The Draft New Education Policy 2019 – Basic blunders and
Fundamental flaws.
Dr. Vivek Monteiro Mob. 7506648602/ vivekmonteiro@yahoo.com
There can be little disagreement with the basic vision of the Draft NEP 2019 :
“The National Education Policy 2019 envisions 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.”
The problem with DNEP 2019, however, is not just in the details. It is basically and
fundamentally flawed in at least four main areas.
1.
Comprehensive Disempowerment of States
Its final chapter, Chapter 23 is its main flaw. To put it briefly, the provisions of this
chapter grossly violate the federal basis of the Indian Constitution. Chapter 23 of the
DNEP proposes to completely reformat the strategic policy and operational decision
making structure of the Indian education system. It proposes to concentrate , in
totality, all policy making and administrative powers in the hands of a Central
‘Rashtra Shikshan Aayog’. A few of the relevant provisions are excerpted below :
The collective vision, under the leadership of the PM, of a body of eminent
educationists, researchers, and professionals, with their holistic understanding
of the complex demands of the knowledge society will provide an effective
high level direction to the national education endeavour.
Educational governance as a standalone effort will not achieve the desired success
unless the rest of the components of the society have the appropriate attitude and
culture. This Policy, for its realisation in the coming years, would certainly call for
extraordinary steps in governance, which are unprecedented, and in a sense will
precede similar action that India would have to adopt in other national endeavours,
in the context of realizing the totality of development.
A new apex body for education - the Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog: A new
apex body, designated as the RSA / NEC, will be constituted. The RSA will
be responsible for developing, articulating, implementing, evaluating, and
revising the vision of education in the country on a continuous and sustained
basis. It will also create and oversee the institutional frameworks that will help
achieve this vision.
Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog Appointment Committee: A RSA Appointment
Committee (RSAAC), consisting of the PM, the Chief Justice of India, the
Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the leader of the opposition in Parliament, and
the UME, will be constituted to enable the appointments to the RSA and to
other key related roles and structures.
The role of the states is limited :
Standing Committees on Coordination: The Vice Chairperson of RSA will
also chair two SCCs. The first will consist of the Ministers of Education from
all the States.... They will be supported by the Joint Review
and Monitoring Board (JRMB) (see P.23.14) to ensure timely coordination and
implementation of goals and targets associated with the vision for education
articulated by the RSA.
Rajya Shiksha Aayogs / State Education Commissions: Similar to the RSA,
a RjSA/State Education Commission (SEC) may be constituted in each State,
chaired by the Chief Minister with the Minister of Education, nominated by the
chair, as Vice-Chair. The respective SECs can have as its members the ministers
of education, ministers of other stakeholder ministries related to education,
eminent educationists and professionals, and a senior representative from the
RSA. The creation of the SECs in the States will facilitate better coordination
with the Centre.
Chapter 23 proposes a comprehensive disempowerment of the Indian States in the
sphere of education. With education in the concurrent list, the present rights of the
States under the Indian Constitution are eliminated and they are reduced to mere
coordination with the Centre and implementation of policies decided by the Centre.
At the Centre, also, all effective powers are concentrated in the hands of the five
member RSAAC, with majority ensured to the ruling party.
The Kasturirangan Committee (KC) which formulated the DNEP 2019 included
some very eminent persons, with a record of high achievement in their areas of
specialization. Therefore it is difficult to understand how they gave their approval to
Chapter 23. Though expert in their specializations, they appear to be politically
uninformed and unaware of fundamental provisions of the Indian Constitution in
regard to federalism and education.
However, those who ultimately drafted the DNEP 2019 are aware about the
constitutional obstacle. This is clear from one sentence which recognizes that the
recommendations will require amendment to law :
Over a period of time, as the roles and functions stabilise, the RSA will be given
Constitutional status through an Act of the Parliament.
The DNEP 2019 is a document published by the MHRD - a government body. Any
government document must necessarily be consistent with existing law. It cannot
make recommendations which are in violation of constitutional provisions. Chapter
23 of the DNEP is therefore a basic blunder and foundational flaw, which cannot be
rectified except by withdrawal.
