How India’s scientific babudom hampers the healthy growth of science

 

We have, on the basis of past interactions on multiple occasions with them, strongly critiqued some among the Indian academic bureaucracy, calling "bureaucracy-entrenched government scientific bodies" (or quasi-government institutions) some of Indian science's biggest enemies in some cases. As a post-colonial theorist, anthropologist, and founder of the Institute for the Study of the Globalisation of Science (ISGOS), we have argued that the administrative and systemic frameworks of Indian academia stifle independent thought, innovation, and objective progress. Our specific assertions and criticisms of Indian academic bureaucracy center around the following pillars:

 

Persistence of a Colonial Clerk Mentality: We have pointed out that India's education and academic systems were originally designed during the British era to produce compliant clerks for the East India Company. We have asserted, based on our interactions that the modern academic bureaucracy continues this legacy, prioritizing rigid administrative compliance over innovation, creativity, and structural intellectualism. Therefore, a generational change and transformation may be required in some cases, and future generations of bureaucrats in India’s scientific establishments must not fall into the same rut, but must instead pursue ideologically neutral pursuits.

 

Ideology-Driven Gatekeeping: We have criticized institutional gatekeepers for allowing academic circles to be dominated by political and ideological agendas rather than "ideology-free science". We have primarily positioned bureaucracy as a vehicle that perpetuates a "ding-dong battle" between factions like academic Marxists, Dravidian nationalists, and Hindutva groups, which ultimately leaves very few Indian thinkers capable of independent analysis. We have also argued that ideology drags down the quality of intellectual enterprise badly, and hampers and stymies the progress of science too. For example many Marxist historians have perpetrated colonial paradigms, have supported ideologies such as Dravidian nationalism, and this has led to a reactionary right in most cases. The presence of ideology-drenched “scholarship” means that objective thought is often not encouraged, and such scholarship leads to situations where individuals become less and less of scholars and more and more of campaigners of an often obsolete ideology The interests of science, society and the education system are scarcely borne in mind. Many bureaucrats therefore, think, function, act and behave as bureaucrats, and do not have a temperament conducive to be scientists, or take up the cause of Indian science to any degree. Again, a generational shift, and a generational transformation is required.  Even some government bodies for example, charge for publications to be uploaded on their site. What paltry sums of money are they after? Does this not stifle science?

 

Suppression of Openness and Careerism: We have also additionally argued that the highly bureaucratized structure fosters institutional careerism. This makes entrenched researchers highly resistant to data-driven corrections, cross-disciplinary sharing, and independent and non-subjective critiques. Additionally and most unfortunately, this also leads to a fossilization and ossification of intellectual thought, ensuring that science does not progress, and that intellectualism is limited and highly flawed.

 

Failure to Decolonize Knowledge: We have often highlighted a strange and rather bizarre paradox where many mainstream Western researchers often assist in decolonizing scientific frameworks, while India's own state-backed academic bureaucracy actively resists structural change and scientific globalization, preferring to preserve the status quo. We had written to a major Indian scientific institution on the need to decolonize and modernize social sciences, and they reacted in a most absurd and foolish and absurd kind of way, calling it “sloganeering”. In many cases, the cloaks that they don are a mere sham. Instances such as these should alone serve as a wake up call. Maybe, criticism can move things a bit.

 

In sum, and to recapitulate and reiterate, a major lamentable fact is that even Indian scientists, researchers and thinkers are very weak in foundational science, scientific method, and the philosophy of science; this is because the India education system emphasizes rote learning, and was initially designed to produce clerks for the British East India Company. We have also observed through our various interactions that the Indian scientific establishment is still stuck in very old ways, and is ill-prepared to meet the challenges of the twenty-first century. They are extremely conservative and bureaucratic to boot, steeped and entrenched in ideology. This is what is known as scientific babudom or intellectual babudom- their mindset dates back to the pre-1991 pre-liberalization era. They appear in a way to be the last holdout of that era, even though counter ideologies such as Hindutva and Dravidian nationalism also persist as evidenced by the publications of the Frontline magazine. The right wing is dangerous too, and as such it mostly falls outside the scope and boundaries of legitimate and bonafide academic and scholarly debate. The author does not wish to reveal the names of the Indian government departments at this state, but truth be told, an overwhelmingly vast majority of them are ill-suited or unfit to be scientists only bureaucrats. Thus, everything needs to change from the grounds up. They may need a Pererstroika and a Glasnost – of course all assertions need to be backed up by raw and hard data as there may be different types of people involved, and different types of forces at play. This is necessary if the American research ecosystem is to be replicated elsewhere, India included. India is in no way ready for a giant or a gigantic leap in science yet, as we need a complete overhaul of research infrastructure. Ideology-driven proponents cannot generate, foster or create a culture of objectivity; they only willy nilly generate a culture of non-objectivity. In short, we do not have a culture of science as yet, and have still some more distance to tread.

 

That is why we had proposed several other approaches to promote science in India and other developing countries – read our multiple papers and publications such as “ Countering ideology in science: How ideology drenched science automatically perpetuates different kinds of vested interests and conflicts of interest”,” Fostering a “culture of science” in India and other developing countries: Towards intellectual revolutions in India and other developing countries”, “Combating extreme ideology and dogma in science: Towards scientific activism and proactive approaches in nurturing ideology-free science”, and “ Replicating the success of the American research ecosystem everywhere: Towards quantum advancements of science in the developing world” among a couple of others. We have also written extensively on twenty-first century intellectualism, and have shown that academic Marxism is utterly obsolete besides being of course one-sided, limited and flawed.   It is therefore already on its last legs, and cannot survive beyond a generation or two. To counter these bureaucratic limitations, we have advocated for an "Indian Enlightenment" besides renaissances and enlightenments in other developing countries. We have argued for more private investments in science, overhaul of educational systems, (we have written extensively on pedagogical reform, and had dedicated several papers and publications to this cause) and horizontal collaboration between developing countries in science. We have argued for pushing systemic overhauls through our movements, such as the Movement for Open, Transparent, High-quality, and Ideology-free Science (MOTHIS), and have called for multi-staged and decentralized peer reviews to bypass traditional institutional gatekeepers. In addition to traditional peer-reviews, multi-staged post-publication reviews would also be necessary.

