A critical response to

“Some Inputs for Draft National Education Policy 2016”

Ministry of Human Resources Development, G.O.I

By

All India Forum for Right to Education

(A. I. F. R. T. E)

15th

September, 2016

AIFRTE PRESIDIUM

Dr. Meher Engineer, Chairperson, AIFRTE

Kolkata, West Bengal ; Ex-President, Indian Academy of Social Science;

Prof. Wasi Ahmed, Bihar, Former Joint Secretary, AIFUCTO; Patna

Sri Prabhakar Arade, Maharashtra, President, AIFETO; Kolhapur

Prof. G. Haragopal, Telangana, National Fellow, ICSSR; TISS, Hyderabad

Prof. Madhu Prasad, Delhi, Formerly Deptt. of Philosophy, Zakir Husain College D U

Prof. K. Chakradhar Rao, Telangana, Deptt. of Economics, Osmania University

Prof. Anil Sadgopal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal, Former Dean, Faculty of Education, DU

Prof. K. M. Shrimali, Delhi, Formerly Dept. of History, Delhi University

Dr. Anand Teltumbde, Goa, Senior Professor, Goa Institute of Management, Goa.

Address: 306, Pleasant Aparts, Bazarghat, Hyderabad, 500004

Ph: 04023305266, Website: www.aifrte.in,

Email: aifrte.secretariat@gmail.com

Contact: Organising Secretary 09440980396, Office Secretary 09407549240

AIFRTE Page 1

15th Sept 2016

To

Shri Prakash Javadekar,

The Minister for Human Resource Development

Government of India

Shastri Bhavan, New Delhi

Subject: AIFRTE Response (Revised) to the MHRD document ‘Some Inputs for Draft

National Education Policy 2016’.

Note: We have submitted our response on 12th Sept. This is a slightly modified

document and we suggest you to consider this instead of the earlier.

Respected Sir,

All India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE), a federal platform of grassroots

organizations, activists, academicians, educationists, artists, writers and eminent

persons would like to submit its response and recommendations on the document

‘Some Inputs for Draft National Education Policy, 2016’ released by MHRD. AIFRTE is

working in 22 States and Union Territories

AIFRTE, after thorough analysis, is convinced that the document ‘Some Inputs for

Draft National Education Policy 2016’ issued by GOI has great many components of

commercialisation and communalisation of education and stands against the

constitutional vision of our nation. We hope that your ministry will take our

endeavor seriously and will work in direction of abolishing commercialisation in all

forms including Public Private Partnership from education and strive to build an

egalitarian education system in the country. We hope all majoritarian and

hegemonic traits in our education policy on the basis of religion, belief, caste,

economic capacity, gender, normal body, language and cultural practices will be

done away with to foster a new vision of a humane and enlightened society based on

equality, equal opportunity, liberty, fraternity secularism and socialism.

Thanking You.

With Regards, Presidium All India Forum for Right to Education

AIFRTE Page 2

Introduction

A response to the MHRD document “Some inputs for Draft

Education Policy 2016” (MHRD Inputs) raises some questions:

Does it have a comprehensive, coherent, democratic

perspective and approach?

Is it in conformity with our constitutional vision, goals and

principles?

Can it achieve a humane, democratic, secular education

based on the principles of equality and social justice?

Can it strengthen and develop our public education system

and stop its deterioration?

Can it provide free and quality public education to all

children up to 18 years till they complete higher secondary

education and equal and increasing opportunities to go to

higher education?

Can it help abolish privatization, commercialization,

globalization and communalization of education and

achieve a free, quality common school system based on

neighborhood schools fully funded by the government? Can

it address the rural-urban, caste-class, gender, religious,

disability inequalities, discrimination and deprivation?

Will it pave the way for social transformation towards a

humane, genuinely democratic, secular, egalitarian society

with human security, dignity and good human relations?

Policy Framing-Approach

The MHRD document shows a lack of deeper

understanding of the problems afflicting our education system.

It is more akin to a project feasibility report and is devoid of

AIFRTE Page 3

insights into the socio-political processes and causalities. The

language and style of presentation shows a techno-economic and

bureaucratic approach, without a democratic and social

commitment and involvement.

The way the T. S. R. Subramaniam Committee was

constituted with four bureaucrats and only one academic,

inviting and receiving opinions and feedback (with a

preconceived agenda and methodology) from a large number of

organizations and individuals which have not been made public

and finally when the committee report has been submitted,

keeping it in cold-storage, neither accepting, nor rejecting nor

putting it in the public domain, shows the lack of sincerity and

commitment. Is there a dearth of educationists, academics and

intellectuals in our country? Does it not indicate a sinister

motive behind not involving them? Is it not contrary to good

democratic practice?

