Backgrounder

The Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE) specifically intended for such consultations has not met for several years. In the recent judgement of the Supreme Court in the Aruna Roy case a three-judge bench emphasised the importance of CABE and two judges, J J Dharmadhikari and Sema, directed the Union Government to consider convening this forum. Justice Sema elaborated the point and held: “While it is true that the CABE is a non-statutory body, one cannot overlook the fact that it has been in existence since 1935. It has also been accepted as an effective instrument of meaningful partnership between the States and the Centre, particularly in evolving a consensus on major policy issues in the field of human resource development. I am, therefore, of the view that the importance of the role played by CABE cannot be side tracked on the plea that the body is non-statutory, particularly when it has been playing an important role in the past for evolving a consensus on the major policy decisions involving national policy on education… The Union of India is directed to consider the filling up of the vacancies of the nominated members of CABE and convene a meeting of CABE for seeking its opinion on National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) before the next academic session”.

Pivotal to the process is the Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE), a 104-member body consisting largely of State representatives and independent experts which forms a structured and competent forum for serious deliberation on the implementation of the NPE. NPE'86 is explicit on this issue: "CABE will play a pivotal role in reviewing educational development, determining the changes required to improve the system and monitoring implementation." The Programme of Action 1992, based on NPE'86, states that CABE is "the historic forum for forging a national consensus on educational issues". Of the utmost importance here is a consensus on the NCFSE.

The NCERT is charged with the task of drafting the NCFSE, but CABE is vested with the authority to approve it. CABE is not a statutory body (nor is the NCERT). But it precedes the NCERT in chronology and in hierarchy.

The NCERT on its part has always held extensive, open and democratic discussions with teachers, scholars and educationists both at the state and Central levels before drafting and revising the NCFSE; CABE has always discussed and approved the NCFSE.

The NCERT claims that it has had wide ranging consultations. But in fact, these so-called consultations have mostly been perfunctory and ritualistic. The media exposed how many leading academics who were 'consulted' actually only received a copy of the document; in some cases not even that. Many ministers clarified that they had not been properly consulted. Education is a subject on the concurrent list, and the National Policy on Education, 1986, specifically refers to the importance of the Central Advisory Board of Education, to evolve national consensus on all education matters. NCERT did not call for a meeting of CABE to formally seek inputs from all the states of the country. And, as has been pointed out by the ministers themselves, the matter was merely reported at a general body meeting, after it had been formally accepted by the MHRD!

Before we get into the content of the Framework document, a few comments on its form are due. The document is fragmented and uneven. For a national-level policy document, discontinuities in the text are inexplicable. The only possibility is that the committee had to insert language and text into a completed report at the behest of some powerful entity in the State apparatus. We base our speculation on the sudden shifts in the language, tone, and style evident in various sections within the chapters of the document. Career academics and bureaucrats do not like to present an inconsistent and incoherent document as their work. The Framework's disconnected segments can thus only be explained as the product of a process whereby pre-written and unnegotiated segments were inserted into the main document. Recent reports in the media do indicate that such actions are indeed part of the strategy. An unsigned letter on NIE (National Institute of Education) letterhead written in August 2000 pointed to the harassment of 'progressive' members of the NCERT faculty by Professor Rajput. It is this choppy and coerced aspect of the Framework document that allows for a reading of it, where the inserts make visible the ideological thrusts of the Hindutva lobby which can then be traced through the document.

The NPE 1986, as revised in 1992, calls for its review every five years. After he took office as HRD minister, Murli Manohar Joshi had indicated that he was going to revise the education policy. At some stage he seems to have given up that idea. Some of the changes he had in mind seem to have got incorporated in the curriculum framework. Although this framework contains several provisions which are not in conformity with the education policy, it was finalised without observing the due process for its validation.

Education being a part of the concurrent list, NPE laid great emphasis on treating education as a matter of partnership between the Centre and the states. It laid down that the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), the membership of which includes education ministers of all states and Union Territories, must play a vital role in the review of educational developments.

