Who Teaches Whom? Power, Discipline, and the Reversal of Authority in R. K. Narayan’s Crime and Punishment

This blog post is based on the Thinking Activity assigned by Dr. Megha Trivedi, Department of English, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji Bhavnagar University (MKBU). It explores the dynamic relationship between teachers and students through R. K. Narayan’s short story “Crime and Punishment,” connecting its major themes with contemporary educational issues and examples from literature, cinema, and digital culture.

Who Teaches Whom? Power, Discipline, and the Reversal of Authority in R. K. Narayan’s Crime and Punishment

Here is the Video Lecture Based on This Blog :

Introduction:

Education is generally understood as a process in which teachers guide students towards knowledge, discipline, and responsible behaviour. The teacher is expected to possess authority, while the student is expected to listen, learn, and follow instructions. However, the relationship between a teacher and a student is rarely as simple as this traditional understanding suggests. Emotions, family expectations, economic pressure, individual differences, and the desire for control can transform an ordinary educational relationship into a complicated struggle for power. R. K. Narayan’s short story Crime and Punishment presents this struggle through humour, irony, and an unexpected reversal of roles.

Narayan is widely recognised for his sensitive portrayal of everyday Indian life, particularly through the fictional world of Malgudi. His stories often reveal contradictions in human behaviour through ordinary domestic and social situations. In Crime and Punishment, he uses an unnamed private tutor, a mischievous young boy, an arithmetic lesson, and a pair of ambitious parents to examine the limitations of authority and the meaning of education. What initially appears to be a humorous account of a troublesome student gradually becomes a critical exploration of discipline, parental responsibility, professional insecurity, and genuine learning.

The story becomes especially interesting when the teacher loses control of the lesson and the student begins controlling the teacher. The adult who is expected to maintain discipline becomes frightened, while the child discovers how to use that fear to obtain what he wants. Meanwhile, the parents complicate the situation because they expect academic achievement but also place restrictions on the tutor’s methods of discipline.

Although Narayan’s story belongs to an earlier period, its central conflict remains relevant in contemporary education. Teachers face pressure concerning examination results, students negotiate rules and authority, and parents often invest considerable financial and emotional resources in their children’s academic success. Smartphones, online learning platforms, and artificial intelligence have changed the educational environment, but they have not eliminated the tensions between authority, responsibility, and understanding.

Through connections with contemporary Indian education, literature, cinema, and Sir Ken Robinson’s TED Talk “Do Schools Kill Creativity?”, this blog explores how education can become a struggle for control rather than a process of meaningful learning. Narayan’s story ultimately invites us to question whether successful teaching depends on obedience alone or on the development of a relationship built on patience, mutual respect, and responsibility.

Understanding Crime and Punishment: An Ordinary Lesson, an Extraordinary Reversal

The central conflict in Crime and Punishment develops between a private tutor and a young boy whose parents employ him to prepare their son for academic advancement. The tutor already works as a schoolteacher and undertakes private tuition to earn additional income. However, the boy frequently avoids serious study and deliberately gives incorrect answers, testing the tutor’s patience.

The situation becomes particularly frustrating during an arithmetic lesson. When the tutor asks the boy a multiplication question, the child continues to give the wrong answer despite being corrected. Eventually, the tutor loses his temper and slaps him. This incident immediately changes their relationship. The tutor becomes anxious because he knows that the parents disapprove of physical punishment, while the boy recognises his fear and threatens to report what has happened.

Instead of continuing the arithmetic lesson, the tutor finds himself compelled to participate in the child’s games with a toy train. The boy assigns him the role of station master and expects him to follow instructions. When the train stops working, he even demands that the tutor repair it. Later, when the tutor refuses to continue playing and attempts to return to the lesson, the boy threatens to tell his parents about the slap.

The tutor is trapped between his professional responsibility and his fear of losing his employment. His authority gradually disappears, and he becomes an unwilling participant in the boy’s activities. The situation is humorous because the adult who is supposed to direct the lesson must now obey the child.

When the parents eventually appear, they ask about their son’s academic progress. The tutor has an opportunity to reveal the truth, but he notices that the boy is frightened of being exposed for his own failure to prepare for the test. The tutor decides to protect him and reassures the parents about his progress.