The MHRD document lack coherence, consistency or a holistic

approach. There are clear contradictions between the avowed

goals and objectives and the policy framework and the strategies

discussed. Absence of the required priority to education and

political commitment and will is apparent.

The conception of Education

The conception of education in the MHRD document is

narrow, restrictive and misleading. In its preamble it says “the

NEP 2016 envisions a credible Education system capable of

ensuring inclusive quality education and lifelong learning

opportunities for all and producing students / graduates

equipped with knowledge, skills, attitudes and values… to lead a

AIFRTE Page 4

productive life, participate in the country’s development process,

respond to the requirements of the fast-changing, ever-

globalizing, knowledge-based societies, and developing

responsible citizens who respect the Indian tradition of

acceptance of diversity of Indian heritage, culture and history

and promote social cohesion and religious amity”.

This is full of neoliberal and Hindutva ideological jargons

and concepts, both of which are regressive and anti-people. The

concept ‘inclusive’ is used as a substitute for ‘common’ or

‘equal’, lifelong learning implies adult, open and online

education, ‘productive life’ is used in the economic sense,

‘development process’ and ‘ever globalizing’ in the neoliberal

sense, and ‘Indian heritage, culture and history, social cohesion

and religious amity’ are conceived of within the communal

Hindutva framework.

In fact education as a social-historical process plays an

enlightening, transformative and emancipative role. Education

should lead to the enlightenment of individual and progress of

society. Through its humanizing, civilizing and rationalizing role,

it inculcates in the individual and society a spirit of enquiry and

scientific temperament and also leads to a society with freedom,

justice, equality, fraternity and human dignity, democracy,

plurality, federalism, secularism and socialism.

Socio-Economic Milieu:

The context in which a new education policy has to be

discussed is the socio-economic milieu of our society. Socio-

economic systems of Varna-Caste, feudal and neoliberal

capitalism, and patriarchy are marked by hierarchy, hegemony,

AIFRTE Page 5

subordination, alienation, marginalization, exclusion and

deprivation. Severe caste-class-gender inequalities, prejudices

and discrimination are all-pervading. Social injustices against

SC, ST, OBC, religious and linguistic minorities, the disabled,

women, trans-genders and children are rampant. Engaged in

caste-based occupations or in the unorganized sector with low

earnings, they suffer from poverty, social and educational

backwardness and the cruelty of social practices and stigmas

like untouchability and alienation. The NEP does not address

them.

The Constitutional Framework

The Indian Constitution affirms that ours is a sovereign,

democratic, secular, socialist republic with justice, liberty,

equality and fraternity. Building an egalitarian, welfare state is

the essence of its vision. Ensuring free and compulsory

elementary education to all children and equal and equitable

opportunities for higher education for all youth is its mandate.

The policy framework of the MHRD Document:

By advocating privatization of education, withdrawal of the

state and assigning a pro-active role to the corporate sector,

turning education into a private good and a tradable service, the

NEP is in clear contravention of the constitutional vision of a

common education system. Objectives like equality, equitable

education, social justice, secularism are repeatedly mentioned

(chapter 3 of inputs document) in a formal and perfunctory

manner and they are not supported by necessary policy

initiatives.

AIFRTE Page 6

With education shifted from the State List to the

Concurrent List in the Constitution, there is a heavy

centralization of decision-making power with the Centre and the

states are made to depend on it for policies and financial

resources. This needs to be changed. The states which are the

major providers of education should be provided with adequate

powers and financial resources.

Professor Amartya Sen, the Nobel Laureate, once said: ‘we

cannot live without the past but cannot live within it either’. All

varieties of history of humanity show that once humans started

living a sedentary life and acquired the sense of private property,

societies evolved along stratified classes with a handful of

privileged segments controlling all kinds of resources and a great

mass of people engaged in primary tasks of production of wealth

being subjected to all kinds of indignities and disabilities. Until

the advent of modern democratic establishments rooted in

universal suffrage, all societies of the world preserved the vested

interests of select few classes. Equally significant feature of

human history, notwithstanding these fragmenting forces, is the

demolition of the twin myths of ‘purity of race’ and ‘purity of

language’. And with the all-pervasive eternally migrant character

of humans, all societies of the world have perennially been

pluralistic – socially and culturally.

The MHRD document invokes history in a somewhat

queer manner. The very first sentence and the first paragraph of

the ‘Preamble’ makes it amply clear that the whole approach is

not only ahistorical but is completely motivated by the interests

of what has come to be seen as ‘imagined community’. When

even in today’s democratic India, post-Independence seven

AIFRTE Page 7

decades have never seen more than 1/25th of the national

financial resources being spent on education, the claim that

‘India has always accorded high importance to education’ can at

best be seen as laughable and an exercise in self-delusion.

