marvelously accurate!!!!! i myself was a kuttisakhav in college of vety and animal sci mannuthy .. was quite involved in student politics there . was students union member in my very first year purely by party nomination because my name was not suggested in the general body meeting (because i never worked to show my colleagues or give any sort of publicity to my work .. i was one of those ppl who pull the curtain ropes for drama knowing fully well i would not be able to watch the drama let alone participate in it) BUT the fact is i myself hated the undemocratic manner of election and never took part in any of the students unions later !!!! in the third year when there was a political clash between the new born ksu and sfi i was one of the guys against whom criminal case was charged .. and i found that in most campuses loyolites where the leaders be it sfi or abvp !!! so considering the volume of students passing out from other institutions of kerala i feel LOYOLITES ARE THE MOST POLITICAL OF ALL.. the difference is the loyolite is more concerned with ideology rather than party positions and being men of caliber are not content with the trivial routine party meetings and nominations. We still have political discussions in our e-group which i feel has 10 times more quality in them than the cheap talk shows aired by most prominent news channels.. IN EVERY SOCIETY THE LOYOLITE REMODELS HIMSELF WITH THE REQUIREMENT OF THE TIMES .. I AM SURE A NEW BRAND OF LOYOLITES WILL SOON APPEAR IN THE REALPOLITIC OF KERALA AND EVEN INDIA WHEN THE TIME FOR IT IS RIGHT LETS C !!!!!

Loyola in the 1980s was out of this world, literally. Even somebody like you — who fought, instead of surrendering on day two — ends up concluding that Loyolites are better suited to live outside India. I too have felt likewise at times. But then, look at it from the view of non-Loyolites: they see a bunch of guys who don’t fit into the society and can’t be effective leaders. They see a bunch of uncompromising pricks who don’t ‘get it’. I am not saying that whatever they say is right, and we Loyolites are wrong. But I feel that we should be more ‘political’, in practice, even if it means giving up a few of our pet principles and stubbornness.

i dont think loyolites are/were timid or less bolder than other school students. its just that we have been exposed to much less violence and the third-rate streetside behavior thats so rampant across kerala, especially trivandrum. i think that took away an “edge” from loyolites to face the daily social life in kerala.

i was a victim when i was transplanted, despite my cries and wails, to a PDC college that was supposedly the best in the city. much to my horror i was exposed to a bunch of uncivilized clowns and goons, and i went on to face the 2 worst years of my life among this lot. abvp, sfi, “pirivu”..what not..as a loyolite, i wouldnt give a damn about these pigs and their threats. while most others submitted to these threats and extortions, i would oppose. what ensued was a constant battle with these forces and their coercions and demands. it only ended the day i left that bloody place.

in loyola we are taught to live a life based on human values of respect, honesty, truthfulness, and honor, but that doesnt mean we are really equipped to face the realities of this darned society – which in my opinion is a big monster we have created. we would have fit in better in countries with lot more civic sense and values.

i dont know if what i have written has any connection to the post and all the comments..but all this just touched a sensitive chord!

Political activity need not always be confrontational. Unfortunately, around us in India, we see dogmatic political parties who are bound by dead ideaology(ies) and unable to make independent issue-based stances, as is usually the case in most developed democracies. Political can also mean that everyone concerned roots for a certain set of basic principles, but there are disagreements on the best possible route to fulfilling them. I doubt most Loyolites will have any problem fitting into that. LaFest was the University of Compromises to Get Things Done. Human rights and ethical living are two such principles. Loyolites will have little problem bringing the attention of people to the abuse of contract labour in their universities or places of work. If the office is consuming more enrgy that it needs to, a Loyolite will not have too much of a problem brining it to the attention of senior managment. But if the same two issues require me to stand under an entrenched red/white/saffron flag, then I will not do it. Remember, being a member of a political party is as much about the subjugation of the individual identity for the glorification of the group as being in the army or being part of a school is.

Today’s politics in India is dominated by men and women with media savvy who can turn a debate with some fancy turn of phrase and most political parties are increasingly bereft of moral leadership. The younger generation of politicians are no different in that all they are concerned about is being seen in the right places, talking to the right people and making yes, power point presentations. You cannot expect Loyola to produce people who are significantly different.

And Nitheeshs not afraid.. i got his permission to mention his name here

At a very basic level, every person is political — might have an opinion, might analyse/observe, etc. I agree that Loyolites are not apolitical at that level. All love to yap and criticise political groups.

When I say that a Loyolite is unlikely to be political, I am referring to something more substantial — participation in politics by joining hands with like-minded people, making compromises while working in a group, expressing opinion publicly, mobilising people, acting to counter those who work against your ideas/ideology, on larger issues in society (or the organisation, if you prefer a smaller scale operation).

