What do they know – after all, they’re only poor people. And real knowledge is that which is written in books and taught in universities, which of course they don’t have access to, isn’t it?
By now I’m sure you’re well aware of the vast variety and depth of knowledges that non-literate people bring – only it doesn’t get the recognition it deserves and is sentenced to remain marginalized and often die out. By not respecting the knowledge heritage the vast majority of our students bring, we certainly deprive them of the one strength that can be used to learn ‘school’ knowledge – but we also lose out on the great contribution the diverse community knowledge heritage could make to the country. (I’ve written on this elsewhere in this blog hence not elaborating it further.)
Listening is seriously valued – you must listen to your elders, pay attention to your teachers… as if major wisdom is dangling on their lips and will be lost if not caught by the ears that very instant. Now that you can not only look up information but actually hear lectures on all conceivable topics on the internet, this is one notion that is already past its sell-by date. In fact, it should never even have been available in the ‘sell’ category. Ultimately, it is what we reflect on, try out, adapt and work into our own understanding that emerges as learning, something the ‘constructivist’ thrust of the current NCF keeps emphasizing. By continuing to practice ‘listening-to-teacher-explaining’ as the core pedagogy, we ensure our students don’t get around to learning in the manner and at the level they are capable of.
One reason why this continues to prevail is due to the notion that teacher must ‘control’ the class – and the class can be controlled only if the teacher has something to offer that can be held back at will – namely, explanation-giving talk. By treating themselves as the ‘source’ of learning, adults in general, and teachers in particular, manage to hold themselves in a position of power vis-à-vis children, choosing what and when to offer – and emaciate children (mentally). All this talk of ‘developing our human resource’ and the ‘demographic dividend’ will bear fruit only if adults seriously make an effort to give up this kind of ‘power’.
In many ways, therefore, this myth is a bigger blockage than you might anticipate, since it operates to defeat the purpose of our efforts after we have succeeded in bringing the teacher and the student into school for a duration that is long enough to enable learning. This is the hole in the bucket, or one big explanation of the continuing low levels of learning across the board.
Unfortunately, it is proving really difficult to deal with. Despite the enormous amount of resources and effort spent on teacher development, practice continues to revert to the listening mode. Part of the reason may be cultural – after all the concept of the guru \’giving\’ his knowledge to the disciple orally is three thousand years old, runs in our blood and makes it difficult for us to believe that teaching can be anything else.
One of the ways to address this might therefore be societally – it is only when parents, communities, society itself start expecting teachers to something different that it might happen…
This is an extension of the previous myth, except it operates between officials/supervisors and teachers. The notion is that the teacher is merely a cog in the wheel, lower down in the hierarchy, and the best way to get him to improve is to make him comply with instructions from above. Apart from the fact that the instructions from above often tend to be problematic, it is also true that many of them don’t get implemented at all. At best, teachers can be made to comply with rules such as coming on time, or turning in a certain amount of work – but they can’t be made to like children, or smile at them, or feel like coming to work every day and radiating this enthusiasm to students and colleagues. That is only possible if the system seeks a partnership with teachers, treats them as fellow stakeholders and engages with them on a more equal footing.
As the experience of RTE shows, instructions, rules and even laws that make lack of compliance justiciable – are insufficient to bring about the required change. They are simply the wrong instrument for the purpose. (I’ve written about coercive and generative power elsewhere.)
Myth # 6 – Stakeholders are concerned about education (as educationists understand it)
Curriculum developers, educationists, policy makers, thinkers on education, many ‘NGO types’, reformers and other highly respected people often talk of the ‘aims of education’ – be it in terms of creating a more democratic society or a more evolved person etc. Somehow, those who are actually affected by education are unable to get this. For the masses at large, the purpose of education is to make life better, go up the social ladder by getting a job or being able to earn a stable livelihood. This is nothing to sneer at or term as a ‘wrong’ or ‘limited’ expectation. In fact, this is what millions of parents are slaving away for, sacrificing a bit every day so that their next generation may attain a better life. By looking down upon this view, by treating the situation as if ‘we are doing education to them’ instead of with and for them (or perhaps us), those who design education tend to marginalize the very people education is meant for. They also end up with curriculum, textbooks and processes that do not build on the experiences that children from less privileged backgrounds bring, something that is an enormous resource being wasted, which then continues the cycle of marginalization.
Like parents, teachers too have their own idea of what they would like. Despite what is often said, most teachers do want to succeed – what they would like is some practical (not philosophical) advice on how to handle the really difficult situation they face – increasing diversity, the changing nature of student population as more and more ‘left out’ groups join school (in Delhi slums, migration is leading to 7-10 home languages in the classroom, including Punjabi and Odia which are not contiguous in the ‘normal’ world), changing curricular expectations they haven\’t had time or support to absorb. Even after attaining the PTR norms mandated by the RTE, we are going to have well over 50% schools with around 80-100 children, with 2-3 teachers handling 5 classes – that is, a very large proportion of teachers already are and will continue to work in multi-grade settings in the foreseeable future (while curriculum, pedagogy and materials continue to assume a mono-grade situation). Given that we are still short of 14 lakh teachers (the number was reported to have come down to 10 lakh, but with increased enrolment, is up again, the situation being much worse at the secondary level), the effect is felt by the 56 lakh who are there. As mentioned, educationists may want high levels of learning to be attained using their policies and curriculum, but teachers just want to survive the day and, if possible, succeed in generating some learning.