Further, it is contradicted by the document’s admission a few

pages later, ‘India currently has the largest non-literate

population in the world’ (p.7)

At couple of places, the ‘Inputs document’ harps on

disseminating ‘India’s rich heritage, glorious past, great

traditions’ and the need to provide adequate space for ‘Indian

culture, local and traditional knowledge’. Legitimate questions in

this context would be: whose heritage? Which heritage? Which

past? Which tradition? While no categorical answers to these

questions are forthcoming, its stray allusions to ‘linguistic and

cultural diversity’, ‘heterogeneous culture’ are more in the nature

of mere lip service than voices emerging out of any serious

conviction. On the other hand, the real intent can be easily

deciphered in its eulogy of ‘Vedic system of education’ and ‘the

Gurukul system’ (Preamble of MHRD document) and in its

mission of achieving ‘cultural unity of the country’ through the

‘teaching of Sanskrit at the school and university stages’ because

of ‘special importance of Sanskrit to the growth and development

of Indian languages’. In this context, it needs to be recalled that

throughout its long history spanning over several millennia,

Sanskrit always remained a language of the ruling and social

elite.

Again, the inputs document leaves no one in doubt that

all non-Sanskritik traditions – right from the Charvakas, the

Buddha and Mahavir to Nanak, Kabir, Ramdas and more

AIFRTE Page 8

recently, up to Phule, the Periyar and Ambedkar (most of these

were using people’s languages) – essentially, all thought currents

that questioned the ‘Vedic’ tradition and ‘Vedic system of

education’ (read Brahmanical tradition) have been completely

blacked out. By questioning this ‘Vedic’ tradition, they were all

contesting its inherent opposition to any social change and its

predilection to be status-quoist. Remarkably, all these were

voices of reason and rooted in scientific temper, voices that

encouraged people to think on their own and question

everything. While the Buddha wanted every individual to ‘be a

lamp unto himself’ (atta deepo bhava), the Jainas through their

accent on the multi-faceted truth created phenomenal spaces for

alternative and even dissenting voices. The Jainas debated

incessantly for over two thousand years about the rights and

potentialities of women to achieve nirvana (salvation). They also

went on to discuss such manifestations of identities of women

and womanhood that would perhaps put even the most modern

feminist to shame! Notwithstanding the initial reluctance of the

Buddha to admit women into the sangha (monastic

establishment, that later grew as big educational centers),

women were subsequently encouraged to develop their

educational skills. Many of them went on to become renowned

poets. Both the Jainas and the Buddhist sanghas allowed their

women members to retain their property rights, which enabled

them to give big donations for the building and embellishment of

stupas such as Sanchi, Bharhut and Nagarjunakonda. These

non-sanskritik voices provided roots for and nurtured the

‘Argumentative Indian’. The Document, on the other hand, wants

a regimented system. No wonder, the ‘Gurukul system’ is

understood as ‘a teacher centric system in which the pupil was

AIFRTE Page 9

subjected to a rigid discipline and was under certain obligations

towards his/her teacher’ (pg.1 of MHRD document). The

inquisitive Gargi, during a philosophic discussion in one of the

Upanishads, was brazenly asked by the sage Yagyavalkya to

‘shut up lest her head was chopped off’. The NEP Document just

does not have any space for ‘reason’ and ‘scientific temper’.

The richness of non-Sanskritik thought currents can also

be seen in the earliest Tamil literature. It is quite a revelation

that more than two millennia ago, these texts developed a

concept of eco-cultural zones within ancient Tamilnadu. These

zones sustained inhabitants of multiple identities. One can see a

generic link between such exposition and the identification of

more than ninety eco-cultural zones in India by the

Anthropological Survey of India’s People of India Project of the

1980s.

That India’s long pluralistic and non-Sanskritik cultural

traditions are not even on the radar of the policy framework

envisioned in the document is also reflected in the identification

of markers who contributed to seminal contributions to the

world of knowledge. It is well-known that very significant

scientific treatises were written in Arabic and Persian. Not a

single allusion to authors of such writings figures in the list,

where Charaka, Sushruta, Aryabhata, etc are mentioned. The

Madrasa of Mahmud Gawan at Bidar (in Karnataka built in late

15th century) focused not just on its ecclesiastical interest of

propagating Shiaism but also invited reputed faculty from

outside India to teach science and mathematics. It is also

recorded that free boarding, lodging and education to over 500

AIFRTE Page 10

students from the world over was provided at any given time.

