This article brings together critical perspectives on a broad range of issues that emerge from a reading of the National Policy on Education 2016. The issues vary from accountability to transdisciplinarity and from the marginalization of transgender people to value education. Such a complex task of critiquing this policy document cannot be accomplished by an individual alone. This task must be borne by a team of scholars with training in diverse fields. Working in a team however generates divergences as well as convergences. Yet no attempt has been made to iron out the creases emanating from differences in opinions, nor persist with the search for an underlying singularity, nor enforce a consensus. Such is the uncertain nature of the task of reforming higher education.
BlagescuM.de Las CasasL.LloydR. (2005). Pathways to accountability: The GAP framework. London: One World Trust.
3.
BodR. (2013). A new history of the humanities: The search for principles and patterns from antiquity to the present (trans. Lynn Richards). Oxford: Oxford University Press.
4.
CarverT. (1996). Gender is not a synonym for women. Boulder and London: Lynne Rienner Publishers.
ChaudhuriS.GuhaR.KhilnaniS. (2013). A proposal for a Tagore University in the liberal arts. Economic and Political Weekly, 48(37), 83–88.
7.
GandhiM. (1958–1994). Collected works of Mahatma Gandhi (100 vols). New Delhi: Publications Division of the Government of India.
8.
CollierP. M. (2008). Stakeholder accountability: A field study of the implementation of a governance improvement plan. Accounting, Auditing & Accountability Journal, 21(7), 933–954.
9.
GadamerH.G. (1982). Truth and Method (p. 17). New York: The Crossroad Company.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2016). National policy on education: Report of the committee for evolution of the new education policy. Government of India. Retrieved 26November2016, from http://www.nuepa.org/New/download/NEP2016/ReportNEP.pdf
15.
National Legal Services Authority v. Union of India and Others (2014). WP(Civil) No. 406 of 2012, AIR.2014 SC 1863.
16.
NussbaumM. C. (2010). Not for profit: Why democracy needs the humanities. Princeton: Princeton University Press.
PophamW. J. (2007). Instructional insensitivity of tests: Accountability’s dire drawback. Phi Delta Kappan, 89(2), 146–150.
19.
PritchettL. (2015). Creating education systems coherent for learning outcomes: Making the transition from schooling to learning. Research on Improving Systems of Education (RISE) Working Paper (Preliminary draft), Oxford, UK.
20.
RascheA.EsserD. E. (2006). From stakeholder management to stakeholder accountability. Journal of business ethics, 65(3), 251–267.
Report of the Expert Committee on the Issues Relating to Transgender Persons (2014). Report of the Expert Committee on the Issues Relating to Transgender Persons. Retrieved 1January2017, from http://socialjustice.nic.in/writereaddata/UploadFile/Binder2.pdf
23.
SahlbergP. (2007). Education policies for raising student learning: The Finnish approach. Journal of Education Policy, 22(2), 147–171.
24.
SmallH. (2013). The value of the humanities. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
University of Toronto (2012). Developing and assessing teaching dossiers: A guide of the University of Toronto faculty, administrators and graduate students. Toronto: Centre for Teaching Support and Innovation, University of Toronto.
27.
VidyaL. S.RamnarayanV. (2007). I am Vidya. Chennai: Oxygen Books.
28.
WallersteinI. (1996). Open the social sciences: Report of the Gulbenkian Commission on the restructuring of the social sciences. New Delhi: Vistaar Publications.
29.
WallersteinI. (2004). Three meanings of ‘discipline’. In OECD Proceedings: Reinventing the Social Sciences (pp. 23–24). Paris: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development. Retrieved4April2016, from http://www.oecd.org/science/sci-tech/33695704.pdf