In defending a girl or a backward-caste person, the ‘helper’ is expressing his basic-level politics in a public setting — he is confronting the powerful, defending the weak. I see politics there even though there is no political party involved. In such contexts ‘helping’ is a political act (fighting caste oppression) as much as it is a social act (saving a person from inconvenience). Analysing the situation (hmm…caste oppression…bad…why?) and walking away is hardly political. To me, it shows apathy and apolitical behaviour.

I don’t see any ‘politics’ in working with kids to teach them editing skills. Politics involves an element of power/authority, and the struggle for it. If there is politics in teaching powerpoint skills or editing skills, rest assured that Loyola will disallow such selflessness.

Yes, debates like the ones in Titus sir’s classes were there in earlier decades too. They help to raise awareness (and elocution skills). But I don’t think they made Loyolites politically sensitive.

I think however, that this is pure claptrap. Granted, the formative years are crucial, but reading too much into Loyola’s influence on kids and how that shaped their political mindset might not be wise. However I think your premise here is right enough: to the extent that Loyola influences people, it’s certainly to neutrality (or maybe political correctness) and not to extremes. However I certainly believe it creates decent men.

The line between socially responsible and politically active is very defined if we take your definition. But isn’t it also very farcical? Arguing against a higher authority in defense of rights – political; defending a girl in need or working with kids to teach them editing skills… social? Because in both these cases, there’s certainly a selfless element involved, and imho we should think more about the help rendered than about how we do it.

Sorry to deviate, but just remembered a small anecdote on the economics class here. Titus sir gave us a project on Economic Planning to do. Immediately the guys started asking questions like…sir, does it include urban planning, industrial planning, etc, etc…i was looking around impressed(Eco class was our chance to prove our intellectual bend then!) and wanted to ask my own question to impress him. Unfortunately the only thing that came to my head and I asked was, “Sir, what about family planning?” and he exploded…”Athe ninte angere tharunna projectil ezhuthiyaal mathi” and everyone burst out laughing.

First of all, let me say that this was another great post.

At the same time, I have to say that I agree with Vishnu. There has to be a difference between being a student face of mainstream political activity, and being a political person. Being political does not need to mean that you take sides in the mainstream ideological divide. It can just mean that as a person, one likes to confront less, and observe more. Perhaps that explains the confusion between ‘being communist’ and ‘one who would not help an old woman’.

Again, the Jesuit system meant that most of our alternative understandings of the world came after school. We cannot blame the school alone for it. Like the Radiant Reader, we can speak of history lessons where we were never taught what the Emergency was. In school, apart from DP who actually made us discuss Babri Masjid, Kashmir and nuclear weapons once, there was very little political reasoning outside. I was told that Titus sir’s Eco classes had fiery discussions too, but I was one of those fools who picked computer science.

I really doubt that Loyola closed our minds to alternate viewpoints. Of course, it may not have opened or minds, but it was a far cry from making us apolitical dullards.

Few more months are left for me to enjoy as a true Loyolite. I’ve been a Loyolite for the past thirteen years, and I still, when in the last few days of my school life, never found politics affect me in any way. My crib is close to the school, but I have to go through Sreekariyam to get to school, and Sreekariyam is one place Politics usually touches, mainly with promises and not activities. Even as we loyolites still observe passiveness about politics, we have also grown up to analyse situations rather than blindly follow some arsehole who choses his favourite colour for a flag.

Each of us have always debated among ourselves, and we have found that politics is not what we see outside-it is just a dirty joke. Maybe, as we are loyolites, this truth is made known to us by ourselves in an early stage of life. That can be a reason for all this.

I am not experienced in life to say more, anyways, the situation in Loyola still remains the same. The forest clearing was debated but when we saw the stadium, we silently swallowed everything. Maybe Loyola will not change…After all, it is Loyola, right?

Abhishek, thank you for bringing your post to our attention. Is there a balanced and well-researched, free e-book on hartals available to influence public opinion? Individual articles in newspapers or blogposts often end up focusing on one set of arguments, without countering the opposite side’s arguments (in this case, pro-hartal arguments). The method/medium itself weakens the usefulness and effectiveness of debates on such public concerns; debates become conversations with no practical end

I am hardly an alumni of Loyola and cannot confirm your observations. However, I would like to note the growing, albeit small movement against social injustices like hartals and campus violence, particularly on our college campuses. Please read my post from July at Save Kerala.
http://savekerala.blogspot.com/2007/07/viplovam.html

Some great insights on your part though!

Would a Loyolite intervene to fight for the rights of strangers? I doubt. When one’s friends, classmates, etc., are affected, a college-going Loyolite might join. But in life after college? I doubt. My thoughts were on Loyolites of the 1980s, but Jiby’s fascinating blogpost Oridathoridathe Oru Samara Nayakan points to the adrenalin rush that often drove such interventions in college in the late 1990s and early 2000s.

