Sound and Fury Signifying Something

                                         Sound and Fury Signifying Something

By the time this article sees the light of the day a lot of words would have flown through the bridges of Media- the social, print and electronic expressing disgust and outrage that our elected representatives lack both humour and tolerance towards criticism. The clamour for withdrawal of toons from text books has provoked vexatious response from many who wish to be counted one among intellectuals known for their modern, liberal and catholic views. Since they are not the subject of the cartoons, they enjoy humour at the expense of Parliamentarians who, they feel are many notches below their intellectual level.  Is this a smug sign of intellectual tolerance or intellectual arrogance?

What does a cartoon signify? It is basically intended as quiggly drawing for satire, caricature and humour in a newspaper or magazine especially about politics or current events. Shankara Pillai, the doyen among political cartoonists exposed many of the top leaders for their hypocrisy and doublespeak while Laxman’s Common Man as the silent spectator of the politics and current events is a welcome visitor in every home.  The newspaper cartoons of the day are not frowned upon by our politicians (with the odd exception of Mamata Di). The political class that is the cartoonist’s delight has accepted the daily dosage of contempt, cynicism and ridicule in the cartoons . So why this hullaballoo now on 40 year old toons in texts?

The sharp riposte of our ‘intelligentsia’ to the Parliamentarians’ criticism of cartoons in school text books does not factor in the latter’s broad acceptance of newspaper cartoons.  But text books meant for schools are different from newspapers. Cartoons that are essentially satirical reflect the bias if not the ideology of the cartoonist. Everyone agrees that a single cartoon speaks more than a thousand words.  Professor Yadav’s defence that the text toons enhance students’ perception, if they are viewed along with the text is in fact adding grist to politicians’ disapproval. If adult politicians do not read but view the cartoons in isolation, can we expect the 14-16 year adolescents to read and understand the text that enlarge upon the cartoon’s message? These text books are not meant only for elite students who go to elite urban schools where the reading of the cartoons is a joint intellectual exercise by the teacher and the taught. With rampant teacher absenteeism in a large number of government schools, students uninitiated into the art of reading anything including textbooks, will view and interpret the cartoons wrongly and develop cynicism and disrespect for politicians and democracy.  Yadav says since students view cartoons on the net and in the newspapers, it will facilitate their understanding if cartoons are re-printed in the books along with explanatory texts. This argument assumes that children are avid readers of newspapers and internet news and have developed sensibility to view satirical cartoons. Yadav clarifies that the texts are intended only to correct the misreading of the mocking and irresponsible images inherent in a few cartoons. But how many even among the urban elite students read the newspapers (except for sportspage and Page3) or even look at the cartoons and form their opinions about serious political issues? It is no doubt a laudable effort on the part of the writers to write textbooks that may counter the wrong impressions the children may pick up from the world of cartoons. But reproducing those cartoons in the texts and developing a new strategy of cartoon-in- education will only deepen their half baked biases instead of offering them newer insights into the issues under discussion.

Cartoons are for mature people who have learnt to distinguish between reading and viewing, between interpretations and misrepresentations so as to be wary of monumental optics that gives a macroscopic perspective to something that is ordinary. They are not for impressionable youth who have not been sufficiently educated to read between the quiggly lines. Cartoons in newspapers enhance our mature, political and intellectual awareness while cartoons in textbooks are more likely to distract the young minds from pursuit of serious study.

There can be no neutrality in cartoons and it can result in narrow minded approach to issues if the students fail to read them correctly. Moreover cartoons cannot be without human content. Preoccupation with human content- offensive or not- is incompatible with serious reading. This concept is well illustrated by the Spanish writer Ortega Y Gasset. If one looks at the garden through a window, the eye directs its vision towards the garden, disregarding the window. One can also disregard the garden and detain the vision at the window and view a confused mass of colour.  “Hence to see the garden and the window pane are two incompatible operations which exclude each other because they require different adjustments.”

All this sound and fury need not be for nothing if NCERT reviews the cartoons, delete the offensive ones and retain those which are interesting, informative and add value to students’ perception.