Education for Character Development - Discussion



The Workshop started with the Mangalacharanam presented by Dr. S.C. Goswami, Mrs. Indu Goswami, Mrs. Dheera Verma, Dr. Radhika Singh and Dr. Jayanti Singh.

Next, Dr. M.M. Sankhdher, the coordinator of the Workshop, welcomed the participants and requested Dr. Subhash C. Kashyap to kindly preside over the Workshop. He expressed the regret that Shri T.N. Seshan, Chief Election Commissioner of India, who was to inaugurate the Workshop, was held up in a meeting with the Prime Minister. He, therefore, requested Prof. K.D. Gangrade, formerly Pro-Vice-Chancellor of the Delhi University, to inaugurate the Workshop. He thanked Kireet Joshi to hold the Workshop in Vaishali at his request. He pointed out that Vaishali is a colony where educationists, teachers and eminent professors of the Delhi University reside. He was happy that distinguished teachers of Delhi University and several other leading personalities connected with the field of education had responded to the invitation to participate in the Workshop.

In his inaugural address, Prof. Gangrade said that there are four main pillars that can sustain the value system of the society, namely, the family, teachers, politicians and religious organisations. He deplored the fact that in the present situation none of these four pillars was in a good condition, and

*Report of the Workshop on "Education for Character Development" which was held on December 1, 1996 at Community Hall, Vaishali, Pitampura, Delhi-110 034 under the auspieces of the Dharam Hinduja International Centre of Indic Research, C-14 1 Preet Vihar, Delhi 110 092



therefore, the value system had come to a state of great degeneration. He underlined the role of the mother and said that she is the first teacher. He pointed out that society would be safe where mothers can play their legitimate role of imparting value system to their children. Regarding educational system, he said that the books which are being provided to the students are deficient in many ways and that the good teachers are not easily available. He remarked that even the books produced by N.C.E.R.T. contain unpardonable errors. Referring to his association with the National Service Scheme, he said that it is only when the leaders of the Scheme personally participate in the programmes that the students feel inspired to put into practice higher values. As for the role of mass media, he pointed out that they should not only cater for entertainment but also provide information and message. He deplored the fact that the present films and programmes which are being telecast by the mass media fail to deliver any message. He said that even in the case of good serials like Krishna, there are so many interruptions of advertisement that the good message of that serial gets lost. As regards the role of teachers, he said that in early times in India, the teacher was called adhyapaka because he was supposed to do adhyayana. In contrast, he said, we now call a teacher a shikshak and this indicates the limited role of teacher as one who imparts shiksha. He regretted that the present educational system is getting highly commercialised. Referring to political institutions, he said that politicians have no political will to develop character. He remarked that politicians themselves are getting degenerated to lower levels of morality. He, therefore, felt that one cannot expect from politicians the required help for promoting character development in the country. Regarding the role of religion, he added that even though there are numerous temples even in an area like Pitampura, these temples have become places of social



gatherings. Dr. Gangrade said that the society is gripped by crisis of character and that this is not only true of India but is true of the whole world. He added that the crisis of character is global.

He said that it is only if those four pillars stand firm and united in pursuing and promoting character development that one could hopefully look forward to resurrection of the country.

He also mentioned the Radhakrishnan Report and Kothari Commission's Report and pointed out that both these reports as also several others had underlined the importance of character development. He emphasised that our aim should be to nurture good citizenship; but instead of that only two things are being developed in our country: vulgar leadership and slavish bureaucracy. He spoke of the problem of resources and employment and added that before the recent rules of reservations in services, there were several people who occupied high positions in the Government and who belonged to scheduled castes and scheduled tribes, but they had attained their positions by virtue of their intrinsic merit and not because of reservations. He, therefore, underlined the importance of merit.

He said that teachers are not receiving the kind of respect that they ought to get. He said that by the time a student comes to higher secondary course, he tends to reject the teacher; and at the level of university education, the relationship between the teacher and the student totally breaks down.

