Archived from Communalism Combat, April-May 2004 Year 10 No. 97, Judgement 2
Email: sabrangind@gmail.com
Judgement — Expunging orders
Archived from Communalism Combat, April-May 2004 Year 10 No. 97, Judgement 3
Best Bakery Case: Factfile
March 1, 2002: Two days after the Godhra carnage, a mob attacked Best Bakery in the Hanuman Tekri area of Vadodara. Hanuman Tekri is a poor, lower middle-class neighbourhood. Predominantly Hindu, very few Muslim families live here. The mob looted and burnt the bakery, killing 14 people in a period of 12 hours. The mob targeted the Muslims inside including the Sheikh family which ran the bakery. Three Hindu workers who worked at the bakery were also killed.
Fifty-year-old Sehrunissa Sheikh, wife of the bakery owner Nafitullah Habibullah Sheikh, eldest son of bakery owner Habibullah Sheikh and 18-year-old Zahira Sheikh, her daughter, were the key witnesses. When the occupants of the building called the police for help a police van arrived about an hour and half later. But it drove past the bakery and did nothing to stop the mob. A policeman got off the van and even incited the mob. The attack intensified after the police van left. Zahira’s sister Shabira, her mama, and 12 others including four small children of the neighbours who had taken shelter there, were burnt alive by the mob. Two of her brothers were burnt alive. Two of her other brothers were tied up and torched but survived the attack. Her chacha’s entire family was killed. Two bodies could not be found. The stomachs of the three Hindu workers were slit.
March 2, 2002: Zahira recorded a statement at the site of the incident and thereafter continued at the hospital where the injured had been admitted. She filed an FIR before the police on March 2, 2003 naming the accused. She also made a full statement before the chairperson of the NHRC when they visited Gujarat after the riots on March 22-21, 2003.
May 7, 2003: Brother of Zahira, Nafitullah, and sister Saira retract their statements in court.
May 17, 2003: Zahira turned hostile under pressure. The same day her mother Sherunissa and younger brother Naseebullah also depose and also deny facts. She allegedly received threats from various sources including a local scrap dealer, Lal Mohammed, who was also a witness in the case and later retracted his statement. On the day of Zahira’s court appearance the local BJP MLA Madhu Shrivastava was present; he accompanied her to court. This is perceived as a tactic of intimidation.
June 27, 2003: Additional sessions judge HU Mahida of the Vadodara fast track court acquitted all the 21 accused in the case who were named by key witness Zahira Sheikh in her statements before the police, the NHRC and the Concerned Citizens Tribunal (Crimes Against Humanity, 2002).
July 7, 2003: CJP holds a press conference for Zahira in Mumbai. About a month-and-a-half after she turned hostile in court, Zahira and her family approached the Citizen’s for Justice and Peace, a citizens’ group committed to the legal battle for justice for victims of mass crimes.
July 11, 2003: Zahira gave a statement on oath before a full bench of the NHRC in the presence of Teesta Setalvad, secretary, CJP, about how she was forced to retract her statements in court. She named those who had threatened her and her family to pressure her to retract her statement.
August 1, 2003: The National Human Rights Commission filed a Special Leave Petition (SLP) under Article 136 of the Constitution of India in the Supreme Court. The NHRC requested the SC to set aside the judgement of the trial court and for further investigation of the case by an independent agency. Also a re-trial of the case in a court located outside the state of Gujarat.
August 7, 2003: A day before the Supreme Court was to hear the NHRC’S petition, the Gujarat state government (prodded by the Supreme Court), filed an appeal before the Gujarat high court challenging the acquittal of the accused. The appeal did not ask for re-trial.
August 8, 2003: Zahira Sheikh and the Citizens for Justice and Peace also file an SLP accompanied by affidavits of key witnesses recording the facts that are listed along with the NHRC’s SLP.
October 9, 2003: During the hearing on October 9, the SC appointed senior counsel and former solicitor general of India, Harish Salve, as amicus curae to assist the court on the points that had arisen in the case.
October 17, 2003: Two affidavits were filed by Teesta Setalvad of Citizens for Justice and Peace before the Supreme Court. These pointed out the need for re-trial and for shifting the trial outside the state. Senior counsel Shanti Bhushan appeared on behalf of the CJP. The astounding facts about riot-stricken Gujarat contained in the affidavits made Harish Salve point these out to the Court.
November 21, 2003: Supreme Court stays all pending major trials including Godhra.