The founder had established a library of 3000 volumes in this

university before his death. Regrettably, it does not figure

anywhere in the Document. Don’t Akbar, Dara Shukoh and

Shah Jahan deserve a place for patronising and nurturing

different linguistic traditions? Recent studies have shown that

contrary to commonly held view of decline of Sanskrit, more than

250 years of the Mughal rule (16th-18th centuries) constituted a

very rich and creative phase of Sanskrit writings in varied

genres. Akbar’s patronage of Persian translations of the Epics

and Dara Shukoh’s monumental translations (from Sanskrit to

Persian) of numerous Upanishads stand out as remarkable

examples. While Takshila (Taxila) is merely history now, the

building of Dara Shukoh’s library (in Kashmiri Gate, Delhi) still

exists and is housing the Bharat Ratna Bhimrao Ambedkar

University and even Guru Gobind Singh Indraprastha University

functioned from this building until recently.

Singing paeans of the selected past (read ancient

‘Hindu’ / brahmanical past of the Pre-Turkish times as

delineated by Brahmanical lawmakers and social thinkers),

without making its critical evaluation, and in the process,

deliberately ignoring its extremely dehumanizing inegalitarian

patriarchal caste-system and divisive socio-cultural dimensions

(anti-women, anti-lower social orders and against the people

following occupations that were hated by the brahmanical

thinkers – all zealously codified in the Manusmriti) is only aiming

at the perpetuation of similar divides in modern democratic

India. We can do without recalling the ‘Sudarshan Chakra’ of

‘Mohan’ (Lord Krishna) but we must not be oblivious of the

AIFRTE Page 11

chaak of the first kumhaar of humanity (wheel of the potter,

whose religious identity can never be established), which not

only honed her/his skill of creating varied pots and pans but

more importantly, is the greatest testimony of her/his inventive

mind that made such a phenomenal technological breakthrough.

We do not need Dronacharyas of the ‘Gurukul system’ but an

educational apparatus that does not produce Ekalavyas and

Shambooks. While Gurudeva Rabindranath Tagore was inspired

by the ashramas in establishing his Santiniketan, one would

look in vain to find evidence of those ancient learning

establishments venturing to realise Gurudeva’s ideals of a

Knowledge Centre embodied in his famous lines:

Where the mind is without fear and the head is held high;

Where knowledge is free;

Where the world has not been broken up into fragments by

narrow domestic walls;…

Where the clear stream of reason has not lost its way into the

dreary desert sands of dead habit;…

Into that heaven of freedom, my Father, let my country

awake.”

Further, when this MHRD document mentions achieving

‘cultural unity of the country through teaching of Sanskrit’, one

can be sure of its determined pursuance of the goal of ‘One

People, One Culture, One Nation’, which would obviously destroy

the millennia old ‘Idea of India’ rooted in its multi-faceted

pluralities.

AIFRTE Page 12

Social Justice Ignored

There is a vague and token reference to social justice in

the MHRD document. The marginalized sections like SC, ST,

OBC, Minorities, Women, Children and Disabled face social

handicap in addition to poverty and resourcelessness. The social

justice and equity demands they are provided with extra support

(both financial as well as non-financial) over and above the

provision for general population. There is a dire need to enlarge

the prevailing system of providing them, nutritious mid-day

meal, clothing free medical care, text books, scholarships and

hostel facilities along with free education. There is need for

continue the quota system for these category students in public

educational institutions and government jobs in suitably

extending them to private sector. But the document does not

make any commitment to continue with reservations and

existing affirmative measures for them. Least does it commit for

extension of affirmative measures. It mentions about providing

10 lacs scholarships for so-called ‘meritorious’ and this needs to

be questioned on the ground that ‘merit’ in our socio-economic

system is a privilege of the few. Any opportunity crated by

government should be equitably distributed. There is a further

apprehension that the newly proposed scholarships could be

intended to siphon funds to private agencies under

reimbursement schemes. There should be a rule that the public

money should be spent only through public institutions.

The emphasis in the document on “pre- vocational

oriented activities” and “skilling of students in tribal areas”

alludes to a vision of making the children of these social

categories “skilled laborers” while structurally reserving the

AIFRTE Page 13

quality education for the students of upper caste and upper

class there by reverting to the Manu-Ordained paradigm.

Pre-School Education

It is stated in chapter IV that “as a priority, a programme of

pre-school education for the children in the age group of 4 to 5

years will be implemented. The state governments will prepare

cadres of pre-primary teachers, by training Anganwadi workers

in due course all primary schools will cover pre-primary

education… Anganwadis will be located either in the school

premises or close to them. Appropriate regulatory and

monitoring rules and mechanism will be designed for private

pre-schools.”