He pointed to the attraction of the American model but said that American society itself is riddled with family and social problems. He added that during the last two decades, divorce cases in U.S.A. have increased by 400 %, single parents by 300 %, teenage suicide by 200%, violence by 560 %, birth of illegitimate children has risen by 4 90%. He remarked that even in Delhi, 9,000 cases of divorce are pending with the courts.



Dr. Gangrade remarked that while he was not against modernisation, and while he welcomed economic development, he wondered as to what was the use of planning if things were not set right and when education was not receiving the needed financial assistance.

He said that in spite of the disappointing scenario, he still was an optimist. He added that there was a need for revolution in ideas and that teachers should become fearless. Referring to the question that was posed to Gandhi as to what was the greatest problem of India, he said that Gandhi had turned down the suggestion that poverty was the greatest problem of India and said that "Cowardice is the greatest problem".

He concluded by saying that authorities should dare to take action and teachers should be fearless and impart to students higher values of life. He also pointed out that Vice-Chancellors of the universities should possess sterling qualities so that they could inspire both teachers and pupils.

After the inaugural address, Dr. Subhash Kashyap requested Kireet Joshi to present his keynote address.

Kireet Joshi said that he was extremely happy that the right tone had been set for the Workshop by the inaugural address. Explaining the purpose of the Workshop, he said that the idea was to take stock of the present educational situation and to reflect at deeper levels as to what exactly should be contents and methods of education for Character Development. He pointed out that there is a facile assumption that people normally understand and know what education for character development is. He said that this is a mistaken assumption, for there is much disputation about values and value-education. He added that every workshop or seminar on the subject adds to the confusion, and the present Workshop would also be no exception. He, however, felt that it is through reflections over confusions and it is by a process of churning



that something worthwhile would emerge. He remarked that towards the end of the Workshop, he would present a possible curriculum for character development. He said that the curriculum for character development needs to be formulated with great care and he would like to have inputs from the distinguished members of the Workshop on that very important subject. Referring to Prof. Gangrade's statement that parents are the first pillars of education for character development, he added that not many parents have good learning material which they can provide to children. He pointed out that similar situation obtains even in educational institutions. He added that although the general climate in the society is not favourable to education for character development, educationists and teachers have a very important role to play in giving to this country a good curriculum and good learning and teaching material. He pointed out that the Workshop was specially conceived to provide a forum to eminent educationists to reflect on that very important subject. He admitted that in the present circumstances, the proposed curriculum might not seem to be practicable, but he said that it is only by continuous dialogue with leaders of education that favourable climate could be built up. He said that he would not be disappointed even if it takes 20 years or more for the implementation of the curriculum that he was going to present. With these introductory remarks, Kireet Joshi presented the keynote address.

Dr. Subhash Kashyap, in his presidential address, expressed his appreciation of the object of the Workshop and said that after listening to the inaugural address and the keynote address, there would be little new that he could contribute.

Dr. Kashyap pointed out that education for character development is a kind of truism, for education has to be geared to character development. If education does not develop character, it is no education. He said that Kireet Joshi had



presented a very comprehensive statement to explain what is meant by character and what are the different aspects which are involved in character development. Character, he said, is distinctive quality, individuality, identity, personality in its uniqueness. He added that what distinguishes an individual from others is his distinctive character. He pointed out that education is not merely accumulation of information or even inculcation of knowledge. He made a distinction between information, knowledge and wisdom by pointing out that while information is piece-meal assemblage of facts and a raw material for communication, knowledge is the process of understanding facts and ideas that stand correlated in some kind of a framework. Wisdom, on the other hand, is insight born of profound experience and repeated reflections on depths and heights which are normally inaccessible to ordinary processes of cognition, affection and conation.

