Educational Leadership: The First Among Equals

                                         Educational Leadership: The First Among Equals

It goes without saying that every organization, every establishment, every activity involving team work, every group working together for a specific purpose, needs a leader. Leadership spans all human collective activities such as political leadership, corporate leadership, business leadership, society leadership, professional leadership relating to different professions, where the leader has the responsibility to realize the objective of his/her organization. It may relate to victory in elections or profit in business ventures or success in a competitive professional undertakings- where the end goal is either political power or monetary benefit for the organization. Even as the organization garners praise, it is the leader who gets recognition for the achievement. Today we talk about Modi Government and Modinomics; earlier it was Gandhian Movement or Nehruvian socialism or Indira Gandhi’s 20-point programme.  In the corporate sectors, we associate Bill Gates with Microsoft Corporation or Narayan Murthy with Infosys or Ambanis with Reliance. The credit goes to the leader with the tag-‘the winner takes it all”. The power of the leader precedes the power of the rest including the organization. So also when there is a failure, the applauding world does not miss a fraction of a second to bring down the leader. This is because the stakes are high in terms of money and profit, power and status. The rise and fall are equally huge in proportions.

Leadership in education is different. The goals are different; the work is a shared effort; the gains are shared gains. There is no profit motive; there is no status climb for anyone. The gains are, on the contrary, intangible. But the gains are great as they point more to the future than to the present. For what is achieved is the start of a new future. As Tennyson says, “That which we are, we are, and if we are ever to be any better, now is the time to begin.” Hence leadership in education is different as the recognition and reward is not for an individual but for a collective achievement. If a University or a College gets a star ranking, it stays with the institution and the credit goes not exclusively  to the leader but to the institution and all the stakeholders. Allied to this is another key factor namely the absence of academic hierarchy in the strict sense of the term. It is far removed from “the ladder like social arrangement wherein one individual outranks all others, the next outranks all but the first, and so on down the hierarchy".  In academia, the ranking provides a rung for every academic and every student to rise to his level of competence and collectively to contribute to the excellence of the institution. Different faculties, different studies and different research scholars, not ranked in any hierarchical order, bring about an intellectual levelling that is hardly seen in any other organization.  Thus the leader of an educational institution has to be aware of shared gains, shared work, shared responsibility, shared enthusiasm for intellectual development and take specific care not to hurt the ego and pride of fellow academics. Instead of a vertical climb to the top, s/he moves horizontally to take the place as the first among equals. All decisions have to be in consultation with other academics that involve the leader and the faculty members  who are co-equals in all respects except that they are not  in the last rung of being first among them.

This brings us to the question as to what shall be the contribution of a leader to an institution. It is clear that all decisions should have the three objectives as the academic institution has three wings- the faculty, the students and the administrative staff.  Hence the focus has to be on three levels

• Promote student achievement
• Promote Faculty Excellence
• Build a solid organizational structure

The leader- the Vice Chancellor of a University or the Principal of a college, should have this constancy of purpose and work simultaneously on all the three fronts to realize the potential for excellence intrinsic to any educational establishment. Leadership comprises being a mentor and guide to the students, a team enabler to the faculty towards effective professional development and a sustainer of the support staff towards managing people and creating a climate hospitable to education. In a University or college, the work and the results are for the stakeholders, by the stakeholders and of the stakeholders towards improving learning and instruction leading to the development of the institution.

Who then qualifies to be a leader of an educational institution? S/he has to be a Servant leader and a Culturally Responsive leader. A servant leader sounds like an oxymoron for the person has to double up as a servant and a leader. A servant is not necessarily being subordinate but one who is institutionally employed in the service of others.  As stated above, the position of being first among equals demands that the leader should be aware of his responsibility not to bruise the ego of fellow academics  but make them equal partners in decision making that is in the best interests of the institution . At the same time s/he has to act not from a position of compromise, but from a position of moral and intellectual strength. As Daniel Wheeler writes in his Servant Leadership for Higher Education: Principles and Practices, “… Servant leaders are comfortable with who they are and not afraid to be vulnerable to others. Their authenticity is central to building strong relationships with others.” Leadership is not to be misconstrued as being coterminous with authority, oppression and control, where people pretend to like the leader because s/he is strong but it is to be seen as unique  blend of concession and cooperation, strength and settlement of differences- in short, it has to be a matter of opinion and compromise, requiring much skill and much patience.

