PROPOSED NEW EDUCATION POLICY : RINGS DEATH-KNELL OF EDUCATION IN THIS LAND OF TRADITION OF KNOWLEDGE AND SCHOLARSHIP

1. 1
PROPOSED NEW EDUCATION POLICY : RINGS DEATH-KNELL OF EDUCATION
IN THIS LAND OF TRADITION OF KNOWLEDGE AND SCHOLARSHIP
Preamble :
The All India Save Education Committee (AISEC) takes this opportunity to present its
observations on the proposed New Education Policy from the Ministry of Human Resources and
Development, Government of India. Since its formation in 1989 through an All India Save
Education Convention held in Madras, the AISEC has been engaged in upholding the cause of
education for the people of India and has waged a number of countrywide as well as regional
movements whenever that cause was jeopardized by whichever force that may be. As a part of it,
the AISEC stood against the NPE’86 and even circulated a publication entitled Towards a
People’s Policy On Education: An Alternative to NPE’86 as a mark of concrete and constructive
protest and for the first time in the history of educational movement in independent India. The all
India movement generated thereupon to save education gained momentum under the leadership
of the AISEC with the eminent personalities like Late Justice V R Krishna Iyer, the former
Justice of the Supreme Court and Late Sushil Kumar Mukherjee, renowned scientist –
educationist- Vice Chancellor in the stewardship of the movement. From its commitment to
education and people, the AISEC continued its struggle against attacks on education including
privatization- commercialization and even communalization that were brought down in phases.
Those struggles came up with the introduction of DPEP in 1994, proposal of National
Curriculum Framework for School Education NCFSE prescribed by NCERT in 2000,
implementation of SSA in 2001 and lastly in the recent times with the RTE Act and other
‘reforms’. Hence the AISEC feels it incumbent upon itself that a considered opinion on the
proposed new education policy need be placed to the relevant authority as well as to the people.
The present write-up is intended for that purpose. The AISEC hopes that the MHRD, considering
the role of the AISEC in educational affairs of the country, will give due importance to the
views expressed in the write-up.
Introduction
The HRD Ministry of the Union government has come out with a document on a proposed New
Education Policy on 21 March 2015. It is an elaborate multi-tier arrangement, time-bound as
professed. It consists of a 17 page part on policy and object lay-out termed Consultation

2. 2
Process, two documents on Themes and questions for Policy Consultation with a 27 page part on
School education and a 55-page one on Higher Education. The Rationale and Objectives page
of the first document presents that whereas ‘Previous Commissions for framing Education
Policy had a Topdown approach’, here the objective was ‘to ensure an inclusive, participatory
and holistic approach’ on a ‘time-bound, grassroot consultative process’ based on’ ‘online
consultation’ with a ‘complete transparency of consultation process’. The school education
document enlists 13 themes each with scores of questions. Similarly, the higher education
document has 20 themes and their questions.
The grassroots consultation process is said to involve 2.5 lakh village level meetings with
village education committees and school management committees; 6,600 block level meetings
with block education committees; 676 district level meetings with Zilla Parishad and district
education committees; approximately 3500 meetings with urban local bodies and other
stakeholders.
Thematic Online consultations on the portal www.MyGov.in, was launched on 26 January 2015
to remain open till 30 April 2015. It was proposed that thematic consultations by Bureau Heads
of MHRD through experts’/ stakeholders’ meetings / workshops should be completed between
April and September 2015, regional/zonal consultations between October and November
2015 and national level consultations by December 2015. For regional consultations, six zones
are proposed viz., northern, southern, eastern, western, central and northeastern; national level
consultations would include all stakeholders and relevant GOI ministers and would submit draft
policy document to the government.
On this elaborate time-bound arrangement there remain certain queries. As mentioned, the
Consultation Process document on the policy in which consultation materials are outlined, is
made public, as dated, on 21 March 2015, about two months after the launching of thematic
online consultations (26 January 2015) and just one month ahead of its closing date (30 April
2015). How do these dates match? How could online consultations be made without the
consultation materials! ‘Previous commissions’ are criticized for taking consultation period
‘over … two to three years’. Instead a period from 26 January 2015 to December 2015 is
specified for the proposed policy. Is this enough for the vastness and gravity of the issue?
Second, some lakhs, thousands and hundreds of meetings are proposed for different levels. How

3. 3
many of these, have people at respective levels come to know of, let alone have seen or taken
part in? What were the proceedings or outcomes of those ?
To add further, an HRDM order was issued on 31 October 2015 which in its items 4,5 and 6
stated that , one, a drafting committee would be constituted with a former Chief Secretary and
former Home Secretary of NCT of Delhi and a former Director, NCERT in it. Suggestions
received during the consultation process or by e-mail /post would be handed over to the National
University of Educational Planning and Administration (NUEPA) which in its turn would
provide supports to the Drafting Committee. Though not explicitly stated, the Drafting
Committee would receive the materials from the NUEPA to formulate the Draft NEP as well as
a Framework for Action (FFA). A typically neat bureaucratic lay-out presented by the Joint
Secretary GOI ! In the immediately preceding paragraph, it has been indicated that there remains
a lot to say on the real intent and fate of the so-called meetings and consultation. Now, even
after, the suggestions to the MHRD will go to the NUEPA and then to Drafting Committee. Is
there any guarantee , considering the way the process is being conducted, there would not be
sieving and sorting of suggestions during this three-tier steps to ultimately reach the Draftiong
Committee? Then again will the bureaucratically made committee of bureaucrats hold any
accountability to the people of what it is doing and has done to the materials and how?
A few comments on NEP School Education document
[The portions of the text in bold fonts are added later on suggestions from other members]
Now on the School Education document. A national policy is being reformulated, yet it does not
define the basic and comprehensive outlook for school education upon which it is based and if
it is the same or different from the earlier or existing ones.
Theme 12, entitled Comprehensive Education - Ethics, Physical Education, Arts & Crafts, Life
Skills, professes that Education is concerned with all-round development of the child…. Our
students need to have a holistic development which cannot be achieved only through information
and instruction. But there is no further reference to ethics or character-building essence of
education anywhere in the discussion beyond the title.

4. 4
Any serious attempt at defining a comprehensive outlook, must answer the following questions:
What should be the basic outlook of school education: employability or preparing children to
grow into a ‘man’? Are employability and skill generation the sole, even the main objects of
education, more so of school education? What are the present problems with school education of
the country? Why instead of increasing, the number of government–run schools is decreasing?
Why instead, private schools are mushrooming? How are these private schools helping school
education of the country, or doing otherwise? Why are students dropping out in an alarming
scale? Why is quality going down not just in government schools, even in private ones? Is the
teacher-student ratio in most schools anywhere near its desirable mark?
The ground reality locates the major problems in school education, among others, at: sharp
decline in quality of both learning and teaching; alarming rise in drop outs which is directly
related to poverty and prohibitive rise in cost of education; absence of adequate number of
schools; absence of minimum requirements (in regard to basic infrastructure, teacher-student
ratio etc.) in government-run schools forcing students and their guardians to seek berth in private
schools even going beyond their means or to lie low, content with whatever they get or simply
quit schools.
While preparing the said document for consultation, the writers, too, recognize these to a great or
less extent. The first theme (Ensuring learning outcomes in Elementary Education)
for
consultation pronounces that ‘even with all (these) reforms’ ‘the learning outcomes for a
majority of children’, remains an ‘area of serious concern’. Because, ‘children are not learning
the basic skills’ (emphasis added); even at grade (class) V children ‘cannot read simple texts and
cannot do simple arithmetic calculations’. If this is a simple and honest narration of facts, the
theme sets the task. ‘There is a need to understand the reasons’ and ‘suggest ways and methods
of improving the learning outcomes of school children’. And then coming to the specifics, it is
added that there is need to address ‘on priority basis’ ‘quality issues’, ‘availability of trained
teachers, good curriculum and innovative pedagogy’ and need to ‘assess the system of
Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation’. (all quotes from p3) If anybody takes the pain to
go through the earlier policy documents, he or she would find virtually the same words even
there. In fact, it has been the case with any attempt at so-called ‘reforms’ to reiterate that earlier
efforts failed to reach the mark and to prescribe some antidotes. However, from the

