Chapter 17

Teacher and student

When we talk about student-teacher relations also, there is a very marked difference between what really exists in English speaking nations, and what is obvious in India. And in India itself, there are two entirely different sort of relationship that is in existence.

The main difference between the English nations and India in this regard, is that in an English nation, the teacher is not an all knowing boss, and controller of a student. He or she is addressed with either a Mr., Mrs. or Miss prefixed to his or her name. One can use the words You, He, She, Him, His, Her, Hers etc. in regard to the teacher. For, it is only a reflection of what is happening in the outside world. The easy interaction of the English world and language is in evidence here also. The student need not live in a life regimented by hierarchical language. There is more exchange of ideas, and discussion, debates and arguments on a, more or less, equal level of dignity. Just because one has become a student of a particular man, need not pressurise a man or boy to understand that he is his subordinate in other aspects of social life. Neither need he continuously harp on respectful words, and usage to and about his teacher. For, there is no sense of disrespect in ordinary usage.  And an easy, unaffected, articulation by the student would not give a feeling of impertinence to the teacher. And the mental and physical growth that can happen in such a free, mental atmosphere need only be seen to be discerned.

When contemplating on India, there are two entirely different streams of student-teacher relationship in vogue. One is the student-teacher relationship in the vernacular. The other is the one seen in the English Schools. This latter one can further be divided into two sub groups.

The vernacular one is really a tough one, with the feudal elements of the particular language affecting the relationship in a very nasty manner. But depending on the language, this also comes in different hues and shade, all depending on the intensity of the feudal elements in that particular language. In a general way, one may say that South Indian Languages are worse off in this regard than Hindi. And among the South Indian languages, Malayalam is now becoming the worst. As a case study, let us take the Malayalam language:

Malayalam medium education is generally given in the government schools, where heavily paid, and pampered teachers, who do not know much English take upon themselves to see that the students do not acquire any knowledge in English. They use the indicant words like Nee, Avan, Oan, Aval, Oal, Avante, Avalude, Olude, Ea-da, Ea-di etc. to communicate with children. It may be noted that these words do have heavy negative emotions, and are the words used to and about the servant class. At the same time, the teachers are to be addressed with unwavering respect. None of these terms should even be imagined in the context of a teacher. The teacher is to be addressed with a prefix of Sar or Mash (Master) to his name; in the case of female teachers, the word Teacher is prefixed to her name: So Mr.Raman becomes Raman Sar or Raman Mash; and Mrs. Mary Abraham becomes Mary teacher. Also for the words You, He, She, His, Hers, Him, Her etc. the word used is Sar or Teacher. And the other package of indicant usage would include Adheham and Avar for He, Him etc. and Avar for She, Her etc. This social positioning keeps the child in a very regimented and suppressed social atmosphere. And his mentality is to please the teacher by manners and behaviour that display and accentuate his inferior stature and he does this by exhibiting more and more intense formal words and actions of respect. Here discipline is more seen in displaying and using respectful words. Not in any other sense. For, in the English situation, this type of communication is not in existence, and hence such a requirement to display such discipline doesn't come into count.

Generally, one can see from the features and behaviour of a child, the effect of this language. The features do display a feature of a closed mentality, and the liberated looks that pure unadulterated English gives is absolutely absent. Also, one may discern a feature of diffidence and also, a marked undercurrent feature of defiance in the child's feature. For, he is ever in search of areas where he can display his true, free personality. These children are treated with a severity of discipline, for the language insists that they be kept in their level, which is basically of the servant class. And they learn to respect only those who can be severe to them in real life. Those who are polite and affable lose their respect and they are judged as weaklings. And in circumstances, where they are under benign leadership, they quickly become problem creators. But under hard taskmasters and under highly regimented social systems, they perform well. They also dislike persons who display a free mentality, and especially women and girls, who interact in a liberated manner, get a very negative judgement from them. They also usually become very feudal in their outlook. If they become government employees, they understand all common people as the subordinate social class, unless there is any other positive higher indicant attributes to them. And, if they don't become government employees, then they fit into the social level, they exist in, perfectly, extending obsequious deference to the government employees. To those below them in social status, they display sharp disdain and regimentation.