The development of pre-primary education for children of

3-5 years age is very crucial for strengthening and developing the

government primary, upper primary and secondary schools. But

the policy document states that only 4-5 year olds will be

covered and private pre-schools on commercial lines will be

permitted. Anganwadis are not proper place for pre-school

education. Pre-school education shall be provided in for 3-5 year

olds in primary schools. There shall be a full-fledged preparation

for this. But, no timeframe is proposed for bringing pre-primary

education in all primary schools. Adequate budgetary allocation

and infrastructure should be provided for pre-schools and

proper curriculum should be evolved. The pre-schools should be

brought under the school education department.

To improve learning by the children, it is stated that the ‘no

detention policy’ will be followed only in lower primary stage.

Detention at the upper primary and secondary level is proposed

AIFRTE Page 14

instead of providing quality education at the primary level to

improve learning. It will have an adverse effect on the children of

the poor, rural and tribal and other marginalized sections. It is

the system that fails and not the child. It is the education system

that should be transformed and developed. If adequate class-

rooms, teachers, infrastructure facilities and student support

measures for quality education are provided, the students will

learn well.

School Education

The document pronounces (Ch.4) that “with Universal

Elementary Education becoming a reality, expansion of

secondary education is inevitable”. This claim is far from reality.

The major problem lies at the Elementary stage itself. In spite of

higher enrolments, high dropout rates in the Government

Primary Schools, lack of adequate teachers, classrooms and

other infrastructure facilities, lack of proper supervision and

monitoring and therefore poor quality of education are the

problems afflicting these schools. Hence the number of out of

school children and of child laborers is increasing. Hence the

statement that the Universal Elementary Education has become

a reality is not true at all.

Instead of taking remedial measures by providing the

required teachers, infrastructure and taking student support

measures to for 100% retention, merger, consolidation,

composite schools and closure of a large number of schools is

proposed as a policy, to ostensibly achieve one class – one

teacher norm. This goes against even the provisions of the

flawed RTE Act. Already more than one lac government schools

have been closed in the country during last 5 years, doing

AIFRTE Page 15

immense harm to the children of the poor and marginalized

sections.

The Pupil Teacher Ratio should be developed minimum to

20:1 to achieve one class-one class-room-one teacher norm in all

elementary schools. The RTE Act which covers elementary

education, failed on all counts – universal enrolment, retention,

equal standard of infrastructure and teaching and providing

quality education. Extending this ill-conceived Act to secondary

education will be a futile exercise. Closing down a large number

of schools on the one side and proposing expansion of the KVs,

JNVs and the KGBVs on the other is a highly lopsided and elitist

approach. In fact, all government schools should be developed

on a par with the KVs. The multi-layered system of schools with

differential infrastructure and staffing patterns should be

abolished and a common-school system based on neighborhood

school principle should be developed. This will be the solution

for the low enrolments, high dropouts and poor learning. The

policy document does not recognize this.

Curriculum and Examination Reform

The document says “there is a need to renew curricula at

all levels of education, for science, mathematics and English

subjects, a common national curriculum will be designed and for

other subjects such as social sciences, a part of the curricula

will be common across the country and the rest will be at the

discretion of the states”. Why there should be common national

curricula the above mentioned subjects, and how will it address

the deteriorating quality of school education? The curricula for

English, Science and Mathematics should also be developed in

each state on the basis of local geographic, ecological and

AIFRTE Page 16

sociological specificities. Again, the document proposes to

conduct examination in mathematics, science and English at two

levels - Part A at a higher level and Part B at a lower level -

ostensibly to reduce failure rates in class X examination. The

provision in the document is that the students who wish to shift

to vocational stream could opt for part-B level examination.

Two levels of education at school level are but a gross injustice

and are aimed at denying quality education to the

disadvantaged. This is a very unjust and irrational proposition.

It will further accentuate inequalities in our education system.

Undue emphasis on skills and employability

The document lays undue emphasis on skill development,

use of information and communication technology with a view to

enhance employability of the youth. There is, undoubtedly need

for creating more jobs for the growing numbers of the youth. But

the present development model with undue emphasis on high

technology, mechanization and automation, indiscriminate use

of labour-displacing and capital-intensive methods and

techniques of production is leading to jobless growth. When not

many jobs are created in the industrial and services sectors, how

can skill-imparting and vocationalization help the youth in

getting jobs? To what extent will the integration of skill

development programmes in 25% of the schools and higher

education institutions and creation of skill schools will help.

There is a clear contradiction between the neo-liberal

development model and creation of mass employment

opportunities. In this situation, reduction of education to skill

development will seriously harm the future prospects of

AIFRTE Page 17

economically and socially disadvantaged children who depend on

state- funded schools.

