Bhopal Gas Tragedy & Struggle for Quality Education: A Teacher's Courage and Conviction

[I am reproducing here a letter I wrote to International Campaign for Justice in Bhopal: Boston chapter, of which I am a member.]

Hi,

I am writing to add a dimension to discussions on solidarity across borders, issues and communities. How struggle for education and struggle for justice in issues like Bhopal disaster, have come together in an unexpected way. It is not big news in India, not even small news in fact, but people on this list would be able to appreciate it much better I think. This is a long email and describes some of the ideological and political conflicts teachers, communities and schools are involved in currently. But, I think this is also an opportunity for us to inform ourselves about struggles in various arenas, particularly when other groups acknowledge and support this very important struggle for justice in Bhopal.

I am part of the "All India Forum for Right to Education" and have been part of groups involved in political activism for the right to education. This has been a struggle against structural inequality in educational opportunities and outcome, and against market forces manipulating the delivery, content and entitlements to education of equitable quality.

There are various smaller groups which are part of local Right to Education forums (e.g. Bhopal and Itarsi in MP, Mumbai in MH. to begin with, and similar groups have been formed in Nagaland, AP, TN and many other states.). There are many teachers' groups engaging with issues of marginalization, quality and right within education. These are groups (sometimes they are part of existing teachers' unions, but mostly teachers organizing in isolation from those).

One such group is the "Lok Shikshak Manch" in Delhi, which has not only been discussing issues within education, but actively engaging in improving teachers' understanding of other struggles for social justice, equality and empowerment. They have been in solidarity with workers' struggles for just and humane working conditions in Delhi for example. Recently, a teacher, chosen by Tech Mahindra Foundation (its CSR arm: Corporate Social Responsibility) for its Shikshak Samman Award (to honour outstanding teachers in Delhi Municipality schools) decided to given it back after earlier accepting it.

Apart from informing you all of his reasons for this decision, I want to emphasize that he thought it important to understand the overall political ideological context of this entire phenomenon (the existence of these CSR groups in education and their launching such awards) and had the honesty and courage to act according to what he thinks is right. He has a problem with the political economy of education within which this entire phenomena has developed, and with the stand of the company and the management on various other issues - from Bhopal to commericalization of education.

He has listed as his reasons (based on his letter posted on the group's website. It is in Hindi: http://lokshikshakmanch.blogspot.in/):

1. the fact that the company was till recently being run by Keshub Mahindra, who was also Chairman when the Gad Disaster first struck. And that the courts not only did not give a just verdict - just two years' imprisonment for ruining entire lives, families, communities - but also allowed him to get out on bail.
2. that NGOs, particularly, corporate-run NGOs have been hell bent on proving that state and municipal-corp run schools do badly,  that teachers' sloppy work and lack of motivation and ability is responsible for this, and that the better thing is to run private sector and NGOs run entire school-system. When the truth is that for much of the deteriorating condition of schools, a systematic withdrawal of funds, and adding on of non-educational work to teachers' work load are also responsible. (that pedagogy in India needs to undergo radical reform is not to be denied, but educational 'reform' in last 2-3 decades is responsible for much damage to quality and availability of schooling - not just in India but across the globe.) The same NGOs and forces cannot then pretend to be 'honouring' teachers' work.
3. that a system which insists on evaluating and selectively honouring work of professionals/teachers is in a way feudal and deserves only to be rejected. He dislikes the idea that it is based on competition which is artificial and ultimately will demotivate and divide teachers instead of encouraging. If teachers work well, they should be appreciated bu they do get paid to work well, so why should they be awarded additionally for that? Moreover, he argues that in that sense, how is corporate politics different from the party politics and other political tactics that state award systems (for municipality schools) reinforce?
4. he had sought the award as evidence of the high quality of his teaching work, and had believed to be given based on merit. However, it turns out that short-listed teachers have to attend meetings organised by the foundation - even if that causes loss to teaching time. They also have to 'appreciate' the fact that they were chosen, and individuals involved in the selection process believe that they are doing teachers a favour - so what happened to 'merit'??
5. he refuses to accept 'solutions' like those adopted very recently by the Mumbai Municipal Corporation - of turning over BMC schools to NGOs and corporate houses as the Mun Corp finds itself unable to efficiently run these schools.