The ending does not provide a conventional victory for either character. The boy escapes the immediate demands of the lesson, the tutor avoids an uncomfortable confrontation, and the parents remain satisfied without fully understanding what has happened. The educational relationship continues, but its central purpose has been neglected.

Narayan’s humour therefore reveals a serious contradiction: the characters are more concerned with controlling the situation and protecting their interests than with ensuring that learning takes place.

The Teacher: Authority, Responsibility, and Professional Insecurity

The tutor initially appears to occupy the strongest position in the relationship. He is an adult, possesses subject knowledge, and has been entrusted with the responsibility of preparing the child for an examination. However, Narayan gradually reveals that his authority is much more fragile than it appears.

The tutor’s economic circumstances are particularly important. His private tuition provides additional income, making him reluctant to risk losing the assignment. The parents’ expectations further restrict his ability to exercise independent judgement. He must listen to their ideas about child psychology even when he believes their approach makes effective teaching difficult.

Nevertheless, Narayan does not present the tutor as entirely innocent. His decision to slap the child is an ethical failure. Frustration may explain his behaviour, but it does not justify physical punishment. A teacher’s responsibility is to guide students through appropriate instruction and constructive discipline rather than allowing anger to determine the response.

Following the incident, the tutor becomes less concerned with teaching arithmetic than with preventing the boy from reporting him. His professional responsibility is overshadowed by self-preservation. Instead of directing the lesson, he spends his energy satisfying the child’s demands and protecting his employment.

This situation reveals the difference between authority and respect. Authority can come from a professional position, but respect develops through fairness, patience, competence, and responsible conduct. The tutor’s physical punishment damages the relationship, while his subsequent fear allows the boy to determine how the lesson proceeds.

A similar dilemma can arise in contemporary educational settings when teachers face pressure from parents, institutional expectations, examination results, or employment insecurity. A teacher who fears complaints may avoid addressing a problem honestly, while a teacher who responds aggressively may damage the relationship with a student.

Alana M. Kennedy and Todd Haydon’s scholarly article “Forming and Sustaining High-Quality Student–Teacher Relationships to Reduce Minor Behavioral Incidents” examines the importance of positive teacher–student relationships and their role in supporting classroom management. Their research provides a useful perspective for reading Narayan’s story: effective teaching requires more than subject knowledge and the ability to enforce rules. It also requires an environment in which students receive appropriate guidance and understand expectations.

The tutor’s failure demonstrates that authority without emotional control can become destructive, while fear without professional independence can prevent a teacher from fulfilling their responsibilities.

The Student: Mischief, Intelligence, and the Discovery of Power

Narayan’s young student is more than an ordinary disobedient child. His behaviour demonstrates that he understands the emotional circumstances surrounding him, even though he is unwilling to apply himself to arithmetic. Once he realises that the tutor fears the parents discovering the slap, he uses that knowledge to gain control over the lesson.

His repeated incorrect answers create the initial conflict, but his response after being slapped reveals another dimension of his character. He learns that the tutor’s mistake can become a source of power. By threatening to report the incident, he compels the adult to participate in games and storytelling rather than continuing the academic lesson.

This reversal complicates the conventional image of the teacher as the active authority and the student as the passive learner. The tutor possesses greater academic knowledge, but the child controls the immediate situation. He decides how the available time will be spent and forces the adult to follow his instructions.

However, the boy’s behaviour also raises questions about the difference between intelligence and maturity. He is clever enough to manipulate the tutor, but he does not demonstrate an equivalent willingness to accept responsibility. His victory allows him to avoid learning without improving his academic abilities.

This distinction remains relevant in contemporary education. A student may become skilled at memorising answers, completing assignments through shortcuts, or obtaining information from online tools without understanding the concepts behind it. Such activities can create an appearance of success while leaving the educational objective unfulfilled.

At the same time, Narayan’s story should not be interpreted as an argument that children must obey every adult unquestioningly. Students deserve to question unfair practices, report abuse, and receive protection from mistreatment. The ethical problem arises when the power to report wrongdoing is deliberately used to manipulate another person.

The story therefore encourages readers to distinguish between legitimate resistance and irresponsible behaviour. Students need the confidence to challenge unfair authority, but they also need to understand that intelligence and freedom involve responsibility.

The Parents: Between Child Psychology and Overprotection

The parents play a crucial role despite their limited direct involvement in the tutoring session. They want their son to achieve substantial academic progress while insisting that the tutor follow their ideas about child psychology.

