Peace in Value Education Discourse in India Presented by Shweta Sharma Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Peace in Value Education Discourse in India

Presented by Shweta Sharma Jawaharlal Nehru University

Introduction ‘Peace is what the world needs fast

Peace is required mostPeace can't come by waging wars

Peace is born through great efforts!Peace can dwell when love prevails

Peace is the driving forcePeace must last forever to

Keep the world love life firstlyPeace is the priceless wealth much sought

Peace must start from homesPeace must spread through all nations

And fill hearts and minds of menPeace is one that brings progress

Peace can bridge differencesPeace is made by dialogues

Peace is the key to world's happiness’ Dr John Celes (2012)

• Peace is the state of harmony characterized by lack of violence, conflict behaviors and the freedom from fear of violence. Commonly understood as the absence of resentment and vengeance, peace also suggests sincere attempts at reconciliation, the existence of congenial interpersonal or intergroup relationships, prosperity in matters of social or economic welfare, the establishment of equality, and a working political order that serves the true interests of all.

• We are living in a state of flux where peaceful coexistence has become a question of polity, communal harmony and human accord. There is a loss of harmony in human contact and context. World is becoming individual centric. There seems to be a loss of feeling of oneness, sharing and brotherhood.

• The concept of peaceful coexistence needs to be resurrected and imbibed in upcoming generations. Initiatives could be taken to help citizens to accept and appreciate the diversity, coexist in harmony with people, groups and nature, and work towards mutual growth and development. In the context of depleting conditions of peace, it is necessary to use all the socialisation and developmental forums, spaces and tools to promote values for peace. Peace, therefore, has been enshrined as one of the major values in recent education policy papers and textbooks.

‘Peace’ in Value Education Discourse in Post independent India

• Major shifts in value education discourse have been noted with regard to the values that have been emphasized in different educational policy papers since independence. Different sets of values have been underscored at different times in all national curriculum frameworks that have been formulated till date.

• Four National Curriculum Frameworks have been developed till date which are The Curriculum for the ten Year school (1975), National Curriculum Framework (1988), NCF 2000 and the latest was developed in 2005.

• The shift in emphasis for different kinds of values is evident. The diagrammatic representation of transition in nature of values since 1975 presented below:

NCF (1975)

• Spiritual and moral values

NCF 1988 & NCF 2000

• Universal values

NCF 2005

• Democratic values

• With this transition in value education discourse, the meaning and importance of peace has also changed. In the first and second National Curriculum Frameworks (1975and 1988), peace was only considered as the political condition that fosters international relations. In the third National Curriculum Framework, peace was understood as a major universal value. It was emphasized for spiritual development of an individual. NCF 2005 underscored the democratic values while constructing peace as one of the major democratic values.

NCF (1975 & 1988)

• Peace for international Relationship

NCF 2000

• Peace as core universal value

NCF 2005

• Peace as democratic values.

Rationale of the study• The shift in value education discourse since independence, both in respect

to value in general and peace in specific is noted in review of national curriculum frameworks since the year 1975. The shifts in understanding of peace as a necessary condition of international cooperation (in NCF 1975 &1988) to universal value in NCF 2000 to democratic value in NCF 2005. It was, though, intriguing to note that peace emerged as the dominant value against all other democratic values of equality, justice, freedom and so on. In context of changing conception of peace in national curriculum documents over the years; the present study attempts to examine the present conceptualization of ‘peace’ as value with the help of following research questions.

1. What is ‘peace’ as value and how peace has been conceptualized in NCF 2005and NCERT Position Paper on ‘Education for Peace’?

2. What content coverage is been given to the value ‘peace’?3. How peace has been represented in NCERT Textbook?

Methodology • For the present study, Content analysis and Foucauldian discourse analysis

has been used as tools to analyze data.• Discourse analysis is primarily concerned with the role of language in

construction of social reality. James Paul Gee (2001) argued that discourse implies ‘language in use’. He argued that ‘Language has a magical property: when we speak or write we craft what we have to say to fit the situation or context in which we are communicating. But, at the same time, how we speak or write creates that very situation or context’ (p.11). Thus, language functions as a tool to assist individuals’ performances in social activities while affiliating their actions within cultures and social groups and institutions. He maintained that language is not neutral rather is everywhere and always political.

• Michel Foucault on discourse For Foucault, discourse (or discourses) is those bodies of knowledge that

inform us with what can be said, written, thought about any given social object, phenomena or practice within a given historical period. Thus, a discourse is what constraints and enables our ways of writing, speaking and thinking at any given point within the constraints of specific time and space.

This aspect draws attention to the notion of power and its effect on discourse and vice versa. Foucault argued the processes of formation and constraint, production and exclusion are both complementary and constitutive in the formation and existence of discourses.

