the medical colleges that impart quality knowledge in the field. They produce the best clinicians as well. But that’s not the case with the engineering sector. When 100 of them pass out, only one or two turn into engineers.
You are a historian. There are many who ask, ‘Why should we study history?’ What will you tell them?
We look at older times to get a glimpse of what happened then... history gives us warnings.
Does Kerala history have a pan-India nature or a state culture-specific individuality? There is a myth that Kerala was created after Parasurama hurled an axe…
History is universal in terms of the underlying dynamics of change. But surface manifestations have regional individuality. This is true of myths and legends as well. Many coastal states have similar Parasurama stories... only that different things were hurled. In some states, like Gujarat, it’s not an axe but palm leaf basket (muram) which has been hurled.
Is Parasurama a myth or a historical figure?
Parasurama is an incarnation of God. Once he is in human form, he becomes a legendary character. Kerala being created by hurling an axe is a myth. It is said that Parasurama gave the land to namboothiris. It means that they are not obliged to any king, unlike elsewhere in the country.
So, is it historically incorrect to say that brahmins were brought in?
It’s true that brahmins were migrants from the north. It doesn’t mean that every one of them had come from northern India. Humanly possible, but a rare phenomenon. Remember, it is tradition that migrates. There were people here who had chased them away. But those brahmins who returned armed managed to conquer the inhabitants. That’s the truth behind the legend.
Where does the nair community come in?
It is said that Parasurama made all groups of people serve the brahmins. They were all sudras. No kshatriyas because Parasurama had killed them all. No vaishyas either. Those sudras who were the accountants and overseers of brahmins became menons. Nairs were the ones who accompanied brahmins as armed servants.
If we take the caste system in Kerala, though untouchability existed elsewhere in the country, did the concept that untouchables shouldn’t even be seen exist only here?
Yes. It was intense even among brahmins themselves. Brahmanyam is associated with ritual status, wealth and power. Over a period of time, many among the brahmins, those who took to vocations
other than vedic rites, got degraded under pathithya dosham, but with the sacred thread retained. For example, those who practised medicine — moosath — had immense wealth but were prohibited from entering the kitchens of vedic brahmins. This brahmanyam influenced all castes.
Do you think it still exists?
Yes. An ambalavasi still claims his status to be immediately next to brahmins, but far distant from that of nairs. A nair thinks he is above a pillai, a pulluvan thinks he is above a panan and so does a parayan in relation to a pulayan and vice versa.
In your opinion, what was the most significant development in the history of Kerala?
The first significant incident was the conversion of marshes and swamps into paddy fields. The next was the structural change in the landscape ecosystem with the development of railways and roads across them.
Tipu Sultan’s invasion has been marked as an important chapter...
Yes. It was Tipu who started measuring the land and assessing the income from it. He was the first to impose land-tax rationally. It was he who started constructing roads.
How do you look at the current renaissance attempts by the government?
When you say renaissance, what are you trying to revive? Europe had a classical intellectual Greek culture that they revived. In Kerala history, we cannot find any such culture that could be revived. What the government means by navodhana must be a casteless, democratic, secular and women’s rights culture. But when did such a culture exist here? At the same time, protests led by sages for socio-religious reforms involving all did take place.
But these sages were believers of Gods and aimed at religious reforms...
You are right. Renaissance is not reform. However, we see elements of renaissance in the lives of all sages. But, as you say, most of our sages were trapped in ‘belief in God’, as elsewhere in the country.
Including Sree Narayana Guru?
Yes. Maybe he pretended to be so in order to be communicative to the ordinary people. His atmopadesa satakam is translated as self-instruction. Contrary to what’s being portrayed, there’s no self-instruction in it. He may have written it as advice for ordinary folks. For someone of his stature, with the knowledge of advaita, these are just elementary facts.
Was it because of the pervasive influence of Narayana Guru that Shankaracharya failed to exert a profound influence in Kerala?