5. 5
accompanying questions (p.4) it is evident that the present policymakers seek answers as to how
to ensure that children learn, how can technology be used for the purpose, if there should be
dedicated teachers for classes 1 & 2 or improved training of teachers etc. But these are really
turning a blind eye to the problem or address some technicalities. They admit that there are gaps
in availability of trained teachers, good curriculum and innovative pedagogy; but do not proceed
any further on those issues. They admit there is mushrooming of pre primary/ play school
industry(p4) that is, private institutions in the country. But they do not commit anything against
rampant privatization. They put question on what should be the student assessment systems, but
do not utter a single word on the disastrous effects of abolition of pass- fail system. As the latest
reports go, under pressure of people’s adverse opinion, the HRDM may be thinking of
reintroducing pass-fail system; yet it keeps on buying time on this or that plea, sending the
matter afresh to a committee. The policymakers stand for strengthening of Continuous and
Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) for holistic development of students. (p.9) They may bring
in some instance of successful use of the method in advanced western countries. Do they keep in
mind that here is a country where barring a few privileged pockets and institutions, ,
infrastructure of educational institutions are at a wretched low, not to speak of other factors like
corruption at every point of the system and every stage of education process? This is a country
in which schools lack teachers ( about 1,40,000 teaching posts are lying vacant in schools; only
1 teacher is there in 1,14,531 primary schools) , their own building ( in 1,48,696 schools) or
adequate class rooms, toilets ( in 4,55,561 schools) even for girls. It is sure to boil down to
building castles in air if we try to implement CCE as the only system of evaluation. Besides, the
document asks for the general feedback of students, teachers and parents, regarding the no
detention policy and CCE. The question placing these two together is baseless; for even in CCE
there will remain the question of detention or no detention, if one really means evaluation of
how far a student might have learnt or not, how good a teacher have taught or not.
Then again the consultation questionnaire includes one on international partnerships (p4). With
such a state of infrastructure for the country as stated above is it a joke or what? It is rather
incomprehensible how a policymaker can utter such impossibilities speaking in general for the
country. Students drop-out from poverty of their family; yet the policymakers suggest colourful

6. 6
furniture, rugs play way toys, charts, pictures (p.4) etc as special attractive measures to draw
students; games, art and confidence building measures (p.4) to retain them.
The document says in the Theme II (Extending outreach of Secondary and Senior Secondary
Education): Universal Elementary Education(UEE) becoming a reality(p.5): is it a reality? No,
the reality does not endorse the claim that elementary (pre-primary & primary) education has
become universal. The document also claims : ‘initiatives such as RTE ….. would not only be
increasing participation levels in elementary education but also substantially improve the internal
efficiency of elementary education in the coming years’. Is this also a reality? No. Rather the
appreciation of and confidence on the RTE implemented by the Congress-led UPA government
is wrongly placed by the present BJP-led union government.
In brief the RTEAct 2009 has contributed the following : One. It does not cover all students,
education at all levels even at the elementary stage. Coming in sequel of another flopped
“flagship programme”, SSA, and in the same way as it, the RTEA too pledges to universalise
elementary education from Classes (Standards) 1 to 8 and does not bother for children below 6
and above 14 years. Two. The RTEA 2009 thus abdicates the government from funding
education at least at those stages. Who then will shoulder that responsibility? The RTEA
straightaway paves the path for private investors to get into the scene for unchecked privatization
of pre-6 year education of children; it legalizes privatization and commercialization of education.
Now the policymakers shed crocodile tears for mushrooming of pre primary/ play school
industry. Three. It follows the system of multi-grade teaching with the labels “child centered”
and “activity oriented” approach stuck to them as stipulated in the DPEP and SSA, offspring
programmes of the World Bank and IMF. Forget about the few shining Kendriya Vidyalaya of
the metropolis and other cities. In the vast hinterland of the country, a single teacher, may be a
para-teacher, appointed on contract basis, and figured as a ‘class room manager’ ( mind it, not
class teacher) would look after a number of classes, may be even in a single room. These
teachers are supposed to work for 45 hours a week, and would have to work for, as and when
required and compulsorily, to do census duty, election duty, disaster relief work etc.; would have
to prepare midday meals for students, keep accounts of the groceries, fuel and such other items,
even chase after students across fields to lure them back to school. It befalls students to learn by
themselves. Four. The RTEA legalizes no pass-fail system up to the level of class VIII and

7. 7
admission of students according to their age, a 14 year child to Class VIII, and not according to
his or her prevailing academic standard. Five. The RTE Act pertains to government- run or
general aided -schools. The one under high-priced private control will be exempt from all
government controls and restrictions, making room for only the rich to enjoy the best of facilities
for education. They will get the best of amenities and will have the examination system for
checking and improving performance. They will retain the class promotion system as usual. The
RTE Act thus stands out as highly discriminatory giving way to catering to the Minimum Level
Learning (MLL) education for a vast work force and Optimum Level Learning (OLL) education
for a handful of elites from private schools.
And the whole outreach programme for secondary level education in the proposed education
policy (Theme 2), a programme for ‘near universalization of secondary education’ as a ‘logical
next step’ (p5) hinges upon such a deceitful, discriminatory measure of the RTE Act that is
detrimental to students, teachers and education as a whole. The Theme 2 further adds RMSA as
a new ingredient professing holistic education on the basis of a single comprehensive scheme;
at this stage it can only be apprehended that the RMSA does not prove as another failed attempt
just like the earlier ones of DPEP, SSA!
One more point on this theme. It is held that universalisation of quality secondary education
implies creating ‘secondary schooling provisions’. But what is this smoke-screen for? Why
don’t they simply say: ‘implies setting up of more secondary schools’. Is it a mere difference in
vocabulary with a fancy on high-sounding words or does it signify something else? Schooling
provisions not necessarily imply education in schools; it would imply that those may be created
by methods other than ‘creating schools’ and would include also open/ distant/ online learning (
see theme ) . It would further abdicate the government from its responsibility towards education
of the country.
It is no denial a fact that teachers play a pivotal role in any education system. It has been earlier
indicated how miserable the picture of our situation is, where taking the country as a whole,
nearly one and a half lakh of posts of teachers lie vacant in schools. Yet the document contains
a Theme V on Re-vamping Teacher Education for Quality Teachers. It says quality of teachers
has been ‘a major cause of worry’ or ‘Competence of teachers and their motivation is crucial for
improving the quality’. They admit ‘issues of large number of vacancies’, problems of ‘untrained