Their opposition to physical punishment reflects a legitimate concern for the child’s well-being. However, their approach becomes contradictory when academic ambition is combined with insufficient attention to the boy’s actual learning and behaviour. They expect results without adequately addressing the difficulties involved in achieving them.

Narayan exposes the limitations of parenting that focuses so heavily on protecting a child’s comfort that it neglects reasonable boundaries and accountability. A child deserves emotional safety, but that does not mean every responsibility or academic expectation should be removed.

This contradiction has a contemporary parallel in parental involvement in education. Parents may pay for tuition, monitor examination scores, compare children with classmates, and expect visible improvement within a short period. Such expectations can create pressure for students and teachers alike. Sometimes, the result becomes more important than understanding why a child is struggling or avoiding a task.

The parents’ lack of awareness also contributes to the story’s irony. They believe that the tutor is preparing their child successfully, but they do not know that the lesson has turned into an extended game. Their confidence is based on incomplete information.

Effective education therefore requires honest cooperation between parents and teachers. Parents must communicate their concerns, teachers must explain academic difficulties, and both must recognise the student’s needs without abandoning reasonable expectations. Narayan’s story reminds us that protecting children and guiding their behaviour are not opposing responsibilities. Genuine care requires both emotional support and consistent, fair boundaries.

Why Is the Story Called Crime and Punishment?

The title carries a strong irony. The tutor appears to commit the central wrongdoing when he slaps the boy. The student then threatens to expose the incident and makes the tutor suffer through a series of demands.

However, the consequences do not create a healthy form of justice. The tutor’s physical punishment is wrong, but the boy’s response does not lead to an honest discussion or meaningful improvement. Instead, he uses the tutor’s fear to escape the lesson and obtain what he wants.

The title becomes especially meaningful when we consider the reversal of roles. Traditionally, a teacher punishes a student for misconduct. Here, the teacher’s mistake gives the student an opportunity to control him. The tutor becomes a station master in the boy’s toy-train game, tells stories when ordered, and struggles to stop the child from revealing the incident.

Neither character learns the lesson that is genuinely necessary. The tutor needs to recognise that anger cannot justify physical punishment. The boy needs to understand that cleverness does not excuse irresponsibility. The parents need to recognise that protecting a child requires more than theories about child psychology.

The story therefore invites us to question whether punishment necessarily produces learning. A consequence can create fear without producing understanding. A mistake can be concealed without being corrected. A conflict can appear resolved while its underlying causes remain untouched.

Narayan does not offer a simple contest between a good teacher and a bad student. Instead, he presents characters whose actions are influenced by pride, financial insecurity, anger, fear, and conflicting expectations. The comedy allows these contradictions to emerge naturally while leaving the reader to consider the ethical questions.

Contemporary Connection One: Corporal Punishment and Children’s Rights in India

One of the clearest contemporary connections to Crime and Punishment is the continuing debate over physical punishment in educational institutions.

In Narayan’s story, the tutor’s slap is presented within a comic domestic situation. In contemporary society, physical punishment raises serious questions about children’s dignity, emotional safety, and legal protection. The story encourages us to distinguish discipline from violence and authority from the right to cause harm. Section 17 of India’s Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009, prohibits physical punishment and mental harassment of children within its statutory scope. It also provides for disciplinary action against those who contravene the prohibition.

A contemporary example occurred in August 2025, when the National Human Rights Commission took suo motu cognizance of reports concerning approximately eighteen students who were allegedly subjected to corporal punishment at a government school in Katihar district, Bihar. The Commission issued notices to the state’s Chief Secretary and the district’s Superintendent of Police seeking a report on the matter. This was an official response to reported allegations, not a final judicial finding (National Human Rights Commission, India).

The importance of this example lies in the continuing need to protect students from mistreatment. A teacher’s professional position does not remove the need for accountability, and students must have safe ways to report abuse.

The comparison does not suggest that the fictional tutor’s action and the reported incident in Bihar are equivalent in severity. Rather, both raise an important question: can discipline be considered successful when it compromises a student’s dignity and safety?

Sibnath Deb and his co-authors provide further context in their study of 519 adolescents attending public and private schools in Puducherry. In their sample, 62 per cent of participants reported experiencing school corporal punishment during the preceding twelve months. Students who reported such punishment also reported more anxiety and depression. These findings relate to a specific sample and should not be generalised to every school, but they demonstrate why physical punishment requires serious consideration (Deb et al.).

