NEWSLINKS
US EDITION
COLUMNISTS
DIARY
SPECIALS
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
THE STATES
ELECTIONS
ARCHIVES
SEARCH REDIFF

Search the Internet          Tips

Recent Columns

Privatisation hits a      roadblock

Setback to secularism

All those citizens who looked up to the Supreme Court to intervene and stop the loathsome campaign launched by Hindutva bigots to saffronise school education and poison the minds of young children will be sorely disappointed by its latest verdict. With due respect to the court, the judgement, as we see below, is at odds with the Constitutional imperative of secularism. It falls into the category of conservative recent verdicts, like the 1996 'Hindutva-as-a-way-of-life' judgment, and the Narmada and Balco cases.

The post-judgement controversy over 'saffron' textbooks is unlikely to remain limited to a contestation between secularists and Hindu communalists. It has a federal dimension too. Many states are up in arms against what they see as blatant central interference in school curricula. The verdict has major implications for the Rights of the Child to unbiased information, and for the issue of tolerance and respect for difference in India's plural, multi-cultural, multi-religious society. It raises a fundamental question: do we want our children to be taught a viciously prejudiced version of history which privileges India's 'Hindu past' while berating its 'non-Hindu' periods?

India's school system primarily uses government-recommended textbooks, approved by the Central Board for Secondary Education through an elaborate process involving multiple-stage consultation between teachers, experts and officials, and between the Centre and states. The process progresses from adapting the National Education Policy in force to evolve a National Curriculum Framework, and then writing syllabi for different classes/courses and the books themselves. Each step is derived from the previous one.

Pivotal to the process is the Central Advisory Board on Education -- a 104-member body consisting largely of state representatives and independent experts. CABE, established in 1920, is uniquely empowered to approve the NCF, which is formulated by the National Council for Educational Research and Training. Although it is not a statutory institution, CABE is indispensable. Without it, the states' views would be excluded from the textbook process -- spelling dangerous overcentralisation in a one billion population country with 33 states/territories.

At the centre of today's controversy is the 'saffronised' NCF produced by NCERT two years ago. CABE never approved it, but the government arbitrarily imposed it on the CBSE. The NDA embarked on the 'saffronisation' agenda with single-minded determination, appointing the fanatical Murli Manohar Joshi in 1998 as human resources development minister. To this day, Joshi remains the one minister to have pushed the Hindutva agenda undeterred by considerations of consensus or decency. His first attempt was to make the singing of Saraswati Vandana compulsory in schools. He tried to ram this through a conference of state education ministers (education is a Concurrent subject) in 1998. The agenda was determined by a note prepared for the RSS-run Vidya Bharati's own conference slightly earlier. This was to be presented by a RSS ideologue. The ministers were aghast. The conference broke up.

Unfazed, Joshi worked on the second route-of manipulating NCERT. He packed it with Hindu chauvinists, who systematically hijacked the NCF by introducing the concept of 'value education' centred on religion. This met with stiff opposition from teachers, scholars, and from one-half of India's states. In November 2000, ignoring the Opposition, Joshi declared the NCF 'approved,' and proceeded to thrust it down the nation's throat. This wilful sabotage of democratic process is only one ground on which the government was challenged in the Supreme Court by three eminent citizens, including an award-winning right-to-information activist, a social scientist, and a journalist-policy commentator. The group's composition? Two Hindus (one married to a Muslim), and one Christian.

The petitioners' second substantial ground was that the NCF militates against the principles of secularism, equality, the rights to education and to development, all embedded in India's Constitution. Under the Constitution, the state cannot favour religion, nor support religious instruction. Article 28 prohibits 'religious instruction' in educational institutions fully managed out of state funds. NCF-2000 has numerous formulations which, however subtly, favour religions and spirituality. It roots its own philosophy in the view that religion is 'a major source' of 'universal' or 'essential' values to be inculcated though education. Thus, 'what is required today is… education about religions, their basics, the values inherent therein and also a comparative study of the philosophy of all religions… Students have to be given the awareness (sic) that the essence of every religion is common, only the practices differ.'