December 26, 2003: The appeal by the Gujarat government challenging the acquittal of the accused by the trial court was dismissed by the Gujarat high court.
January 12, 2004: The detailed reasoning of the judges was contained in a 90-page judgement justifying the acquittal. The bench comprising of Justice BJ Sethna and Justice JR Vora observed that a re-trial could not be ordered because the prosecution had failed to produce proper evidence. It pointed out that deputy commissioner of police and investigating officers had failed to discharge their duties since they did not record key witness Zahira’s FIR at the place of incident. Referring to the submission by advocate general SN Sehlat that most witnesses turned hostile under threat, the bench observed that "there may be more than one reason for the witnesses resiling from their so-called statements made before the police and that there is nothing to show that the witnesses ever made the so-called statements."
Moreover, the judges also passed specific remarks against Teesta Setalvad for carrying out a parallel investigation.
March 23-24, 2004: Arguments on Special Leave Petition in an appeal against the high court order filed by witness and Citizens for Justice and Peace.
April 12, 2004: Supreme Court Division bench, comprising of Justice Doraiswamy Raju & Justice Arijit Pasayat, orders re-trial of the Best Bakery case outside Gujarat, in Maharashtra. Remarks against Teesta Setalvad passed by Gujarat high court are directed to be expunged.
Archived from Communalism Combat, April-May 2004 Year 10 No. 97, Judgement 4
A question of justice – KG Kannabiran
In all of the most oppressive regimes of the present century, legality values, particularly in the area of ordinary and political crimes, were not simply ignored but were in fact deliberately and systematically destroyed. We may trust such regimes to identify what is essential to their own existence, and the lesson they teach is that massive assault on values of greatest importance to liberal societies will be preceded by the extinction of the legality ideal. These are the views expressed by Francis A Allen while surveying the American justice system.1 We should examine whether our Indian experience is any different.
Between 1968 and 1975, the institutions functioning under the Constitution comprehensively defeated the concept of equality and social change in all spheres of life. This gave rise to social and political movements with a radical thrust. Repression against these movements produced violence which could contend with State violence. This violence against the State was christened terrorism and to contain terrorism lawless laws were enacted; the latest is known by its acronym POTA.
Over the past two or three decades we are witnessing the struggle of the habit of legality against problems posed by political and social fragmentation of a pluralistic society. The concept of secularism and the rights of minorities are currently under attack by the forces of Hindutva. Though the Constitution recognises the plural character of our society, issues of plural societies are never confronted and resolved democratically by any of the institutions functioning under the Constitution.
The attack on minorities commenced with the Sikh riots in 1984. All the courts up to the apex court were not geared to deal with such large-scale genocidal violence. Nor were the innumerable commissions of inquiry set up for such purpose. When post-Babri Masjid demolition violence occurred in Bombay city in 1993, it was not a riot but was a targeted attack on the minority community. The police bureaucracy down to the constable was suffering from a Hindu perspective and the criminal justice system was no exception.
The government was driven to appoint the Srikrishna Commission to inquire into the riots. The findings were a scathing charge sheet against the government and its law enforcing apparatus as also the political parties. The appointment of commissions are political placebos administered by governments to tide over complaints by citizens. These are devices to manage atrocities and bad governance.
As riots are crimes, these need to be investigated and tried. The courts were not geared to investigate and try the offenders whose terror uprooted people in large scale from their areas and turned them into refugees in the city they had been living in for generations. These were no longer communal riots. There was a qualitative difference in the violence employed against the targeted groups.
"Rioting" as defined by the court may not comprehend "Genocide". The government did not take notice of the genocidal trends in the Sikh massacre of 1984 and the assault on the Muslim minority in 1993 by the majority community, and bring forth an appropriate law to prevent and control these trends. They did not show the same alacrity they displayed in bringing forth anti-terrorist legislation.
The communal violence that we were used to prior to 1984 was not genocide. The concerted attack on secular values and on minority communities has been on the increase post-1984. It was a challenge to the plural character of society and the assurance of equality to the constituents of this plural society. The attack against the Muslim community in Gujarat after February 28, 2002 was the most brazen violation of the Constitution by a duly constituted government. The Best Bakery case is part of that brazen attack on the Constitution and its values. By the time Godhra occurred, there had been a total erosion of all institutions of the State, more importantly the judicial system.