And what kind of school would children want? Exercises on this have been few and far between. Most of the time children end up having to manage with whatever ‘we’ give out – from mid-day meals to ‘child-friendly elements’ to colourful books or whatever else. It is in the nature of children to find interest in whatever is made available, which is why there is a tendency to assume we have an idea of what they need. But engaging with them on the issue might reveal a lot more. For instance, talking with secondary school girls in a remote area in UP, we were discussing the need for toilets – but the girls said, “We can manage without the toilets, but what we can’t accept is that we are forced to choose Home Science and are not offered Mathematics.” This is surely something the authorities are not working on.
Simply listening to stakeholders might be a good idea. It would be revealing and educative for \’experts\’, helping reduce their arrogance and bringing their relationship with the stakeholders on a somewhat more equal footing.
What would you say if an expert approached you? And if you are an expert, how would you approach the stakeholder?
Myth # 7 – The education system exists to improve education
Systems tend to lead double lives – at a conceptual level they might be brilliant, with wonderfully competent and committed people leading them. Yet at the ground level, what is in operation may be entirely different. Thus despite terrific policy and capability at policy/decision-making levels in the health sector, what common people might be heard saying is: “It is better to pay through your nose at a private clinic, than to die for free at the government hospital.”
For the people, the ‘system’ comprises of those representatives they meet at the district, block, cluster and village level, and occasionally those at the state levels. To understand the situation, try asking a group of educational administrators about the finer aspects of TA-DA rules and how they apply them, and you will find they can animatedly discuss them for about two hours. But raise the issue of why children are not learning (which is actually their real responsibility) and you will get a different response… (It’s true, isn’t it?)
This is what tends to happen to any system (or even organization) over time – ultimately it’s own nuances, requirements, procedures, structures and powers (or power) become its main concerns, with the reason for its very existence slowly dimming in the memory of its functionaries. Thus:
teachers/CRC-BRC must spend more time collecting data even at the cost of teaching or improving learning, or
every school must follow the given framework for its School Development Plan (because the need to compile the plans at the block level is more important than the need for it to be appropriate for that school), or
every HT must maintain records for the officials \’above\’ even if it means she will not have time to support her teachers in improving the classroom process.
It is as if children, teachers, HTs, SMCs all exist to feed the machinery ‘above’ which has to ‘control’ them, and ‘give’ them resources (from mid-day meals to teachers to textbooks to in-service training, from which often a ‘cut’ may be taken), ‘allow’ them to take decisions such as which would be the most convenient time for most children to attend school, ‘monitor’ the work of teachers, ‘test’ the learning of students, and ‘grant’ the privilege of education.
What the RTE implies is that it is those who get their salaries because of children who are the real ‘beneficiaries’ – which includes all the administrators, supervisors, inspectors, monitors, institutions, departments, ministries. It is they who are accountable to children and teachers, or would be if they really existed for education.
As mentioned, give them enough time and systems end up existing more to perpetuate themselves – and the status quo within – rather than the purpose for which they are created. Try making a change in the way things are organised within a system and you might find it responds with a kind of ferocious energy it fails to display when similar urgency is required in its primary objective. For instance, if it were declared that an educationist rather than an IAS officer will head the Department of Education, you will get a lot more activity in the system (to prevent that) than if you declared (as is well known) that most children are failing to attain grade level learning across the country.
Finally, systems exist to preserve the hold of the powerful. Issues that affect the middle classes or those more privileged get inordinate attention in the system. Thus nursery school admissions in private schools in Delhi are a big issue, or the allocation for poor children in elite private schools is endlessly discussed, or the class 10 board exam being needed (by children from better off families)… but the death of a 100+ children in a mid-day-meal from a poor section of society, or the low levels of service in deprived areas or chronically low learning levels despite much money being invested – fail to receive that kind of attention.
For those seeking to make a dent in the system, it would be healthier to have a more \’aware\’ notion of what the education system really exists for. The puny strategies we use to make things better are unlikely to serve as even pinpricks to the system.
To all those who are convinced that the non-detention policy is harming education…
Children’s apparent lack of learning becomes an issue mainly because it is easy to see that they have missed out on something. The fact that at a younger age learning is very fast and that clear milestones are available helps us perceive this – and therefore apply all kinds of expectations, tactics, at times even coercion to ‘ensure’ learning – one such being the detention system which, many believe, is needed in order to maintain ‘quality’. By making children lose a year because we couldn’t ensure their learning (and blaming them for it), we feel we can generate the fear required to make them ‘serious’ and learn.