Apart from this fundamental objection it is also difficult to comprehend how members
of the Committee gave their acquiescence to the sweeping powers of the RSA and the
RSAAC even on simple academic considerations. Were they not aware of the
essential and close connect between education quality and academic independence ?
At the risk of appearing ridiculous, it could be asked : would have they assented to a
proposal putting President Donald Trump in charge of all education in the United
States ? But that is essentially what they are recommending for India !
2.
Absence of base line analysis and the homework deficit.
A second major flaw of DNEP is its homework deficit. A base line is completely
lacking in the document. There is no description of contemporary ground reality , no
narration of history, progress and problems, no summary of relevant data, either in
matters of economics and development, nor in the field of education .
On the other hand, the draft document contains the following lament :
“While crafting the Policy we had a serious problem with acquiring authentic
data in both quality and quantity. Education policies are largely the outcome
of analysing trends in the patterns of evolution of important parameters of education.
A major effort is called for in the country for data collection, organisation, analysis
and the building capability to study trends and patterns of the various aspects of
education.”
Anybody familiar with the state of education in India, will be aware that absence of
data is not the problem. There is a huge body of data on education at various levels
which have been systematically collected and documented by many statutory bodies
and institutions at the Centre and in the states over the years. The authenticity of this
data is also not in question.
There is little evidence in the DNEP that the data readily available on the state of
education in the country has been at all looked at in its preparation. The ‘serious
problem’ as regards data referred to above appears to be only a pathetic excuse for a
serious lack of homework.
The Chairman of the KC is himself a well known former head of the ISRO. He
would be undoubtedly aware about the amount of homework and preparation that
precedes a rocket launch. He would know that with the kind of homework deficit
evident in the Draft New Education Policy 2019, a rocket would not even reach its
launch pad , leave alone take off..
3.
Retreat from RTE 2009 and NCF 2005
A third fundamental flaw in the DNEP is in the area of school education.
The objective of DNEP 2019 in this area is defined thus :
Objective: Achieve access and participation in free and compulsory quality school
education for all children in the age group of 3-18 years by 2030.
While this might appear to be a welcome proposal for extension of the coverage of
the RTE to the age groups 3-5, and 15-18, it is actually a big step back from the
existing provisions of right to education of good quality for the children between the
ages of 6-14.
Education of ‘good quality’ for all child citizens between the age of 6 and 14 is a
fundamental right mandated by section 8 of the RTE Act. What is ‘education of good
quality’ is also defined clearly in NCF 2005, which has been notified under section 7
of the RTE Act. The members of the KC seem to be unaware of these provisions and
rights . ‘Equality of outcomes’ of NCF 2005 is sought to be replaced by mere
‘access and participation’ in DNEP 2019.
A central pillar of the NCF 2005 is the linking of ‘quality education’ with ‘equality’.
NCF 2005 defines quality education as that which delivers ‘equality of outcomes’,
not just ‘equality of access’. What DNEP 2019 proposes is therefore a dilution of the
NCF 2005 and the abandonment of this perspective on quality for equality . Whether
this is merely due to the insufficient study by the KC members of the NCF 2005, or
whether it is a deliberate decision taken after due study of the NCF 2005, is an
important but open question about which we will not speculate here.
It is pertinent and necessary to reproduce here excerpts from NCF 2005 on the issue
of ‘what is quality education’.
The formal approach, of equality of treatment , in terms of equal access or equal
representation... is inadequate. Today, there is a need to adopt a substantive
approach, towards equality of outcome ,(emphasis ours), where diversity, difference
and disadvantage are taken into account.
A critical function of education for equality is to enable all learners to claim their
rights as well as to contribute to society and the polity. We need to recognise that
rights and choices in themselves cannot be exercised until central human capabilities
are fulfilled . Thus, in order to make it possible for marginalised learners, and
especially girls, to claim their rights as well as play an active role in shaping
collective life, education must empower them to overcome the disadvantages of
unequal socialization and enable them to develop their capabilities of becoming
autonomous and equal citizens.