8. 8
teachers’, ‘lack of professionalism in teacher training institutions’, ‘teacher absenteeism and
teacher accountability’ and ‘involvement of teachers in non- teaching activities’ all need to be
addressed. They say ‘several initiatives are being taken’ by the Central and State governments,
or different tests like the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) introduced by the CBSE or
TETs by the state Governments are being held. Then they pose questions inviting suggestions on
how teachers can be recruited or their quality improved etc. They , however, do not spell out
anything about why the government, or other initiatives have miserably failed in their efforts,
so far in the past and even in the present, ultimately giving birth to the present situation; why
the so-called recruitment Tests have now become synonymous with and infamous for
corruption; why teachers are being compelled to carry out non-teaching jobs like arranging for
mid-day meals etc; who other than the governments engage teachers in such jobs; why rampant
political or other interference and intervention take place, allegedly involving fat sums of money
in the process of teachers recruitment under the very nose of governments etc. etc. Without
even any hint on these, rather maintaining a complete silence on these points, have made the
above-mentioned quotes from the document not just totally baseless, even dubious. For any
national education policy to operate genuinely for people’s interest, it must be pronounced
unambiguously that education institutions at all levels must be given the unstinted autonomy in
every concern, starting from the processes and policies on teachers and employees recruitment,
administration, admission of students, academic affairs including framing of syllabus etc. These
affairs cannot remain merely in the hands of such agencies, government or not, exclusively
made up of bureaucrats or their nominees, which , in our present situations, remain susceptible to
political interference, overlordism, corruption stemming from greed for pelf arising out of the
privileged position of power.
Theme III is entitled Strengthening of Vocational Education . It laments that in India, general
education and vocational education are exclusively separated. It asserts that knowledgeable and
skilled workforce are the most important human capital required for the development of a
country. Both vocational education and skill development are known to increase productivity of
individuals, profitability of employers and national growth. ‘Given that only 7 to 10 per cent of
population is engaged in formal sector of economy’, development of vocational education will
provide skilled labour force for the informal unorganized sector and to inculcate self

9. 9
employment skills. Based on this approach vocationalisation of secondary education scheme
was revised in 2014 to address the issue. Efforts are now on to revamp the education system to
make skill development an integral part of the curriculum at all stages, laying greater emphasis
on integrating skills in education with a renewed focus on vocational education in secondary
education.
So, this theme lays bare the outlook and approach of the policymakers towards education.
Despite all tall talks of ethics and value-based education and despite the HRDM herself calling
upon students to follow the teachings of Swami Vivekananda for character development (The
Statesman Kolkata Edn., 13 February 2015), the aim of education, they fix at productivity of
individuals, profitability of employers and national growth. This bluntly corporate savvy, that is
pro-monopolist approach has no place for the man-making- character building role of education.
Their focus on vocational education in secondary education and integrating it with revamped
skill development is only aimed at developing a skilled manpower for industries and that too
in unorganized sector and self-employment mode. With terrible market crisis looming large,
yawning industrial recession showing no signs of closing its gape and instead generating all
pervasive unemployment, the powerful organized sector itself is tottering, unorganized sector is
fraught with uncontrollable uncertainties and self-employed youth who start with the ever-
expanding halo of bright future soon find themselves bogged into lack of market, frightening
chase from the financiers and bleak coming days staring blank at their face and their families.
So the high-sounding policy of vocationalization of secondary education can at best be a
merciless killer of vestiges of genuine education, slighted as general education, that may be
existing in the country as yet.
Language being the vehicle of thought, language education assumes much more importance than
merely as a part of 3R’s. Proper language education creates the foundation of thinking and
expressing, which in turn, provides the foundation of ability to grasp knowledge at any later
stage of life. Such an important aspect fails to receive adequate attention in the present policy
document. It is included under the Theme XI ‘Promotion of Languages’, in the context of the
multi-lingual society of ours. In regard to language education, the following points are raised in
the theme. There are interventions , one, for appointment of language teachers and two, for
promotion of classical languages. Three. There is no comprehensive scheme or language policy.

10. 10
Four. India follows a 3-language formula. Five. ‘Learning through mother tongue… is also
advocated’. Also ‘learning through English medium have advantage’ in ‘entering the world of
work’. ‘Impact of Mother tongue based education has shown increased attendance and retention
of tribal students’. And that is all about language education.
Notable in this presentation of facts and views are that no comprehensive scheme or language
policy is suggested, though it is admitted that there is none. 3- language formula is referred to.
Importance of mother tongue as medium of instruction is apparently accepted, but its
unequivocal importance is not highlighted. Rather answer is sought for: ‘Which language you
would prefer to be the medium of instruction in schools’? Is English important only as a
passport for world of work ( as claimed in the Theme) ; is it not, at the same time, rather more
significantly, a gateway to the modern as well as traditional knowledge of the world? So, is it
not a fact that any comprehensive language policy in India should stand for learning of mother
tongue (which is also the most developed regional language of a state) and which should also be
the medium of instruction and English? Is not the 3-language formula prescribed and dished out
by the Congress, now accepted by the RSS-BJP combine, a back-door effort to sidetrack
regional languages and promote Hindi instead? Why is then a question is included in the
accompanying list which asks if
three language formula should be debated? What is meant by
intervention or for promotion of classical languages? Who is intervening? And how is it being
dealt with? Last but not the least. In the context of recent uproar centring round teaching-
learning of Sanskrit in schools, why is not there any clear-cut reference to the issue?
Policy consultation of school education includes a few more themes, namely : Reforming School
Examination systems(4) ; New knowledge, pedagogies and approaches for teaching of Science,
Maths and Technology in School Education to improve learning outcomes of students(8); School
standards, School assessment and School Management systems (9); Accelerating rural literacy
with special emphasis on Women, SCs, STs& Minorities through Adult Education and National
Open Schooling Systems(6); Promotion of Information and Communication Technology
Systems in School and Adult Education(7); Enabling Inclusive Education – education of SCs,
STs, Girls, Minorities and children with special needs (10); Focus on Child Health(13).

11. 11
Considering the importance and vastness of the problem, these themes touch rather peripheral
issues. And that too, discussions being repleted with verbosity barely addressing crux of the
problems. An instance from the “ Focus on Child Health” may suffice.
Integrated Child Development Services (ICDS) under ministry of Women and Child
Development, is held to be aiming at responding to the challenge of providing pre-school
education and breaking the vicious cycle of malnutrition, morbidity, reduced learning capacity
and mortality, on the other. It has a long list of items that the ICDS seeks to improve, including
nutritional and health status, foundation for proper psychological, physical and social
development of the child etc. Besides Department of School Education and Literacy, MHRD
addresses the nutritional needs of school going children through the Mid- Day Meal (MDM)
Scheme renamed in 2008-09 as ‘National Programme of Mid-Day Meal in Schools’. So, the
pronouncements and arrangements may sound elaborate. But the whole exercise does not care to
touch upon any status report on such a lack of infrastructure in schools and school education.
Even two years after introduction of the RTEAct 2009, the following facts for the country
spoke out of the pathetic condition with the infrastructure. Nearly 15 millions of children were
then left outside any school; drop-out stood conservatively at 46%; about 140,000 posts of
teachers lay vacant over the country, 17,282 areas still did not have any school within the radius
of 1 kilometre, 1,48,696 schools did not have any building of their own. 1,65,747 schools did
not have any provision for drinking water; 4,55,561 schools lacked any toilet. 1,14,531 primary
schools had only a single teacher. Even MHRD statistics conducted across all 640 districts as of
2014 (news report in July 2015) reveal that six years since the RTE Act, around 60 lakh children
between ages 6 and 13 remain unschooled in the country. And the reason is fixed as “largely
because sending children to schools reduces family’s earnings”. Whether these are isolated
figures or not, may be tested from certain other facts.
According to the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2010 (UNESCO), India’s rank was 105 among
128 countries (in 2001 also India ranked exactly 105 among 127 countries) and continues to
figure, along with a bunch of African countries, and one or two Asian, such as Pakistan and
Bangladesh, in the group of countries of low educational development index (EDI) behind
countries economically poorer than India. In 2012 Organisation for Economic Co-operation
and Development (OECD) Secretariat’s Programme for International Stidents Assessment