Foucault (1981) argued that ‘discourse should be viewed as neither exclusively effect nor instrument of power: “discourse is not simply that which translates struggles or systems of domination, but is the thing for which and by which there is struggle" (p. 52-53). This is to imply that discourse is both means and end to operation of power.

• Foucauldian Discourse Analysis In discourse analysis based on Foucauldian framework, the emphasis is not concerned

with the truthfulness or falsity about the discourse rather on what can be said and thought. Foucauldian discourse analyst is concerned with how the object in the discourse is being constructed rather on the truthfulness of that construction. Thus, in discourse analysis, the analyst is concern with the discursive formations that have been created about a particular discursive object and the types of enunciations have been used through statements.

Six stages: Stage 1: Discursive constructions: The first stage of analysis is concerned with the ways in which a particular discursive object is constructed. In this stage, analyst is involved in the process of identifying the various references that have been made with regard to the discursive object so as to elicit the major constructions about the discursive object. ‘This requires that we highlight all instances of reference to the discursive object. Both implicit and explicit references need to be included’. (Willig, 2008, p. 115).

Stage 2: Discourses: The second stage is concerned with the differences in the constructions made. This helps to elicit how the same discursive object is understood differently in all the constructions. ‘The second stage of analysis aims to locate the various discursive constructions of the object within wider discourses’ (Ibid, p. 115).

Stage 3: Action orientation: ‘The third stage of analysis involves a closer examination of the discursive contexts within which the different constructions of the object are being deployed’ (p.116)

Stage 4: Positioning: In this stage, the analyst is concerned with the subject positions that these constructions elicit. Willig (2008) stated that ‘subject position within a discourse identifies ‘a location for persons within the structure of rights and duties for those who use that repertoire’ (Davies and Harré 1999, 35)’ (p.115).

Stage 5: Practice: This stage deals with the discourse – practice relationship. ‘It requires a systematic exploration of the ways in which discursive constructions and the subject positions contained within them open up or close down opportunities for action.

Stage 6: Subjectivity: The final stage explores the relationship between discourse and subjectivity. ‘Discourses make available certain ways-of-seeing the world and certain ways-of being in the world. They construct social as well as psychological realities. Discursive positioning plays an important role in this process’ (Ibid, p. 117).

• Data Used : • For the present study, firstly, a content analysis of National Curriculum

Framework (2005) will be performed. At the next level of analysis, National Curriculum Framework 2005, NCERT position paper on ‘Education for Peace’ has been analysed taking Foucauldian Discourse analysis as a tool. The choice of these documents has been made in line with the observation that peace as a value has been majorly discusses in these document.

Analysis • Content analysis • The content analysis reveals that the constitutional values have been

prioritized in the National Curriculum framework 2005 with 76% of the coverage in the document with reference to values (see table 1.1). Under the category of constitutional values, peace has been found the most desired value with 26.3% of coverage, followed by equality and justice with 14.5 % of coverage each. The Superordinate category of universal values covers 12.6% of the content. Under this set of values, respect for individual dignity has been emphasized the most with covering 3.6% of content. Social Values covers 10.8% of the content, where cooperation has been found the most desired value covering 3.6 % of the content.

• It is evident from the content analysis that National Curriculum Framework 2005 seems to promote constitutional values through education. As peace has been found the most desired value, the following sections will present detailed discourse analysis of the National Curriculum Framework 2005, NCF position paper Education for Peace, NCERT textbook Class 11 chapter on peace. This will be done so as to find out how peace has been represented in the following documents.

• Foucauldian Discourse Analysis of NCF 2005 peace as a comprehensive value framework within which equality, justice,

tolerance exist. Yet, a complex complementary relationship too exists between each pair of values and human rights: peace and equality, peace and social justice, peace and tolerance, peace and human rights, equality and social justice, equality and tolerance, equality and human rights, social justice and tolerance, social justice and human rights, tolerance and human rights.

peace has been constructed as a step in the direction of developing a reflective responsible citizenship.

PEACE SOCIAL JUSTICE

HARMONIOUS COEXISTENCE

OR TOLERANCE

EQUALITY

• Foucauldian discourse Analysis of Position paper ‘Education for Peace’. These references clearly constructs peace as the pivotal link among other

values of equality, justice, tolerance, harmony, love, humility, togetherness etc. However, in the text, peace has been specifically constructed as complementary value to justice and tolerance.

PEACE EQUALITY

TOLERANCE

JUSTICE

Discussion • peace was considered as the most desired value for school education.• The analysis of NCF 2005, position paper ‘Education for Peace’ and NCERT

textbook shows that though it was found that peace was constructed on similar lines in both the documents; contradictions was found at conceptual level understanding of peace.

