JULY 28 AND JULY 31, 2000 DISCUSSIONS

The first day's discussion involved Pradip, Brian, Sanjay, Sangeeta, Manish, Parijat, and Chandresh. We received a background briefing on the Movement -- how it came into being and the kinds of issues it has taken up. The past success of the shivirs in making people think and motivating them to act was highlighted. Several perceptions were shared by the Kashtakari leadership:

• there is a "lack of fire" in the youth today;
• the new generation needs to regain their rootedness and needs to learn how to negotiate modernity;
• the ashramshala schooling pattern has created a great deal of cleavages and confusions in the lives of the tribals;
• to counter the problems with youth, maybe the Movement now needs to engage with the youth at an earlier age;
• due to several other forces operating in the villages, the Movement is currently being pushed/pulled into a dalaali-role;
• a priority for the Movement is the issue of self-governance.

There was also some discussion about the extent to which the educational initiative that we are thinking about should be linked to the Movement. In addition, the point was raised that the initiative should be "sufficiently vague" in order to allow enough space for people's imagination to be nurtured and to express itself in dynamic ways. There is a great danger that if the initiative looks too much like a school -- in terms of physical infrastructure, age groups, bridging and examination options, etc. -- it will eventually become a REAL school.

The second day's discussion on July 31 involved Pradip, Brian, Sanjay, Sangeeta, Manish, Parijat, and Chandresh. The following three sessions took place:

The morning session was based around exploring existing learning spaces. We wanted to critically discuss areas -- highlighting the essential elements/principles of each space, the differences among them and the connections between them:

• The Movement as a learning community
• Community and village as generative learning spaces
• Spaces within/around schools

Four dimensions were presented to initiate the discussion about the Movement as a learning community:

• Processes by which a community problem becomes a people's issue;
• Processes of connecting with other movements, organizations and individuals;
• Processes of strengthening, regenerating and evolving people's spaces, knowledge systems and cultural symbols;
• Processes around leadership development.

In context of a problem becoming a people's issue, we discussed the importance of struggle and confrontation in the processes of organizing and learning. Several spaces for contestation were identified as critical to past organizing-learning process: shivirs, study circles, preparation of demonstrations, informal walks from one village to another, satyagrahas and songs concerning various aspects of forest-land issues, state brutality, alcoholism, etc. Many of the learning processes within these spaces were spontaneous, highlighting affirmation and assertion of identity, commitment to change and articulation of rights and demands. It was interesting to note though that the direct confrontations with the System had decreased in recent years. In terms of making education into a people's issue, we realized that there exists a very provocative base of experiences which bring out the tensions in the community around ashramshalas and the larger system of schooling. The Movement is currently in the phase of crystallization of the complex causal dynamics surrounding these experiences. It will need to compile the various concerns/needs of people around education in order to build a base up for both a collective articulation of commitment to change and for the strategizing of an organically evolving issue-process.

The Movement has also been networking with many other groups for support and solidarity. As part of this, it has been encouraging sharing and critical analyses of situations faced by each other's organizations. This has provided a very important flow of new ideas and feedback into the Movement.

The Movement has also helped people strengthen and regenerate their own meaning-making systems by reaffirming their identity through campaigns like Adivasi Bachchao and Jungle Bachchao, helping people resolve disputes at the village level and not approaching state authorities, and consciously attempting to affirm cultural production through Naach Melavas, youth festivals, etc.

The shivirs were highlighted as the principal method of leadership development within the Movement. The youth are introduced to the work of the Sangathana and are initiated to a dialogue involving both identity issues and larger socio-political structures. The shivirs have been highly effective with mobilizing youth in the past. But it seems that the Sangathana has started over-emphasizing the impact of the processes taking place in the shivirs and over-focussing on this one space of learning while ignoring other more continuous and organic processes (discussed above). The reason for this may be that we feel more secure about the things that we can directly control, and in the process, overlook areas outside our immediate control.

We passed around an excerpt from an article "Creating Sustainable Learning Communities for the 21^st Century" by Stephanie Pace Marshall which posited various dimensions of a learning community. Based on this, we highlighted certain important aspects of the Movement as a learning community that came out during our discussions, while, critiquing the limitations of the school:

• Intergenerational and collaborative interactions between young and old around meaningful issues of common concern.
• Flexible and diverse learning methodologies which respect various modes of understanding and expression. Such learning processes are committed to increasing the learning intelligence of every individual -- the assumption being each and every individual has various kinds of intelligences, and capacities of any kind of intelligence can be increased throughout life.
• Trust between the different people has been an integral part of the Movement. This trust has been based on open-ness and sharing.