Now we will take the Student-Teacher relationship in an English Medium. Before going into that there is need to go into some history. When the British were ruling India, they introduced English education. They themselves taught English. Many of the students, who studied under them, and those who later studied under these students, imbibed the real positive attributes of English. But they were living in a society, where the social philosophy of the local languages existed in sharp contrast to the social philosophy of English. So, these students, in life maintained a sort of superior aloofness to the local cultures. And when some of them became government employees, they generally displayed conspicuous antipathy towards such things as corruption, nepotism. They generally functioned professionally. Yet again, their clerks and other subordinates were in a vernacular culture; wherein they couldn't be made to understand the affability of the English environment. For, even if they tried to display an attitude of Public Interest First, the subordinates living in vernacular culture, could not digest why so much deference should be shown to the public, when historically and also by the usage in language, the they are subordinates to the Public Servants.

After Independence, and also before Independence, there were many persons who did not get this type of English education, but did manage to imbibe English through the help of other means and persons. These persons brought in a form of English, which was literally a literal translation of Malayalam. The same inhibitions that Malayalam had were superimposed on this English.

It may be understood that English is a very easy language to learn. It has only 26 alphabets, and words don't change in form as per the change in tense, or structure of the sentence. And many other complicated features of Malayalam are absent in English. Compared to studying Malayalam, studying English is very, very easy. But the problem here is that unless one takes care to learn the correct English, the language learned is not the British version of English in philosophy, but a Malayalam English with all its negative social philosophies. 

After Independence, many of these Malayalam-English persons embarked on teaching English. Many of them set up schools.

The after effects of this are seen in the present English Medium Schools of India. The school atmosphere is mainly in the vernacular. Yet, all know English. The teachers definitely use the lower Malayalam (vernacular) indicant words to the students to properly subordinate all students. Once this is achieved, they do insist that the children talk in English. There are many things lacking in this English and in the teaching methodology. But that is not within the purview of this book.

Since the students mainly exist in the Malayalam mental mood, the whole communication system is mentally based on Malayalam psychology. Mr. Raman, the teacher is addressed as Raman Sir; this term is also used for all such as usage as You, He, His, Him, etc. Mrs. Mary, another teacher, is addressed as Mary Madam; this term is also used for all such terms as You, She, Her, Hers etc.

In some schools, though the teachers insist on and do practice English, the lower class of staff like the clerks, store keepers, peons etc. talk in the vernacular, and constantly bring the children to the lowest indicant vernacular levels.

The students here do speak English. Yet, on hearing this diffident English, one really gets the creeps. But due to the other general aspects of English, the children of these schools do display a more liberated facial expression. They mentally exist in both Malayalam, and slightly English states. Yet, this type of learning English does not give the child the real English experience. What they get is only a façade.

But it must be admitted the severe lowering of standards in English took place only in recent times.

And when these children grow and chance to get government jobs; it is possible that they generally practice more of feudal attitudes, than the English liberalism.

Then there is the third type of English education, which is very, very rare in India, which impart the real English, in all sense. They usually belong to the International type of schools, run by international groups. And the syllabus also, is connected to either the British or American. But they function as isolated islands in the midst of simmering mediocrity. The students who study in these schools generally belong to the super affluent class. They do not make any impact on the Indian society, at large.

Now coming back to the real Indian situation: when anybody goes to learn anything from any institution, they should address their teachers only as Sar or Sir; or Madam  And also, as, for example, Raman Sir, or Raman Sar; or Mary Madam. All the words like He, She, His, Her etc. can get deleted by this word Sar or Madam. Now, it is not possible for everyone in the society to bow below youngsters who put on the cloak of a teacher, on the basis of knowing something about something. For, once a person is given this title, it becomes a sort of social position between them; irrevocably stuck.

Illustration:  A very good example is the teaching of computer applications in many institutions. In many places, the rich, senior or socially high persons have not conceded to join any of the institutions because of this factor. If they are lucky enough, some of their relatives will teach them at home, once they get a computer.

