Nalini Taneja

THE RSS is adamant about pushing through its agenda on education and culture despite the wide-ranging expression of dissent from the widest spectrum of political opinion in this country, and the RSS ministers in the BJP government are determined to implement this agenda in a given time frame. This is what came out clearly from the minister's response to the united demand for its withdrawal within the parliament, following the convention against communalisation of education where a resolution making a similar demand was signed and released to the press by education ministers and chief ministers from nine different states.

The debate in parliament on education came after a long and sustained pressure from the opposition that the education policy of this country cannot be reversed without a discussion in parliament, and that changes envisaged must strengthen the aspirations voiced in the Constitution, not violate them. The BJP policies on education came in for criticism on three main planks. One, that they are directed by the communal agenda of the sangh parivar and therefore run counter to the principles enshrined in our Constitution. Two, that education is a state subject in a federal polity like ours, and no changes must be brought about without consulting people’s representatives and without endorsement of the states. Three, that no curriculum framework can be given the status of a national document and no policy can be declared as national policy without this mandatory endorsement.

The BJP was isolated in parliament on these counts, and only the Shiv Sena remained to defend the government.

The BJP MPs were not able to reply to the issues raised, and Murli Manohar Joshi in his reply as minister MHRD ignored the substance of what had gone on before to reiterate that what the government is doing it will continue to do. There was no concession to any opinion expressed throughout the debate by opposition members.

On the contrary the BJP MPs resorted to their customary attacks on ‘marxists’, painting everybody with a red brush who dared question them, and at the same time trying to give the impression as if their policies were acceptable to all but a handful of leftists. Surprisingly they managed to say two contradictory things at the same time without batting an eyelid, an art that has been perfected by them and is integral to their mobilizing strategies. They also continued to mislead the parliament, reiterating claims that are well known to be false. Obviously they were talking more to their constituencies outside the parliament and diverting the debate from the core issues. They also supplemented their speeches inside the parliament with more said outside to the journalists to accommodate that which they dared not say within the two houses of parliament.

Vijay Kumar Malhotra was more concerned about what marxists believe in than what his party is doing to education, and was not concerned with the niceties of facts in order to vilify the Left. "To date not a single book published by the NCERT has been changed" he declared pompously, while his colleague Murli Manohar Joshi has declared in the Rajya Sabha that the new "National Curriculum" and the new revised textbooks will be operative from the academic session starting April 2002. Are we all to wait till children already begin to be examined on this ‘new knowledge’ before we voice our opinions on it? Malhotra reiterated that the government was committed to "undo" the damage caused, presumably, by left leaning educationists-which is saying that they will go ahead whether people like it or not. He quoted selectively from the recommendations in S B Chavan headed Standing Committee of parliament on education, to give focus to Chavan’s views to argue that value education is in keeping with the recommendations of this committee headed by a Congressman. In actual fact, to talk of a valuesbased education in a general context is a very different proposition from a syllabus that has value education that is religion based and a part of syllabus--a distinction that he very cleverly blurred through creating deliberate confusion.

Once outside, he was more straightforward in his defense of the ideas of Aryans as original inhabitants of the Gangetic plain, of Vedas as basis of Indian culture, the wholesale destruction of temples by Islamic invaders and the left conspiracy to whitewash it, and so on. According to press reports he waxed eloquent on crores of rupees earned in royalty by leftists out to "denigrate Hindus" and that "this would not be allowed". The proposed texts would incorporate these to correct the "distortions". (HT, August 11, 2001)

Murli Manohar Joshi too, in his reply to both houses, did not care to allay the fears expressed on communalisation of education. Contrary to examples from texts not only from Vidya Bharti and Shishu mandirs, but also the revised texts for government schools in BJP ruled states, he breezily stated that there is no change in government policy and that the government is implementing the 1986 education policy framework. The 1986 policy it may be remembered has been criticized for promoting privatisation, but it was clear in its emphasis on secularism and scientific temper as goals of education. "No particular parts, periods or personalities are proposed to be deleted" he stated, without any assurance however, about the manner in which these periods, and personalities would be discussed and depicted in the proposed texts. "Only details which are relevant to learners’ needs at these stages will be retained", the implication being that what the NCERT texts contained till now is not relevant and much of it may go.

Who will decide what is "relevant history" to be "suitably integrated" with other social science subjects. That precisely is the crux of the matter left undefined in the reply. But if Vidya Bharti texts and the recent pronouncements of Rajput, the NCERT Director, were anything to go by, they would certainly not fulfill the criteria of respect for India’s pluralistic heritage or the demands of methodological rigour.

Joshi also parroted the pet line about "extensive multi-level consultations throughout the country", when the fact of the matter is that at the recent Convention against communalisation of education, nine non BJP education ministers and chief ministers actually opposed the National Curriculum Framework, as did numerous educationists, social scientists and scientists. The strong demand for state education ministers’ meeting has still not been conceded, the Central Advisory Board for Education (CABE) has not been called upon despite the criticism in Parliament, and many members of the NCERT are on record that no proper consultation has taken place within the organisation. The understanding of every party to the views of the RSS inspired educational framework had become clear in the 1998 state education ministers’ Conference, so what does Joshi mean by saying that "no state government had rejected the document"? He stood by the introduction of religious education in the curriculum, saying the steps taken with regard to Sanskrit were in line with Supreme Court judgement--as if the Supreme Court has sanctioned the neglect of other languages, and the appointment of spoken Sanskrit teachers over the heads of Sanskrit departments. The number of universities accepting the Vedic astrology courses, under encouragement from the BJP, is only increasing, the current figure according to Joshi, now being forty universities.

One obviously did not expect that the BJP would reverse its education policy voluntarily in deference to overwhelming opposition to it represented in the Parliamentary debate on education last week. But the cynicism and utter disregard for public opinion that came through in response to the criticism of RSS inspired government moves on education shows that the battle for secular education is long and inseparable from the larger battle for democracy. If the debate in Parliament has to have any meaning in the present political set up the issues taken up in Parliament must find voice and popular strength outside Parliament among all concerned sections of society, including the mass organisations of people other than teachers and students. As the CPI(M) cental committee communiqué put it, either the policies must be scrapped or the government must go. This is as true for the RSS dictated policies on education and culture, as for economy.