12. 12
(PISA) ranked India at 72 out of 73 countries just above Kyrgystan Indian students faring
miserably from the results of 2-hour tests meant to conduct comparative analyses, across vast
international contexts, of 15 year old students for “reading, mathematical and scientific literacy”.
( 73 out of 74 in 2011)
A few comments on NEP HigherEducation document:
In addition to the comments on School Education part of the document , the following comments
on Higher Education (HE) are meant to make the observation comprehensive. To avoid
repetition, certain points discussed in the earlier SE section, but also pertaining to the HE
section, are not repeated.
The 55- page document on HE is an instance of verbosity and pedagogic jugglery. New words
are used (viz., Knowledge economy; academic incubators etc.) for thoughts or concepts already
in vogue, pouring out old wine from new bottles. So many words have been spent on quality.
The quality of the document will itself attest to how far sincere the words and approach are. It is
fraught with a large number of typographical gaps/ omissions or mistakes. One may wonder if
there was any serious, sincere and careful supervision behind this publication, supposed to be an
important part of the policy scheduled to be placed before or rather thrust upon the country.
Rather it betrays a casual, mediocre approach, verbose without any real content and intent. As
usual for earlier cases, there has been constant effort to shift the onus on earlier reforms with
pious wishes to mend it all right now.
The whole exercise can be termed as a typical attempt to mesmerize people with words and thus
hoodwink them with a haloed document that keeps the real intent or agenda under full cover.
A few excerpts are given below . Three types of font are used: normal for general text; italics
for quotes and bold for emphasis added. Comments generally follow the themes though not
strictly.
The themes for consultation ( and / or discussion) are :
I. Governance reforms for quality 3-6
II. Ranking of institutions and accreditations 7-9
III. Improving the quality of regulation 10-12
IV. Pace setting roles of central institutions 13-14
V. Improving State public universities 15-16

13. 13
VI. Integrating skill development in higher education 17-18
VII. Promoting open and distance learning and online courses 19-21
VIII. Opportunities for technology enabled learning 22-24
IX. Addressing regional disparity 25-27
X. Bridging gender and social gaps 28-29
XI. Linking higher education to society 30-31
XII. Developing the best teachers 32-33
XIII. Sustaining student support systems 34-36
XIV. Promote cultural integration through language 37-39
XV. Meaningful partnership with the private sector 40-42
XVI. Financing higher education 43-45
XVII. Internationalization of higher education 46-48
XVIII. Engagement with industry to link education to employability 49-50
XIX. Promoting research and innovation 51-52
XX. New knowledge 53-55
Below, we present some salient observations on these themes. There will remain a lot more to
discuss on specific points. The following may be treated as a general understanding of the
document.
Regulatory body and private institutions ;
NKC, set up by the then UPA government held in its recommendations in 2006 :‘The existing
regulatory framework … is not conducive to innovation or creativity in higher education’. So it
suggested an Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE), ‘at an arm’s-
length from the government’ and guided by the GATS prescriptions. It would be authorized to
accord degree, be responsible for monitoring standards and for licensing accreditation agencies.
It would make all other bodies like UGC, AICTE, MCI and BCI useless and defunct.
In 2009 the Yashpal Committee in full compliance with again the then UPA government opined:
“During the past two decades,…there has been a rapid expansion of the higher education
system,... mainly through private investments’(p.29) At the same time, the Committee admits
“Mushrooming engineering and management colleges, … have largely become mere business
entities dispensing very poor quality education. (p.35) So it adds “It is also important that

14. 14
private initiatives in the field of higher education are not driven by the sole motive of profit.”
(p.35) From here, the Yashpal Committee evolved the idea of a single regulatory body, National
Council for Higher Education and Research (NCHER), adding that “The National Policy of
Education (1986) and the Plan of Action, 1992 envisaged the establishment of a national apex
body… in the planning and development of higher education system.”(p.54) It was also in line
with the NKC recommendation of the IRAHE.
“This body …will serve as a think tank on higher education policy,…., will provide a ‘vision’ ….
for curriculum framework, will benchmark universities, will compare with institutions globally,
…. and will evaluate the costs and price of education;” it will “ create appropriate norms,
processes and structures for ensuring quality and accrediting universities”, “will look after the
fitness of the people who wish to practice in their respective fields…conducting qualifying exams
for professionals in their respective field”, thus controlling also “the flows of professional in job
market” and acting “a regulator for educated unemployed”. In summary, it will regulate and
control everything related to education and educational institutions. This attempt of the
Committee was widely and strongly criticized all over the country as blunt intervention on
autonomy of educational institutions.
Now judge the proposed NEP words on this background of these recommendations of the NKC
and the Yashpal Committee. The present document says: “ Quality assurance in higher
education is … the top priority … Systems of accountability and accreditation with a robust
regulatory mechanism are essential to the process of sustaining and improving quality. The
unprecedented yet unplanned expansion accompanied by diversification of the Higher
education sector pose challenges for enhancing and maintaining quality (p.3). It is added “… a
major share of this expansion… through the private institutions. The quality of facilities and
teaching learning process in these institutions is far from satisfactory.” (p.8) (italics are quotes;
bold font mark our emphasis)
To move from elitist to ‘massification’ (Mark the term, does not it smack of a derogatory tone
for the common people?), there was proliferation of private institutions. Some of these
universities and colleges lack proper infrastructure and faculty strength and have poor academic
standards and take exorbitant fees from students ( paraphrased from p.11). Reframed

15. 15
regulatory framework will be supposed to put them straight ( again a pious wish as in earlier
ones).
Clearly, on the plea of private institutions working below the mark, the policymakers are after
firm control. Their words themselves are confusing because expansion does not challenge
quality; unplanned may. They wish to make their own plans; but does not lay it out for
consideration. The question may arise what makes them stop short. Is there any hidden agenda?
It is then proposed that a Single regulatory body be set up for equity, expansion and excellence
as stated in the Twelfth Five Year Plan. (p.10) In HE regulation is needed in some areas:
granting permission to enter; permission to operate-decide on the intake of students and
introduction of courses; monitoring overall performance including governace , management and
levels of student learning. What more is left out? Where will autonomy remain? (p.10) Where
lies the difference between the present proposals and those in the NKC and the Yashpal
Committee report?
Meaningful Partnership with Private sector (p. 40-42)
As it is well known, the Congress government introduced the NPE’86. Following it and coming
it its wake , were the different committees installed. Pronouncing that ‘ education was a unique
investment’ guaranteed of safe return, as people would go even beyong their means to get their
children educated, these measures opened the floodgate of privatization- commercialization in
education. Now their arch enemy in parliamentary battle, the BJP- RSS proposes an education
policy. What does this proposal include?
Standing for quality improvement by way of enhancing public spending , the draft says that
Higher Education cannot sustain only through public funding. PPP, besides meeting the wide
resource gaps, can also serve as an instrument for resource-use efficiency, improvement in
service delivery and promotion of excellenece. (p.40) But just on the next page the document
says While public private partnerships in higher education have been pursued as a strategy, not
many have shown successful results (p.41). Then again the questions for discussion on this
theme include “Why has PPP models not been so effective in education sector.” Aware of the
countrywide strong criticism against privatization- commercialization, the document had to play
safe: It needs to be noted that partnership with private sector does not mean privatisation,
commercialisation and debasement of education (p.41). It also had to add that the private sector

