Karnataka Assembly Debates Whether Students Should Clean Schools
A lively discussion unfolded in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly recently over a seemingly simple question: should school students be involved in cleaning their own classrooms and campuses? Lawmakers found themselves divided on the issue, with some championing the practice as a way to build character and instill good habits, while others raised concerns about children’s rights and the need for proper support staff.
The Core Question: Duty or Burden?
The debate was triggered during a session focused on a bill related to teacher transfers. A leader from the Janata Dal (Secular) raised the point that many government schools are operating without adequate housekeeping staff, often referred to as ‘D Group’ employees. He highlighted the practical reality on the ground: with no cleaners available, the responsibility of keeping the school premises tidy frequently falls on the students themselves.
He posed a direct question to the government, asking whether it planned to recruit more support staff or whether it would formally allow and encourage students to take on cleaning tasks. The underlying issue was the shortage of workers and the need for a clear policy direction.
Nostalgia vs. Rights: Two Sides of the Coin
The Assembly Speaker, U T Khader, injected a personal note into the debate. He recalled his own school days, fondly remembering the morning routine of sweeping classrooms, cleaning the grounds, and even scrubbing toilets. He questioned why such activities, which he considered a normal part of growing up, were now being viewed as a problem. He argued that these chores were a valuable part of learning and discipline, stating that many of life’s lessons are learned through such hands-on work, and saw no issue with children participating in cleaning their own school environment.
However, the Minister for School Education and Literacy, Madhu Bangarappa, offered a more cautious perspective. While he agreed that there is a genuine need for better school maintenance, he stressed that any decision must be weighed against the principles of child rights. He indicated that forcing or even allowing students to perform cleaning duties could potentially be seen as a violation of those rights. He suggested that if the House were to pass a specific law on the matter, he would be willing to consider it, but he emphasized the need for careful thought on the implications.
Drawing the Line: Gandhi’s Example and Modern Skills
The discussion took a sharper turn with the intervention of a senior BJP legislator, Araga Jnanendra. He brought a historical and moral angle to the debate, reminding the House that Mahatma Gandhi himself used to clean toilets. His point was pointed: if the Father of the Nation could perform such tasks willingly, it was not beneath any citizen, including children. He argued that allowing students to clean would teach them humility and respect for labor, and he saw no harm in it, as it was a common practice in the past.
This led to a clash of views between the Minister’s concern for child rights and the legislators’ nostalgic and moral arguments. The Speaker suggested a middle path, proposing that cleaning duties could be incorporated into the curriculum as a form of skill development, thereby giving it an educational purpose rather than treating it as mere manual labor.
A Related Tussle: The Language of Instruction
The session also witnessed a heated exchange on a completely different topic: the medium of instruction in schools. A senior Congress MLA, K.M. Shivalinge Gowda, argued forcefully that children must learn English to succeed in a globalized world. He stated that proficiency in English was essential for career advancement, better job opportunities, and the ability to travel and work internationally.
His views were immediately challenged by another Congress colleague, Basavaraj Rayareddi. Rayareddi defended the importance of Kannada, asserting that students educated in their mother tongue are in no way inferior. He argued that the choice of the medium of instruction should be a matter of personal preference, not a mandate, and that both languages have their own value and relevance in a child’s development.
The debate highlighted a fundamental tension between the push for global competitiveness through English and the desire to preserve and promote regional languages and cultural identity. The assembly remained divided on this issue, much like the one on school cleaning, reflecting the complex social and educational challenges facing the state. The discussions underscored that finding a consensus on these matters requires balancing tradition, modern aspirations, and the fundamental rights of children.