Another major concern is that quality school education has still not reached to a
large section of our population. There is no doubt about some ‘islands’ of excellence,
but the large majority of marginalised groups such as girls, socio-economically
disadvantaged children, etc., do not get meaningful learning experiences in school,
which will give them a sense of dignity and confidence. Curriculum design must
reflect the commitment to Universal Elementary Education (UEE), not only in
representing cultural diversity, but also by ensuring that children from different
social and economic backgrounds with variations in physical, psychological and
intellectual characteristics are able to learn and achieve success in school. In this
context, disadvantages in education arising from inequalities of gender, caste,
language, culture or religion need to be addressed directly, not only through policies
and schemes but also through the design and selection of learning tasks and
pedagogic practices, right from the period of early childhood. Education must
empower them to overcome the disadvantages of unequal socialisation and enable
them to develop their capabilities of becoming autonomous and equal citizens. The
National Curriculum Framework-2005 is focused on providing quality education to
all children.
.... First, universalisation of education and quality in education are not to be
regarded as two ‘opposing’ needs. They are complementary and reinforce each other.
Quality cannot flourish for long in a society that is not based on equality and justice
for all. Likewise, universalisation can be an empty slogan unless quality is assured for
all. Second, NCF-2005 interprets the quality dimension holistically, departing from
its narrow connotation of excellence in particular subject areas.
In the entire DNEP , the word ‘universalization’ is absent, except for one mention of
‘Universalization of ECCE’. The crucial mandate of ‘Universalisation of education
of good quality’, which is the substantive content of the RTE Act, is truncated in
DNEP 2019 to mere ‘Universalization of ECCE’. While the addition of ECCE to the
mandate of RTE is welcome, the price cannot be a withdrawal and retreat from
existing rights of school children.
What the DNEP 2019 states, (page 26,) that “In the decades since Independence, we
have been preoccupied largely with issues of access and equity, and have
unfortunately dropped the baton with regard to quality of education”, evidently,
applies to it’s own perspective on quality education.
4.
The Missing Concerns
It is not only the word “Universalization” which goes missing in the document.
Several other missing concerns speak loudly about the real concerns of the DNEP
2019, and constitute a fourth fundamental flaw.
A real disconnect between ‘education’ and the problem of ‘employment’ is apparent.
Unemployment is mentioned only once. There is no mention of job loss, jobless
growth , employment generation, economic viability, cooperatives, industrial
worker, industrial workforce. ‘Farmers’ are mentioned only twice.
The document has also comprehensively ignored major sectors which are driving the
Indian economy today . The examples given below have not earned even a single
mention in the DNEP, despite being among the main drivers of employment and
growth in the Indian economy :
• railways, rail transport, road transport, water transport, aviation.
• Communication technology, microwave, 4G, 5G, optical fibre, data
transfer.
• ‘Information technology’.
• fermentation, food preservation,
• leather, meat, protein, carbohydrate, oil, oilseeds,
• cinema, television, entertainment , media, film industry, advertising
• ‘self employed’, ‘self help groups’
• tourism, travel industry.
• retail trade, wholesale trade, trading.
There is scant attention in the DNEP 2019 paid to the needs and requirements of
STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) education, which is
considered essential for a modern society. There is just a single mention of STEM
along with the following glaring unmentionables:
• Universe, Cosmos, earth, atom, molecule, atomic theory, periodic table,
biochemistry, rare earths, carbon , silicon, material science,
• Darwin, Evolution, molecular biology, genetics.
• Inquisitive, spirit of enquiry, questioning attitude. What is scientific temper
without questioning ?
• geometry, algebra, mathematical sciences, mathematical physics,
• Long on catch words, but short on content – for example 27 mentions of the
word ‘ecosystem’, but no mention of ‘ecology’, except one in the context of
ancient India.