Reduction of education to “skills” for global market and

using this agenda to exclude children after Class V, adolescents

after Class VIII and youth after Class XII (and during higher

education as well) will make them a “low-wage earning semi-

skilled slavish work–force” for the global market, rather than

developing them as democratic citizens committed to social

transformation. For this, the entire Skill Development program is

designed to be compliant to National Skill Qualification

Framework (NSQF) as stated in the MHRD document. Indeed, it

will function as a camouflage for Deskilling India i.e. deskilling

more than 80% of Indian population comprising SCs, STs, OBCs

and Muslims, and especially women in each of these categories.

All this fits into the Make in India agenda to provide cheap labor

to both domestic and global capital. This is where the NSQF

provision for ‘Recognition of Prior Learning’ becomes an alarming

agenda of massive deskilling of the 93% people in the

unorganized sector. And when it is linked to the recent

amendment to the Child Labor Act by pushing children below 14

years to family based occupations and enterprises (basically

embedded in caste and gender) and those in the 14-18 years to

hazardous occupations, we have a complete prescription for

converting the “patriarchal caste-system legitimized by

Manusmriti into the neoliberal avatar of a Brahmanical –

corporate order legitimized by finance capital”. [Source for this

paragraph: Economic and Political Weekly, 27th August 2016, p.

36]

AIFRTE Page 18

The ‘inputs’ are totally at peace with the RTE Act 2009

which is designed to demolish the government school system,

and to promote privatization and commercialization of education

and the Public Private Partnership (PPP) programme of

reimbursement of 25% EWS quota in private schools intended to

siphon public funds to private agencies. However, the only

progressive provision in the RTE Act of ‘No Detention’ in

elementary school has been deliberately removed from the upper

primary stage in order to exclude children from 11-14 years and

shift them to Skill Shops.

Distorted view of language and culture:

The document says “students learn most effectively when

taught through their mother tongue”. But immediately

thereafter it refers to the growing demand for… schools with

English as medium of instruction and concludes that all states

and UTs, if they so desire, may provide education in schools up

to class V in mother tongue, local or regional language as

medium of instruction. Countries imparting education in their

mother tongue are making great strides in overall development.

Why should India be an exception? Mother tongue is always

desirable as the medium of education from Pre-school to higher

education. In addition, mother-tongue is a symbol of freedom,

identity, self-esteem, equality and social pride. The advantage of

learning other languages like English, Hindi etc., is not denied

but like all learning this too is facilitated if the student is

proficient in the mother tongue.

AIFRTE Page 19

Reforms in Higher Education

The document states that a set of policy initiatives will be taken

for ensuring effective governance of higher education.

“An Education commission… will be setup every five years

to assist the MHRD in identifying new knowledge areas /

disciplines / domains as well as pedagogic, curricular and

assessment reforms”… The MHRD arrogating to itself such

an interventionist role will be dangerous and harmful to

the Higher Education System. Universities and Higher

Education Institutions (HEIs should have full autonomy to

perform these functions.

The proposed representation on the governing bodies of

HEIs from other social sectors should not be restricted to

Industry but must include trade unions, teacher and

students organizations and unions, and civil society

representatives otherwise it will be likely to induct

undesirable corporate and commercial practices into them.

The proposal for the creation of an Indian Education

Service with an All India cadre under MHRD will centralize

decision-making and introduce bureaucratic practices,

hierarchy and authority in Higher Education, where

democratic functioning, autonomy, academic freedom,

openness and critical study are important.

Establishing separate educational tribunals with power to

follow summary procedures for educational institutions

would not be an adequate alternative to higher courts of

judicature like High Courts and Supreme Court. It is to be

noted that this tribunalisation of justice is proposed in line

with possible multi- lateral or plurilateral global

agreements in ‘trade in education services’

AIFRTE Page 20

Although the document says that “the Government

recognizes and will encourage the positive role of students’

unions” it observes that “most of the disruptive activities

and disharmony in a campus are led by outsiders and

unauthorized students. A study will be conducted to

prevent outsiders and those who ceased to be students

from playing an active role in student-politics and

disrupting academic activities.” This is a very dangerous

and unwarranted move to penalize students and faculty

members. Recently many Dalit, leftist, independent-

minded and Muslim students have been harassed by the

authorities of FTII, HCU, JNU, Jadavpur University, IIT

Chennai, Allahabad University and other HEIs branding

them anti-national, casteist, anti-social, extremist and

terrorist-connected. Many were arrested even under

charges of sedition by the Police. This happened because

ABVP, the RSS students’ wing is sought to be made

dominant on the campuses and the BJP leaders and

Ministers intervene with full support from the authorities

and government.

In the name of ‘achieving enhanced access’, skill

development, capacity building, training, employability

and lifelong learning, the document resorts to vocational

courses, open and distance learning courses and massive

open online courses (MOOCs). This will create a

subordinated stream of students with limited opportunities

open to them when compared with students of the regular

stream of schools and colleges. This will lead to inequality

and discrimination among students.