Such stands are to be appreciated also because it is necessary that schools and students learn about disasters like Bhopal, so it can be critically discussed and prevented in future. If teachers are aware, only then will curriculum reform have substance and effect.

Who will stand up to fight, in what ways, when or why, are unpredictable and maybe that is what is one of our strengths as citizens communities of the world against entrenched political and financial power. 

Reva.

More on the housing apartheid

Take a look at this one: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3614002.ece 

Read the comments!!!! It is so easy to reduce vegetarianism to individual choice and habit...but the deep-seated discomfort with it is very much cultural and ideological. We forget that. Not all food or other choices induce us to keep certain people out. But, this one does. Secondly, why is it that so many people from certain class and caste and religious groups are house owners while other groups are typically renting houses? The distribution of resources like land and housing is skewed in favour of certain communities - why?? The report itself mentions how systematically better areas are given to upper classes and castes. Lastly, people who dislike nonvegetarianism are not very likely to accept that many of the highest selling cosmetic products are responsible for destruction of habitats, entire forests, systems of livelihoods and communities...those products use raw material which requires large scale commercial farming. Many everyday products also use animal parts - e.g. glue sticks. 


Why is one kind of consumption harming animals acceptable but not others? And you are saying this differential attitude towards various kinds of consumption has nothing to do with class, caste and religion?

Housing Apartheid: how not to ignore realities of caste and class

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/article3614070.ece. This report in The Hindu talks about how Muslim and non-vegetarian people sometimes have trouble finding accommodation in Chennai. At one place, the report says, "In the land of curd rice, vegetarians have it easy."

The report is making a mistake made way too often. It is ignoring the intersections of caste, class and religion. It assumes that all Tamil people eat curd-rice, i.e. they are vegetarians. Sorry, not true. Except for the upper caste people [I don't mean just Brahmins, they are a very small percentage of Chennai's population, and almost invariably belong to the highest socioeconomic categories. A lot of better off brahmin progeny are also to be found abroad.] most other groups are very much non-vegetarian. So, let us ask another fundamental question: who are the people more likely to have multiple houses or flats, or houses big enough to let out portions on rent? Who has the resources to buy or build and own houses? Mostly, upper caste, upper class people - not a complete overlap of caste and class, but an ominous enough one.

So, when someone conducts a survey of how house-owners respond to diverse food habits, or religions, they are basically surveying only select communities in the city. It does not mean that the survey is not significant. If certain groups are more likely to be houseowners in a city which attracts multitudes of migrants from diverse backgrounds, then knowing something about their attitudes and worldview is most important. I am only objecting to the report's assumption that Chennai is the land of curd rice, or of vegetarians. It is not.

In fact, it is important to understand and discuss the intersections of class, caste, religion when one is trying to analyse atmosphere and attitudes in a city. It is important to acknowledge that resources have not yet been distributed at all equitably - whether it is land and housing, education and employment, or social status. And, so, attitudes become even more important and so does representing them correctly. It seems to most of us middle class, educated people, that splitting hairs about caste, class, gender etc is against India's supposed secular credentials. But, if we really wish to understand and address the problem of intolerance and inequality, it is most important to unpack what groups harbour what attitudes towards the wide socioeconomic and cultural spectrum in India.