He underlined the role of the mother as the first and greatest educator. He also pointed out that education must provide a sense of discrimination between right and wrong apart from the development of independent and critical thinking. Education, he said, must impart respect for values, for ethical conduct, irrespective of what vocation or profession one chooses. He said that education is what remains with us after we forget all the subjects that we might have learnt in schools and colleges. And what essentially remains with us is character. He referred to great educationists like Nietszche, Swami Vivekananda and Sri Aurobindo and pointed out that all of them had underlined the theme of education as essentially the process of development of individuality, selfhood, and character. He also quoted Iqbal's famous couplet where he put self above God when he pointed out "Khudi ko kar buland Una ki har taqdeer se pahale khuda bande se khud pucche bata teri raza kya hai" (Make your selfhood so high



that before determining your destiny, God Himself would ask you as to what is your wish.)

Referring to the concept of integral personality, he said that personality is fully integrated when there is consistency in thought, word, and deed, when one achieves equilibrium between the individual and the collectivity and when one achieves balanced and progressive development of the physical, mental, moral, emotional and spiritual. Underlining the idea of education as a life-long process, he remarked that education should not be piece-meal and that one must be ready to continue to study throughout one's life. He said that education that aims at character development is based upon the concept of the individual as an end-in-himself. He said that the individual is not an instrument or a means or a resource. It is wrong to suppose, he said, that the individual is valuable only because the individual can be used as a resource for reaching higher levels of GNP or for realising greater industrial production and profitability. He said that the idea of human beings as a resource has become so fashionable today that even the Ministry of Education has now come to be called the Ministry of Human Resource Development, as if human beings are merely can and fodder, merely a resource like iron ore and other mineral resources. He pointed out that education cannot accept human beings as mere resources; it must look upon human beings as ultimate ends. It is in this context, he said, that human values cannot be measured in economic terms.

Dr. Subhash Kashyap observed that education must aim at producing vigorous individuals, powerful characters, complete and mature integrated personalties. He pointed out that even the completeness of man is a relative concept, and quoting from Sri Aurobindo, he said that "man is only a transitional being, so that at the highest height of manhood, man can transform himself into the higher state of super-manhood". In



regard to manhood, he cited an Urdu couplet which says, "yun to sadiyon se hai insan ka vajood, magar nigah aj bhi tarasti hai insan ke liye". (Man has existed for centuries, our eyes are yet thirsty to see the Man.)

He also referred to the Greek thinker, Diogenes, who was moving about with a lantern in his hand in broad day-light, and when asked about his strange behaviour, he said that he was in search of a real man. Dr. Kashyap commented that what Diogenes had said in his days is true even in our own times.

On the subject of value, he said that values should be distinguished from price, because value is that for which one is prepared to make sacrifices. Values are those ends for which one is prepared to live and die. Values also give standard and measure of actions. He said that value is that criterion by referring to which the meaning and significance of everything else is measured or determined.

Dr. Kashyap pointed out that Kireet Joshi had referred to some of the basic concepts which have been laid down in the Preamble to the Constitution of India. He said that the Constitution declares the values of liberty, equality and fraternity and ensures their fulfilment for promoting the dignity of the individual, and, of course, the unity and the integrity of the nation. He said that in spite of noble ideals which have been enshrined in the Constitution, our history of education for the last 50 years has shown absence of political will, and therefore, our education has not been able to gear itself to promotion of values and ideals. He said that the situation is so regrettable that when one talks of values, one is afraid that one is going to be labelled as anti-secular. In this connection, he said that the distinction made by Kireet Joshi between religion and spirituality as also between morality and religion was very important. He remarked that politicians should not mistake value-education as religious education and put it out of the school



curriculum as something inconsistent with secularism which has been enshrined in the Constitution. He also pointed out that there is an anomaly that while religious education is permitted in madrasas, even value-education is discouraged in other schools and colleges. He said that it is the neglect of the value-education that has led to the pursuit of consumerism, and possessiveness has become the yard-stick of greatness in the society.

He said that a developed character has the ability to say "no", to refuse to yield to what is wrong, no matter whatever be the cost. He added that the supreme need of our times is to bring about widespread renaissance in our country on the basis of promotion of higher values. He expressed his hope that with men and women who were present in the Workshop, there was a great possibility that the resurrection of the country would be possible. He added that European renaissance was brought about by the effort of about 100 enlightened individuals, and he felt that India is a vast country and would throw up 100 men and women to help regeneration of the country.