The disconnect in the document from its vision objective of ‘sustainability’ is
apparent from the following omissions:
• biodiversity, forests, biomass.
• carbon, carbon dioxide, carbon footprint,
• ‘pollution’.
• global warming,
• resource depletion, non renewable resources, renewable resources,
degradation, environmental degradation,
• hydrocarbons, fossil fuels, fuels,
• mentions of preservation of language and culture, but no preservation of the
environment.
• waste, waste management, waste reprocessing, recycling,
• renewable energy , solar energy , are each mentioned just once.
5. More unmentionables
The Cultural and Ideological blinkered vision of DNEP 2019
An ideological thrust of the DNEP is starkly clear in its following unmentionables :
• Directive Principles, Preamble of Constitution,
• Secular, secularism, republic, freedom struggle, freedom movement,
• Nehru, Subhash Bose, Maulana Azad, Bhagat Singh, Mahatma Jotiba
Phule, Savitri Phule, Shahu Maharaj, Sayaji Rao Gaekwad , B.G. Tilak,
Ranade, Gokhale, Vidyasagar,
• Mahatma Gandhi is mentioned once
• Mention of Chandragupta Maurya, but no mention of Ashoka.
• Shivaji, Akbar, Jai Singh,
• Thiruvalluvar, Tukaram, Dnyaneshwar, Basavanna, Sree Narayan Guru.
• ‘sarva dharma sambhaava’, ‘composite culture’, ‘humanism’,
• Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan, Austro-asian, Indo-Aryan, migration, ‘peopling
of India’, multicultural, multireligious,
There are however, 18 mentions of multilingualism. In the name of
‘multilingualism’, there are 23 mentions of Sanskrit, 12-Hindi, 5-Tamil, 3- Kannada,
3- Odia, 2-Malayalam, 2-Telugu, 2- Urdu, Among the unmentionable languages are
Bengali, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi , Konkani, Kashmiri, Nepali, Assamese,
Manipuri, Kok Borok, Khasi, Santhali, Mundari and all the other languages of the
Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
English is mentioned 24 times. It is singled out as being the language of the
economic elite in India, whose use “has resulted in the marginalisation of large
sections of society based on language..... This attitude has kept the elite class and the
jobs they control segregated from the economically weaker sections of society, which
of course contain many hardworking, smart, high quality, highly skilled, and educated
people who happen not to speak the language of the colonists and current elite.
For true equity and inclusion in society, and in the education and employment
systems across the country, this power structure of language must be stopped
at the earliest. A major effort in this direction must be taken by the elite and
the educated to make increased use of languages native to India, and give
these languages the space and respect that they deserve ... An importance and
prominence must be returned to Indian languages that has been lost in recent years.”
How serious is the intention of the present government to include everyone in the
discussion on the New Education policy is evident in the fact that DNEP 2019 has
been published only in English and Hindi.
Though there are a few welcome recommendations and aspects, like those for ECCE,
upgrading the Mid-day meal scheme , and a section on Scientific temper, the bulk of
the DNEP is just a shabby political document.
At present the BJP is in power in just 11 states- four in the North East, two hill
states (HP, Uttarakhand), and Jharkhand, Haryana, Maharashtra, Gujarat and
UP. The curtailment of the rights and powers of the states proposed by DNEP
2019 is unlikely to be accepted by the remaining state governments in the
country.
The flaws in the DNEP are so fundamental and basic, that the document cannot
be rectified by redrafting. It should be withdrawn in the interests of Indian
education.
After withdrawing the DNEP 2019, there need not be a long wait till another draft
policy is produced. The unfinished tasks and the quality mandate of the RTE 2009
and NCF 2005 can well be taken forward on the basis of the excellent comprehensive
SSA Quality Framework document ‘Framework for Implementation”, published by
the MHRD in 2011, which is still available on the MHRD website and also at
www.navnirmitilearning.org.
Fundamental flaws.
