Creativity, ideation and inquisitiveness: Hallmark of a new education system

Asoke K Laha, President & MD, Interra Information Technologies

A writer friend of mine told me once: while writing ideas come to mind, when the mind is free, serene, tranquil and peaceful. When I related this great quote to another close business friend of mine, he said laughing; “Do you mean every writer is a yogi; only such tribes can keep the mind in control when beset with routine chores of everyday life?”.

Can anyone be really serene in this world in the midst of multitudes of problems chasing one. There can be an assortment of problems that can flash in your mind when you try to focus on anything, more so when you are writing. To keep a firewall between your thought process and the work you focus on, that way could be possible only for a robot. Does it mean the future writers are going to be robots? I will not be surprised if that proved to be right. I am told a study undertaken by a team of US jurists has found that there is every possibility that in the coming years, robots using artificial intelligence may be writing the most delicate and complex judgement and that too in record time. 

A robot can analyze case studies, legal provisions, precedents in a second, whereas that takes an unduly long time for a jurist to do so. Also, a robot does not have any emotional baggage to carry, whereas  the human beings invariably are  influenced by his/her  ideologies,  bend of mind, upbringing, likes and dislikes and a host of personalized moorings. Should it mean that a robot can give a decision on a complex issue of law just after the arguments are over? Many feel that could be possible. There are antagonists of that approach also since they feel the robot can give only a decision based on what it has been fed into them. Human touch should be the basic element for arriving at a decision. Can a robot distinguish between a robbery committed to quench hunger from an organized plunder? There go the arguments for and against. 

First of all, let me come to the basic question: how many people try to have their own ideas. I am not a psychologist to discern the mental make-up of people and how they think and act. Going by my past experience and the knowledge I had accumulated for the past over 50 years, I am of the opinion that very few people are there trying to get a new idea. Most people are influenced by stereotypes. They follow a set practice. That mindset is across the board. I have seen teachers handling classes at the collegiate and higher schools of learning follow a practice of teaching what they had learned during their college days. 

This practice you can see in other avenues also. Take the case of a medical practitioner who treats a patient with a diagnosed disease, be it common fever or serious diseases like diabetes, blood pressure or even cancer. He follows a set pattern of treatment after the patient is diagnosed with that disease. That diagnosis is mostly based on lab tests conducted. The medicines that he or she gives follow a pattern mostly protocol based.

I do not want to generalize on this pattern of medication, for I know medical practitioners know more than what we do. Only suggestion that I can offer is that a doctor invariably should be circumspect when they are treating such diseases. They can be a bit personal to get to know their dietary habits or their indulgence or if the patients are undergoing any worries or anxieties, for I know that a person who could not sleep well overnight,  his or her medical parameters are likely to go for a toss. It is not only medication but also life styles  decide the wellness of a person. 

The engineering profession that I come from is also replete with such examples. For building a bridge or highway, there are certain parameters that are prescribed. Same thing applies to the statutes that you find in the law books. Some of them are written centuries ago and still they follow the same pattern. Not to go so far; take the example of a program written in basic, java, or C++. They follow the same dictum as if application of mind is alien to such exercises. 

Should we break away from the stereotypes and adopt innovative methods to do things? I feel that would help shape our thoughts. That will help us to become more creative. Let us look at all inventions and discoveries. People who created things always thought in a different way, applied different methods and struggled hard to strike newer things.  That is true in all avenues. 

All discoveries and innovations have a similar story, cutting across disciplines. Even during the prehistoric times, there were people who thought out -of -box and came up with new - fangled ideas and concepts. The discovery of fire, using stone as a tool for hunting, using skin of an animal to cover and protect the body etc. are perfect examples of out -of -box thinking. Like what Charles Darwin advocated -theory of evolution of mankind- there is a theory of evolution of technology, pointing towards the view that the most modern technology might have a crude or primitive origin. There were people at every millennium, who had sparks, ability to think and visualize the future. It is not that difficult to fathom how the idea of communication technology germinated in fertile minds and how later such concepts have undergone tectonic changes, reaching the present  digital age. 

What should we infer from these developments? My first take is that we should allow the minds to travel freely without restraints. Free thinking can instill a lot of confidence in people. Secondly, respect and recognize every idea without looking at the source, where they are coming from. It could be from a child or an uneducated person or a person who always holds a contrarian view. One need not have to adopt or act on his or her views. But allow such views to be expressed openly and freely. 

Overriding all these conditionalities is the need for developing scientific temper among the people. That has to start from our educational system onwards. Let us focus on creating inquisitiveness among students and not the culture of mugging up. Let us give least importance to the marks that they score in their examinations, but their creative thinking. Allow them to raise questions at every stage in their own way. Let them choose their discipline on their own and not be subjected to peer pressure or at the compulsion of the parents. 

Most important is ensuring every child access to quality education and let that not be the prerequisite of a privileged few, who can demand such education because of their  command over resources. Let us take a pragmatic view of the language one should learn. That is only incidental in the acquisition of knowledge. Our foremost task should be to instill creativity and inquisitiveness among the pupils. That creativity can be in languages, history, political science, philosophy, science, technology and the list is long.