16. 16
should adhere to government policies with respect to reservation and affirmative action. The
PPP mode institutions would follow means blind admission process ( Can anybody make out
what is meant by these words ? ) to ensure that no one is denied admission due to inability to
afford cost of education . It is a blunt admission of the problem with cost of education which
many students cannot afford; this is nothing but an outcome of commercialization, of viewing
education as unique investment (vide NPE’86). Secondly, it represents the same pious wish that
was dished out in earlier exercises such as in NKC etc., Hence after all these, the question that
may be posed to the policymakers is: What does then partnership with private sector mean if it is
not privatization, commercialization and debasement of education? Is it not a toying with words
to camouflage the real intent?
The theme ends with : Hence, the PPP models need to be revisited so as to allow more
meaningful collaborations. So people can rest assured that the dreaded spate of privatization-
commercialization would continue to reign; only a revisit to these would help make it more
effective.
A similar emphasis on commercialization is evident on the issue of internationalization of
education dealt with under the Theme XVII. There internationalization is viewed as of two
forms: a conventional one focused on core academic values, while the modern one tends to focus
primarily on education in the framework of international trade, with export/import and economic
gains as the operative parts. If this is not commercialization what it is.
The framers of the policy document are aware of this and of the criticism they may have to
face. So they frantically try to justify their measures by adding that care has to be taken (i) that
academic considerations are not displaced by commercial interests; (ii) that balance is
maintained between domestic demand and demand from foreign students; (iii) that strong
mechanism of accreditation and quality assurance is ensured; (iv) Indian institutors (a term that
could not be traced in any standard dictionary) of higher education are protected from unhealthy
and unfair competition from foreign universities; and (v) Indian values are protected, promoted
and nurtured on the face of possible invasion of foreign educational enterprises, with their
curriculum and associated values and practice. People may wait to see as bystanders how these
turn out to be pious wishes, if and when the new policy is implemented, just as earlier ones have
been. In any case on the part of the AISEC, a body that has been persistently fighting for the

17. 17
cause of education for common people,in our last comprehensive publication Rise to Resist On
slaught on Education: Save People from Calamity, we have expressed all these apprehensions as
outcomes of inviting foreign institutions purely on a commercial bias.
Among possible approaches of reform agenda:
The document says: Autonomy matching with accountability … paradigm shift to facilitation
rather than regulation (p.4). Are autonomy and accountability mutually exclusive? Certainly
not. But the so-called reformers think so. They wish to embrace paradigm shift to facilitation
(apparently of autonomy) rather than regulation; but speak voluminously of robust regulatory
body ( quoted above). What do they intend in fact?
They wish uniformity in terms of syllabi and curricula through a framework; CBCS adopted by
all institutions; possibility of a single national test (no new idea, thrown earlier in NKC or
Yashpal Committee Report) in place of multiplicity of entrance and eligibility examinations. (p4)
In short, with contradictory and verbose pronouncements they look for curb of academic
autonomy, for bringing everything under single control. Neither is the idea new, nor
straightforward. Again the AISEC has placed its elaborate views on these issues in our last
booklet, mentioned above: issues like how uniformity of syllabi, single national test stand
detrimental to education in this vast country with thousand and one variations or CBCS destroys
a wholesome education; how this trend of centralizing everything is aimed really at attempts to
concentrate power to curb opposition.
The document says : Permitting foreign education providers … for proper regulation and
internationalization (p.4) Firstly, this again is simply a continuation of earlier efforts. Secondly,
it is not understood how permitting foreign education providers can help proper regulation;
thirdly, we dealt adequately also with the issue of foreign education providers in the last booklet.
The document writes: Norm based funding of higher education: What precisely is that? Who
sets the norms?. And why such funding is preferred, rather than subjective demand based
inspection governed funding. (p4) This is a clever manipulation on the background of corruption
existing around inspection. How demands can be subjective if substantiated by concrete
documents and proposals? Does inspection create the demands or it inspects those raised by
institutions? If there is any problem with inspection is it not related to corruption? What remedy
to that is suggested in the document ? None in fact.

18. 18
Similarly, the document pledges ensuring Prevention and prohibition of unfair practices in
admissions or punishment for capitation fees and misleading ads. So it admits those corrupt
practices are there and as usual, like in previous occasions, wishes to end with that admission.
But is not the silence on ‘how to do’ meaningful? Does it not suggest a fruitless shedding of
crocodile tears? Without suggesting any corrective measures for corruption, the document
leaves an option of the Ability of institutions to charge appropriate fees from students who can
afford to pay and at the same time having a means blind system (what is that?) for the needy
students in the question Which of the following reforms will create better governance structures
in State Universities?None , in fact.
Here we can recall some words from the Yashpal Committee report, where the reality was a bit
more better appreciated, ending however in the same void. The report said : ”The regulatory
agencies have been unable to come to grips with the problems of capitation fee and unauthorized
annual fees mainly due to deficiencies in enforcement instruments, and partly due to high-level
reluctance to sort out this problem. …. the quantum of fees charged has no rational basis. (p.39)
Thus “Changes in regulatory systems are required.” (p.41) (emphasis ours)
The present document suggests an option if “A single over-arching regulatory authority will
create better governance structure for centrally funded institutions?” (p.5) (robust regulatory of
p.3 is replaced with over-arching regulatory ) Again , a lead question towards seeking answer in
favour of firm control.
The document seeks for the answer: Should faculty appointment committee have third party
presence as Appraiser who is to just to watch and give report? (p6) But before the answer is
given, should not the policymakers themselves answer these questions: Who will be this third
party? What would be his role just by watching? What would he report? To whom will he be
accountable ? Otherwise such presence of a third party may be taken as an attempt to intervene.
There is also a question under this theme ( Governance reforms for quality) : Should colleges be
allowed to frame their course work (accredited) within the NEP? (p.6) Is it not oriented towards
pushing towards an opinion in favour of ‘no’, in favour of the so- called uniformity, the
document prescribes?

19. 19
There is another question : Should fees be enhanced to Rs 500/- p.m. when the expenditure is
more than Rs 2000/- per person … with waiver for needy students. This is also a concealed
leading question towards exorbitant fee hike.
In the Theme II. Ranking of institutions and accreditations, a question is thrown: Should not
India develop its own ranking system relying on indicators more suitable to Indian situation as
other ranking systems have heavy weightage for perception/ subjective factors in which Indian
universities lose out? : Apparently this stands contradictory to the theme XVII.
Internationalization of higher education: How will the agenda of internationalization and
accessing global market be addressed, because other ranking systems may not approve of may
not approve the indigenous criteria of India?) (p.9) With these two contradictory views dished
out by themselves, which one is to be taken as theirs?
A question under this theme Should we focus on programme accreditation or institutional
accreditation or both (p.9) appears nothing more than a confusing jugglery of words
Central institutions need to play the role (Theme IV):
Commercialized as against academic approach is again reflected when the document prescribes
that central institutions should meet requirements of the production sector, through research
and producing highly skilled personnel . These should not keep them away from their role in the
building of the new institutions of civil society, …new cultural values and …socializing new
social elites.
They “have (the) responsibility to transcend traditional disciplinary limitation in pursuit of the
intellectual fusion and develop a culture of academic enterprise and knowledge
entrepreneurship (p.13) ; have to play a role of academic incubators . (p.13) A futile exercise on
verbiage and meaningless jugglery to conceal the essence, the stinking commercialized
approach in place of an academic one. As academic incubators these central institutions are
supposed to nurture and produce the young budding academicians and scientists of line. What
do educational institutions do other than nurturing and producing budding academicians? Then
what is the purpose of bringing in a new term incubator ? What does CFI in the questionnaire
stand for? (p.14)
Skill development and Tech-enabled learning in Higher Education (Themes VII and VIII)