I have doubts whether Shankara was a Keralite. Apart from tradition, we have no concrete proof. If he were from Kerala, we could have found a Kerala influence in his writings and his influence in Kerala. People attribute to him all kinds of things such as stabilising the caste system here, driving away Buddhists, and so on. Ascribing works like Soundarya Lahari — a Shaiva writing — to him is equally ridiculous.
Do you mean to say the Shankaracharya tradition here is a later creation?
I think so. Look at the history of his activities. He had established mutts all over the place. However, why was not a single mutt established in Kerala? His first mutt was in Karnataka. He established mutts from there all the way up to the north. I believe Shankara had no relation with Kerala. His level of understanding in the Upanishads seems to have had no following in Kerala till recent times. The tradition that the Mimamsaka Namboothiris here did not accept Shankara is logical.
If we look at the history of princely states, Marthanda Varma has been portrayed as a dharmaraja. What do you think?
Dharma Raja was his nephew and successor. You can call him dharmaraja based on what you think a monarch should do. It depends on what we perceive by the term dharma. Though physically weak, he was a strong monarch, extremely angry with Ettuveettil Pillamar and keen to suppress them. His first move was to impose major fines on traders for violations, so as to amass more wealth than Ettuveettil Pillamar. He managed to collect rare diamonds and stones, which are now part of what’s termed as the treasure trove in the temple. His actions certainly led to major social changes in Travancore.
Do you think these kings had modelled themselves on the Vijayanagara emperors?
Yes, I think so. Most of the early Travancore kings had followed the model of the Vijayanagara emperors who in turn had emulated the Mughal sultans in attire and facial appearance. Travancore kings looked like badshahs.
Though Travancore was economically inferior to many other princely states, it fared much better in several other social indicators. British documents term Travancore as a model state…
Marthanda Varma’s insights were the primary reason for the land reforms in Travancore. He had recognised the significance of education. Patta Vilambaram was a subsequent major move in Travancore under his inspiration. People from the ezhava community were good at farming.
The Patta Vilambaram facilitated them to take land under the king on lease, for farming was a revolutionary movement where people, irrespective of caste, were allowed to take land on lease. Those from the ezhava community were the biggest beneficiaries. When their economic status improved, they too could send their children to schools. In the 18th century itself, many among the ezhava community opted for higher education. By the 19th century, it led to the rise of people like Dr Palpu. That he was kept away in the name of caste is a different story.
Marxist historians often allege that BJP has been trying to distort history. Doesn’t this apply to Marxist historians too, given their silence on certain topics?
That’s because certain factors don’t aid secular thinking. Using discretion is the normal approach. In a disturbed society, we should not try to aggravate the scenario. Hence, it’s true that they chose a preferential approach. They also criticised attempts to exaggerate some other factors, for instance the narrative over attacks by Muslim conquerors in the Sindh region. The past is often very complex and a mixed bag of things. If the past is a collection of flowers, historians are the ones who try to make a garland using these. A thread is needed to string these facts together. Marxian theory is the only thread that can put together historical facts.
But Marxist historians seem to be obsessed with the Mughal period, while completely ignoring native kingdoms like the Chola and Chera dynasties…
That’s not true. It’s about availability of more source materials. Those who know Persian language are able to study available documents. The book by Irfan Habib on Mughal agrarian relations is globally recognised. The NCERT included some of it in the textbooks, but this has been removed. It’s because he’s being tagged as a Muslim. Ironically, Muslim fanatics count Irfan as their enemy. He’s a simple man who chose to be amidst the working class, despite his aristocratic background.
That means there’s nothing called objective history. All these are perspectives, right?
Yes. Objective history is impossible. History has always had certain partialities. The question is, what are you partial to? If one is inclined to social justice, then there won’t be any attempts to exaggerate facts. Instead of being partial towards any particular caste or religion, history should be written from the perspective of the socially marginalised sections or exploited people or human justice. What’s wrong in writing history from a dalit perspective?
TNIE team: Cithara Paul, Anil S, K S Sreejith, Cynthia Chandran,
Sovi Vidyadharan Vincent Pulickal (photos), Pranav V P (video)