AIF-RTE English Newsletter Reconstructing Education December 2011

December 2011, Year 1, Issue 1

Inside Editorial

An organ in support of free and equitable education from KG to PG and in resistance to all forms of trade in education

Quarterly publication of All India Forum for Right to Education

History of the efforts for the universalization of modern education may be traced back to the nineteenth century, when, for example, Jotirao Phule voiced this demand while appearing before the Indian Education Commission chaired by WW Hunter in 1882-83. Subsequently, G.K. Gokhale and some other nationalist leaders also strived for compulsory free elementary education for all children in 1910-12 onwards. On the other hand, going beyond the question of expansion, following the trajectory of his views already powerfully expressed in Hind Swaraj, Gandhiji (along with Zakir Hussain) presented his scheme of basic education in late 1930s. It was qualitatively different from the then prevalent models of education. It powerfully symbolized the disillusionment with existing education system and the need for reclaiming knowledge and reconstructing education in order to build a more humane and egalitarian society. With some obvious differences, similar Alternative views on education were also put forward, experimented or practiced by other personalities like Gijubhai Badheka, Aurobindo Ghosh and Rabindranath Tagore in India. Education meant to these thinkers and practitioners not only textbook learning, but also values and skills. Further, they realized the pedagogic and epistemological significance of the real life experiences in the learning process of students. They thought that education should help individuals to plan for their career as well as play a useful part in building a better society. In other words, education should become a motor of progressive change in the lives of individual as well as that of the entire community.

They understood that education is crucial for building a democratic, egalitarian, secular, just and enlightened society, both at the national and transnational levels. It should promote universal human values while, at the same time, inculcate respect for India’s diversity and all Indians. Education should promote socio-economic justice, political liberty, freedom of thought, equality of status and opportunity, dignity of the individual, integrity of the nation and universal piece. Hence, for them, education was a means for unleashing the full human potential, for serving the larger public interest, as well as the path to social development with equality and social justice. Education for them was not a commodity or service that can be sold and bought in

RECONSTRUCTING EDUCATION

“Educate! Agitate! Organise!”and continue struggle for

Reclaiming Knowledge, Reconstructing Education

PERSPECTIVEThe Right to Education Farce....................................................3Rhapsody of Rules, Ruling out Rights..................................................9

REPORTSSambhavana..........................................................10SPCSS, Tamilnadu................................................13Delhi Shiksha Adhikar Manch........................13A.P. Save Education Committee.............…….15

CAllDon’t Close the Schools.....................................16

INTERNATIONAlWhen Whole World Cried Why......................17

AGENDAAttack on JNU Student in Ranchi...................19 Geeta in Karnataka GovernmentSchools......................................................................20‘‘Ramayanas’’ Exiled From Delhi University....................................................21Neo-liberal Assault in Jammu & Kashmir................................................22

Editorial BoardConvenor:

V. N. Sharma (Ranchi)

Members: Meher Engineer (Kolkata)

Madhu Prasad (Delhi)Shaheen Ansari (Delhi)

Vikas Gupta (Delhi)

Editorial Assistance: Mohit Pandey (Bhopal)

Design:Lokesh Malti Prakash (Bhopal)

Contact:Dr. V.N. Sharma

A-100, SAIL Satellite TownshipRanchi 834004, Jharkhand

E-mail: [email protected] Mob. : +91 9431102680 Tel. : +91 651-2441524

Contribution: ` 15/-

the market, because, as a public good, or more correctly as an instrument of liberation, it had a larger goal to accomplish in society than the commercial motives of colonial state and its allies.

But none of these efforts could yield much fruits

owing to colonial Government’s indifference to these alternative thoughts which appeared to it as quite different from the normative Western pattern they considered to be essentially progressive and useful. Added to this was colonial state’s unwillingness to spend a substantive part of its proceeds on education. More importantly, the above-outline vision could not be materialized due to the apathy of upper castes and classes of Indian society towards the education of children traditionally excluded from the sphere of formal education; and their fear of the ideas perceived to be dangerous for the continuance of their hegemonic position in Indian society.

Even the Framers of constitution were forced in such circumstances to provide merely (but crucial) a directive principle on elementary education with the expectation of its realization by the Indian state within 10 years. But the post-independence Indian state also did not adopt any fundamentally ground-breaking measures for the universalization and reconstruction of education, despite occasional but significant recommendations by the commissions and committees set up by the state itself. (For instance, Kothari Commission’s recommendation for the establishment of ‘Common School System’ based on the concept of neighborhood schools (CSS-NS).

Nevertheless, education as a fundamental right

of every child could be recognized in clear legal terms in 1993 through judicial interpretation of Article 45 in ‘harmonious construction’ with Article 21 of the Indian Constitution by the Supreme Court. Stunned by this radical interpretation of Article 45, the Indian State acted to curtail the notion of education as a Fundamental Right through the 86th Constitutional Amendment in 2002 and later by enacting the farcical ‘The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act’ (RTE Act) in 2009.

In this process, the above-outlined philosophical vision of education emphasizing the need for reclaiming knowledge and reconstructing education was glossed over. Otherwise, at least before 1970s, a period when the neo-liberal tendencies had just begun to negatively influence the state’s commitment for education; and surely

before 1990s, when the influence of neo-liberal ideology on the state became clearly evident, these alternative visions (though never seriously championed) were not discredited by the state and its attended class interests. Now, in the garb of economic liberalization, globalization, public-private partnership, self-financed courses and foreign funding, education and knowledge are being brutally transformed as marketable commodities all over the world. It has been quite well documented that not merely the capitalist class interests, but also neo-conservative forces in collaboration with neo-liberal state comprise the vanguard of this historic transition. The state is increasingly relinquishing its social commitment in the hands of these illusory private service providers and neo-conservative forces representing the global capital, which are left almost free to enjoy maximum fruits produced by oppressed classes and thereby accelerating even greater inequalities in the social order.

Therefore, in this context, the necessity of launching a newsletter through an adapted version of a historic call to “Educate! Agitate! Organize!” and continue struggle for ‘reclaiming knowledge, reconstructing education’ is nothing but obvious. Notwithstanding above-mentioned philosophical disillusionment with the prevailing model of education and various other scholarly treatises pointing out its orthodox and complicit nature, Babasaheb Dr. B.R. Ambedkar obviously perceived liberating potential of the modern/colonial/western education if it could be provided to oppressed people in an environment, where even the basic skills of literacy were monopolized by a traditionally dominant, but very small minority of people, who disallowed its expansion to others. He therefore advised the oppressed people to grab their share of education to use it as an instrument for building their agitation and organization to continue struggle against all forms of their exploitation. However, Ambedkar’s clarion call cannot be restricted to Dalits alone. It must be viewed as a call for liberation of the oppressed masses, irrespective of their caste, gender, linguistic, cultural, religious or ‘challenged’ body identities. At the same time, in the neo-liberal economic order, we need to transcend Ambedkar and struggle to ‘reclaim knowledge, reconstruct education’ both of which i.e. knowedge and education, in Ambedkar’s times, may have been validly (or as an interim strategy) perceived as a liberative force but no more in these times of blatant ascendency of the hegemony of global capital.

2RECONSTRUCTING EDUCATIONDecember 2011, Year 1, Issue 1

PERSPECTIVESTHE RIGHT TO EDUCATION FARCE

An Unimplementable Act

let us look at three scenarios emerging after the first 30 days of the so-called RTE Act being put in force on April 1, 2010 –

Scenario One

A PTA president of a government Middle School located in a basti on the outskirts of Bhopal, M.P. approaches the Head Master with request for a Transfer Certificate (TC) for his son who has completed Class VIII and has to move to a High School in another locality since there is none in the basti. The Head Master demands Rs. 50/- as the charge for issuing the TC. The PTA president, who had participated in the Shiksha Adhikar Manch meetings, tells the Head Master that the new RTE Act guarantees free education up to Class VIII and this demand for a charge for issuing TC would be illegal in terms of the Act. The Head Master ridicules the Act. The PTA president shows him Sub-Section 2 of Section 3 that reads as follows:

“. . . . . .no child shall be liable to pay any kind of fee or charges or expenses which may prevent him or her from pursuing and completing the elementary education.”

By the time the PTA president finished reading out aloud the above provision, he himself became doubtful whether this indeed was a guarantee for free education. The Head Master mocked, “Where does this Act promise free education? All it says that no charge should be levied that will prevent the child from completing elementary education. Can’t you afford to pay the paltry sum of Rs. 50/- ? After all you earn a modest but adequate wage as an assistant in a firm. I am doing only what the Act allows.” The PTA president was speechless. He paid Rs. 50/- and got the TC for his son. Incidentally, this practice is continuing as a fully legitimized practice under the Jan Shiksha Adhiniyam, 2000, an Act passed by the state government to provide the so-called Fundamental Right to Free and Compulsory Education. This 10-year old practice of levying charges under various heads through the PTAs (the future School Management Committees) can now continue as a valid practice under the new Act too. It is noteworthy that this PTA president is also likely to be elected as the chairperson of the

School Management Committee under Section 21 of the Act and yet be entirely powerless to seek free education of equitable quality for the children!