For, there is an understanding, which may be connected to the ancient, Indian solitary education system, that the teacher is a guru; a sort of all knowing person, who claims feudal respect from the student. And to take a person as a guru* is to accept his mental superiority in all aspects. This understanding is really an impediment to learning a number of arts in a very casual manner. For, the guru would, in the feudal language, claim some mental proprietorship for imparting and sharing his knowledge.

One very remarkable example can be mentioned here. There is a superb system of martial arts in Kerala, known as Kalari. The major problem with this art is that it insists on a lot of heavy obsequiousness to the guru. In other words, once you learn this art from a guru, you become mentally subordinated to him for the rest of your life. Even if you dislike this, you may not be able to do anything about it, as, in Malayalam the indicant words would haunt you till your or the guru's death. In fact, if anyone can bring Kalari into English, it may even go beyond the reaches of such other martial arts like Karate and Kung Fu. For, Karate and Kung Fu got their liberation once the English world took it up.

Now to put all this in a nutshell: In an English context, a student addressing his teacher by his surname would not be conceived as an utter breakdown of systems and discipline.  And since the words You is in only one form, for both the teacher and the student, they both are, more or less, in the same level of individuality.  But in Indian languages, addressing a teacher by name is unthinking and the words You, He and all connected indicants adopt different forms for the teacher and the student. Here their respective individualities are kept at different levels, the student's in a much lower one.  So, in the Indian context, the teacher is at a level of a super Guru, to be respected and shown homage and kept on a pedestal, while the student is at a level of an obedient and respectful worshipper, who should not dare dispute, contest, or argue on any decrees of the guru.  In the English contest, the teacher is kept at a more human level.  In India, any student who dares to show more individuality is seen as an undisciplined character and pain is taken to crush his individuality.  And so, it is possible that the schools in the English world would be more attractive to the students there, than to their Indian counterparts who study in Indian schools. But at the same time, it must be borne in mind that in their home also, the Indian children get, more or less, the same level of individuality and they don't have much better levels. So, schools can be relatively attractive to some.

And finally, the student is given indoctrination on the superiority of certain jobs, and professions over others. Actually, the schools should be places where the feudal understanding that if one were a doctor, the common man should not question him or ask him questions about the medicines that are being given to him, are removed. But in practice, in the schools, the child gets to understand that unless he or she becomes a doctor, or engineer, or a government servant, he or she is an insignificant person in the country. In this contest, I would put in my understanding that America is a great nation, not because of its engineers or doctors or other professionals, but because of its great common man, who can sit and talk with anyone, if the need arises. And can exist in a dignified, intelligent level.

If one watches an Indian TV programme depicting a talk by a doctor, teacher, professor, scientist, police officer, bureaucrat, consultant, or some other person, aimed at the common people, one may discern a facial behaviour, voice intonation and an attitude of a parental type. As if the person concerned is addressing a child of minor intelligence and understanding. And if there were any common man participating in the programme as the person whose doubts are being cleared, then his demeanour would be that of a mentally junior person, who needs to be spoon-fed the simple information. In this case, it may be understood that the second person would not actually be such a nitwit. Yet, he puts on a show of being so, as that personality is understood to concede the most comfort to the consultant.

There is not much need to emphasis that the type of interviewing of Prime Minister, Presidents, Senior Bureaucrats etc. as seen in the English world is not possible in India. The very word Mr. President or Mr. Vajpayee would send shock waves through the social fabric. What is considered appropriate is the tail wagging, deferential type of interview. The general intellectual level of this type of debating need only be imagined. Moreover, the feebleness of the contributions, it can make as a tool of democratic checks and balances can be understood here.

Actually here there are only two options: either be very deferential, and obsequious; or be very offensive and rude. The other option of being politely assertive cannot be envisaged in a feudal language context. Yet, what is required for a healthy social and political life is a tool for this third type of communication. I have seen one remarkable Indian, Pranab Roy, who desperately tried to teach this form of polite, yet dignified level of communication to certain youngsters in the media world. I saw them frantically trying to follow his guidelines. Yet, their performance was just momentary. This I saw during the media coverage of one election campaign and results. The media persons simply could not go on. All they did way to perform for once, and then with meek obedience, submitted themselves to the pressures of the local feudal social communication.