The other dimension is that of being a Culturally Responsive leader. In today’s rapidly changing demographics we need a visionary, collaborative, and culturally appropriate leadership on university campuses. In the face of widening gaps in academic achievement and socio-economic roadblocks, we need a leader with a new vision of leadership that can transform diversity and turn challenge into opportunity. Culturally Responsive leadership springs from those who promote access, equity, and educational improvement for underserved students. Its goal is to improve educational pedagogy and practices for social equity and transformational betterment..

What makes a great leader of higher education?

First and foremost is to have a vision. Unless there is soup in the pot, you cannot ladle it. If a leader does not have vision- an intuitive perception as to what kind of an institution s/he envisions, there can be no movement forward.  A futuristic vision cannot be built in a vacuum. That will be just a fantasy. Nor can one have an empty dream that refuses to reckon with the present. It is a step by step process, but the leader must know where s/he wants to have the last step. One has to have a clear idea of the direction the institution must traverse and how to steer it towards it. While the leader communicates the vision to his faculty, s/he reaches out for collective consensus and plans towards achieving it. This is the special quality of the leader- to have a clear vision and an ability to communicate and articulate it to fellow faculty, a willingness to discuss and debate and modify the vision. From being just a transactional manager, one becomes a transformational leader.

The second quality is to have courage of conviction.  Merely having a vision will prove infructuous, if it is not accompanied by courage to dare and act. Every action has its plusses and minuses. Every action entails a risk of some kind. All decisions impact the students who will be the torchbearers of the next generation. So long as the vision entails no moral or ethical compromise, so long as it is in the past forward mode, there need not be any anxiety to act on that vision. As Mahatma Gandhi had shown the means are more important than the ends. One must have the courage to adopt the right means which will involve taking risks and act. The leader has to be courageous to take action even if the results may not go according to his/her  plan. True leadership lies not in never failing but in rising every time we fail. Among all the qualities of a leader, courage is the most identifiable outward trait.

The third quality is integrity. Vision and courage gain validity from moral and ethical strength. Integrity is an essential quality as it is a reflection of one’s honest vision and courage.  Whatever may be the situation, not to waver from truth generates trust and loyalty. “With integrity, you have nothing to fear, since you have nothing to hide. With integrity, you will do the right thing, so you will have no guilt.” – Zig Ziglar. The leader of an institution has a huge responsibility in developing the moral fibre of the young students. The responsibility extends to the faculty who are also mentors of the youth. The core of integrity is truthfulness.

Of all professions, the profession of a teacher is marked as much by nobility as it is affected by hubris. Academic hubris is the cause of institutional destruction. It is a well known truth that academics compete with each other to have the last hundred words in any argument. The leader has to avoid the trap of overbearing pride in his/her knowledge and scholarship.  Even when s/he is strong, decisive and dynamic, it is important to remain humble. There is a Tamil   proverb that says “All that you have learnt is the sand your hand holds’ all that you have not learnt is the vast stretch of sand on the shore.”  Humility consists in giving equal importance to the thoughts and views of others. Humility  means your willingness to admit that you may be wrong. Humility is giving credit to others where it is due.

 A leader is a leader 24x7. It is important that the leader is available to all at any point of time, easily accessible and willing to attend to the needs of all the three groups –the students, the faculty and the support staff. A leader has to have an open door policy and never indulge in closed door parleys. There is no need for a peon to be stationed outside the room of the Principal or the Vice Chancellor to regulate people coming in. The policy should be to lend one’s ears to the students, faculty and staff.