The carnage in Gujarat is part of the political campaign of the ruling party in the state and at the Centre. The major way in which Hindu religion was pushed into politics was there for all to see. What happened to the minorities from 1984 onwards and what happened in Gujarat on February 28, 2002 is genocide and not a riot as defined by Macaulay’s Code. If the Court had recognised the event as genocide the perspective of the Court would have been entirely different. All the ingredients of genocide are present in this carnage.
The 1948 International Covenant defines the crime of genocide. Crime of genocide means killing members of the group; causing serious bodily and mental harm; deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about physical destruction in whole or in part. There was present in these cases genocide, conspiracy to commit genocide, direct and public incitement to commit genocide and complicity in genocide.
The Supreme Court was shocked by the total unfairness of the trial and the partisan investigation. The apex court painfully pointed out: "In the ultimate analysis whether it is a case covered by Section 386 or Section 391 of the Code, the underlying object which the court must keep in view is the very reason for which the court exists, i.e., to find out the truth and dispense justice impartially and ensure also that the very process of courts are not employed or utilised in a manner which gives room to unfairness or lend themselves to be used as instruments of oppression and injustice." What has happened in this case is precisely what the judges said should not happen! Would such acts not amount to complicity with the culprits responsible for the carnage?
The judgement is remarkable in its righteous indignation and frankness and is a rare and unequivocal judgement regretting denial of justice to the minority under attack but at the same time it is sterile as it does not leave behind guidelines assuring justice to the minorities in the years to come. What was unstated in the judgement and what has driven the judges to righteous indignation was the scale of complicity of the government, the investigation, the prosecution and the courts including the high court.
In the political context, the reference to Mahatma Gandhi is ironical. In fact, it was the second killing of the Mahatma by the ardent followers of Godse. Godse had the courage to give his reasons for killing the Mahatma. The followers have none. The judges say criminals have no religion and that no religion teaches violence. If we examine the history of religions we may not be as willing to give such a clean chit to religions. The judges say, "the fanatics who spread violence in the name of religion are worse than terrorists and more dangerous than alien enemy." Quite true.
A further reading of the judgement, between the lines, tells us that the judges knew who the real culprits are. "Modern day ‘Neros’ were looking elsewhere when Best Bakery and innocent children and women were burning and were probably deliberating how the perpetrators of the crime can be saved or protected."
The apex court differentiated between the persons responsible for the carnage and the persons involved in the carnage, the planners and the perpetrators and the "wanton boys", the conspirators and their instruments. The unhappy part of the judgement is that notwithstanding the indignation at the failure of every institution of the State, the prosecution is directed only against the perpetrators. In our criminal justice system the principal culprit is either not prosecuted or let off if prosecuted.
They were reluctant to point out all the infirmities in the judgement of the high court. They describe the case as an "exemplary one, special of its kind, necessary to prevent its recurrence". The questions that immediately arise are: What guidelines have they set out for preventing recurrence? Should they not set out guidelines to ensure that religion does not enter the sphere of political government? Should they not have set down a principle of trial of these cases under the chapter on public tranquillity read with the Genocide Convention of 1948 to render complete justice?
All these acts leading to the carnage satisfy the principal ingredients of a terrorist act under Section (3) of POTA. The mob might not have used firearms & explosives, but surely arson could not have been managed on such a large scale without the use of inflammable and/or explosive substances. If Godhra offences could be terrorist acts, post-Godhra offences could equally be terrorist acts, and treating similar offences differently would obviously be iniquitous, unless one assumes that minorities per se are terrorists.
In course of time the police officers who are guilty of complicity during the carnage and thereafter in subverting the investigation, the trial judge and the high court judges will all be rewarded with promotions, elevations and even medals in recognition of excellence! PC Pandey, commissioner of police, Ahmedabad, during the period of the carnage has already been rewarded with a promotion as additional director, CBI.
Police officials guilty of culpable indifference and negligence deserve to be removed from service, those among them who are culpable deserve to be suspended and tried, and the high court judges for their anti-Constitutional judgement deserve to be impeached, or at any rate informed that they should, in the interests of constitutional governance, resign their judgeships. Independence of the judiciary should not become a haven for the perpetrators of unconstitutional and anti- constitutional deeds.
All this could have been done by the Supreme Court under Article 142 0f the Constitution. The Supreme Court was against any limited interpretation of the expression ‘cause or matter’, as that would nullify wider Constitutional powers. The Supreme Court observed on another occasion that it was advisable to leave the power undefined and un-catalogued so that it remains elastic enough to be moulded to suit the situation. It is not relevant to refer to the dicta of the courts — American and Indian — to tell us that courts will not take cognisance of matters which are best settled in the streets.
