If i remember right, it was Montaigne who said, “I LOVE TO SPEND TIME WITH THE PEASANTS, AS THEY HAVE NOT BEEN EDUCATED ENOUGH TO REASON INCORRECTLY!”
The idea is that the purpose of all education is not merely to REASON CORRECTLY, but also to decide on issues JUSTLY. But what kind of meaning do we posit for JUST? JUST is being not only fair in the circumstances, but also scope for change in the future decision making when circumstances have changed. For example, a JUST DECISION in a given set of circumstances might have been followed for a long time, therefore should we freeze it and make it the NORM or leave enough SCOPE to review the changed circumstances and then find a new JUST solution?
YES, YES and YES!
I am reminded of the question asked by my friend: What are the THREE criteria, while choosing a place for setting up one’s home? And while I was still struggling to prioritize my preferences, my friend said first is LOCATION, so tell me the next 2. I was cogitating to match his expectations, as i had not read anything on that topic, he said: LOCATION and LOCATION.
So likewise, the answer as to whether one ahould leave scope for future generations to review a JUST SOLUTION which has become rancid- the answer is YES, YES and YES!
If one reads the British Legislative principles, there is one principle which though does not egregiously stand out still lies as a bedrock for all future Legislation. That is NO PRESENT LEGISLATION SHALL BIND OR CURB THE POWER OF THE FUTURE PARLIAMENT TO CHANGE THE LAWS MADE IN THE PRESENT. In effect it is that principle which says that LAWS are not to be treated as the LAWS OF THE MEDES AND PARSEES, they have to be DYNAMIC.
At the same time, if the laws could be changed at will by every succeeding parliament or assembly, the laws would lose all CERTAINTY and we would be left with STRANDS of LAWS instead of a well woven FABRIC of LAWS! That is where the Indian Constitution comes with the FUNDAMENTAL RIGHTS- because all Legislation is made for MAN by MEN. The first is an individual and the second is MEN who have been empowered through the process of election to represent them in debating issues and legislating on behalf of each MAN.
So with this system in place the laws have been made with certainty so that men could be at peace with themselves and others without anxiously, running around everyday trying to discover how the laws have changed the next morning.
So in this conflict of identifying the laws which work injustice and the remedy sought through the courts (High courts and the Supreme court of India), many arguments are forwarded to destabilize the existing laws. An individual may seek a relief against the implementation of a particular law and then a whole host of people follow suit to make that the passage for pushing through their AGENDA.
It is in this context that Montaigne’s statement gains relevance- EDUCATION SHOULD BE USED TO REASON CORRECTLY, JUSTLY and DYNAMISM should not be lost. Otherwise, law will become like C. Rajagopalachari’s KULA VAZHI KALVI, which would have reinforced the caste based traditional vocational training with no recourse to personal enterprise and outlets for individual proclivity!
Laws should be CERTAIN, but at the same time JUST & DYNAMIC. For a person to judge the JUST part EDUCATION forms the backbone. Economic development does not guarantee EDUCATIONAL DEVELOPMENT- if one were to go by the UNDP report on HDI of India one could see this with reference of the State of Andhra Pradesh- a state which is economically above national average, but Literacy wise below the national average! Likewise Kerala which tops the Human Development Index, still lags behind in WORK INITIATIVE, LETTING GO OF THE LAND FOR HIGHER PRODUCTIVITY etc.
EDUCATION is the backbone of any country- not merely the working knowledge, but an understanding of the LIBERAL ARTS and SCIENCES coupled with untrammeled human initiative with opportunities !