The draft National Education Policy 2019 (NEP2019) is like that proverbial song “kahin pe nigahe, kahin pe nishana”. The objective is something different and eyes are set on something else. The objective as stated in the Vision of the policy is “an India centred education system that contributes directly to transforming our nation sustainably into an equitable and vibrant knowledge society, by providing high-quality education to all.” (page 45)

The policy envisages achieving this goal through “the revision and revamping of all aspects of the education structure, its regulation and governance.” (page 24)

Revamp is a catchword for the makers of this draft policy. As a result, this Committee headed by the Padma Vibhushan Dr K Kasturirangan, former ISRO chairman, with its ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking came out with a few “innovative” models purportedly to achieve what they stated in the vision but actually to perpetuate what they cherish ideologically. The ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking by the Committee is claimed by none other than its Chairman Dr Kasturirangan in a Preamble to the policy. The ‘Revamp’ comes with hidden meanings.

Revamp means Autonomy:

The draft NEP2019 strongly recommends complete autonomy to the management at all levels. It proclaims “It is only when institutions, school complexes, colleges and universities are autonomous and empowered to deliver on the goals of the Policy that we will have a responsive education that is key to achieving a knowledge society. Institutional governance of higher educational institutions enunciated in this Policy is an integrated concept in which the curricular, administrative and financial elements are brought together as a single entity with the necessary autonomy to create independent and efficient management. Any effort to truncate this concept will be counterproductive, and we should not make any attempt to provide piecemeal autonomy.” (Preamble – page 31) Institutional governance will be based on full autonomy – academic, administrative and financial – for all higher education institutions with financial certainty and backing. (page 312)

While recommending autonomy to teachers in choosing finer aspects of curriculum and pedagogy (page 118), the committee gloats about the role of ‘gurus’ in ancient India. It claims “Only the very best and most learned became teachers. Society gave teachers, or gurus, what they needed in order to pass on their knowledge, skills, and ethics optimally to students; in particular, gurus were given full autonomy to decide how best to carry out this creative process, and as a consequence, they did their very best to develop personalised learning plans for every student in order to help each student achieve her/his life’s potential. (page 113).

Not many will agree that these ‘gurus’ have created equitable, vibrant knowledge society in our nation. This country was home for all sorts of invaders for centuries because more than half of its population was rendered irrelevant by those very Gurus! If that kind of autonomy is to be bestowed on the teachers and also on the parallel structure of Social Workers and Counsellors as proposed in the draft policy, our society is doomed to be pushed into that dreaded graded inequality. The so-called personalised learning plans of these gurus were nothing but caste and varna based vocations and skills to strengthen the supremacy of few. The policy recommendations for offering various vocational and extra-curricular subjects as main curricular as early as in 8th standard with the autonomy to Teachers and Social Workers/ Counsellors is a sinister design to push URGs and poor out of any meaningful education which leads to one’s emancipation and freedom. URGs that is “Under-Represented Groups” include all women, the SC/ST/OBCs, Muslims, minorities, transgender, differently-abled people and all those who have difficulty in learning.

The draft NEP2019 recommends amendments in the Right to Education Act (RTE) only because its clause 12(1)(c) “is not quite in tune with the principle of autonomy of institutions (including for student admission) in this Policy, which empowers schools and trusts them to do the right thing” (page 193-194). Trust the schools to do the right thing, without the force of law? What a benevolence for autonomy!

“The Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) will be governed by Independent Boards, with complete academic and administrative autonomy”. (page 210) They will have autonomy on curriculum, pedagogy and assessment, recruitment and in deciding fees for higher education courses. “In line with the spirit of providing autonomy to educational institutions to charter their own course, fees for professional education courses will be left to the management of educational institutions, both public and private”. (page 300)

Will such a sweeping autonomy really create an Equitable society? Or will it push those on the margins out of the sphere of consideration itself rendering them irrelevant to the nation? More likely to be so because education will become inaccessible and unaffordable for a large section of society. It’s not that the Committee is unaware of these reasons. It acknowledges these reasons and ‘innovated’ another term called URGs, the Under-Represented Groups (or areas) of socially & economically backward people. The Committee does not seem to recognise the Constitutional definition of Social & Educational backwardness. Or it believes there is no Educational Backwardness in the country. If that is so, why revamp and revise the system so drastically? Whom does this committee want to empower with autonomy and with what goal?

Revamp means Philanthropic Privatization:

The NEP2019 recommends the establishment of Rashtriya Shiksha Ayog (RSA) who will issue common national guidelines for all legislative Acts that will form private HEIs. These common guidelines will cover Good Governance, Financial Stability and Security, Educational Outcomes, and Transparency of Disclosures. These guidelines will enable consistency across the country, and will enable Acts to be similar to the ‘HEI charter’ and the ‘model act’. The policy believes that “such an action will ensure that establishment and functioning of such private HEIs are for not-for-profit public-spirited purposes and not for commercial purposes.” (page 334) The draft goes on emphasising need for philanthropic funds in all sectors of education and recommends for complete autonomy to the investors.

