Shashwat-Da
Photo by Chaitanya Sharma
When and why did you get interested in teaching?
To begin with, I wasn't interested in teaching. When I finished Knowledge in ‘93, I immediately started working in the Dining Room washing dishes and then I started working with Sunil Da.
However, in ‘95, Tarun Da asked if I could assist him with tabla classes, but since I was really bad at teaching children, I asked if I could take the advanced classes, while he taught the children. That was when I first got involved with school.
That was around the time when Matthijs-Bhai had given an old Mac to the Resource Centre and some of those children would go there to play around with it. Nancy-Di called me to see if I could help the children. So once a week, I would go and hang out with two or three children who came to play around.
After a point, the machine died, but I had started teaching the children about counting, number theory, binary systems, etc, and I really enjoyed doing that. Fast-forward to ‘98. When Sunil Da passed away, I became department-less. One day, Steve and I felt that it would be nice to have a computer lab for students who did not have access to computers. The lab would have nothing to do with programming because we have an excellent place where you can actually learn that.
The school committee accepted our proposal, and in 2000, we set up the lab and I became completely involved in it. So, I went to Tarun Da and told him that I could not continue teaching tabla classes because I was full-time in the lab.
I used to be in school from 7:45 to 11:30 and 1:45 to 4:00 every day, just doing my stuff, always there to help students if they needed it. We wanted students to be exposed to computers. It was not like I thought, "Oh, I would love to teach, and then can you please give me a place to teach?" It was completely side-loaded, and I got involved and have been involved ever since.
As a teacher, do you expect anything from the students?
I think I should make a disclaimer even before I say anything. One is that I don't teach any mainstream subject, so I don't know if it makes me a teacher in some ways. Additionally, I definitely don't consider myself a teacher in the sense that I do not believe that I know more than you and therefore I'm in a position where I can teach and you can learn.
I know a lot of stuff about a lot of things, but I also know that I know very little about a lot of other things. However, I enjoy the process of learning and using that knowledge to assist students who are interested.
I think the most important tool of learning that students can have is curiosity. When you find that curiosity, everything else will fall into place. Unfortunately, as they grow older, that curiosity often fades due to various reasons. Students stop caring, or they care but do not share their interests with their teachers, and this creates a huge gap between teachers and students.
Therefore, curiosity is essential because it opens the door to learning. If we break the notion that teachers must teach and students must learn, we see that it is very much the reverse. Students want to learn, and it is their responsibility to extract as much as possible from their teachers. In Indian culture, a teacher is like a river, flowing with knowledge. It is up to the student to decide how much they want to take, whether a spoonful, a cupful, or a bucketful.
But it is the teacher's responsibility to ensure that the sense of curiosity is not hindered. We often say or do things that break that curiosity and the joy of learning. However, if the desire to learn is present, which I believe it is, it is crucial to make that connection with the students and build trust so that they can let go of their guard and learn freely.
So what was your temperament when you were studying here?
Ah, what is my temperament? I would say I fit the bill of being the ideal student who was always under the radar.
I was never too naughty or too quiet, just average in every way. This suited me well because it allowed me to be left alone to do my own thing. In fact, most of my learning actually happened outside of the classroom. We were doing an aero modelling class, so we actually learned principles of physics way before we actually learned those in the classroom; the aerofoil design is a classic application of Bernoulli's principle. We used to go and fly planes and it was so much fun.
While I was quiet in some ways, I really had this drive to make things from a very young age. Our life was mostly centred around school and group, and it was hard to find people who could teach us because there was no Google and books were expensive. However, when we found someone with knowledge, they were like mountains of information, and we got inspired to build things. I may have tried to stay out of trouble, but I still managed to get into it sometimes because everyone would put the blame on me. Overall, my temperament was very average.
What are your thoughts on assignments?
I did my homework when I found it convenient. I'm not the studious type. Although I studied a lot, it didn't amount to what the teachers and the system would think was a good student. So it's also the reason why I 100% back students who feel that they're not getting much from classrooms, because that's not how I learned.
I had a sister two years older than me who was kind of a trailblazer in everything. And every teacher said “Your sister is so good, you write so badly. Your sister is so good at maths, you're so bad.” So literally I got compared every year with my own sister and that was really frustrating, and very quickly I kind of let go.
But I was interested in certain subjects, and I liked chemistry, physics, and maths which I actually did on my own. Bholeshwar Da helped me a lot when I was growing up and I had another friend who helped me with physics and chemistry, and guided me to find books to read. So I was always interested and I found my own way.
I think there's a huge amount of learning that happens outside the class, and one of the wonderful things about our school is that it enables this learning to happen. If more teachers adopt this mindset, that learning within a classroom is just one method of imparting knowledge, it would be beneficial.
So what was a typical day of school like?
For several years, I stayed in a boarding school where life was a lot more disciplined, but also fun. I spent one year in Madhu Di’s boarding and it really changed my studying cycle. We had to wake up at five in the morning, get ready, and start studying. After that, I've always woken up early in the morning and studied. So, I used to study from four to seven, get ready, and then come to school.
The classes were interesting, and we had some fantastic teachers. Of course, I didn't know much about computer science until I joined Kamal Bhai’s class. But, physics and maths were subjects I was already familiar with before studying them in class. Some subjects were really interesting, such as electronics, and Kim's class on electronics was absolutely fantastic. I enjoyed Bharat Arya’s Sanskrit class in P2, and I still remember 80-90% of the shlokas we learned. It's surprising that children these days don't learn poems or shlokas like we did at that age. I think that learning stays with you for the rest of your life.