Scenario Two

On 5th April, the Madhya Pradesh state School Education Minister and the Principal Secretary of the Department organised a meeting with the government and private school principals, NGOs and local educators in Bhopal to discuss the implications of the RTE Act. The private school principals were concerned about the 25% reservation in private schools for free education (Section 12). They said that the reimbursement provided for private schools in the Act at the rate at which the state government spends in its own schools on a per child basis is obviously inadequate since the private school fees are much higher. The state Minister declared that they would be free to arbitrarily hike fees for the remaining 75% of the students and the government would not come in the way. Obviously, she had taken the cue from a similar declaration by the HRD Minister Sh. Sibal in February 2010 in a conference of a high profile Delhi-based association of private school principals. The HRD Minister had indeed gone a step further by announcing that the private schools would be free to underpay their teachers. Indeed, he advised that all the state Acts authorizing the state governments to regulate the fees of the private schools would become superfluous once the central Act, lacking such a provision, comes into force!

What is not being stated today is the obvious. How would the parents of the 75% middle class children react to the arbitrary hike in fees in order to pay for the cost of education of the children admitted under the 25% provision? No one should be surprised if that would mean an unresolvable conflict, apart from the most undesirable relationship between the two sets of children – one group knowing that they are paying for the education of the other group. Sh. Sibal, however, may have a way out up his sleeve. Taking cue from the Maharashtra practice in professional private colleges, he might move an amendment in the

3 RECONSTRUCTING EDUCATIONDecember 2011, Year 1, Issue 1

Parliament that the government would reimburse the private schools the full cost of educating children from the disadvantaged sections, even though the cost may vary in different schools. Who would object? The cabinet ministers and MPs who mint money out of the schools owned by them?

Scenario Three During the past few weeks, a number of state

governments had raised alarm that they do not have the necessary resources to finance the implementation of the Act, unless the centre provides them additional funds. This includes Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, West Bengal, Kerala, Rajasthan and others. The centre says that it has done its duty under Section 7 of the Act by (a) increasing the allocation of SSA by Rs. 1,900 crores in the Union Budget; and (b) referring the matter through the President to the 13th Finance Commission; the latter has allocated an additional sum of Rs. 3,675 crore to the states for elementary education for 2010-11. However, a detailed examination of these claims reveal that these sums amount to paltry increases, as is shown through careful budgetary analyses by Prof. JBG Tilak (EPW, 27th March, pp. 60-64; Sahara Time, April 17, 2010, pp. 22-23). Clearly, a conflict between the centre and the states is inevitable, questioning the foundations of our federal polity. The root of this conflict is in the Act itself which no where gives a guarantee that the full cost of the implementation would be met by the State, the formula for sharing between the centre and the states notwithstanding. Instead, the chequered history of budget estimates for the Act shows the estimates ranging from Rs. 3.21-4.36 lac crores over a 6-year period (CABE, July 2005) to Rs. 2.28 lac crores over a 7-year period (MHRD, February 2008) to Rs. 1.71 lac crores over a 5-year period (MHRD, current estimates), with no publicly available logic behind these wildly varying estimates.

However, there are some common elements in all these estimates: (a) the salary of teachers is pegged at the para-teacher level @ Rs. 6,000/mo. for the non-graduate primary and upper primary school teacher and Rs. 8,000/mo. for 20% Trained Graduate Teachers at the upper primary level; (b) multi-layered discriminatory school system; (c) multi-grade teaching (one teacher teaching more than one class simultaneously in a single classroom) in two-thirds of the primary schools; (d) no Head Master to be posted in almost 75% of

the primary schools; (e) the pupil : teacher ratio (PTR) at the upper primary stage to be lowered from the present level of 1:34-1:29 to 1:35; (f) no special provision for integration of the disabled children in regular classes and mainstream schools; and (g) no visionary provision for transformation of the teacher education system, either in terms of its quality or its access. Basically, it implies that the credibility of the government school system, already lowered through 10 years of World Bank’s DPEP in 1990s and 10 years of SSA during the last decade, would reach abysmally low levels as a result of the Act. The result: the vast government school system of about 12 lakh schools will stand demolished except for a miniscule set of elite government schools such as central schools, Sainik Vidyalayas, Navodaya Vidyalayas, the XI Plan’s 6,000 model schools and the state government’s similar but handful institutions like Pratibha Vidyalayas (Delhi), Utkrishta Vidyalayas (Madhya Pradesh), residential schools (Andhra Pradesh) and others. This will lead to a greatly increased dependence on the private school system, the hidden agenda of the RTE Act.

There is yet another common feature representing the neo-liberal turn of the Indian policy. This is the Public Private Partnership (PPP) in various forms. The 25% provision as per Section 12 of the Act is itself akin to the school vouchers proposed by the neo-liberal guru Milton Friedman which has not worked in many parts of the world, including USA. PPP includes extensive income tax exemptions to both the private school managements and the parents, low-interest and long-term loans to the students (this is the back door method of transferring public funds to corporate capital and NGOs), free or subsidized land, other hidden subsidies (e.g. public transport at subsidized rates) or teachers trained at publicly funded institutions. These direct and hidden subsidies under the pretext of PPP are likely to add up to an annual revenue loss to the State amounting to thousands of crores of rupees. Ironically, while the Act does not prohibit the State from funding and promoting the private schools in this manner, it allows the State to falsely claim lack of resources for upgrading the quality of the government school system!

Drawing from History

1. SSA (and also World Bank’s DPEP) collapsed due to its flawed framework which


was characterized by elements such as (a) ignoring pre-primary education and ECCE; (b) undervaluing the role of forward linkage to secondary and higher education; (c) promoting multi-layered school system and sub-standard schools for the poor with multi-grade classes and para-teachers; (d) increasing support, both overt and covert, to privatization and commercialization of school education and NGOisation of government schemes; and, above all, (e) multiple short-term and arbitrary schemes and projects replacing a vision of systemic transformation.

2. The RTE Act is embedded in the above SSA framework, especially with regard to the multi-layered school system, discriminatory education, sub-standard norms of school infrastructure for the masses and increasing pace of privatization and commercialization through various forms of PPP.

3. The All India Forum for Right to Education (AIF-RTE) has consistently taken an unambiguous stand against the Act, similar to the above critique and called for an alternative Act rooted in Common School System based on Neighbourhood Schools (CSS-NS).

4. No country in the world has achieved UEE without establishing a fully public-funded school system of equitable quality i.e. a CSS-NS in one form or another. India can’t be an exception to this historical experience. The Act dismisses this historical experience without providing any logical grounds.

5. The protagonists of the RTE Act have argued from public forums that no obligatory role should be assigned to the private unaided schools in the context of RTE as the owners of such schools constitute a strong lobby and would not accept any obligation for RTE whatsoever. Indeed, this lobby has already petitioned to the

Supreme Court taking shelter under Article 19 (1) (g) of the Constitution but cleverly not referring to the Clause (6) that empowers the State to make l

sections of society are allowed to patronize the private schools.

An Overview of the Debate on RTE

• Public consultations on RTE, particularly since the Act’s approval by the Parliament in August 2009, represent two clearly identifiable categories holding entirely contradictory viewpoints on the Act (the international funding agencies and some articulate sections of the academia tend to minimse these contradictions

by terming them as merely ‘diverse’ views). These contradictions in the RTE discourse have been growing steadily for the past 20 years along with the rising pace of neo-liberal ‘reforms’ in all sectors of Indian economy and social policies, including education.

• The above gap in understanding began to widen at an increasing pace since the RTE debate began to crystallize with the introduction of the 83rd Constitutional Amendment Bill in Rajya Sabha in August 1997 and became politically evident with the introduction of the 86th Constitutional Amendment Bill in the Lok Sabha in November 2001. Several of the present high profile advocates of the RTE Act chose to maintain strategic silence during those critical


years of 2001-02. This inscrutable silence was indeed more deafening than the transient opposition by some high profile NGOs to the 86th Constitutional Amendment Bill who later switched their position as the State moved towards enacting this consequential Act under Article 21A.

• This was the time when the NDA Government was not just communalizing the curriculum and school texts (which they were doing blatantly) but was also initiating major neo-liberal ‘reforms’ in education with support, both overt and covert, of several of the leading political parties, including the Congress. Just to put on record, these were the times marked by the Ambani-Birla Report, three successive neo-liberal draft RTE Bills, formulation of the PPP agenda both in the PM’s Office and the Planning Commission and increasing tax exemptions to the private educational institutions including tax rebates to parents up to Rs. one lac for their children and subsidised loans to students, apart from initiating moves for foreign universities. It might be embarrassing for the advocates of the present Act to recall that it was the NDA Government that conceptualized SSA in 2000 and institutionalized it in the X Plan (2002-07) – a scheme that the UPA Government has not just continued without any structural change in the XI Plan (2007-12) but also designed the Act to legitimize the flawed SSA of the NDA Government. I have documented elsewhere in detail the almost complete overlap between the neo-liberal policies of various central governments in education from the times of the United Front to NDA to UPA-I and UPA-II (see my Hindi booklet ‘Sansad Mein Shiksha Ka Adhikaar Chhenanewala Bill’, June 2009, 2nd Edition, pp. 95-101).