 

We must emphasize Indian languages too along with English

 After India won its independence from the British in 1947 after a long struggle, the leaders of the newly-born Indian nation felt a need to unite the many linguistically-diverse regions of India with a common, universal language. Mahatma Gandhi felt that a common language was one for the pre requisites for the emergence of India as a united nation. He laid out five key requirements for any language to be accepted as the national language: 1. It should be easy to learn for government officials. 2. It should be capable of serving as a medium of religious, economic, and political intercourse throughout India. 3. It should be the speech of the majority of the inhabitants of India. 4. It should be easy to learn for the whole of the country. 5. In choosing this language, considerations of temporary or passing interests should not count. Mahatma Gandhi’s thoughts on the question of national language date back to as early as 1906, when Mahatma Gandhi wrote in his book Hind Swaraj or Home Rule, that the national language should be Hindi with the option to use both the Nagari and the Persian characters to foster Hindu-Muslim unity. Mahatma Gandhi also supported Hindusthani at times as a tool of integration between Muslims and Hindus, and many of his later speeches and writings favoured Hindusthani over Hindi. This position was also supported by the 1928 Motilal Nehru report. Mahatma Gandhi also often emphasized the importance of provincial languages, and the seeds for linguistic provinces were sown in the early 20th century itself. For example, the Indian National Congress in 1917 decided to constitute a separate Andhra Congress Provincial committee, and a consensus was also slowly emerging that administration had to be provided in a language that was understood by its people. In spite of a potential conflict between Hindi or Hindusthani as a national language and the concept of linguistic provinces, however, the Congress, at that time naturally wanted to avoid partition and show that it was not opposed to the interests of the Muslims, and emphasized religious harmony over linguistic identity. As English was widely seen to be a symbol of oppression and slavery, Mahatma Gandhi and most others only favoured a limited use of English in fields such as scientific endeavour, diplomacy and international trade, and most certainly not at the expense of Indian languages. Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders of India’s freedom movement were critical about the role of English in India, claiming it lead to intoxication, subordination of national interests, distortion of cultural values, denationalization, a stifling of innovative and creative thinking and a slavish mentality.

Mahatma Gandhi also blamed English for the lower level of competence achieved in other subjects. He claimed, for example, that had he been taught in Gujarati, he would have learnt Euclid’s theorems in half the time. After Partition, the support for Hindusthani declined drastically, and there were moves to purge Hindi of Persian loan words and emphasize its Sanskrit vocabulary. Hindi zealots also appear to have profited immensely from Gandhi’s avowed preference for Hindi or Hindusthani over English, and Hindi nationalists such as Purushottam Das Tandon, Seth Govind Das, R V Dhulekar, Babunath Gupta and Ram Manohar Lohia fought heroically in favour of Hindi, often adopting dogmatic positions over consensus-driven approaches, and as American scholar and expert of the Indian constitution late Granville Austin observed, at times creating deep schisms in the parliament and even going to the extent of imperilling India’s national unity. Among all the anecdotes that would serve to illustrate the above, none has perhaps become more firmly etched in the minds of people than this: On the 10th of December 1946, R. V. Dhulekar of the United Provinces moved an amendment and began speaking in Hindustani. The Chairman then reminded him that many members did not know the language. This was Dhulekar’s reply: “People who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India. People who are present in this House to fashion a Constitution for India and do not know Hindustani are not worthy to be members of this Assembly. They had better leave”. The remarks created a commotion in the House. “Order, order!”, yelled the Chairman, but Dhulekar then moved that the Procedure Committee should frame rules in Hindustani and not in English. “As an Indian I appeal that we, who are out to win freedom for our country and are fighting for it should think and speak in our own language (in singular form). We have all along been talking of America, Japan, Germany, Switzerland and House of Commons. It has given me a headache. I wonder why Indians do not speak in their own language (again, in singular form). As an Indian I feel that the proceedings of the House should be conducted in Hindustani. We are not concerned with the history of the world. We have the history of our own country of millions of past years. I request you to allow me to move my amendment.” The Chairman: Order, order! I do not permit you to proceed further. The House is with me that you are out of order.’

After much deliberation and consternation in some circles, the Indian constitution, in 1950, declared that Hindi in the Devanagari script would be the official language of the union. International numerals would however be used. Unless Parliament decided otherwise, the use of English for official purposes was to cease 15 years after the constitution came into effect, i.e., on 26 January 1965. The union government took many steps to promote Hindi with great zest and zeal. The Indian government either set up new institutions or strengthened many associations such as the Dakshin Bharat Hindi Prachar Sabha which already existed at the time of independence to promote Hindi throughout India, even as Nehru and others insisted that Hindi would never be imposed on non-Hindi speaking peoples. The government also funded writers, poets, and translators to produce works in Hindi. Committees were formed to develop Hindi in order to give it a more comprehensive vocabulary which would allow it to discharge its official functions which much greater ease and efficiency. Even though Hindi was clearly the preferred choice in political circles, there were many blocks to its achieving success as the national language. One of these was the high position of English-a position it has retained until today despite the plan to phase it out of all government communications by 1965. However, because of English’s importance internationally and the many advantages conferred upon those who could speak it, the study of English continued with even greater vigour than before, whereas the study of Hindi was neglected in many regions where people felt very little or no need for it. This ensured that a large section of the educated workforce who joined government services needed to use more of English than Hindi in doing their jobs. Accordingly, English has not only shared its position as an official language with Hindi but has also relegated Hindi to second-class status. Interestingly, both English and other Indian languages have proven to be the biggest roadblocks in Hindi’s quest for unbridled supremacy, and many have all along opined that English and other Indian languages should formally share Hindi’s role as an official language of the Central Government. In a nation of mind-boggling diversity such as India, this was probably sine qua non.

Another thorn in the flesh for the hegemony of Hindi was the formation of linguistic states. While the idea of linguistic states predated independence, the movement for linguistic states got a fresh impetus in the 1950’s, and speakers of Marathi, Kannada, Oriya and later Gujarati wanted their own states. However, the strongest demand for linguistic states came from Andhra Pradesh where Potti Srirmulu, a long time disciple of Gandhi fasted unto death and became a martyr for linguistic states. This led to the division of India on linguistic lines, and naturally weakening the case for Hindi further. Interestingly, no attempts appear to have been made to re-examine the language policy in the light of the formation of linguistic states. Supporters of Hindi also never appear to have understood the role of trade, commerce, industry and the private sector in both directly and indirectly espousing the cause of English, and all their efforts were bereft and devoid of vision and clarity and were doomed to end in failure. Sometime in early 1965, when the associate official status of English was due to end, attempts were made to impose Hindi by brute force in Tamil Nadu, sparking widespread protests in the state. This was not the first time there were Anti-Hindi agitations in Tamil Nadu. The Tamils had been protesting the proposed national language policy since the 1930’s, and were often joined by smaller groups of people from the West, East and other parts of South India, and opposition to India’s proposed language policy in Tamil Nadu was almost universal. Although British divide-and-rule techniques and outdated historical models may have played a role in dividing North and South, as well as other cultural differences, it was clear that India’s proposed language policies would be highly discriminatory against Tamils and other non-Hindi speakers.