The ability to focus on multiple tasks and possess time managerial skills are assets to a leader. The leader has to focus on the needs of all sections of the institution. The demands of the various groups may be conflicting. An open and impartial approach, an empathic response to others’ needs and the ability to motivate and make everyone contribute to the institution are exemplary qualities required by the leader.

Last, but not the least, the leader has to understand that in any institution, 30% are outstanding workers, 50% are the cat on the wall kind, ready to sink or swim with the flow and the remaining 20% are genetic work shirkers. If the leader goes witch hunting  the last group, the institution will collapse. On the contrary, the leader sets personal example of excellence and ethical standard that makes even the middle 50% of the fence sitters join the elite 30% to bring the institution to its highest potential for excellence.

The leader of an educational institution is a special person. Let us bear in mind “ Leadership is not about a title or a designation. It's about impact, influence and inspiration. Impact involves getting results, influence is about spreading the passion you have for your work, and you have to inspire team-mates and customers”. (Robin S. Sharma)

l

Institutional autonomy for Institutions of Eminence

                                                Institutional autonomy for Institutions of Eminence

I had written many times in the past about the status of higher education in India. There have been many experts, academicians, parliamentarians and administrators of higher education who have frequently deliberated on the basic question: “What has gone wrong with Higher education in India.” Many wise suggestions have been given both in the form of articles and oral presentations in seminars that are frequently convened to discuss this question. Yet strangely we have not moved forward and continue to wrestle with the same problem with no plausible solution in sight. The government’s decision to promote Institutions of Eminence (IOE) and provide them financial support to the tune of Rs.1000 crores per selected institution besides granting them administrative and financial autonomy is a step in the right direction.

What I propose to say in this article is not rocket science, but in simple terms, with the wisdom hindsight of more than four decades of teaching graduate and post graduate classes, I shall give a few suggestions that I feel are practicable and implementable. I do hasten to add that these are not the last hundred odd words on this subject. But this is like a storyboard of 15 panels upon which a new narrative of our university education can be written.

1. Bring back meritocracy as the only criterion in the selection of faculty members, the Vice-Chancellors and Principals of colleges affiliated to these Universities of Eminence. Even if one may sound politically incorrect, it merits consideration to disallow quota reservation for selection to these posts.  Teachers are the pivot on which the society turns. They have the onerous responsibility for the promotion of citizenship in young men and women to take on the reins of the society in the near future. This is not an exaggerated idea of a teacher. Just as we take special care to bring up our own children in a holistic way, teachers shoulder the huge responsibility to develop the future citizens of the country. A lot depends upon their knowledge, their conduct, their commitment and their being an inspirational role model for the young to emulate. This is not being idealistic because what I have written is borne from my personal experience.

 Six decades back, when we were students first in school and later in college, we had the  good fortune to study under some of the most erudite professors who complemented their robust and profound scholarship with their admirable deportment, polished diction, rectitude, propriety and formal attire. Even the school teacher with his coat and turban commanded great respect and obedience from his pupils in those days. The teachers in colleges and universities earned our respect not only by their inspired teaching but by their sheer presence in the class.  Punctual to the last second, they came, they taught and they conquered us. We were mentored and shaped by the correctness of their conduct and by their encyclopedic knowledge. Professors were ready to take questions from us and answer what Jacob Bronowski in his compelling book The Ascent of Man says: “the essence of science: ask an impertinent question, and you are on the way to a pertinent answer" Today we hear a lot about inter disciplinary learning, but unfortunately with no focus either on breadth or on depth of learning. There are very few academics who can make cross disciplinary references to give a wholesome understanding of the taught subject. If my personal example is not mistaken as nostalgic exaggeration, I affirm that the lectures I received in my college days kindled in me a love for knowledge that has not been extinguished till today.  They were vintage lectures that related literature to art, history, sociology, politics, philosophy and the sciences-in short lectures that spanned the entire realm of knowledge.  When I started teaching, I brought before me the image of my professor and recalled how he made even a complex poem like the Wasteland with its innumerable classical and Biblical allusions simple and easy of comprehension. That is the mark of a truly great scholar and unless we accommodate such professors in IOEs, we may fail to provide quality education to our young men and women.

