THE SCHOOL BOY

 

                                                     THE SCHOOL BOY

Eye brows may arch out, trying to figure out the use of the definite article “the” for an anonymous person –a school boy. The epithet is a logical preference, as the character we recall, truly represents the true sample of those persons witnessed in 1950- 1960s and slightly beyond. Were they any different from the ones we know in the present day? Very much indeed! Those boys were a special clan being ‘frugality-personified’ in everything they did or had, including the scores they managed. Please do not hastily conclude of their academic prowess. The frugality that we consider here was a social character, in that the then teachers were even more frugal bordering on miserly attitudes while awarding marks. Coming to the chosen topic, the ‘central figure’ –the school boy never entered the portals of the dilapidated structure –the school until he was above five or six by age. The point of entry was I standard invariably named 1^st class [not to be confused with attainment].Children enjoyed home and street till [s]he was dragged to school on a ‘Vijaya dhasami’ day by the very parents and neighbours. At least 4 people may be needed to bring him/her to school [typical Shakespearean assertion “unwillingly going to school”]. Like a hunted rabbit the boy would be lifted by his hands by two people, even as he dangles in air and keeps sobbing, asking for mercy. No parent granted mercy and schooling was never compromised for anything including motherly affection. A number of melancholic faces –with or without tears implied that the class was I standard. Physical escorting to school was to ensure the boy’s presence in school –more as a conditioning of habit. Little did anyone worry of the boys’ learning.  A fervent appeal to the teacher in those days was to ‘[man]handle the boy the way he liked but, to ensure that he studied well”. In a few days the same boys got to school on their own, with delight for the greater circle of friends of the ‘like age group’. Those boys/girls were clad in all forms of ‘mis-fit’ attire, most of which was ‘inherited from elder brother or sister who had just moved over to the next level in class. Even school books were materials of inheritance from within the family or from neighbours. It was never deemed any ignominious to use old dress or books so long as they were usable. Schools did not interfere in these ‘socio-domestic’ arrangements, as they too were part of the social culture and poverty. The fee levied by schools was Re. 1 and rarely higher.

Lunch boxes were not what we see now. They were small metal containers [aluminium or brass] generally with an arched handle. Students did not get or enjoy pocket money. Often the pockets on the dresses were torn and incapable of holding coins which can roll down any time. Those boys were happily going about their routines without murmur or ill will.

 Attire                                                                                                                                                      Students wore the dresses of elders in the then joint family system. Those were mere formal trousers with a group of buttons to hold the fabric around the waist of the wearer. Since size was not strictly adhered to the trousers generally had the risk of ‘free fall’ letting down the wearer! So the trousers were hung on the shoulders of the wearer by a pair of fabric straps which run vertical in front but cross –run at the back. But for these straps, the person’s dignity in public was always under the risk of ‘exposure by physical let down’, as inner garments were mere ‘after thoughts in garment evolution’ in our towns and villages. The shirts of those boys were no better either. They too were inherited.

Getting ready to school:                                                                                           After some early resistance to school, the children got habituated to going to school as a habit. Largely, it was enthusiasm of meeting friends- old and new in the school. Wearing the dress with [not ironed] the wrinkled material was all too common. However, there was some commonality among boys. Though combed well, typically a small cluster of hairs used to stand in defiance, even after repeated combing of hairs. They were like tiny antennae springing up from the summit of the head as ‘standing examples’ of recalcitrance.

The school bag                                                                                                           Was there such an item? would be an honest question, since any bag was used to thrust a slate, a book or two and writing stubs which were slate-compatible. All ‘home work’ was done on slate though by nature the scripts were quite ephemeral. Yet, the domestic economy of those times did not permit the use of notebooks /pens which were items of luxury for primary level learning. Sadly, the slates in the hands of those children were ‘incomplete’ to varying degrees as the material was brittle and prone to break and were faithfully broken. Segments of slates were in use among the children until the slate segment got reduced to a tiny piece, unfit for any tangible writing. Parents and teachers did not [ better still could not] interfere, fully conscious of the monetary commitment as fetching a new slate for one member , ignoring the others was anathema to the prevailing domestic equality practised by elders at home.  With all such limitations in equipment, children did their part well to acquire skills relevant for that stage of study. 

To continue   Prof. K. Raman