Firstly, it would require the students of some states to learn three languages while others could get away by learning two. Secondly, Hindi-speakers in the Hindi speaking states would learn it as their native language, while others would learn it as a foreign one. Thirdly, Hindi speakers in Hindi-speaking states would learn Hindi as a first language, while others would learn it as a second language. Within a few years, this kind of a policy would enable the native speakers of one language to take over the job market through unfair and unethical methods. Even Rajagopalachari, who had earlier espoused the cause of Hindi, had changed his stand in due course, and became an opponent of the language policy. In 1967, the DMK won the election in Tamil Nadu on the plank of India’s alleged discriminatory language policy. The Union Government was then left with no other option but to permit the use of English in the workings of the central government and in inter-state communication indefinitely. This naturally dismayed Hindi zealots, many of whom had worked hard, for example, to ensure that examinations like All India Civil Services Examinations would not be conducted in any language other than Hindi, and many of them saw it as treachery and betrayal.

The Angrezi Hatao Andolan or the Banish English campaign was a very strong and emotive movement in the early years of independent India; key leaders of the movement were Ram Manohar Lohia and Atal Behari Vajpayee and cities like Allahabad and Lucknow were eminent centres of the movement. This very significant movement to banish English was launched by Ram anohar Lohia in April 1957. As the country had gained independence from the British the English language was considered passé and a symbol of a bygone era and had to be phased out as quickly as possible keeping in mind the provisions of the constitution which favoured phasing out of English by 1965. By all accounts, this movement was a failure as it strongly reeked of parochialism, and came to be decried as Hindi imperialism- it had few if any supporters in the West and East, and had virtually no supporters in the South. This led the Hindi speaking belt to retreat into some kind of a cultural cul de sac. For example, Karpoori Thakur banished English as a mandatory subject in Bihar to help students hailing from or belonging to rural areas, and 1982, the left government in West Bengal did the same in their state too. Nowadays it is very difficult to imagine surviving without a minimal knowledge of English. It has not only become the tool and weapon of globalization, but is a practical neutral lik language in a polyglot nation like India unlike Sanskrit which is most probably non-implementable and non-communicable. Of course, the principles of language dynamics must be borne in mind at all times as a vital and a very significant guiding force,

However, the learning of English did greatly suffer and stagnate in the 1970’s due to India’s inward looking and autarchic policies and the thrust given by governments of both Hindi and non Hindi states to Hindi or their own respective languages. Some states like West Bengal took much more myopic and ill-conceived stands: not only was Hindi never taught, but the learning of English was effectively abolished at the elementary school level, only to be reintroduced many years later. In late 1984, Indira Gandhi was assassinated and the baton passed on to her son Rajiv Gandhi. Although his tenure as Prime Minister was short, the changes he brought in proved to be irrevocable, and the reforms he ushered in were continued by his successors across political parties. Globalization and liberalisation, besides the ubiquity and pervasiveness of English on cyberspace, have made English a window to the world, and interest in English has since increased by leaps and bounds, and has entrenched itself more than ever before in India’s history. However, India’s language policy is still perceived to be illogical and differences of opinion continue to surface from time to time between the central government and the states and between politicians belonging to various political parties. A minor agitation also took place in Tamil Nadu in 1986 against the opening of Navodaya schools in the state where Hindi would be mandatory, and in 2014, minor protests erupted as a result of the Modi governments Hindi push. In February 2015, India’s HRD minister Ms Smriti Irani hailed India’s linguistic diversity and seemed to acknowledge not only the fact that politically-driven attempts to homogenize India’s diverse cultures would come to naught, but also seemed to agree that there was no option but to celebrate India’s cultural and linguistic diversity. Speaking in a conference in Chennai, she said “Multilingualism in our nation extends back to several millennia. This multilingualism is an asset, a heritage we have inherited, and is in fact a resource we deeply cherish. There are more than thousand mother tongues spoken in our country. This is not just a number but a reason to be proud of.”

We have written extensively on linguistics and language dynamics, and this encompasses at least half a dozen core papers. Readers are requested to go through them as such. Planners must also naturally bear the principles we had enshrined in these papers in mind at all times. We had also written about the need to develop Indian and other non-dominant languages lexically (including technical guidelines for this). We had proposed a large number of practical and pragmatic guidelines for this. We had also developed the concept of linguistic skills, capabilities and performance, along with non- linguistic skills, capabilities and performance i.e. the theory of linguistic expectation, and the theory of non-linguistic expectation. Both are important to some degree, and their relative importance would naturally vary based on the job type besides several other factors including cultural and social ones i.e contextual ones. Even among those who study in Hindi/Telugu/Tamil medium schools, some go on to learn and speak English later in life. However, most do so only in their late 20s, and early 30s, and depending on the circumstances they are in in, and not as children. Also most learn technical words easily, and are unfamiliar with words used in English literature and poetry. But who cares? A majority of professions require functional, business and technical English mainly. Children also tend to express themselves much more clearly, lucidly, and eloquently in their early years, with English proficiency not being achieved till adulthood. In the age of the internet, advanced word processors, and AI-based translation tools, translation is easier than ever before, and many jobs emphasize technical and managerial skills too. The Author performed a study on this in 2018. Many people who study in their mother tongue tend to be technically strong. But there can never be a one size fits all bill. India is a very diverse country. That is why grounds up and data-driven assessments are also important, i.e. context-based ones, and the principles of sociolinguistics must also be borne in mind. As a crude rule of thumb, English and the mother tongue must be given maximum importance, or with the language of the state in some cases. A third Indian language or a foreign langue can come later, if at all they are required. At the same time, linguistics and various subfields of linguistics must evolve and mature with the times, and incorporate a wide variety and plethora of social and cultural perspectives from different parts of the world. The automation of education, and the use of AI in education can also be explored and expanded as and when technology improves and advances, while retaining a human touch. Functionalism is education must be pursued aggressively, and the unnecessary flab weeded out. It is also not possible to prevent children from being enrolled in English medium schools – in some contexts, they simply do not produce the right kind of results, This is also because in a vast majority of cases, particularly in rural regions, the teachers themselves barely know any English, and the students end up learning neither their own mother tongue, English, nor a third language like Hindi (some teachers in Rajasthan and UP put in their papers saying they were unable to teach in English- but government and vernacular schools can be made as attractive as possible. As such, readers are requested to read our various papers not only in linguistics, but on various aspects and facets of the globalization of science as well, particularly for the social sciences, which must become one of the foundational pillars for the twenty-first century.  Also, along with the lexical development of Indian and other non-dominant languages on the lines that Malaysia and Indonesia have done, other aspects must be promoted; for example, scientific journals could be promoted in various Indian languages. A judicious mix of English and Indian languages can also add to the gross national product. Of course, and as we had already stated multiple times in the past, the nexus between linguistic capability and economic performance also needs to be probed and deeply and thoroughly investigated by linguists and social and cultural anthropologists. 