AIFRTE Page 21

Internationalization of Education

The Inputs document states that “Internationalization is an

inevitable dimension of higher education in this era of

globalization, and generation of new knowledge and its

application. Internationalization comprises of mobility of

students, scholars and faculty; export / import of academic

systems and cultures; research co-operation; knowledge transfer

and capacity building; internationalization of curriculum and

learning outcomes; and cross-border delivery of programmes and

includes virtual mobility and digital learning”.

The policy initiatives proposed will encourage selected

foreign universities from the top 200 in the world to establish

their campuses in India through collaboration with Indian

universities, to make legislation / regulations to allow them to

offer their own degrees which will be valid in their countries, to

internationalize the curricula, encourage more foreign faculties

to join Indian HEIs and to move from years-based to credit-based

recognition of qualifications.

This policy perspective of the BJP-led NDA Government is

in total conformity with the neo-liberal capitalist model of

development and its basic tenets of globalization and

privatization. The World Trade Organization and General

Agreement on Trade in Services (WTO-GATS) which is the

initiator of this model envisages the globalization and

internationalization of education as part of the trade in services

to be regulated by GATS. This perspective assumes that

education is a commodity to be sold and purchased in the

market-place for profit and it is a commercial and tradable

service that can be imported and exported across the countries.

AIFRTE Page 22

Even before the ‘offer’ for market access to GATS approval is

finalized, the GOI is enthusiastically pushing for the imposition

of the provisions of GATS and policies on the people of India. In

fact, education is a public good and a social and merit good.

And it cannot be a commodity or tradable service. It is a

necessity, vital for the existence, survival and progress of human

beings. It is a fundamental right of the citizens and it is the duty

and responsibility of a democratic government to provide free,

equitable and quality education to all. Shirking this

responsibility and handing over education to domestic and

foreign capital for doing business and making profit is an anti-

democratic and anti-people policy.

Nobody oppose openness of mind to ideas and thoughts

from all sides. Our university system functions with this

perspective. But every system or a segment of knowledge needs

critical scrutiny before accepting ideas. Otherwise, the danger of

colonization of minds through indoctrination, conditioning and

subordination to the hegemonistic and exploiting forces of

imperialism, caste, class, gender, religion and regionalism.

We need to distinguish between MHRD’s neo-liberal

‘internationalization’ of education for the global market and

‘internationalism’ in education as advocated by Bhagat Singh,

Tagore, Gandhi, Nehru, Ambedkar and Zakir Hussain.

There is a need for an independent, national, democratic

education policy to provide democratic, free, secular public

education to all citizens to achieve the constitutional goals of an

independent sovereign, democratic, secular, socialist republic

with social, economic and political justice, liberty, equality and

fraternity and equal fundamental rights.

AIFRTE Page 23

In the National Education Policy now proposed by the NDA

Government, there is neither an independent, nor a national, nor

a democratic perspective of education. By a total opening up and

by allowing uncritical import / export of academic systems and

cultures they are denying the possibility of an independent

knowledge and education system, by making our cultures and

language policies subservient to global capital and imperialist

powers. By implementing the neoliberal, imperialist development

model they are making our economic policies and the economy

subservient to them. And by internationalizing knowledge and

education according to neoliberal interests, they are making our

country itself subservient to those powers. Does this not expose

the bankruptcy of the ruling BJP which day-in and day-out

keeps on repeating platitudes and sermons about nationalism,

patriotism, Indian culture and heritage, swadeshi etc? Are these

not empty slogans without any real import being used for

hoodwinking the people? With these economic and education

policies, can our country survive as an independent, sovereign

country?

Financing Education

Education being the basic necessity for the people and for

the overall development of society and the country, it should be

given priority with adequate public funding. But so far, no

government has assigned such a priority to education.

The document says “Education, in Indian context should

be considered a public good and there is a need for greater

public investment in the sector. There are evidences to show

that countries which have heavily privatized education systems

could not economically and socially progress and hence there is

AIFRTE Page 24

a value loss rather than gain. On the other hand countries

which consider education a public good reap greater social

benefits on a sustained basis. The earlier national policies of

1968 and 1986/92 had recommended 6% of GDP as the norm

for the national outlay on education. However, the actual

expenditure on education has remained consistently below this

level and in recent years it has hovered around 3.5%”.

The policy initiatives proposed include “taking steps, for

reaching the long pending goal of raising the investment in

education sector to at least 6% of GDP as a priority, to

supplement the government effort, investment by private

providers through philanthropy and corporate sector

responsibility will be encouraged through incentives such as tax

benefits and including education within the definition of

infrastructure, private funding and FDI for R&D will be pursued

as an important strategy, HEI’s funded by governments need

to… increase their revenues… through alumni funding,

endowment funding, tuition fee enhancement… and private

investment .. and modified education loans schemes etc.’’