This  brings me back to the proposition I had made that no consideration other than merit should be the sole criterion in the selection of faculty members at all levels of higher education and in particular, to the IOEs. It may seem politically incorrect, but the teaching profession should be an exception to quota based reservation. It is to be merit based. It is the same merit that is to be given recognition in the selection of Vice Chancellors and Principals who head the universities and colleges. For this purpose, the columns on caste and physically challenged in the application form are to be deleted. The focus should rest on the applicant’s academic achievements and his/her vision for quality improvement in higher education irrespective of his/her caste and physical disability.

2. Enhancement of salary for the academics in universities and colleges. If we need to get the best brains into our academic institutions, salary should be negotiable. This means let there be a bold initiative to do away with pay scales and let them be replaced by consolidated amount after negotiations with the selected faculty.  It should not be misunderstood that any assistant professor will get the same or higher emoluments than the associate professors and professors. There has to be an upper limit in fixing the pay for each grade. Other facilities like health, transport laboratory and library expenditure, pension etc should be on par with class I service scale.

3. Free mobility of researchers between university to university or dept to dept, college to college or from universities to IIMs and IITs must be permitted. This kind of openness and fluid movement will help produce quality research.

4. Teaching schedules have to be reworked. The present quantitative limit like 16-18 periods for an assistant professor and a graded decrease in teaching hours for associate professors and professors have made university education function like tutorial colleges, leaving no scope for self study by the students. The teachers also are left with no time to pursue research and advanced learning. The faculty should be asked to submit in advance before the start of every academic session their course design and structure, the outline of their proposed lectures @ two per week, the themes for fortnightly seminar discussions and weekly tutorial topics related to their course. The present system of curriculum change as a separate exercise to be undertaken once in five years that stretches often to another two more years subject to clearance by the Academic Council, followed by the Executive Council is antediluvian. We are in an age of knowledge explosion. New subjects built on the older disciplines like Cyber security, Nano sciences, new Nobel prize winning Economic theories like Game Theory, Asymmetric Information, Public Choice theory, Management of Common Pool resources, Behavioural Economics etc have to be introduced. The academic autonomy to be given to IOE should make it possible for faculty in every discipline to structure new courses and to upgrade existing courses. The lectures should be broad in their sweep and sufficiently deep in content that will arouse the curiosity of the student to learn more through self study. The faculty should be available in their cubicles for students to clear their doubts. Instead of quantifying 16 periods and making it compulsory for teachers to stay in the campus for four hours, this will enable the teachers to be present for longer hours and pursue their own research work besides helping the students outside the class hours. Also making capsule lectures that include the latest advanced research findings is different and demands a new pedagogy from what is being attempted through the present spoon feeding methods in a class room. As the Hebrew proverb says “Do not confine your children to your own learning for they were born in another time.”

5.What is needed is teachers with a liberal arts background irrespective of their chosen disciplines in Science, Social science, Arts or Commerce to teach undergraduate classes. Unless students are exposed to inter disciplinary and cross cultural studies, they will not be able to prepare for a graduate/professional program which benefits from undergraduate study across disciplines. It is important to do away with traditional single discipline major and replace it by an individualized inter disciplinary major. For example, a student desiring to pursue Law in post graduation can take up courses on Legal Administration, English and Political Science or a combination of any three from History, Psychology, Sociology and Political Philosophy.

It is preferable to have a minimum of three Minor for each individualized Major with one in Arts and one in Science. Mathematics, Finance and Economics is a possible combination for one who wishes to take up Acturial Science as his Major.  CreativeWriting, Music and Philosophy/ Sociology should be available for those interested in taking Theatre Arts as their major. Any three out of Journalism, Cinema Studies and Sociology/ Literature/ Political Theory can be offered for  those wanting to major in Mass Communications. Similarly those wanting to major in  Bio -Ethics can take Biology, Philosophy and Psychology, while for Bio-Humanities, the combination can be from Biology, English and Sports Sciences/Natural Sciences/psychology. Faculties should sit and design combination courses to enable a student get adequate knowledge of the discipline chosen as Major alongside allied subjects chosen as Minor.