Why "Limits to knowledge" must become a central tenet of epistemology

 “We demand rigidly defined areas of doubt and uncertainty!” ― Douglas Adams, The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy

“I think it’s much more interesting to live not knowing than to have answers which might be wrong. I have approximate answers and possible beliefs and different degrees of uncertainty about different things, but I am not absolutely sure of anything and there are many things I don’t know anything about, such as whether it means anything to ask why we’re here. I don’t have to know an answer. I don’t feel frightened not knowing things, by being lost in a mysterious universe without any purpose, which is the way it really is as far as I can tell.” ― Richard P. Feynman

The core and primary reason for the authorship of this article is that practitioners of science do not often bear the concept of limits to knowledge in mind, and there is often a sense of hubris prevalent among practioners of science, most notably in various fields of social sciences, where scholars are ageing, and caught in a Eurocentric mould and warp, along with a high degree of skeptopathy leading to an excessive and unjustified feeling of infallibility. This is often tied to Eurocentrism as well, and our globalization of science movement hopes to yield more capacious interpretations of scientific concepts in the long term, particularly in the social sciences. This is of course not in the interests of science, and we believe that intellectual humility can lead to faster scientific progress, and can light and shine forth the torch of objectivity and rigour. Knowledge may be defined as an awareness, understanding, or information about a subject gained through learning, study, or experience. In philosophy, and it is often described as a justified true belief, which is a epistemological definition of thee term. Epistemology is a field which accomplishes the formal study of knowledge, focusing on its nature, origin, and limits in many cases, along with a study of truth propositions. The term epistemology is derived from two Greek words, namely “episteme”, which connotes knowledge, and “logos”, which means a formal field of investigation or study. There are foundational and empirical limits to knowledge, and we will discuss these briefly in this article.

Hubris has accelerated noticeably over the past couple of centuries, particularly after the dawn of the industrial and scientific revolution, torched by genuine and bonafide human achievements and progress. This has become particularly visible in the twentieth century, as technological progress accelerated rapidly. A lot more work need to be done on the limits to knowledge, and the concept must become much more tightly interwoven much more tightly into epistemology itself. We believe that this is a major weakness at present, and one reason for this is that researchers themselves are wary of immersing themselves in this issue. A formal and a comprehensive study of a large number of case studies can become a useful trigger or a starting point, and that is why we discuss a couple of them in this article. As such, we invite a large number of other independent scholars and thinkers to contribute their insights to this vital and crucial, yet sadly neglected field. Epistemology and the philosophy of science also must form a part and parcel of the globalization of science movement as the context of knowledge is studied much more foundationally and deeply, given the fact that much of intellectualism has been birthed and gestated based on the ground realities and experiences of the west. That at least has been our firm and unshakable belief over the past several years

What is knowledge?

Let us begin this article by defining what knowledge is. Knowledge in general terms, may be defined as the awareness, understanding, or information about a subject matter or a particular event (or a course of events that take place over time) that a person gains either through practical experience or practical education. Knowledge therefore encompasses both theoretical and practical understanding of an issue or a matter at hand. In the realm of philosophy, the study of knowledge is referred to epistemology. Therefore, as per the principles of epistemology, knowledge is defined as “justified true belief”. This definition is sometimes attributed to the ancient Greek thinker Plato In the dialogue Theaetetus, though it has been expanded upon, and derived ever since. However, in modern and in contemporary times, Edmund Gettier critiqued this concept, and proposed the Gettier case in this regard. By belief, we mean that the individual or person must believe the proposition to be true. By truth we mean that the belief must be true, and not false. By justification we mean that the individual must have a good reason or valid evidence for the belief, such as experience, memory, or logical reasoning

Knowledge can be categorized into several distinct types and classes. For example, propositional knowledge (or knowledge-that) refers to theoretical knowledge about facts and truths that can be expressed in declarative sentences. On the other hand, procedural knowledge (which is also known as knowledge-how refers to practical skills or abilities. Thirdly, knowledge by acquaintance refers to familiarity with a person, place, or thing gained through direct acquaintance or a rendezvous. Knowledge may also be classified into explicit knowledge and tacit knowledge. Explicit knowledge refers to knowledge that is easily articulated, documented, and shared while tacit knowledge (less commonly referred to as implicit knowledge) refers to knowledge that is difficult to formalize, articulate, or share, often gained through extensive personal experience and long and tedious hours of practice. Knowledge is typically acquired through many different means and mechanisms, such as sensory perception, deep-rooted cogitation, reflection, and introspection, long-term and short-term memory, inference, direct and indirect testimony, wisdom, witness, direct experience as in the case of experiential knowledge, and formal education. Knowledge is the very basis and foundation for modern society, and scientific progress. We would all be nothing without it.

What is epistemology?

Epistemology is a very important branch of philosophy that studies knowledge, focusing on its nature, origin, and limits. The word is thought to originate from the Greek words episteme (which means knowledge) and logos (which means reason or study). This important field of study analyzes how knowledge is acquired and what makes a belief true instead of false. In Epistemology, knowledge is traditionally defined as justified true belief. In other words, in order to possess knowledge of a proposition, a person must believe it, it must be true, and the person must have adequate justification or a rational reason for holding that belief. The history of epistemology connotes the formalized philosophical study of knowledge production mechanisms across different eras and cultures, beginning from ancient Greek investigations into the nature of truth to more modern comprehensive debates that formally include science, logic, and social and cultural dynamics. The ancient Greek thinker Aristotle, building on Plato’s early ruminations and introspections on the topic of knowledge, emphasized empirical observation and abstraction that was derived from experience.

