Outcome-Based Education (OBE) to Outcome-Based Election Campaigning
The 2019 General Elections in India for the 17th Lok Sabha is over.
The results are all out, crystal-clear.
2020 is coming for the USA.
I did not want to write anything anymore for the time being...but this morning, had a cursory glance at one of my old PPTs on Outcome-Based Education (OBE)...and was wondering...what about Outcome-Based Election Campaigning...and what did BJP/NDA(did it matter?) do right and where did UPA/INC (again did it matter?) do wrong?
Out of 188 seats that had a direct contest between BJP and Congress, BJP won 174. A strike rate of 93%. In 2014, it was 86%. INC must thank DMK, and Kerala/Punjab for whatever seats it got.
It's said everything is fair in love and war. However, there still is a Geneva Convention and many other rules of wars in the 21st century human civilization. True, rules are for fools (and ECI proved that).
One popular columnist/celebrated author commented (and I don't want to be in that class...nor that I envy success)...'it was a maths class/exam...and Rahul was saying "I will give you love". But yes...some insights there. Well, yes...Rahul keeps on talking about ideologies. But as one of our Profs in IIT B said where we were doing MBAs...'you can't ask a dying cancer patient to flex his/her muscles'.
Everything is contextual...the ideology? It bothered me for long...and still does (the purported (?) Lincoln letter to his son): "In school, teacher, it is far more honorable to fail than to cheat." But does it defy Darwin's survival for the fittest? Another day...
Now coming to the core...be it in OBE (which, I always perceived as a by-product of BPR in the business world back in late 1980s/90s), and extending it to election campaigning...what should be the outcome of election campaigning?
Winning election at any costs?
Winning election by following rules fairly, on its own?
Winning election by showcasing success of incumbent govt (for ruling party) and its failures (by opposition)?
First one should be acceptable for all...fairness was for ECI/others/media to judge...
This election was fought as one of most inequals...as suggested 20:1 in favor of ruling party...be it money, muscle power, or media. So, common sense says, opposition should have tested the ECI through Guerilla Warfare...and if the ECI would have acted...they could have played the victim/sympathy card. The opposition adopted more nuanced (better governance) approach, although context tells us it did not work for Britain (Brexit) or the US, with a much more liberal/educated society; chances of its working in India against such money, muscle and media power was remote.
Opposition/INC failed in being an (average) Indian when in India.
So, opposition/UPA, although chose a more gentle campaign (other than the Chowkidar slogan), was in a trap from the beginning...more so after Pulwama/Balakot.
'Ghar me ghus ke marenge'...to me looked childish; and if India ever faced most humiliation from Pakistan...it was Pulwama/Balakot, if history ever gets recorded right; as per multiple credible global media. Be it military personnel lost, military assets lost or be it global media perception.
Lasting peace with Pakistan/China as well coordinated development plans can do wonder for India/the region...not 'Ghar me ghus ke marenge'.
But BJP/NoMo won the local media/perception war. Our air force entered Pakistan...yes, but what did it achieve (outcome?)? Perceptions matter...not facts. And then Pakistan air force entered India...and what did they achieve? Living proof...lost airmen, lost air-crafts...
As Churchill said: 'A lie gets halfway around the world before the truth has a chance to get its pants on.' Opposition knew truth...but felt telling truth would be anti-national.
In a late PC, where Rahul Gandhi said Indian army is India's army...he also wrongly stated that Indian army always won all wars...surely not against China (1962). Accepting defeat by an army...if that's sign of anti-national...well, America had to cut-and-run from Vietnam/now Iraq/Afghanistan.
2nd, although I never voted, I realized many of my family members are in favor of NoMo...more so younger generations. They are against dynasties (and even caste/religion-line-based old vote banks don't work any more, which is good)...as I was in younger days. But as Kiran Karnik of NASSCOM once said, 'if you are a communist in your younger days...something wrong with you. And when you grow up and still be a communist, again something wrong in you.'
In my younger days, I was angry at what happened to Kashmiri Pandits (and still feel sad, it was wrong), and similarly about immigration from India's Eastern neighbors. But later realized two wrongs don't make things right, and humanity is above everything else. On migration from Eastern neighbors, soon opposite may start, the way economy/governance of WB/India appear to be shaping up.
Dynastic politics is surely an issue, but not everything. Things, essentially, as P B Mehta or Ram Guha or P B Bhushan have pointed out repeatedly...are more complicated; and not always, necessarily, binary.
"You take care of the classroom, I take care of the system' - that's what Spady said to Jim Block (“You fix the classrooms, I'll work on the total system.”)...that's the relationship between Modi and Amit Shah. Modi campaigned, Shah fixed systems (many call it 'family planning'...the way institutes declined...latest being ECI and Arora), as well as organization structure/planning. Many memes doing round now...anywhere any govt to be formed, hire Amit Shah.
In some ways, that's a loss of democracy...huge or partly...wish it now becomes 'you take care of governance, I fix the inner challenges'...henceforth. Outcome of election campaigning is not the same as outcome of governance...and the the 2nd one should be a bigger goal than the former.
Coming back to OBE again...in the Indian context...I can visualize admission vs quality of education. Many private institutes do adopt unfair means during admission season for financial gain/survival...and most follow...unwillingly...as market forces prevail.
And finally, if OBE means becoming successful always, rather than ethics, we should have courses on how to cheat and not get caught/bypass rules. Because for every hundred liars/cheaters, hardly one gets punished/caught (in 2019 election, this fall guy was none other than Tej Bahadur Yadav, who lied/cheated and got caught!). We have examples from the US...the bastion of liberals...rules are for fools and don't be a fool. Another class of people hate the rules...the creative geniuses, the innovators, as Hans Zimmer, the musician noted). But not sure, whether liberals would agree with that single-most important outcome of education: Success/Winning At Any Costs.
We live in a post-truth world. Interesting times...adapt or be dead. As all the losers introspect, probably time for some of India's institutes also to introspect...the ECI/SC/UGC/media/CAG/ED...yes office-bearers have succeeded by following the lines of the ruling govt..what about inclusive, participatory, democracy and development, with inherent structure of checks-and-balances in a democracy?
And following above examples...time to rethink on OBE for educational institutes...success or education? If it is success/winning, there are better books across the table; without four years of grueling college-life. And the choice, indeed isn't bad; although I won't follow it.
The problem with OBE in Indian context is one inside the classroom (so boring/dull/monologue in general - how to teach/facilitate learning part); and the other system-related (what to teach and how to evaluate). Critics often say Indian universities do two functions routinely - admission and exams. The value addition part is missing.
Similarly, when in democracies, it always becomes more important on how to win election and not how to govern better; it's a fall of that democracy. 2019 was not 2004 - everyone saying that and true. However, is it similar to 2009?