6.Instead of insisting on NET examination as is the current requirement, those wanting to join teaching profession should take up an examination in three subjects of their choice.  After selection, they shall undergo a six week course in World Book Series where they will be  given lectures on seminal books on Arts and  Sciences, Social Sciences, Management and Law – classics that have shaped human thought over the centuries. This course should also expose them to Music and Dance appreciation, Fiction appreciation, Theatre appreciation and Arts appreciation. Such training enables  the new faculty members to integrate knowledge of different disciplines, art, culture and history  and to look at knowledge as one whole and not as compartments.  “We must give more attention to the interplay between the science of teaching – pedagogy – and the art of teaching… A teacher must be anchored in pedagogy and blend imagination, creativity and inspiration into the teaching learning process to ignite a passion for learning in student.” (Peyton Williams)

7. Faculty members will be made tenured faculty on the basis of their teaching, mentoring and personal research work. Students’ assessment of the faculty members shall be a key part of this rigour. The assessment must be made with reference to the teacher’s knowledge, his/her articulation punctuality, mentoring ability, availability for the students and above all his/ her conduct and behaviour.

8. The IOEs should be very selective in the admission of students. Admission to IOE will have to be through a written examination and an interview. There is no need to insist on what grades they had secured in the school final examinations. The selection has to be based on the aptitude and potential of the student wanting to pursue academic studies and research.  With good grades in their first degree, they are eligible to join the post graduate and doctoral programmes wherever they wish to apply and wherever they meet the eligibility requirement for such programmes. Again the admission to IOEs has to put aside reservations.

9. Since the Government is ready to finance up to Rs.1000 crores for each institution under the IOE category, top class research facilities should be provided for the faculty and the students. The best of faculty and researchers from abroad should be made visiting faculty to teach students and train our faculty members. Mutual arrangements to exchange faculty members between institutions abroad and IOEs must be made. Knowledge and research are not the prerogative of a few institutions; they have to be shared for advancement of knowledge.

10. Examinations have to be in the form of continuous assessment of paper presentation, seminar participation, tutorial assignments and one final examination at the end of the year. This means the final examination is on what had been taught for the whole year and not as examined at present every semester. Knowledge must  be in the mode of continuity and not like the present stand alone semester. There has to be for every course, a group of 3-4 faculty members who will jointly examine the students’ assignments and evaluate their seminar papers to ensure a fair and just assessment. For quality learning that is wholesome, it will be better to give up semester system and switch back to annual year mode.

11.A proverb in Tamil says: Ettu Surakkai karikku udavadu i.e., A picture of a gourd (the vegetable) is not useful to cook with. It means simple theoretical knowledge alone will not help in real life practical situations. We need both theoretical knowledge and application of that knowledge for new ideas geared towards the welfare and for the betterment of life for the vast millions in the country. It is a known fact that what is invented by 1%of the population is enjoyed by the rest of the 99% in the society. So the need for proper industry- academia interface is a must, as a part of higher education.. But it has to be different from is what is attempted today, where students of a few professional colleges are  mandated to go for internship and spend a few weeks to get a certificate of attendance without getting any professional skill or competence to meet the requirement of the job market.       The Japanese model of combining theory and application is to give students half a day in the college/ university to learn the fundamentals of theory and the second half at the industrial site/organization  for  training. This practice is to be followed only at the UG level.

12. Residential complex to house both faculty and students is to be given top priority. Nothing is more satisfying than learning to live together and have time and opportunity to take part in extra- curricular activities beyond class hours. It also helps the students to hone their inter- personal skills. If students of both genders stay together, it will be an effective way of putting a stop to gender discrimination and other unseemly activities like stalking, molesting and raping of young women. Residential living for both faculty and students must be mandatory. This is the adoption of Gurukul practice of our ancient times in a modern setting. Faculty and students eat together in the mess, mix with each other in the Common room, watch Television as a group and all these  build up the camaraderie of institutional life.