After the Presidential address, the meeting was thrown open for discussion.

Dr. Rammurti Sharma, commenting on the keynote address, said that the concept of character presented by Kireet Joshi needs to be further developed. He said that the Gita speaks of swadharma and points out that it is better to die while performing works of swadharma but to follow somebody else's dharma is full of peril, swadharme nidhanam shreyah para dharmo bhayavavah. He said that character is a matter of individuality and refers to the individual's links with the society and his performance in the society. He also spoke of achara as a part of charitra (character). He said that the word "achara" comes from the root char, to move. He said, therefore, the idea of character is connected with dynamism and change. He appreciated



Kireet Joshi's distinction between morality and spirituality and said that the character has both the dimensions of ethicality and spirituality.

He also said that in his view there cannot be a curriculum for character development since character is an all-comprehensive subject, and it cannot be capsuled in one single curriculum. It has to be spread over the curricula of various subjects.

Dr. S.C. Goswami said that there is a distinction between character and personality. He added that Kireet Joshi might, in due course, throw some light on this distinction.*

Dr. Goswami appreciated the distinction made by Kireet Joshi between morality, religion and spirituality. He also felt that people are afraid of development of personality under the false impression that it is detrimental to the development of professional excellence. He, however, felt that this fear is unfounded, because it has to be realised that the secret of profession lies in personality, and that the more the personality is developed, the greater is the achievement of professional excellence.

Prof. B.R. Bhandula said that the word "character" can be made into an ananagram where C stands for communicational

* During the course of the discussion, Kireet Joshi did not find the time to dwell on this subject. Reference may, however, be made to Kireet Joshi's book Education/or Personality Development in which he has said as under :

"Personality is sometimes identified with character, but very often a distinction is made between the two. According to this distinction, character means the fixed structure of certain recognisable qualities while personality means a flux of self-expressive or sensitive and responsive being. But when we examine the distinction between the fixed structure and the flux, we find that the fixity and the flux are only relative terms, and in the movement of Nature, nothing is fixed."

However, when one speaks of character as distinguished from personality, a greater emphasis is laid on volitional aspect as also on attitudes and efforts to rise from one level to a higher level.



transparency, H for honesty, A for aptitude, R for role-play for tolerance, A for awareness, C for confidence, T for truthfulness, E for earnestness and R for rationality. He said that education is not merely a process of learning; nor is it confined to the preparation for profession or occupation. He added that education is fundamentally a process of character development and apart from individual character, we need to develop also the concept of national character.

Shri R.C. Tripathi said that the word "education" refers to the process of bringing out something which is hidden in personality. He said that character is tested in situational stresses, for it is the character that sustains the individual or the nation at the time of stress. He pointed out that the purpose of education should be to communicate certain values. These values, he said, are connected with motivation of the individual. He referred in this connection to the four motivations or purusharthas which are recognised in the Indian tradition, namely, dharma, artha, kama and moksha. He said that the higher the motivation of life, the higher is the character of a person. He also referred to the definition of dharma given by Vyasa, who, in a brief statement, said that dharma is that which promotes help to others while adharma is that which causes suffering to others.

Motivation, he added, refers to various situations such as personal situation, social situation, spiritual situation or even, civilisational situation. He felt that all these factors need to be taken into account while considering the concept of character.

Smt. Savitri Sharma said that education for character development should be based upon the lessons that we can learn from the lives of Sri Rama, Sri Krishna, Swami Vivekananda and others.

Dr. R.P. Sharma said that while we talk of values and virtues, which are very good words, what is important is the man who has embodied those values and virtues.



He referred to T.S. Eliot who had referred to the situation of life today where life is lost in living, wisdom is lost in knowledge and knowledge is lost in information.