• There exists a major contradiction in the conceptualization of peace with regard to the foundation values in NCF 2005 and position paper ‘Education for peace’. NCF 2005 seems to thrust on the value of harmonious coexistence while talking about tolerance simultaneously; whereas the position paper, ‘Education for peace’ clearly emphasizes ‘tolerance’ as the foundation value for peace.

• NCF 2005 proposes that in order to live in culturally diverse society, mere tolerance is not sufficient. Infact, ‘tolerance’ could be problematic goal as it has many negative connotations.

• With regard to the concept of peace in India, discussion of Gandhi’s theory of peace is unavoidable.

• The major concepts in Gandhi’s theory of peace are Non-violence, Satyagraha and Sarvodaya.

• Non- violence implied ahimsa- complete restrain from violence. Satyagraha means the search for truth. Sarvodaya is meant for welfare and good of all. This 'all' includes every one without any distinction of rich and poor, upper or lower, strong and weak, even the good and the bad.

• According to Gandhi, the human being plays the most crucial role in development of culture of peace. He called the individual as Vyakti (in Sanskrit). Vyakti is the ‘human being of spirit (soul), mind, and body - the three dimensional being who is never static, whose 'being' is intrinsically linked with his/her 'becoming'. Therefore, individual (vyakti) is the one supreme consideration, with his/her conscience and will, together with his/her reason to affect change’.

• Gandhi argued that so as to practice non-violence, the root cause of violence needs to be thrown out from one’s life and one’s environment (social, political and economic life). Nonviolence does not only refer to absence of violent behaviour (as war or conflicts in outer world) rather it also includes the absence of violent thought. Gandhi emphasized that ‘the active state of ahimsa requires you to resist the wrong-doer’ For Gandhi, for peace to sustain, the human mind has to be inclusive not exclusive.

• For this to attain, Gandhi argued that ‘Satyagraha’ has to be developed as way of life, a way through which one is able to release oneself from the evils and untruth present in one’s own self and in society. The greatest evil in today’s world is the insanity of fragmenting world, and promoting war as a means to develop inter-personal relations of inequality and exploitation.

• However, Gandhi emphasized that nonviolence must always be the means as truth is the ultimate end. Gandhi thus developed Satyagraha as ‘a means to create possibilities, to conquer violence and to involve one's self, voluntarily, in acts of ethical existence within the context of relationships transforming them toward a new, restructured and reintegrated pattern’.

• The third concept in Gandhi’s theory of peace is Sarvodaya. Sarvodaya implies welfare and good of all. As it has been mentioned earlier, ‘all’ includes everyone without any discrimination. The concept of Sarvodaya calls for self-giving in socially beneficial labour. ‘It reaffirms the concept of trusteeship, and the imperative of service for all. It is also a means for working for economic equality and abolishing room for conflict’ (Bose A.,1981, p. 181). Gandhi envisioned sarvodaya as a fostering economic equity in society, reaching down to the last and the least without ruthless compulsion and violence. Thus, Sarvodaya is meant for equal development of material and moral growth of a human being.

• The idea of peace emphasis the values of equality, justice and love as foundational values for establishment of peace.

• It is evident that the indigenous concept of peace does not take account of tolerance as foundation value. For situating tolerance in context of peace, its genesis needs to be understood.

• The earliest conceptualization of tolerance implied religious tolerance.• By the seventeenth century, the nation state was ascribed a revered

significance, that required ‘the political regime to limit tolerance to only those individuals and communities whose beliefs and practices neither contradict nor potentially undermine the spectrum of values that undergird the sacrosanct society of citizens’ (Tyler A., 2008, p. 74).

• The modern conceptualization of tolerance was based on the development of an overriding national identity by approving efforts for cultural homogenization.

• In post modern times of liberal multiculturalism, ‘tolerance is generally defined as an indifferent subjectivism’ (Ibid,p.77). ‘Indifferent subjective’ implies a non-judgmental attitude towards anyone or any practice. Moreover, a Tolerance was also understood in terms of sociopolitical correctness of any behaviour. Ironically, this kind of tolerance was intolerant of faults like the public expression of grievances, dislikes, and differences with others with regard to their convictions and practices.

• Throughout these conceptualizations, tolerance has been referred as either something required for securing public order (the fourth century conceptualization); or as something that helps in development of dominant national identity (modern conceptualization); or as an attitude of indifference where one is not expected to express publically his grievances, dislikes or differences with the other’s private ideas of practices (the post modern conceptualization); or as something that includes respect, acceptance and appreciation of rich diversity but within the standards set out in international human rights instrument (UNESCO declaration).

• The most recent conceptualization of tolerance has been provided in the UNESCO (1995). Declaration of Principles of Tolerance.

