Dr. Nishant Kumar
The resignation of Dharmendra Pradhan, Minister of Education, Government of India (a Gen-X person born between 1965–1980), has come as a shock, as it was considered impossible to get a resignation from any minister of the Narendra Modi-led NDA government from 2014 till now. However, the students of Gen-Z (born between 1997–2012, now in the age group 14–29) made it possible, along with the Millennials (born between 1981–1996), Gen-X, and Gen-Alpha (born between 2013–2020). The Gen-Z students would be mostly from class 10th onwards, and some may be working professionals as well. The protests (mostly) by Gen-Z have shown the other generations that they have accomplished something that other generations could not have achieved in the last 12 years (although the support of other generations cannot be neglected). The Gen-Z students would then have a new level of confidence when they go to their classes and interact with their teachers. However, without the right guidance to channel it properly, this surge of confidence can easily tip into an obdurate, impudent, and supercilious attitude, turning their outlook entirely quixotic. Therefore, the role of teachers, supervisors, universities, institutes, etc., would come into the picture, and they would have to face certain challenges. The challenges mentioned are not exhaustive; instead, they are suggestive.
The first challenge that universities/institutes (overall) and individual teachers as well would face is: Are the Gen-Z students going to listen (śravaṇa in Sanskrit—the first step of learning) to their teachers and universities? Are they going to follow the rules and regulations of the university/institute and maintain the decorum of the classes? Why I think this may be a challenge is because the Gen-Z students, with their creativity of language and presentation, have shut the mouths of many mainstream media channels and politicians, and have also astonished political scientists who never expected the occurrence of this nation-wide protest (if not in India, then at least not under the present government). These students have not been in the mood to listen to anything that has no bearing on the government’s accountability for the suicides of many NEET aspirants. This is understandable considering the seriousness of the issue. However, some videos have shown that students have hooted at the biased media channels, as they have been determined not to listen to anything from them.
The second challenge deals with humility and humbleness. Humility is an important aspect of learning. Learning results in humility (as said, vidyā dadāti vinayaṁ). Learning also results from humility—if I think that I am superior to others in terms of knowledge, how can I learn from others? I would then do whatever I think is fit according to ‘me’, even if that act disrespects someone. Are the Gen-Z students going to contemplate their continuous learning from life (manan in Sanskrit—the second step for learning), or would they feel supercilious? Are the Gen-Z students going to be in the disposition to learn from their teachers? Why I think this may be a challenge is because the Gen-Z students have already contemplated the inevitable consequences of the ruining of the country if the lacuna in education is not fixed. For this, they have raised their voice for their right to education, and thereby they have taught the world the peaceful management of crowds, connecting people, and leading a crowd. However, this same sense of achievement may let them feel that they know everything. It is also possible that they may not contemplate new learning, reflect deeply, or sharpen their arguments and creativity. Rather, they may take refuge in harsh and abusive language to assert their points, which has already been seen in the protests by some of the students. This aggression might block any novel and meaningful discoveries in their learning journey.
The third challenge is the continuity and culmination of the above two and deals with real-life experiences (nidhidhyāsana). The real-life experiences of unexpected events occur only when we listen to others and continuously contemplate them. Without that, we would continuously live in one set of habituated thinking caused by our external environments. But by continuously listening to others, like our well-wishers—teachers, parents, friends, etc.—and critics, we would be able to contemplate and improve our habituated practices. But without checks and balances, there would also be the possibility that one would start living and thinking in a highly idealistic and impractical world, and would act in a way that is incoherent with the practical way of life. One example I would like to give is from the Parājika 3 of the Vinaya Piṭaka (Basket of Discipline—one of the three Piṭakas in Buddhism). In that, monks were disgusted with their bodies upon reflecting on the unattractiveness of them as taught by the Buddha. So, some monks started killing themselves, and some monks hired a person to kill them. The Buddha, upon knowing this, laid down a rule that prohibits a monk from taking one’s life, assisting in suicide, or praising death. The Buddha made this an offence (Parājika), and the punishment was permanent expulsion from the communion (saṅgha). This story reflects that the Buddha did not want monks to become highly idealistic because it would lead to one extreme of life. Instead, the Buddha’s expectation from monks who were following his teaching was to reflect on the unattractiveness of the body to develop the feeling of detachment while verily living life in this world. One question that arises is—how would one live life with a feeling of detachment? In the Kālāma Sutta, the Buddha encouraged people to live life with free enquiry and be exempt from any kind of fanaticism, bigotry, dogmatism, and intolerance. However, without continuous listening and contemplating new learning, one would fall into a quixotic outlook, and thereby dissociate oneself from the pragmatic living of life.
How would teachers/universities/institutes make sure that the students would not fall into the trap of a too idealistic, impractical, and unrealistic world? How would they make sure that students listen to their well-wishers and critics, contemplate their thoughts/ideas/rules, and develop free enquiry, while simultaneously avoiding being too idealistic?
There is no one set of answers or explanations for these questions. However, one possible solution to these questions would be to take an example from the teachers of the ancient Indian knowledge system—like the Buddha. His way was to follow the pragmatic way of life, i.e., live in the present and go with the flow, as nothing remains permanent in this life (sabbe saṅkhāra anicca). For that, he follows upāya kaushalya, i.e., skillful means. That is, he first gets to know the student’s mindset and accordingly guides him/her for his/her betterment, instead of teaching in one set of pre-defined standards.
Therefore, to go with the flow, we as teachers would have to sometimes wear the shoes of Gen-Z students to see how they think, behave, and act. That is, sometimes we have to hand over the baton of teaching into their hands, so that they may design their own way of learning and assessment—for example, we may ask them what kind of assignment they would like to do, in what way they would like to be assessed, and what could be further advancements in the teaching-learning process, etc. A question may be asked: if teachers gave the baton of teaching to students, what would teachers do? A possible answer is that the teacher would act as a guide.
Teachers may help the students by guiding them as to what could be the various ways of submitting assignments apart from the orthodox way of written handouts. Teachers may give examples like—making documentaries, videos, podcasts, posters, building a business pitch deck, drafting grant proposals, hosting mock peer-review panels, or finding real-life problems with the possible solutions that may involve coding, experimentation, and so on and so forth. For assessment practice, teachers may guide the students on the various ways through which internal and external assessments are to be counted. Teachers may ask about the ways through which attendance is to be counted, and ask about the ways through which teachers may get to know the progress of learning (for example, through a written report, oral viva, audio-video presentation, etc.). Ultimately, the teacher’s job would be to slowly and eventually remove the spoon-feeding way of learning and provide space for the holistic development of the student’s choice.
~~~
Dr. Nishant Kumar is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Buddhist Studies at the University of Delhi. His academic work bridges classical Eastern thought and contemporary Western inquiries, focusing on Buddhist and Indian Philosophy. Additionally, his research deeply explores the Philosophy of Mind, Consciousness Studies, and Ethics.