Consensus on education has a long tradition in our country. Recommendations of the commissions on higher education (1949) and secondary education (1953) were considered in CABE. A committee of Parliament deliberated for months on the formulation of the education policy in pursuance of the recommendations of the education commission (1964-66). The policy which emerged in 1986 was considered by Parliament before adoption.

...A surprising thing about the new national curriculum framework is that it does not seem to have been validated by a process of consensus-building.

What seems to be an attitude of cynical indifference towards consensus-building, CABE has not been constituted since 1994 and obviously, the new framework could not have been processed in a meeting of CABE. The council of NCERT includes ministers of education of all states/UTs. As far as one knows, the new framework was released by the HRD minister even before the meeting of the council.

Recently in January 2005 NCERT went public with advertisements in leading national newspapers on the national curriculum framework review. The National Curriculum Framework Review Committee is chaired by Prof. Yash Pal. The first meeting of its NSC members was held on 30th November 2004.
The Committee has made an open call to the public for its inputs. These are to be incorporated in its final report which will be placed before the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) by early next year. We are to address our concerns to the National Focus Groups under relevant heads. The focus groups would be finalizing their position papers by the summer of 2005 which is a few months from now.

After history textbooks, Arjun Singh’s ministry has turned its attention to reviewing the school curriculum.

In what could turn out to be another Congress vs BJP tussle, the human resource development ministry has asked NCERT to draw up a new school curriculum to be put in place by 2006. The curriculum will cover not only history but all other subjects.

B.S. Baswan, the education secretary, today sent a letter to NCERT’s acting director H.P. Dixit — who replaced Murli Manohar Joshi’s protege J.S. Rajput asking him to initiate a curriculum review.

The review will be carried out by a 30-member National Steering Committee under the former University Grants Commission Chairman, Yashpal, and the NCERT is hopeful of wrapping up the exercise by mid-2005. The NCF was introduced in 2000during the National Democratic Alliance regime.

The decision to review the NCF was taken by the NCERT Executive Committee in July this year in accordance with the recommendations of a three-member panel of historians assigned the task of undertaking a quick review of the history books brought out by the previous regime.

The Supreme Court on Friday stayed implementation of the controversial National Curriculum Framework for Secondary Education (NCFSE).

Several educationists characterized the curriculum framework as an attempt to “saffronize” school syllabi.

The interim order was passed by the court on a PIL filed by Aruna Roy, B G Verghese and Meena Radhakrishna Tyabji, which alleged that the Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE) had not been consulted before taking such an important decision to change school syllabi.

The three-judge bench of Chief Justice S P Bharucha, Justice D V Patil and Justice B P Singh, which gave the interim stay, also issued notices to Union Human Resource Development ministry, Central Board for Secondary Education (CBSE), National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and National Human Rights Commission (NHRC).

The bench has given the respondent two weeks time to reply. "In the meantime, there shall be a direction to the HRD ministry, CBSE and NCERT not to further implement the new curriculum without consultation with CABE," it said.

- SC stays controversial National Curriculum Framework, Indian Express, 01/03/2002, /eldoc/n21_/controversial.html

The Supreme Court today stayed the implementation of the `National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2000', formulated by the National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and duly approved by the Centre.

The Bench also issued notice to the Union Human Resources Development Ministry, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE), the NCERT and the National Human Rights Commission returnable in two weeks.

The Bench said "there shall be a direction to the HRD Ministry, the CBSE and the NCERT not to further implement the new curriculum without consultation with the Central Advisory Board of Education'' (CABE).

...On behalf of the NCERT, senior counsel, M.N. Krishnamani, submitted that after 1992, the Government had not re-constituted the CABE.

...Arguing for the petitioners, senior advocate, Fali S. Nariman, said the Government had changed the entire education policy without even consulting the CABE, which comprised of experts and State Education Ministers.

He submitted that the CABE was not consulted though the National Policy on Education had specifically stated that it ought to be consulted.

The petitioners submitted that the respondents had deleted certain portions of textbooks relating to beef eating, cow slaughter on grounds of religion and sought to introduce Vedic mathematics and Sanskrit as a compulsory subject.