Dr. Sharma also referred to the impact of science and said that value should be judged in terms of rationality. He pointed out that Socrates had the boldness to say, "Yes, I may be wrong, but still, I die for what I hold to be true today." He said that Socrates is in sharp contrast to the mediocre politicians of today. He said that it is a matter of irony that politicians come to address professors of universities; this, he added, is the proof that politicians are holding the whips and teachers are being whipped. He said that teachers should rise and show their readiness to make sacrifice in order to vindicate their true position in the society.

Dr. Sharma pointed out that education shorn of character is no education. He felt that the most important question that education for character development should raise is "What is life meant for?" "What is the purpose of life?" He also referred to George Santayana who had said that it is not enough to be wise, one should listen to the heart.

Dr. Shakuntala Punjani said that the ancient gurukul system of education was an ideal system, and she felt that it is only in that system of education that moral education can be rightly imparted.

Prof. K.K. Jain referred to the warning given by Dr. Radhakrishnan in his report when he said that "if you want to bring Rakshasa Raja, starve the soul and cater to the material needs of the individual." He said that the foreign rule had already played havoc with our culture; unfortunately, the same policy is being followed by our rulers since independence. He deplored the fact that in our curriculum there is no mention of upliftment of the soul. He added that we have to underline the fact that man does not live by bread alone. It is only by going



beyond bread that the human being can affirm his dignity. He quoted the Sanskrit verse, "yesam na vidya na tapo na danam jnanam na shilam naguno na dharmah, te mrtyuloke bhuvi bharabhuta manusyarupena mrgas caranti." (Those who possess none of these qualities as learning, tapas, charity, knowledge, character, virtue and dharma, they are a burden on this earth moving in the world as animals assuming the form of humans.)

Prof. Jain said that the development of character should start right from the early stage of childhood and continue from family right up to universities.

Prof. Jain also referred to the domains of life, physical, cognitive, conative, and affective. He said that personality development is a great domain. He referred to the definition of education given by Swami Vivekananda as the manifestation of perfection already in man. He said that the occupation of the teacher was quite different from other occupations. He said that teacher's main occupation was that of sacrifice and dedication. He observed that the teacher's profession is like that of the Fakir who renounces everything. He gave an example of a fakir who had renounced everything, and one day, while he was sitting under a tree, a Huma (a kind of peacock) sat upon him. (According to the traditional belief, whenever the Huma happens to sit upon anybody, that person becomes a king.) Without any sense of exaltation, the fakir said, "e huma maste fakiri kya garaj hai sultanat ki, sainkron shahanshah chale ate hein meri kadamposhi ke liye". (O Huma, I am intoxicated in renunciation; why should I crave for kingship? Hundreds of kings come to me and fall at my feet!)

After the lunch break, the discussion on the keynote address was continued.

Shri P.S. Sarin said that while discussions on education are necessary, we need to go farther and take steps to implement the idea of education for character development. He said that



we need somebody like Chanakya to prevent our society from going into chaotic state. He, therefore, proposed that a model school should be started with 20-3 0 students drawn from all parts of the country and that we should appoint dedicated teachers for them. He offered to meet the part of the expenditure on this model school. He said that the school could work like a laboratory of research. He reiterated that while theoretical discussions on education are important, what is even more important is to initiate practical steps to give shape to right type of education.

Dr. Snehlata Srivastava said that radio and T. V. have come to occupy the position of very effective instruments of education. She said that the family can hardly stand any competition with what is being imparted by way of entertainment on the T. V. She said that mere opening of schools will not be effective, since whatever would be done in the school for character development will be counteracted by messages received through media. She said that effective means should be thought of to meet the challenges of radio and T.V.

Prof. M.M. Sankhdher said that there is a tendency to decry religion, although religion has played an important part in the past and can still play an important role in the future. He pointed out that religion has been a source of moral values. He said that the Western turmoil of today is due to the fact that religion is increasingly exiled from life. He added that spirituality is the base, religion is the structure and political economy is the super-structure. He, therefore, underlined the importance of religion as a structure.

