At the core of academic freedom lies the unquestionable right of universities and their respective governments to shape their educational destiny. Yet today, under the carefully worded guise of “reform,” the Central government appears not to be strengthening this principle, but rather systematically dismantling it. We are witnessing progress, but a calculated centralisation of control, where autonomy is sacrificed at the altar of uniformity.

The recent Lok Sabha reply by the Ministry of Education to Unstarred Question No. 2698 (March 17, 2025), raised by Member of Parliament Praniti Sushilkumar Shinde, exposes this trend in no uncertain terms. The answer, couched in bureaucratic niceties and vague affirmations, is a glaring reflection of the Centre’s unwillingness to respect the federal structure and its growing appetite for centralised control over higher education.

The issue is not only about who appoints Vice-Chancellors or how new regulations are drafted; it concerns who gets to determine the future of Indian academia and, more importantly, who does not.

Diluting Federalism in the Name of Reform

The University Grants Commission (UGC) was envisioned as a neutral, academic body focused on ensuring standards in higher education. Over the decades, it has slowly evolved into a tool for enforcing Central directives, while the government claims in its reply that the draft of UGC Regulations 2025 “reinforces India’s federal structure.”

But actions speak louder than words. The proposed changes, particularly the mechanism for the appointment of Vice-Chancellors, strip away the powers of state governments and universities, handing them over to Centrally dominated statutory bodies. By proposing that Vice-Chancellors be selected by a “Search-cum-Selection Committee” constituted by so-called “impartial statutory bodies,” the Centre has found a backdoor to insert its preferences into university leadership.

This is a direct attack on the constitutional mandate that education is a subject on the Concurrent List, where both the Centre and States must have a say. No clear explanation is given on who nominates these statutory bodies, how they are formed, or how “impartiality” is ensured. This intentional ambiguity raises serious concerns about political appointments disguised as administrative reforms.

In practice, this allows the Union Government to bypass state government recommendations, ignore the needs of regional academic ecosystems, and plant ideologically aligned individuals at the helm of universities. What is being presented as reform is, in reality, a clear case of regulatory capture.

Through the back door, this proposal to allow non-academics to become Vice-Chancellors is a case in point. The government claims this will bring “diverse expertise” and “leadership excellence.” Unfortunately, in reality, this opens the gates for bureaucrats, ex-police officers, retired IAS officers, and politically affiliated persons to take charge of academic institutions, many of whom may have little understanding of research, and academic freedom.

Apart from the protest of noted academicians against the Draft UGC Regulations, the government’s narrative also ignores the fears raised by state governments and teachers’ associations, who have warned that this regulation will stifle dissent, curtail diversity in academic thought, and weaken institutional independence.

Moreover, the claim that “more than 15,000 suggestions” have been received is a convenient shield. The government has offered no transparency on which suggestions were accepted, which were discarded, and what changes were made as a result. This is consultation in name only, not in spirit.

The 2025 draft regulations make this transformation disturbingly complete, even though the Lok Sabha reply praises the regulations for prioritising research and aligning with “global standards,” nowhere does it address the central issue that the UGC is no longer functioning as an independent academic regulator but as an extension of the political establishment. Then how can it ensure the praised “global standard”?

Far-Right Agenda Behind the Draft Regulations

The larger picture is deeply alarming. This is not merely another regulatory tweak but a calculated move in a broader, systematic campaign to weaponise education, transforming universities into factories of ideological conformity and reducing state governments to mute spectators in a domain where they once held constitutional authority.

The UGC’s draft regulations are draped in the technocratic jargon of “excellence” and “global standards,” but their real objective is unmistakable: to tighten the Centre’s grip on academic autonomy, erode federalism, and stealthily impose a Far-Right cultural vision on India’s education system.

This centralising move blatantly contradicts the National Education Policy 2020, which promised decentralisation and institutional flexibility. Instead of empowering universities, the government is exploiting the NEP’s rhetoric to mask its agenda, replacing scholarly independence with political loyalty, and pluralism with a homogenised, majoritarian narrative. From saffronised textbooks to the suppression of dissent on campuses, the pattern is clear, that education is being repurposed as a tool to manufacture a regressive, hyper-nationalist worldview.

India’s universities were meant to be laboratories of critical thought, not propaganda hubs for the ruling establishment. The relentless centralisation of power, from the politically orchestrated appointments of Vice-Chancellors to the sidelining of state voices, threatens to suffocate intellectual diversity.

If the government genuinely aspires to build world-class institutions, it must: Restore federal balance by respecting the state government’s role in higher education, depoliticise the UGC, and shield academic governance from ideological interference, ensure VCs are chosen for their scholarship, not their proximity to power, and publicly disclose stakeholder feedback and revisions to expose the drafting process to sunlight.

The stakes extend beyond education, this is about India’s civilisational character. By turning campuses into battlegrounds for ideological conquest, the Centre isn’t just undermining universities; it’s sabotaging the nation’s intellectual future.

Federalism isn’t a bureaucratic hurdle, it’s the bedrock of a pluralistic democracy. And academia must remain a sanctuary for free thought, not a playground for far-right social engineering. The choice is stark: Will the country’s education system uphold prolificness or obedience? The answer will define the soul of the nation.

The writer is Parliamentary Secretary to a Lok Sabha MP and an alumnus of the Faculty of Law, University of Delhi. The views expressed are personal.

Courtesy: Newsclick

The post Higher Education: How Centre is Undermining State Autonomy & Politicising UGC appeared first on SabrangIndia.

NEP 2020 and the three-language mandate

The NEP 2020 recommends that students learn three languages. According to the policy, at least two of these languages be indigenous to India, with the third language available for the student’s choice—often English or another language. This structure is meant to promote multilingualism while ensuring that regional languages are given due importance. Importantly, the policy emphasises that states and regions have the authority to decide on the specific languages taught, aiming to mitigate concerns about the compulsory imposition of Hindi.

