People's Democracy

SAHMAT SEMINAR ON CURRICULAR FRAMEWORK 2005

Educationists Demand Rewriting Of NCF Draft 

Rajendra Sharma

A NUMBER of eminent educationists and others associated with India’s education system have demanded that the National Curricular Framework 2005 be scrapped and a new framework prepared. This was the common opinion coming out of a national seminar organised by the Safdar Hashmi Memorial Trust (SAHMAT) in the Constitution Club, New Delhi, on August 6. The speakers here underlined the absence from the framework of our fundamental commitment to the inculcation of secular and scientific spirit through education and to the goal of Education for All. Some of them also pointed out how the latest document seeks to cover up the communal attack on education that was launched by the previous BJP led government and to centre the whole debate on the “burden of education.” Renowned historian Professor Bipan Chandra, who presided over the seminar, thus put forth over whelming opinion at the seminar: “This (the curricular framework) cannot be improved upon; this has to be rejected lock, stock and barrel.”

Professor Arjun Dev has been associated with the NCERT for long. Initiating the discussion, he raised several poignant questions about the latest framework and the way it has been prepared. Dev lamented that even though the present regime is committed to undo the damage done by the earlier framework to communalise Indian education during the BJP led regime, little has been done in this direction. As an example, Dev said none of the points raised by educationists against the Joshi-Rajput curricular framework 2000 has been made the basis of the new framework, rather the latest framework repeats many concerns of the former one. Dev said the new framework makes only one criticism of the 2000 framework that the latter did not deal with the “vexed question of the burden of education.” There is absolutely no reference to communalisation of education. The new framework is centred only on reducing the burden of education.

Professor Dev also stressed that the whole process of preparation of the framework 2005 and of the preparation of textbooks under it has lacked transparency as it was during the Joshi-Rajput dispensation in the NCERT. There was no worthwhile discussion on the draft of the framework and an undue haste was shown in finalising it. The approval for it was received from the NCERT executive on June 6, from the NCERT annual general meeting on June 7 morning and was sought from the Central Advisory Board of Education (CBSE) on June 7 afternoon. When certain CABE members and state education ministers raised the issue of this haste, the HRD minister had to assure them that, the draft was only presented to them for consideration and that it would be finalised only after the states gave their suggestions.

Professor Dev pointed to yet another anomaly. The work of preparing the framework, designing courses and development of textbooks were running almost simultaneously. This had led to the preparation of courses and textbook development even before the framework has been finalised. The whole process has thus been put on its head. The knowledge about courses has now been confined to textbook writers only. Dev also raised the doubt that the way the NCERT’s role in the development of model textbooks is being tampered with, may lead to the hand over of this responsibility to private publishers.

In his brief and incisive intervention, Professor Prabhat Patnaik raised basic questions about the perspective and principles underlying the National Curricular Framework 2005. He said two basic concepts of education have always been contesting one another—to meet the needs of individuals and to meet the needs of the wider society. This contest is all the more relevant about the publicly funded education. Patnaik said if education were not guided by wider social values and societal interests, it would only become a means to appropriate of public wealth for private ends. In our country, for example, “It has become a means of draining out a good chunk of our resources to the developed countries.

Patnaik criticised the opinion that children are naturally good and, in fact, need to be protected from the excesses of the education system. This is just an imaginary concept with no basis in reality. Instead, he insisted on the combative role of education against whatever is negative in society and for the creation of a just, free and democratic society with worthy citizens. Education must produce such intellectuals, as have links with the masses. In today’s context, education needs to help fight communalition as well as the growing hegemonic drive of imperialism, Professor Patnaik stressed.

Eminent educationist Anil Sadgopal was a member of the NCERT’s curriculum committee and is a CABE member as well. He detailed his experience on both these bodies, saying the present regime has no will power to combat communal penetration and no time to listen to arguments. He said despite all talk of importance of education, nobody is paying attention to the pressing need of an egalitarian education system. On the contrary, even educational bodies are, under the pressure of growing commercialisation and globalisation, saying that such a system is “impracticable.” The document’s stance of being “above politics” is itself politics, Professor Sadgopal insisted. The document talks too much of equity and social justice, but does not touch the present inegalitarian and unjust system anywhere. Professor Sadgopal said several parts of the latest document closely resemble the corresponding parts of the Joshi-Rajput curricular framework.

