SPEECH MADE AT THE CORE COMMITTEE MEETING TO RESTRUCTURE THE SYLLABUS (18/11/1997)

When I was asked to preside over this meeting today my first impulse was to resist. But then I thought this was the only opportunity for me to congratulate and thank the authorities concerned for finally deciding to take this vital step towards restructuring the English curriculum in higher education. So, first of all, congratulations and thank you. We, I mean myself and my fellow teachers of the English department of BCM College had been yearning for something like this for so long. Caught in the web of a prehistoric pattern of syllabus and teaching we found ourselves helpless and handicapped, and did not know which way to turn. There were of course changes, only in the list of books which appeared in time and more often out of time. Very often the same books and authors reappeared after intervals of disappearance! The board of studies always remained inaccessible and virtually invisible. Nobody asked us for complaints or suggestions. We were learning to live with the fate of teaching such an interesting subject to so many uninterested students. We knew that the fault was not with the students. Hence it is so heartening that we teachers too are asked to play our part this time. In fact, we are the most qualified, because we are the ones who could read the pulse of the students – their requirements, their standards and their handicaps. What evolves out of this workshop would be worth a try.

Now that I have a chance I think I have the excuse of twenty eight years of teaching experience to voice my humble thoughts on this matter. First of all I am totally against reducing English to the level of just a tool or instrument for communication for special purposes as it put here yesterday. Education, we all agree, aims at the total development of the human personality, and you will also agree that the utmost of science and technology alone could not bring this about. The sciences might expand the brain. But it takes language and literature to initiate our students to the science of the soul.

I don’t want to go into any detail. But I want to say that the restructuring should take place on three plains. I am talking mainly about Part I English because with us Part III is in infancy and I don’t feel competent enough to make solid suggestions.

Except for a small minority our undergraduate students see our English classes as an unwelcome necessity. For most of them English is a hard nut to crack from school onwards. While even very simple and direct English is so difficult, we are there to baffle them with textbooks full of abstract ideas from authors like Russell, or Wells or Orwell. You could see them getting mentally frigid or numb before your very eyes. They gladly resort to the guides in the market and it becomes a matter of mugging up. The average student gets through, but with no knowledge of or interest in the subject. In the process of getting these heavy matters through, there is not enough time to improve their language or other skills. Now that we are thinking of useful improvements let us make it light and easy and interesting for them by giving them at the same time a taste of good poetry, prose, fiction and drama. Taught in the right way it should induce them to dive deeper into the subject on their own account.

Next is the plain of evaluation. We stick to the age old pattern ‘all questions carry equal marks’, ‘annotate any five of the following’ etc. So stereotype that with a good guide and memory you could get through rather decently even without reading the text books or attending a single class. The evaluation method should be such that it makes attending classes and reading text books imperative.

Now I come to the final plain. Left to work for years in this stagnated system we have reached a kind of lethargy that resists any change or effort. Restructuring means change – and change means a lot of new thinking and effort. One reason that real revolutionary change did not take place for so long has been the fact that there is a tendency to resist anything that involves strain and effort, especially if you have been lethargic for a long time.

I am reminded of the story of a man who was found searching for something in front of house.
“Have you lost something?” Somebody asked him.
“Yes, my keys.”
“Where exactly did you lose them?”
“I don’t know, maybe inside the house.”
“Then why do you look for it here?”
“Because here there is some light. Inside the house it is dark – and I have no lamp.”

That is what we have been doing. Going round and round the same circle under the dim light of acquired experience. It is high time we got out of that circle and tried new ventures to find the keys that would really click with our students. It is challenging. But how do we teach our children to face challenges if we are not ready to face them ourselves? In a world that is rushing after anything that is instant and practical, it is our duty to save them from losing the remaining strains of sensibility and humaneness. We could contribute a lot to this through the subject we are teaching. Let us have this noble duty in mind when we are doing this restructuring. I wish us all good luck in the endeavour.

Thank you.