During the Middle Ages, epistemology probed and investigated the complex and multifaceted relationship between faith and reason with thinkers such as Augustine of Hippo and Thomas Aquinas making important contributions. We also then had empirical and rational schools of thought. Rationalism, of logic and reasoning independent of past experience, or experiential knowledge was heavily promoted by thinkers of the likes of Rene Descartes, Gottfried Leibniz, and Baruch Spinoza in the immediate pre-modern era. On the other hand, John Locke, George Berkeley, and David Hume, advocated for empiricism or experiential knowledge. In all probability, the two cannot be mutually exclusive and build upon and complement each other in the manner proposed by Immanuel Kant in his work, critique of pure reason. We would likely do similarly otherwise, and we have also developed concepts such as that of fuzzy logic for the social sciences, and variable logic. Of late, new subfields such as analytic epistemology, naturalized epistemology, and social and formal epistemology, and the field as such remains highly vibrant and ever-evolving to meet the complex needs and requirements of the information age and the digital age, artificial intelligence, interdisciplinary and cross-cultural insights.

Limits to knowledge

The limits of knowledge as an epistemological concept refers to, and represents the fundamental boundaries of what can be known, fathomed, experienced, or proven by the faculties of the human mind, and by human cognitive processes. These limits are defined by empirical and sensory limits. Empirical limits to knowledge connote the boundaries of what can be known through sensory experience, observation, and scientific experiment. These constraints derive from the innate capacity of human senses such as touch, smell, hearing, sight and visions, etc, and the fact that human beings are able to perceive only a tiny band of the electromagnetic spectrum (visible light) and a limited range of sound frequencies. Sensory faculties also vary from species to species, and many other animals possess superior sensory abilities, at least in some respects. Humans cannot also perceive and fathom very small and very large objects without the use of external and artificial tools, and their efficacy too is limited by technological constants. Cultural biases, and confirmation biases too shape human worldviews, and scientists are not often spared from subjectivity and bias. Humans also often tend to extrapolate their own cultural conditions to other cultures, and these may lead to fallacious conclusions – That is why we launched our globalization of science movement in the first place. This issue has not been as widely studied, probed, or investigated as it deserves to be, but approaches and attitudes in this connection and regard must change with the times. Human brains must process data and information, and this process is often constrained by subjective filtering. Scientists also do not always evaluate all assumptions for scratch, and operate within pre-defined theoretical (and often non-neutral) frameworks. Thus, misinterpretations and erroneous interpretations of reality multiply as rapidly as valid interpretations. These factors often impede the speed at which knowledge can be acquired. Humans ability for logical reasoning too is not without bounds, as is their ability to comprehend absolute philosophical truths.

Human critical thinking may also often be severely limited by brain capacity, available vocabulary, verbal intelligence, and less frequently social and cultural skills, and the ability to adapt too, and work in multicultural environments. We also then have the problem of induction, and the ability of sentient human beings to derive generalizations from large tomes of data. Humans cannot also make accurate predictions about the future based on existing data due to hindsight bias, and the problem of induction was discussed at length by the Scottish philosopher David Hume, and others. We also have the horizon of events problem, and there are valid cosmological boundaries as well. For example, conditions prior to the Big Bang or the internal subjective experiences of other human beings and other species, remain empirically unverifiable. For example, we cannot possibly know what Emperor Akbar ate on a certain day, or the precise time at which he ate. We also know that cats cannot taste sweet, or that dogs cannot see certain colours, but they are indeed limits to the accuracy and efficacy of experiments that expose or lay bare these facts. Time travel is not possible, and there are physical and cosmological limitations to time travel as well, though people have imagined time travel vividly in the past, most notable examples being HG Wells, Mark Twain, and Enrique Gaspar.

There are several other interesting concepts too. For example many sociologists and social scientists believe that the human being is born with an empty and neutral tabula rasa or a blank slate. However, some rationalists counter this view, stating that the human mind is not a blank slate, but is born with a degree of inherent structures, concepts, or truths that may exist independently of sensory experience, and are determined or derived genetically. Immanuel Kant too wrote about phenomena versus noumena; in other words, reality exists independently outside human perception, and we therefore have two distinct realms: namely phenomena (the world of appearances) and noumena (the world of things as they exist independently of the human mind). Humans may also suffer from overconfidence and hubris. Hubris represents an extreme, and a highly dangerous level of pride, arrogance, and overconfidence that leads to a person’s ultimate downfall. Hubris is not based on a simple miscalculation alone, but involves a mental, moral or cognitive superinflation where an individual believes they are above the rules, laws, or forces of nature. They may be blinded by their own past achievements and accomplishments, real or imagined, individual or cultural. A classic example is that of the archeologist and anthropologist Gregory Possehl, who is now deceased who was highly pompous and naïve in his interaction with the Author. Hubris inevitably and invariably leads to nemesis, and there are many examples from Greek mythology to illustrate this; we have the story of Icarus and Niobe, then the story of Arachne and King Tantalus.

Types of overconfidence include overestimation which is the act of judging one’s actual performance, skill, or other abilities to be higher than what they actually are. We also then have overplacement or the belief that an individual is more capable than others, and over precision – the erroneous and mistaken belief that a person’s observations are much more accurate than they actually are. We also then have the issue of skepticism versus skeptopathy, one that we have discussed at great length in our previous papers. Skepticism is a healthy, evidence-based approach of questioning claims, whereas skeptopathy is a term used to describe a pathological, irrational form of disbelief. There was a great deal of hubris in the early part of the twentieth century too. For example, the Titanic was marketed as being unsinkable. However, complacency led to several engineering blunders such as non water tight bulkheads (open top bulkheads), and a single layered hull on the sides. The steel was thought to be of inferior quality, and the riveting was not properly done. Limits to knowledge as often discussed in epistemological debates, but we believe that the time has now come to integrate it much more tightly with the field so that cardinal errors of omission and commission cannot occur, and so that the quality and reliability of scholarship is also escalated as a result. Examples of limits to knowledge include the mystery of time. How did time originate? How did time begin? How could something not have had a beginning? This is indeed mind-boggling, and shows that something exists that is beyond human conception of time, something that human beings cannot possibly comprehend. Some others talk about a fine tuned universe, and the strong and weak anthropic principle, though many different types of arguments have been proposed, both for and against. Narrow and shallow debates also alienate people, since communication must be both interdisciplinary and cross-cultural. It must also be deep and profound enough to account for practical realities.