Dr. Vivek Monteiro Mob. 7506648602/ vivekmonteiro@yahoo.com
There can be little disagreement with the basic vision of the Draft NEP 2019 :
“The National Education Policy 2019 envisions 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.”
The problem with DNEP 2019, however, is not just in the details. It is basically and
fundamentally flawed in at least four main areas.
1.
Comprehensive Disempowerment of States
Its final chapter, Chapter 23 is its main flaw. To put it briefly, the provisions of this
chapter grossly violate the federal basis of the Indian Constitution. Chapter 23 of the
DNEP proposes to completely reformat the strategic policy and operational decision
making structure of the Indian education system. It proposes to concentrate , in
totality, all policy making and administrative powers in the hands of a Central
‘Rashtra Shikshan Aayog’. A few of the relevant provisions are excerpted below :
The collective vision, under the leadership of the PM, of a body of eminent
educationists, researchers, and professionals, with their holistic understanding
of the complex demands of the knowledge society will provide an effective
high level direction to the national education endeavour.
Educational governance as a standalone effort will not achieve the desired success
unless the rest of the components of the society have the appropriate attitude and
culture. This Policy, for its realisation in the coming years, would certainly call for
extraordinary steps in governance, which are unprecedented, and in a sense will
precede similar action that India would have to adopt in other national endeavours,
in the context of realizing the totality of development.
A new apex body for education - the Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog: A new
apex body, designated as the RSA / NEC, will be constituted. The RSA will
be responsible for developing, articulating, implementing, evaluating, and
revising the vision of education in the country on a continuous and sustained
basis. It will also create and oversee the institutional frameworks that will help
achieve this vision.
Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog Appointment Committee: A RSA Appointment
Committee (RSAAC), consisting of the PM, the Chief Justice of India, the
Speaker of the Lok Sabha, the leader of the opposition in Parliament, and
the UME, will be constituted to enable the appointments to the RSA and to
other key related roles and structures.
The role of the states is limited :
Standing Committees on Coordination: The Vice Chairperson of RSA will
also chair two SCCs. The first will consist of the Ministers of Education from
all the States.... They will be supported by the Joint Review
and Monitoring Board (JRMB) (see P.23.14) to ensure timely coordination and
implementation of goals and targets associated with the vision for education
articulated by the RSA.
Rajya Shiksha Aayogs / State Education Commissions: Similar to the RSA,
a RjSA/State Education Commission (SEC) may be constituted in each State,
chaired by the Chief Minister with the Minister of Education, nominated by the
chair, as Vice-Chair. The respective SECs can have as its members the ministers
of education, ministers of other stakeholder ministries related to education,
eminent educationists and professionals, and a senior representative from the
RSA. The creation of the SECs in the States will facilitate better coordination
with the Centre.
Chapter 23 proposes a comprehensive disempowerment of the Indian States in the
sphere of education. With education in the concurrent list, the present rights of the
States under the Indian Constitution are eliminated and they are reduced to mere
coordination with the Centre and implementation of policies decided by the Centre.
At the Centre, also, all effective powers are concentrated in the hands of the five
member RSAAC, with majority ensured to the ruling party.
The Kasturirangan Committee (KC) which formulated the DNEP 2019 included
some very eminent persons, with a record of high achievement in their areas of
specialization. Therefore it is difficult to understand how they gave their approval to
Chapter 23. Though expert in their specializations, they appear to be politically
uninformed and unaware of fundamental provisions of the Indian Constitution in
regard to federalism and education.
However, those who ultimately drafted the DNEP 2019 are aware about the
constitutional obstacle. This is clear from one sentence which recognizes that the
recommendations will require amendment to law :
Over a period of time, as the roles and functions stabilise, the RSA will be given
Constitutional status through an Act of the Parliament.
The DNEP 2019 is a document published by the MHRD - a government body. Any
government document must necessarily be consistent with existing law. It cannot
make recommendations which are in violation of constitutional provisions. Chapter
23 of the DNEP is therefore a basic blunder and foundational flaw, which cannot be
rectified except by withdrawal.