20. 20
“ With increasing unemployment among the educated, the need for giving due attention to
employable skills in secondary and higher education is being felt increasingly.” ( p.17) This is a
deliberate attempt to divert attention from the real issue. Unemployment is never consequent
upon lack of skills. Rather acute market and demand crisis due to fast and tremendous loss in
purchasing power of people, concomitant industrial recession and such others are among the
main causes of unemployment, outcome and curse of the capitalist system itself. No amount of
skill development can mend it right.
Rather this hype on skill development conceals the motive. It leads to advocacy for vocational
education. The latter, in its turn, is meant to provide skilled labour force in the ‘informal’ or
unorganized sector or in self employment schemes, when ‘formal’ or organized sector is
tottering from crisis, cannot generate employment and thus tends to give birth only to
resentment against the rulers and the system.
But then again this is no new scheme. The Central Advisory Board on Education(CABE) or
NKC also emphasized the same as admitted in the document itself. (p.17)
India has set the target of skilling 500 million people by 2022. A lofty aspiration no doubt, but
deceiving too. How much people will be given the minimum basic education by that time?
The issue again lays bare the outlook. In the name of innovative delivery model the document
vouches for strengthening of public private partnership (PPP) in forging linkage between skill
development and economic development. (p.17)
This advocacy for skill development needs be judged in conjunction with the views expressed in
the Themes VII and VIII. The document further says : Conventional education alone cannot
meet the needs and aspiration of higher education. So what is needed is Distance education ;
Open and Distance Learning (ODL); Massive Open Online Courses (MOOCs). Some Duke
University is referred to from which the ideas are borrowed (p.19-20).
Clearly this is a blunt attempt to pave the road further for the governments to shrug off their
responsibilities. In self-defence, a long list of problems with the MOOCs are submitted. One,
these are already criticized for being technology-enriched as against teacher-centered
instruction and thus for not providing a social learning experience or one of being dealt with
personally. More important and number two, HE institutions are concerned about assuring
quality through MOOCs. These lack structure, rarely include the central role of the instructor

21. 21
or teacher being largely self-directed learning, a very different experience to formal education.
It is self selected to be engaged and passionate about this approach to learning. In simple terms
it leads students to a self-centric learner detached from any social/ institutional link and bereft of
any social commitment. Besides MOOCs demand a certain level of digital literacy from the
participants, raising concerns on inclusivity and equality of access. In simple words it does not
lead to an universal education, being restricted only to digitally savvy population of students, a
miniscule in the country’s total strength. Yet the document stands for such a method in place of
traditionally acclaimed one: Learners’ motivation to participate in MOOCs is a significant area
of interest to many higher education institutions; a finding generating from the said Duke
University. Is it a reality in the country or should it be even?
In defence of and as remedial measure for the last mentioned (MOOCs etc.) items it is suggested
that the approach is based upon the studies of the World Summit on the Information Society
(WSIS) and others of the sort held in early 2000s; National Mission on Education through
Information and Communication Technology (NMEICT) approved in 2009. Now, who are these
gods? WSIS or NMEICT? How do they bind us with their findings? Boastful claims are made
about 404 universities and 19851 colleges , 250 courses etc. being brought under the scheme of
connectivity . Is it a joke or falsehood, particularly when it is admitted that large number of
students can not avail of the costly facility of Wi-Fi , E-access etc.. Have electricity and
drinking water been provided to every village of the country?
Regional disparity(Theme IX)
Jugglery of words and figures, even contradictory in nature, are evident in discussions on inter-
state disparity in Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) (p.25) . It is stated that GER is high in states
where private institutions play important role; it is admitted at the same time that issues of
affordability and quality has have been a major concern (p.25) . The chapter ends with an ill-
constructed sentence with wishful thinking : Planning for eradication of disparities requires well
a well-targeted approach. (p.26) Who would oppose it? But is there any indication of what
would be the approach or the measures? Without those the statement remains just a pious wish.
Linking HE to society (Theme XI)
Growth (of HE).,.. unplanned, weak linkage with employment and the outside world, jobs
increasing in professional stream, while degrees multiplying in general education mainly in arts

22. 22
and humanities, no adequate manpower to carry out developmental work; high incidence of
unemployment among the educated youth: a totally false, rather misleading argumentation in
depicting the reality (p.30). The entire chapter is built on this premise. There were so many
five-year plans; then no effective plan. Yet how could growth in higher education remain
unplanned? Is it a failure or a deliberate result: in any case who, other than the governments are
responsible? Professionally trained engineers are going for management; science graduates are
queuing up for peon’s posts. Do these indicate that developmental jobs do not find suitable
candidates? And what is the reason of high incidence of unemployment among educated youth?
The document says : Despite constant efforts from the government , the country faces
challenges of : Greater opportunities of access to quality HE through greater investment in
infrastructure and recruitment of adequate and good quality faculty; promoting academic
reforms; improving governance and institutional restructuring; inclusion of deprived
communities. It is added : Besides improving access and equity, it should improve the quality of
teaching and learning in higher education institutions. Are these anything other than ritualistic
repetition? Why faculty posts lie vacant for years together?
Developing the best teachers (Theme XII).
Qualification levels and pedagogical experience, the latter defined by the length of academic
preparation, the level and depth of understanding of subject matter and the extent of pedagogical
skills influence and decide the teaching learning processes and learning outcomes. After all
these drumbeatings on criteria and characteristics of the best teachers, the document says :
Unfortunately, a major share of our teachers…..does not possess doctoral degrees ( Can that be
criterion of best teachers?).
Good students are not attracted to teaching for less attractive salary levels and facilities.
Teachers to be inducted effectively and oriented towards research and teaching; several
cosmetic measures suggested , ending with conclusion that “students are more tech-savvy than
the teachers and enhancing ICT (Information and Communication Technology) knowledge of
teachers is essential . Why did the problems persist? Was it the fault of teachers and students, or
of those in charge of the affairs?
On the question of induction of foreign teachers it is said : Practical problems can not be
overlooked; artificial transplantation of foreign methods of teaching without addressing the

23. 23
requirements of ground reality is bound to be counter-productive (p.33) . Why then Duke
University studies are referred as standards ( p.20)
Student support systems (Theme XIII)
A majority of the young learners belong to the first generation even after sixty years of
independence!! Hence a support system is said to be a critical element in policy innovation.
Student loans in the XII Plan have been spoken about . At the same time adverse effects of
student loans on students’ attitudes and approach towards higher education and the values that
these loans impart and their accentuating role in commercialization are referred to. These points
have been adequately dealt with in our booklet. Here it needs be taken into account that the
policymakers are aware of the criticism they may face, yet they toy with the same ideas. They
do not go for universal free education. The theory that one who can afford should pay always
leads to two groups: in the classroom, in the eyes of teachers, at least those relatively less
attached to the mission of teaching; even to the administration in the present context of society
nurturing acute discrimination in almost every walk of life. Instead in the questionnaire, and for
people to decide and answer, the policymakers include the question Will universal soft loan
scheme help students as universal scholarship is not possible? (p.35)
The other issues are beating about the bushes. They admit System requires good infrastructure
and what are those: common room , recreation facilities etc, come first, financial assistance the
last; there is no mention of dearth of teachers with teaching posts lying vacant for years
together. Other questions thrown include Changes in interest loan subsidy scheme need to be
effected? Can support be interlinked with skill education? (p.35)
On financing it is argued that several financial assistance schemes were implemented. But the
policymakers again pose the question themselves: Have they really served the intended
objectives. Is it a honest query or just a pose?
Financing (Theme XVI)
The document like all other immediately preceding policy documents on education says that
public funding can not keep pace with rapidly rising costs of HE. It is added that increasing
pressure to view HE as pvt goo, largely benefiting individuals, with the implication that
academic institution, and their students, should pay a significant part of the cost of HE. The
document opined against commercialization, But If this approach is itself not commercialization,