I agree that my bus-stop example was imperfect. Substitute the “lady” with a “lower-caste man”. Would a Loyolite act in that situation, even if he believed that people of all castes should be treated well? I doubt.

Helping an individual does not constitute political activity, right? (A political activity might result in helping an individual — but the reverse is not true.) Politics involves organising people, and arguing/acting for people who you may not know. It need not involve violence, but it invariably involves a clash/argument with authority (or maybe the dominant group in a situation).

Your examples shed light on the Loyola of the 1990s and 2000s. In the closed political environment of Loyola, the foot-stomping example, representation through the school leader, etc. given by Jiby, and the voicing of concerns (if collective), given by Vishnu, would count as political. Was it the introduction of Plus Two that raised chances of such political activity and boldness?(From another angle, doesn’t all this convey the decline of the “discipline culture” of Loyola?)

LOBA is less political, and more social in nature. Yes, there is politicking, but real politics in the sense of debating or acting on broader issues is rare. I wouldn’t classify anybody’s LOBA work as political.

My post was exploratory. As Jiby hinted, a problem with my broadbrushing is that it does not capture every batch’s experience accurately. Among older old boys, I myself know Loyolites who are active office-bearers of employees’ associations at their workplaces.

I still remember those tepid phone calls to the school or jesuit residence in my junior school days to find out if we had school on bandh days. More often than not the speaker at the other end would get irritated for bothering to call up and ask a most stupid question. But Loyola not bowing down to bandhs and hartals, didn’t that end when our school bus was stoned sometime in the early 90′s. After that incident i remember a day that we were given the whole afternoon off to play games because some sfi leaders came to campus and demanded classes be called off due to some strike. This happened in the time of Fr.Pulickal who only a few years prior had unleashed his fury on some others of the same ilk who fled and added another story to the Pulickal legend!

I don’t agree with our batch subscribing to obedience and acceptance as virtues, and questioning and protest as inappropriate…we were rebels and nobody had any idea how to handle us…and rarely was any threat of suspension or dismissal ever made. Though we didn’t use political means we used mischief to let the school authorities know of our unhappiness with some decisions…to cite one example it should be remembered that the 11th and 12th classrooms are right above the school office and what a fair measure of foot stomping by 45 energetic souls can cause….hehe…good old times! But then I also remember several instances of using the school leader to present students viewpoints to the principal and vice-principal…isn’t that a democracy at work then…an elected representative questioning and advising the executive.

Good post, Ashok…i think every batch and every individual will read this post, look back to their days in Loyola and see things quite differently. Just a few weeks back I probed a classmate of mine on his political ambitions…his terse reply was, “If only I had the courage to answer that call”…but a politician from Loyola isn’t a distant dream…I read about an ex-Kerala CM’s son becoming the G-Sec of the NSUI in Delhi.

Imho, you are confusing organized politics and activism and just plain helping people. If being socially active and conscious is about raising a banner, hurling abuses and getting beaten up by the police (as the picture that accompanies this article seems to suggest) then I’m sure not many Loyolites could stomach it for frivolous (one guy in the ‘other’ party looked at a girl) reasons (although I’m sure many would if a genuine need arose).

I can speak of examples only among my friends (post-2000 batches) but I’d like to think the pre-90 batches too were like this. I’ve found numerous examples of Loyolites stepping out of their cosy den to help people. There were similar (girls in trouble) instances in my undergrad college itself which demanded protest and I’ve found Loyolites the most vociferous in asking for a remedy.

A striking difference also in the way we perceived school life: our batch at least wasn’t scared of losing our place in school at the tiniest misdemeanor. I don’t remember any major protest against the authorities, but I do remember lots of us voicing our concerns. Also cutting classes due to LAFest and other reasons, making our displeasure with a few new teachers known, etc. It’s not exactly earth shattering, but we did have our few instances of minor rebellion.

Ours was the batch that saw the transition between pre-degree and +2. It should be remembered that when we’re in school we’re kids and adolescents and just the fact that you’ve been brought up to respect and obey your teachers in that setting for around 10 years of your life means that any kind of protest you organize will mostly be weak. That’s perhaps the reason that when my friends went to pre-degree, they were a lot more physical and vociferous in their protests.

This article also does injustice to the help you yourself have given to the school. The magazine work, 10 years of LAFest, your efforts in the LOBA and now loyolites.com. Perhaps I’m confusing what you’ve written in the article, but in my book, what does count in the end is not strikes and hartals but helping/teaching/working for people selflessly because you think a situation can be improved, or because you perceive something to be wrong. And if that’s the criteria, I’m sure Loyolites score high.