Apart from this fundamental objection it is also difficult to comprehend how members
of the Committee gave their acquiescence to the sweeping powers of the RSA and the
RSAAC even on simple academic considerations. Were they not aware of the
essential and close connect between education quality and academic independence ?
At the risk of appearing ridiculous, it could be asked : would have they assented to a
proposal putting President Donald Trump in charge of all education in the United
States ? But that is essentially what they are recommending for India !
2.
Absence of base line analysis and the homework deficit.
A second major flaw of DNEP is its homework deficit. A base line is completely
lacking in the document. There is no description of contemporary ground reality , no
narration of history, progress and problems, no summary of relevant data, either in
matters of economics and development, nor in the field of education .
On the other hand, the draft document contains the following lament :
“While crafting the Policy we had a serious problem with acquiring authentic
data in both quality and quantity. Education policies are largely the outcome
of analysing trends in the patterns of evolution of important parameters of education.
A major effort is called for in the country for data collection, organisation, analysis
and the building capability to study trends and patterns of the various aspects of
education.”
Anybody familiar with the state of education in India, will be aware that absence of
data is not the problem. There is a huge body of data on education at various levels
which have been systematically collected and documented by many statutory bodies
and institutions at the Centre and in the states over the years. The authenticity of this
data is also not in question.
There is little evidence in the DNEP that the data readily available on the state of
education in the country has been at all looked at in its preparation. The ‘serious
problem’ as regards data referred to above appears to be only a pathetic excuse for a
serious lack of homework.
The Chairman of the KC is himself a well known former head of the ISRO. He
would be undoubtedly aware about the amount of homework and preparation that
precedes a rocket launch. He would know that with the kind of homework deficit
evident in the Draft New Education Policy 2019, a rocket would not even reach its
launch pad , leave alone take off..
3.
Retreat from RTE 2009 and NCF 2005
A third fundamental flaw in the DNEP is in the area of school education.
The objective of DNEP 2019 in this area is defined thus :
Objective: Achieve access and participation in free and compulsory quality school
education for all children in the age group of 3-18 years by 2030.
While this might appear to be a welcome proposal for extension of the coverage of
the RTE to the age groups 3-5, and 15-18, it is actually a big step back from the
existing provisions of right to education of good quality for the children between the
ages of 6-14.
Education of ‘good quality’ for all child citizens between the age of 6 and 14 is a
fundamental right mandated by section 8 of the RTE Act. What is ‘education of good
quality’ is also defined clearly in NCF 2005, which has been notified under section 7
of the RTE Act. The members of the KC seem to be unaware of these provisions and
rights . ‘Equality of outcomes’ of NCF 2005 is sought to be replaced by mere
‘access and participation’ in DNEP 2019.
A central pillar of the NCF 2005 is the linking of ‘quality education’ with ‘equality’.
NCF 2005 defines quality education as that which delivers ‘equality of outcomes’,
not just ‘equality of access’. What DNEP 2019 proposes is therefore a dilution of the
NCF 2005 and the abandonment of this perspective on quality for equality . Whether
this is merely due to the insufficient study by the KC members of the NCF 2005, or
whether it is a deliberate decision taken after due study of the NCF 2005, is an
important but open question about which we will not speculate here.
It is pertinent and necessary to reproduce here excerpts from NCF 2005 on the issue
of ‘what is quality education’.
The formal approach, of equality of treatment , in terms of equal access or equal
representation... is inadequate. Today, there is a need to adopt a substantive
approach, towards equality of outcome ,(emphasis ours), where diversity, difference
and disadvantage are taken into account.
A critical function of education for equality is to enable all learners to claim their
rights as well as to contribute to society and the polity. We need to recognise that
rights and choices in themselves cannot be exercised until central human capabilities
are fulfilled . Thus, in order to make it possible for marginalised learners, and
especially girls, to claim their rights as well as play an active role in shaping
collective life, education must empower them to overcome the disadvantages of
unequal socialization and enable them to develop their capabilities of becoming
autonomous and equal citizens.