Because, ideologies, values and views do not always work in explicit and clearly visible ways. They work through everyday decisions - who we talk to and don't, who we trust and don't trust, who we employ and who we won't even consider, whose children we consider appropriate company for our children, and which children we won't let into our inner sanctum. Whose writing, ideas and vision is acceptable to us, what papers we read, which news channels and TV programmes are welcome into our living rooms, what kind of movies attract us, and which we consider irrelevant and boring...these are the everyday decisions which reflect our biases, our values, our tolerance or lack of it. Most importantly, we do not just make these decisions as houseowners, neighbours, fellow-travellers or colleagues, we also make these decisions as employers, policy-makers, teachers, entrepreneurs, and as professionals in many other fields. That is why, which sections dominate various professions and spheres of public life, and what attitudes they have, are indeed important questions to ask.

So, when a news report in a newspaper I trust more than most others, discusses the secular credentials of a city, I expect it to do a bit more digging and tell me which groups are more and less secular. That is, which groups consider some people more equal than others. I expect it to unravel some more details and tell me clearly if it surveyed a representative sample or only the more resourceful in Chennai. I am not implying that the paper deliberately misinformed readers; like many others, it just ignored certain fundamental hierarchies along which society is ordered. But, then these are inequalities that we don't talk about in a growing neoliberal India.

Finally though, my own limited personal experience, and Human Development Indices for the state say that Chennai is far less conservative than many other cities in the country, particularly in north and central India. TN does better than many states when it comes to ensuring opportunities for, and delivering on rights for women, for people from lower castes and classes, for minorities.

* * *

Links to a socialist, feminist education

Here are some links I generally keep track of, in order to know in what new ways both the state and market forces are pulling the wool over our eyes. These links talk about how categories and hierarchies of gender, caste, class, race, ethnicity and religion intersect and produce both - oppression, and knowledge which seeks to free us from this oppression. 

These websites also cover a range of international politics and policy issues which, I think, helps put people's struggles, neoliberal policies and issues of governance in India in perspective. It is also something we badly need in order to develop both our strategies for struggle against systematic oppression, as well as shaping policy-provisions to achieve a just distribution of resources and democratisation of decision-making in India.

What I want to see though, is a blog fully committed to women's issues, covering all aspects of gender-biases in a comprehensive manner. Many of the websites listed below do cover issues of women's rights and gender, but a more devoted blog I think is sorely needed. It would help discuss and debate issues in a more systematic and focussed manner. Except for a small minority of activists and academicians, gender is not understood as a category nor is it seen as a serious issue except for a very limited focus in terms of foeticide, infanticide, dowry-deaths, access to schools, etc. Patriarchy needs to be unpacked in much greater depth if we really wish to move towards an India where gender will cease to operate as a category of oppression.

Meanwhile, I hope this list helps. I have often had to google for information on various issues. This list may help people who are interested in regular updates on what is happening in India in terms of social, political oppression and struggles.

Counter Currents: countercurrents.org

The Greanville Post: greanvillepost.com (a most useful analysis of US domestic and foreign policy, i.e. of capitalism-US ishtayle!!)

Round Table India, for an informed Ambedkar age: roundtableindia.co.in

Frontline: frontlineonnet.com

Economic and Political Weekly: epw.in (this one is particularly useful for people interested in academics)

Truthout: truthout.org

Hard News: hardnewsmedia.com

Kafila: kafila.org

Sanhati: sanhati.com

Communalism Watch: communalism.blogspot.com

Seminar magazine: india-seminar.com

'Tehelka' paper and magazine: tehelka.com

Two Circles: twocircles.net

Gender Bytes: genderbytes.wordpress.com (this is a new find and am yet to finalise my opinion of the website)

[If readers can help add to this list, it would be most useful. Thanks.]

Open defecation: A problem of mindset?

http://www.thehindu.com/sci-tech/energy-and-environment/article3524150.ece?homepage=true

According to this article in The Hindu, when it comes to the matter of open defecation in India, "increased spending alone will in no way turn out to be a magic bullet....[B]ringing about a change in mindset is the paramount need."

The question I wish to raise is, whose mindset? The article is sure it is the mindset of the people who 'choose' to defecate in the open.