If we are convinced about this, why should it apply only to school education? What if we could lay out clear benchmarks for adults to learn and grow – in general as well as in the work they do. Certainly it is possible to have a life-long ‘curriculum’ with two-year benchmarks (over their entire careers, and even post retirement) for educationists and curriculum developers, teachers, HMs, government officials, managers, businessmen, fathers and mothers (and grandparents), journalists, artists, municipal staff, auditors, accountants, administrators, intelligence agents and politicians. What if there was a ‘detention system’ (in terms of not being allowed to be promoted or get a pay increase or being sent back to some lower ‘grade’)? Yes, in some government jobs there is an ‘efficiency bar’ and the supposed HR policies and internal competition are expected to sort this out. But do they?
Can we as a nation claim that we have, every year, demonstrated the improvement required to declare ourselves ‘promoted’ to the next level (whatever that is)?
And what happens when police are unable to reduce crimes, leaders are unable to ensure the welfare of the poor, systems are unable to deliver basics such as electricity / water / education / health, or societies are unable to get men to have basic respect for women?
Continuing to live with these myths is to deny ourselves the opportunity to succeed, especially for those who need education the most. The first step is to accept that these notions have indeed affected our work in trying to bring about better education. Acknowledging this is not a sign of defeat but of learning.
After acknowledgement, however, come reflection – and small steps.
Here are some small steps that all of us can take:
Discuss these ‘myths’ and related issues with as many people as you can. Question and contest them, or support them, with your experiences, facts and data from your sphere.
If you are in any way connected with education – as a student, parent, teacher, CRC-BRC, official or resource person, NGO worker or decision-maker, make one small change every month which in some way empowers children or teachers or HMs. (Our team, Ignus PAHAL, will soon be producing a poster presenting a graded list of these small, doable changes at the school level.)
Talk with as many stakeholders as possible and within reach (and in the limited time available) about what they would like. They might suggest things they could do – and a small beginning may be made to a partnership in bringing about improvement that is gettable. It may be a better way to help children wash their hands before the mid-day meal, or managing to start the school 10 minutes earlier so that learning time increases, or ensuring used textbooks are circulated better, or working out how you may share your expertise with children or teachers.
Find something interesting you can share with children. It may be a news item (e.g. did you know that for some reason, the MHRD – and some of the other ministries of education in the country – face a problem with monkeys troubling them?), or an interesting story you’ve read or know (but no moral tales please!) or a suggestion for something they can try out (e.g. making a paper plane turn in a predicted direction) or find out (e.g. why the inner margin of a textbook page is wider than the outer margin – okay, that is too easy but you get the idea).
Find a way to convert complex educational ideas into simpler forms so that a person with no background in education or no access to ‘high’ language may understand it. E.g. ‘non-detention is not the same as non-evaluation, and that by detaining children we are making them pay the price for the system’s failure and also supporting the idea that it is fear which leads to learning’. Can you find a way to make this idea easy to understand for millions of teachers, parents, SMC members and others? (You can guess why this statement was selected as the example…)
Use your mobile – call up a teacher, or text her an idea or send your appreciation. With children, use the stop-watch, camera and calendar in your phone to do activities. If you know an official and have a good enough relationship, make him or her uncomfortable by reading out sections of this article (don’t get into a bitter argument – a gentle, understanding approach may be more useful!).
Finally, please add to the discussion on these 7 Myths and, perhaps more importantly, to the list of suggestions.
But all these are very small things, you might say. They can’t achieve much. Well, not if many, many, many of us are doing them! Perhaps it’s a myth too that only when some large government programme is in action can change take place. This ignores local ingenuity and the sheer numbers that can make government efforts look feeble – or boost them to make them actually succeed. Towards this, your views and ideas may be more powerful than you imagine. And that’s not a myth!
Whether on the TV or in newspapers or on social media sites – we are today surrounded everywhere by strong views on nationalism. Groups of people are getting angry and upset, calling each other names, being violent. Your students too are caught in this, though they may not fully be aware of it. They will be absorbing views from different sources, all of which may not be reliable. And they may end up adopting strong opinions (or even what you consider misguided ones) without giving them sufficient thoughts. For this reason, we have prepared a discussion guide. It is important that at this crucial time, when they might be making a choice, you, their teacher, reach out to them and help them think things through.
So here are some hints. Use them in the way they work best for you. Drop them or change them or add to them according to your need and situation.
Preliminary – setting the ground
For such a discussion, it would be best to prepare the ground gently rather than rush into it. Here are some questions you could ask.
Have you been hearing or seeing the news or reading the newspapers?
What are some of the big issues being discussed?
What have you read or hear about the ‘nationalism debate’?
Provide background
Briefly give a background to the issue. It is possible many may not have heard it or may not have a clear idea of what happened.
Discuss the issue
As students the following questions. Make sure you get everyone’s views, especially those who often don’t speak up. [Some hints are given in the brackets.]
So what do you think it means to love your country? [taking care of the environment? Looking after those who are not able to take care of themselves? Singing patriotic songs? Joining the army? Being polite to others? What else? Especially in our daily lives, what do we do (or can do) to show our patriotism?]