Narayan’s story therefore remains relevant to discussions of educational ethics. It reminds teachers that losing patience can have consequences beyond a failed lesson and reminds institutions that respectful discipline must be part of a safe learning environment.

Contemporary Connection Two: Private Tuition and the Economics of Education

The tutor’s financial dependence is one of the most significant aspects of Narayan’s story. Private tuition provides him with additional income, making him reluctant to confront the parents or reveal the boy’s behaviour. His economic position influences his professional decisions and eventually weakens his authority. The same issue remains relevant in contemporary India, where private tuition and coaching form an important part of many families’ educational experiences.

Private Coaching and the Business of Education

A 2025 analysis published by the Centre for Economic Data and Analysis at Ashoka University, titled “Shadow Classrooms: Grip of Private Tuitions on Indian Education,” examined data from the Ministry of Statistics and Programme Implementation’s Comprehensive Modular Survey on Education. It found that expenditure on tuition and coaching becomes increasingly significant as students move through school, approaching household expenditure on formal schooling in Classes 11 and 12 (Thomas).

This research helps explain why private tuition is more than an academic arrangement. For families, it can represent a significant investment in future opportunities. For tutors, it can provide essential income. When academic success becomes closely associated with financial investment, both parties may experience pressure to produce visible results.

When Learning Becomes a Financial Investment

Narayan’s tutor experiences a similar conflict. Although he is responsible for teaching arithmetic, he must also preserve his employment. His decision to protect the child at the end of the story is influenced by the complicated relationship between professional responsibility, sympathy, and economic insecurity.

A related study by Utkarsh Misra and Tripta Trivedi synthesised fifteen data sets from seven studies involving 7,961 students. Their meta-analysis found a small positive effect of private tutoring on academic achievement, suggesting that its benefits may be more modest than families sometimes expect (Misra and Trivedi).

This does not mean private tuition is ineffective. Students may benefit from individual attention, additional explanations, and opportunities to practise difficult concepts. However, spending money on lessons does not automatically guarantee deep understanding.

Narayan’s story raises an important question: what happens when the continuation of a paid educational arrangement becomes more important than the learning it is supposed to support? The contemporary lesson is that education should not be judged only by the money invested, the number of hours spent studying, or the reassuring report provided by a tutor. Its purpose is to help students acquire knowledge, develop skills, and become independent learners.

Contemporary Connection Three: WhatsApp, Digital Evidence, and the Reversal of Authority

Narayan’s story takes place in a private environment where the tutor’s fear depends on what the parents might discover. Today, a similar disagreement could unfold through smartphones, messaging applications, digital recordings, and online parent groups.

WhatsApp and the Changing Relationship Between Schools and Families

Imagine a contemporary version of the story. During a tuition session, a teacher loses patience and shouts at a student. The student records part of the interaction and shares it in a WhatsApp group. Other parents begin discussing the incident before its full circumstances are understood. The tutor worries about losing employment, while the student gains influence over the situation.

This is a hypothetical example rather than a claim about a documented incident. It illustrates how digital communication can transform the power dynamics that Narayan explores. In the original story, the boy’s threat to report the slap changes the balance of authority. In a contemporary setting, a recording or screenshot can make the possibility of exposure immediate. A private disagreement may become a public or institutional issue within minutes.

Digital Evidence, Privacy, and the Ethics of Recording

However, digital evidence has two sides. It can help reveal genuine misconduct and protect students whose complaints might otherwise be ignored. At the same time, incomplete recordings, misleading captions, or rumours can create misunderstandings and damage reputations.

This does not mean students should remain silent about mistreatment. Instead, it demonstrates the importance of safe reporting systems and fair investigations. Complaints should be taken seriously, evidence should be examined in context, and both students and teachers should be treated with dignity.

Narayan’s story encourages us to ask whether information is being used to establish fairness or simply to gain power over another person. In a digital world, accountability should not be confused with public humiliation, and an investigation should not be replaced by a social-media verdict.

Contemporary Connection Four: Artificial Intelligence and the Appearance of Learning

Artificial intelligence provides another useful connection to Crime and Punishment. In Narayan’s story, the student avoids the arithmetic lesson and attempts to replace learning with play. In a contemporary classroom, a student might turn to an AI chatbot to obtain completed answers without understanding the concepts behind them.