What happened in Gujarat in March 2002, what happened in Mumbai in January 1993, and to members of the Sikh community in 1984 are genocidal trends and courts, as enforcers of International Covenants, ought to have taken serious note of these blatant transgressions of human rights and devised jurisprudential and procedural tools to deal with this situation. A magniloquent attack on lawlessness is hardly a substitute for doing justice to the wronged. A court which innovatively protected propertied interests by devising the concepts of prospective over ruling and basic structure could have devised a concept for disqualifying a chief minister or other ministers as having been constructively responsible for the carnage by redefining a writ of quo warranto for meeting these situations. If the chief minister Modi had been disqualified on the principle of constructive responsibility, Rule of Law would not have become the fugitive that it has become now. Bal Thackaray’s Mumbai is not going to be any different. Seeing Rule of Law fleeing like a fugitive could invite private justice and the terrorist may say, "I shall repay."
___________________________________
1 The Habits of Legality, Francis A Allen 1996 Oxford New York
CBI chargesheet: Bilkis Rasool case
Archived from Communalism Combat, April-May 2004 Year 10 No. 97, CBI Chargesheet
Citizens for Justice and Peace
Citizens for Justice and Peace (CJP) was formed on April 1, 2002. It is registered as a Society under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 and as a Trust under the Bombay Public Trusts Act, 1950.
Donations to CJP are exempt under section 80(G) of the Income Tax Act.
The objects of CJP include:
l To check threats to Indian democracy and the Rule of Law, whether by governments or political parties or other organisations, groups or individuals.
l To combat all kinds of bigotry and intolerance which create inter-religious strife and differences among people.
l To make legal interventions in the Courts of Law through Public Interest Petitions or otherwise, to prosecute all those guilty of killing or maiming innocent citizens; and to assist others petitioning before the courts for the redressal of grievances.
l To set up or assist in setting up any lawyer/team of lawyers to effectively intervene in government appointed commissions of inquiry probing the causes of communal conflict or to identify the role of different agencies, in particular, government, police, political parties, leaders, non-party organisations, the media, and the like, in prevention or promotion of violence.
Board of Directors
The affairs of CJP are managed by a Board of Directors. The present members of the Board:
Alyque Padamsee (Communications/Advertising)
Anil Dharkar (Columnist)
Cyrus Guzder (Chairman, Airfreight)
Gulam Mohammed (Businessman, philanthropist)
Nandan Maluste (Finance, Kotak Mahindra)
IM Kadri (Senior architect)
Javed Akhtar (Poet, lyricist)
Javed Anand (Communalism Combat)
Teesta Setalvad (KHOJ, Communalism Combat)
Titoo Ahluwalia (ORG-Marg)
Vijay Tendulkar (Playwright)
Arvind Krishnaswamy (DGM, Bharat Petroleum)
Office bearers
President: Vijay Tendulkar
Vice-president: Iftikhar M Kadri
Secretary: Teesta Setalvad
Treasurer: Arvind Krishnaswamy
Report of Activities (April 2002-April 2004):
1. Relief and Rehabilitation: Compared to most NGOs engaged in Relief and Rehabilitation work after the Gujarat violence, CJP’s own contribution can be said to be quite modest: approximately Rs. 11 lakh so far . But we are happy that because we dragged the Narendra Modi Government to the Gujarat high court on this issue, the Gujarat government was compelled, as a result of the court orders, to spend at least an additional Rs. 10 crore on providing for food and other supplies to relief camps, something that the Modi government was adamant it would not do.
2. Concerned Citizens Tribunal: CJP took the initiative in setting up a citizens’ tribunal headed by Justice VR Krishna Iyer, (retd., Supreme Court) and two other retired judges – one each of the Supreme Court and high court — to conduct an independent probe into the violence in Godhra and the rest of Gujarat. Their 3-volume report, Crime Against Humanity, continues to be the most potent document till date on the Gujarat violence nationally and internationally. On its release from Ahmedabad, Delhi, Mumbai and Hyderabad, the findings and recommendations of the tribunal received extensive print and electronic media coverage.