• ‘Article 1- meaning of tolerance 1.1 Tolerance is respect, acceptance and appreciation of the rich diversity

of our world’s cultures, our forms of expression and ways of being human. It is fostered by knowledge, openness, communication, and freedom of thought, conscience and belief. Tolerance is harmony in difference. It is not only a moral duty; it is also a political and legal requirement. Tolerance, the virtue that makes peace possible, contributes to the replacement of the culture of war by a culture of peace

1.2 Tolerance is not concession, condescension or indulgence. Tolerance is, above all, an active attitude prompted by recognition of universal human rights and fundamental freedoms of others. In no circumstance can it be used to justify infringements of these fundamental values. Tolerance is to be exercised by individuals, groups and States.

1.3 Tolerance is the responsibility that upholds human rights, pluralism (including cultural pluralism), democracy and the rule of law. It involves the rejection of dogmatism and absolutism and affirms the standards set out in international human rights instruments.

1.4 Consistent with respect for human rights, the practice of tolerance does not mean toleration of social injustice or the abandonment or weakening of one’s own convictions. It means that one is free to adhere to one’s own convictions and accepts that other adhere to theirs. It means accepting the fact that human beings, naturally diverse in their appearance, situation, speech, behaviour and values, have the right to live in peace and to be as they are. It also means that one’s views are not to be imposed on others’

• These conceptions of tolerance pose three major threats to peace. Firstly, the notion of ‘bearing’ implies negativity. This is to say that the act of

tolerating entails an effort on the part of individual to desist from

conveying his/her objection to the existence of any phenomenon, which he/she finds difficult to bear.

Secondly, the tolerance denotes an unequal relationship. This is to imply that the subject tolerating is inherently not equal to the object being tolerated. Thus, it maintains power hierarchy and perpetuates inequalities.

Thirdly, the modern and post modern concept of tolerance demands individuals to give up their cultural identities either for societal unity or establishing universal sameness.

In this way, tolerance is directed towards forming societal uniformity and consolidation of power in sovereignty. More so, this conceptualization negates the second order association of individuals by promoting the sense of overriding state/nation identity. Similarly, the tolerances in post modern times, community or cultural identities are indeed sacrificed for the promotion of universal sameness that regards true differences as irrelevant. Unfortunately, UNESCO Documents advanced the idea of ‘tolerance’ as the foundational value for peace without deconstructing the concept of ‘tolerance’.

• The Gandhian theory of peace, Rabindranath idea of peace takes account of the importance of equality and justice for sustaining peace in society. However, in place of tolerance, they emphasized the value of love. Love as value has a positive connotation. It is aimed towards inner transformation of the opponent. It is aimed to foster the feeling of brotherhood among the humankind.

Gandhian Model of Peace

Peace

Equality JusticeLove

• UNESCO Declaration of Principles of Tolerance Article 2- State Level 2.3 It is essential for international harmony that individuals, communities

and nations accept and respect the multicultural character of the human family. Without tolerance there can be no peace, and without peace there can be no development or democracy’ (p.9).

UN Model of Peace

Peace

Equality Justice Tolerance

NCF 2005 and Position Paper ‘Education for Peace’ Model of Peace

• It is evident that the position paper Education for peace and NCF 2005 clearly borrows the western concept of peace which emphasizes tolerance as a foundation value for developing peace as a way of life. Though Gandhi presents a more comprehensive and good understanding of peace; UN approach to peace education is followed in the National Curriculum documents like NCF 2005, position paper. The psychological and colonial myopia of Indian educationists was clearly evident. The Gandhian concept of peace promotes love as a value to live in an environment with deep-rooted diversities of various kinds.

Peace

Equality Justice Tolerance

• But the writers of National curriculum documents adhere to the value of tolerance. Some Indian educationists believe that tolerance can be first step towards initiating dialogue. However, I would argue that appreciation of differences and diversity is the first step towards initiating dialogue and not tolerance. NCF 2005 acknowledges this fact but is unable to argue for more suitable value so as to live in culturally diverse environment.

Conclusion • The analysis of the documents revealed that the incorporation of ‘peace’

as value is influenced by the United Nations’ conception of peace.• NCF 2005 argued for a value which is more than mere tolerance, whereas

the position paper emphasized the ‘tolerance’ as the foundational value for peace. ‘Tolerance’ is not considered as a foundational value in the indigenous conception of peace (given by Gandhi, Tagore). Rather, it the value ‘love’ which is present in Indian concept of peace. ‘Tolerance’ acts an integral value in UN concept of peace. The similarity between conceptualization of peace in UN documents on one hand, and NCF 2005 and position paper on ‘Education for Peace’ on the other revealed that the concept of peace was taken from the United Nations’ concept of peace.