Despite this intended flexibility, Tamil Nadu remains deeply sceptical. The state interprets the policy as a thinly veiled effort to introduce Hindi into its schools. Further complicating matters is the linkage between the three-language formula and eligibility for central funding schemes Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). In effect, states are pressured to adopt the formula to secure critical financial support for their education systems. For Tamil Nadu, this conditionality is unacceptable; it feels that the central government is compromising state autonomy by tying funding to policy implementation.

Historical roots of Tamil Nadu’s language policy

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to the three-language formula is not a new phenomenon. The state’s history is marked by a long-standing commitment to preserving Tamil as a central pillar of its cultural and educational identity. The roots of this resistance can be traced back to the early 20th century and have evolved through several pivotal moments: 

Early resistance (1930s–1960s)

In 1937, the Madras government, under C. Rajagopalachari, attempted to introduce Hindi as a compulsory subject. This move triggered widespread protests led by the Justice Party and influential Dravidian leaders, including Periyar. The protests were so intense that the policy was revoked in 1940. This early confrontation with Hindi imposition laid the groundwork for Tamil Nadu’s future educational policies.

The Kothari Commission and the 1968 National Policy on Education (NPE)

The Kothari Commission (1964–66) played a pivotal role in shaping India’s education reforms, recommending the adoption of a three-language formula. The 1968 NPE incorporated this formula by prescribing Hindi, English, and a modern Indian language (preferably a southern language in Hindi-speaking states; a regional language in non-Hindi speaking states). However, Tamil Nadu opted out, preferring to maintain a two-language system centred on Tamil and English.

Political consolidation and the two-language policy

Under the leadership of Chief Minister C. N. Annadurai, Tamil Nadu formalised its two-language policy. The state rejected the addition of Hindi, emphasising that Tamil and English sufficiently met the needs of its students. This stance was reinforced during subsequent anti-Hindi agitations, notably in 1965 when a move to replace English with Hindi as the sole official language sparked massive protests. Such historical events have deeply ingrained the belief that language policy should reflect regional identity rather than central imposition.

Understanding the legal context and rationale behind Tamil Nadu’s opposition

While education is now a concurrent subject, it was a state subject before the Emergency. Therefore, there is a degree of autonomy that states once enjoyed. When the Indira Gandhi government, during the Emergency, moved Education from the state list to the concurrent list, the reasoning was to have a uniform education policy for all of India with Union taking the responsibility of framing such uniform policy.

However, prior to this change in the Constitution, the opposition to three language policy was an equal fight—with Centre armed with Article 351 which directs the Union to work for the spread of Hindi while the States being armed with education being in the State List. This balance was tipped in favour of centre when education was moved to Concurrent List via 42nd Constitutional Amendment Act of 1976.

The later governments did not put Education back in the State list—continuing the central control over the coveted education. This meant that the Union gave itself the way to implement its Article 351 directive at the cost of States’ power.  This enabled the Union to give directives from a position of legitimate authority. However, NEP is not a binding document, and it never has been. The Concurrent List’s character of giving the Centre made law primacy over a state made law does not arise here since NEP is not an act by the Parliament.

Despite NEP being non-binding, Centre using the 3-language formula to stall the funds naturally does not support the claims of it being bonafide.

TN’s reasoning in opposing the 3-language formula 

Tamil Nadu asserts that its education system is already successful, as recognised by the Central Government itself. Given this, the state questions the necessity of the three-language policy when its current two-language model has consistently produced strong educational outcomes.

Moreover, Tamil Nadu highlights the practical difficulties of implementing the NEP’s language requirements. The policy mandates two native languages and one foreign language in addition to English. Since Tamil Nadu already teaches Tamil and English, this leaves space for one more native language. The state argues that this requirement forces it to allocate resources for teaching an additional Indian language, which it sees as unnecessary.

The key concern is infrastructure. If a third language must be introduced, what resources exist to support various native languages? Tamil Nadu lacks the necessary infrastructure for most Indian languages, whereas the Centre has both the directive and the financial resources to promote Hindi. This makes Hindi the most easily implementable option, creating an indirect imposition.

Furthermore, Tamil Nadu sees the linking of Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) funds to compliance with the three-language policy as coercion. If funding is conditioned on language policy today, the state fears that future schemes will also come with similar mandates—potentially requiring Hindi as the second native language, further eroding state autonomy in education.

Tamil Nadu’s Education Minister has publicly accused the Union government of using funding as a bargaining chip—effectively forcing the state into conforming to the three-language policy. This funding dispute is not merely a financial issue; it reflects a broader struggle over the balance of power between the Union and the states in India’s federal system.

Broader implications for federalism and education policy

At its core, the controversy surrounding the three-language formula speaks to larger questions about state autonomy and cooperative federalism in India. Education is a concurrent subject—meaning that both the central and state governments have the authority to shape policy. However, Tamil Nadu’s experience demonstrates that financial dependency on central funds can force states to adopt policies that conflict with their own priorities and cultural values.

Proponents of the three-language formula argue that multilingual education has cognitive benefits, such as improved memory, enhanced attention, and better problem-solving abilities. They also stress that a multilingual approach is essential for preserving India’s vast linguistic heritage. Nonetheless, a one-size-fits-all approach is not appropriate in a country as diverse as India. Instead, there should be a more flexible framework that allows states to design language policies that best suit their local contexts. 

Conclusion

The debate over the three-language formula in NEP 2020, and Tamil Nadu’s enduring opposition to it, is emblematic of a broader struggle over cultural identity, state autonomy, and federalism in India. Tamil Nadu’s historical resistance to Hindi imposition is rooted in a deep commitment to preserving its linguistic heritage and tailoring education to its unique social and cultural needs. The state’s successful two-language policy—centring on Tamil and English—has delivered strong educational outcomes without the added burden of a compulsory third language.