3. Legal Action:
Best Bakery case: If the question of justice and peace in the context of the horrors of Gujarat has been brought centre-stage in the last three months, (though several legal initiatives were taken earlier), it has been due to the intervention of the Supreme Court of India in the Best Bakery case. For this, CJP can justly claim most of the credit.
It was on the CJP’s assurance of support that Zahira Sheikh and her family moved to Mumbai (CJP has since been looking after all their financial and security needs) and in early July 2003, she told a packed press conference why they were forced to lie before the court earlier and why they wanted a re-trial of the Best Bakery case outside Gujarat. The CJP secretary personally escorted Zahira Sheikh to Delhi for a full-bench hearing before the National Human Rights Commission (NHRC). It was thereafter that the NHRC decided on its rare step of filing an appeal in the Supreme Court endorsing Zahira’s plea for a re-trial outside Gujarat.
Besides the NHRC, CJP and Zahira also filed a separate appeal in the SC, which has now been clubbed together with the NHRC petition. CJP’s two earlier petitions pending in the SC, on hate speech and need for transfer of investigation of the massacres to an independent agency are also to be heard now. The CJP has the moral and physical responsibility of taking care of the Sheikh family.
Godhra Families come to CJP: On Dussera Day (October 5, 2003), 14 members from four Hindu families, each of whom had lost a woman from their family in the fire that consumed coach S-6 of the Sabarmati Express in Godhra last year, addressed a press conference in Mumbai. They, too, sought the CJP’s help in their struggle for justice, as they felt totally cheated and betrayed by the very people in Gujarat who claim to be their protectors and who have raised huge amounts of money in their name. These Hindu families have also filed an impleadment application before the SC pleading that the Godhra case too must be heard outside Gujarat. Schooling and other needs of these families are also being borne by the CJP.
Gulberg Society, Chamanpura: This was one of the worst carnages where the former member of parliament, Ehsan Jaffri was brutally killed along with many others. CJP has been handling the criminal trial from the very start and it is because of CJP’s consistent support that witnesses have not been cowed down, intimidated and broken down despite numerous attempts.
The public prosecutor appointed for this trial by the Gujarat government was a man who had himself been charge-sheeted for burning alive nine Muslims in the mid-‘80s! We are pressing for a transfer of this case outside Gujarat, too.
Other Criminal Trials: Due to CJP’s sheer doggedness, tenacity and constant communication with and support to the victims in their struggle for justice, many eye-witnesses in cases that have either ruinously culminated in Best Bakery-type acquittals, or where trials have been stayed by the Supreme Court, have now approached the CJP for legal assistance. These include witnesses to the worst massacres during the Gujarat genocide: Naroda Patiya, Kidiad, Pandharwada.
Compensation claim: In response to CJP’s Public Interest Litigation (PIL) in the Gujarat high court, the court has asked the Gujarat government to give a full and proper account of the Rs. 150 crore that was promised from the PM’s fund for the relief of Gujarat’s victims of violence. The chief secretary of Gujarat and three other secretaries of the Gujarat government have already held three meetings with the CJP secretary (Teesta Setalvad) following the court’s direction. Over the past month, a team of volunteers has been verifying our claims versus the district collector’s records.
Transfer Petition(s) Supreme Court: Following CJP’s initiative in the Best Bakery case and Zahira Sheikh’s appearance before the NHRC, the NHRC also filed a Transfer Petition in the SC praying for a transfer of 14 Major Carnage Trials out of Gujarat. This was in keeping with the NHRC’s findings in its path-breaking report released in 2002.
The CJP has also impleaded itself in this Transfer Petition and filed, directly in the SC, affidavits of major complainants, eye-witnesses that reveal starkly the state of subverted investigation and trials in Gujarat. The CJP has also filed along with Hindu victims of the S-6 coach burning and the relatives of illegal accused, a transfer petition in the Godhra matter.
Hate Speech and Hate Writing: The CJP has filed a petition under section 153a and 153 b of the IPC against the hate filled speeches of Gujarat CM, Mr. Narendra Modi and VHP president. Mr. Ashok Singhal. (The former had stated in August 2002, "Relief Camps are Baby Making Factories;" and Singhal said, "Gujarat was a successful experiment… I am proud that entire villages were purged of Islam."
Petition against Pandey’s appointment to CBI: Even as several matters are pending in the SC, praying for independent investigations by the CBI into the Gujarat massacres, the Central Government has appointed none other that PC Pandey, former Ahmedabad police commissioner, to the post of additional director, CBI. Pandey has been seriously indicted for dereliction of duty and failure to protect lives and property in Ahmedabad, post-Godhra.
