Mandela, Thank You and Farewell

In rememberence of the passing of a man who symbolised freedom, triumph and hope, I reproduce here, the lyrics of the protest song by Special AKA. The lyrics by Jerry Dammers written at a time when Mandela was incarcirated formed part of the movement to end apartheid. Another 6 years were to pass before Nelson Mandela was to emerge from his political imprisonment. 

I remember the televising of Nelson Mandela's walk to freedom and in the months to follow the images of black South Africans lining up to for miles when they were granted the right to vote for the first time. Mandela, who became President, may not have closed the opportunity gaps between white and black South Africans, but he will be remembered for his belief in the fight for equality and the hope and possibility of redress and reconciliation.

Nelson Rolihlahla Mandela (18 July 1918 – 5 December 2013). Sir, we love you.

Nelson Mandela

(Jerry Dammers/Special AKA)

Free Nelson Mandela
Free free
Free free free Nelson Mandela

Free Nelson Mandela

21* years in captivity
Shoes too small to fit his feet
His body abused, but his mind is still free
Are you so blind that you cannot see

Free Nelson Mandela
Free Nelson Mandela

Visited the causes at the AMC
Only one man in a large army
Are you so blind that you cannot see
Are you so deaf that you cannot hear him

Free Nelson Mandela
Free Nelson Mandela

21* tears in captivity
Are you so blind that you cannot see
Are you so deaf that you cannot hear him
Are you so dumb that you cannot speak

Free Nelson Mandela
Free Nelson Mandela

Nelson Mandela
Nelson Mandela

*27 years, in fact

A Song for Peace - سوله

بریښنا امیل - سوله

Quite understandably, I guess, we Pashtuns are good at lamenting our troubles in our music and poetry. I like the optimism in this song however and Sola (Peace) by Brekhna Ameel gives us a chance to savour the positivity. May Allah be merciful and guide us.

'Free' Schools

I learned a long time ago to trust my own judgement and instincts and this has been at odds with the system I have found myself in over the recent past. In fact, over the last year, one of the things I have increasingly noticed about schools is how conditioned teachers can be. I don't know about others, but I resent operating within a straight-jacketed learning environment. So, last week, when I was offered another role at another school outside the state system, I confess to some sense of relief. It remains to be seen how much there will be an attempt to quash individuality, but having worked in three continents in many schools delivering different curricula, I think it is fair to say that I am able to pick and choose with some sense of informed accuracy and experience.

The demand for alternative types of schooling indicates how many of us believe that there are many forms of education that offer a much wider (or specific) set of experiences for acquiring skills and knowledge. Within this broad range, in schools that do not operate under direct state or local authority control (such as free schools, academies, home-schooling, independent schools etc.), a 'teacher' may not have a state-issued certificate or teaching license.

How important is this? In short, a teacher is someone who inspires, motivates, cares, and is willing to impart their skills and knowledge. By virtue, anyone who does this, from parent, to a highly-skilled artist, to a classroom practitioner or a colleague, is a teacher. It is not necessarily someone who has spent hours studying at an institution being trained in pedagogy and educational ideology. In fact this process of training may institutionalise them and narrow them as teachers by removing their openness and passion.

It is rather surprising then that the Deputy PM, Nick Clegg should have spoken this week about ensuring that all teachers in free schools needing to be 'qualified' (i.e.'certified'). Do we mean ideologically programmed to lack an alternative view? This too, from a man who was educated privately (that is, outside the state system) where there are more creative educational freedoms? It all sounds rather hypocritical, both for him to speak and for him to expect. I speak as a 'certified'/'qualified' teacher (UK/EU) who is passionate about the rights of educators for sound pay and conditions where clearly that is not what he is speaking of.

There has been something of an understandable media backlash over the past few weeks on 'free schools' following investigations into mismanagement, quality of service or misappropriation of budgets. I am not here to defend this or previous government's educational policies and understand that there is that element of controversy when it comes to public money being spent on alternative education. That is a completely separate issue. I strongly believe, however, in the principle that freedom in education is what makes it so appealing and worth fighting for and that many of the most enriching experiences for children/students do not necessarily stem from the institutionalised forms of education.