The Supreme Court today categorically held that there was no attempt to saffronise the school syllabus in the new National Curriculum framework for Secondary Education (NCFSE) -2002 and directed its immediate implementation. Rejecting a PIL filed by Aruna Roy and other eminent educationists, a three-judge Bench by 2:1 majority held that “non-consultation with the Central Advisory Board for Education (CABE) cannot be held as the ground for setting aside the national curriculum.”

The three Judges gave separate judgements in which Mr Justices M. B. Shah and D. M. Dharmadhikari concurred.

However, Mr Justice H. K. Sema, though agreed that non-consultation of CABE could not be a ground for setting aside the NCFSE, directed the Central Government to immediately reconstitute CABE and seek its views on the new curriculum.

Both Mr Justices Shah and Dharmadhikari were categorical in their finding that the teaching of the essence of all religions, as was sought to be done in the NCFSE, could not be equated with the imparting of religious instructions.

Holding CABE to be a non-statutory body and that its consultation for framing the new syllabus was not mandatory, Mr Justice Shah said the court was not to decide why CABE was not reconstituted. “It is for the government and Parliament to decide whether to reconstitute or to do away with the body,” Mr Justice Dharmadhikari said.

- Curriculum not saffron: SC, The Tribune, 12/09/2002, /eldoc/n21_/curriculum_saffron.html

A major conflict is brewing in India on the issue of education and religion,thanks to a Supreme Court ruling last week that upheld a controversial move by the federal government to rewrite school textbooks by giving them a Hindu-chauvinist slant.

The conflict is unlikely to remain limited to a tussle between secularists, who make up a majority of the population if one goes by social attitude and political choice, and Hindu nationalists represented mainly by the Right-wing religious-sectarian Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) which leads New Delhi's multi-party ruling coalition.

The issue has a federal devolution dimension too. Many Indian states are up in arms over what they see as blatant federal interference in their school curricula without consultation or consent.

The controversy has major implications on the rights of the child to unbiased information,and for the issue of tolerance and respect for difference in the plural, multi-cultural, multi-religious society of 1 billion people in this country.

- Major Conflict in India on Education: Row Brewing on Pro-Hindu Slant in Textbooks, Praful Bidwai, 23/09/2002, /eldoc/n21_/pro-hindu_slant_textbooks.html

The extended debate on school education spread over two years is over. The Supreme Court of India has given its elaborate verdict. The procedures and approach adopted by NCERT were found valid and the curriculum developed by it can now be implemented. It has also unanimously adjudged that making children aware of the basics of all the religions of India is not violative of Article 28 of the Constitution.

The verdict also indicated that the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2000 nowhere talks of imparting religious instructions as prohibited under Article 28. What is sought is value based education so that students are made aware that the essence of every religion is common, only practices differ. There is specific caution that all steps should be taken in advance to ensure that no narrow-minded perceptions or prejudices are allowed to distort the real purpose. Dogmas and superstitions should not be propagated in the name of education about religions. What is sought to be imparted is incorporated in Article 51(A)(e), which highlights the need ‘to promote harmony and the spirit of common brotherhood amongst all the people of India’. And to see that universal values, such as truth, righteous conduct, peace, love and non-violence be the foundation of education.

The Supreme Court had a limited issue before it — to examine whether the National Curricular Framework (NCF) violated the secular character of our constitution or not — in the PIL filed by Aruna Roy and others. It has ruled that the NCF proposal on value education does not violate it. The judges, however, have issued a word of caution that the programme be implemented in a spirit of equal respect for all religions. This implies that value education has the danger of being misused for reinforcing sectarianism.

The fullest reflection of Joshi's endeavours is to be found in the National Curriculum Framework for School Education 2000 (NCFSE) drawn up by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) and the syllabi based on that.

At the level of ideas the secular intelligentsia has clearly won the debate, although at the level of power that has made no more difference to the BJP than the States' opposition. But now, at the legal level, the debate has been partially and temporarily lost thanks to the Supreme Court's September 12 judgment in the NCERT case.