• The two categories of viewpoints moved further apart during the first UPA regime when the CABE constituted the committee in October 2004 to draft the Bill as required by Article 21A under the chairpersonship of Sh. Kapil Sibal, the then Minister of State for Science & Technology in the central government, along with several academics and activists engaged in the RTE discourse. During the deliberations of the Kapil Sibal Committee, the philosophical and intellectual gap among the activists and academics further widened and almost reached a point of being unresolvable by the time the report was finalized in June 2005

and later submitted to CABE in mid-July 2005. Some of you would recall that, out of the seven CABE Committee reports presented at the CABE meeting on different aspects of education (5 on school education and 2 on higher education), the Kapil Sibal Committee report was the only one on which the contradictory viewpoints could not be resolved. The then HRD Minister Sh. Arjun Singh was constrained to observe, “After all, the CABE is just an advisory body. You have given your invaluable suggestions. The government is grateful to you all. Since this report is so controversial, the government would take its own view.” The view finally taken by the UPA government appeared in the Rajya Sabha (December 2008) in a further diluted and distorted version of the above report presented to the CABE and eventually became the Act in August 2009. The CABE deliberations expose the farce of democratic functioning of the Indian state in the neo-liberal age. More importantly, these provide evidence of the wide-ranging co-option of India’s intellectual class in the neo-liberal state, thereby greatly restricting the democratic space for pro-people politics that was inspired by the leading intellectuals of the country during the 1970s and 1980s. For a more detailed documentation of the CABE deliberations, see my Hindi booklet ‘Sansad Mein Shiksha Ka Adhikaar Chhenanewala Bill’, June 2009, 2nd Edition, pp. 84-92).

• The above differences are not just some random differences but represent differences at the level of basic premises flowing out of different philosophical and ideological orientations. These premises pertain, among others, to (a) the emerging neo-liberal global economic order; (b) the changing political economy and the consequent shifting relationship between the Indian State and the global capital; (c) the increasing pace of abdication by the Indian State of its Constitutional obligations; (d) the replacement of the Constitutional agenda of Equality combined with Social Justice by the neo-liberal Inclusive Agenda; (e) the critical role of education in social transformation vis-à-vis the hidden educational agenda of the Indian State in alignment with the global market forces; (f) the objective of the private capital and the global market forces in ‘providing’ education; (g) the perception of the fresh neo-liberal assaults on our education system under the garb of new policies, allocations and laws; (h) the role of political parties, social activists,


intellectuals and social movements in retrieving the people’s Rights.

• A logical debate on issues demands a commonly agreed set of premises. We don’t normally debate the premises themselves which are located not just in the cognitive domain but also in our emotionality and value orientations relating to our class/ caste relationships and position vis-à-vis hegemony, patriarchy and exploitation. Indeed, I am not aware of any objective method for examining our premises.

Essential Assertions

Let me assert the following core principles drawn from policy analysis undertaken since 1985 when ‘The Challenge of Education’ document was released by the Union Government as a precursor to the National Policy on Education – 1986:

(a) it is a fallacy that the government school system can be improved without establishing a fully public-funded CSS-NS that is governed in a decentralized, democratic and participative mode;

(b) CSS-NS is meaningless unless children from various sections of society study and socialize together in Neighbourhood Schools while also ensuring diversity and providing adequate space for experimentation, innovation and charting new paths;

(c) No curricular reforms are possible in a multi-layered school system; CSS-NS provides the necessary pre-condition for curricular reforms; and

(d) CSS-NS can’t be established as long as the State continues to promote privatization and commercialization of school education through PPP which includes school vouchers, subsidized long-term loans to students and the corporate sector/ NGOs alike, income tax exemptions and hidden subsidies or otherwise.

What is To Be Done?

The protagonists of the RTE Act have become emboldened since it was put in force on April 1, 2010. They are now confusing the public mind by repeating the rhetoric of “after waiting for 60 years, we have now gotten the Fundamental Right to education” or “something is better than nothing” (Kuchh Nahin Se kuchh to achha!). The central problem with this thinking lies in being entirely (and, I believe, also deliberately) a-historical as it

ignores the major changes in political economy during the past 25 years and the shift in character of the Indian State to becoming a neo-liberal State. All this is discussed above but it would help immensely if you care to study my essay viz. Education Policy & RTE Bill: A Historical Betrayal, (COMBAT LAW, August 2009, pp. 14-31).

Let me assert that the afore-mentioned fragmented, incremental and ‘inclusive’ vision has been practiced since independence and has collapsed. How many more decades would you like to continue to practice this self-defeating approach in education that has gotten us in the mess we are in today? Can you not see that “my friend, the answer is blowing in the wind!” (the famous folk singer Bob Dylan, challenging the American capitalist value system, said this in the 1960s). And the answer is three-fold:

a) Resist the diversionary politics of the RTE Act (the same ‘lollipop’ politics can now be seen in the draft Right to Food Bill) that will entangle you in a myriad detail during its implementation (like in MNREGA) while the goal of universal education of equitable quality will continue to be elusive.

b) Focus on building a vision of systemic transformation of the education system for ensuring entirely free education of equitable quality from “KG to PG” that will also question and challenge the socio-political character of knowledge, linked to global market and corporate capital, inherent in our curriculum and pedagogy.

c) Engage the masses in creating a genuine people’s movement for compelling the State to replace its so-called ‘Inclusive’ schemes and projects with an agenda embedded in ‘Equality combined with Social Justice’.

Now that the Act is there, we would have to learn to deal with the Act. I propose an agenda of ‘TRANSFORMATIVE ENGAGEMENT’ with the Act both at the grassroots and macro-level. This idea of Transformative Engagement with the Act is elaborated in the AIF-RTE Discussion Paper (see Section 4.2, pp. 9-10) under the title of ‘CRITICAL ENGAGEMENT’ 1 which I take liberty of reproducing

1. Two reasons need to be given for replacing the term ‘Critical Engagement’ used in the AIF-RTE Discussion Paper (June 2010) with the new term of ‘Transformative Engagement’ in this paper for the TNSPCSS convention. One, within a couple of weeks of the AIF-RTE paper being drafted, the term ‘Critical Engagement’ has been hijacked in a discussion paper presented at a hitherto dormant forum viz. People’s Campaign for Common School System (PCCSS) on 27th June 2010 not only to rationalise the Act but also to promote its agenda of privatization and commercialization through PPP. Two, ‘Transformative Engagement’ gives us the idea of working for systemic transformation which is our goal. Hence, the need to distinguish ‘Transformative Engagement’ from the earlier term.


hereunder for our discussion. Transformative Engagement with the Act may be grounded in the three-point strategic framework as follows :

“First, let us take up local issues emerging from the ongoing official implementation of the Act with the purpose of exposing State’s hidden agenda of abdication of its Constitutional obligation (as also evident in reluctant budget allocations leading to shortages of funds in states/UTs), providing inferior quality education, institutionalizing inequality and discrimination through a multi-layered school system and increasing the pace of privatization and commercialization through PPP (concrete examples of this are already evident in urban bastis and villages and, interestingly, among the middle class parents as well whose children studying in expensive private unaided schools are already facing arbitrary and unregulated fee hikes). Let us, for instance, precipitate crisis in selected urban or rural localities with regard to the sharp contradictions between the curricular goals of the Act and the various provisions that determine quality of education viz. service-cum-working conditions (including non-educational tasks) and training of teachers in the prevailing multi-layered system and/or the multi-grade teaching that will be the norm in almost two-thirds of the government primary schools. By mobilizing people, particularly the parents, we should be able to politically demonstrate that, given the constraints of the Act’s provisions, the curricular goals specified in the Act are unachievable. This will give us a concrete ground for exposing the illusions that the State is attempting to generate through the Act.

Second, intervene in the ongoing implementation of strategically selected provisions of the Act for short periods in order to mobilize people as well as the public mind in moving beyond the Act in the direction of our goal of a public funded Common School System founded on Neighbourhood Schools (CSS-NS). This may involve, depending upon the local factors, fighting for the concept of fully free education, including books (not just textbooks), computers and other learning aids, transport, hostels and opportunity cost; making an issue out of the Act not providing even one teacher per class in the majority of the government primary schools and its deleterious impact on the quality of education; seeking genuine neighbourhood schools

as per Kothari Commission’s concept2 , as opposed to the Act’s misleading notion of neighbourhood schools; demanding all schools to be upgraded, at least in the first phase, to the norms and standards of Central Schools; exposing the contradiction of the Act’s increasing dependence (and promotion through PPP) on low cost sub-standard private unaided schools; integration of the disabled in the mainstream schools by provision of all support systems for equitable education.