I think the article presents just one part of the problem. It is important to understand and remember this because in India much of the problems with conceptualising, planning, and implementing policies arise because of the sociocultural differences between those making and supporting policies, and those seen as the 'objects' of policy-making. It is simpler to see all problems as arising from absence of adequate technological resources and absence of adequate information. In this case better water treatment and technologies for it are sought on the one hand, and greater awareness among those defecating in the open on the other.

Doubtless, the two are eminent suggestions. One, India does need to treat and recycle water, considering both increased use and depleting water resources. Nothing wrong with the idea of spreading awareness regarding hygiene either. My problem is with two assumptions which seem to have been made here: that increased allocation and technological solutions shall be adequate answers. Secondly, that people defecate in the open because they do not understand the health issues lack of sanitation contributes to.

The problem of sanitation is directly related to two other issues - that of availability of water and proper housing. All three issues require systematic long-term planning and investment of resources in developing requisite infrastructure. When it comes to urban areas, there are numerous other issues: one  of the biggest being increasing migration from rural areas, which is directly related to our very skewed economic paradigm. This paradigm has done little to develop jobs or infrastructure in rural areas, or support local, traditional and rural economic link themselves with the larger economic processes. Instead, local and traditional economic systems and occupations have been killed or at best ignored, and nothing has been planned to take their place. That has caused some of the largest internal migration in India in the last 2-2.5 decades. There can be no sustainable plan for providing water, sanitation or housing if the population is going to fluctuate so much this frequently. Not that we have tried sustainable planning. Or any kind of urban planning. Or worried about the urban poor constantly losing out on basic rights and services.

To go back to water, there has to be adequate and reliable supply of clean water everywhere, and problems of access need to be addressed too. If there are wells or hand-pumps or lakes and rivers which are not accessible to sections of local populations (local conflicts - gender/caste/community/ethnicity based), the problem of sanitation can not be addressed. Or, if there is no water available most of the time, which is true for large numbers of urban localities too. Thirdly, we need the infrastructure to purify, supply and treat water.

Housing. Another skeleton in the GoI closet. It is such a big problem and has been for so long we don't even talk about it. Or get to read about it. Again, as I said, it is also related to forced internal migration and skewed economic planning. Successive governments cannot just talk about and invest only in common toilets. Though we badly need some policy-research on the usefulness and cleanliness of common toilets, I would argue even now: why should people have to go out of their houses to access toilets? Secondly, hygiene is not simply about problems of open defecation. Particularly, for women and girls in underdeveloped and underserved regions, sanitation and hygiene are about much more - about taking care of their bodies, and reproductive health, and having their safety ensured. So, we do need to talk about housing when we talk about sanitation.

When funds are allocated for constructing toilets, there are many other issues which need to be tackled at different levels of governance and administration. Are time-frames taken seriously? Are funds actually spent on construction toilets and ensuring water availability? What dynamics of caste, class, gender, bureaucracy come into play to decide who gets contracts for constructions? How democratic and transparent are local  processes of decision-making? Who decides where and how many toilets will be constructed? Are women and lower castes really represented in decision making bodies? If people don't use toilets, has anyone tried to find out why they don't? Is water really available, say, in the early morning when people are most likely to need to use toilets? What are the mechanisms for post-construction evaluation on the ground?

What is wrong is the assumption that the poor - who are the ones without access to toilets - do not know better than to defecate in the open. Yes, there are traditional practices which are responsible, but, it is only a very small factor. Biggest factor is lack of understanding on the part of policy-makers of the multiple, complex and interlinked problems that various underprivileged sections face everyday.