Noted historian Professor Irfan Habib criticised the document for being confused, full of verbiage and full of objectionable points. He said a curricular framework needs to decide which element of a subject is to be given how much weightage. But the document does not do precisely this and only assumes that all this would be as per the earlier framework of 1988. Further, instead of upholding the concept that education must be guided by societal needs, the document makes individual needs as its starting point. “Self image” has replaced the critical and self-critical vision. The document is full of phrases about the natural learning capacity of a child; indigenous knowledge, teacher’s autonomy etc, and Professor Irfan Habib showed how all this fits in well with the neo-liberal thinking.

Referring to what the document talks of “burden of education,” Professor Irfan Habib termed it as a quixotic crusade. In this context, the talk of two – common and higher --- level courses practically means a division of every class into two classes in the school that are already resource crunched. But two classes in the same amount of resources mean double deprivation. The document also fulminates against the burden of textbooks, yet paves the ground for imposition of more textbooks, reference books etc.

Professor Irfan Habib also commented on how the framework has made a mockery of the examination system. It talks of elimination of all outside examinations except those for class XII; only such students would have to sit in examinations in class X as are willing to continue their education further. Those willing to drop after class X would be awarded a certificate without any examination. The speaker sarcastically commented that in that case the government would have no difficulty in having arranged “education for all.” It seems the policy makers are more concerned about reducing the government’s burden than the children’s burden. The speaker also said the real problem is not of imparting scientific education in madrasas but of imparting modern and secular education to all children. He also said the BJP would not have any problem with the idea of imparting education in the transcendental, but the secular forces must oppose is firmly.

Ms Rooprekha Verma, former vice chancellor of Lucknow University, said the important differences of this document from the Joshi-Rajput document must not be overlooked either. The framework does not view education as a means of social transformation and of fostering critical thinking. Referring to the lack of universal values behind the framework 2005, she said science ultimately has to do with the method, not with conclusions. Lack of any mention of scientific temper in the document, is astonishing she asserted.

JNU professor and NCERT executive member Ms Mridula Mukherjee said that the NCERT’s functioning in the whole matter would be remembered for its ad hocism, lack of a system and inconsistency. She said the whole history course is just like that designed by the Joshi-Rajput dispensation, there is no place for world history in it and Indian history would be repeated at all stages. She insisted that all changes must be based on a review of whatever was being taught till now, and that all changes must be discussed openly. She also criticised the whole document as an example of “elitist perspective in a radical language.” Depreciating the talk of reducing the burden of books for children, she recalled the slogan of an organisation working for child labourers, to the effect that books are lighter than bricks.

JNU professor & CABE member Ms Zoya Hasan said the document talks of reducing the burden of information and that the earlier framework did not take care of pedagogical concerns. Yet, she said, the latest document fails on both these counts. Criticising the emphasis on the local, she said education is also a means of going beyond the local or everyday experiences. Society may be viewed as a network of social relations or as a sum of separate identities, and it is the latter perspective that informs the document which talks of adopting the perspective of tribals, Dalits and the other disadvantaged. This is a post-modernist perspective. The document also makes a conscious attempts to keep out the secular versus communal struggle, and is also excessively Indo-centric.

Professor Rajiv Gupta of Jaipur University said the document does not answer the basic question of why it was after all needed. The constitutional goal of socialism has been given a go-by.

Shamik Bandyopadhyay (West Bengal) expressed concern over the contemptuous attitude the document adopts towards formal education.

In his presidential remarks, Professor Bipan Chandra described the document as ecclectic, yet there is a running thread in it – an enmity towards the very idea of nation building and progress. It even seems to dispense with the three Rs (reading, writing, arithmetic), that is, the three minimum tasks of education. It even lacks a sense of responsibility regarding continuity and change. The decision to bring in new textbooks in place of those replaced by the erstwhile BJP regime is not based on any review of the earlier textbooks. The phenomenon of communalisation is totally missing from the history course as it may anger some inheritors of the communal heritage in India and even in Pakistan.

George Mathew, Madhu Prasad and other intellectuals participated in the discussion that followed the seminar presentations.