Third, interweave all such local struggles built through the above two modes of critical [i.e. transformative] engagement in order to create public opinion against the Act such that the nation-wide democratic movement will be strong enough by the next general election to seek replacement of the present Act by a new Act rooted in the concept of a public-funded CSS-NS.

The strength of the afore-mentioned strategic framework with regard to the RTE Act lies in the inevitability of the consequent mobilization merging with the mobilization against trade and PPP in secondary and higher education as well. This only reinforces our analysis that trade and PPP constitute the priority agenda of resistance in the present stage of the AIF-RTE movement.”

If you are inclined to pursue this political course and work for creating a more democratic, egalitarian, secular, just and enlightened India, let us join hands to understand how to move forward. The path is unchartered and complex but is the only historical option available to us. Let us act in solidarity BEFORE IT IS TOO LATE.

(A Discussion Paper presented at the State-Level Convention organized by TNSPCSS,at Chennai, July 20, 2010)

2. We must clarify that we endorse the theoretical concept underlying Kothari Commission’s Neighbourhood Schools but not its contradictory and ambiguous implementation programme that ended up diluting and, finally destroying, the concept itself.

Dr. Anil SadgopalShiksha Adhikar Manch, Bhopal &

Member, Presidium All India Forum for Right to Education


RHAPSODY OF RUlES, RUlING OUT RIGHTS

After a long wait, the Tamilnadu Government has notified the Rules under RTE Act. As a critic of the Act itself, I don’t find anything worthwhile in the Rules. While it has closely followed the ModelRules, the deviations reflect the mindset of the rulers. The rule regarding the constitution of a Grievance Redressal Mechanism has been deleted. Also the entire section with regard to the functions of the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights has been omitted. Neither the State has constituted SCPCR nor has it formed the alternate body for upholding the educational rights of the child.

Children from disadvantaged group for admission under the 25% quota in Private Schools have been defined as those whose parent’s income is less than Rs 2 lakhs. The real poor will not get any benefit and all those outside the salaried section can get easily an income certificate. This fixation may be due to the hue and cry raised by prestigious schools who wrote to the parents to write letters to the President and others that, if children from slums are admitted into their schools, their children would be exposed to the slum language and the teachers’ time would be taken more by those children as their learning capacity is low. By prescribing an income limit of Rs 2 lakhs, such children are eliminated. The RTE Act was enacted not because of any conviction or commitment on the part of the Central Govt, but was only forced to do so by the judicial decision in Unnikrishnan Case, followed by the sustained and prolonged agitation by educationists and social activists. The time lag between Unnikrishnan Judgement and 86th Amendment is 13 long years and the RTE Act has taken another four years. Rules notification was done after another two years. All these show that there is no political will to provide quality education to the poor. A massive agitation

by all the citizens similar to the Wall Street will alone make it possible. Our time is running out, but we have to act quickly.

S.S.Rajagopalan Former High School Principal &

Senior Educational Activist Tamilnadu

Our Publication

NEO-lIBERAl ASSAUlT ON HIGHER EDUCATION

An Agenda for Putting India on Sale

Compilation & Editing: Dr. Anil Sadgopal

Price: ` 20/-

Available at:E- 8/29, Sahkar Nagar,

Bhopal 462039Madhya Pradesh

Email: [email protected]. : +91 040-2330-5266Mob. : +91 9440980396


REPORTSTRANSFORMING VISION FOR EDUCATION

Report on the recent activities of SambhavanaSambhavana is a non-profit making, voluntary subscription based, Non-Governmental organization (NGO) of disabled and some non-disabled activists, which primarily works for the rights of persons with disabilities in the area of education, employment, rehabilitation, accessibility and their political and social participation at various levels. But our endeavors our in no way limited to disability issues alone as we believe that everything that happens or does not happen affect disabled persons as it does to others. Hence, the movements for the rights of disabled persons cannot be isolated from wider concerns of our times. However, in this brief report, we shall only present some points about the work that we have been doing (or striving to do) in the field of education over last couple of years.

Before we proceed with the above-mentioned task, we would like to put it on record that neither we endorse the present RTE Act nor what is happening in the field of higher education where dangerous efforts of privatization and hierarchization are at work. However, whilst struggling against such tendencies, we also want to utilize some of the provisions/unintended possibilities as an interim and expedient arrangement.

Higher Education

Sambhavana has been very active in the field of higher education; and we have raised issues of both disabled students as well as others. For instance, we actively participated in the anti-semester system struggle to the extent that one of our colleagues opposed the same in the Academic Council with a note of dissent; and another colleague wrote an essay in EPW to critique the introduction of this system.

We collaborated with Collective Teachers Forum (CTF) to organize a convention on this issue in Delhi University, where Prof. Anil Sadgopal (along with others) had also participated on behalf of AIF-RTE.

We have been also taking part in the agitations against the removal of Ramanujan’s essay from the history syllabus of Delhi University undergraduate

program as it is a clear case of non-academic interests and considerations interfering in the academic business of university community. One of our colleagues, who also happens to be Sambhavana supported elected Academic Council Member in Delhi University submitted a note of dessent on this issue.

In Delhi University and in most of its affiliated colleges, classes (except for Hindi, Sanskrit and other languages) generally take place in English alone. Therefore, People’s Union for Civil Liberties (PUCL) had filed a case in Delhi High Court to ensure that the University and Colleges conduct classes in Hindi for Hindi medium students and provide relevant study material in Hindi. However, despite strict directions of the Court, Delhi University has not taken any serious measures for the implementation of the same. Therefore, Sambhavana through various means is presently trying to push Delhi University to implement this judgment.

Besides this, following various representations and processions, Sambhavana has recently got success in getting a revised Examination Policy for Disabled Students adopted by Delhi University. We hope that this policy will serve as a model to be emulated by other bodies as well. One of our colleagues served at the committee which drafted this policy; and another colleague used his influence as an elected Academic Council Member to get this policy passed by Delhi University.

In order to promote greater participation of disabled students in university affairs and in the activities of Sambhavana Organization and with the view to provide these students a solid platform of self-advocacy for their rights, we have recently constituted a Students’ Wing. We are happy to note that students have shown great enthusiasm for this initiative.

We have twice met the UGC Chairman with our comprehensive charter of demands, which included various issues. For instance, as per the UGC norms, Enabling Unit should be constituted in the colleges wherever there are 3 or more disabled students. However, apart from some broad points


mentioned in the 11th Plan document of UGC, (which are in no way sufficient), till date, there is not much clarity as to what functions should be carried out by the Enabling Units. Therefore, after wide consultations with the stakeholders and experts of the field, Sambhavana Organization has prepared a draft of the guidelines for Enabling Units along with a list of equipments it should possess and services it should offer, which it has submitted to UGC Chairman as well as to the Planning Commission so that these suggestions are endorsed and money is provided with the view to ensure accessible higher education for disabled persons.

Sambhavana has also attempted to draw

attention of UGC Chairman to the absence of a fellowship for disabled students, though such fellowships have been instituted for other deprived social groups. We have also suggested that UGC needs to consider special funding for physically disabled students or faculty undertaking research for M.Phil or Ph.D. Post doctoral research over and above normal student grants.

School Education

Not merely in the area of higher education, we have been quite vocal on the issues of school education as well. Our members had participated in the Parliament March organized by AIF-RTE in February 2009 against the farcical RTE Act (2009) demanding for a really progressive legislation founded on the ‘common school system based on the concept of neighborhood schools’ (CSS-NS) as suggested by Kothari Commission.

Besides this, and despite many limitations of the available policy framework and government’s creation of an illusion of financial crunch, we have been asking the Governments to provide necessary facilities for the education of disabled children. For instance, Sambhavana has been taking up with the Directorate of education, GNCT of Delhi a number of issues, such as accessible toilets and drinking water facilities; shifting the classes of locomotor disabled children (including library, science and computer labs) on the ground floor as interim arrangements; equal Opportunity in sports and games; connected and accessible Pathways; and the provision for reading softwares for visually impaired in the computer labs. It is a different matter that these demands have not

been met so far, but we are constantly raising them at appropriate levels with the hope that as the struggle will become stronger; the state would find it difficult to sideline it.

Sambhavana had drawn the attention of the Directorate of Education, GNCT of Delhi to the fact that in the board examinations, CBSE provides for the visually impaired students alternative questions for the map or diagram based questions. However, in the internal examinations, the Directorate of Education was not following the same practice. Accordingly, following Sambhavana’s representation, the Directorate has rectified the lacuna in the common school examinations by adopting the practice of giving alternative questions for visually impaired students.