What are the best ways to show your love for your country? [you can use the list from the previous question to identify 2-3 of the ‘best’ or ‘most important’ ways and discuss why students think they are the best.]
What are some of the things you would not do if you love your country? [e.g. spitting everywhere as it spreads disease, not dirtying or vandalizing the environment, not jumping a queue or try to take an undue advantage…]
Even in a family everyone is not able to agree on everything? Have you seen any example of this? What happens in such a case?
So if someone does no agree with you, is it a good idea to beat him or her up? Why?
What do you think are the best ways to deal with disagreement?
And what if on the issue of loving your country, someone says something you don’t find pleasant? What should you do?
What are the best ways of finding out more deeply why people think the way they think? And how can you use that to help them see things differently?
Afterwards
Of course, this discussion will not end here. Give students some materials to read. Organize one or two follow up events. Suggest that the students have their own discussion group and contact you for help if needed.
‘It took me quite some time to get the little girl to let me know what was bothering her,’ said Prof. A. K. Sharma, the former Director of NCERT. The year was 2000 and he was telling me about an incident from a class 2 maths period in the model school in the NCERT campus. The teacher had just completed teaching children subtraction of two-digit numbers with ‘borrowing’, and he had found two children hesitating over the problems they had been given to solve.
The first, a girl, had made a ‘mistake’ as she had failed to borrow from the tens side. Being a grandfatherly and kindly figure, he was able to cajole the girl to speak up. Very softly, looking down and away from him all the while, she said, ‘We learnt in the moral science class that borrowing is bad.’
Reeling from this, he approached the other child, a boy, and discussed why he had not completed his work on the problem. After much exchange, the boy said, ‘But why should I borrow 1? I want to borrow 2.’
Taking part in a recent session on ‘error analysis’, I was reminded of Prof. Sharma’s advice to engage with children to understand their ‘errors’ rather than rely on their work on paper. In numerous assessment experiences since, I’ve seen children who are otherwise very competent falter because of an issue at home or a fight with a friend or because they are being bullied. In open-ended questions in language, teachers are hard put to identify if there really is an ‘error’ or if the child’s view is a valid, logical interpretation. (And asking only close-ended questions is hardly sufficient to understand children’s abilities.) It becomes even more difficult when it comes to children from marginalized backgrounds – as they encounter discrimination and even denigration (of their background, language or culture), they often resist by ‘not-learning’ or do not answer out of fear of being ‘disciplined’.
As the evaluation industry expands in the Indian context with more and more professionals taking in rigorous analysis of children’s responses and analyses of their ‘errors’, the tendency is to interpret these within the framework of the subject for which the test was conducted. But do we know what we really assess when we look closely at children’s responses? What if it’s not a maths or language issue but something else altogether?
The pervasive notion that \’nothing has been done in education in India\’ could not be further from the truth. In fact not only has a great deal been done, but its consequences have been faced over decades. In particular, what follows applies to introducing educational designs based on local context, using the experiences and strengths of the stakeholders, creating a situation where they play an active role in determining and implementing processes. Though obviously much must have been done over the decades till the 80s, my experience ranges from mid-80s, when I was part of a team working on such classroom practices, textbooks and educational designs from 1986 onwards. Implementation of the programme called Prashika (Prathamik Shiksha Karyakram) focused on marginalised groups, with the team living in a tribal area as well as in a rural, deprived pocket and introducing the innovation in government primary schools. The work in Prashika was pathbreaking in many, many ways (integration of 5 subjects at the primary level, incorporation of multiple local languages, a hugely localised textbook/workbook that could only be completed with each child contributing, called Khushi-Khushi – still not matched anywhere, I believe). It provided hope that much was possible despite the difficulties faced and informed many of the later efforts that followed, both in the government and the NGO sector.
Later in DPEP – particularly Kerala, Assam, Karnataka, Haryana, UP, Bihar, TN, Nagaland and later with SSA Gujarat further work was done. Localised training, contexualisable textbooks (some really brilliant stuff still not matched anywhere – and that\’s a professional opinion), teacher determined assessment system, involvement of community knowledge, children constructing local histories / local environment books, peer learning and assessments, textbooks that would be \’complete\’ only along with a set of 50 district-specific books kept in the school library…. many, many innovative and large scale measures were conceived and actually implemented using a strategically developed implementation plan.
In each first five states we were able to see 2-3 years of implementation, development of hundreds / thousands of teachers who implemented contextualised learning, a high degree of in-class practice backed by supportive, localisable material. These states changed their position in the national achievement surveys too, with Kerala rising to the top (it had been fairly close to the bottom before this, below Bihar in the first national survey). In the case of Gujarat, field testing was done in 630 schools, researched by MSU Baroda with very encouraging findings.
