Abstract
‘An educated, enlightened, and informed population is one of the surest ways of promoting the health of a democracy,’ as Nelson Mandela stated. How far does India’s national education policy contribute to strengthening democracy in India? The book under review is concerned with this question.
The book is a compilation of a few important papers and addresses presented in the National Convention on ‘Democracy and Education through the Prism of the Constitution’ organised by the State Platform for Common School System, Tamil Nadu in Chennai, India on 14 April 2022. The Convention offered a platform for a critical discussion on some of the major aspects of the National Education Policy 2020 that the Government of India has adopted.
The National Education Policy proposed a set of sweeping reforms covering the entire education system and covering almost all key dimensions. It proposes revamping of the school system, restructuring of higher education institutions and higher education programmes, introduction of extensive curricular reforms, new regulatory regime, reforms in teacher education, new measures in case of admissions, examinations, etc. In higher education, it proposes reclassification of higher education institutions into research (-intensive) universities, teaching (-intensive) universities, and teaching colleges. It proposes introduction of a four-year undergraduate programme with multiple exit and entry options for students, with the content focusing on knowledge, skills, and values. The policy also proposes all institutions of higher education to become multi-disciplinary institutions and to offer interdisciplinary programmes. Proposing setting up a National Research Foundation, the policy lays special emphasis on improving the quality of education and research, and the employability of graduates. The policy also proposes major reforms in governance. The entire regulatory system in higher education will be revamped that covers regulatory bodies such as the University Grants Commission, National Assessment and Accreditation, All-India Council for Technical Education, National Council for Teacher Education, etc. These and many other proposals made in the policy are hailed by many as path-breaking reforms, and at the same time are criticised by many as derailing from the path of equitable growth and steady progress.
Apart from a few messages, resolutions of conventions, representations to the government and a set of very useful and informative annexures which also offer critical perspectives on certain issues such as blended learning, proposed by the University Grants Commission, and the formation of Tamil Nadu State Education Commission, the book under review contains a few important articles critically analysing some of the major provisions of the National Education Policy, showing how they distort democratic traditions in a federal political system. Sukhadeo Thorat argues in his essay that the measures proposed for improvement in quality of education may severely undermine the access to higher education of the marginalised groups. Ramesh Bijekar argues that the entrance tests meant to safeguard merit may form a ‘setback’ for the students of ‘exploited caste-class sections’ (p. 106). Highlighting the extent of existing inequalities in access to higher education by gender, caste, economic conditions, etc., Thorat argues that the policy ‘does not identify the problems faced by the socially and economically disadvantaged groups, women and the physically handicapped students’ (p. 27). He also questions the knowledge base of the policy makers in making several reforms of the kind proposed in the policy.
Arguing that a policy has to be evaluated for its relevance, validity and implications, keeping in view the provisions of the Constitution of India like the fundamental rights and India’s federal structure, Anil Sadgopal argues that the National Education Policy fails this acid test. Sadgopal considers the introduction of the central university entrance test for admissions in undergraduate courses in central universities and the national eligibility-cum-entrance test (NEET) for admissions in undergraduate programmes in medical education across the country, to be conducted by a newly created body namely National Testing Agency following the National Education Policy, as measures that erode state autonomy and as violating the federal structure enunciated in the Constitution of India, though NEET, JEE (joint entrance examination for technical education) and the like have been here for quite a few years. He fears that these will completely replace the state-level examinations/tests for entrance into universities, and thereby the role of the state governments would get minimised. After all, education is on the ‘concurrent list’ in the Constitution of India, bestowing powers both to the state governments and the union (central) government to make education policies. Many state governments and universities have been conducting entrance examinations for the last several years, even when NEET, JEE etc., are in vogue. The policy does not clearly prohibit this.
Jawahar Nesan questions the hurriedness in ‘imposing’ these reforms, particularly the new curriculum framework that focuses on knowledge, skills and values and promises holistic development, rather than allowing its ‘evolutionary development’ over several years to finally confirm that it was a ‘common good, reliable and non-discriminatory’ (p. 80), as has been the experience in many other countries.
The available research evidence on technology in improving access, quality or equity in education is not unequivocal. R Ramanujam raises valuable doubts and he fears that heavy reliance on technology may increase exclusion in education, as the world experience has shown that ‘digital technology can be a great divider in society and acts principally towards sustaining and deepening structural inequality’ (p. 87), as the experience during the COVID-19 has also shown; but it appears it is here to stay. In a short article, G Nagarjuna reminds us of a few valuable norms in education that we tend to overlook, namely, ‘medium of instruction cannot be different from medium of expression’, ‘need for entrance tests indicate problems in quality of education’, and ‘higher education spaces need autonomy to explore and experiment and not regulation’. Unfortunately, the medium of instruction became a political issue; entrance tests are here to stay; and compromise on autonomy has become normal! The policy’s focus on outcomes, graduate attributes, etc., is also subject to criticism, as it promotes more the market relevant efficiency than the quality of education or the other genuine needs of the society.
While the policy promises to close down all commercially oriented private institutions of education, as it is extremely difficult in the sociopolitical context to do so, many rightly fear that they will not only stay, but also will flourish; and privatisation of education will continue on an increasing scale. Many contributors to the volume decry the increasing trends of privatisation, and the policy’s inability to check these trends. In fact, some of the provisions made in the policy seem to be clearly pro-private. So far no clear initiatives have been taken to close down such institutions, while many initiatives for implementation have already been in the case of quite a few proposals.
The policy favours local language, if not mother tongue, as medium of instruction in at least primary schools, and promises the strengthening of Indian languages including Sanskrit. It proposes to set up an institution of translation of books including technical treatises into Indian languages. Many states have also decided to offer not only higher general education, but also higher engineering education in Hindi medium and quite a few national-level entrance examinations are already being conducted in several Indian languages. However, in practice, the overall focus on the English language continues. This focus on the English language has been found to be exclusionary in effect. As Vasanthi Devi, focusing on inclusion, notes, ‘the dominant form of exclusion and demarcation is the language of learning. The elite do not learn in any language of this country. A whole universe of exclusion has grown around the English language. The English language is the sole language of privilege, power, of opportunity [and] aggrandizement’ (p. 77). Though this has been an unfortunate experience for a long time, one expects the present policy to be clearer and more assertive in its approach to the medium of instruction in education. Developments during the formulation of the policy revealed that the final policy statement has been a compromise on the issue of the medium of instruction.
There are indeed several issues that the National Education Policy covers, and the slim volume under review finds fault with. In all, there are 17 pieces in the book by as many persons belonging to different walks of life -- scholars, administrators, and activists, and nine annexures by civil society organisations, covering a variety of aspects. The attempts to rewrite syllabi and history textbooks are condemned (A. Karunandan), as wrecking the nationhood; outcome-based education which is widely prevalent all over the world is considered as an assault on knowledge systems and the dignity of students (M. Dhansekaran); the national higher education qualification framework which has become indispensable in the context of globalisation and which was initiated in 2014 by the previous government, has also been commented here as imposing uniformity in place of diversity in higher education (Jawahar Nesan); and so on. On the whole, one impression that the readers may get from the book is: many of the contributors/participants of the convention are ideologically, but not necessarily and incorrectly, biased; as a result, a balanced constructive critique of the Policy is missing in the book. The book is not claimed to be a scholarly work; nevertheless, it is a valuable read, stimulating fresh and serious thinking on many issues and their implications.