The fiscal dispute that has arisen from the central government’s decision to withhold crucial education funds only deepens the divide. By linking funding to compliance with NEP guidelines, the Centre appears to be leveraging its financial resources to enforce a uniform policy across a diverse nation. This tactic not only undermines state autonomy but also raises serious questions about the equitable distribution of resources in India’s federal system.

The ongoing standoff serves as a reminder that the success of India’s education system depends not only on policies like the NEP 2020 but also on a balanced approach that honours the linguistic and cultural plurality of the nation. Moving forward, a collaborative framework that genuinely incorporates state perspectives will be key to ensuring that educational reforms benefit all regions and strengthen the very fabric of India’s diverse society.

(The author is a legal researcher with the organisation)

Related:

Rejecting NEP embodies Tamil Nadu’s fight for federal autonomy

Indian federalism is a dialogue: SC

The post Tamil Nadu’s opposition to NEP 2020’s three-language formula: a federal pushback against central imposition appeared first on SabrangIndia.

In the latest of such letters, Stalin writes,

“My dear sisters and brothers from other states, Ever wondered how many Indian languages Hindi has swallowed? Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi, Braj, Bundeli, Garhwali, Kumaoni, Magahi, Marwari, Malvi, Chhattisgarhi, Santhali, Angika, Ho, Kharia, Khortha, Kurmali, Kurukh, Mundari and many more are now gasping for survival.

“The push for a monolithic Hindi identity is what kills ancient mother tongues. UP and Bihar were never just ‘Hindi heartlands.’ Their real languages are now relics of the past.

Tamil Nadu resists because we know where this ends. தமிழ் விழித்தது; தமிழினத்தின் பண்பாடு பிழைத்தது! சில மொழிகள் இந்திக்கு இடம் கொடுத்தன; இருந்த இடம் தெரியாமல் தொலைந்தன!

#தமிழ்_வாழ்க #LetterToBrethren
#StopHindiImposition #SaveIndianLanguages”

My dear sisters and brothers from other states,

Ever wondered how many Indian languages Hindi has swallowed? Bhojpuri, Maithili, Awadhi, Braj, Bundeli, Garhwali, Kumaoni, Magahi, Marwari, Malvi, Chhattisgarhi, Santhali, Angika, Ho, Kharia, Khortha, Kurmali, Kurukh, Mundari and… pic.twitter.com/VhkWtCDHV9

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) February 27, 2025

Tamil Nadu goes to the polls next year and this issue of autonomy, federalism and the Tamil language is going to dominate. Last week, in a fiery response to the union’s move on the National Education Policy (NEP), Chief Minister MK Stalin  claimed that this will push Tamil Nadu ‘backward by 2000 years.’ These moves reflect the deep-rooted resistance within the state against the Union government’s continued disregard for federalism and linguistic diversity. Stalin has further emphasised that the NEP, with its centralised approach, ignores the unique educational needs of each state and is a blatant effort to homogenise education across India.

Last week Stalin’s strong and principled opposition to the union government on the imposition of the National Education Policy (NEP) and its three language policy as also the withholding of state funds by the union also echoed on social media garnering widespread support.

This is what you call an Opposition! Bravo! @mkstalin https://t.co/am1ZuKwZvt

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) February 22, 2025

Related:

Rejecting NEP embodies Tamil Nadu’s fight for federal autonomy

The post ‘TN resists Hindi domination because we know where it ends, the extinguishing of ancient languages’: ML Stalin to DMK cadres appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Chief Minister MK Stalin’s fiery response to the NEP, which he claims will push Tamil Nadu ‘backward by 2000 years,’ reflects the deep-rooted resistance within the state against the Union government’s continued disregard for federalism and linguistic diversity. Stalin has further emphasised that the NEP, with its centralised approach, ignores the unique educational needs of each state and is a blatant effort to homogenize education across India.

This is what you call an Opposition! Bravo! @mkstalin https://t.co/am1ZuKwZvt

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) February 22, 2025

Tamil Nadu’s long-standing resistance to Hindi imposition

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to Hindi imposition is deeply entrenched in its socio-political fabric. The anti-Hindi movement in the state has a long and vibrant history, beginning as early as 1937, when the C. Rajagopalachari-led Congress government in the Madras Presidency attempted to introduce Hindi in schools. This triggered a massive outcry, leading to widespread protests by students, teachers, and political leaders who saw this as an attempt to undermine Tamil language and culture

The language protests reached a boiling point in 1965 when the Indian government attempted to replace English with Hindi as the sole official language of the country. Students, intellectuals, and political leaders took to the streets, culminating in violent protests that ultimately forced the Centre to relent and retain English as an associate official language alongside Hindi. These events cemented Tamil Nadu’s defiant stance against linguistic imperialism.

Nehru’s 1959 promise and the betrayal

In the wake of these protests, Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru, in 1959, assured the people of Tamil Nadu that English would continue as an official language for as long as non-Hindi speaking states wanted it. However, successive governments have tried to renege on this promise, subtly pushing Hindi through policies like NEP. The so-called three-language formula is nothing but a tool to coerce non-Hindi speakers into learning Hindi while Hindi-speaking states face no such compulsion to learn southern languages.

A flawed model: Hindi-speaking states lagging in education

The Centre’s argument that Hindi is necessary for national integration crumbles under scrutiny. Hindi-speaking states consistently perform poorly in education, employment, and economic indicators. Uttar Pradesh, Bihar, and Madhya Pradesh, the heartlands of Hindi, have some of the lowest literacy rates in the country, proving that Hindi is not a magic wand for progress. If anything, Tamil Nadu, which has refused to embrace Hindi, has done far better in education, employment, and social development.

The NEP and its assault on federalism

The NEP is not just about education; it is a direct attack on the federal structure of the Constitution. Education, which was originally in the State List, was forcibly moved to the Concurrent List in 1976, taking away states’ autonomy over a crucial subject. The NEP exacerbates this by allowing the Centre to dictate syllabi, control educational institutions, and impose a uniform framework that disregards regional languages and cultures. The Tamil Nadu government’s demand to restore education to the State List is, therefore, not just about resisting Hindi but about reclaiming constitutional federalism.