However, as long as we were not visibly successful there were no problems. When change began to be visible on some scale and a palpable sense of energy was witnessed among teachers and communities, alarm bells began to ring. in each of these states, the powers that be – especially at state level, state institutions, administrations, political parties – found that this went against the command-and-control structures conducive to them being able to assert their authority. Schools didn\’t want to be told what to teach when and how – they had their own plans. Empowered teachers / school heads / even some VECs refused to kowtow to mediocre ideas or corruption oriented bosses – leading to huge conflicts all over the place. Unfortunately these never got reported, recorded or researched. The results were mass scale transfers, cases against state project directors who encouraged this (Kerala SPD was charge sheeted, Karnataka SPD given punishment posting in North Karnataka, Assam SPD sent to conflict zone during worst riots, Bihar SPD transferred to PHED and later kept without posting), the re-casting of State Resource Groups from those selected for tested capabilities to those stocked with ex-officio positions, the emasculation of the BRC-CRC structures from genuine teacher support institutions into data collection centres (believe it or not, we did have functional BRCs CRCs at one time!), the centralisation of powers away from the VECs and re-casting into SMCs with a different function, and major shift in recruitments away from districts to states (in one state the Education Minister held a Recruitment Mela in a stadium to personally appoint 3000 para-teachers). Interestingly, Prashika in MP faced a similar adminstrative backlash and was closed down.
Yes, like it or not, this is what ideas of empowerment through education come up against – and they fall short not because of lack of any purity in the idea itself or absence of rigour, but because after a point when it goes into implementation an idea is something else, and not its original pure self. You might look at the actual work and find it is not \’up to the standard\’ – yet when trying to create it for those who need education the most, other aspects need to be taken into account. Basically, empowering the weak is clearly seen by the strong as disempowering them – and the empire strikes back! One of the outcomes is that a few years later, it appears as if nothing has been done, and people gear themselves up to again come up with \’innovative\’ ideas, often weaker than might already have been tried, uninformed by the past.
Years ago, it was felt that the root of all problems in education is the teacher. In fact, the MLLs (Minimum Levels of Learning, which served as the de fact national curriculum framework) in the late 80s and early 90s were designed to ensure \’teacher accountability\’ in terms of the minimum that would be achieved. A popular programme, Rishi Valley\’s multi-grade teaching (adopted/adapted as \’activity based learning\’ in many states) actually originated from the desire to get children to be able to learn without needing the teacher (which is why there is so much of self learning in it).
People still continue to condemn the teacher and hold him responsible for all the ills in education. However, with the proliferation of so many \’reports\’ on education all around, there is now a great sense of intolerance towards the education system itself. The belief seems to be that not only government teachers and schools but the government education system itself is condemnable. Among NGOs, academics, commentators, researchers and intellectuals the general notion seems to be gathering steam that everything and everyone in the government system is the problem!
But what is a system if not the people in it, the way they work and the frame within which they work? From that point of view, I have to say that some of the finest people I\’ve come across are \’system\’ people. Every year I get the chance to work with thousands of teachers who I see putting in 12-14 hour days when others from outside the system (e.g. NGOs) fade away after only 8 hrs of input. This is not to say everything is OK with the system or the policies or the people – it\’s just point out that a black and white view doesn\’t help. And that just as it is not possible to change a teacher while condemning him, it is not likely to be possible to improve a system while condemning it!
Years ago, it was felt that the root of all problems in education is the teacher. In fact, the MLLs (Minimum Levels of Learning, which served as the de fact national curriculum framework) in the late 80s and early 90s were designed to ensure \’teacher accountability\’ in terms of the minimum that would be achieved. A popular programme, Rishi Valley\’s multi-grade teaching (adopted/adapted as \’activity based learning\’ in many states) actually originated from the desire to get children to be able to learn without needing the teacher (which is why there is so much of self learning in it).
People still continue to condemn the teacher and hold him responsible for all the ills in education. However, with the proliferation of so many \’reports\’ on education all around, there is now a great sense of intolerance towards the education system itself. The belief seems to be that not only government teachers and schools but the government education system itself is condemnable. Among NGOs, academics, commentators, researchers and intellectuals the general notion seems to be gathering steam that everything and everyone in the government system is the problem!
But what is a system if not the people in it, the way they work and the frame within which they work? From that point of view, I have to say that some of the finest people I\’ve come across are \’system\’ people. Every year I get the chance to work with thousands of teachers who I see putting in 12-14 hour days when others from outside the system (e.g. NGOs) fade away after only 8 hrs of input. This is not to say everything is OK with the system or the policies or the people – it\’s just point out that a black and white view doesn\’t help. And that just as it is not possible to change a teacher while condemning him, it is not likely to be possible to improve a system while condemning it!
Years ago, it was felt that the root of all problems in education is the teacher. In fact, the MLLs (Minimum Levels of Learning, which served as the de fact national curriculum framework) in the late 80s and early 90s were designed to ensure \’teacher accountability\’ in terms of the minimum that would be achieved. A popular programme, Rishi Valley\’s multi-grade teaching (adopted/adapted as \’activity based learning\’ in many states) actually originated from the desire to get children to be able to learn without needing the teacher (which is why there is so much of self learning in it).