Prof. Sankhdher added that politics had become a dominant factor today in all walks of life. He regretted that virtues and values are getting eroded under the pressure of politics. Even in education, he said, politics is dominating. He said that the most important problem today is as to how to remove



politics from its dominant position. He said that the problem should be tackled urgently because politics has become an immoral activity today.

Kireet Joshi said that many questions that were raised during the discussion could find their answers in the paper that he was going to present.

Dr. Subhash Kashyap, therefore, requested Kireet Joshi to present his second paper entitled "Methods for Character Development".

The discussion on this paper began with Shri Swadesh Sharma who said that while he was deeply enlightened by the proceedings which were very stimulating, he wondered why the educational situation has deteriorated particularly over the past 50 years. He referred to the great thinkers like Socrates, Plato, Diogenes, Rousseau, Bernard Shaw, Swami Vivekananda, Rabindranath Tagore and Sri Aurobindo. He said that in spite of the great agreement among these thinkers, he wondered why their great ideas had not got implemented. He said that what is needed is action. He asked whether we are able to generate mass awareness. He added that there is a great need to make effort in the direction of awakening the masses. He said that the present situation is so deplorable that teachers are no more teachers, students are no more students, policy makers are inactive in regard to what they ought to be doing, and politicians are worst of all. He said that we should concentrate on creating a pool of activists.

Dr. CD. Bijalwan said that the theme of character development should be linked up with the problem of livelihood and employment. He argued that not only should the child be placed in the centre of education, but parents and guardians also should be similarly placed. He said that while we talk of educational reforms for character development, we forget that 5 0% of education is being imparted through non-formal



channels, and non-formal and informal education hardly receives any attention of the reformers.

Dr. S.R. Satija said that stress has been laid on moral and value education in all reports of education commissions and committees. And yet, moral education has not received due attention by way of implementation. He said that there are three instruments to bring about the needed change - students, teachers and headmasters, and the governing bodies of the schools and colleges. Among all the three, the most important role has to be played by the teacher, he remarked. He said that the committed teacher can bring about a revolution in the whole system, despite the resistance from politicians. He said that building up of character cannot be brought out by words alone. He said that while there are many precepts, there is very little practice. He felt that only those who are interested and committed to education should be allowed to enter the profession of teaching. In his view, this would remove all the maladies.

Dr. S.N. Sharma said that some of the ideas presented by Kireet Joshi are being implemented in some schools, but they cannot be implemented on a large scale. He said that there are many difficulties in implementation because of the administrative structure and also because of the rigidity of rules, regulations and compulsions of syllabus. He pointed out that teachers come from lower and middle classes and they have many domestic problems, as a result of which they have little time or inclination to undertake new programmes. He also referred to the wide variations that obtain in the school system in the country.

Dr. Sharma pleaded for presentation of the proposals in the form of simple implementable formulas so that they can be implemented without much difficulty.

Dr. Sharma added that in any reforms of education, home has also to be involved. He said that there are today many thin



which are being done at home which need to be unlearned in the school.

He pleaded for some kind of compulsion in bringing about a change. He said that without a pressure from above whereby reforms are made compulsory, nothing would move in the right direction.

Dr. S.P. Pathak endorsed the views expressed by Kireet Joshi. He said that in spite of these views, which have also been expressed by different commissions on education, the results were far from satisfactory. He said that while the child's sovereignty has to be emphasised, the present situation is so painful where a large number of small children are working in the country as domestic servants. In regard to teachers' education, he said that teachers have different backgrounds and varied levels of qualifications and he wondered how teachers with lower qualifications could understand difficult questions like " What is the nature of mind? How does it operate in scientific thinking, analytical thinking and philosophical thinking?" He said that it is very difficult to communicate these ideas to our teachers in operational terms. While appreciating the idea of silence room, he said that the actual situation in regard to the buildings of schools in the country is so unsatisfactory that there are not even toilet facilities for boys and girls. He wondered whether the proposals made in the paper of Kireet Joshi could succeed in the present circumstances. He added that many of these proposals are all tall order for teachers, and teachers even while spending half of their life would not be able to implement them.