This is a major departure from the National Policy on Education 1986, from which the NCF must be legitimately derived, which endorses 'universal' values without mentioning religion. The Supreme Court has itself held in any number of cases that 'religion cannot be mixed with any secular activity of the State. In fact, the encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited. When the State allows citizens to practise … religions, it does not … allow them to introduce religion into non-religious and secular activities of the State.'

However, unmoved by criticism from established scholars, NCERT ruthlessly insinuated religion into the secular activity of education by censoring existing textbooks, especially in history, social science and languages. This was done by Sanghi ideologues and pamphleteers -- secretly, without consultation with teachers or social scientists. Strong Hindutva biases are evident in NCERT's syllabi and doctored textbooks. They deplorably depict Hinduism as the 'essence' of Indian culture and other religions as 'alien' or 'invading' faiths. They glorify history through falsehood and distortion, presenting ancient India as the world's 'master' civilisation and culture, denying the validity and value of other great civilisations. Portions of them exclude Islam and Sikhism from the list of 'Major Religions,' and present medieval wars between different kings as 'national' wars fought by Hindus against Muslims. They depict Rama and Krishna not as mythological, but historical, figures. They censor out the social construct of caste and its corrosive influence altogether. In place of sexual equality, they talk of taking the 'best' about each 'gender' from tradition.

The doctored textbooks are grotesque: Vedic culture is made contemporary with Harappan civilisation, although it comes much after the Bronze Age; history is presented as a succession of dynasties; Mughal history is severely downsized; 20th century communalism is reduced to the Muslim League (as if Savarkar did not father the Two-Nation Theory!), there is no mention of the Hindu Mahasabha's collaborationist opposition to 'Quit India.'

Such communal claptrap made for a compelling case for ruling against the existing NCF -- and for its reformulation on a democratic and secular basis. The Supreme Court refused to order this. It did not adequately address the issue of the NFC's communal slant. The judgment in supporting 'value education' relies largely on the report of a Parliamentary committee -- eg: 'This country has a long tradition. Here, from ancient times, there have been great saints and thinkers from different religions and sects who have talked about some eternal values.'

However, the judgment omits to mention the same committee's key recommendations of 2001 -- directing NCERT/MHRD to take the NCF to CABE. It also does not mention that the committee's recommendations are not binding on the government, but the NPE is. NPE '86 is explicit on CABE's centrality: it 'will play a pivotal role in reviewing educational development, determining the changes required to improve the system and monitoring implementation,' including the NCF. The Programme of Action 1992, based on the NPE, says CABE is 'the historic forum for forging a national consensus on educational issues.'

The court accepts the government's argument that CABE is not a statutory body and was not convened (thanks to the government's own blunder) since 1994. Then, it adds its own obiter dicta -- namely, religion was invented to control man's 'wild animal instinct,' that all religions are the same in essence. This imposes a false homogeneity upon different faiths. It trivialises the fundamental right of a citizen to practise any faith of her/his choice -- irrespective of whether it conforms to one 'essentialist' interpretation. It is doubtful if any court -- or for that matter, religious leader or theologian -- has the authority to make such an interpretation.

The judgment makes a number of statements on religion and 'values' which sit ill at ease with the concept of secularism as separation of politics from religion:

• "...Religion is the foundation of value base survival of human beings in a civilised society"; all religions are the same 'in essence.'
  
• "All the values are derived from the ultimate reality -- supreme power or self-conciousness -- to which man orients himself..."
  
• "Further, no one can dispute that truth (satya), righteous conduct (dharma), peace (shanti), love (prem) and non-violence (ahimsa) are the core universal values accepted by all religions..."
  
• "May be that basics of all religions may help in achieving the objects behind fundamental duties" [Defined in the Constitution].

  The Supreme Court verdict must not go unchallenged. More than one-half of Indian states are ruled by non-BJP parties. They must collectively demand its review. Meanwhile, they -- and concerned citizens -- must launch a renewed agitation against NCERT and its textbooks, persistently chasing them in Parliament till CABE is convened and the NCF thoroughly rewritten. Too much is at stake -- not least, the future of whole generations, and of Secular India itself.

  Praful Bidwai