By TFL Mawlong
Education and good politics are noble and vital to the well-being of society. However, if you mix them, a vortex of uncertainty will form that could trap our education in its relentless pull. School, college, and university teachers enter politics for a variety of reasons: the majority join because they want power, influence, and money; others join simply because they are more inclined to politics than teaching, and a small number join because of the call. Whatever the reason, once they enter politics, they invariably create a vortex of uncertainty around education, creating that void in their educational institutions. This article is an argument supporting the government’s decision to bar teachers from entering politics.
Ardent Miller Basaiawmoit, president of the VPP, is correct about the constructive role that ‘some’ reputable teachers have played in state politics. We cannot deny their positive roles in Meghalaya’s politics and public policies. Also, as ‘boots on the ground’ in the education sector, teachers can act as voices in a political party to help spur educational reform. However, the context is different today.
First, unlike in the past, there are no shortage of intellectuals and sociologically literate people outside the teaching community today. Political parties in Meghalaya today have access to a large pool of non-academician intellectuals. My point is you don’t always need an economics teacher from university or college to shape the party’s socio-economic agenda. This is because mainstream economic models and the needs of the Meghalaya economy do not always match. A young and brilliant entrepreneur can have far more insights into our economy than any economic professor in our colleges or universities. And any intellectual and sociologically literate person outside of academia can analyze data and statistics to determine what socio-economic policy is required.
Second, it is half-knowledge to claim that we cannot improve education by prohibiting teachers from participating in politics. In this information age, empirically evaluating and analyzing the education sector from the outside has become easier. Political parties must learn to shape vast expert and crowd-knowledge into usable politics; into wonderful social technologies that can improve our society. If a political party requires serving teachers to be members to understand the needs of the education sector, then logically, the political party should incorporate important and knowledgeable people from every sector to have knowledgeable debates and a holistic understanding of the society’s problems. Is this a possibility in Meghalaya? What we need is a political party that listens to all voices, not just its members’ voices.
Third, the actual issue is not what teachers can or cannot do in politics. The concern is that it will undoubtedly hurt teaching and learning. To be active in a political party, you must devote a significant amount of time and energy to the party, which comes at the expense of quality service in academics. While politics may benefit from a teacher joining politics, education will certainly suffer unless a teacher resigns and a new brilliant youngster takes the teaching post. There is no playbook for how to be an active member of a political party while also working wonders among students. Peer studies show that political party membership hurts a teacher’s academic responsibility and quality. Also, if a teacher is affiliated with a political party, I do not think he/she will have the academic freedom for political discussion in the classroom, especially since we are not intellectually a mature society yet and we’re still miles from being able to learn the value of listening.
According to Louis de-Broglie (French physicist), a microscopic particle behaves as a particle at times and as a wave at others. It cannot be both a particle and a wave at the same time. This is known as the wave-particle duality principle. If one considers one’s job as a teacher to be the particle aspect of oneself, then one’s political life is the wave aspect. So, if one is active in political works (act as a wave), one will not be sincere in academic works (act as a particle)at the same time. A reputed teacher with political acumen can make significant contributions to politics and educational reforms. And he can be great in teaching and learning to improve educational outcomes. However, these two phenomena cannot occur at the same time.
The 2019 UGC‘s decision to allow college teachers to serve as MLAs/MPs and teachers without taking leave or resigning is unfortunate and unwise. The UGC should know better. In its directive, the same UGC also says that college teachers should be on campus for at least 5 hours on working days. Those involved with a political party will not be a regular on campus, let alone regularly spending even 3 hours in campus or have enough time for academic responsibilities. Absenteeism will inevitably increase. So can anyone say that he/she is modelling a healthy work culture for students? What civility, patriotism and moral values are we going to teach students?
Besides, a political party is not a public authority. We should not interpret a position of responsibility in a political party as “responsibility of public office” mentioned in the UGC’s Professional Code of Ethics of Teachers.
When the NEP (New Education Policy) is implemented, it will necessitate more focus and will be academically demanding for students. So, if a teacher has one foot in politics, how will he/she devote time to mentoring students? How will the teacher balance political and genuine academic endeavors? A college professor told me that he seldom realises he is an associate professor until the end of every month. It’s easy to see why. Is this what the people of Meghalaya want?
The VPP president also claimed that the government’s notification is unconstitutional because teachers in both unaided and aided educational institutions are not considered government employees. This is, once again, deceptive. The prohibition on teachers joining political parties has less to do with the teachers themselves and more to do with education. Education is both a public good and a state responsibility. As such, the government has the authority to direct all teachers (whether in aided or unaided institutions) in educational matters, including prohibiting them from joining political parties if it believes that allowing teachers to participate in politics will harm the state’s educational outcomes.
If a teacher wishes to pursue a political career, he or she should not do so at the expense of students or the government. Resigning from his or her teaching position before entering politics is a progressive and ‘noble’ step. If one is an intellectual who has lost interest in teaching but is passionate about politics, by all means, please join politics. The state requires capable political leaders. But first, the teacher must resign. Leaving out academics will give the person more time and energy to deal with the complexities of modern politics. It will solve some problems in state politics; it will save our education, and it will give brilliant and passionate young people a chance to fill a teaching job vacancy. But mind that, because we have collectively failed to produce educated and scientific citizens. You would need millions to win an election to occupy public office.
However, if one is an intellectual who enjoys and excels at teaching and wants to make a difference in the state, one can either stay in the classroom or enter politics. Such a person can devote his/her life to educating, teaching, mentoring future generations, and working to produce great political leaders. Or quit teaching and pursue a fruitful political life. The choice between good academic work and politics is a binary. One can choose one or the other.
(The writer is a teacher and an alumni of IIT Kharagpur. Views expressed here are personal: Email: [email protected])