Still from: Another Brick in the Wall Pt 2 (Education) by Pink Floyd
Further Opinion: Nick Clegg and his thoughts on Qualified Teachers

Elephant in the [Class] Room

Daniel Hoffman-Gill offers an interesting opinion on the alienation of the white working classes in the UK. Essentially, he does not want to see this group left behind and the comments that follow his blog posting highlight the differing (read 'divisive') points of view on the issue. Whatever we think however, it remains true, that white working class children have the lowest levels of academic achievement in schools and remain the most socially immobile of all the demographic groups within the UK (see the Joseph Rowntree Report). Invariably, schools that take these children in will have a bigger cultural issue to tackle in their communities that they serve and are challenged with breaking a culture of low aspiration at the individual, parental and societal level. It's a tall order.  

Sir Robin Bosher of the Harris Federation of Academies, describes his findings: "I see about 10 per cent in each class who are so unsociable that they hurt others, adults and other young children. But they’re unsociable because they’ve no practice at being sociable." Compare that to other 'poor' groups - European Muslim migrants, people learning in a non-native language and so on. Think also of people in the developing world who live a hand-to-mouth existence who also start off with disadvantage. The difference is, in general, these groups tend to value education and see it as a key to social mobility. 

As an educator, with a body of experience in several countries, it goes without saying that I believe that education is an important means to meet the needs of the wider social good. I cannot ignore, however, that in England education is way too (negatively) politicised and this makes education as a public service vulnerable to constant government manipulation. The challenges, however, of being at the chalk-face on a daily basis means that educators have a different perspective on the social matters that children bring into school and meeting the needs of the white working class is not as simple as another set of reforms. 

It would be fair to conclude that essentially 65 years of exhaustive educational reform in the UK has not delivered on closing the educational achievement gaps for white working class children or driving up their aspirations. The occasional examples that highlight traditionally working class people being the first in their families to access higher education are something of an illusory distraction. Progress to university remains a mainly upwardly mobile, middle-class aspiration. 

The social mobility arguments remain at the cornerstone of the 'moral purpose' behind education and there is some expectation that schools pick up the task of changing social and behavioural cultures. Scaled up on a nationwide level, is this possible or appropriate? I would understand if people thought that education plays a part in social reform, but in all honestly, despite the many dedicated professional educators who reach out to vulnerable communities, nearly 70 years after the post war education reforms began, who is actually responsible for breaking the culture of non-aspiration? Do we continue to respond to white working class low achievement with more resources or changing how teachers and schools are judged? 

Elephant in the [Class] Room 

It would be wise to stop, pause and consider why (and for whom) we aim to push through unchecked reforms. Are we missing the elephant in the room? What is it about white working class children that puts obstacles in their paths for achievement? Should our responses be 'politically challenging' rather than 'politically correct'? Is it okay to be critical of a consumerist, hedonistic culture that doesn't prioritise education? Can we honestly expect a completely universal educational approach/examinations system to work for all? Can we accept equality when we live is a society divided by class and race? Should political interventions be removed once and for all from education?

Malala Yousafzai commented a few weeks ago about British teenagers not appreciating their educational opportunities. She was right. I have seen schools in Afghanistan and Pakistan and know the conditions under which children learn. They aspire for better and in the most dangerous and poorly funded conditions, the fight for education is being bravely fronted by children. In comparison children in the UK are very fortunate and to have a public educational culture that is supported by a generous financial investment per pupil that remains amongst the highest in the world. Isn't a quality, free education a very real golden opportunity that some are simply giving up?

There is an elephant in the room. Are we prepared to admit it?

Find out more about Education Reform here

History of Education in the UK: Wikipedia
Arc of Underachievement: BBC
The Underclass: Prisma

To Tweet or to Blog?