AI-Assisted Homework: Help or Substitute for Learning?

Consider a student who asks an AI system to solve a set of mathematics problems and copies the answers into a notebook. The homework may appear correct, and the parents may assume that the student has made progress. However, the student may remain unable to solve a similar problem independently.

This hypothetical situation echoes the story’s distinction between the appearance of academic achievement and genuine understanding. The tutor can complete a session and reassure the parents, but the boy’s underlying academic difficulty remains. Similarly, an AI-generated answer does not prove that a student has learned how to solve the problem.

AI itself is not the problem. An AI tool can help students understand difficult concepts, generate practice questions, explore examples, and receive explanations at their own pace. The important distinction is whether technology supports independent thinking or replaces it. UNESCO’s Guidance for Generative AI in Education and Research promotes a human-centred approach to educational technology, with attention to meaningful use, ethical considerations, privacy, and appropriate safeguards.

Technology with Guidance: Supporting Genuine Learning

This perspective connects directly with Narayan’s story. Teachers remain responsible for helping students develop understanding, while students must learn to distinguish educational assistance from academic dishonesty. The contemporary question is simple but important: if a student submits every assignment correctly but cannot explain the answers, has learning really taken place?

Contemporary Connection Five: Examination Pressure and Rote Learning

The arithmetic lesson in Crime and Punishment also raises questions about the purpose of academic instruction. The parents want their son to perform well in a test and hope he will advance academically. The tutor is expected to prepare him for these ambitions. Yet the lesson becomes a struggle for control rather than an opportunity to develop understanding.

This problem remains relevant in examination-oriented educational environments, where students may become preoccupied with marks, rankings, and expectations. When the primary objective is to produce correct answers, the educational process can become separated from curiosity and critical thinking.

Memorisation versus Meaningful Understanding

India’s National Education Policy 2020 seeks to encourage conceptual understanding, critical thinking, inquiry, discussion, discovery, and problem-solving rather than relying primarily on rote learning. Narayan’s story illustrates why this distinction matters. The tutor is concerned with obtaining correct multiplication answers, while the boy refuses to participate meaningfully. Their conflict prevents learning from taking place.

A more constructive approach would require the tutor to establish clear expectations, identify the reasons behind the boy’s behaviour, and use appropriate teaching strategies. This would not mean abandoning discipline or entertaining students throughout every lesson. It would mean combining academic expectations with patient instruction and appropriate accountability.

Teaching for Understanding, Not Just Results

The story also reminds us that visible performance is an incomplete measure of educational success. A student may memorise an answer without understanding the process, or initially struggle before developing a strong grasp of the subject. Teaching should therefore encourage independent understanding rather than merely producing an acceptable result.

Video Connection: Sir Ken Robinson’s “Do Schools Kill Creativity?”

A particularly valuable contemporary connection to Crime and Punishment is Sir Ken Robinson’s TED Talk “Do Schools Kill Creativity?”, presented at TED2006 in February 2006. Robinson questions educational approaches that give excessive priority to certain forms of academic achievement while failing to recognise the diversity of students’ creative abilities and interests. He argues that creativity deserves an important place in education alongside academic learning (Robinson).

His talk provides a useful framework for examining Narayan’s representation of discipline and learning. In Crime and Punishment, the tutor attempts to make the boy follow the expected arithmetic lesson, but their encounter becomes a struggle for control. The boy avoids learning, while the tutor becomes more concerned with maintaining authority and protecting his employment.

Robinson’s argument invites readers to consider whether education can achieve its purpose when conformity and the avoidance of mistakes become more important than curiosity and understanding.

The comparison requires an important distinction. Narayan’s boy deliberately avoids his academic responsibilities; he should not automatically be interpreted as a creative learner whose individuality is being suppressed. Robinson advocates nurturing creativity and recognising different abilities, not allowing students to avoid every challenging task. The connection is therefore not that the boy represents Robinson’s ideal student, but that both works encourage us to reconsider the relationship between educational expectations and the development of the learner.

The talk is relevant to contemporary classrooms, where students may possess artistic, practical, imaginative, or analytical abilities that are not fully reflected in examination scores. Teachers need to recognise these differences while helping students develop the knowledge and discipline required for learning.