People still continue to condemn the teacher and hold him responsible for all the ills in education. However, with the proliferation of so many \’reports\’ on education all around, there is now a great sense of intolerance towards the education system itself. The belief seems to be that not only government teachers and schools but the government education system itself is condemnable. Among NGOs, academics, commentators, researchers and intellectuals the general notion seems to be gathering steam that everything and everyone in the government system is the problem!
But what is a system if not the people in it, the way they work and the frame within which they work? From that point of view, I have to say that some of the finest people I\’ve come across are \’system\’ people. Every year I get the chance to work with thousands of teachers who I see putting in 12-14 hour days when others from outside the system (e.g. NGOs) fade away after only 8 hrs of input. This is not to say everything is OK with the system or the policies or the people – it\’s just point out that a black and white view doesn\’t help. And that just as it is not possible to change a teacher while condemning him, it is not likely to be possible to improve a system while condemning it!
At the outset, we need to pay attention to what has been stated so explicitly by the Apex Court in this latest, landmark and laudable judgment titled P. Gopalkrishnan @ Dileep Vs State of Kerala and Anr. In Criminal Appeal No. 1794 of 2019 (Arising out of SLP(Cri) No. 10189/2018 delivered on November 29, 2019 that a Magistrate cannot withhold any “document” submitted by the investigating officer along with the police report except when it is voluminous. Further, in case of voluminous documents, the accused can be permitted to take inspection of the concerned document either personally or through his pleader in Court. There is nothing wrong in doing so!
report news
To put things in perspective, the Bench of Apex Court hearing this case was considering Kerala film actor Dileep’s plea for handing over copy of the visuals of the alleged sexual crime committed on a Kerala actress in February 2017. It was held that the contents of a memory card in relation to a crime amount to a ‘document’ and not a ‘material object’. Very rightly so!
To start with, this latest, landmark and laudable judgment authored by Justice AM Khanwilkar for himself and Justice Dinesh Maheshwari of Supreme Court sets the ball rolling by after granting leave in para 1 by noting in para 2 that, “The conundrum in this appeal is: whether the contents of a memory card/pen-drive being electronic record as predicated in Section 2(1)(t) of the Information and Technology Act, 2000 (for short, ‘the 2000 Act’) would, thereby qualify as a “document” within the meaning of Section 3 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the 1872 Act’) and Section 29 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘the 1860 Code’)? If so, whether it is obligatory to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of such memory card/pen-drive to the accused facing prosecution for an alleged offence of rape and related offences since the same is appended to the police report submitted to the Magistrate and the prosecution proposes to rely upon it against the accused, in terms of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the 1973 Code’)? The next question is: whether it is open to the Court to decline the request of the accused to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of the subject memory card/pen-drive in the form of video footage/clipping concerning the alleged incident/occurrence of rape on the ground that it would impinge upon the privacy, dignity and identity of the victim involved in the stated offence(s) and moreso because of the possibility of misuse of such cloned copy by the accused (which may attract other independent offences under the 2000 Act and the 1860 Code?”
Be it noted, para 3 then observes that, “The appellant has been arrayed as accused No. 8 in connection with offence registered as First Information Report (FIR)/Crime Case No. 297/2017 dated 18.2.2017 punishable under Sections 342, 366, 376, 506(1), 120B and 34 of the 1860 Code and Sections 66E and 67A of the 2000 Act, concerning the alleged incident/occurrence at around 2030 hrs. to 2300 hrs. on 17.2.2017, as reported by the victim.”
As it turned out, para 4 then illustrates that, “For considering the questions arising in this appeal, suffice it to observe that the investigating officer attached to the Nedumbassery Police Station, Ernakulam, Kerala, after recording statements of the concerned witnesses and collecting the relevant evidence, filed police reports under Section 173 of the 1973 Code before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Angamaly, First police report on 17.4.2017 and the second on 22.11.2017. When the appellant was supplied a copy of the second police report on 15.12.2017, all documents noted in the said report, on which the prosecution proposed to rely, were not supplied to the appellant, namely, (i) electronic record (contents of memory card); (ii) Forensic Science Laboratory (for short, ‘the FSL’) reports and the findings attached thereto in C.D./D.V.D.; (iii) medical reports; C.C.T.V. footages and (iv) Call data records of accused and various witnesses etc.”
To put things in perspective, para 5 then envisages that, “It is noted by the concerned Magistrate that the visuals copied and documented by the forensic experts during the forensic examination of the memory card were allowed to be perused by the appellant’s counsel in the presence of the regular cadre Assistant Public Prosecutor of the Court, in the Court itself. After watching the said visuals, some doubts cropped up, which propelled the appellant to file a formal application before the Judicial First Class Magistrate, Angamaly for a direction to the prosecution to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of memory card containing the video and audio footage/clipping, in the same format as obtained in the memory card, alongwith the transcript of the human voices, both male and female recorded in it.”