I've been busy and a lot has happened in the world since my last posting so it's easy to let important events slip. Perhaps this is because we are forced to sometimes tune out of this world is that is bulging in information overload. With the sheer volume of news stories being run in the media at any particular time we are making an important choice and allow in only what is relevant into our conciousness. At least, I find I do. We can even develop a resistance to the shock and the negative energy that is the news. I have come to the conclusion that sometimes TV news must come in small doses and that in order to hold on to my own sanity it is wise to just switch off and to accept that there are only some things I am able to change.

And so, this past month, news stories have come and gone. Whilst seemingly on a sabbatical from Blogger, I have been updating things of interest on Twitter. Sometimes I don't have as much to say or, I don't want to carry the burdens of the world on my heart and soul. With Twitter, I can easily flag up a story or article of interest whilst I'm on the go. Blogger requires me to sit down when I have a quiet moment. I'm sure someone out there will be doing a study on the links between the different users of social media and the technologies they use. Broadly I go with Twitter for mobile technologies such as my Smartphone and Blogging when I'm at my home laptop (other matters having been dealt with). 

So here I am, nothing much to react to at the moment, but that's okay. Sanity is important.

The Richard Dawkins Tweet

Richard Dawkins's infamous Tweet that the entire Muslim world has had fewer Nobels (10) than Cambridge University's Trinity College (32) has invited both support and opposition. Political correctness might dictate that he should not have spoken, but as an atheist whose scientific/socially liberal viewpoints line up with popular sentiment his tweet is pointed out as one example of Western irreverence towards religion. The coin has a flip-side too; we live in a world where Islam is feared and Muslims are vilified. It is easy to target Muslims and get away with it.

Dawkins is not alone in attacking Muslims for their lack of achievements; I know many  Muslims who share the  same critical view of themselves. At the present time, Muslims do not export their cultural achievements well. We live, at best in a nostalgic past. Our human rights records, as an example, is little more to be proud of than our list of Nobel honours and more Muslims are dying at the hands of other Muslims in a kind of fratricidal in-war than directly at the hands of Western interventionist forces. Elsewhere, Muslims are caught up in a loop of blame, low achievement, bad governance, cultural destruction and self-pity. In summary, we're on something of a downer. Something is deeply wrong and for Muslims this requires some deep and sober appreciation.

The low ebb for Muslims sits within a much larger context (of power, control and prejudice). For a start, Dawkins could have easily substituted 'Muslims' in his Tweet for any other group or demographic. According to the Christian Monitor, other large (billion-plus) religious, gender and ethnic groups have won even fewer Nobels than the ten won by Muslims. Hindus have won four, the Chinese have won eight and Africans have won nine. Note also that women have only won 44 Nobel Prizes, compared with 791 for (mostly) white men. Frankly, Nobel Prizes are a largely Western affair - all the more grating since one of four people in the world are Muslim.

The Nobel Prizes were inaugurated in 1901 at a time when Muslims were still under the long shadow of colonial rule. Alfred Nobel (inventor of dynamite) may have emphasised recognition of scientific and technological discoveries and inventions, but since its launch, the awarding of the prizes have never truly been a universal affair. They can't be. What do the committees who offer the Nobel Prizes measure, except a particular (socially skewed) view of scientific achievement? 

Not everyone can consume or pollute at the rate of the US and Western Europe and the number of nuclear bombs discovered, developed and used by the West outweighs the number used by the entire planet. Money talks. Muslims may not have invented nuclear weapons - but when there are other pressing matters, should Muslims put all their energies and focus into winning Nobel Prizes?

Logically speaking, if Muslims do not lead in the inventiveness that creates weapons of mass destructions that devastate the planet, then the flip-side is they don't lead in the responsibility for the overall damage. Dawkins, like many atheists and agnostics falls into a trap of targetting Islam under the impression that their scientific credentials put them above simplistic prejudice. There are agendas dressed up in 'facts' underlying deeper prejudices are masked by pseudo-rationalism.

Read more at Religion Dispatches and the Guardian.

Two-Muslim Theory: Part 2

... continued from previous posting ...