The concept of God

The concept and general idea of God has intrigued man for aeons and millennia. Yet the concept of God continues to be ill-defined, and the term often means many different things to many different people, across, and within cultures. Some people speak of a religious God- with often varying and non-overlapping definitions across religions, others speak of a non-religious God, an agnostic, while yet others associate the term God with the sum total of nature; it is perhaps for this very reason that debates surrounding the term God remain highly opinionated and non-objective to this very day, even among academicians and scholars. In many, if not most religions, God is seen as the Supreme Being, creator, and ruler of the universe in monotheistic and polytheistic religions and belief systems. Yet there are religions without the concept of God, and at the same time, there are also people who believe in the pantheistic or natural concept of God without believing in any religion. In Western and Abrahamic views, God is viewed as the creator and ruler of all things, and as the eternal, all-powerful maker of all life and all forms of existence. In Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, God is also additionally seen as a personal, loving, and just judge who interacts with humanity. This concept is sometimes seen as a personal God. There are also monotheistic and polytheistic religions. In the case of the formers, there is only one God, while in the case of the latter, there are many or multiple Gods. An example of a polytheistic religion is Hinduism, though some say these are viewed as manifestations of only one God. The definition of God varies in eastern and other non-western perspectives. Many non-traditions, such as certain schools of Hinduism, view the ultimate reality as a formless, all-encompassing cosmic energy or spirit (like Brahman). Many other traditions define gods as multiple supernatural beings controlling specific forces of nature or different aspects of life. We had also discussed several uncommon definitions of the term God in our previous papers and publications. There is also an oversimplified God (Christian) versus evolution debate in certain western intellectual circles which we must deplore and condemn; we had also discussed concepts such as intelligent design, young earth creationism, theistic evolution, evolutionary theism previously on multiple occasions. Readers are requested to read these works.

Additionally and alternatively, Spinoza’s God is the concept that God and the physical universe are exactly the same entity, a philosophy known as pantheism. This idea mostly rejects the idea and concept of a religious God, and can be seen as being religion-neutral. This concept was first developed by the seventeenth century Jewish-Dutch philosopher Baruch Spinoza, for which he was severely criticized within his own Jewish community. This view by and large rejects the traditional idea of a personalized God who sits in heaven with a long and flowing beard, judges people on the basis of their actions and good or bad deeds, or performs miracles. Other ideas such as that of a horned, mythical creature, spitting and drooling blood, are also highly unscientific, and must be deemed as such. On the other hand, Spinoza argued that God is the infinite, impersonal, and rational system of nature itself, and he called it Deus sive Natura meaning that the terms God and nature could be used interchangeably. This concept also once relied heavily on monism, the idea that everything in the universe could be reduced to one substance.

The reason why this concept must be mentioned at least in passing in this context is that Spinoza’s ideas profoundly shaped the Enlightenment and modern philosophy, and many scientists latter commented on it. Most notable is Albert Einstein’s endorsement of Spinoza’s concept In the early part of the twentieth century. Carl Sagan also viewed this concept favourably, and so did many other scientists, all of whom rejected the traditional idea of God. Paradoxically enough, Richard Dawkins issued a disclaimer stating that the contents of his books did not apply to Spinoza’s definition of God, and Christopher Hitchens touched upon the issue as well. It is difficult to critique Spinoza’s God from a purely epistemological standpoint. However, they have been some religious criticism. However, refer our argument on the mystery of time, and several other arguments put forth in our book discussing the existence of God, both for and existence. Clearly, there are several issues and paradoxes at play, both epistemological and philosophical and naïve and hardnosed approaches may not work; correlate with our observations on the limits to knowledge.

What is atheism?

Atheism as a broad concept refers to the absence of belief in a God, a creator, or a supreme being or entity. A more vulgar manifestation of God is referred to as a deity. People who subscribe to atheism are known as atheists. Atheists reject the belief that any God or deities exist, and believe that man is the sole architect of his destiny. The term “atheism” is derived from the ancient Greek word atheos, meaning “without gods”. There are many types of atheism. One primary classification is implicit and explicit atheism. Implicit atheism means not holding a belief in God without explicit or active rejection, while explicit atheism refers to a more assertive form of rejection in any divine being or entity. Atheism may also be sub classified into positive and negative atheism. Negative or weak atheism refers to a mere absence of belief in deities, whereas adherents of positive or strong atheism vehemently and vociferously assert the firm claim that no God exists. The British philosopher John Gray in his 2018 book, “Seven Types of Atheism”, outlined seven distinct categories of atheism. These categories are new atheism which connotes and represents a form of militant and outspoken critique of religion popularized by thinkers like Richard Dawkins and Christopher Hitchens, secular humanism which subscribes to science, reason and ethical naturalism as a tool for societal progress, scientism which turns science into a dogmatic religion used to engineer human advancement and holds an oversized view of the advancement of science, political religion which uses religion as a political tool, atheism with a strange or a paradoxical faith in science, the atheism of God haters as represented by Marquis de Sade or Ivan Karamazov, atheism without progress and atheism with silence.

Atheism without progress is championed by philosophers such as Arthur Schopenhauer and George Santayana who reject both God and the myth of human progress, and hold cynical views of the world. The atheism of silence on the other hand has been propounded by literary figures such as Joseph Conrad, and finds mystery in the universe without needing to provide any meaning to life or to existence. There are other terms too. For example, agnosticism holds that the existence of God is unknown or cannot be known. A large number of ordinary people including scientists, intellectuals and philosophers fall into this category. There are many variants of agnosticism, including strong and weak agnosticism. The idea of agnosticism was proposed and championed by thinkers such as Thomas Henry Huxley and Immanuel Kant. Antitheism is a virulent hostility to religion and religious beliefs, with a firm belief that a belief in God or religion is outright dangerous, and impedes human progress. A example of an antitheism is Christopher Hitchens. Pragmatic or apathetic atheism holds the view that the existence or non-existence of gods is irrelevant to daily quotidian life, and is therefore unimportant for the most part. Hemant Mehta and others study the intersection between religion, society, and culture, and there are many different shades and hues of thinkers with many different viewpoints; all this goes on to show that there are many unresolved issues and many dogmatic, ossified, and ideologically driven viewpoints. Ignosticism or theological noncognitivism holds the position that the term “God” is meaningless because it lacks a coherent, testable definition. Proponents of this position hold that that it is futile to discuss whether God exists until a clear definition is provided. We subscribe more or less to this school of thought.