After school, we went back to the boarding, ate at Corner House, and then I would go back home and practise Tabla. Then, we had afternoon classes, group, and came back home pretty much at the end of the day. I didn't study at night and didn't have a TV at home for many years. Instead, I read books, drew a little, and coded on paper since I didn't have a computer. Kamal Bhai used to write it for us on the computer, and we learned coding on paper and pencil.
I still can't think in front of the computer, so I go for walks to fix all my problems while walking and come back to code. So do not underestimate the time away from computers to actually solve computer problems. Yeah, that was basically my day.
When you say study outside the classroom, what do you mean?
So yes, I learnt by heart the whole periodic table outside the classroom, I was crazy with that kind of stuff.
Those things just came automatically?
I find the Mendeleev Periodic Table fascinating. It's amazing how one person was able to find a pattern in atoms that literally changed the way we looked at the world. The columns are based on properties across elements, and it's not just inert gases and rare materials. If you look at what's called the tetravalent atoms, which create semiconductors, they all have four valence band electrons. Everything above that is five and everything below that is three. Gallium and arsenic are examples of elements in between silicon. It's absolutely brilliant that Mendeleev was able to find periodicity in atoms.
Unfortunately, this concept is not given enough importance in chemistry class, and students may not pay attention to it. However, I believe that students should be introduced to fundamental ideas that have changed the way we look at the world. These ideas are powerful and can inspire students, regardless of their interests in physics, chemistry, biology, or maths. The double helix of the DNA, E=mc², and the Mendeleev Periodic table are examples of these ideas. Fundamental ideas that have changed the way we look at the world are priceless, and they should be taught to all students.
I think it's essential that children have good mentors who can help them learn and grow. I was lucky to have excellent mentors growing up, and I think every child should have someone they can turn to for help when they're struggling.
So what should a student be doing here or what should be his goal? Like when you come here, what should be our goal at the end of the day?
It’s a super simple question, and the answer is on the cover of your notebook: Pour la joie que cela nous donne.
As someone who has been involved with teaching for many years, I have come to realise that there is something truly special about learning purely for the joy that it gives. For me, this has been a driving force behind my involvement in education. It's not about learning for some future benefit that may or may not materialise.
Rather, it's about finding that spark of curiosity within a child and nurturing it, encouraging them to explore and discover on their own terms. So when a child comes to me and says they want to learn something because it will "help them in life," I can't help but feel a little disappointed. It's not that I don't think education is important, but the idea that you should only learn something because it will have practical applications, later on, is, in my opinion, misguided.
In fact, I've found that often the things that seem the most useless or irrelevant at the time can later become incredibly important. Who knows what the future will bring? But when a child is driven by pure joy and curiosity, they are more likely to remember and internalise what they have learned, regardless of whether or not it has immediate practical value.
I have seen students when they're just doing something just for the love of doing it. It changes their whole approach to things. They’re willing to be pushed to a real extreme, and I know I can push them at that point because I know that they’re not doing it for me. They’re not doing it for a specific person or an ulterior motive. They’re doing it because that brings them joy.
So I would say, if you dropped everything else from the school and just focused on activities that will bring you joy, I think you'll find the right teachers, you'll find the right help, you'll find the right equipment, you'll find everything falls in place.
Of course, there are limits to what can be accomplished in this way. If a child wants to build a Ferrari or launch a rocket to the moon, that's a different story - these kinds of endeavours require massive investment in infrastructure and knowledge. But for the vast majority of subjects and interests, there is no reason why a child cannot learn and explore simply for the joy of doing so. Whether it's robotics or literature or history, there is always something new to discover and learn, and always a joy to be found in the process.
What do you think of the proverb “Jack of all trades, master of none”?
You could argue that being average in many things is better than being excellent in just one thing. However, that doesn't mean it's okay to not be good at anything. You can still be brilliant in one or two areas and average in others.
In fact, I believe that when you become a master in one area, you tend to become average in many other things. It's just the way our brains work. When you find pathways in a specific field, that knowledge spills over into other areas. It's unlikely that you can be brilliant at mathematics and not be good at language, for example.
I think it's better to be good at many things rather than spending all your energy perfecting just one thing. However, that doesn't mean you shouldn't strive for excellence in everything you do. Why not be a master at all?
I'm a classic example of someone with a lot of interests. People ask me all the time, “Are you a photographer or are you a programmer or are you a cinematographer?” I'm just a guy with a camera and too many things around me. My own interests have gone in cycles. Suddenly I got interested in carpentry and that's all I did. At one point during the lockdown, I spent three hours every day woodworking. Now I'm not, but that's okay.
As a student, I went through a phase of being interested in aero modelling and spent all my time learning about planes. Then Zakir Hussain came, and for the next six months, I only played the tabla. That's perfectly fine.
In our school, we should allow for that compression and expansion to happen, and to allow for more flexibility for students to explore their passions freely. It's unfortunate that the child can’t come and say, “I'm going through this phase now, just let me be.” That is totally fine as long as he or she is not disturbing any class.
So I would say be the best you can be in everything you do. Enjoy doing it. Do it for the love of doing it, and I think you'll get there.