Another major concern is that quality school education has still not reached to a
large section of our population. There is no doubt about some ‘islands’ of excellence,
but the large majority of marginalised groups such as girls, socio-economically
disadvantaged children, etc., do not get meaningful learning experiences in school,
which will give them a sense of dignity and confidence. Curriculum design must
reflect the commitment to Universal Elementary Education (UEE), not only in
representing cultural diversity, but also by ensuring that children from different
social and economic backgrounds with variations in physical, psychological and
intellectual characteristics are able to learn and achieve success in school. In this
context, disadvantages in education arising from inequalities of gender, caste,
language, culture or religion need to be addressed directly, not only through policies
and schemes but also through the design and selection of learning tasks and
pedagogic practices, right from the period of early childhood. Education must
empower them to overcome the disadvantages of unequal socialisation and enable
them to develop their capabilities of becoming autonomous and equal citizens. The
National Curriculum Framework-2005 is focused on providing quality education to
all children.
.... First, universalisation of education and quality in education are not to be
regarded as two ‘opposing’ needs. They are complementary and reinforce each other.
Quality cannot flourish for long in a society that is not based on equality and justice
for all. Likewise, universalisation can be an empty slogan unless quality is assured for
all. Second, NCF-2005 interprets the quality dimension holistically, departing from
its narrow connotation of excellence in particular subject areas.
In the entire DNEP , the word ‘universalization’ is absent, except for one mention of
‘Universalization of ECCE’. The crucial mandate of ‘Universalisation of education
of good quality’, which is the substantive content of the RTE Act, is truncated in
DNEP 2019 to mere ‘Universalization of ECCE’. While the addition of ECCE to the
mandate of RTE is welcome, the price cannot be a withdrawal and retreat from
existing rights of school children.
What the DNEP 2019 states, (page 26,) that “In the decades since Independence, we
have been preoccupied largely with issues of access and equity, and have
unfortunately dropped the baton with regard to quality of education”, evidently,
applies to it’s own perspective on quality education.
4.
The Missing Concerns
It is not only the word “Universalization” which goes missing in the document.
Several other missing concerns speak loudly about the real concerns of the DNEP
2019, and constitute a fourth fundamental flaw.
A real disconnect between ‘education’ and the problem of ‘employment’ is apparent.
Unemployment is mentioned only once. There is no mention of job loss, jobless
growth , employment generation, economic viability, cooperatives, industrial
worker, industrial workforce. ‘Farmers’ are mentioned only twice.
The document has also comprehensively ignored major sectors which are driving the
Indian economy today . The examples given below have not earned even a single
mention in the DNEP, despite being among the main drivers of employment and
growth in the Indian economy :
• railways, rail transport, road transport, water transport, aviation.
• Communication technology, microwave, 4G, 5G, optical fibre, data
transfer.
• ‘Information technology’.
• fermentation, food preservation,
• leather, meat, protein, carbohydrate, oil, oilseeds,
• cinema, television, entertainment , media, film industry, advertising
• ‘self employed’, ‘self help groups’
• tourism, travel industry.
• retail trade, wholesale trade, trading.
There is scant attention in the DNEP 2019 paid to the needs and requirements of
STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics) education, which is
considered essential for a modern society. There is just a single mention of STEM
along with the following glaring unmentionables:
• Universe, Cosmos, earth, atom, molecule, atomic theory, periodic table,
biochemistry, rare earths, carbon , silicon, material science,
• Darwin, Evolution, molecular biology, genetics.
• Inquisitive, spirit of enquiry, questioning attitude. What is scientific temper
without questioning ?
• geometry, algebra, mathematical sciences, mathematical physics,
• Long on catch words, but short on content – for example 27 mentions of the
word ‘ecosystem’, but no mention of ‘ecology’, except one in the context of
ancient India.