Dr. Promilla Kapur said that her area of specialisation was women and children. While appreciating the lucid, educative and comprehensive paper of Kireet Joshi, she said that what is needed is a multi-pronged attack. She said that not only school-going children but also those who do not go to school should



be covered under the scheme. She agreed that the foundation of character development is laid in the family, and parents have to set example about the values of human life such as those of self-giving and sharing, of love and respect. She said that everybody has a divine soul, and every person is an equal partner in the development of society. She added that while character development has to start at home, it should continue in schools, in community and in every domain of social and political life. She felt that there should be no discrimination between boys and girls.

Kireet Joshi, before presenting his third paper, added that if his proposals seem to be impracticable, - although they are not impracticable, - those which would be presented in the third paper would seem to be even more impracticable. He said that his idea was to present in the Workshop the real and full implications of the concept of education for character development and to underline the great difficulties that lie ahead of everybody who wants to implement any scheme of education for character development. He mentioned that in spite of the fact that many people seem to be pessimistic, there is still a great hope in the country. He said that till now reforms in the educational system have been half-way houses, and they have really not served the purpose that we have in view. He said that over the last 50 years, the only thing in which the country has succeeded is in multiplying the number of schools on the same pattern as Macaulay had envisaged. He felt that what is required is revolution and that the teachers have to become aware of the necessity of a thorough-going revolution in education.

With these words, he presented his third paper entitled "Contents of Education for Character Development".

Brigadier Teg Bahadur Kapur complimented Kireet Joshi for his brilliant presentation. He said that the kind of ideas which were presented by Kireet Joshi were already being



implemented in education that is imparted in the army. He said that the very motto of Indian Military Academy contains the message of self-sacrifice. He said that in the army, every member is made to realise that nation comes always first and one's own well-being, one's own comforts, one's own safety always come last.

Brigadier Kapur referred to the concept of loyalty but added that yes men could be very dangerous. He said that both loyalty and fearlessness have to be developed. In this connection, he referred to the example of General Manekshaw's fearlessness and the role he played in the Bangladesh war in 1971. He said that if the syllabus presented by Kireet Joshi could be introduced in our schools, the country would become one of the greatest in the world.

Sir M.M. Lai said that while the Workshop spoke of higher aims of education, we have to realise that our country has 40 % of its population illiterate. He said that while one India lives in towns and metropolitan cities, the other India lives in villages. He said that we have only succeeded in making the poor poorer and the rich richer. He added that the greatest need in our country is first to bring about 100 % literacy and then proceed to develop education for character development.

Dr.(Smt.) Prabha Marwaha said that we should educate teachers and spread education throughout the country as a campaign. She suggested that volunteers should go round the country to educate the illiterate.

Shri R.P. Malaviya said that the basic concept in character development of the child has subjective elements, which have to be given importance. He said that character development is in fact a development from within. He also pointed out that religion has to play an important role in imparting basic emotional and moral values to the child. He also warned that while the concept of religion should be supported, communal-ism should be done away with.



Shri S.L.Jain said that Kireet joshi had presented excellent programmes for implementation and he felt that there should be a series of workshops where plan of action could be finalised. He invited Kireet Joshi to make use of the schools which are being run under his organisation. He said that he could set up centres to impart the knowledge which is contained in Kireet Joshi's papers. He even offered material help to promote the programme.

Prof. K.K. Mittal said that he was reminded of the old adage: "If wealth is lost, nothing is lost; if health is lost, something is lost; but if character is lost, everything is lost." He appreciated the three papers presented by Kireet joshi and said that listening to those papers had been an experience of rebirth. He said that those papers gave a great hope that new future is awaiting our country.

Shri R.S. Bhardwaj said that the papers presented by Kireet joshi envisage long-range programmes. He, however, felt there should be also short-range programmes. He felt that the papers presented by Kireet Joshi should be widely circulated among policy-makers. He added that Dr. Satija and others were having meetings of principals and management of schools, and he invited Kireet Joshi to address those meetings. He expressed the view that value-education at governmental level had failed. He, therefore, pleaded for some effective action at the voluntary level. He said that education should not be controlled by politicians but by educationists. He suggested that series of such workshops should be organised.