13. IOE students should serve at the least for six months in tribal and rural areas to be eligible for a         degree.

14. Scholarships for those who do not have the means to pay the course fees should be given in the form of fee waivers in addition to a minimum monetary support for their living expenses. They should have free access to internet both int heir rooms and in the library. The library should be open till late at night to enable students to study. This,nter alia, is the greatest advantage of being in university residences.

15. Industries should be approached to set up chairs and provide money for research related to their products. Pharmaceutical industry, IT industry, Construction firms, Nutrition departments of hotels and hospitals, Mechanical and Aviation sectors must be asked to provide money for advanced research in their fields. The patents will be in the name of the researcher and the industry that sponsored him/her.

 These are a few suggestions- and there can be many more. IOE is not just an ideal to be dreamed, but a reality to be established. If IOEs have to be a distinct group of institutions, they have to be given academic, administrative and financial autonomy. In the words of Infosys Founder Mr.Narayana Murthy on the importance of academic autonomy: “I think, my own personal view is there should be higher and higher levels of autonomy; government should not interfere in setting up colleges, in running colleges. The market, the society will decide which is a good university, which is not a good university, rather than government mandating”. While I subscribe to his views on academic autonomy, for a huge nation like India, the government proposal to set up IOEs is of as great value as Pt.Nehru’s visionary launching of IITs, IIMs, and institutions like Tata Institute of Fundamental Research developed hundreds and thousands of engineers, scientists, technocrats, and managers, but once established, the running and functioning of the institutions should be on the basis of BOT- build-operate and transfer model where the Government sets up the infrastructure with financial grant and transfer it to the academia to develop, design, structure, provide education at university standard, provide facilities for, study and research; encourage the advancement and development of knowledge, and its application to government, industry, commerce and the community. Functional, financial, academic autonomy should be the cornerstone  of Universities and Institutions of excellence.

                       

KBC vs Big Boss

Television is today the world’s largest and the most used gadget.  It is, in my opinion, the most valuable invention –even more than that of the Internet as the latter demands computer literacy, net connectivity and decent economic power to use the net time.  TV does not require any special skill or knowledge to use it nor needs a Wi-Fi connectivity and has transcended the economic divide as it is now a household item in nearly all urban and rural homes. For a middle class urban family it is a boon as entertainment from sports to films, dance to music,  quiz shows and news is available in   the drawing room and  that too, without much of a burden on the purse or the hassle of travelling. In comparison using one’s own vehicle and going to a theatre or to a sports field to watch a film or a game has become prohibitively expensive, not to belittle the problems of parking. The rural folks who hero worship the Bollywood stars now share their excessive adulation with the Television heroes and heroines and  love watching the soap operas and the latest one week old films (as most films don’t run beyond a week in the multiplex theatres and are distributed to the TV channels a week after release).  The newest craze is for the reality shows featuring budding singers and dancers, quiz participants and Big Boss contestants.