Robinson’s ideas can also be connected with India’s National Education Policy 2020, which emphasises the development of creative potential and a movement away from rote learning. Together, the talk and the policy provide a contemporary framework for discussing education as a process that should develop the learner rather than simply demand compliance.

This comparison clarifies the tutor’s failure. His responsibility is not merely to make the boy obey but to create conditions in which learning can take place. That responsibility includes appropriate discipline, clear expectations, and a willingness to consider how instruction can become more effective.

An accompanying educational resource is available through TED-Ed’s lesson on the talk.

The central question raised by this comparison is: Are we educating students to think, question, and discover their abilities, or merely training them to satisfy expectations?

Literary Connection One: Swami and Friends

R. K. Narayan’s novel Swami and Friends offers a relevant comparison because it explores the relationship between children, teachers, school authority, and parental involvement.

Through Swami’s experiences, the novel reveals how children interpret the behaviour of adults and how parents may form judgements about teachers without fully understanding classroom circumstances. The episode commonly known as “Father’s Help” is particularly relevant because Swami’s account contributes to his father’s suspicion of his teacher, Samuel.

Schooling and Authority in Colonial India

The connection with Crime and Punishment lies in the difficulty of understanding an educational relationship from only one perspective. Teachers possess institutional authority, but their actions can be misunderstood or mishandled. Students have their own motivations, while parents may react before discovering the complete situation.

Both works demonstrate the importance of communication between students, teachers, and families. A student’s account should be heard rather than dismissed, but educational conflicts also require careful examination of the circumstances. Narayan’s literary treatment remains relevant because conflicts between children, teachers, and parents cannot be resolved through assumptions alone.

Literary Connection Two: Matilda

Roald Dahl’s Matilda presents another perspective on intelligence, authority, and educational responsibility. Matilda is a highly intelligent child whose abilities are underestimated by the adults around her. The headmistress, Miss Trunchbull, represents oppressive authority, while Miss Honey provides a more compassionate and supportive model of teaching.

The contrast between Matilda and Narayan’s young student is significant. Both children demonstrate intelligence, but they use it differently. Matilda’s intelligence becomes a means of resisting unjust treatment and pursuing a more supportive environment. Narayan’s boy uses his cleverness to avoid academic responsibility and manipulate his tutor.

Oppressive Authority and the Limits of Discipline

Their comparison demonstrates that intelligence alone does not determine whether behaviour is constructive. What matters is how intelligence is used, how adults exercise authority, and whether education encourages responsibility and independent thought.

The connection is relevant to contemporary classrooms because questioning authority should not automatically be treated as disobedience. Students must be able to challenge unfair practices while also understanding their responsibility to participate in learning.

Literary Connection Three: Isaac Asimov’s The Fun They Had

Isaac Asimov’s science-fiction short story The Fun They Had explores a future in which children receive individual instruction from mechanical teachers at home. Margie and Tommy discover a printed book describing an earlier form of schooling in which children learned together in classrooms.

The connection with Narayan’s story lies in the importance of the educational relationship itself. In Crime and Punishment, the tutor and student fail to establish a productive relationship because fear and manipulation overwhelm the lesson. In Asimov’s story, Margie becomes interested in the possibility of learning alongside other students under the guidance of a human teacher.

Rediscovering the Value of Shared Learning

The works approach education from different directions, but both encourage readers to consider what learning requires beyond the delivery of information. Communication, curiosity, interaction, and shared experience can all contribute to education.

This comparison becomes especially relevant as contemporary classrooms incorporate recorded lessons, online platforms, and AI-based learning tools. Technology can expand access to knowledge, but meaningful education still requires understanding, reflection, and engagement.

Cinema Connection One: Taare Zameen Par

A particularly relevant cinematic comparison is Aamir Khan’s Taare Zameen Par (2007). The film follows Ishaan Awasthi, a child whose learning difficulties are misunderstood by adults who interpret his academic struggles as laziness or a lack of discipline. His experience changes when the art teacher Ram Shankar Nikumbh recognises his difficulties and responds through patient, individualised teaching.

The contrast with Narayan’s tutor is important. The tutor becomes frustrated when the boy repeatedly refuses to cooperate with arithmetic. Nikumbh, on the other hand, attempts to understand the reasons behind Ishaan’s difficulties before deciding how to help him.