The effect of the judgment is to permit the NCERT to produce and release communally coloured, prejudiced, shabbily written or otherwise philistine textbooks based upon the NCFSE. These can now be imposed upon the vast majority of India's school students through the Central Board of Secondary Education, which sets the benchmark. Once the NCERT releases the textbooks, which were stayed six months ago, it is only a matter of time before the bulk of the States adopt them.

This violates the constitutional imperative for secularism, which is an inviolable part or constitutes the "basic structure" of the statute. Secularism means the separation of religion from the state. The Supreme Court has itself held in any number of cases, including S.R. Bommai (1994), that "religion cannot be mixed with any secular activity of the state. In fact, the encroachment of religion into secular activities is strictly prohibited... the state... [cannot]... [allow citizens]... to introduce religion into non-religious and secular activities of the state".

...Even more egregious is the undercurrent of communal and Hindu-supremacist premises running through the NCF and the syllabi based on it (Frontline, December 21, 2001). The NCERT-censored textbooks — a scandal of no mean proportions only explicate and elaborate what is in the NCFSE's core. Their recurrent theme is the depiction of Hinduism as the "essence" of Indian culture and of other religions as "alien" or "invading" faiths, and the glorification of ancient India as the world's "master" civilisation, denying the validity and value of other civilisations.

The NCERT has been in the centre of a much publicised storm since it proposed some changes in its history textbooks. What has received less attention is that the National Curriculum Framework (NCF) itself has not had an easy reception since the discussion document was released in 1999.

Philosophy of education is one subject that the NCERT has consistently neglected in the nearly four decades of its existence. Indeed, the Council has actively discouraged philosophical reflection on education by institutional mechanisms such as the wholesale adoption of behaviourist psychology as its primary orbit of research and publication. In the early years, sociology had some place in the Council’s sphere of activities; later on, that too disappeared. Intellectual or reflective activity that might put a break on the obsessive urge to dip every aspect of education in behaviourist solutions was shunned. The MLL (Minimum Levels of Learning) approach, fashioned out in the early nineties, was the ultimate achievement of this urge. It set to rest any desire or inspiration there might be among curriculum designers to refer to the ideas and legacy of teacher-philosophers like Tagore, Gandhi, Sri Aurobindo and Krishnamurti.

In retrospect, one should have caught an indication earlier within chapter 1 itself, which suggests that the old order is not about to give way to the new; it is only going to re-invent itself. The call to ‘link cognition and emotion’ and incorporate a ‘multiple intelligence approach’ seemed to signal the much awaited cognitive and rational approach to old Indian favourites: ‘character’, ‘morals’ and ‘values’. Even though this was an anguished response to ‘alarming deficiency: emotional intelligence’, still, there seemed hope that we might be moving beyond simplistic solutions such as making value education a school subject. (Where, in the learning objectives approach, after hearing the story of ‘the honest woodcutter’, children can be expected to demonstrate honest behaviour). In contrast to this section was a much longer one on ‘value education’, described as ‘non cognitive’ areas of learning for personal and social growth. Its list of key qualities included regularity, punctuality, industriousness/diligence, sense of duty and service, and of course cleanliness (p. 14). It seemed to have been drawn straight from a medieval text, the sarada tilak on adarsh vidhyarthi (model student).

Periodically there were articulations akin to the dangerous political discourse that feeds off Indian chauvinism. We are informed at the very start of the document of ‘facts of history’ such as the world’s first universities were in India and that the 18 subjects for study mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad included disaster management, linguistics and defence studies (p. 1). The document also panders to what it called ‘paradoxes’ – that our students know more about Newton than Aryabhatta, are knowledgeable about the computer but not about the concept of zero (p. 10). Both these are educationally irrelevant preoccupations.