Legal Support/Legal Aid: The CJP is also supporting a team of local lawyers in Gujarat in an effort to make sure that information is collected in time for the SC and HC cases and also to ensure that none of the local legal processes within Gujarat are subverted.
CJP Internships: Due to the respect that the CJP has earned for its work, international students of law and human rights have offered themselves for 8-week internships in Mumbai and Gujarat. A student of the New York Law School is working with the secretary, CJP on a research paper on the ‘Role of the public prosecutor in India’ and a memo on Witness Protection. All this will feed back into the litigation process that the CJP is spearheading in the SC.
Team of Lawyers: CJP is extremely grateful to the highly accomplished team of lawyers who have handled different cases for CJP pro bono (free of cost):
Gujarat high court:
Aspi Chinoi – Relief Camp case, 2002, Gujarat high court.
Mahesh Jethmalani – POTA case, Gujarat special court.
Supreme Court:
Ram Jethmalani – Advice to file SLP in Best Bakery case and for transfer
of 4 trials out of Gujarat.
Kapil Sibal – Appeal in Best Bakery acquittal case.
Shanti Bhushan – Best Bakery case.
Anil Divan – CBI Inquiry plus Godhra transfer petition.
CJP’s Achievements on the Legal Front so far:
Punish the guilty: Supreme Court order directing a reinvestigation and re-trial of the Best Bakery massacre case outside Maharashtra.
State’s duty to provide relief to victims of carnage: Gujarat high court judgements, directing the Gujarat government to provide adequate relief, medical care and sanitary facilities to the relief camps; also directing the government not to close the camps till the victims felt secure enough to leave the camps. Thanks to these judgements, the Narendra Modi government was forced to spend at least Rs. 10 crore more on the relief camps than it would have liked to do.
Archived from Communalism Combat, April-May 2004 Year 10 No. 97, Citizens for Justice and Peace
Chapter I – Introduction
Report of the CABE Committee on 'Regulatory Mechanisms for Textbooks and Parallel Textbooks Taught in Schools Outside the Government System
Chapter I
Introduction
This report focuses on the critical issue of textbooks and the processes of selection and prescription of curriculum, textbooks and supplementary textual materials in different types of schools. Two recent events had a significant impact on the issue and underlined the necessity of regulatory mechanisms for selection and prescription of textual materials. Also underscored was the need to improve the already existing mechanisms for the selection and prescription of textbooks in schools within and outside the government system. One was the controversy regarding the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT)’s National Curriculum Framework (NCF) for school education in 2000 and the extensive shift in educational policy and the process of formulating the national programme of education that it occasioned. Second, the NCF was adopted without consulting the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), in effect disregarding the highest body in place to advise the central and state governments in the matter of education. The NCF was implemented without its approval. As a federal forum, the CABE represents the sole interface between the central and state governments on this Concurrent List subject. The CABE also includes educational officers, scholars and citizens’ representatives from different walks of life. From its inception, it has played an important role in shaping education and evolving a national consensus on education policy.
Curricula and textbooks had already been an issue of controversy in several states before the NCF 2000 but the National Democratic Alliance (NDA) government’s attempt to introduce major curricular changes triggered fresh and intense public criticism of the perspective adopted in the NCF, especially the wholesale revamping of the curriculum and textbooks in the social sciences. Both academics and educationists have urged the restoration of the primacy of the progressive discourse in curricular policy. The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government’s response has focused on taking a series of corrective steps to rectify the problems in the curriculum. One of the first actions of the UPA in the field of education was the reconstitution of the CABE which in turn constituted several subcommittees, of which this Subcommittee has been entrusted with the task of suggesting measures in regard to the regulation of curricula and textbooks. The NCERT has been asked to review the NCF 2000. But the NCERT’s review will not address the larger issue of textbooks and supplementary material used in schools not affiliated to the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), including the state government and non-government schools. The recommendation of regulatory mechanisms for these schools is the main task entrusted to this Committee.