Finally, I also want to problematise our tendency not to take class conflicts and class, caste, or gender-based marginalization seriously. When poor or/and illiterate people make a complaint to a company or govt office providing services do they respond with as much alacrity and sense of duty as they would were the complainant a middle/upper class person? Has decentralisation meant that local elected representatives hear people out irrespective of their gender and caste? Can the highest policy-makers ever really hear what problems a child working in a brick kiln faces, or the woman rolling beedis or sweeping municipal schools? Or, the man trying to survive on selling earthen pots or on daily wages paid to an urban construction worker? None of these people have access to sanitation. But, their problems are not one-dimensional. So, we - the middle and upper classes reading English language newspapers, the national news media, and our secular, liberal, technology-smitten, denial-stricken policy-makers need to get off our respective high horses, and accept that we do not always know what the solution should be. Or even what the problem really is. But we need to find out. From the people who actually live with those problems, and take their experiences, ideas and needs into account when planning, funding and implementing. Remember, democracy...and rights?

So, yes, bringing about a change in mindset is the paramount need.

Seeing prostitutes as citizens, women, human beings

Siddhant, one of the best drama series broadcast by Star One, had a sincere caring young lawyer as its protagonist. Each episode used to take up an issue and weave a court case around it, taking up issues like bad roads in Mumbai causing miscarriages, fairness creams causing horrible skin infections to consumers, and the one most relevant here: a police officer raping and battering a prostitute who then seeks justice through courts. The episode showed how a lecherous, beastly officer can not only unleash terror on citizens and subordinates alike, but get away with it too. On TV, the young enterprising lawyer gets an ashamed, terrorised and guilt-ridden constable to testify against the officer in court. 

But, in real life one would have to be more than enterprising to get any sort of evidence against the guilty police officer who assaulted two prostitutes recently, one of the victims being pregnant and who subsequently miscarried. This happened in Satara Maharashtra, but it could have happened anywhere - any city, metropolis, the remotest village. And very likely happens pretty much everyday.

There are two problems - both very fundamental. One, police thinks - and mostly rightly - that it can get away with murder. Literally. It misbehaves and breaks laws not only while investigating cases (though I don't think that that is license either) but also in general. In essence, being a legitimate member of the police force only means that one can vent all one's casteist, sexist agenda in full public view, in broad daylight and not be held responsible for it. In Indore, my unfortunate native place, there are seasons when tribal communities from nearby areas migrate to the city in search of jobs. During those times if there are any incidents of theft, etc. the efficient police force of the city promptly puts as many men from the tribal communities, as it can lay its filthy hands on, into jails. You see they can be proved to have motive so darned easily!!! With our economy the way it is, it is not difficult to show that a tribal man is hungry and has no money to buy even food - so who better to frame theft charges on??

So, those from the most marginalized communities - and who is more marginalized than prostitutes??? - simply become a targets of the police force's own oppressive social order. You are poor, have least chance of anyone - from media to ministers to the blind middle class - coming to your rescue or even bother whether you are inside or outside jails, then you are just the perfect target for the policeman! A kick in the face, a boot on your pregnant stomach, a false complain of soliciting in public place, and then where are you? Is it any surprise that rape victims or victims of domestic violence, or any other women victims prefer to bear their suffering in silence than seek help from the police or courts? You may go in a plaintive and come out the accused. Or better still, the deceased.

The other problem is we as a society do not really think that prostitutes may have rights - as any other woman, human being, or citizen. They do  have rights to life, protection and dignity. In Siddhant, this point was made: just because they are sex workers does not mean that an one can force themselves on these women. One, they have the right to choose who their client will be, two they have to be paid. Three they simply cannot be forced just because they are prostitutes. If we so hate the idea of prostitution can we please rein the male clients?? And the mostly male racketeers involved in trafficking of women and children through the country? And the ministers, businesses and policemen who turn a blind eye to the whole thing? And while we are it maybe we would also question the policies and policy-makers who have allowed poverty to get so bad women have to prostitute themselves?  But then, you'd be questioning global neoliberal capitalism. And being stoned to death isn't all that pleasant, right?