Ever heard of a Spir-itual Quotient (SQ)? Well, if Nation-al Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has its way, SQ will soon become a term as popular and prevalent as IQ. One of the thrust areas identi-fied in the new National Curriculum Framework for School Educa-tion is: "Broad-based general edu-cation to all learners up to the sec-ondary stage to help them become lifelong learners and acquire basic skills and high standards of Intelli-gence Quotient, Emotional Quo-tient and Spiritual Quotient" On being asked how on earth would one measure SQ, NCERT director J.S. Rajput said, "Some things like beauty, truth etc cannot be measured in numbers.
Teachers will be trained to measure SQ. Addressing around 10,000 school children at Jawaharlal Nehru Stadium during the func-tion, Union HRD minister M.M. Joshi also stressed the need for making "value education" an integral part of school curriculum.

...The effects of such a warped notion of "education" are bound to be disastrous. For one, it will promote narrow-mindedness, hubris about India's "uniquely" great civilisation, and rank ignorance (for example, about caste and varna) among children. For another, it will privilege one religion (Hinduism) and culture (of the upper castes) within the notion of Indianness; instead of broadening the child's mind, this will imprison it into xenophobia and provincialism. And for a third, such "education" will open the floodgates to vicious forms of national chauvinism and Hindutva virulence towards the religious minorities and India's neighbours. Such is the stuff of which fascism is made.

On the NCFSE's context, and its loaded premises, the judgment is either elusive or approving. For instance, it takes no cognisance of the causal link among the Framework, syllabi and textbooks, and is wholly agnostic about the obnoxiously elitist idea of demarcating children on the basis of their "spiritual quotient" (a bizarre concept that is defined nowhere), and "intelligence quotient" (a concept thoroughly discredited in the West)! Worse, the verdict legitimises the NCFSE's anti-secular premises by itself sanctifying religion and the importance of rooting "values'' in religious teachings, defined arbitrarily.

...Therefore, right from the beginning, the civilisation is referred to as the Harappan, Indus or Indus-Saraswati civilisation. Even while elaborating the geographical spread of the civilisation, nowhere is it mentioned that its two most important sites, Mohenjo-daro and Harappa, are located in Pakistan.

On the possible reasons for the decline of this civilization, nowhere is it mentioned that the advent of the Aryans could have been a factor.

The contents of the new textbooks, they said, were apparently a secret, for no State Boards, Education Ministries, Directorates of Education, children or parents had been privy to them. They said that the NCERT's view on Indian history and society was at variance with reality, that deletions of historical facts were made on the plea of "not hurting the sentiments of certain religious groups", and that the views of those who were consulted and who later dissented were not reflected in the final version of the curriculum framework. The petitioners contended that history textbooks that were prepared with "this undemocratic, non-secular and sectarian approach" could only lead to the creation of "obscurantist, fundamentalist mindsets in our children".

The petitioners sought the NHRC's intervention to ensure the continuance of the old textbooks until historical reality and facts were brought into the exercise of rewriting history textbooks.

Meanwhile, two former Directors of the NCERT have expressed their reservations over the manner in which the curriculum framework was designed and planned. In an article published in a national daily on January 24, P.L. Malhotra and A.K. Sharma commented on the sidelining of the Central Advisory Board on Education (CABE). They also lamented the erosion of the autonomy and credibility of the NCERT.

In our view, the prescriptions for education in the Framework emanate from a particular understanding of caste, an endorsement of it, and an implication that the future of India must resemble the past in order to be sufficiently 'indigenized.' Let us consider the attempts to imbue the chapters of the document with saffron. Two clearly marked but interrelated strands of thought run through the document. The first of these invents a past for India that justifies the second-a call for a different future. In this view until the British turned up and spoilt things, India "had an advanced system of education and the world's first universities," was the "most ennobling experiment in spiritual coexistence," and had a "great tradition of diversity, tolerance and humanism," amongst other grand things. Nowhere was there a systematic exclusion of the lower, working, castes-the collectors of human feces, the leather tanners, and the field-workers-from education and participation in the processes of power. Nowhere was there bonded labor or persecution of the untouchable castes. And, of course, never was there oppression of women and their subordination to men via Manu's edicts. In fact, the Framework insists that education in traditional India was free from caste discrimination!