In RTE revamp committee recommends to “trust the Schools to do the right things”. In HEI revamp it believes that these private HEIs will work for not-for-profit public-spirited purposes and they will not indulge in commercial activities. What naivety! But then you can’t blame the Committee which believes that our ancient Gurus were public-spirited and taught with the aim of social inclusion.

The Committee cries hoarse about the perils of privatization and how it led to profiteering and commercialization of education making it unaffordable and inaccessible for many. But it goes on strongly recommending that very privatization for holy crows, the philanthropists.

Addendum-1 elaborates about the importance of investment in education and declares that “In summary, investment in education is perhaps the best investment for a nation.” (page 401) “This Policy unequivocally commits to raising investment in education substantially – including a significant increase in public financial investment, as also in philanthropic investment.” (page 399) But the actual policy draft says that Addendum is not part of the policy. The draft says in Preamble “Similarly, the broad steps we need to take to implement this policy are also included in the Addendum. Both of these are more in the nature of guidelines for implementation and not directly part of the Policy.” (page 33). Nonetheless, policy recommendations are highlighted in the Addendums too, like the one below.

In a section sub-titled as ‘Facilitating setting of up of high-quality philanthropic institutions committed to inclusion’ in Addendum_1 (page 410) policy says “These institutions must have complete financial and curricular autonomy as described in Section 17.1 on ‘Empowered governance and effective leadership’ (See P17.1.20 and P17.1.21). This encouragement to set up new high-quality institutions would focus on priority areas; e.g. early childhood education in underserved geographies and for excluded populations, in higher education leading to liberal undergraduate degrees, in teacher education and in preparation of medical professionals. Involvement of industry bodies in the
improvement of quality of technical education is also to be promoted”.

The policy states that “certain regions of the country with large populations from URGs should be declared Special Education Zones (SEZs), where all the above schemes and policies are implemented to the maximum through additional concerted efforts and funding from the Centre and States in order to truly change the educational landscape of these Zones.” (page 140) The policy recommends the SEZ concept to be funded by the State and Central govt. for educational development of URGs. But, in “Making it Happen” section Addendum – 1 it recommends for Philanthropic autonomous institutions with a focus on priority areas from ECCE onwards.

The draft policy recommends for encouraging funding from philanthropists and giving them complete autonomy without any empirical evidence. The Committee seems to propose that the Philanthropic institutions are all for charity without any vested interests and ideology. Nothing can be farther than truth considering research in developing countries from Africa. A published well-documented research paper “Institutional Voids and the Philanthropization of CSR Practices: Insights from Developing Economies” concludes that –

“This is akin to aid that hardly contributes to structural changes, but rather leads to complacency, corruption, dependency, boutique projects, disguised exploitation, and the misuse of corporate political power to achieve corporate bottom lines. The implications of the results are vast, and they are generalizable to all weaker institutional settings. Thus, weaker institutions create the necessary regulatory, political, economic, and governance climate that perpetuates a pattern of abuses and ethical violations that are then masked with philanthropy.” India is no better than any developing country when it comes to weaknesses of the public institutions.

If Privatization is bad in education it is bad even with philanthropy funds. These must not be sought at the cost of autonomy to the donor. Such a system will defeat the very purpose of equitable, quality education. The donor will try to introduce the curriculum to create slave labour for his own enterprise.

Does the government want to leave all URGs and excluded sections at the mercy of so-called Not-for-Profit Philanthropists while giving all the autonomy and access to natural resources for setting up SEZs and School Complexes? Will it secure equitable, affordable, accessible quality education for them? Will it secure the Fundamental Right of Children for free and compulsory education as per RTE which the draft proposes to extend to the 12th standard?

Revamp to Create School Complexes and SEZs:

The policy recommends yet another ‘out-of-the-box’ thinking model of School Complexes and SEZs. The School Complex concept is borrowed from earlier policies without going into any study as to why it did not even start for all those years. The Committee recommends “Multiple public schools will be brought together in an organisational and administrative unit called the school complex. This will not require physical relocation of schools. Each individual school that is viable in size will continue to function even as it is integrated administratively into a school complex.” (page 160) It is self-contradictory. On one hand, it says no relocation and in the same breath says individual school that is viable in size will continue.

What is an unviable school which may not continue? If it does not continue, then what happens to it? What are the parameters for deciding viability? If that is ‘income’ or even ‘saving on Teachers’ salaries’, then it is commercial consideration. How does the policy expect that philanthropists will have no similar commercial considerations about viability?

Does this Committee believe that Education is the need of the nation and needs to be taken to the doors of the people? If that is the objective of the Policy, then the Committee miserably fails in imagination to suggest strong measures. School Complex is a bad idea if the viability of school is based on its size instead of its need for the children. SEZ is equally bad if it is targeted at URGs to groom them to be slave labours of the sponsoring party. It is an evil idea to deprive these classes of people from quality higher education which will only perpetuate the inequalities of the caste system.