In any case, whether they do it out of choice or out of desperate need, prostitutes still have right to life and rights to protection and security. They certainly have the right to be treated as citizens entitled to these rights, by those the state employs to protect its citizens - the police.

What we need is more vocal protest from the civil society itself. That might be a tall order. Considering that we hardly support our own friends, wives, daughters, mothers, etc. when their rights are being trampled over by men all around us, we are hardly likely to raise our voices in support of women who our oh-so-pious society considers the scum of the earth!

Facebook, Freedom & Spreading the Unsubstantiated Word

Today I read this story on the Facebook about how a joke on Sardars actually hides not something funny, but a serious story about how a Sikh Guru sacrificed his life to save Hindu women from Mughal rulers, and the Hindu community from enforced conversion. So, the words that are used today to taunt Sardars actually symbolise their bravery, not their foolishness.

I didn't know how to react to the story. I have always found it quite insensitive of people to enjoy jokes on particular communities, particularly because I also grew up hearing anecdotes where a Sardar would be the butt of the joke. TV shows and joke-books too are full of those. So, yes I absolutely wish that  people would realise how distasteful and hurtful it is.

On the other hand, how smart is to spread stories which would strengthen communal feelings in an already deeply divided society? It can easily be true that some Sikh Gurus saved Hindus from conversion, or Hindu women from being abducted by Muslim administrators or rulers, and that some Mughal rulers or their Muslim bureaucrats were exploitative of the people, particularly Hindus. But, does that mean that all Mughal rulers were exploitative and coercive? (The story does not name any Mughal ruler.) And does it mean that only Muslim rulers were possibly oppressive? And that Hindu or other kings and their bureaucrats were only the nicest possible individuals?

How much sense does it make to spread stories which we cannot substantiate, in a society which has used myths and unsubstantiated stories as 'authentic' history to deepen distrust, conflict and hatred between communities? We already have Ramayan, Mahabharat and multitudes of other stories doing the rounds in our country and being used to 'prove' how the Mughals were the worst thing that happened to our country and how Hindu nationalism needs to get its own back and prevent Muslim assertion in any form. Don't we know that any ill-will assigned to Muslim rulers transfers itself comfortably to the Muslim citizens of present day India? The imagined and actual atrocities committed by Muslim rulers would be avenged with impunity on today's Muslims? We already have Mosques pulled down and hundreds killed in riots in Gujarat in 2002. Have we not had enough riots and violence?

What is worst is that highly 'educated' people, individuals educated in some of India's best institutes, individuals trained in weighing scientific evidence and thinking logically, 'Like' and 'Share' these stories on Facebook without thinking once about what evidence they have to believe these stories, and what impact spreading those might have. Again, I am not saying that the stories cannot possibly be true - very likely many rulers were atrocious; power does tend to corrupt, so, why would only Mughal rulers have been immune to that corruption? On the other hand, we don't know that they were all corrupt, communal and disrespectful of women and other religions. Why do we think that any one community would have the worst possible morals and ethics and all the rest be pure as driven snow?

In precolonial times, there was no single united Indian nation-state as we have since independence. Most kings and rulers were engaged in waging wars and extending their empires. Except under some emperors India did not have one central authority, nor did we have one official religion. It can be nobody's case that rulers were always impartial or pro-people; and yes rulers many times imposed extra taxes on people from religions other than their own. But, does that mean that Muslim communities among the ruled were also responsible for the actions of Mughal rulers? That, they, for generations have to pay for what the rulers did? True, there must be Muslims today who are corrupt, who don't respect other religions, or women. But does that mean that all Muslims are corrupt and hate other religions? Does it mean that as Hindus, Muslims or Sikhs we can forget that we are also human beings and can perpetrate any kind of atrocities on each other, and go on hating each other for ever?