Unfortunately, we did not have the time to discuss the other learning processes in the village or the spaces within the ashramshala school. And thought it might be good to take these up in the workshop with the karyakartas.

In this session, we wanted to focus on what we actually mean by the terms 'rootedness' and 'negotiating modernity'. At the same, we wanted to discuss potential tensions that exist between the two. We also wanted to understand what kinds of things needed to be learned today in order to be rooted and to negotiate modernity.

We started by asking what it means to be rooted in the present day context. There was some discussion about rootedness being linked with certain special rituals/symbols and rootedness being embedded in daily living pattern. Although we recognized that rituals represent the ethos of tribal life, we agreed that being rooted was much more than just adhering to rituals. For instance, now participation is understood in terms of attendance for a particular ritual but very rarely does the meaning come through to the youth of what actually is being done. It was felt that now we need to develop a new meaning system very different from what the earlier generations might have called rootedness because of the very strong change in material base. Earlier the source of sustenance was the forest, which has now been replaced by the Market economy. It was recognized that we needed to understand how youth would now assert and affirm their identity as 'modern adivasis'. The point was made that youth today need to learn how to 'negotiate antiquity' as well as to negotiate modernity.

We then discussed some of the challenges that are emerging for both the tribal way of life and the Movement in relation to modernity. Earlier, as the enemy was visible, it was easier to confront it. Today, the Sangathana cannot disengage by refuting or revolting against the exploiters. It has to re-strategize as the State now uses a different mechanism of control in the form of incentives and rewards rather than punishment. Furthermore, to find local ways of self-sustenance is becoming more and more difficult as the Market and the State confront their communities in various forms — as schools, as schemes of employment generation, etc.

In the face of this, we brainstormed on what needs to be learned. Several questions emerged. For instance, in which language is it important to gain literacy? Is it the language of the heart (Warli), the language of communication (Marathi) or the language of power (English)? Do we need to "swing the pendulum", implying that we need to affirm rootedness only by romanticizing the pristine tribal life and its relationship to nature, or recognize the tensions the community is facing?

It's unfortunate the way the youth are ridiculed and held responsible for moving away from their community. One must discuss the structures that are pushing/pulling the youth away rather than simply pointing the finger at them. It would be valuable to the Movement as well as the communities to realize that this group is the one which is visibly torn in between the ideals of rootedness and are negotiating modernity at the same time. But the tension affects all age groups -- the entire community, so to speak. Therefore, learning processes within the Movement should seek to cover the entire life span of individual members of the community and facilitate more intergenerational interactions.

In this context, it was then important to understand how and why the youth desire mobility. For instance, it was interesting to note how Reservation Policies have acted upon their consciousness to get a government job (which is the highest aspiration one has as a member belonging to this community). Most people's expectations from the Movement have been growing as they see the Sangathana as an agency for mediating power. Earlier, the Sangathana had been a provider of security and now villagers' expectations have increased as they see other organizations use their power to help people to climb the social ladder. It is important to understand this phenomenon, as we would have to think of ways in which to attract and inspire the youth.

The last session was supposed to explore possible processes that need to be taken up. There seemed to be an expectation for an alternative model which could do away with the existing tensions as well as reconcile with the mainstream expectations. We discussed that there are no ready-made solutions or models, and the importance of not falling into this trap. The Movement has to create spaces for people to understand and reflect on their own meaning and learning systems. The Movement has to have faith in the dialogical interactions within the communities to generate appropriate learning spaces. But it is important that the leadership of the Movement understands that they must create a nurturing and protective space/energy for the new initiatives to grow so that they are not pulled back into the model of schooling.

Coming to some conclusions on the operationalization of some of the concepts we had tackled during the day marked the end of the session. At the village level, we agreed that the right age group to start with might be with those who are leaving Class 4. We also understood that the meaning of school is today beyond the control of the community — it is the State which has full control over this system of schooling and its contents and structures. Thereby, an agitation or a campaign against the formal system must be a one of the necessary starting points. This would imply:

• Camps to be organized such that the activists and the adult members could start with the process of deschooling themselves.
• Starting an interaction with teachers who have thus far been outside the purview of the Movement, to slowly introduce them to a process of deschooling.

It was also suggested that the middle level activists will also have to be more intensively deschooled (many are already in the process) to recognize other learning spaces and learning processes. It was also suggested that some research needed to be conducted at the village level -- which gauged people's perceptions about schooling, and evaluated the impact of ashramshalas on village communities.