Understanding the Student Before Judging the Behaviour

The two situations should not be treated as identical. Narayan’s boy deliberately gives incorrect answers and manipulates his tutor, whereas Ishaan struggles with learning difficulties that others fail to recognise. Their circumstances demand different responses. The broader lesson is that teachers must understand the learner’s situation rather than assuming that every student who fails to meet expectations has the same problem.

Radhika Khanna’s scholarly article, “Taare Zameen Par—A Case Study Pedagogical Use of Cinema and National Education Policy 2020,” examines the film’s educational significance and its relationship with learner diversity and transformative teaching (Khanna). The article strengthens the connection between cinema and contemporary discussions about the purpose of education.    

Making Learning Meaningful Through Creativity

The film therefore extends Narayan’s central concern: effective teaching requires professional knowledge, empathy, and the ability to respond appropriately to individual students.

Cinema Connection Two: 3 Idiots

Rajkumar Hirani’s 3 Idiots (2009) examines the influence of examinations, competition, family expectations, and institutional pressure on students.

The film’s relevance to Crime and Punishment lies in its distinction between visible academic success and meaningful learning. Narayan’s parents want academic advancement for their son, while the tutor feels compelled to satisfy their expectations. Yet their concern with results contributes to a situation in which the actual learning process is neglected.

When Academic Results Overshadow Learning

Similarly, 3 Idiots questions an educational culture that may place excessive importance on grades and conformity while giving insufficient attention to curiosity and understanding.

Academic Authority and the Pressure to Conform

The two works differ in scope. Narayan concentrates on a single private tutor and a family, whereas 3 Idiots explores wider social and institutional pressures. Nevertheless, both encourage readers to ask whether education is being organised around the learner’s development or the expectations of others.

Cinema Connection Three: Hichki

Siddharth P. Malhotra’s film Hichki (2018) provides another relevant comparison. Its protagonist, Naina Mathur, experiences discrimination because of Tourette syndrome but becomes a teacher who works with students whom others have underestimated.

The film explores the relationship between institutional expectations, personal circumstances, and educational responsibility. Naina must challenge assumptions about who can teach successfully, while her students must confront attitudes that have influenced their educational experiences.

Learning Through Engagement, Trust, and Collaboration

This provides a contrast with Narayan’s tutor, who allows frustration and insecurity to control his response to the boy. Naina attempts to develop a productive relationship by understanding her students and finding ways to engage them.

The comparison also highlights the human dimensions of teaching. Teachers may face discrimination and professional pressure, while students may experience misunderstanding and limited opportunities. A healthy educational relationship requires respect for both parties rather than assuming that authority automatically guarantees correctness.

Education Beyond Authority: Encouraging Student Participation

Web-Series Connection: Kota Factory

The Indian web series Kota Factory explores the experiences of students preparing for competitive examinations in Kota, Rajasthan. Through its student characters, it examines coaching culture, examination pressure, peer relationships, family expectations, and the search for academic success.

Coaching Culture and the Pressure to Perform

Its connection with Narayan’s story lies in the relationship between education and external expectations. The tutor in Crime and Punishment needs to preserve his employment while satisfying the parents. Students in competitive coaching environments may similarly feel pressure to meet expectations concerning marks, rankings, and future opportunities.

The Teacher’s Role Beyond Academic Results

The works differ significantly in their settings, but both encourage us to consider what happens when education becomes closely associated with performance. When results become the primary measure of success, students and teachers may lose sight of curiosity, emotional well-being, and genuine understanding.

Beyond Rankings: The Emotional Experience of Learning

The comparison does not suggest that all coaching institutions operate in the same way. Instead, it demonstrates how educational pressure can influence relationships and why it is important to keep learning at the centre of academic preparation.

Conclusion:

R. K. Narayan’s Crime and Punishment transforms an ordinary arithmetic lesson into a thoughtful exploration of discipline, power, parenting, and human behaviour. Through the unnamed tutor, the mischievous boy, and the parents, Narayan reveals how quickly educational relationships become unstable when anger, financial dependence, and conflicting expectations replace honest communication.

The story’s significance extends well beyond its fictional setting. Contemporary discussions of corporal punishment highlight the importance of protecting children’s dignity. The private-tuition economy reveals how financial investment and academic ambition can influence teaching. Digital communication raises questions about accountability and the responsible handling of complaints, while AI-assisted learning challenges educators to distinguish completed work from genuine understanding.