...Gandhiji's ideas about education are not separate from living contexts or from larger political, social, economic, cultural and spiritual struggles. In other words, to truly understand Gandhiji's major concepts of education, one must examine them in the larger framework of his ideas on social-economic-political transformation; his redefinition of progress, development, and human life; his regeneration of parampara; and his vision of Swaraj. If not examined with these larger reference points in mind, there is a great risk that Gandhiji's proposal will be misinterpreted as a ‘vocational education program,’ where the purpose of education is to only learn a skill so as to fuel the local economy. Furthermore, understanding Gandhiji's Nai Talim requires that we see and internalize the relationship/congruence between ends and means.

In contrast, the National Curriculum Framework for School Education prepared by the National Council for Education, Research and Training (NCERT) essentially views education as a method for affirming and expanding the status quo, the image of Development and Progress that dominates the world, or, put bluntly, the System. The larger questions What is education? How is it different from learning? What is a good human being? What things do we really value in life? What kind of world do we want to live in? are not asked because it appears the document assumes the answers to such questions to be 'a given'. And, although Gandhiji is quoted frequently throughout the document, judging from rest of its content, very little of his ideas has been seen or internalized.

- Worlds Apart: Gandhiji's Nai Talim vs. NCERT's National Curriculum Framework for School Education, Shilpa Jain, www.swaraj.org, /eldoc/n21_/gandhiji_vs_ncert.html

Questions related to curricula are raised and duly disposed of in the workshops/seminars held all over the nation without generating any sustained dialogue in society, not even in narrow educational circles. The arguments for or against proposed changes make little difference. More than help formulate better argued or more rational positions, the debate only seems to provide an opportunity to let off steam for those who disagree. Similarly, the agencies preparing these documents seem open only to the arguments that validate their own positions.

How does the document look at a human being and his/her relationship with society? A ‘human being,’ according to the document, ‘is a positive asset and a precious national resource which needs to be cherished, nurtured and developed with tenderness and care coupled with dynamism.’ At times the reader may feel that a more liberal view of human beings is also advanced, for example in the sections called ‘Child as a constructor of his knowledge’ (1.2.12) and ‘Characteristics of a learner’ (2.3.3). But both these sections are restricted to pedagogical aspects, and their implications are not reflected in other sections which deal with aims of education or comments on socio-political aspects of education.
The document seems to be more liberal in its psychological than in its socio-political vision! There should have been a tension within the document because of these two different views taken of human beings in different sections of the document. In any case, children, as future citizens, are primarily seen as national resources, even if cherished ones.

Even if we assumed that those who sought to impose `Vedic mathematics' did so in good faith, it would have been appropriate that the NCERT seek the assistance of renowned Indian mathematicians to evaluate so-called "Vedic mathematics" before making it part of the National Curricular framework for School Education.Appallingly they have not done so. In this context we demand that the NCERT submit the proposal for the introduction of `Vedic mathematics in the school curriculum to recognized bodies of mathematical experts in India, in particular the National Board of Higher Mathematics (under the Dept. of Atomic Energy), and the Mathematics sections of the Indian Academy of Sciences and the Indian National Science Academy, for a thorough and critical examination. In the meanwhile no attempt should be made to thrust the subject into the school curriculum either through the centrally administered school system or by trying to impose it on the school systems of various States. We are concerned that the essential thrust behind the campaign to introduce the so-called `Vedic mathematics' has more to do with promoting a particular brand of religious majoritarianism and associated obscurantist ideas rather than any serious and meaningful development of mathematics teaching in India. We note that similar concerns have been expressed about other aspects too of the National Curricular Framework for School Education. We re-iterate our firm conviction that all teaching and pedagogy, not just the teaching of mathematics, must be founded on rational, scientific and secular principles.

