Hichhki — yours or mine?
While watching the movie Hichhki today, at various occasions I found myself saying to those around me ‘you know this happened in my class as well’. This, I owe to my 6 months of internship experience in a government school and 4 years of critical exposure to the education system. The movie in a very simple manner covered the various aspects that our education system and its various reform programmes and policies are constantly failing to highlight.
The movie is about a teacher Naina Mathur who is struggling to get a job as a teacher despite her outstanding qualifications due to a “speech defect” (Tourette syndrome) and when she finally gets a job in her dream school she is further faced with many challenges. She is to teach a class that is just as much excluded from the school as Naina is from the society.
Another Bollywood movie after Hindi Medium which brings to us the aftermath of the 25% EWS provision under the RTE act(2009), wherein the school through its collective efforts makes sure these children do not ‘fit in’ and drop out. The movie however attempts to make us question the commonly used term ‘drop-out’. Is it really ‘drop-out’ or are the students being ‘pushed-out’ of the school system by the likes of teacher like Mr.Bhatia who refers to those 14 students enrolled under EWS quota as ‘municipality garbage’? The various studies conducted (NCPCR; 2011) shows that 26% of the students thus admitted drop-out of the school before the completion of their elementary education owing to various factors. These ‘factors’ however generally denigrate students, claiming them incapable of getting educated and thus reproducing the structures of the society wherein better opportunities are availed only by the dominating class and the oppressed class is made to accept the limited options and the categorical treatment that comes their way.
The movie successfully sheds away the various notions that people in general have come to associate with the teaching profession. When Naina, our protagonist reaches out to the houses of her students as none of the parents turn up for the P.T.M, not only does she establish the fact that teaching is much more than a 8 to 2 table-chair job but also does away with the perception that parents of these children are not concerned and interested for their education. Naina after seeing her students out of the school premises understands the hardships they face and the daily struggle these children go through even for basic facilities like water and electricity. How can then there be any comparison between the students of 9-A(students from well-to-do families) and 9-F(students enrolled under EWS quota)? Doing so will only be contradictory to the objective of providing equal opportunities to students from EWS. Also when we talk about equal opportunities of education being provided to every student in the school, then how the question ‘school mein har bacha thode na intelligent ho sakta hain’ is to be answered? If your answer is in line with the ‘blame the child’ ideology then yes, system needs to be re-looked at.
When the school claims that these 14 students are a ‘bad influence’ on other students as they were found indulging in fights, gambling, smoking etc. in the school premises then the school is defying the fact that students bring in experiences from their personal lives and it’s the school’s duty to intervene and not punish such behaviours. However in the movie as well as the school experiences I have encountered the child is not only punished physically but also emotionally so much that she starts questioning her own identity just as the character Aatish is traumatized as the school mocks his identity as a cycle mechanic. Thus instead of assisting students in realising their capabilities the school further makes them conscious of their incapabilities.
Teaching is generally believed to be a job where knowledge is restricted to textbook concepts as well as compartmentalization of knowledge into subjects, in a nutshell teaching-learning process remains devoid of practical and contextual experiences. However in the movie, Naina through her teaching methods integrates the various aspects of physics, chemistry and mathematics and then knowledge doesn’t anymore remain dependent on the teacher, textbook or the classroom. Naina brings out the best in each of her students and channelizes the same into her teaching-learning activities as she brings out the potential of a student (part-time gambler) who calculates algorithms faster than the calculator, thus catering to every child’s interest without forcing them into meaningless and purposeless retention of texts. Her teaching methods were frowned upon by teachers who swore by the notion that “excellence doesn’t come from fun” thus justifying their own traditional methods. The movie thus reflects on a very important issue of every space and time- what knowledge is to be considered ‘worthy’ and whose knowledge is to be considered ‘worthy’? Is the textbook knowledge more worthy than what the children have learnt through their experiences or is the knowledge of the school gardener more worthy than that of the teacher who has acquired degrees through recognised institutions or is there any need at all to draw comparisons or can they exist in balance and harmony and contribute equally to the child’s learning?
The character of Naina Mathur amazingly carried out by Rani Mukherjee portrays Naina as a teacher confident about her identity and choices and not at once afraid of the challenges of the Tourette syndrome. She is acceptable of herself, for only then can she persuade and expect her students to be acceptable of themselves as they are without any comparisons and then work towards the areas of improvements, their strengths and weaknesses. The movie in line with the Hollywood counterpart ‘freedom writers’ reminded me of my reasons to choose this profession and further strengthen the belief that “There are no bad students, just bad teachers” and of course it’s part of the job to not be a bad teacher but a reflective one.
Thus it all comes down to the teacher to bridge this gap between the child’s school and her community, between the conceptual knowledge to the outside world, between what she ‘can be’ to what she ‘wants to be’, between what she ‘must know’ to what she excels in. Sounds impractical and utopian? Well, then as Naina Mathur said “Tourette hain kya? Aapki aur meri soch”.
Notes-
● RTE 2009 mandates 25% of the seats in all private schools to be reserved for the students from economically weaker sections of the society.**
● EWS- Economically Weaker Section
● RTE- Right To Education
● NCF;2005;NCERT
● Samuel Bowles and Herbert Gintis (1976)- school reproduces the structure of the society
● Robert Dreeben (1967) — school ensures that students accept the legitimacy of the categorical treatment .
● Krishna kumar (1992);what is worth teaching
** The fact that government made such a provision of 25% reservation in private schools for children from EWS implies that the state is acceptable of the fact that its unable to provide quality education to the children in the state-run schools.
-Simran Sadh