Succinct. Articulate. Objections to Bill both national and a federal, serious federal concern. This unikn govt is a hatchet regime rejecting the tenets of the Indian Constitution! @mkstalin https://t.co/2tyC8P3bU7

— Teesta Setalvad (@TeestaSetalvad) February 23, 2025

Mohan Bhagwat’s questionable advice to ‘ditch English’

Amid this policy battle, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) chief Mohan Bhagwat has added fuel to the fire by advising Hindus to stop speaking English and embrace Indian languages instead. Ironically the RSS that claims itself to be a merely ‘cultural outfit’ is not simply the backbone of the three times elected Modi regime, but often wades in everything that is political.

Withholding funds: The centre’s strong-arm tactics

Tamil Nadu’s refusal to implement the NEP has led to the Union withholding Rs 2,150 crore in education funds, a clear act of coercion. This financial strangulation tactic is reminiscent of colonial-era policies where dissenting states were punished. The Union’s message is clear: ‘Implement our policies or face financial retribution.’ But Tamil Nadu is not one to bow down and its chief minister M.K. Stalin in fact said he is not ready to accept NEP even if centre offered Rs. 10,000 crores.

Tamil Nadu’s resistance to the NEP and Hindi imposition is not just about language—it is about protecting the rights of states, preserving linguistic diversity, and upholding the federal structure of India. The state has historically been at the forefront of social justice movements, and its current stand against NEP is another chapter in its fight against central overreach.

The Union must realise that a one-size-fits-all policy will never work in a country as diverse as India. Until then, Tamil Nadu will continue to resist, unyielding and unapologetic.

Related

Indian federalism is a dialogue: SC

The post Rejecting NEP embodies Tamil Nadu’s fight for federal autonomy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Such things are not only being taught in the schools but they are also determining the allocation of funds for science and technology research. We saw a huge funding being coordinated by IIT Delhi for research into Panchgavya. This is a mixture of five products from Cow: milk, curd, ghee (clarified butter), urine and dung. This is supposed to be a panacea for treatment of various diseases. The Cow urine is being promoted separately as being of medicinal use. Even before this Government came to power in 2014, its parent organization RSS had floated many organizations to promote the faith based knowledge, through school education.

One Dinanath Batra, has been heading the RSS outfits, Shiksha Bachao Abhiyan Samiti and RSS-affiliated Shiksha Sanskriti Utthan Nyas (SSUN) for many decades. His nine books have been translated into Gujarati and introduced in 42000 schools in Gujarat. The sampling of Batra’s books gives a good idea of what is being implemented currently. A quote from one of the sets of books, ‘Tejonmaya Bharat’, (Radiant Bharat) tells us about one Dr Balkrishna Ganpat Matapurkar whose research has been inspired by the Mahabharata. As per him from Gandhari’s womb a huge mass of flesh came out. (Rishi) Dwaipayan Vyas was called. He observed this hard mass of flesh and then he preserved it in a cold tank with specific medicines. He then divided the mass of flesh into 100 parts and kept them separately in 100 tanks full of ghee for two years. After two years, 100 Kauravas were born of it. On reading this, he (Matapurkar) realized that stem cell technology was part of our heritage. (Page 92-93)

As per him Indian rishis (sage) using their yoga vidya would attain divya drishti (divine vision). There is no doubt that the invention of television goes back to this… In Mahabharata, Sanjaya sitting inside a palace in Hastinapur and using his divya shakti (divine power) would give a live telecast of the battle of Mahabharata… to the blind Dhritarashtra. (Page 64) What we know today as the motorcar existed during the Vedic period. It was called anashva rath. Usually a rath (chariot) is pulled by horses but an anashva rath means the one that runs without horses or yantra-rath, which is today a motorcar. The Rig Veda refers to this. (Page 60)

RSS has also set up a consultative body called Bharatiya Shiksha Niti Ayog (BSNA), whose policies are guiding Modi’s government to “correct or Indianize” the national education system. Now organisations like the Indian Council of Historical Research, National Council for Education, Research and Training amongst others, have got heads whose qualification is not excellence in their disciplines but their proximity to ideology of the ruling dispensation.

We recall one Y.Sudarshan who was appointed as Chief of ICHR. He was out to prove the Historicity of our great mythological epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata. With this Government in saddle all this bypassing of rational thinking and scientific methods has become the norm. This Government has been promoting Baba Ramdev in a big way. We recall how his Coronil, claiming to be a treatment for Covid was promoted. The Supreme Court has recently given a verdict whereby Ramdev has been warned not to advertise irrational products and misleading ads about the modern system of Medicine.

Indian Science Congress has from last many years been accepting papers which have no scientific basis and are based on mythology. Pained by this all prominent scientists came together and issued a statement calling upon the Government to stop the undermining of scientific methods and thinking. “They point out that this attitude has been particularly evident in the government’s promotion of unverified or unscientific ideas, exaggeration of ancient Indian knowledge, and certain responses during the COVID-19 pandemic.” And further the statement “… emphasizes the need for a united front among scientists, academics, and policymakers to combat the erosion of scientific integrity and promote rational, evidence-based discourse in the country.”

While our Constitution mandates the promotion of scientific temper, the present regime in matters of policy making is bypassing the rational approach not only in science research and education but also in matters related to social policies. In New Education Policy 2020, there is a focus on ‘Indian Knowledge Systems’. This basically means promotion of faith based understanding of knowledge related to material and social sciences.

Those political streams which support the movement for social change towards equality try to adopt rational and scientific approach to knowledge and social issues, the major examples being Gautam Buddha, Bhagat Singh, Ambedkar and Nehru in particular. Throughout Indian history those who want to impose the status quo of social relations, those who want to maintain the relations of inequality generally resort to faith based knowledge, take mythology as the gospel truth and impose it on the society. The communal fundamental streams accept the technology with great avidity, while they equally dislike the rational thinking and scientific spirit. Our Constitution emerged from the anti-colonial struggle; looked at the future policies as guiding light for social change, so the Constitution had incorporated promotion of scientific spirit as an inherent part. Today’s regime is opposed to the equality of castes, genders and religion. No wonder it bypasses this core spirit of the Indian Constitution.