As per the mandate of RTE Act and SSA, Directorate of Education in Delhi has been providing its students up to the eighth standard free books. However, it never occurred to the Directorate that a considerable number of students are visually impaired needing free Braille books. It was following Sambhavana’s repeated interventions that now every year, at the beginning of academic session, the Directorate issues a circular for the benefit of visually impaired students and teachers to collect free Braille books on all subjects as a part of the contract Directorate has signed with the All-India Confederation of Blind (AICB).

Further, Sambhavana has been demanding from the directorate of Education to constitute an advisory group of physically disabled people so that inclusion can be achieved in the mainstream planning itself. This is a practice that in our opinion should be followed everywhere.

Sambhavana also filed a case in the office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disability regarding the need to make mandatory condition of the special teachers training for the persons to be employed as teacher in the special school for visually impaired students. The case finally went in to Delhi High Court, which gave a favorable verdict to the petitioner. The judgment was delivered on 16th April 2009; however, the Directorate was not implementing it until we made it clear to them that we are prepared to file a contempt petition if the order of Delhi High Court is not implemented in its full spirit. The Directorate has challenged the above-mentioned judgment by filing another


Vikas GuptaJoint Secretary, Sambhavana Organization and

Member, National Executive, All India Forum for Right to Education

petition; hence, the case is still subjudice.

Perhaps, we have in general been able to create some activism on the issue of the education of disabled children to the extent that now the Directorate has been every year organizing World Disability Day and taking students’ processions in the neighborhood to create awareness and to bring more disabled students to the mainstream schools. However, this may also be viewed (perhaps more correctly) as an attempt of the state to create illusion in the mind of people with the view to cope up with the pressure being exerted by the disability rights groups.

Taking a queue with our recent effort for higher education as discussed above, we are now planning to make a concise list of the provisions required for the education of disabled children at the school level in the light of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities and Full Participation) Act (1995), United Nations Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities (2007), National Policy for Persons with Disabilities (2006), Delhi High Court Judgment in the Case filed by Ashok Agarwal for inclusive education and RTE Act (2009) with the view to exert pressure through various mechanisms on the Government to make necessary arrangements.

Other ActivitiesWe have organized two quite successful

conferences in Delhi University on Education of Disabled Children where more than hundred persons participated in each. We have been also taking up important relevant issues of education for discussion in our Disability Colloquium and Study Circle, where on average 30 to 50 activists/ scholars/students participate. For instance, recently we had organized a lecture on the “Exclusionary Politics of the Right to Education Act” by Vikas Gupta. (Available at: http://www.sambhavana.org/sites/default/files/sambhavana-data/disability-colloquium-and-study-circle/Exclusionary/20Politics/20of/20the/20Right/20to/20Education/20ACT/20By/20Vikas/20Gupta/20/285th/20Nov/202011/29.mp3).

After making some tokenistic amendments in the RTE Act for disabled children, Government has now initiated the process for drafting new disability law, which is expected to take care of the issues otherwise left unresolved in the RTE

Act. In this context, Sambhavana has expressed at appropriate forums its well informed objections about the approach of throwing disabled persons to the protection under special laws alone without making efforts to harmonize mainstream legislations with disability perspective. At the same time, as an expedient measure, we submitted our detailed representation to the concerned committee critiquing various aspects of the draft of new law, particularly the suggestions on education.

An Appeal

We believe that the constitution of India contains a socialist and equalitarian view of education and society. In term, most of the curriculum documents and textbooks emphasize (with true spirit or otherwise) the need to promote constitutional values. However, many commentators have suggested that the constitutional vision and provisions for disabled persons are not so progressive if seen in contemporary disability perspective. If the rights of disabled persons will be explicitly recognized in the constitution, it would provide their struggle for education and other provisions a new legal status and a more inclusive source for educational texts. With the encouraging support of many luminaries of law and disability rights, Sambhavana Organization had launched on 3rd December 2010 an online signature campaign for constitutional amendment to include the rights of persons with disabilities in the Indian Constitution at par with other groups. In this regard, we would like to appeal to all the member and affiliate organizations of AIF-RTE as well as the special invitees to support us in this struggle. For details, visit http://www.sambhavana.org/content/petition-constitutional-amendment.

Although, the fronts on which we have got success in comparison to the overall issues raised by us are surely limited, this implies that we have a long way to go. Nevertheless, it should not be too much to read from the above description that we have been able to create a small but significant dent in the system.

In Solidarity with the Cause of CSS-NS espoused by AIF-RTE.


STRUGGlE FOR COMMON SCHOOl SYSTEM A Report from Tamilnadu

Tamilnadu is known for its self - respect movement and struggle against class and caste oppression. Madras Educational Rules of 1924 provided for education through mother tongue with English as only optional language and that too from Std. 6. There was provision for free education in selected panchayats.

In 1950’s Late Shri K. Kamaraj introduced Mid Day Meal Scheme. This participatory scheme later became Chief Minister’s Nutritious Noon Meal Scheme, a Govt. Scheme, in 1982. In spite of all these developments, side by side, the Government of Tamilnadu encouraged Private schools: Few dozens of schools following Anglo Indian Matric Stream, partially aided, partially unaided, few dozens of Oriental schools mostly aided, State Board schools including aided, local body administered and Govt. Schools. Matriculation schools, fully self financed English medium schools, having four boards under state government and each having different syllabus.

I am not going into the details of how these four boards emerged. That may be discussed later. The real issue was when CSS -NS was the All India demand, in Tamilnadu, it was more complicated as the State Govt. itself having different boards thus segregating the students as - affordable section going to one type of school and less privileged going to another type of school - Matric school student and Govt. School student.

Hence, we demanded that State govt. integrate all the three boards into one. The former DMK Govt. instead of integrating the four boards, just introduced the common syllabus for all the three boards, even though it fell short of our demand

still we observed it has a step forward since, we at least have one common syllabus. And even for this we had to struggle hard. On July 14th, 2009 the cadres of SFI were brutally beaten at the gates of Fort St. George where the State legislature is housed. Only after all these struggles the Common syllabus could be achieved. In Tamilnadu after the last General election, the private school lobby took advantage of the change of Govt., influenced the govt. to do away with the common syllabus (detail study of the judgement will be self explanatory). State platform for Common School System (SPCSS), member organisation of AIF - RTE immediately took the struggle both on the streets and in the Court. The long legal battle both at High Court and Supreme Court at last restored the Common Syllabus.

SPCSS, an organisation formed in 2007,

consisting of senior educationists and educational activists, is intensifying the struggle for common school system. We, in Tamil Nadu are trying our best to bring the parents and teachers of private schools in one platform and involve them in this struggle. We are confident that we will be able make CSS - NS a popular demand, translate into a mass action with active involvement of all sections of the society. We are confident that National Council will show us the direction.

Prince Gajendra BabuState Platform for Common School System, Tamilnadu &

Member, National Executive,All India Forum for Right to Education

REPORT FROM DElHI SHIKSHA ADHIKAR MANCH The Delhi Shiksha Adhikar Manch (DSAM), a group of associations and individuals who share AIF-RTE’s goal of struggle for a public-funded egalitarian system of quality education for all of India’s children from KG to PG, has been active on a number of issues covering many aspects of the present struggle to resist the neo-liberal assault on the education system.

1. On 1st April 2010, the day the sham RTE Act began to be implemented, a well-attended protest dharna was held at Delhi’s Jantar Mantar.

2. The first four of the series of Bills to `reform’ higher education by opening it up as a tradeable commodity were brought before the Lok Sabha in May 2010. DSAM organised and participated


Madhu Prasad President, Delhi Shiksha Adhikar Manch &

Member, PresidiumAll India Forum for Right to Education

in a protest dharna outside Shastri Bhavan where MHRD is located. Members of AIF-RTE’s Presidium, Executive and Secretariat were also present. Memoranda opposing the Bills were given to the Prime Minister’s office and the Minister of HRD.

3. A Convention opposing the neo-liberal assault on higher education was held in August 2010 and the key-note address was delivered by Prof. Prabhat Patnaik of JNU. Professors G. Haragopal (University of Hyderabad), Anil Sadgopal (formerly Dean of Delhi University), Dinesh Singh (IIT Delhi) and Dr. Vijender Sharma of Delhi University also spoke at length on different aspects of the issue. A notable feature of the convention was the participation of several progressive student organisations (AISA, AISF, SFI, AIRSO, Samajwadi Yuvjan Sabha) and members of All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN). The presence of grass-roots activists was particularly encouraging.

4. The March of the All Bodo Students Union (ABSU) in early 2011 was flagged off by AIF-

RTE’s Presidum member Prof. Madhu Prasad and Secretariat members Dr. Sarwat Ali and Dr. Shaheen Ansari joined. Prof. Minati Panda addressed the gathering at Jantar Mantar.