Revamp to Create Parallel Functionaries:

“Adequate numbers of social workers will be appointed to the school complexes depending on the student population and the population of adult learners in that geography. While the teachers will have the central role in student care and well-being, each school complex will have one or more capable counsellors available.” (page 162, 163)

The arrangement for Social Workers and Counsellors appears to be Parallel to Teachers and Education administration considering their role in SMCs and reporting authority. It will be very chaotic at local levels demoralizing the teaching community. More than that they will be agents to perpetuate the caste discriminations. In a recent infamous, but not isolated, episode of using colour bands to denote different caste status of students in certain schools in Tamil Nadu, the Director of School Education, Chennai observed: “Allegedly, these practices are enforced by students themselves and supported by influential caste persons and teachers.”

There are umpteen cases of gradation and discrimination on the basis of castes all over the country. In all those cases local influential people and teachers are responsible for perpetuating these practices. With the parallel structure of Social Workers and Counsellors, it will only get institutionalized. There are enough reasons to believe so because of the nature of the +4 structure as a modular Secondary education.

Revamp to offer Modular Trivial Secondary Education

“The Secondary Stage will comprise four years of multidisciplinary study, and will build on the subject-oriented pedagogical and curricular style of the Middle stage, but with greater depth, greater critical thinking, greater attention to life aspirations, and greater flexibility and student choice. Each year of the Secondary Stage will be divided into 2 semesters, for a total of 8 semesters. Each student would take 5 to 6 subjects each semester. There will be some essential common subjects for all, while simultaneously there will be great flexibility in selecting elective courses (including in the arts, vocational subjects, and physical education) so that all students can expand their horizons as they see fit and explore their individual interests and talents.” (page 75, 76) “All school subjects will be considered curricular rather than extra-curricular or co-curricular, including sports, yoga, dance, music, drawing, painting, sculpting, pottery making, woodworking, gardening, and electric work.” (page 78)

It is far-fetched an idea to expect that students can expand their horizons as they see fit and explore their individual interests and talents at the secondary stage of schooling. Offering vocational subjects as academic education itself is pushing them away from the opportunities of higher education. The wards of the illiterate rural populace, SCs, STs and OBCs, even Muslim minorities will be thrust upon with more of vocational courses strengthening their respective caste vocations in many cases. Should the education be to overcome caste disabilities, or to strengthen them?

Revamp to Abolish Reservations:

“All private HEIs shall be governed and regulated with norms identical to public institutions unless otherwise specified. Private HEIs shall not be mandated to adhere to reservation guidelines other than those stated in this Policy and their formative Acts with respect to local State students.” (page 334)

The ‘reservation guidelines other than those stated in this policy’ are nowhere to be seen in the policy. In the whole draft of about 500 pages, word Reservations appears only once on page 334 and that is in denial.

The private HEIs though privately funded will be enjoying several state benefits and regulatory norms identical to public institutions, they shall be made liable to provide constitutional reservations to ensure diversity. Indian HEIs are notoriously Exclusive which needs to be corrected to achieve the stated vision of equitable education.

Revamp to Abolish Scholarships:

‘A special National Fund will be created specifically for providing scholarships and developing resources and facilities for students from URG. Students will be able to apply for financial support in a simplified manner – from a single national agency or a “single window” system – and will be able to register complaints if they are denied due support or services.’ (page 143).

The issues of reservations, scholarships and higher education are examples of how callous this ‘out-of-the-box thinking’ Committee was to the needs of the URGs which constitute not less than 90% of our population. Just like Reservations, this word ‘National Fund’ appears only once in the whole policy document. There is no explanation of how this ‘single window’ concept of dispensing scholarships to the needy will be implemented, what will be the structure of that ‘National Fund’.

It should not be a surprise, though. The Committee, rather maliciously, says in the chapter titled ‘Recruitment of teachers from SC and OBC communities: Affirmative action in higher education space has allowed for a significant number from marginalised communities acquire teaching degrees. However, due to the various disadvantages, they carry forward, many find it difficult to obtain a job.’

The remedies it suggests in the same chapter are still horrible. Committee says ‘Special initiatives should be taken up by the concerned ministries and departments to up-skill them and prepare them to be recruited as teachers in schools, especially in their home regions where they can become excellent role models. In addition, in geographies where SC and OBC teachers are underrepresented, scholarships will be offered to the best students and IAs from SC and OBC communities to enter outstanding teacher education programmes and become teachers; efforts will be made to employ them in these areas after they complete their education.’ (page 148)

One wonders whether our draft NEP2019 intends to create ‘Ghettos’ for the SC/ST/OBCs and other URGs through the SEZ and such recruitment policies as mentioned above!

Author – Harishchandra Sukhdeve,
Ex-banking Executive turned Social Activist
harishsukhdeve@gmail.com

The emphasis in bold/italics is added by the author.