The welcome statement of these outstanding scientists is a timely urge to restore our path of social and science policy, founded on reason, on scientific temper.

Related:

Education in India being ‘edited’ to suit a right-wing syllabus… one chapter at a time

Education: Saffronisation and Nefarious Agenda of RSS

The post Majoritarian Nationalism: Undermining Scientific Temper appeared first on SabrangIndia.

There was more. Further, the Karnataka cabinet has also decided to remove school textbook lessons on RSS founder K B Hedgewar and others, reported Deccan Herald. The government also plans to make reading of the Preamble of the Constitution in all schools and colleges. Since the textbooks for the year have already been printed the government has decided that a supplementary booklet would be sent to all schools immediately, with instructions on what should be there in the textbooks or what not in the Kannada and Social Knowledge textbook of classes 6 to 10, reported India TV.

Now, comes the crux. Although the current Congress government had also promised to scrap the controversial National Education Policy –NED (euphemistically dubbed the ‘Nagpur Education Policy’ given the RSS’ sectarian stamp on it) and focus on state led syllabi in the interest of students, it become important to document the concerns about the 26 position papers that the Bommai-led BJP government had brought in to explicate the NEP. This is key so that they don’t become an unchallenged template for other states

Of the 26 position papers that the BJP government in Karnataka had brought out to feed into the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) of the National Education Policy (NEP), the one on health and well-being is striking from a public health point of view. This position paper has been criticised by doctors, educationalists, nutritionists etc. for being ‘outrageous, outdated, unscientific and frivolous’, amidst demands for its immediate withdrawal. Although the current Congress government has thankfully promised to scrap the ‘Nagpur Education Policy’ and focus on state led syllabi in the interest of students, it is important to document the concerns about these position papers so that they don’t become an unchallenged template for other states.

The ‘experts’ who put together this position paper on Health and Wellbeing, under the Chairperson Dr. K John Vijay Sagar, Professor and Head of the Department of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, include nutritionists, Ayurveda physicians, a yoga therapist, a diet lecturer and a gymnastics coach. They claim to have taken a ‘holistic’ approach to health and well-being.

Although the stated objective of the paper is to illustrate the importance of health, it embroils itself in irrational and unscientific propaganda that can be disastrous within an educational space. It quotes extensively from ‘ancient texts’ to showcase the ‘deep knowledge of ancient seers of India’ and ‘fundamental principles envisioned   by the rishis of our country’. It is important for us to contemplate on whether this is the direction in which we want education in the country to head.

According to the paper, Ayurveda or the science of life, based on the tridosha principles (vata, pitta and kapha) and trigunas (sattva, rajas and tamas) supposedly control physical (doshas, dhātus and malas), physiological and psychological functions of both the body and the universe!!

That yoga is 3000 years old and Ayurveda is 5000 years old has been highlighted along with their various perceived benefits. Achara, ahara, vyayama and yoga are described as ‘the core   of Indian culture’ and the document include mantras and shlokas from the bhagavad gita. Further, the paper states that according to yoga as explained in the taittriya Upanishad, the concept of health itself depends on the ‘pancha kosha’ or the five layers of body that cover the atman (or self). Doctors have challenged the director and head of child psychiatry at NIMHANS to provide proof for the existence of such ‘sheaths’ or to immediately withdraw the paper.

While there may be a role for yoga, and other traditional systems, in the holistic development of a child, one cannot embrace it in totality in an uncritical manner ascribing all kinds of unproved benefits to it.

In the table below, food being arbitrarily classified as good and not good, helps understand why any recommendations on food and nutrition by such groups is dangerous and prejudiced.

Source: Karnataka Position paper on health and Wellbeing

Diet drinks or food, refined foods, sweeteners, sugar, salt, fast foods, soft drinks are classified as ‘not good’, while cereals (wheat, corn, rice), grain, plant-based foods, fruit, vegetable, fibre are classified as good. Oils, fats and animal source foods have received a blanket label of ‘not good’. Clearly the authors are not aware that oils and fats are essential for absorption of fat soluble Vitamins A,D, E and K from food. Fats are also important source of energy and essential fatty acids which support numerous functions in the body. Low or absent fat in the diet can lead to a host of nutritional deficiencies and subsequent health issues.

The table then ends with a generic statement that ‘eating foods that have been prepared in grandmother’s way’ are good. Since the table also classifies meats (animal source foods) as not good, only the vegetarian, dominant caste grandmother would pass this test!! The grandmothers who lovingly prepare beef, pork, fish, dry fish and a variety of other culinary delicacies are not only erased completely but also succinctly identified as ‘not good’. The trauma that this inflicts on young children who are taught in schools that their traditional foods are inferior, polluted, unhealthy cannot be easily undone.

The paper also brings in the concept of gene diet interactions which would apparently decide what is best for “Indian ethnicity’ and the ‘natural choice of the race’. These prejudiced theories only serve to take the onus away from policy makers and elected representatives who readily blame genes for the malnutrition in the country “You are short-statured and of poor health because of your genetic make-up’. The fact is that when Indians are given adequate diets rich in all nutrients, they have heights and weights comparable with their Western counterparts. The paper further goes on to say that Indian’s ‘natural choice of food’ is plant based unlike the Western food choice. This argument is ridiculous on many fronts because Indians are no strangers to meat and it is hardly a “Western food choice’.