The comparisons with Swami and Friends, Matilda, The Fun They Had, Taare Zameen Par, 3 Idiots, Hichki, and Kota Factory demonstrate that the relationship between teachers and students remains a recurring concern in literature and popular culture. Sir Ken Robinson’s “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” further invites us to consider whether educational institutions recognise the diversity of students’ abilities and create opportunities for independent thought.

These works approach education from different perspectives, but they share a concern with the relationship between authority, individual development, and the purpose of learning. Narayan’s boy should not be celebrated simply for manipulating his tutor, just as the tutor’s authority should not excuse his use of physical punishment. Each character reveals a different failure of responsibility, while the parents’ expectations expose the difficulties that arise when protection and academic ambition become disconnected from the actual learning process.

Ultimately, successful education cannot be measured only by correct answers, completed assignments, examination results, or parental approval. It requires the ability to guide without humiliating, support without overprotecting, and exercise authority without turning it into domination. It also requires students to recognise that freedom must exist alongside responsibility.

Narayan’s humour leaves us with a question that remains relevant in the age of private tuition, online learning, and artificial intelligence: when education becomes a struggle for control, who is really learning—and who is being punished?

Works Cited

Asimov, Isaac. “The Fun They Had.” Earth Is Room Enough, Doubleday, 1957.

Dahl, Roald. Matilda. Jonathan Cape, 1988.

Deb, Sibnath, et al. “School Corporal Punishment, Family Tension, and Students’ Internalizing Problems: Evidence from India.” School Psychology International, vol. 38, no. 1, 2017, pp. 60–77. https://doi.org/10.1177/0143034316681378.

Hirani, Rajkumar, director. 3 Idiots. Vinod Chopra Films, 2009.

Khan, Aamir, director. Taare Zameen Par. Aamir Khan Productions, 2007.

Khanna, Radhika. “Taare Zameen Par—A Case Study Pedagogical Use of Cinema and National Education Policy 2020.” Journal of Indian Education, vol. 48, no. 1, 2022, pp. 145–157. https://ejournals.ncert.gov.in/index.php/jie/article/view/3167.

Kennedy, Alana M., and Todd Haydon. “Forming and Sustaining High-Quality Student–Teacher Relationships to Reduce Minor Behavioral Incidents.” Intervention in School and Clinic, vol. 56, no. 3, 2021, pp. 141–147. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220942197.

Kota Factory. Created by Saurabh Khanna, The Viral Fever, 2019–2024.

Malhotra, Siddharth P., director. Hichki. Yash Raj Films, 2018.

Ministry of Education, Government of India. National Education Policy 2020. Government of India, 2020. https://www.education.gov.in/sites/upload_files/mhrd/files/NEP_Final_English_0.pdf.

Misra, Utkarsh, and Tripta Trivedi. “A Meta-Analysis of the Effect of Private Tutoring on the Academic Achievement of Secondary School Students in India.” Journal of Indian Education, vol. 50, no. 4, 2026, pp. 252–263. https://ejournals.ncert.gov.in/index.php/jie/article/view/5089.

Narayan, R. K. “Crime and Punishment.” An Astrologer’s Day and Other Stories, Indian Thought Publications, 1947.

---. Swami and Friends. Hamish Hamilton, 1935.

National Human Rights Commission, India. “NHRC, India Takes Suo Motu Cognizance of the Reported Corporal Punishment to Several Students by a Teacher after Locking Them inside a Room of a Government School in Haflaganj Area of Katihar District, Bihar.” 28 Aug. 2025. https://nhrc.nic.in/media/press-release/nhrc,-india-takes-suo-motu-cognizance-of-the-reported-corporal-punishment-to-several-students-by-a-teacher-after-locking-them-inside-a-room-of-a-government-school-in-haflaganj-area-of-katihar-district,-bihar.

Robinson, Ken. “Do Schools Kill Creativity?” TED, Feb. 2006. https://www.ted.com/talks/sir_ken_robinson_do_schools_kill_creativity.

Thomas, Sneha. “Shadow Classrooms: Grip of Private Tuitions on Indian Education.” Centre for Economic Data and Analysis, Ashoka University, 14 Oct. 2025. https://ceda.ashoka.edu.in/shadow-classrooms-grip-of-private-tuitions-on-indian-education/.

Thank You !