It cannot be lost on us that it is observed in para 6 that, “The Magistrate vide order dated 7.2.2018, rejected the said application, essentially on the ground that acceding to the request of the appellant would be impinging upon the esteem, decency, chastity, dignity and reputation of the victim and also against public interest.”
It also cannot be lost on us that it is then envisaged in para 7 that, “Aggrieved by the above decision, the appellant carried the matter to the High Court of Kerala at Ernakulam (for short, ‘the High Court’) by way of Cri.M.C. No. 1663/2018. The learned single Judge of the High Court dismissed the said petition and confirmed the order of the Magistrate rejecting the stated application filed by the appellant. The High Court, however, after analyzing the decisions and the relevant provisions cited before it, eventually concluded that the seized memory card was only the medium on which the alleged incident was recorded and hence that itself is the product of the crime. Further, it being a material object and not documentary evidence, is excluded from the purview of Section 207 of the 1973 Code.”
To say the least, it is then pointed out in para 8 that, “The appellant being dissatisfied, has assailed the reasons which found favour with the trial Court, as well as the High Court. The appellant broadly contends that the prosecution case is founded on the forensic report which suggests that eight video recordings were retrieved from the memory card and that the video files were found to be recorded on 17.2.2017 between 22:30:55 hrs. and 22:48:40 hrs. The same were transferred to the stated memory card on 18.2.2017 between 09:18 hrs and 09:20 hrs. Be it noted that the original video recording was allegedly done by accused No. 1 on his personal mobile phone, which has not been produced by the investigating agency. However, the memory card on which the offending video recording was copied on 18.2.2017 was allegedly handed over by an Advocate claiming that the accused No. 1 had given it to him. He had presented the memory card before the Court on 20.2.2017, which was sent for forensic examination at State FSL, Thiruvananthapuram. After forensic examination, the same was returned alongwith FSL report DD No. 91/2017 dated 3.3.2017 and DD No. 115/2017 dated 7.4.2017. A pen-drive containing the data/visuals retrieved from the memory card, was also enclosed with the report sent by the State FSL.”
More importantly, it is then stated in para 9 that, “Be that as it may, the prosecution was obviously relying on the contents of the memory card which have been copied on the pen-drive by the State FSL during the analysis thereof and has been so adverted to in the police report. The contents of the memory card, which are replicated in the pen-drive created by the State FSL would be nothing but a “document” within the meaning of the 1973 Code and the provisions of the 1872 Act. And since the prosecution was relying on the same and proposes to use it against the accused/appellant, it was incumbent to furnish a cloned copy of the contents thereof to the accused/appellant, not only in terms of Section 207 read with Section 173(5) of the 1973 Code, but also to uphold the right of the accused to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution of India. The trial Court rejected the request of the appellant on the ground that it would affect the privacy and dignity of the victim, whereas, the High Court proceeded on the basis that the memory card is a material object and not a “document”. It is well known that a cloned copy is not a photo copy, but is a mirror image of the original, and the accused has the right to have the same to present his defence effectively. In the alternative, it is submitted, that the Court could have imposed appropriate conditions while issuing direction to the prosecution to furnish a cloned copy of the contents of memory card to the accused/appellant.”
Most importantly, it is also rightly underscored in para 32 that, “It is crystal clear that all documents including “electronic record” produced for the inspection of the Court alongwith the police report and which prosecution proposes to use against the accused must be furnished to the accused as per the mandate of Section 207 of the 1973 Code. The concomitant is that the contents of the memory card/pen-drive must be furnished to the accused, which can be done in the form of cloned copy of the memory card/pen-drive. It is cardinal that a person tried for such a serious offence should be furnished with all the material and evidence in advance, on which the prosecution proposes to rely against him during the trial. Any other view would not only impinge upon the statutory mandate contained in the 1973 Code but also the right of an accused to a fair trial enshrined in Article 21 of the Constitution of India.”
Equally important if not more is what is then stated in para 41 which postulates that, “We are conscious of the fact that Section 207 of the 1973 Code permits withholding of document(s) by the Magistrate only if it is voluminous and for no other reason. If it is an “electronic record”, certainly the ground predicated in the second proviso in Section 207, of being voluminous, ordinarily, cannot be invoked and will be unavailable. We are also conscious of the dictum in the case of Superintendent and Remembrancer of Legal Affairs, West Bengal vs. Satyen Bhowmick & Ors. (1981) 2 SCC 109, wherein this Court has restated the cardinal principle that accused is entitled to have copies of the statements and documents accompanying the police report, which the prosecution may use against him during the trial.”
Making the picture more clear on this, it is then pointed out in para 42 that, “Nevertheless, the Court cannot be oblivious to the nature of offence and the principle underlying the amendment to Section 327 of the 1973 Code, in particular sub-Section (2) thereof and insertion of Section 228A of the 1860 Code, for securing the privacy of the victim and her identity. Thus understood, the Court is obliged to evolve a mechanism to enable the accused to reassure himself about the genuineness and credibility of the contents of the memory card/pen-drive from an independent agency referred to above, so as to effectively defend himself during the trial. Thus, balancing the rights of both parties is imperative, as has been held in Asha Ranjan (supra) and Mazdoor Kisan Shakti Sangathan (supra). The Court is duty bound to issue suitable directions. Even the High Court, in exercise of inherent power under Section 482 of the 1973 Code, is competent to issue suitable directions to meet the ends of justice.”