There also remained gray areas, which still need to be reconciled and sorted out in dialogue with the activists and the communities. For instance, would this process which we are trying to engage in also provide people options to join the mainstream if they wished to? Questions were raised regarding how would people react to the idea of no exams, no separate buildings, no degrees and no teachers. It was important to find this out in order to understand how much room we have to develop new approaches.

AUGUST 1, 2000: WORKSHOP WITH THE ACTIVISTS

A full-day meeting was organized with the activists (karyakartas) and sthanaks. The session started with all participants sharing their expectations about the meeting. Most knew it had something to do with education but could not quite place what it really was for.

In the first session of the meeting, we wanted to understand their perceptions about schooling and its impact on their way of life. We divided the people into two groups, both groups having a mix of older members and youth. One group was asked to discuss what was wrong about the system of schooling and the other group had to discuss what was good about the system of schooling. The focus was supposed to be on the different conceptual and structural aspects of the system and not so much on the outputs.

The good:

The group looked at three angles — the self, the family, the society — how schools affect these three categories.

• To be able to read and write.
• The ease of travel — how to read boards, train schedules, etc.
• Knowledge of the outside world.
• History of the outside world.
• To inculcate good habits and mannerisms.
• To work in areas other than farming, as small entrepreneurs.
• To help build confidence (only to an extent).

• To help in aspirations for a job in order to provide 'stable' income to the family.

• To be able to exchange ideas with other communities.

This group also decided to discuss anecdotes related to the harm this schooling system has wrought on their communities. They cited specific stories from their villages to substantiate each point they made. For example:

• Not respecting parents.
• Improper and illegal behaviour (cases of sexual molestation resulting in early pregnancy).
• Social alienation.
• Not self-reliant, nor very confident.
• Not assuming responsibilty towards home or their actions.
• When not getting government jobs, simply engaging in leisure and not in village productive activities.
• Not inculcating values which would motivate individuals to help 'develop' their village and community.

The gadbard (bad):

• Questioning is not encouraged.
• Competition — they compete with others and are ultimately sifted out essentially due to economic reasons.
• The content in the curriculum is not in harmony with social realities. It excludes their own history, even current issues in their lives.
• They are taught in Marathi, which is not their mother tongue.
• Children are inflicted with many punishments.
• Children are made to feel psychologically inferior. For instance, they feel embarrassed and inhibited to go to school if they cannot afford to buy uniforms or the required books.
• The students are fearful of the teacher. The teacher represents a scary larger figure who controls the child only through punishments. The child abides by the teachers' instructions only because (s)he is scared of punishments.
• What the teacher knows, along with the pre-set curriculum, becomes the limit for learning within the premises of the schooling system. The teacher refuses to acknowledge the fact (s)he can learn from the children as well.
• Teaching is not based on children's interest.
• The existing schools have little facilities. For instance, four grades are conducted in one classroom.
• They questioned how the teachers' egos play an important role while teaching.
• It becomes difficult to cope with higher stages of schooling after studying in a primary school in which the level of teaching is abysmal.
• The teacher neither interacts with the village or community at large nor with the children outside the classroom.
• This entire education is geared towards acquiring a job, not learning practical things.
• The educated child does not necessarily take up the responsibilities of the household.
• There are limited opportunities for higher education in the present system. Everyone who is interested in further learning is not allowed to.

Each group then shared and substantiated their own points in the larger group. Essentially, what came forth was that there was a great discomfort with the existing school system. At the same time, they said that there was a great deal of State and NGO propaganda pointing out how school was a path to development and progress for the adivasis. They felt that this would be very difficult to overcome and will require a lot of intensive interaction with the communities.

In the next session, the activists were asked to name the various things that they learn in their daily lives, which occur outside of the framework of the school. They listed around 25 ways in which they learnt various ways of living within the community — ploughing, farming, cooking, dancing, weaving, carpentry, pounding and husking, fishing, washing clothes, hunting, bird trapping, using a sling shot and catapulting, singing couplets while dancing, story-telling, riddles, counting with tamarind seeds, playing musical instruments, building houses, knowledge of medicinal plants etc. We then asked them to take any skill and elaborate how they went about acquiring this skill. They discussed the process of building a house, which started on the basis of a genuine need of the people to seek protection from the rains -- it was a purposeful activity. They usually finish the building procedure before the monsoon sets in. They spoke of how this inculcated in the children a sense of self-discipline to get the work over before a certain time, with the collaboration of other members of the community as opposed to discipline which is imposed by schooling in name of routine. They remarked that discipline imposed by schools was only short-term; as soon as one is out of the ashramshala, one stops subscribing to those principles.