Dr. Subhash Kashyap said that it would be much more useful if the suggestions were sent to Kireet joshi in writing. He said that after receipt of the suggestions, another meeting could be convened for half-a-day, so that those suggestions could be considered.

Captain Bodhpriya Bharati referred to the report on value-education which was submitted by Kireet joshi in 1982



to the Government of India. He invited the participants of the Workshop to attend a Seminar that he has convened on 1 1.1.1997 on the theme of" Value-education for the 21st Century". He also requested Kireet Joshi to accept the corporate membership of his organisation. He offered to extend fellowships and scholarships to researchers for value-education.

Kireet Joshi in his concluding remarks said that he was thankful to everyone for the valuable suggestions which were made and explained that he had endeavoured to place an ideal programme of education that would mainly address itself to character development. He said that the programme presented by him can be made practicable by adopting three ways. First of all, he said, there must be a political will; if there is political will, then the entire programme can be largely implemented within a period of five years in the country as a whole. He said that even then massive work might have to be done, and he saw no reason why that massive work could not be done. The second way, he said, was to develop voluntary effort in the country. He added that Shri Bhardwaj had spoken of his organisation, and Captain Bodhpirya had spoken of his organisation, and with the help of so many other voluntary organisations, it would not be impossible to develop voluntary action. He said that what these voluntary organisations could do is very limited, but even then a new climate could be created and much could be achieved within the next 20 years. Thirdly, he added, what is more important is that experts could come together to prepare the teaching-learning material in a very big way. He said that the curriculum that he had presented was flexible and it could be improved, modified or even replaced altogether by a better programme. He said that corresponding to the curriculum, experts could create new learning material, and it could be produced massively in the country. This learning material could be produced in the form of booklets,



books, worksheets, reference books, slides and films. He remarked that the learning material, if it is widely distributed in the country, could create massive awareness. He mentioned that the present system of teachers' training needs to be thoroughly changed. He felt that even at the voluntary level, programme of teachers' training could be organised.

He referred to a note sent by Dr. Sankhdher in which he had appreciated the programme presented by him (Kireet Joshi), but expressed apprehension that some of the things mentioned therein were quite difficult. Dr. Sankhdher had remarked that even at the age of 65, he was unable to understand some of the concepts mentioned in the curriculum. His question was if students would be able to understand them. He wondered how those concepts could be communicated to students at younger age. Kireet joshi, in his reply, said that all depends upon preparatory work which must start at a very early stage. He said that there are efforts today to teach Relativity to children. He referred to the experiments which are being conducted in U.S.A. to introduce philosophy for children. He said that already several books for students and teachers have been published. He added that if efforts are made, one could create a new kind of learning material, and then what seems to be difficult to us even at our ripe age may seem quite relevant to students at younger age. He said that there is one thing which is immediately practicable, and that was that scholars could sit down together and start preparing learning material. He said that he has been collecting stories from the world literature on heroism, illumination and love; and although the task had been difficult, he would like to invite everyone to contribute to the effort. He also referred to many other aspects of the learning material and suggested that all those who are capable of thinking of and writing learning materials need to come together.



Towards the end, Dr. Subhash Kashyap requested Prof. S.P. Singh to propose a vote of thanks.

Prof. S.P. Singh said that what Kireet Joshi had presented was the quintessence of all that the Indian tradition has emphasised during the ages. He said that the message of practice of values is just our home-coming. He added that the greatest need in our country is the inculcation of higher values. He felt that the present moment is the moment of action and that all the participants should come together to chalk out a programme of action.

He proposed a vote of thanks to the Chairman, Dr. Subhash Kashyap, to the Chief Guest, Prof. Gangrade, who had inaugurated the Workshop, and to all the participants of the Workshop.


Back to Content