24. 24
what else it could be? The same approach is expressed when suggestions are made to the
institutions to generate their own revenue : Funding shortages due to massification have also
meant the HE system and institutions are increasingly responsible for generating larger %-s of
their own revenue. Incidentally, use of the term massification to mean spread of education
among the masses, that is people, bears a subtle deriding tone. Is the use by slip or deliberate?
Earlier committees have suggested to allow these (HE) institutions to generate about 20% of the
budget requirements through student fee and other sources. The CABE committee (2005) has
suggested that this 20% may be seen as an upper limit so that equity considerations of HE are
not traded off. It is clear again that the policymakers are precisely in line with the earlier
approach of promoting self-financing institutions, that is of commercialization. What are these
other sources, than donations, capitation fees etc? The problem lies with the percent share and
that too, just to save face from severe criticism against this approach. what are those. Another
face-saving measure is no whether fees should be treated as a main source od revenues or not. It
is said in the document that : Strong HE systems are said to have developed in advanced regions
of the world with liberal funding by the state as well as the corporate sector and individuals,
including alumni .Fees stand as a minor source . It is also advised that some provisions of the
CSR Act may be linked specifically to HE sector. But facts speak otherwise, as in many
advanced countriesd students have stages protest against fee hike.
On the question of Internationalization (Theme XVII) a tight- rope walking was apparent, the
policymakers being conscious of the criticisms they may have to face. The approach remains the
same as it was in the Yashpal Committee report though with a different verbiage.
Industry, education and employability(Theme XVIII)
India represents a typical case of over-supply of higher education graduates and non-availability
of prospective employees in the production sector (huge gap between the supply of educated and
also employable human resource and its demand for the labour market in the country) .
Wide gaps in ‘learning’ further extended to ‘ Employability skills’ in the last decade. Industry
disappointed with the kind of graduates.(p.49-50)
So, here is a typical example of the approach of the present-day high-tech capital intensive
industrial sector , rather the monopolists, towards education and people. They do not really wish
for every youth of the country to be a graduate, to have higher education. So they lament for the

25. 25
“over-supply” of graduates. To them, to the monopolists, as well as the policymakers acting as
their managers, education is for producing employable human resource fitting with and required
for the labour market. To them education is for equipping students with Employability skills for
the industry. There is no question of values, nor comprehensive knowledge etc. The traditional
time-tested man-making role of education is totally erased out.
Secondly, the whole attempt is directed towards showing that unemployment emerges from the
gap between learning and demand of skills for the industry. This is a clever, deceitful attempt to
divert people’s attention from the real cause of unemployment, that is market crisis, industrial
recession stemming from the root of the exploitative capitalist system. The new education
policy is thus basically a policy to serve the crisis-ridden decadent monopolists, the corporate
sector.
New Knowledge (Theme XX)
A knowledge economy ( again an apparently meaningless term to create a halo and confusion) is
the ability to create and disseminate knowledge and use it for economic growth and improved
standard of living. In it human resource endowed with education and skill is considered
important as knowledge can only be produced by human resources who can then transform
knowledge into tangible products – technology and goods and services--- for the market. (p.53)
So Theme XX again illustrates how under the cover of high-sounding words that really mean
nothing new, the same market- based, market-oriented commercialized approach towards
education can be dished out. Here human beings are changed into human resources for the
corporate-industrialists-monopolists, and are meant to produce tangible things for the market.
It is bluntly admitted that Knowledge Economy has an important dimension of
commercialization and marketing. Implicit knowledge i.e., knowledge embodied in brains needs
to be transformed into explicit knowledge i.e., in forms in which it can be traded. ((p.54))
From this stems the conclusion: A country,… rich in educated and skilled workforce has great
potentials to produce, disseminate, adapt knowledge to enhance growth.
But then again, Highly endowed human resource of a country… is no guarantee of the economic
development . Because, educated and skilled human resource has become too mobile .. and use
of human resources may not be specific to the country of origin ( brain drain)> The knowledge
may be produced and used by countries which can attract talent. Hence, the market is not just

26. 26
national. It is the global market. In this sphere, ICT ( Information and Communication
Technology) revolution added important dimension to the knowledge economy.
There is no dearth of pleas as justification. It is said that it is difficult to live in isolation; so
understanding dynamics of knowledge economies , a country should manage it in its favour
through appropriate strategies to retain and attract talents through internationalization. (p. 53-4)
Language education and cultural integration (Theme XIV) :
Theme XIV is the only chapter that deals with the vital issue of language teaching. Clearly it
avoids certain important aspects of the issue.
In a gesture to paying attention to the marginalized sections of population,, the attention on
language education is paid largely, rather wholly to the social, cultural, and historical contents
of minor, minority, tribal and endangered languages: efforts to be made to ‘resuscitate and
rejuvenate them’. HE framework must have provisions. Why and how : remain unanswered.
Besides it is not recognized that language and dialect are not the same. There are so many
languages in the country and many more dialects. Different dialects of a language integrate into
the most developed and enriched form in due course with a script of its own. It is futile, rather
ridiculous to try for developing all dialects into separate languages.
Besides, the important aspects of the issue avoided are as follows:
Number one, The policymakers bring in the issue of language education, but, as in the case SE,
here in the discussion on HE too, there is no indication of what would be the content and
methods etc., that is the framework of language teaching-learning. Neither there is any reference
to how it will be linked with language education in schools. Number two. It is far from being
explicit, what is their approach towards the current 3-language formula . Are they in favour or
against? How do they take the criticism that the 3-language formula virtually destroys learning
of mother tongue and makes room for Hindi to dominate. Number three. In the recent past, there
has been an uproar on including Sanskrit as compulsory in schools. This is one of the agenda of
the Hindutwavadi protagonists who also clamour for Hindu rashtra and cultural integration on
religious thoughts- rituals of Hinduism. But there is not a single reference to Sanskrit.
However, there is one question in the accompanying list: Should all universities have essential
language departments with focus on dying or extinct languages? What for? Is it not a disguised

27. 27
leading question towards bringing in Sanskrit into the discussion? Can this attempt be called a
‘hidden agenda’?
The discussion on language is placed along with the one on Cultural integration. On cultural
integration multilingualism in the country is recognized, but as a natural phenomenon that
relates positively to cognitive flexibility and scholastic achievement. What do these bombastic
words meaning nothing serve for? How did it come about or what does it signify: there is no
answer to these questions. Rather cultural integration is viewed in the document as a a form of
cultural exchange in which one group assumes the beliefs, practices and rituals of another group
without sacrificing the characteristics of its own culture. Unfortunately, this definition is fraught
with fundamental inadequacy. The way secularism differs from multi- theocratism, a true
cultural integration of a multinationality, multilingual, multireligious country would differ from
the document’s cultural integration in the same manner. A multi-theocratic country fosters many
religions, leaving the seeds of disunity live in it. Secularism being a more developed thought in
the history of mankind developed with the advent of democratic society, a truly secular country
integrates people of different religions on the strength of the new democratic thoughts. Religions
may exist in the belief and personal life of a person. But the state and the country does not
encourage religion in public affairs. Unfortunately secularism practiced in India was rather
multitheocratism, the evils of which becomes apparent now and then in the communal strifes.
Similarly multinationality, multilingual, multireligious country can be culturally integrated not
by keeping all the differences in tact, but by a nation-building process on the basis of higher
thoughts and culture going above the component cultures. During the days of the Renaissance,
the age of democratic revolution, it was the democratic secular thoughts that could produce such
an integrated culture. But today even that can not be achieved, that is secularism, true
democracy can not be attained without taking up the still higher thoughts of Marxism; proletarian
internationalism.
In any case, in regard to the document it may be said that under hardly any circumstances, any
cultural integrity will be attained with one cultural group assuming the beliefs, practices and
rituals of another group without sacrificing the characteristics of its own culture. That is an
utopia; the attempt in disguise of dominant cultural group to swallow the lesser privileged ones
one. The differences remaining live are sure to raise on this or that ground.