They also mentioned how they use available materials and make the most of them, whereas one of the boys who had been to school said one had to take account of measurements first, then look for resources to fit the design. Thereby, the processes that they use to adapt to whatever is available around the areas are very innovative.

Another aspect, which came out very strongly, is how the self-learning process takes place. There is actually no formalized method of teaching most skills -- it is all through experimenting. When a house is being built, everyone who wants to contribute starts working with the group who are engaged in building and learns through emulating the next person. If someone makes a mistake, he is corrected by showing the right method and is urged to do it again, unlike the punishment method in the school which discourages people to try new things and makes them fear making mistakes.

All skills are accessible. The choice truly depends on each person's area of interest. It is not that only the father teaches the son or a skill remains within the family; anyone can learn the skill they are interested in.

They build or create things, which have a utility value; nothing is created merely to promote isolated learning. Each one is involved in these creations right from childhood, so these processes cover the entire life span of people.

This session proved to be very fruitful as the activists started to acknowledge that these ways of learning were as legitimate educational processes as the mainstream schooling method. Our intention was to highlight that if the community so desired, it could also form its own meaning-making and learning systems instead of just following the state-imposed system of education which was not in sync with the desires of the community. This also helped us highlight how even after putting forth-such a long list of various things that they learn/know in their communities, they were still called "uneducated" while those who could only read and write were called "educated'.

In the third session, we shared examples of various initiatives that we knew of started by people who wanted to create learning spaces of their own. For instance, we spoke of Kanavu, an alternative to mainstream education system in Kerala. We spoke of the initiative of street children in Phillipines who started a multi-cuisine international restaurant and the learning parks Shikshantar has started in Udaipur. With each example, we highlighted the strengths of each — initiative was rooted in its context, use of their own language, ways of sustaining by relying on resources from inside their community (Kanavu), in the process of setting up the restaurant how street children who had never read learnt how to handle each step by learning newer things (they started reading on their own initiative, read about various cuisines from all over the world and the histories of each variety of food, could negotiate prices of land to build restaurant, etc.). We also discussed how these different learning initiatives had made different choices about how much they wanted to connect to the formal school system and its mainstream benefits. We concluded the session by pointing out that what they had listed above as positive aspects of schooling could also be acquired in non-school settings.

We realized that it will be important to explain and highlight how there are various ways of learning and that people have the capacity to design and generate their own spaces -- they don’t need some expert to tell them what to do. We concluded by asking the activists what are the aspects they would like to bring out in this process? They listed the following:

• Such views about the problems in schooling and changes required need to be put forth in front of the people. If they develop a similar understanding, then one can proceed to develop this process.
• Learning should involve agricultural activities.
• Learning should take place in a group, not necessarily of the same age, but definitely not individually. Groups should take up all tasks where each learns from the other. The idea of intergenerational learning already exists, which needs to be further strengthened.
• No physical infrastructure like a school building is needed -- in fact not even a table or platform for teacher, because that elevation automatically puts him/her in a superior position.
• Warli, as their mother tongue, had to be used as the language of interaction.
• They agreed that the people themselves could design the contents/spaces of their learning.

The activists felt that it would be important to demystify the carrot of jobs which is dangled in front of us. This carrot creates frustration and competition over those handful jobs which ultimately destroys the fabric of the community.

Pradip, Brian, Sanjay, Sangeeta, Manish, Parijat, and Chandresh met and agreed on the next steps required to carry on with the agenda of creation of an educational process.

1. There needs to be some collection of "baseline information" to catalyze a Campaign:

• We need to document people's perception regarding the existing tensions created by the mainstream schooling system. It was suggested that researchers from the 'Society for Integrated Development of the Himalayas' might be able to help with this.
• We need an assessessment of the present conditions of the existing schools in the area -- both the ashramshalas and the zilla parishad schools. It was suggested that Vrinda Dutta might be useful for this.
• Shiraz had also mentioned a life histories study that she was planning with Indira which would share some current attitudes of youth.

2. Shikshantar would appoint a person who would collaborate between Kasthakari Sangathana and Shikshantar -- spending 75% of their time in Dahanu and the remainder in Udaipur. Such a person would be jointly agreed upon by both groups before being appointed. This person would help develop the initiative and would play a role in supporting the development of local educational activists.

3. Some people from Shikshantar would also come back to Dahanu in the month of November and jointly conduct a series of workshops.

***

"Our attempt to withdraw from the concept of school will reveal the resistance we find in ourselves when we try to renounce limitless consumption and the pervasive presumption that others can be manipulated for their own good."

- Ivan Illich, 1970