Although the NCERT texts are used all over India, these are however limited to schools affiliated to the CBSE and the number of schools which accept this scheme remains small. Out of a total number of around 1,25,000 recognised secondary and higher secondary schools in the country, about 6,200 are at present under the CBSE. Changing the NCERT books may be necessary but this clearly will not be enough, as the bulk of schools do not use the CBSE syllabus. Even those that use the CBSE syllabus do so largely for the higher classes for the purpose of board exams. The textbooks prepared and approved through well-established official mechanisms in the states have also been found to be not free of prejudice and preconceived notions. In addition, there are a large number of schools run by social and religious organisations where, for quite some time now, studies and reports have shown that children are being socialised into a communal imagination orientation not at all in consonance with the secular and democratic consensus.1
Education that inculcates a critical faculty and an emphasis on reasoning is by its very nature secular education. Whether state-supported, autonomous or privately financed, education should be committed to free inquiry and the inculcation of an open mind. This requires that textbooks are open-ended and encourage among children creative processes of inquiry, dissent and debate. Textbooks can help children to develop and absorb the ideals and values of equal citizenship, an appreciation of diversity, and imbibe the grammar of national identity, culture and scientific temper. Indian school textbooks for quite some time had attempted to inculcate these principles in order to portray and uphold the values and traditions of a plural, equitable and democratic society. The recent attempt to rewrite textbooks sharply and disturbingly unsettled and eroded these values.
The rewriting of curricula and textbooks in the past few years has caused widespread concern. Never before had curricula and textbooks been subjected to such close scrutiny and public debate. The recent attempts to use education for narrow politically partisan purposes to reflect the ideologies propounded by certain organisations and political parties have met with disapproval on the part of concerned parents and caused dismay and consternation among educationists and academics. The major concern is the introduction of a non-secular tone in the curriculum and textbooks that reflect narrow and partisan points of view. The NCERT books prepared under the NCF 2000 had been criticised widely for what they represent, with all their implications for the disadvantaged – the minorities, tribals, Dalits and women – especially the inherent consequences of perpetuating and reinforcing inequalities. As earlier reports have pointed out, even before the NCF this trend of introducing sectarian thinking was found in state-level textbooks but the NCF gave a new impetus to these trends and legitimacy to their efforts. Quite apart from the obvious communalisation of history, issues of serious concern are those of gender and the status of women, class, caste-based discriminations, community-driven stereotypes, environment, etc.
The attempt to rewrite textbooks sharply unsettled and eroded the values and traditions of a plural, equitable and democratic society
There is an urgent need to ensure that the education system reflects the secular-nationalistic discourse; it must remain free of communalism; it must reflect the cultural diversity of our nation and the multicultural nature of our society; and it must not exacerbate gender, caste and community inequalities. The very diversity and inequality of Indian society is a compelling reason to address with urgency the questions of social equality, multiple identities and national identity and their presentation in educational materials. One of the most important means of promoting equity in a democratic society is to make good critical education available to all. This requires curricular frameworks that reflect these objectives. These then need to be translated into textbooks.
The commitment towards achieving equality through education – a central concern of the national endeavour underlying Indian education – has been unequivocally voiced in all the major policy documents of independent India. The task of translating this vision of equality into a curricular framework and into textbooks is challenging enough and remains not fully realised. In other words, we have not always been able to concretise the conceptions and policy statements and embody these into a democratic curriculum which is reflected in textbooks. The concerted sectarianism and communalist politics of the recent past has made this task doubly difficult.
The Government of India reconstituted the CABE vide Resolution 6.7.2004. The first meeting was held on August 10-11, 2004. After extensive discussions on several critical issues connected with education in this meeting, the Minister for Human Resource Development has set up seven committees to deal with important issues pertaining to different aspects of school, higher and technical education. It was decided to set up a Committee of the CABE on ‘Regulatory Mechanisms for Textbooks and Parallel Textbooks Taught in Schools Outside the Government System’.
The terms of reference (TOR) of the Committee are:
(a) To study and report on textbooks in government schools not using the CBSE syllabus.
(b) To study the textbooks and curriculum of schools outside the government system, including those run by religious and social organisations.
(c) To suggest an appropriate regulatory mechanism for institutionalising the issue of preparation of textbooks and curricular material.2
The Committee decided to review textbooks used in schools affiliated to State Boards, private schools as well as those managed by religious and social organisations which may or may not be affiliated to these Boards. This is largely to bring within the scope of review textbooks other than those published by the NCERT. The review of the NCERT curriculum and textbooks is being done separately. The Committee is aware that private schools affiliated to the CBSE are using textbooks published by private publishers in addition to NCERT books. However, given its terms of reference, the Committee has limited the scope of the review to textbooks used in schools not affiliated to the CBSE, which will include textbooks produced by state governments and any textual material published by non-governmental sources, including private publishers.