28. 28
Besides, in the document the factors affecting cultural integration are listed as: future media
technologies, actions of governments, global economy, rise of global media networks and actions
of Transnational corporations. Again a beating about the bush and creating a halo. Global
perspective is brought in. But how would the integration take place inside the country? The
hidden agenda of cultural integration or domination of Hindutwavadi brand looms large behind.
Hidden agenda:
But all these above observations carefully sidetrack an important aspect of the reality, rather it is
meaningfully silent on a frightening development in the country. In such a context, the whole
exercise of the draft of the new national educational policy, its policy consultations, theme and
discussions become redundant, rather an eyewash.
Parallel to the current move from the HRDM for a new education policy, there is another one
generating from the quarter of the RSS, the ideological source and mentor of the BJP, the ruling
party, and most of the ministers in the present union government. That this is not a stray
phenomenon from an extra-constitutional power is corroborated from the facts, that once and
often the decision of the RSS bodies or personalities are explicitly or implicitly endorsed-
approved by the ministers of different ranks from the Union as well as some state governments.
Thus it is reported (Hindustan Times 18 May 2015) that the Hindutva activist Dina Nath
Batra’s Shiksha Bachao Andolan is firming up its recommendations to be submitted to the
government later this year (HT May 18,2015). The organisation has also put in place a Bharatiya
Shiksha Neeti Ayog (Indian educational policy committee) to formulate its recommendations for
the new education policy. Then again, addressing a conference of Hindu Education Board, an
RSS-affiliate, attended by HRD minister Smriti Irani, railway minister Suresh Prabhu and
minister of state for finance Jayant Sinha, Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) general
secretary Krishna Gopal said on 8 June 2015 that all streams of knowledge are meaningless till
mixed with Indian spiritual thoughts. ( reported in TOI 9 June 2015). In an interview to PTI in
September 2015, Mahesh Sharma, Minister of State for Culture said : They (students) “ should
be taught teachings of Mahabharata,… of Ramayana,… of Gita”. And as a prelude to all these
Dinanath Batra wrote and published several books “For making the students aware of Indian
culture”. In the name of the professed goal of ‘Indianisation’ these books are being taught in
Gujarat and in the Vidya Bharati schools organised by the RSS throughout the country. Using

29. 29
these books as instrumental, for introducing ‘Indianisation’, wild claims are made that really
aims at ‘Hinduisation’ of education. The danger of these moves becomes evident when it is
found that in the BJP-ruled Gujarat, authors of social studies textbooks published by the Gujarat
State Board of School Textbooks include in their books chapters on 'Hitler, the Supremo' and
'Internal Achievements of Nazism', with a frighteningly uncritical picture of Fascism and
Nazism. The whole document on the proposed national education policy neither refers to these
dangerous developments , nor puts up any policy that can effectively combat these trends. It may
then be surmised , corroborated by facts stated above that the MHRD bears a tacit support to
these menacing trends.
To conclude
The HRDM has thus produced the draft of a new education policy, which, as indicated at the
beginning of this comment-sheet, is filled with high-sounding words, new alluring terms and
carefully guarded presentations. But from beneath those, there are certain evident traits coming
out.
One , The proposed new education policy tends to totally and effectively negate the lofty ideals
with which this land with a rich heritage of knowledge and scholarship developed through
history. Ancient India was a vibrant and creative centre of various branches of knowledge,
including philosophy and science, in the latter vital fundamental branches like mathematics,
astronomy, chemistry, medicine even surgery etc being particularly important. It is true that for a
certain long period the land witnessed darkness in regard to the growth of knowledge,
philosophy and science. However, as the country strove to break the shackles of darkness and
inertia, the shackles of superstitious, ritualistic, authoritarianism and blind submission to faith-
doctrines, as well as shackles of colonial- imperialistic subjugation, the doyens of that new age,
the doyens of Indian renaissance and freedom movement revealed a new horizon to country’s
people. Thus colossal personalities like Vivekananda, Rammohan Roy, Ishwarchandra
Vidyasagar, Lala Lajpat Rai to name a few among so many others from different parts of the
country, themselves dreamt of and wanted people of this country to dream of a modern
education. They envisioned it as being universal that is catered to everybody, readily available,
to the extent of being free, an education based on the principles of democracy, secularism and

30. 30
modern advanced science that stood for rationality, for acceptance of truth on the methodology
of observation- experimentation- verification in place of blind faith and submission. To whatever
extent this democratic secular and scientific education could be established in the country,
sadly, yet not really strangely enough, all the so-called reforms suggested by the policymakers
particularly during the latest few decades appear to be directed towards demolishing that edifice.
The proposed new education policy is no exception. As discussed above, it strikes at the very
root of this democratic, secular and scientific education. The AISEC, on the contrary, finds it
incumbent upon itself to uphold the banner of the democratic, secular and scientific education
and pledges to fight for it in defence of the cause of people’s education. It thus demands that
whatever policy be proposed , it must hinge upon preservation and furtherance of democratic,
secular and scientific education.
Second, even in its own ambit, the new education policy prescribed is nothing new from the
earlier ones, which the policymakers criticized. Rather it is a sort of old wine in a new bottle.
Besides, there is a constant effort to shift the onus on earlier reforms with pious wishes to mend
it all right now. Itself, it is an old trick to be found in all previous policy documents.
Third, the document is explicitly if not bluntly oriented towards serving the interests of the
monopolists-corporates-industrialists, forsaking the man-making character-building role of
education. However, futile attempts are made to cover this design with verbiage and jugglery to
mesmerize people.
Fourth, the country is well aware of the dangerous campaign released by the RSS- BJP combine.
As mentioned, based on Hindutwavadi thoughts and approach, they distort history dishing out
mythology as history, cater unscientific, obsolete thoughts even in school textbooks and other
publications, promote cult of superstitious habits and religious practices even in public life, for
example in public gatherings, even schools, forcing students of different religious communities
to practice those, fan up a fanatic communal attitude and so on. Cleverly and using the
resources at hand , they are carrying on this campaign even through text-books right from the
lower levels. Besides, with marked intolerance in respect of adverse opinion, in every cultural-
academic- educational institutions and organizations, they are changing personnel, particularly
those at the helm of the affairs, removing eminent , but non-pliant academicians from there and
placing in stead men of definite RSS- BJP pedigree and past so that they could carry out their

31. 31
agenda smoothly and without opposition. These make the dreaded agenda of saffronisation
which the ruling clique is trying to establish in the country, now openly or on face of criticism
cunningly under disguise. The campaign is no longer unknown to people of the country, rather
it is being manifested every day every moment through the various means cited above. Yet the
policymakers preparing this document on new education policy dared not spell it out in their
draft. Rather they have carefully kept this as a hidden agenda behind this amply ornamented
document. Why? Inadvertently or out of ignorance or in tacit support? In reply to all
questionnaires in the document, education-loving people may need to pose all these questions to
the policymakers.