5. On behalf of the AIF-RTE, Dr. Vikas Gupta, Prof. Madhu Prasad, Drs. Sarwat Ali and Shaheen Ansari, joined the protest demonstration at Delhi University in November 2011 to oppose the Vice-Chancellor’s role in pushing through a resolution in the Academic Council removing Ramanujan’s essay on Three Hundred Ramayanas from the History under-graduate syllabus. This was done despite the Academic Council sub-committee’s report that there were no grounds whatsoever for such removal on the grounds that the essay “offended hindu sentiments”. AIF-RTE is part of the joint action committee which continues to take this issue forward through seminars, meetings and performances.

“ What is the purpose of higher education and its faculties in light of the current assault on young people, especially since it is education that provides the intellectual foundation and values for young people to understand, interrogate and transform when necessary the world in which they live? Matters of popular consciousness, public sentiment and individual and social agency are far too important as part of larger political and educational struggle not be taken by academics who advocate the long and difficult project of democratic reform.

Prof. Henry A. Giroux“Youth Beyond the Politics of Hope”

www.truthout.org”


Andhra Pradesh Save Education Committee (APSEC), a member organization of all India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE), as is known, is building agitation for democratic education system in the Andhra Pradesh on continuous basis. Recently the organization gave a call for organizing Dharnas in all Districts of Andhra Pradesh to pressurize the government on certain educational demands on 30th September, 2011.

The call met with great success. Dharna program was successfully orgnised in 10 out of 13 districts in Andhra and Rayalaseema areas. Government School teachers, in good numbers, participated in the Sit in Demonstrations (Dharnas). Students, youth and intellectuals also participated in considerable numbers in different districts. The demonstrations were organized at District Collectors offices and

STOP COMMERCIAlIzATION PROVIDE EQUAl EDUCATION FOR All

A Report from Andhra Pradeshmemorandums addressed to the Chief Minister were handed over to the district collectors.

Now the delegations of A. P. Save Education Committee are meeting Ministers and Secretaries related to education to press the demands. Many of these demands have become popular in the state due to continuous propaganda by APSEC and its member organizations. General teachers and students in the state are raising these demands in meetings and conventions attended by ministers which build pressure on them.

On Going Programme of Agitation

1) A. P. Save Education Committee has taken up a State Wide Signature Campaign on educational demands addressed to the Chief Minister on educational demands some of which are enlisted above. The signatures will be collected from Teachers, Students and Parents in about 1000 out of 1125 Revenue Mandals. Minimum one hundered signatures will be collected from each revenue Mandal totaling about to one Lakh signatures in the state. Signature Campaign has already started in different districts and thirtieth October is the last date given to district units to complete the target. This signature campaign is taken up not only to pressurize the government to achieve some demands, but also, to mobilize strong public opinion against commercialization of education and in favor of strengthening public education system and in favor of the great goals of Common School System and all pervading public education system based on equality.

2) The state committee has also taken up a programme for review of text books from Class VI to Class X. The review of the text books is taken up to make a thorough critique of the text books on the basis of the cherished values of Democracy (which includes recognition of diversity of life of the peoples of India), Secularism and the need for development of scientific temperament in the people. The review also takes care of the creative and independent development of the child and construction of knowledge. The process is in the initial stage.

The demands included:1) Stop with multi-grade teaching in

government primary schools and provide minimum one teacher for one class.

2) Do away with para teachers and contract lecturers system and fill up all vacancies in Government Schools, Colleges and Universities.

3) Curb Drop - Out and make provisions of food, clothing, books and medical services to all students and residence to the needy students of government schools to ensure their regular participation and completion of their school education. Take care of the special needs of the disabled students.

4) Stop with self - financing system in Government Colleges and Universities and provide Grant in Aid to all self financed courses.

5) Provide attached free hostels for all Government Colleges to support poor, rural, disadvantaged students to continue their education.

6) Stop with commercialization of education and provide free and equal education to all children through Common School System up to age 18 and provide equal opportunity to all youth in higher education on the basis of social justice and merit.

7) Introduce a democratic and secular education system.

Ramesh PatanaikAndhra Pradesh Save Education Committe &

Member, SecretariatAll India Forum for Right to Education


CALL

DON’T ClOSE THE SCHOOlSThe step taken by the government to close down 3,174 government schools, on the pretext of lack of students, is grim. Children of the very poor in the villages and girls who cannot go to far away schools are the ones affected by this decision of BJP Government. Through this decision the government has denied the right of free and compulsory education to the children. After the implementation of Sarva Shikshana Abhiyan the central government is giving crores of rupees for primary education. The government of Karnataka

has failed to properly utilize this money and now has decided to close down the schools. This is condemnable. This is an inhuman decision that withholds literacy from the children of the very poor. Those who are in power don’t seem to have any knowledge of ‘poor’ and ‘rural’ India. The same government that repeats the mantra of Kannada generously gives permission to private institutions to start English medium schools in each and every lane in the name of education through mother tongue. It is clear that the BJP government is eager to handover education to the private persons, and washes its hand clean of its social responsibility. This is clearly a thing not done by any government

that works for the welfare of people.

There may be some truth in the argument that students are not enrolling in government schools. The government should think seriously and deeply why the parents are unwilling to send their children to government schools. Instead, what the government does now is akin to cutting the nose in order to cure common cold. It is true that English medium schools have become more attractive for the people these days. A strong illusion is

created that there are more job opportunities in future for children who study in English medium during their primary school days. But, e d u c a t i o n i s t s all over the world opine that children who learn through their mother tongue gain better knowledge of subjects taught. Kannada writers, like the J n a n a p e e t h a Award winners, U. R. Ananthamurthy a n d Chandrasekhar Kambar have said

the same thing. The state government is unwilling to make this fact known to the people. Even with free books and free mid-day meals why the government schools have become unattractive—serious introspection should be conducted in this regard. The quality of government schools should improve. Closure of government schools will profit the English medium private schools. If the government doesn’t have this wicked intention should reconsider its foolish decision of closing government schools.

Editorial in PrajavaniOctober 21, 2011

(Translated from Kannada)16RECONSTRUCTING EDUCATION

December 2011, Year 1, Issue 1

INTERNATIONAL

WHEN WHOlE WORlD CRIED WHYIn year 2011 whole world witnessed protest from students, teachers, workers and parents against every type of commercialization of education. Protesters with slogans- free education and equal education for all, education is not for sale- were demonstrating that in wake of ornamental clichés like- globalization, corporatization, invidual freedom, a poisonous system of inequality has been laid down in front of them. Let us take a look on these protests:

• The Government of Bangladesh introduced a new funding rule (clause 27(4)) that the “public” Jagannath University (JnU) should generate its own funds to run its activities - without being supported by the state anymore. Consequently the university is forced to look for funds elsewhere. Usually there are two potential sources: fees and private investors. Following this step by the state it is feared that semester fees are to be increased by 600%. At this stage only Jagannath University is affected. All financial support for JnU by the government should cease for by 2012. If this transformation succeeds, then two other universities are to follow by 2017. As a direct reaction thousands of students began to block roads around campus and the High Court, demanding that this new rule was scrapped again. Police was called in and began to charge protesters with batons to disperse the crowd. Demands of the students also included the recovery of university dormitories, the setting up of a library, and the increasing of transport facilities as well as the removal of a Bangladesh Bank branch office which is inside their campus.

• In Chile since the “return of democracy”, the Chilean Education System has been based on a law (LOCE), which was created by Pinochet’s economists, the “Chicago Boys”. Since then education has been totally polarized between public and private education. Therefore there is education for the rich people on one hand and different

education for the poor on the other. In 2006, a great student movement (“La Revolución Píngüina”) put an end to this law. But the political coalition called “La Concertación” (consisting of political parties ranging from the “Communist Party” to the “Christian Democratic Party”), educational corporations and right-wing parties created a new Law (LGE) that was mostly the same thing as the old one. This was a huge set-back for the student movement. Since then the political parties have been pushing back any new movement, to validate their new law.Right now, in the year 2011, most university students (2006 was a mostly public school movement) have been trying to bring back a new movement, but with the direction of the JJCC (“Juventudes Comunistas”, Communist Youth) that are part of “La Concentración”. Therefore these protests are more to be understood as a reaction to the ruling right-wing government (first one since the military coup) which they have started. The Federation of University Students of Chile (CONFECH) consists of all the student federations at each university put together (FECH, FEUSACH, etc...). There is a big discussion going on about the real representation this confederation has, because their formal demands (“petitorio”) are very different and not very clear, in comparison

INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL


with the more local discussions and demands (in general, FREE EDUCATION is the demand at the base assemblies, Meanwhile lower cost (without explaining how much) is the demand of the CONFECH). That’s how it is right now. And the movement is being slowed down. The student leaders now have a “table of discussion” with the government, same as they had in 2006 (CAP).

