'In this system, the poor does not get an equal opportunity to compete with the rich.'
'Our problem is not the stress given on the Vedic system, but not mentioning the other forms of education.'
India has had two National Education Policies so far, drafted in the years 1968 and 1986. The 1968 policy was based on the suggestions of a 17-member Education Commission, headed by the then University Grants Commission chairperson D S Kothari. This policy had called for a national school system by which all students -- irrespective of caste, creed and sex -- would have access to education of a comparable quality up to a given level.
The Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, mid-day meal scheme, Navodaya Vidyalayas, Kendriya Vidyalayas and use of information technology in education are a result of the National Education Policy of 1986. It was revised in 1992 when P V Narasimha Rao was the prime minister.
A third National Education Policy has now been drafted under the National Democratic Alliance government by a committee headed by former cabinet secretary T S R Subramanian, the draft of which was recently made public.
That was when the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of India openly expressed their displeasure over the draft. The Catholic Church is the second-largest provider of education in India after the government.
The secretary general of the CBCI, Bishop Theodore Mascarenhas, spoke to Shobha Warrier/Rediff.com about why they feel the policy needs changes.
Was the third NEP was drafted without consulting all those who are involved in Indian education? You said the Catholic Church, the second-largest institutional provider of education after the government, was not consulted.
Yes, while drafting a policy like this, everybody has to be consulted.
What we feel is that they (the committee) held consultations very selectively. We wrote to the HRD (Union human resource development) minister that we should be heard, but we are yet to get a reply.
However, the government was generous enough in asking for suggestions to be uploaded on their website. But millions of suggestions may come and we do not know whether they would be able to go through all of them.
Since we are in the field, it would have been good if the government gave us a time to explain what we think of the policy.
Was it when Smriti Irani was the HRD minister that you requested to be heard?
We had requested both of them (Irani and incumbent Prakash Javdekar).
Had there been any response from both of them?
There has been no response (so far), but then it may be because of the way the government functions. Generally, it takes a long time for the government to respond.
It was the committee head T S R Subramanian who made the draft public. Do you suspect any agenda behind keeping the policy a secret?
I would not judge the intentions of the government. I would rather take it for granted that they are acting with good intentions. But, at the same time, it’s our right to be heard in this multi-cultural country.
The education policy is not a simple thing; it shapes the future of the nation. It follows the ideology of the country. So, it is essential that they hear all shades of opinions.
Is it because the Catholic Church is the second-largest provider of education in this country?
That is why we feel they should hear our opinion too. We have the experience which the country can benefit from. We are not only the second-largest provider of education, but also the pioneers of modern education which has no mention at all in the draft.
So, do you feel the government should have consulted all the people associated with the country’s education system before drafting the policy?
Even if they did not consult everybody, it’s okay as only the draft that is out. It’s a long-drawn process. It would be unfair to say that no consultation took place. At the same time, what has come out does not reflect widespread consultations.
You said that the policy was not only against minorities but would make access to education difficult for all the marginalised sections like Dalits, tribals, poor and rural population. Why do you feel so?
Because it’s a very elitist kind of policy. As education is getting more and more commercialised, one of the big problems this country faces is that the poor cannot afford the kind of education the rich can.
Why should only the rich get a chance to study in English-medium schools? The point is, if anybody has to be included, especially the poor, he should be given a special possibility of getting into the process.
When the prime minister is talking about inclusive growth, why will the government intentionally exclude the marginalised sections from the growth process, especially in education?
It is for the government to answer whether they did it intentionally or otherwise. I don’t want to accuse anybody; I don’t want to criticise anybody.
I have always said that we do not think the government is deliberately doing anything or intentionally excluding some people. We want the government to be proactive in including everybody. We are just making a request that the poor, the Dalits, the tribals be given equal share in the national resources of the country.
You said the draft policy is elitist. Why do you feel so? Is it because it talks about segregating students as meritorious and less meritorious?
Yes. That’s one very important point. They plan to segregate very, very early.
Besides that, look at the way the whole education system is placed. In this system, the poor does not get an equal opportunity to compete with the rich.
Why can’t the government give aid to every school? Why do they restrict aid only to vernacular schools and not (extend it to) English-medium schools? Why do they pump so much money into government schools, many of which do not function at all?
It is true that many Catholic institutions do get aid; it’s not that private institutions do not get aid, but many states do not give aid to English-medium schools. The English-medium schools should not become the domain only of the rich. Let the poor decide whether they want to study in a vernacular- or English-medium.
Why do you feel the draft makes education more centralised? Is education not a state subject?
If you go through the draft policy, (you’ll find that) it is much centralised. That’s why states like Tamil Nadu have a problem. Why so much importance to Sanskrit language? What about the Dravidian languages? Ours is a multi-cultural country, and we feel not much representation has been given to local languages and local culture. The trend to read nationalism through one aspect is wrong.
The whole stress on Vedic culture is also not right. The Vedas are not the only resource of the country. Every religion and every culture has contributed to the country, including the tribals. The tribals have their own customs and traditions.
Is that the reason you felt there is a pseudo-nationalism reflected in it?
There is a strong tendency to define nationalism through one ideology. We are all nationalists; we are more nationalist than anybody else. No other organisation has been involved in nation-building more than the Catholic Church.
We have gone to the remotest of areas to work there. We would not like anybody to lecture us on nationalism. Is nationalism not the unity of the country in its diversity? This definition is very important, like Mahatma Gandhi defined the country as a beautiful garden with many varieties of flowers.
You were critical of the mention of Vedic and Gurukul model of education in the preamble of the draft. Was Vedic period not a part of our culture? Similarly, wasn’t Gurukul model a way of educating students in the ancient period? Has it anything to with any religion, Hinduism?
It has nothing to do with Hinduism. It has to do with a fringe section of Indian society that wants to impose the Vedic culture on the country.
Yes, this country has a Vedic tradition that is respected and admired but it has other traditions too. Nationalism cannot be Vedic nationalism; it has to be pluralistic nationalism.
What about the British model of education? The Vedic and Gurukul systems were complemented by modern education also. Our problem is not the stress given on the Vedic system of education, but not mentioning the other forms.
You also objected to yoga and Surya Namaskar being taught in schools. Again, both have nothing to do with Hinduism, but are good for health.
Gymnastics is also good for health. So is physical education, but they are not mentioned. In what sense is Surya Namaskar connected to health?
It is not just worshipping the sun, it is one of the best exercises for good health, for the entire body…
People from some other religion may have problem worshipping the sun. Why do you insist on everyone following it? You should respect others who do not consider Surya Namaskar as a part of their tradition. How can you impose this on little children?
Do you look at it as part of Hindusim?
We admire Hinduism and the inclusiveness of Hinduism. What we don’t like is that some people are destroying Hinduism in the name of Hinduism.
Hinduism is not an extreme religion, but some people are taking an extremist view of it and doing injustice to the religion.
Do you feel that ever since the Bharatiya Janata Party came to power, certain practices are being imposed on others in the name of nationalism?
They are not imposed, they are doing it in a subtle way.
Do you feel insecure?
Insecure is a strong word. We have met the prime minister and he has assured us and we would like to go by the assurance. We trust this government, especially ministers like Sushma Swaraj who stand by us to protect the unity of the nation.
We definitely appreciate the efforts taken by the Modi government. We also appreciate the fact that they are ready to involve us in a dialogue. But there are some other forces who want to jeopardise the talks.
In fact, we want to be with the government not only in shaping the future of the country, but in all other aspects of nation-building, like the Swachch Bharat mission and many such wonderful initiatives taken by the Modi government.