The review of textbooks has to be undertaken on the basis of certain identifiable parameters which are clearly spelt out in the educational polices and the Constitution. These are identified as core curricular areas listed in Section 3.4 of the National Policy on Education 1986/92 and Cultural Perspective and Value Education in Sections 8.1 to 8.6. These are identified as: the freedom movement, national identity, promotion of values such as India’s common cultural heritage, egalitarianism, democracy, secularism, equality of the sexes, protection of the environment, removal of social barriers, observance of the small family norm and inculcation of the scientific temper. These values are expected to promote unity and integration of our people and also help eliminate obscurantism, religious fanaticism, violence, superstition and fatalism.
Do states take these into consideration as a criterion for the selection, preparation, prescription and approval of textual materials and how they are presented? What mechanisms do states use? Are they adequate? Do they apply to all types of schools, including those run by social and religious organisations, and textbooks in use? These are some of the major questions the Committee has endeavoured to address. As a first step we need to understand how textbooks and other materials are prescribed and approved for children in different states and union territories.
The Committee decided to examine a selected sample of textbooks in the social sciences and Hindi, regional languages, English and a few moral education books. This choice was also determined by the importance given to social sciences in the educational policies. Almost all aims of education are embodied and are to be realised through the teaching of social sciences and to a lesser extent in the teaching of languages. The states identified for this exercise are: Bihar, Chhattisgarh, Delhi, Jammu and Kashmir, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal. In these states, textbooks used by state government-run schools as well as those produced by private publishers used by religious and social organisations have been taken up. A few cases of textbooks produced by private publishers have also been examined.
This report has been divided into five chapters starting with the introduction. The second chapter provides an overview of education policies and related issues of curriculum and textbooks. The third chapter documents the institutional arrangements for the preparation of textbooks through a mapping of the regulatory mechanisms established by state governments for approval and adoption of textbooks. The fourth chapter presents a review and analysis of the contents of textbooks produced by state governments, private publishers and cultural and social organisations. The fifth and concluding chapter puts forward a series of recommendations for consideration by the CABE on regulatory mechanisms for textbooks and parallel textbooks.
We have tried to undertake this exercise with as wide a consultation as possible. We invited suggestions and responses from governmental and non-governmental organisations, educational institutions and concerned citizens to enable us to do justice to this extremely important task. We were fortunate in receiving inputs and support from various individuals, institutions and government bodies involved in the curricular issues, education and textbook preparation.
We are aware that justice may not have been done in representing and reflecting the great variety of textbooks and textual and supplementary materials and types and managements of schools in India and the range of governmental processes evolved through legislations and other means by different states for the approval of textual materials and, above all, to the variety of textual materials used in schools. Within the limited time available to the Committee we have tried to be as representative as possible of the range and diversity of structures and types of schools and of the textbooks and textual materials used in them.
Members of the Committee
Professor Zoya Hasan, Co-Chairperson
Professor, Gopal Guru, Co-Chairperson
Professor GP Deshpande, Member
Secretary, School Education, Uttar Pradesh, Member
Secretary, School Education, Andhra Pradesh, Member
Secretary, School Education, West Bengal, Member
Secretary, School Education, Kerala, Member
Secretary, School Education, Rajasthan, Member
Ms Teesta Setalvad, Member
Professor Krishna Kumar, Director, NCERT, Member, Secretary
______________________________________
Notes
1 NCERT, Report of the National Steering Committee on Textbook Evaluation, Volume 1, 1993, Volume 2, NCERT, New Delhi, 1994.
2 One issue pertains to the TOR itself. The first meeting of the Committee noted the contradiction between the title of the Committee, ‘Regulatory Mechanisms for Textbooks and Parallel Textbooks Taught in Schools Outside the Government System’, and the terms of reference which asked the Committee to study and examine textbooks in schools not affiliated to the CBSE, which would include state government and non-government schools. The Joint Secretary, Shri Sudeep Banerjee, dealing with the CABE in the MHRD, later clarified that the TOR of the Committee included an examination of both government and non-government textbooks. The second issue pertains to the second term of reference i.e. religious and social organisations. Some members raised the issue as to which organisations fall under this category. While this issue is important, it falls outside the purview of the Committee. A view nevertheless was expressed that the government if it so wishes may apply its mind to the matter in the appropriate forum.