What has the NCERT recommended which is indeed so alarming? A nation-wide consultation was organised on the curriculum framework. Before the preparation of the Discussion Document on Curriculum Framework, released in January 2000, ten eminent intellectuals were invited separately to present their perceptions on the future shape of school education. They congratulated NCERT on taking the initiative to renew the curriculum. To our utter surprise, a statement was made by one of them that ‘proper’ consultation did not take place. Copies of the Discussion Document were sent to many people for their response. One of them responded that although the discussion document was received, ‘nobody further pursued and I received no reminders’. The reason for these sudden turnabouts and accusations are beyond my comprehension.

I was indeed amused to find a copy of a letter written in September 1998 by B.G. Verghese, one of the petitioners in the Supreme Court case. Verghese, as a member of the National Foundation for Communal Harmony, had pleaded for revision of the syllabi of the NCERT and UGC to include the study of comparative cultures and the religions. How can the same person find it against secularism and the State of India when NCERT pleads ‘that children be made aware of the basics of the religions, their commonalities and the values inherent therein’.

India’s education system must be based on its own philosophical, cultural and sociological traditions. It must respond to the emerging needs and aspirations of the young generation. The new NCERT curriculum stresses the need to get education rooted in Indian reality and composite culture.

September 12, 2002 is a significant day as far as educational initiatives go with the Supreme Court judgment giving NCERT the green signal to go ahead with its initiatives to update and upgrade school education in the country An avoidable debate carried on over the last two years unfortunately ignored practically every professional issue and focused on ideologically-oriented apprehensions, pre-conceived notions and prejudices. The national curriculum framework's recommendations on integration of value education in each and every activity of teaching and learning in schools was meant to ensure greater social cohesion.

It was indeed unfortunate that many of those who criticised the National Curriculum Framework for School Education (NCFSE) 2000 probably did not read it. Apprehending that the new books would hit the market, the Delhi high court was approached. Not satisfied with the outcome, the National Human Rights Commission was petitioned on the ground that downtrodden castes had been deprived of the opportunity to learn how their forefathers had once been exploited by the elite.

In a statement issued here, the group alleged that integration of “education about religions” into all subjects and co-curricular activities, introduction of vocational education after class X, orienting education towards the market through vocationalisation, advocating an uncritical acceptance of the so-called virtues of current globalisation policies, diluting the content of science and history in the curriculum and denying mainstream education to physically handicapped were the dangerous components of the suggested curriculum. “What is the need for including religion in studies? Religion should be kept completely separate from education and as far as values are concerned, values can be picked from practical life and not just religions,” pointed out Mr Rajesh R., a member of the group.

A new school curriculum set to go into effect in India in 2002 has drawn protest from churches who see it as an attempt by the pro-Hindu coalition government to "tamper" with history in order to promote Hinduism at the expense of minority religions.

The Catholic Bishops' Conference of India (CBCI) in a statement on December 7 expressed "serious concern over tampering with historical data" and cautioned education policy makers "not to deprive the coming generations of the possibility to know the truth in its integrity, an essential ingredient for any civil society."

Earlier, the executive committee of the National Council of Churches in India (NCCI) decried attempts by the government "to promote Hindutva [Hindu nationalism] through education."

Supporting Hinduism "will only perpetuate religious fundamentalism and further the marginalization of minorities," cautioned the NCCI, which represents 29 Orthodox and Protestant churches in India.

*******************************************************************************************************************************************

1. A Fate Worse Than Communalism, Jain, Shilpa, Shikshantar, 01/12/2001, R.N00.38

2. National Curriculum Framework For School Education - A Discussion Document, NCERT, 01/01/2000, R.N20.3 NCERT NCF Communalisation of Edu- pg 9-11 (scan) NCERT NCF Value Education- pg 12-14 (scan)

4. Evaluation of Textbooks from the Standpoint of National Integration: Guidelines, NCERT, 01/04/1986, R.N00.17

5. Textbooks Socialisation
- Evaluation of School Textbooks from the Standpoint of National Integration - A Report on Evaluation of Textbooks in Delhi Schools, NCERT, 01/01/1984, R.N00.1

********************************************************************************************************************************************

- “School Education: Vision Objectives, Critique of New Curriculum Proposed by NCERT, Recommendations” Ch 5 p.g. 71-80

********************************************************************************************************************************************