Atheism existed in the ancient world, and in ancient India, the Charvaka school rejected supernatural claims and the doctrine of karma, advocating for materialism alone. In ancient Greece philosophers such as Diagoras of Melos severely criticized religious myths. Epicurus on the other hand, argued that even if gods existed, they were detached and uninvolved in human affairs. During the Islamic golden age, thinkers such as Al-Ma’arri openly criticized religion. During the European dark and middle ages, atheism was associated with heresy and blasphemy, and it was only during the renaissance and enlightenment, that the spirit of inquiry were rekindled and retorched. During this period, open atheism emerged, and some open atheists were Jean Meslier, Baron d’Holbach, and others. Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution which was published in the middle of the nineteenth century provided a natural explanation for human origins, triggering atheistic ideas in many thinkers. Charles Darwin himself, however, did believe in a Christian God for the most part. Karl Marx went as far as to call religion “the opium of the people, and the sigh of the oppressed creature” while Friedrich Nietzsche famously pronounced God to be dead. State atheism emerged in Communist states which severely curtailed the open practice of religion, with Pol Pot’s Khmer Rouge even banning it altogether. In the early part of the twenty first century, the new atheism movement emerged, and was championed by Richard Dawkins and evolutionary biologist, Christopher Hitchens, a journalist and social critic, Sam Harris, a neuroscientist, Daniel Dennett, a philosopher and a few others. Some of these thinkers even argued that religion was toxic and dangerous, and the root cause of most violence in the world.

The New Atheism movement however faced strident criticism from a wide range of critics, including philosophers, theologians, sociologists, cultural anthropologists, and even many secularists. The primary criticisms centered on the movement’s aggressive tone, lack of philosophical depth, cultural naivety, and the adoption of political stances. Many note that proponents of the new atheism movement essentially engage in a Christian centric debate, do not distinguish between God and religion, etc. The idea and notion of God is vague and ambiguous and it is not possible to critique something which has been imprecisely defined; there are many different religions, and some do not subscribe to God at all. Critics such as Michael Ruse, who himself was an agnostic argued that the “Four Horsemen” lacked formal training in theology or philosophy, leading to shallow and over-simplistic arguments. The movement was also widely accused of “scientism”—the dogmatic belief that science is the primary source of truth and knowledge, at the expense of ethics, literature, and metaphysics. We had also argued that religion has personal, societal, political, social and cultural functions in society, and that is impossible to wish religion away with a magic wand, or dismiss it derisively. Centuries of atheistic thought have barely made a dent on religion, and religion continues to hold a sway on billions of people in different parts of the world. Albert Einstein and Carl Sagan also criticized some atheists for being extremely dogmatic, arrogant, and pompously naïve, arguing that absolute certainty about the non-existence of God is yet another form of dogma. Some even argue that dogmatic atheism which represents an absolute belief that God does not exist, along with an unwillingness to consider alternative evidence or arguments, mimics and replicates religious and theological dogma in many ways. Critics allege that some dogmatic atheists even shifts their stance from “I do not believe” to “I actively know God does not exist, and the matter is closed.” This is a form of rigid and dogmatic naivety, mirroring the rigid, unyielding mindset found among many fundamentalist religious groups.

Other related concepts

Reincarnation refers to a philosophical and religious concept that the nonmaterial components of a living being (such as consciousness or a soul) begins a new lifespan in a different physical form or body after biological death. Thus, the soul is immortal, and in some cases, eventually merges with a supreme God or being. Such claims are however mostly untestable, and therefore mostly fall beyond the boundaries of legitimate science. There are varying claims and counter claims made by various religions, and Christianity and Islam reject the concept of reincarnation altogether. Hinduism however, talks about a continuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth is known as samsara, which is driven by karma or action. Hinduism also states that the soul or atman is eternal and it continuously transmigrates through various life forms until it achieves moksha, a state of liberation where the individual soul unifies with the ultimate reality or Brahman. Other religions make different claims, and Buddhism for example, denies the existence of a permanent soul while talking about karma and nirvana at the same time. Sikhism and Jainism on the other hand, derive most of their concepts heavily from Hinduism. Since there are so many claims and counterclaims, everything must be taken with a generous pinch of salt, but formal, neutral, and non-partisan mechanisms must emerge to evaluate such claims. We look forward to more research being carried out in this regard, and new frameworks and paradigms emerging. Universities can play a crucial role here – including Western and American universities simply because they are better equipped at present, and we look forward to a new generation of scholars and researchers emerging.

Some research has already been carried out at the University of Virginia by Dr Ian Stevenson and Dr Jim Tucker, though more and more perspectives may be necessary. Claims made by Shanti Devi of India, James Leininger, and Ryan Hammons of the United States and others have also been investigated. An absolute commitment to the truth must be their motto and mantra, along with what we have always called “objectivity in mindset”. Cross-cultural, dialectical and inter-disciplinary approaches must also be applied wherever necessary. Various outcomes must be borne in mind and welcomed, including the possibility of fraud, (negative results must also be welcomed because they produce salutary lessons for science) and continuous validation and revalidation of results would also be required. Similar to reincarnation, out of body experiences (including near death experiences) have also been claimed (Such as the case of Pam Reynolds who was a famous American singer and song writer) leading to floating sensations, and visual and auditory distortions. However, most mainstream scientists are skeptical of such claims. Even claims made by astrologers, palmists, soothsayers, psychics, numerologists and others deserve to be much more thoroughly probed and investigated. Even if such claims are eventually falsified, they add fundamentally and foundationally to the body of human knowledge by holding out a warning to such practitioners and to society in general. As always, we must bear in mind the fact that many things are unknowable. For example, the question, “At what time did Emperor Akbar eat dinner on a certain day, and what did he eat on that particular day?” are probably unanswerable. Therefore, there are indeed limits to knowledge. We look forward to theoretical and foundational inputs here, by a wide variety of other scholars.

