Editor,
Reading through the response of Sonie Kharduit to my rejoinder, I feel obliged to provide a further response because silence in such a situation like this, could be taken negatively by the public. The writer by associating material benefits to religious affiliation, has indirectly accused Christianity of forced conversion. His reference to Christians being given preference in school or college admissions has raised another contentious issue which needs clarification. His statement that it is the poor people in rural areas who are attracted to Christianity because of material benefits they get, is totally unacceptable. First of all, not all Christians are poor be it in the urban or rural areas.
Why do so many rich families accept Christianity? Is it because they still need some material benefits? That is absurd. Secondly, the statement is also an insult to all poor people because it reduces them to “miserable beings without any degree of human dignity who would simply sell themselves to any religion for a morsel of bread.” The accusation is tantamount to saying that doing good to someone becomes an incentive for conversion. If such perception is accepted, then no good should be done by anyone at all. A Hindu or a Muslim or a Christian should not do good to any person or else that person would seek affiliation to any of these religions. Imagine if members of all religions cease doing good to others for fear of being accused of forced conversion, then who suffers if not humanity itself. Christianity is undoubtedly the most distinguished religion with regard to humanitarian service. The Church has done tremendous service to our countrymen.
How many millions have been educated in Christian institutions and how many millions more have benefitted from Christian health ministry etc. Yet think of this, 2000+ years of Christianity in India (since the arrival of Thomas the Apostle), yet today Christians are just a little more than 2% of the total population. In 2000 years if forced conversion were to be carried out, as the writer implies, then 50% of Indians if not more, would be Christians by now. Is this not a real indication that there is no such a thing as forced conversion or inducement but that the Church does good primarily on human grounds? At the same time, when an adult person is touched by the love and concern of a missionary and seeks affiliation to a religion, what right is there for others to prevent him from doing so? Does not our Constitution guarantee freedom of belief? Speaking of our Khasi people, Mr Kharduit should know that most Khasi people accept Christianity not because of material benefits but because of the great appeal Christianity has which in many ways corresponds to their traditional beliefs.
Otherwise how do you explain the fact that Khasis did not respond similarly to the Ramakrishna missionaries who came here much before the Christian missionaries? Are they also not engaged in a lot of charitable services? Many Christians like me, would feel highly insulted to be told that we became Christians because of material gains. As regard, preference of admission to Christian schools and colleges given to Christian students, I simply say “charity begins at home.” When two equally needy persons come to you for help and if one happens to be your family member, whom are you obliged to help first? I think this question is self explanatory and would justify why Christian institutions should first cater to the needy of their own family. After all why should only Christians build quality educational institutions? Why not other religious groups, so that they could also cater to their own followers? It is therefore unjust to be grudging about Christian students being given preference in Christian institutions. I will not be wrong to affirm that many non-Christians in India including many of our political leaders, have benefitted much from Christian educational institutions. So “why bite the hand that feeds you?”
Yours etc.,
Barnes Mawrie sdb,
Via email
Conundrum in education funding
Editor,
Torist Mark in his thought provoking column “Funding Non Government Educational Institutions” in Meghalaya (ST May 17, 2018) suggested out of the box reforms in respect of grants–in-aid for secondary education in Meghalaya. It is true that the existing multi-layered system of grants –in-aid should progressively be reduced. We have age old multilayered system of grants – in- aid , viz. Deficit , Adhoc, Deficit pattern, newly permitted, i.e. ventured schools, etc. At the same time the age old practice of upgrading established Adhoc Schools to the Deficit System was pursued as legacy from undivided Assam. Of course, the term deficit is no longer valid as the Government provides the entire recurring grants for maintenance of approved teaching and non- teaching staff without sharing any revenue with the school management.
There are 126 Deficit Schools in Meghalaya and some of them are almost centuries old and some of them are the backbone of secondary level education in the State. All these institutions carry Government Sanctioned Posts and all appointments are required to be approved by the Government. Because of that many talented students are attracted to these Schools. It will be very difficult to bring all schools enjoying different types of grants-in –aid at the same level and to have one category of nonGovernment school.
There are 384 Ad-hoc Secondary and 69 Higher Secondary Schools. Out of these there are some very established good Ad-hoc Schools, which deserve up gradation at the Deficit level . After 1986, there was complete moratorium in upgrading these old Ad-hoc schools except for a negligible number that got the benefit of deficit pattern under political pressure. All other Ad-hoc schools are treated as one category and salary of teachers enhanced from time to time but it may be difficult to bring all schools to the level of deficit grants. The quality and standards need to be enforced through an accreditation body rather than through micro management of the Government.
This provision was there in Education Policy 2009. A separate body is required to be set up as it is there in the Higher Education for accreditation purpose. When MBOSE announces SSLC/HSSLC results, it is shows how many schools got cent percent pass. This year, in SSLC examination 127 & HSSLC 40 schools got cent percent pass result. There is competition among schools to get cent percent achievement. In order to achieve the cent percent result, some schools detain students in selection test without considering that these students will ultimately drop out of the school system. If required these weak students should be screened at the Class VIII level.
Yours etc.
Dr. S.K.Chattopadhyay
Former Director Education,
Meghalaya