The disconnect in the document from its vision objective of ‘sustainability’ is
apparent from the following omissions:
• biodiversity, forests, biomass.
• carbon, carbon dioxide, carbon footprint,
• ‘pollution’.
• global warming,
• resource depletion, non renewable resources, renewable resources,
degradation, environmental degradation,
• hydrocarbons, fossil fuels, fuels,
• mentions of preservation of language and culture, but no preservation of the
environment.
• waste, waste management, waste reprocessing, recycling,
• renewable energy , solar energy , are each mentioned just once.
5. More unmentionables
The Cultural and Ideological blinkered vision of DNEP 2019
An ideological thrust of the DNEP is starkly clear in its following unmentionables :
• Directive Principles, Preamble of Constitution,
• Secular, secularism, republic, freedom struggle, freedom movement,
• Nehru, Subhash Bose, Maulana Azad, Bhagat Singh, Mahatma Jotiba
Phule, Savitri Phule, Shahu Maharaj, Sayaji Rao Gaekwad , B.G. Tilak,
Ranade, Gokhale, Vidyasagar,
• Mahatma Gandhi is mentioned once
• Mention of Chandragupta Maurya, but no mention of Ashoka.
• Shivaji, Akbar, Jai Singh,
• Thiruvalluvar, Tukaram, Dnyaneshwar, Basavanna, Sree Narayan Guru.
• ‘sarva dharma sambhaava’, ‘composite culture’, ‘humanism’,
• Dravidian, Sino-Tibetan, Austro-asian, Indo-Aryan, migration, ‘peopling
of India’, multicultural, multireligious,
There are however, 18 mentions of multilingualism. In the name of
‘multilingualism’, there are 23 mentions of Sanskrit, 12-Hindi, 5-Tamil, 3- Kannada,
3- Odia, 2-Malayalam, 2-Telugu, 2- Urdu, Among the unmentionable languages are
Bengali, Marathi, Gujarati, Punjabi , Konkani, Kashmiri, Nepali, Assamese,
Manipuri, Kok Borok, Khasi, Santhali, Mundari and all the other languages of the
Eighth Schedule of the Indian Constitution.
English is mentioned 24 times. It is singled out as being the language of the
economic elite in India, whose use “has resulted in the marginalisation of large
sections of society based on language..... This attitude has kept the elite class and the
jobs they control segregated from the economically weaker sections of society, which
of course contain many hardworking, smart, high quality, highly skilled, and educated
people who happen not to speak the language of the colonists and current elite.
For true equity and inclusion in society, and in the education and employment
systems across the country, this power structure of language must be stopped
at the earliest. A major effort in this direction must be taken by the elite and
the educated to make increased use of languages native to India, and give
these languages the space and respect that they deserve ... An importance and
prominence must be returned to Indian languages that has been lost in recent years.”
How serious is the intention of the present government to include everyone in the
discussion on the New Education policy is evident in the fact that DNEP 2019 has
been published only in English and Hindi.
Though there are a few welcome recommendations and aspects, like those for ECCE,
upgrading the Mid-day meal scheme , and a section on Scientific temper, the bulk of
the DNEP is just a shabby political document.
At present the BJP is in power in just 11 states- four in the North East, two hill
states (HP, Uttarakhand), and Jharkhand, Haryana, Maharashtra, Gujarat and
UP. The curtailment of the rights and powers of the states proposed by DNEP
2019 is unlikely to be accepted by the remaining state governments in the
country.
The flaws in the DNEP are so fundamental and basic, that the document cannot
be rectified by redrafting. It should be withdrawn in the interests of Indian
education.
After withdrawing the DNEP 2019, there need not be a long wait till another draft
policy is produced. The unfinished tasks and the quality mandate of the RTE 2009
and NCF 2005 can well be taken forward on the basis of the excellent comprehensive
SSA Quality Framework document ‘Framework for Implementation”, published by
the MHRD in 2011, which is still available on the MHRD website and also at
www.navnirmitilearning.org.
No comments:
Post a Comment