• The city senate of Hamburg (Germany) follows the global trend and announced cuts in education. Various people decided to do something against that. It is important to know that Hamburg is considered an autonomous federal state in Germany (one out of 16). Each federal state is in charge for its own education policies. On May 25th close to 2,000 students already took to the streets to protest tuition fees. The senate actually already announced to abolish tuition fees again towards the end of 2012, but students don’t see any reasons why they should wait any longer. One week later students at the Hamburg University for Politics and Economics (which was fused with the University of Hamburg in 2005) occupied parts of the institution and barricaded all entries to the faculty building at 11pm (May 31st). The activists released a statement shortly after ending with the words: “Radical Democracy for Free and Critical Education!”

During the latest general assembly of students (June 2nd) decided to keep squatting the building at least for another week and use it as a space for organising and offering alternative critical lectures. At this stage the occupations also have the support of lecturers, since the cuts also threaten the Institute of Economics and Social Sciences as a whole. The faculty was already heavily affected by cuts when it was fused with the University of

Hamburg.

• Teachers blocked the Nairobi-Naivasha highway in Kenya in protest against 20,000 teachers to be employed annually on contract basis instead of permanent basis. Teachers threatened to mobilize parents and pupils to join them in the streets.

“We are not going to work and we have refuted Ongeri’s claim that teachers have agreed that the government could employ teachers on contract basis. We are not ready to go to class and we are not afraid of being sacked!”

• Since August 29, student unions at universities organised emergency general meetings, and squatted more than 224 faculties Wby September 1st. Why? On August 24th new laws were passed which aim to change things on different levels: weakening the power of student groups which have been influencing university politics for decades (de-democratisation), scrapping the university asylum law (making repression easier), introducing “independent” evaluations of university academics, restricting the length of time during within which students must complete their degree, opening the doors for the introduction of tuition fees in the future (commercialisation). The overhaul puts an emphasis on business-oriented degrees to the detriment of academic disciplines less in demand by the labour market. Today thousands took to the streets in Athens to protest these changes.

Source: www.ism-global.net (retrieved on 24 October 2011)

AGENDA


StAtEmEnt CondEmning AttACk on JnU StUdEnt AT HRD MINISTER’S PRESS CONFERENCE AT RANCHI

We, the undersigned, strongly condemn the unprovoked brutal assault on JNU student and former JNUSU President Sandeep Singh at Ranchi on 24 June 2011. Press photographs of the incident testify to the fact that Sandeep Singh had been leading a peaceful demonstration of students outside the venue of a press conference by HRD Minister Kapil Sibal. At the press conference, responding to Sibal’s advocacy of privatization of education, Sandeep asked him why public funds, which could be used for education and other social needs, were flowing away in mega scams, even as the HRD Minister himself denied the scams like the 2G and oil-and-gas scam. On asking the question, he was hustled out of the hall by a group of youth strongmen present at the venue, who then proceeded to beat him and kick him with calculated brutality. Photographs that have appeared in Jharkhand papers graphically show that the beating was entirely one-sided and unprovoked.

In a democratic country, do students have no right to question the policies of the HRD Ministry – policies which affect the future of the entire generation of India’s youth? What was the gang of violent youth doing at Mr. Sibal’s press conference? In the Minister’s presence, why was this gang allowed to strong-arm a young person for the crime of asking a question? Why has Mr. Sibal failed to come up with any condemnation of this act of violence?

Scam after scam in the telecom, mining and

now oil-and-gas sectors indicate that privatization in these sectors has paved the way for an unprecedented scale of corruption. Corruption is already being seen in the education sector in the shape of donation/capitation fees etc, as a direct result of commercialization. Further privatization and commercialization as advocated by Mr. Sibal and his government will only open up the education sector too for an even larger scale corruption. Mr. Sibal, at his Ranchi press conference pleaded ‘lack of funds’ to ensure quality colleges for every student, and said that privatization wsa the only way forward. But we are bound to ask: is it not true that Ministers in this same government have facilitated huge scams through which private players have plundered the public exchequer to

the tune of lakhs of crores of rupees? If only the government could stop denying and defending this plunder, and instead put an end to it, there would surely be more than enough public funds to spare to ensure quality higher education for all?

This incident is symptomatic of the government’s

growing intolerance to any dissent, or demand for accountability or dialogue, on the part of its citizens. If a Minister allows his political supporters to indulge in outright physical suppression of a student who dares to question the government on corruption and policy matters, it bodes ill for the health of our democracy.

We expect that the HRD Minister come out with a

condemnation of the shameful act of violence, and take steps to pursue criminal charges against those who indulged in such violence.

Endorsement by some members of AIF-RTE

“I condemn the fascist attack by Congress hoodlums on former JNUSU President Sandeep Singh at Ranchi on 24 June 2011. This assault on our democratic rights is evidence of the extent of desperation the UPA government is going through while selling India to the global capital. It is becoming worse than the 1975 political emergency.”

Dr. Anil SadgopalMember, Presidium

All India Forum for Right to Education& Former Dean, Faculty of Education,

University of Delhi

“I strongly condemn the Congress Goondagardi against democracy and democratic rights of a concerned citizen.”

Dr. V. N. SharmaMember, Secretariat

All India Forum for Right to Education

The above statement was endorsed by teachers, academics, educationists and democratic voices across the country, including members of AIF-RTE.


NAPM CODEMNS COMPUlSORY TEACHING OF GEETA IN KARNATAKA GOVERNMENT SCHOOlS

New Delhi, July 21, 2011

Sri B S YeddyurappaChief MinisterState of Karnataka

Dear Yeddyurappa ji,

Quoting Vishweshwar Hegde Kageri, Karnataka’s Education Minister, there are reports in the media that “The Geeta teaching has been made compulsory in every educational institution in Karnataka and those who disagree should leave the nation”.

The above statement is in tune with the divisive reactionary politics practiced by the Sangh Parivar, and it is not the first time that such ‘advices’ have been given. This kind of divisive politics suits all communal individuals and organisations, because all of you employ religion as a cover for furtherance of the agenda of reactionary ideology and politics, and are not concerned with the spiritual liberating aspects of religions.

The reactionary politics resulted in the bifurcation of our country and mayhem at the time of independence; and communal ideology and practice has been responsible for the recurrent large scale violence, commonly known as communal riots, in independent India. Such statements shift the focus away from the uniting needs of bread and butter of the common people, and prepare climate conducive for divisive reactionary politics.

We understand that these are the tactics of the Parivar to deflect people’s attention from the malpractices of your administration, and get them embroiled in a deliberately created divisive issue of compulsory Geeta teaching. After all, for the Sangh Parivar, Geeta is not a source of spiritual inspiration, but compulsory Geeta teaching in schools is a ploy to propagate reactionary ideology and politics.

NAPM condemns any such move and urge you to withdraw such circular and respect the secular and democratic ethos of the Indian Constitution.

Medha Patkar,Sandeep Pandey,

Faisal khan, Sister Celia,

Maj.Gen. (Retd) Sudhir Vombatkere, Gabriele Dietrich,

B Ramakrishna Raju, Sarasvaty Kavula,

Anand Mazgaonkar, Madhuresh Kumar

‘RAMAYANAS’ EXIlED FROM DElHI UNIVERSITYThe All India Forum for the Right to Education (AIF-RTE) is alarmed and shocked by the recent case of an erudite, well-researched essay by A.K. Ramanujan being removed from the reading list of the con-current course offered by the History Department for under-graduate students at the prestigious Delhi University. The essay, entitled “Three Hundred Ramayanas: Five Examples and Three Thoughts on Translation”, has been withdrawn on the grounds that it has “hurt the sentiments of Hindus”. The academic merit of the essay has never been in question as it has been widely recognized by historians and other academicians. This makes it even more atrocious that it should have removed through a resolution of the University’s Academic Council and that only nine members of the Council opposed the resolution. The abolition of the essay from the history curriculum amounts to negation of the very idea of cohesive India with diversity that emerged from our freedom struggle and was enshrined in the Constitution.

The facts leading up to this shameful conclusion, however, make it clear that this is no `innocent’ academic affair. The issue first came up in 2008 when lumpen elements unleashed by religious fundamentalist forces affiliated to the BJP’s student organization, the Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), attacked the office of the Head of the History Department. The office was vandalized and the then Head of the department fortunately escaped the assault. Although the History Department and other members of the academic community strongly condemned the attack as being both fascist and anti-academic in nature, the BJP and the rest of the Hindutva brigade vociferously supported the action. The University authorities failed to act decisively against the attackers and to send a clear signal to those supporting them that such vigilante attacks in one of the premier institutions of higher education in the country would not be tolerated.

Unable to drum up support within the University community, the Hindutva brigade then approached the Delhi High Court with the `hurt sentiments’ plea. The Supreme Court took up the case and in

its ruling asserted that academic issues should be settled within the University and an expert committee should go into the matter. Accordingly a four-member committee took up the matter and submitted a report to the Vice-Chancellor. Three of the four members dismissed the argument of hurting sentiments as frivolous and with no evidence to support it. In fact they emphasized the fact that the demand for dropping the text from the reading list was contrary to academic concerns and, if acceded to, would be damaging to the University’s character and functioning as an academic institution. Only one member apparently claimed that 2nd year students would not be able `to cope’ with the text and teachers may have difficulty in teaching it!