Yes, justice is important. So is history. But, history as a body of knowledge is tentative, it cannot tell us the whole story, it cannot present the full facts of any case or all the evidence. Can we simplistically base our conceptions of justice on 'truths' we can only half-know? Can we push history and historical truth through centuries to justify violence and oppression on certain communities today? What kind of society would that make us? If we simply decide to believe the worst of each other, or refuse to accept an alternate interpretation of available facts; if we refuse to accept any interpretation which is contradictory to our perceptions, prejudices and beliefs, then history will only become a convenient brick to be thrown at the other party - and never a credible means of understanding our collective and intertwined pasts/stories. It will be twisted, distorted and pulled in all directions to make it fit our version of stories we weren't even ever part of. It will not let the hatred rest. It is all too easy to invoke a history of imagined slights and offences and go on seeking revenge. It is harder to let go. It is harder to believe good of someone we have been taught to fear, hate and defeat. But is that any way to make our way together as a society? Would it ever allow us to begin to trust each other, to look at each other without uneasiness and suspicion?

And that brings me to the question of freedom of speech and expression. I fully support this freedom. But, I also hope that we will all use this freedom carefully. That every time we put something up in the public domain we will think about what impact it may have. Do we wish for greater or lesser violence and hatred? Do we wish for greater or lesser understanding across faiths and religions? Do we wish for greater or lesser dialogue with others? It is real people out in the world that we are talking about. Can we afford to ignore our responsibility in making their lives harder or easier? Once spread these stories cannot be contained. Is it smart to put a story out there without thinking even once about whether there is proof to support it? Particularly, because I often see multiple versions of the same joke, the same anecdote floating around in virtual space, and can never figure out where each originated and which one is true? With increased freedom and more space to express myself has come greater responsibility of choosing what I say, whose word I spread around.

आज़ादी

बात यहाँ से इसलिए शुरू कर रही हूँ क्यूँकी ये ब्लॉग चालू करते समय करते भी मुझे ये समझ में आ रहा था की यहाँ मैं जैसा और जो चाहूँ वो नहीं कर पाउंगी. मुझे नाम हिंदी और अंग्रेजी दोनों में लिखना था, वो संभव नहीं हुआ. फिर मुझे अपने दूसरे ब्लॉग से मामला अलग रखना था, वो भी संभव नहीं हुआ. हाँ मैं ये कर सकती थी कि एक नया, गुप्त जीमेल अकाउंट बनाती और उससे जुड़ा हुआ एक ब्लॉग शुरू करती. मगर मैंने सोचा कि इतना दुराव छुपाव रखना ही है तो फिर 'फेमिनिस्म' की बात क्या होगी? जो भीतर दबे, गहरे छुपे अर्थ और स्वार्थ हैं उन्हें कुरेदने का ही तो सवाल है. फिर उसे भी यूं छुपा कर करने में क्या तुक हुयी?

मेरे बारे में काफी कुछ मेरी प्रोफाइल में लिखा है. यहाँ इतना ही बता देना मैं ज़रूरी समझती हूँ कि मैं भौतिकी की छात्रा रह चुकी हूँ. मगर उस समय मेरे ज़हन में जो समाज, और दुनिया के बारे में सवाल उठने शुरू हुए, उनके जवाब ढूँढने का सलीक़ा शिक्षा/एजुकेशन की छात्रा बन कर ही आया. उसके बाद इस ब्लॉग तक बात कैसे पहुंची उसकी कहानी कुछ यूं है. पिछले साल के आखिर में मैं अपने पति के साथ कुछ समय के लिए अमरीका आई. यहाँ मैंने एक सेमेस्टर के लिए एक परचा, बिन डिग्री और मार्कशीट के, पढ़ने का तै किया - परचा मज़ेदार और काम का था. (दरअसल सेमेस्टर मई में ख़त्म होगा.) नाम है: 'फेमिनिस्ट इन्क्वाइरी'. मतलब ये, कि जो भी नारीवादी, स्त्रीवादी रिसर्च होती है, जो भी सामाजिक विज्ञान के क्षेत्र में ग़ैर-बराबरी और जेंडर-भेद पर काम होता है, उस में क्या ख़ास बात होती है जो उसे स्त्रीवादी बनाती है, ये समझना. तो इस पर्चे में हमने यही सीखा, यही बात की, कि किस तरह से रिसर्च को नारीवादी बनाया जाये, कैसे उसे भेदभाव, ग़ैर-बराबरी के मुद्दों पर केन्द्रित रखा जाये, उसके विषय और तरीके किस तरह चुने जाएँ, और उन्हें किस तरह लिखा जाये, कैसे सबके सामने पेश किया जाए. 