What’s more, it is then added in para 43 that, “If the accused or his lawyer himself, additionally, intends to inspect the contents of the memory card/pen-drive in question, he can request the Magistrate to provide him inspection in Court, if necessary, even for more than once alongwith his lawyer and I.T. expert to enable him to effectively defend himself during the trial. If such an application is filed, the Magistrate must consider the same appropriately and exercise judicious discretion with objectivity while ensuring that it is not an attempt by the accused to protract the trial. While allowing the accused and his lawyer or authorized I.T. expert, all care must be taken that they do not carry any devices much less electronic devices, including mobile phone which may have the capability of copying or transferring the electronic record thereof or mutating the contents of the memory card/pen-drive in any manner. Such multipronged approach may subserve the ends of justice and also effectuate the right of accused to a fair trial guaranteed under Article 21 of the Constitution.”
In a nutshell, it is then rightly held in para 44 that, “In conclusion, we hold that the contents of the memory card/pen drive being electronic record must be regarded as a document. If the prosecution is relying on the same, ordinarily, the accused must be given a cloned copy thereof to enable him/her to present an effective defence during the trial. However, in cases involving issues such as of privacy of the complainant/witness or his/her identity, the Court may be justified in providing only inspection thereof to the accused and his/her lawyer or expert for presenting effective defence during the trial. The court may issue suitable directions to balance the interests of both sides.” Very rightly so!
Exams – Oh it\’s really annoying for many kids. Parents think it would be a strategy to evaluate their kid’s performance or to monitor their growth level. But under any circumstances, it should be nevertheless a burden to a kid. It’s okay for them to be lazy (but not all the time), As a parent, I would suggest you to handle your kids in a way they can share their feelings or they don\’t want to hide anything from you. While handling your kids don\’t be a parent all the time or don\’t be rude to them, you can eventually spend time with them while playing or while sharing your breakfast or dinner. I can hear your thoughts “I am already held up with my office work, then how should I need to take care of these things”.
First have it in your mind whatever earnings or how many pence you earn is only for your kids not for anyone and the important thing is “You can\’t buy the Time” once the time is wasted then it can\’t be brought back, so as a parent it is your responsibility to allocate your time accordingly top your kids, this can leads a great way to avoid all the phobias they are getting during their exams.
Diet:
Having a proper diet before your exam or while preparing for your exam matters the most. Try to have more fruits and avoid the foods which don\’t suit you, since it might cause diarrhea, nausea, headaches and etc, makes you feel so sick. Please don\’t force them to have more food since it might cause them to feel sleepy during exams. Try to give them more protein-rich foods, ask them to munch on healthy snacks like dried fruits, cereals, and pulses. Avoid taking more oily foods.
More Liquids:
Keeping yourself hydrated is an important thing while preparing yourself for the exam. Try to have more water and liquids juices, this can help to maintain your diet level and make your feel light without dieting. Some may feel like nausea before their exam since they would have prepared a lot for their exam, they lack their sleep level, so in these cases, its better to avoid having heavy breakfast- fruit juice or a glass of milkshake would be very fine to have, without collapsing yourself.
Proper Sleep:
The day before or a few days before the exam creates a lot of pressure on all those who were facing that, it\’s quite common for everyone to face that stress. But getting proper sleep is the only way to handle that. Without proper sleep, you will be feeling restless all the time and this itself creates a kind of pressure for yourself. Even this plays a major role in your kid\’s digestion process, so ensure that they get a regular sleep in their exam times.
Play Hours:
Kindly monitor their playtimes, don\’t be very strict but try to engage them more with the indoor games, try to keep them away from video games & mobile phones. Try to schedule a time for their gadget usage. Most probably try to avoid the outdoor games, since there are more chances for them to get hurt or with the climatic changes they can even fall sick. So it\’s better to allocate the timings if you find the time you can too indulge in their activity.
Handling Stress:
Stress is very common for the kids, even if it is very stressful for their parents too. Kids just need encouragement & guidance from you. Understand! every kid is different, so setting up a target blindly sometimes creates more stress for you both. So don\’t trouble or put yourself in a problematic situation and be more stressed. Be cool, sit with them, help them in the place where they are struggling, motivate them.
Anxiety Level:
Don\’t be afraid of getting poor marks, you can try to give your best. Try to focus on the topics before the exam schedule, this can reduce your burden on the exam timings. Take a deep breath, this makes you feel relaxed.
No parents will be rude to their kids, but sometimes it’s nature to be strict with their kids for their activity, this is mainly because to ensure their obedience, their wellness and fixing up a good career path. The other main hurdle is, if you found out your baby is lying to you, then it is a call for you and you just need to take some diversion in your parenting activity.
Eduindex 
You must be logged in to post a comment.