Reality shows happen to garner the best TRP (Television rating points). These shows are mainly competitive shows to unearth new talents where the contestants are not celebrated actors but ordinary people who are given a platform to display their talents. These are shows for the Aam Admi as they exalt them to celebrity status for a short period. Even if some doubts are expressed about the genuineness of selecting the winner and about the claim that the shows are not pre-scripted, still these shows attract a lot of viewers from the not so elite groups and provide an opportunity for many young men and women to perform on the TV screen that is  viewed all over the country. It certainly boosts the self confidence of the contestants who come from different regions and different strata of society and reveals the dormant spark in them that gets noticed even if only one is crowned the winner at the end. The young men and women, boys and girls from the rural areas get a glimpse of the urban life style as they come to Mumbai and stay with fellow contestants  from the city.  Music and dance reality shows are the most enjoyed by the viewers though KBC- Kaun Banega Crorepati bags the honours for being the most popular show. KBC is definitely a cut above the rest. The sets are elegant and like a circus arena, the viewers are outside the ring that is reserved for the contestant and the wonderful quiz master. The questions and the multiple choices of answers have a unique quality of being easy and difficult- as easy as pie and challenging without intimidation.. The contestants are made to feel at ease and are ushered into their seat with gracious hospitality. The credit goes to the anchor- the one and the only one-Amitabh Bachchan who is the distinguished representative of old and new world culture. The old world culture is one where values and traditions stay as a thing of stability while he manifests the new world trend with its embrace of the present and the future. Amitabh is grace personified which is seen both in the compliments he gives to the contestants and the compliments he receives from them. Despite his tall image he does not dwarf the person in the hot seat as he unifies the  old world values of respect, courtesy, chivalry  and civility with the new world emphasis on technology, sharing knowledge and  coming together of humanity in a shrinking world.  Even when Amitabh is embarrassed by praises from gushing contestants - mainly female- he displays a sort of wistful humour of the most disarming kind. Amitabh, without an exaggeration  displays certain virtues like grace, fairness,  modesty, humbleness, and a sense of noblesse oblige - the ideals not only worth reflecting upon but worthy of emulating. He single handedly carries the show with panache and elegance and makes the KBC  the most civilized and cultured show on television.

In contrast is the Big Boss. Big Boss, now in its eleventh year is crass, unrefined and boorish to say the least. A number of contestants (known as "housemates") are put together in a specially built house and they remain isolated from the rest of the world for the duration of the full show – anything between 7 to 15 weeks. The House has no TV connection, no telephones, no Internet connection, clocks, pen or paper. It is understandable that when one is in the same old company for days together with no outside connectivity, boredom and ennui set in. There is nothing for them to do except household chores and they are not even allowed to sleep during daytime. They cannot have a space of their own and have to share the cramped space  with the same group of inmates. So they tend to get on each other’s nerves. The irony is most of the inmates are from the well heeled families, though not necessarily from understanding and sensitive families. Only one of the housemates is a non celebrity.

The house is well-furnished house, with all kinds of modern amenities, including gym, swimming pool and activity. There is also a Confession Room, where the housemates may be called in by Bigg Boss for a dialogue with him. Though evictions from the house take place every week on the basis of nominations received from the housemates, the truth is that the whole show is scripted and executed according to a plan by the producers. So very often the eviction is done by the Big Boss himself-someone whom the TV viewers can see, while the inmates can only hear his voice but not see him. What one sees on the TV screen is the screeching and screaming of the inmates,  heir fights and quarrels that often go out of control needing the services of the Big Boss to stop them.  These grown up adults behave like immature juveniles – sometimes worse than spoilt brats seeking attention. It is said for raising the TRP levels they are asked to fight and abuse each other, which any normal- leave aside sophisticated families- will abhor and frown upon. The Big Boss culture is tasteless, crude and ill mannered. There is no justification for the inmates to debase themselves and that too in public viewing. What kind of behaviour does the Big Boss promote?  The producers of Big Boss have not given thought to the fact that it turns all susceptible viewers into voyeurs, giving them an insight into a depressingly slinky, kinky and boorish group of individuals who have thrown all social norms out of the house they inhabit for a short span of time. The license to indulge in tasteless, vulgar and crass behaviour seems to be an accepted norm today. We see it on TV debates every evening which are turned into a free-for-all with the participants yelling at each other making it more of a cacophony of meaningless words.  The anchor who is expected to be a neutral umpire with his job to steer the debate on the right course gives all civility a miss and butts in when someone is talking and shouts even louder to drown the voice of the participant if s/he holds a view different from his dotted line.

Something is not right with the state of our society and culture. It is evident in the crass observations made by some of our politicians to attack their opponents. Refinement, sophistication, polish, civility are all on the wane. The TRP garnered by the Big Boss is an index of how low we have fallen. We need shows like KBC to rekindle urbanity, gentility and grace in our lives. Otherwise we will be revisiting an age of  darkness where illiteracy in the use of refined language, gracelessness in action, insensitivity to others’ feelings, lack of refinement in mind  and manners will become the new norms.