The paper goes on to say that there is no pankti bheda in the Indian way of eating and this can be ensured by similar foods be served to all children as part of the mid-day meal. Specifically mentioning eggs, they say “Serving different foods to the same graders will lead to an imbalance in the nutrient distribution among children. For example, serving other recipes or foods to the same graders, such as egg versus grams, or egg versus banana, leads to a nutritional imbalance among children. Additionally, children develop complexes that result in emotional disturbances among friends; treating all children equally and with no pankti bedha is authentic Indian philosophy or Dharma.”They go on to recommend that eggs be prohibited in the MDM. Diversity of foods and inclusion of nutrient dense foods in the MDM are now officially being labelled as discriminatory !!!

The paper further goes on to blame eggs and meat for lifestyle disorders and suggest that animal-based foods interfere with hormonal functions in humans. This has been called out by doctors in their open letter “There is now a mountain of evidence available to prove that it is the excessive consumption of sugars such as fructose (fruit sugar) and glucose (malt sugar, cereal grains) that is the most important cause for non-communicable diseases such as obesity, type 2 diabetes, hypertension, degenerative diseases and even many psychiatric problems such as ADHD, depression, anxiety etc., in children as well as adults. There is also enough evidence proving that eggs and proteins have a protective effect against obesity and other NCDs”.

Eggs for a healthy diet

A recent study in Karnataka has clearly showed that children who received eggs in their mid-day meal had significant gains in weight and body mass index (BMI). Quoting this and another study, the doctors state that, given a choice, a majority of children in Karnataka prefer eggs and if the authors of the position paper had indeed been concerned about not practicing pankti bheda or discrimination, they would not have opposed a majority of children eating eggs and other animal source foods of their choice.

Ignoring the widespread criticism of the MDM in Karnataka, specifically the ideological imposition by organisations such as Akshaya patra, the position paper states “The Karnataka government has successfully implemented midday meals with the support of many NGOs. As observed, the children enjoy the food supplied in the midday meal and the milk provided before the start of the class”. They suggest that textbooks should promote sattvik foods which they identify as ‘Indian food culture and the Indian way of thinking’. These preposterous presumptions not only lack evidence, they are also openly casteist and anti-minority.

Glorifying cereals and pulses as staple foods which apparently ‘prove that Indian food culture is the best’, the members of this group effectively erase not just the rich cultural and traditional food diversity of the country, but also, importantly, completely deny the visible and tangible nutritional and health consequences of this inadequate diet. Instead they feel that stories about Bheema and Hanuman’s eating habits will help children link eating the right  (read sattvik) food to valour, courage and success.

Children from marginalised and vulnerable communities are constantly being told, particularly by their faculty in schools, that their own cultural practices are inferior. To become a part of mainstream or ‘cultured’ society, they are forced to deny, erase, reject and distance themselves from their own traditions.  A child who is already malnourished, poorly educated and facing the possibility of bleak health outcomes is made to feel that his or her own family or community is responsible for this. This is adding salt on a chronic social wound and affects childrens’ sense of self-esteem. While beef has already been criminalised ad nauseum, eggs are projected as disgusting, forcing children to either stop eating these foods or lie about it. In the absence of an affordable and culturally relevant alternative, important sources of nutrition are removed from the childrens’ plates.

These prejudices, in combination with those in another position paper which openly classifies children into categories of worker, leader etc. institutionalise  discrimination within public and private spaces. Children from marginalised communities are forced to experience about age old caste practices that neither reaffirm scientific thought nor their own culture. People of the country have to take note of and resist these kinds of position papers and policies that make a mockery of people’s struggles and aspirations and instead create templates for the agenda of the hindu rashtra.

(The author is a public health doctor and researcher based in Karnataka)

Related:

K’taka to repeal BJP’s controversial anti-conversion law; to remove Hedgewar from textbooks

Eggs, sprouts, millets once more part of mid-day meals: Karnataka

Eddelu Karnataka Urges Siddaramaiah Govt to Repeal Unjust Laws, Combat Hate Politics, Address Inflation/Unemployment

The post Key challenge for Siddaramiah’s Congress Govt: review NEP, its “health & wellbeing” policy appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Beginning with the more than four hundred page Subramanium Committee[2] report, which was neither accepted nor released to the public by the Union government, the government of India (GOI) suddenly released its own 68-page document.  Soon after, the then Rajya Sabha MP from the CPI (M) Sitaram Yechury publicly exposed the fact that this was a verbatim extract or version from an RSS document. Thereafter, the then Human Resources Development Minister (HRD) Prakash Javedekar immediately withdrew the document stating that it had been released `by mistake’!  Another. almost two years later the Prof. Kasturirangan Committee’s report came out. However, during the Covid pandemic a National Education Policy (NEP 2020) was passed by the Cabinet without being presented in Parliament or being sent to a select committee.  With no transparent debate among academicians or reference to the states as was constitutionally required since education comes under the concurrent list of subjects, the NEP 2020 began to be implemented in a haphazard manner through executive decisions and through central institutions including the University Grants Commission (UGC), the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), the National Testing Agency (NTA) and the like.

There were strong critical objections to the policy, to the manner of its implementation and the unseemly haste to push it through come what may. Institutions were threatened with withdrawal of central funds if it was not implemented by the next academic session. Teachers at both school level and higher education were intimidated and bullied not to speak out against the policy and responses by unions were sought to be suppressed. In spite of continuing opposition, institutional administrations were literally forced to implement the policy even if it meant their having to resort to using emergency powers to do so.

Chaos was created at all levels of the education system with structural, pedagogical and curriculum changes being pushed through without preparation, planning or resources. A system already in crisis with 50% to 60% shortage of faculty and lacking physical infrastructure was being pushed over the brink. Teaching was to be done through hybrid modes of online and offline functioning irrespective of the lack of access to devices and connectivity. Anganwadi workers were to receive online `training’ for taking on Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE) responsibilities! Merger and closure of schools was happening across the country so that `school complexes’ could be made to `share’ what were in fact non-existent `resources’ resulting in  a further dropping out of children who were losing neighbouring schools or being crammed into `merged’ schools.