Changing the Narrative

Nawabzada Liaqat Ali Khan was was born in 1895 to a Muslim aristocrat family whose jagir started at the eastern edge of Punjab (now Haryana) and stretched into Uttar Pradesh. His family had cordial relations with the British. His grandfather extended support to the British during the hard times of 1857 and his father earned many titles and honours.

Liaqat Ali went to Aligarh and then to Oxford. On his return from London in 1923, he joined Muslim League. He contested his first elections in 1926 on a seat reserved for Muslims in the UP Assembly (Muzaffarnagar constituency) and comfortably won. He grew into an eloquent parliamentarian, pleading mostly for the causes of Muslim landlords who were a minority in that province.

He became one of the most important members of the Muslim League's vanguard. Nawabzada is, in fact, credited to have convinced a dejected and disappointed Muhammad Ali Jinnah to end his 'self-imposed exile' in London and lead the movement for a separate homeland for Muslims. Liaqat Ali Khan was made the General Secretary of the Muslim League in 1936.

The party's parliamentary committee did not award him the ticket for the 1936 elections for his home constituency which he valued highly. Despite holding a high office in the Muslim League, he contested as an independent from his home constituency and faced criticism of fellow party men.

He contested the 1946 elections for the Central Legislative Assembly on the Muslim seat of Meerut in Uttar Pradesh. Following this victory, Liaqat Ali won a place in the Constituent Assembly of Pakistan and at independence was made the first Prime Minister with the additional charge of Foreign Affairs and Commonwealth Relations and Defense. He remained the longest serving prime minister until Yousuf Raza Gilani exceeded him by a few weeks recently.

Prime Minister Liaqat Ali is accredited with a number of ground breaking contributions. He decided to ally with the US in the Cold War divide; quashed a coup attempt by communists; promoted General Ayub to the highest rank and fought a war with India over Kashmir to name just a select few. His government ruled on ad hoc basis under temporary laws as it could not formulate and build a consensus on a constitution for the country.

Reasons were simple. They could not dig out a monarchy to rule the country nor could they install a Caliph. The constitution had to be based on democracy. But the problem was that Meerut was now in India. The most powerful Prime Minister serving for one of the longest periods in the history of Pakistan had no constituency in the country to contest elections from. A committed democrat and an active parliamentarian, he  knew well that he and his political class had no, or at best a very shaky, future under a democracy. In contrast, Bacha Khan's was a completely secure political position. It was impossible to democratically uproot him from his constituency. He had voters, volunteers and diehard loyalists.

The ad hoc powers were thus used to change the rules of the game. Six months after the death of Muhammad Ali Jinnah, Prime Minister Liaqat Ali Khan moved the Objective Resolution in the Constituent Assembly that introduced Islam as the raison d'être of the new country. Religion was pitched against linguistic and cultural identity and faith was made to rival political interests. Those loving their culture, defending their language and demanding their democratic and political rights on these grounds became heretics conspiring against the last citadel of Islam in the Subcontinent. Ideological boundaries of the country became more important than the limits of electoral constituencies and principles of democracy were contrasted to injunctions of Islam as defined by a selected ulema.

Bacha Khan who enjoyed a hard earned and unflinching popular support in a vast constituency went down in official gazettes as an anti-Pakistan traitor. Red Shirts were hounded and hunted. Politicians were jailed and elections were rigged.

By declaring the entire country as one constituency and setting ones perceived Islamic credentials as the only qualification, Liaqat Ali Khan tried to create a constituency for his class – the politically insecure Muslim elite that had migrated from the Muslim minority provinces of India. But ironically, they could not sustain their hold on this constituency for long. Within a decade they were outdone by the Army in the game they had pioneered. They were declared incapable of defending the citadel of Islam. The army took over the 'responsibility' of keeping the country united in the name of Islam and secure from the conspirators who had strong democratic constituencies in the country.

The army did not feel the need to redraft the national narrative that was scripted in those initial years. It was found to be in perfect harmony with the Army's own scheme to block or cripple democracy and sustain its direct or indirect rule for decades to come. The narrative persists with all its detail and corollaries and insists on its refusal to recognise Bacha Khan as a great national hero.