तो इस पर्चे कि पढ़ाई करते-करते मैं सोचने लगी कि क्या ऐसी पढ़ाई, रोज़मर्रा की ज़िन्दगी, और भारत के वर्तमान राजनैतिक, सामाजिक मसाइल - सब को जोड़ते हुए कुछ बातें हो सकती हैं? लड़कियों, औरतों कि पढ़ाई, उनकी सेहत और स्वास्थ्य, उनके बोलने और चुनने की आज़ादी, उनके अस्तित्व और लेखन और उनकी सोच - ये सब कुछ जो मामले हैं, वो सिर्फ़ सामाजिक विज्ञान की थ्योरी, सिर्फ़ किताबी या अकादमिक नहीं हैं. कम से कम नहीं होने चाहिए. मगर सच ये है कि हमारे देश में इस किस्म की रिसर्च, इस किस्म की पढ़ाई पर ज़्यादा ध्यान नहीं दिया गया है, जबकि और देशों में इस पर काफ़ी काम हुआ है. हमने सामाजिक विज्ञान को, समाजशास्त्र को किताबों, कालेजों में बंद कर दिया है. उसे हमने अपने सड़कों, शहरों, स्कूलों में आने ही नहीं दिया. इसमें समाजशास्त्रियों और शिक्षाविदों और टीचरों और नीतियाँ बनाने वालो - सभी कि थोड़ी थोड़ी गलती है. हमने पढ़ाई - स्कूल से कालेज तक कि सारी पढ़ाई - को असल ज़िन्दगी से दूर रखा है. इसीलिए जहाँ ब्रिटेन में उनके समाजशास्त्र या नारीवादी स्कालर्स के पास उनकी वर्तमान समस्याओं पर रौशनी डालने का सामान है, हमारे समाजशास्त्रियों के पास ये सामान और ये समझ नहीं है. और हमारे शिक्षा, स्वास्थ्य, भ्रष्टाचार या शहरीकरण पर नीति बनाने वाले तंत्र, हमारे शिक्षा चलाने वाले तंत्र और हमारे आम लोगों के बीच में कोई सम्बन्ध नहीं है, कोई संवाद नही है, कोई विचारों का लेन-देन नहीं है.

ख़ैर, तो इस सब पर लानत-मलामत करने से सिर्फ़ तो कुछ हो नहीं जायेगा. तो मैंने सोचा कि इन सब मुद्दों पर कोई चर्चा खड़ी की जाये, ज़रा समय लगाया जाये ये सोचने में कि कैसे हम रिसर्च, सामाजिक-नीतियों, रोज़मर्रा की ज़िन्दगी और नारीवाद को आपस में थोड़ा कहीं जोड़ सकें, करीब ला सकें. ताकि औरतों, लड़कियों की जो असल जिंदगियां हैं उनमें, उन जिंदगियों में दखल देने वाली सरकारी नीतियों और सामाजिक नज़रियों, और जो सामाजिक-विज्ञान या अन्य क्षेत्रों में नारीवादी सोच और रिसर्च विकसित की जाती है, इन सबमे एक ताल-मेल बैठा सकें. नीतियों और रिसर्च को जिंदगियां बेहतर करने में थोड़ा सफ़ल बना सकें.