Although there is now much talk of lessening the burden of learning and breaking away from methods of `rote’ learning, there will now be all-India exams at Class 3, 5 and 8 as well as board exams at Class 10 and 12. The former will decide whose `education’ stops at `numeracy and literacy’, who goes on to `vocational training’ (these two categories would cover approximately 85 to 90 percent bahujan children[3]) while the latter will determine who completes higher secondary. But to get to higher education even the less than 10% `elite’ students will have to sit for a centralised entrance exam (currently compulsory only for central universities, it is proposed to be extended across the country). Coaching classes are booming, 97% of Delhi University admissions are from CBSE schools this time and the number of women students have dropped alarmingly.

Why is the education system being systematically destroyed and learning being kept out of reach for the vast majority of India’s children? Why is it not being reformed to facilitate universalisation of compulsory education for all? What does the government hope to gain from this worsening of the existing crisis in education?

The answer lies in the NEP 2020 inspired position paper on “Knowledge of India” (KI) (January 2022) including `Indian Knowledge Systems’ (IKS). Several `Guidelines’ have since been issued for the introduction of such courses in schools and higher educational institutions and also for training teachers to impart instruction.  Centrally selected and well-funded research projects are already underway to discover `scientific’ support for ancient ritual practices. The focus is on what are termed `Vedic’ achievements in ancient India in all spheres of knowledge from the sciences, mathematics, astronomy (including `astrology’), medical sciences, social organization and governance, art, aesthetics, architecture etc., and on the Sanskrit language in which these are accessible.  Ancient texts, such as the Puranas, Smrttis, the epics, Vedas and Upanishads are the core source materials. Gurukuls and temple schools are venerated as the proper institutions in which this knowledge was transmitted (apparently without caste exclusions) and preserved.

This fanciful picture is placed in the framework of what is identified as the proper historical `narrative’, one which is not tainted by the ideology of `invaders and colonisers’, so that Bharatiyata is to be rediscovered and IKS are to take their rightful place above and prior to the rise of modern science, the Enlightenment, and the Industrial Revolution. The historical narrative must display “steadfastness in protecting the civilization”.  The role of Hindu kingdoms and dynasties has to be emphasized instead of elaborating the achievements of the invaders and colonisers. And so we are told, in flagrant violation of historical evidence, that “Buddhism started declining” as a “direct result of these invasions”!

The document claims that being colonised “for a thousand years” has apparently confused a “group of our intellectuals” who make ancient civilization “responsible” for social wrongs by “misinterpreting” ancient texts (like Manusmrtti) thereby leading to a loss of “traditional” patterns of employment. So we must see caste divisions and oppression as a form of societal harmony and stability! This blatant support for Brahmanical principles of social organization and its ideological propagation of caste hierarchies in daily life is seen as the foundational Bharatiya Dharma which is to be glorified and strengthened by the new historical narrative.

The IKS/KI is nothing else but the promotion of the ideology of the RSS shakha in the entire education system. It will be a compulsory add-on to the curriculum for which time has to be allocated although it will not be examined and graded along with other subjects. Every school and educational institution will have a `cell’ to organize the instruction of IKS/KI  and its other activities, including displays, debates, quizzes, etc., and physical training and yoga. Every school library will have a special section on IKS/KI with books and other reading material.

Of course the teachers imparting such instruction cannot be expected to be drawn from the existing colonially inspired education system. So they will have to be drawn from RSS/Sangh Parivar organisations[4], from the `community’ and from the `family’, that are compatible with IKS ideology. Frequent workshops will require to be held to `sensitise’ them to the needs of the NEP 2020.

Even the very idea of re-vamping education on this basis would require a well-researched account of ancient Sanskrit texts. This is a massive intellectual task and hardly one that can be achieved without `burdening’ researchers, teachers and students! It is particularly problematic because Brahmanical ideology itself grew out of sharp conflicts with the Lokayata Charvaka materialism, and the Sankhya Yoga and Naya Visheshika realisms. The anti-caste and anti-ritualist Buddhist and Jain philosophies of social organization were frankly anti-Brahmanical.  The rich body of Prakrits and Pali literatures are a recognized tradition distinct from and at variance with the Brahmanical Sanskrit literature.

Thus the attempt to glorify Brahminism by portraying India’s ancient civilizational history as a homogeneous continuum, until the advent of the `invaders’, is itself a deeply biased and prejudicial account that is hardly conducive to being the basis for a modern critical system of education.

In fact the position paper itself, while it seems unaware of the irony of its stand, states that recovering Bharatiyata requires the Indian presence of a Joseph Needham who produced an extensive study of the civilizational achievements of Chinese science and technology! However, far from following in his footsteps, IKS/KI moves in the opposite direction.

In the absence of serious research on the actual achievements of early civilizational philosophers and thinkers, not to mention the completely neglected medieval philosophical monotheisms and their sociological and linguistic impact in the spread and development of Prakrits, the ideologically motivated and unsubstantiated `shakha propaganda’ about a `golden age’ of Brahmanical achievement remains just that – propaganda.

It is this shakha-based propaganda to which the mass of India’s children will be subjected as the public system of education is crippled without resources and the constitutional commitment to providing quality education on the part of the Government is simply brushed aside.

The privileged elite, of course, will increasingly buy their education abroad or at foreign campuses located in India with the unregulated freedom to profit and repatriate.

(The author, previously an academic with the Delhi University is presently with the All India Forum for the Right to Education)

[1] Neighbourhood Branches of the RSS

[2] By 2017, May the Modi government had decided to junk the TSR Subramanian committee report on education reform terming it as a “mere compilation” of older reports. In 2015, the TSR Subramanian was set up to outline a new education policy, which submitted its report in May, 2016.

[3] In a modern context, it refers to the combined population of the Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, Other Backward Classes, Muslims, and minorities, who together constitute the demographic majority of India.