There have also been many psychics throughout the ages. One of them was Edgar Cayce. As an American clairvoyant and mystic who made supernatural claims, he was a foundational figure in the modern New Age movement. He often allegedly went into a trance, answered complex questions, and soon gained a large following. However, criticisms of him abound, and many researchers, including Martin Gardner, are highly skeptical of his claims more so because, Cayce made many claims which ran contrary to established scientific facts including claims of Atlantis and Lemuria. Another highly controversial; figure was Wolf Messing who attained a cult like following in the former Soviet Union as a hypnotist, and self-proclaimed psychic and telepath. Criticisms of Wolf Messing abound, and it is even alleged that his memoirs were ghostwritten by Mikhail Khvastunov, who was a highly controversial and polarizing figure. Other notable and highly controversial figures include Sylvia Browne, a popular author and television guest who also claimed to be a medium, John Edward, another controversial television personage who claimed to be a medium, Jeane Dixon, a famous American astrologer, Uri Geller, a psychic, and many more. Shamans have also routinely claimed to communicate with the dead, and with other spirits, though their claims have not been systematically verified. Many people have claimed to expose paranormal claims, and some such examples have been Harry Houdini who also testified before American Congress against fraudulent claims, Derren Brown who exposed many scams, Joe Nickell, a full time paranormal investigator, Michael Shermer who was the founder of the Skeptics Society and editor-in-chief of Skeptic magazine., Susan Blackmore, Joseph and Sanal Edamaruku of India, Basava Premanand of India, the world-famous and class-leading James Randi and many more. As previously noted, dialectical approaches are required, unbiased investigations are required, and the principle of absolute neutrality. This is because one kind of bias legitimizes every other kind of bias. The field of “limits of knowledge” must become a major, vital and dynamic subfield within epistemology, and must be given the attention sand focus that it so richly deserves. Scholars and researchers from all walks of life must participate and contribute to such endeavours. We must also bear in mind the fact that negative outcomes and negative results can richly contribute to epistemological theory, and knowledge of this vital subfield of epistemological theory must be vitally imparted and disseminated to scholars and practitioners of science so that hugely improved and enlarged scientific output can result in many walks of science.    

Why we still need a women’s education revolution in India

Why we still need a women’s education revolution in India

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

 

Women in ancient India are thought to have enjoyed some rights in education with women scholars such as Gargi Vachaknavi, Maitreyi, Apala, and Lopamudra making some intellectual  contributions. Female sages or poets were called Rishikas in ancient times. Some women were scholars for life (they were known as Brahmavadinis) while others studied until marriage (they were known as Sadyodvahas). During the Buddhist period, some women who were known as bhikshunis were allowed to join monasteries for education. During the Mughal period, princesses and elite women such as Gulbadan Begum, Nur Jahan, Jahan Ara, and Roshan Ara were educated, while others were not. Much changed during the Bengal renaissance. The Bengal Renaissance was a nineteenth century socio-cultural, and intellectual movement centered around Calcutta, and it was driven by noted figures such Raja Rammohan Roy, Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar, Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyay, Debendranath Tagore, and Rabindranath Tagore. Many traditional practices were questioned during this period, and science and knowledge greatly emphasized along with education. Later, significant contributions to science were made by Jagadish Chandra Bose, Satyendra Nath Bose, and Meghnad Saha.

Raja Ram Mohan Roy fought for women's education and empowerment to combat the then widely prevalent evils such as Sati, child marriage, and the purdah system. Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar set up many girls’ schools in the Bengal region, which encouraged women’s participation in education greatly. John Elliot Drinkwater Bethune founded the Calcutta Female School in 1849, which became the first women's college in India. Begum Rokeya Sakhawat Hossain promoted women's education among Muslim women in Bengal, and she also established the Sakhawat Memorial Girls' High School in Kolkata in 1911. Jyothiba Phule along with his wife Savitribai Phule actively promoted women's education in India by opening the first girls' school in Pune in 1848. Soon other women such as Fatima Sheikh, Tarabai Modak, Anutai Wagh, and Pandita Ramabai joined the fray in fighting for women’s educational rights. Annie Besant advocated for women's education and also co-founded the Benares Hindu University in 1916. Durgabai Deshmukh founded the Andhra Mahila Sabha to empower women through the mechanism of education.

Women's education in post-independence India has seen remarkable growth in many parts of the country, with female literacy rising from single digit levels in 1947 to over seventy percent today. After independence, the Indian government established several committees such as the national committee on women’s education of 1958 to empower women through the medium of education. Separate schools were also sought to be set up for women in some areas. Other schemes promoted by the Indian government included the Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidyalaya for rural girls from weaker sections of society and the Mahila Samakhya Program for women’s empowerment. Many of these programs were integrated into the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan program, and other programs. The Mahila Samakhya Program which is also known as the education for women’s equality program was launched in 1989 based on the 1986 national policy of education, to empower rural women through the medium education. Women’s collectives or sanghas were set up by women to solve their own problems collectives, and seek out solutions. Legal, banking and digital literacy of women were also promoted by some state governments.

Despite significant improvements, gender gaps in educational attainment persist, particularly in rural areas and disadvantaged committees with traditional attitudes, and economic constraints posing significant hurdles. School dropout ratios also remain high particularly among women. Female workforce participation also remains low for the most part. While significant progress has been made in achieving near-universal enrollment at the primary level, gaps persist at a secondary level. Only a few Indian states have bridged gender gaps in education more or less completely.  Kerala, Mizoram and Tamil Nadu, have always been strong in women’s empowerment and women’s education, while Rajasthan, West Bengal and Chattisgarh have made impressive progress of late. Rajasthan’s model particularly appears to be worthy of emulation, as gender gaps in education have been bridged significantly. Bihar, on the other hand, continues to face extremely high dropout rates and lower female literacy due to socio-cultural barriers and stigmas such as early marriage. However, some progress has been made by Bihar, particularly since 2011. Schemes such as the Indira Mahila Shakti scheme have sought to boost digital literacy skills of women among other things. Andhra Pradesh, despite its strengths in other fields, continues to be weak in women’s education, particularly in rural and tribal areas.

Again, we believe that the time has come for the central government to launch a new flagship program to consolidate on previous gains, and close the gaps further down to negligible levels. State wise and district wise assessments required, and states must lead programs and missions with inputs and coordination from the central government. Indian states must learn from each other, and the central government must coordinate the show and focus on backward areas. The NITI Aayog can play a critical role here.