This is a common, unsubstantiated opinion frequently doled out when attempts to improve, upgrade or alter syllabi, are made. The academic community and the authorities deal with such complaints in the routine course. So what made the present case so different? Why was an erudite text on the varied interpretations of the Ram katha across centuries, different regions and cultures, targeted in this fashion, and why did the members of the Academic Council buckle down before this threat?

The academic community and democratic forces across the country must urgently take up the battle against all attempts to curtail freedom of expression which threaten our democratic, plural society and seek to keep our academic enquiry within the confines of narrow conformism. In particular, we have to stand up against the fascist brigades of the majoritarian Hindutva forces who grow more strident every time they are allowed to `get away with it’ and are not held accountable for violating both Constitutional and democratic norms. They represent the biggest threat to the plural culture and polity of India without which no academic debate and no civilized society can possibly survive.

All India Forum for Right to Education


Press Release/ 23 Oct., 2011


nEo-LiBERAL ASSAULt in JAmmU & kASHmiRThe 3-member team of the All INDIA FORUM

FOR RIGHT TO EDUCATION (AIF-RTE) drawn from Madhya Pradesh, Uttarakhand and Delhi on a visit to Jammu University campus earlier this week participated in a Seminar on “New Recruitment Policy, Education and Globalisation” organized by the Progressive Students Association (PSA). After holding wide-ranging discussions in the city and visiting schools in the surrounding rural areas, the AIF-RTE team expresses its deep shock at the anti-Constitutional, anti-youth and anti-education character of the New Recruitment Policy recently declared by the Government of Jammu & Kashmir. The state government’s decision to deny regular pay scales to the new recruits in various non-gazetted cadres w.e.f. November 1, 2011 shall amount to 5 to 6-fold lower salaries than the present ones. Expectedly, in a state where the government employment constitutes the major source of livelihood for educated youth, the government is facing increasing popular resistance from various sections of students and youth.

The new policy violates the established Constitutional principle of ‘equal wages for equal work’ under Article 14 and 15 (1) of the Constitution. Further, the Table of fixed monthly salaries issued by the state government reveals that the new recruits under the first two pay bands shall be paid less than even the Minimum Wages notified by the government itself. This clearly violates the Minimum Wages Act and also Articles 41 (Right to Work) and 43 (Living Wages with decent standard of life, leisure and social & cultural opportunities) read in conjunction with Article 21 (Right to Life with dignity).

What renders the New Recruitment Policy anti-education also is the fact that it will significantly downgrade the emoluments of the teaching and non-teaching staff as well at both school and college-university levels, thereby demotivating qualified youth from joining educational services. In this sense, the new policy extends the World Bank-promoted ongoing frivolous Rahabar-e-Talim (Para Teachers) scheme across all educational levels which is bound to worsen the quality of teaching in increasingly discredited government institutions. Consequently, the pace of privatization and commercialization of education

shall further accelerate, as mandated by the World Bank.

Clearly, the aforesaid recruitment policy is designed to promote profiteering of the upcoming corporate sector by decreasing the bargaining power of the state’s youth by a factor of almost 5 to 6-fold. This will be in accordance with the World Bank-dictate under its Structural Adjustment Programme imposed on Indian economy leading to further impoverishment, inequality and discrimination in the state.

The AIF-RTE team is equally disturbed at seeing how the state government is blatantly pushing the corporate agenda of crass commercialisation in higher education by initiating a series of self-financing courses even in public-funded colleges and universities, including Jammu University. In its paper entitled, ‘Achievements of Higher Education Department for 2009-10’, the state government admits that in order to “boost the private sector 74 NOCs in respect of MBA, MCA, BCA, BBA, PGDCA courses have been issued to various Societies/ Trusts”. This implies that the youth from low-income groups will be denied equal opportunities to access higher education and thus be excluded from participation in the state’s economy.

We also deplore the flimsy alibi offered by Hon’ble Chief Minister that the New Recruitment Policy will enable his government to offer jobs to more people, while camouflaging his real agenda of decreasing the role of the government sector in favour of the corporate sector. Is the Hon’ble Chief Minister expecting the youth to accept such demeaning fixed monthly salaries which are lower than the Minimum Wages? The hidden agenda of the policy is to force the educated youth to shift to the profit-hungry corporate sector with 5 to 6-fold reduced bargaining power! This is precisely why the state government has conducted repeated rounds of arrests of the students and youth protesting its aforesaid policy, slapped false charges on them and unleashed a regime of repression. To make matters worse, during our stay in Jammu earlier this week, a group of lumpen youth aligned with the ruling coalition physically assaulted Progressive Students Association (PSA) members conducting silent protest at the university campus, while the

Press Release/ 19 Nov., 2011


The following somewhat humorous but scary prediction was made at the peak of the euphoria sorrounding former U.S. President Clinton’s visit to India in early 2000. Unfortunately, what was probably humorous ten years ago is fast become a reality today!

Year 2010. The ultramodern campus of the newly established ‘Bill Clinton International University’ near Delhi. Two women students meet. One calls out to the other, ‘Come, let us go somewhere and relax’. The other student says, ‘I have a packed day today. In the first period, there is Unilever practical in the Coca- Cola Physics Lab; in the second period, there is the Proctor & Gambles session on Western Dance Appreciation in the Pepsi Theatre; this will be followed by the Suzuki Lecture on Information Technology in the Microsoft Auditorium. And then the recess. Come, let us meet in the Kentucky Chicken Canteen in the Union Carbide Square.

“

”Excerpted and translated from Dr. Anil Sadgopal,

‘Shiksha Mein Badlaav ka Sawaal’, Granth Shilpi, Delhi, 2000, p. 257

Dr. Anil Sadgopal, BhopalMember, PresidiumAll India Forum for Right to Education& former Dean, Faculty of Education, University of Delhi

Sh. Trepan Singh ChauhanMember, National ExecutiveAll India Forum for Right to Education &Leader, Chetna Andolan, Uttarakhand

Ms. Rakhi GuptaDelhi Shiksha Adhikar Manch, Delhi

System based on Neighbourhood schools, governed in a decentralized, participative and democratic mode, is instituted within a time-bound frame.

4. The present policy of pushing self-financing courses is replaced by a new policy of promoting fully public-funded advanced technical and vocational courses such that even the poorest of the state’s youth can move forward.

5. The ruthless repression unleashed on the students and youth, protesting against the New Recruitment Policy and demanding a responsible public-funded education system of equitable quality, is stopped forthwith and their civil liberties and democratic rights restored under Articles 19 (1) and 21 of the Constitution.

university authorities looked away.

During its visit to rural schools, we were dismayed to note the lackadaisical quality of teaching and low levels of achievements in various subjects, especially languages, science and mathematics, apart from dismal the state of laboratories and libraries. We further noted that less than 10% of the children entering Class I are able to cross Class XII; this excludes those who never enter schools at all like those of the Bakharwal and other nomadic tribes. Thus more than 90% of the children are denied access to higher education.

The AIF-RTE team, therefore, demands from the Government of Jammu & Kashmir that,

1. The New Recruitment Policy is withdrawn unconditionally forthwith and is replaced by a New Employment and Livelihood Policy in accordance with the Constitution.

2. A New Education Policy is instituted such that all children, including those of the nomadic tribes (e.g. Bakharwals), are guaranteed free education of equitable quality up to Class XII and enabled to have equal opportunity to access higher education courses under Articles 14 and 15 (1) along with social justice under Article 16 of the Constitution.

3. A fully public-funded Common School

Questions From a Worker Who Reads-Bertolt Brecht

Who built Thebes of the seven gates ?In the books you will read the names of kings.

Did the kings haul up the lumps of rock ?And Babylon, many times demolished,

Who raised it up so many times ?In what houses of gold glittering Lima did its

builders live ?Where, the evening that the Great Wall of China

was finished, did the masons go?Great Rome is full of triumphal arches.

Who erected them ?Over whom did the Caesars triumph ?

Had Byzantium, much praised in song, only palaces for its inhabitants ?

Even in fabled Atlantis, the night that the ocean engulfed it,

The drowning still cried out for their slaves.The young Alexander conquered India.

Was he alone ?Caesar defeated the Gauls.

Did he not even have a cook with him ?Philip of Spain wept when his armada went down.

Was he the only one to weep ?Frederick the second won the seven Years War.

Who else won it ?Every page a victory.

Who cooked the feast for the victors ?Every ten years a great man.

Who paid the bill ?So many reports.

So many questions.

Published by Dr. V. N. Sharma, A-100, SAIL Satellite Township, Ranchi 834004, Jharkhand. Printed by Rajkamal Offset Printers, J. K. Road, Govindpura, Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh.

AIF-RTE English Newsletter Reconstructing Education December 2011

Documents

Transcript of AIF-RTE English Newsletter Reconstructing Education December 2011