[4] Vidya Bharati (short for Vidya Bharati Akhil Bharatiya Shiksha Sansthan) is the educational wing of RSS. It runs one of the largest private network of schools in India, operating at a minimum 2,000 schools with over 3.2 Million students, as of 2016. Since this government came to power it has set up some universities too. https://www.outlookindia.com/magazine/story/india-news-saffronisation-of-education-rss-says-its-schools-imbibe-indian-values-in-students/305071; there is also the Ekal Vidyalaya the one teacher school run by a parallel foundation affiliated to the Viswa Hindu Parshad (VHP) and RSS https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekal_Vidyalaya

The post Decimating schools to accommodate Shakhas appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The narrative around the DBT is easy to sell as the ruling government claims to have transferred benefits with reduced corruption in many of the centrally sponsored schemes. But is the same model applicable in the field of education? At least the research disagrees with this logic. A study conducted in 2018 in East Delhi with 800 households in low-income neighbourhoods finds no or negative impact of such transfers/vouchers in the learning level of the students. The results of the study are consistent with the studies conducted prior to this study. Suggestion by the author is feeble as it ignores the socio-political realities surrounding the education system. The problem of our primary schooling is because of the different type of schools for children from different types of backgrounds, thus differentiating childhood based on their socio-economic backgrounds.  

Geeta Gandhi repeats the gross mistake of not keeping the child at the centre of education policy and misses out on the importance of equity, accessibility, quality and affordability to let children have equal opportunity. She fails to mention and so does NEP, that the only model which has succeeded in achieving universalisation of primary education around the world is the Common School System which is run, funded and regulated by government and in India is a 1968 Kothari Commission recommendation. Geeta Gandhi thinks government cannot play all the roles of policy maker, operator, assessor and regulator of schools. However, it is the same government which runs good quality Kendriya and Navodaya Vidyalayas and world class higher educational institutions like IITs, IIMs, AIIMSs, IISERs and various NLUs. Hence by advancing a flawed logic she is trying to belittle the public schools.Around 65 percent children still attend public schools and to propose a solution which only focuses on the population which is ready to make a shift to private schools will be naive at multiple levels. Deeper look at her suggestion also raises fundamental questions about the author’s interest in pushing the interest of the private schools and catering to the interest of only privileged children. In fact, the private schools can be directly held responsible for the deterioration in quality of government schools as slowly the children of ruling elites made a switch from government to private schools. Another important piece of information missing from Geeta Gandhi’s article and NEP is the 2015 Allahabad High Court judgement of Justice Sudhir Agrawal which sought to make it mandatory for everyone receiving a government salary to send their children to government schools. Implementation of this judgement, to which the Uttar Pradesh government has turned a blind eye so far, could be a step in the direction of moving towards common school system and an effective remedy to the learning crisis that Geeta Gandhi is alluding to in her article. But this will wean away significant section of her clients.

Except for some elite urban schools, most private schools, especially in rural areas, are known to run mass copying rackets. Students can pass their Board examinations in exchange for a certain sum of money which is divided between the school management and the education department officials. The NEP too ignores this widespread phenomenon, especially in north India, and avoids making any suggestion for elimination of this aberration.

Geeta Gandhi is an advocate of DBT. Then why is her school not admitting children under section 12(1)(c) of the Right to Education Act 2009 which offers at least 25% seats for free education from classes I to VIII to children of disadvantaged groups and weaker sections with their fees to be paid by the government directly to the school? Segregation in the current schooling system is conspicuous. To deal with same, abovementioned section was provided for in the RTE Act at the entry-level. Even a simple Google search on violation of the RTE Act brings it to the notice that her own school has not been admitting children under this provision. CMS has admitted 13 children because of a court order in 2015-16 and two on its own in 2018-19 out of 31, 55, 296 and 270 admissions ordered by the basic education department in 2015-16, 2016-17, 2017-18 and 2018-19, respectively, implying a compliance of only 2.3% of the admission orders. And these number of admissions ordered are nowhere near the standard 25% prescribed by the law. Curiously Geeta Gandhi talks about unaccountability of the public schools in her article! If CMS would have honoured all the abovementioned admissions it would have gained Rs. 35,20,800 as direct transfer from the government in the academic year 2018-19 towards the fees of these children. Hence it is clear that it is not really the DBT that CMS is interested in. It simply doesn’t want underprivileged children to sit beside the children from elite class. It is crass discrimination against the poor.

There are other egregious examples of unaccountability behaviour of CMS. Some of its branches are being run illegally without certificates of land from revenue department and no objection certificates from education department on encroached lands. There are pending demolition orders against its Indira Nagar and Mahanagar branches and a court case pending against its Jopling Road branch for the last over 25 years. CMS was running an illegal bank from its Chowk branch offering 12-13% interest on deposits. While the public schools may be laggards when it comes to quality of teaching-learning, competitive schools like CMS create undue pressure on students leading to suicides at times. Asmi Yadav of class IX of Gomti Nagar  branch committed suicide on 12 February 2019 because of unreasonable academic demands of CMS. One reason for abrasive competitiveness in private schools is the infiltration of these schools by coaching institutions and CMS is no exception to this. The NEP doesn’t offer any convincing solution to the menace of coaching institutions.

There is probably no government school which is run with so many violations of rules and laws as CMS branches.

India spends only 4.6% of its Gross Domestic Product on education whereas Kothari Commission recommendation and a global standard spent by other countries is 6%. To argue to not increase India’s expenditure on education is a prescription to deny large number of underprivileged children especially from rural areas any decent quality of education or any education at all. By quoting average figures of pupil-teacher ratio or the expenditure per pupil Geeta Gandhi is masking the large number of schools where a single teacher may be handling more than one class simultaneously in her classroom in complete violation of norms of pupil-teacher ratio under the RTE Act.

Geeta Gandhi Kingdom’s attempt to defend the indefensible in the garb of an academic have come a cropper. She cannot be in London and Lucknow at the same time, ideologically speaking.
 

The post Private Interest Masquerading as Policy Critique: NEP appeared first on SabrangIndia.