Is there any consistency and clear approach in this policy

statement? On the one hand it says there will be greater social

benefits with education as a public good, on the other it says

private investment-oriented funding, fee hikes and FDI will be

pursued as an important strategy. It says allocation to education

will be raised to 6.0% of GDP, but it does not specify when and

how.

In fact, the talk of allocation of 6% of GDP to education at

this time does not make any sense. Kothari Commission had

recommended reaching this level by 1986. Since that has never

AIFRTE Page 25

been reached at any time, the huge short fall every year cannot

be made good even if 10-15% of GDP is allocated and spent on

education from now onwards for many years to come. And it

should be clear that this expenditure must be incurred by the

Central and state governments only and should not include

private investment.

Does the State lack financial resources for education? The

justification for raising private funds and FDI for education is

based on the plea that the governments do not have enough

financial resources, which is not true at all. In fact, this has

been the standard position taken by all governments before and

after independence. Since 1947, GDP and government revenues

have increased many folds. Our rulers claim that ours is the

fastest growing emerging economy which is the tenth largest in

the world. The bogey of lack of funds is raised only to cover up

their regressive low priority for education. The GOI expenditure

on education is far lower than the 4.7% of GDP spent by Nepal,

5% by Rwanda and 6.3% by Vietnam which are all poor

countries. Regarding budgetary allocation and expenditure on

education, which is the mode of actualizing the required GDP

percentage, the Kothari Commission and many others suggested

a 30% of each state’s expenditure as desirable, keeping 6% of

GDP in view. But the states never reached this level. The

budgetary allocation for education for 2016-17 ranged between

9% in Telangana to 23% in Delhi. In view of the cumulative short

fall in the expenditure on education, the 30% norm has no

meaning and it should be much higher. What is now required is

a fully state-funded free education covering all children at the

elementary, secondary and higher secondary levels. The

Government should also provide equal opportunities for higher

AIFRTE Page 26

education to increase the Gross Enrolment Ratio from the

present 23% to at least 30% by 2017 and 60% by year 2022.

Implementation and Monitoring

It is said that the NEP will be followed by a detailed

implementation strategy which will lay down the framework for

action at the State / UT, district and block level and by

preparing a micro-level operational plan of action for every

educational institution with clear performance indicators and

quantifiable targets.

“Appropriate monitoring methods, mechanisms and

systems will be devised from the micro to macro level for periodic

assessment and evaluation of the progress made in achieving the

outcomes and a five-year review of the policy.”

Without looking into the causes for the failures in the past,

without a proper conceptual framework and without a concrete

road-map, the implementation strategy envisaged in the NEP will

only increase bureaucratic control and interference but not be

likely to achieve the desirable goals in our education system.

Conclusion

The MHRD document has a narrow technocratic

conception of education, which cannot provide an independent

democratic, secular and humane education system for our

people. It is dubious in its intensions when it repeatedly

mentions the goals of equality, social justice, secularism and

diversity in education on the one hand and emphasizes on the

other hand an important role for private, national and foreign

corporates and agencies. Through its unbridled

‘internationalization’ agenda, it poses a grievous threat and

hindrance to an independent democratic education policy.

AIFRTE Page 27

The agenda and strategy of indiscriminate and

unprecedented privatization, corporatization, commercialization,

globalization and communalization of education is against our

constitutional vision, goals and policy directives and against

peoples’ interests. It cannot bring all our children – particularly

the poor, rural, the socially marginalized SC, ST, OBC, religious

and linguistic minorities, the disabled and girl children -to

school and retain them up to the secondary and higher

secondary levels. It cannot provide equal and equitable

opportunities for higher education. It cannot stop the present

disruption and deterioration of public education. It cannot stop

the closure of large numbers of government schools across the

country. It cannot strengthen and develop the public education

system. With the RTE Act already sanctifying privatization of

education and PPP, reimbursements etc, the NEP will become a

further obstacle to the achievement of a common school system

based on neighborhood schools.

In view of the above realities, the AIFRTE rejects the MHRD

Inputs document on NEP in toto. The AIFRTE demands an

independent, truly national, democratic, secular, equal and

humane education policy with completely free and common

public education system of quality for all from pre-school to P.G

and Research level fully funded by the central and state

governments. AIFRTE is committed to building a countrywide

movement for the achievement of such a system of education.

***

Address: 306, Pleasant Aparts, Bazarghat, Hyderabad, 500004

Ph: 04023305266, Website: www.aifrte.in,

Email: aifrte.secretariat@gmail.com

Contact: Organising Secretary 09440980396, Office Secretary 09407549240