Why Indian states need to develop their own education policies, if necessary

 

Why Indian states need to develop their own education policies, if necessary

Sujay Rao Mandavilli

The objective of this post is to discuss why Indian states need to develop their own education policies if necessary because they may want to override the NEP for various reasons. This exercise would also provide states with their much needed competitive edge, and differentiate it from other ones. Let us now trace the history of education in India. The history of literacy in India begins with the Indus valley civilization. The Indus valley script, as we argued, was a logo-syllabic script – we had authored two very interesting papers to prove our case and point. This would be evident from the Dholavira signboard apart from other things.  Naturally longer inscriptions would therefore have existed. There may not have been scribes though. Scribes were associated with Royal inscriptions such as Egypt and Mesopotamia, and not the Indus valley. In another paper, we had discussed the extent of literacy in Post-Harappan India. We had therefore discussed the origin of Brahmi, the Bet Dwaraka script, Asokan Brahmi with longer inscriptions, Tamil Brahmi, Bhattiprolu Brahmi. We had also discussed Nalanda university, Taxila as an institute of higher learning.

We had also discussed the history of Madrasas in India. One of the earliest important madrasas in India was established in 1192 at Ajmer. Madrasas also flourished during Delhi Sultanate. During the Mughal rule in India, Madrasas became widespread and institutionalized, particularly in North India. It was a common practice of Muslim rulers to build mosques and religious educational institutions in the areas under their jurisdiction. Madrasas continue to exist to this day in many parts of India. However, educated Muslims do not patronize them greatly. There have been attempts to modernize Madrasas in the recent past by various Indian state governments. This was proposed to be done by teaching science, mathematics, English and modern Indian languages. Let us now fast forward to the British Raj. In the 1830’s, Macaulay prepared a report recommending halting aid for Sanskrit and Arabic education and putting in place a system for teaching science through English. He submitted his report to Bentinck on Feb. 2, 1835. Before Macaulay, education was provided in Sanskrit and Persian, besides Arabic. Sciences was not widely taught, and education was limited to the privileged few. Macaulay has widely been criticized for having destroyed India’s indigenous education system, and imposed English; This allegation has at least been made by right-wing critics in India, and a few others. However, the British policy was very lopsided. At the end of the British rule, very few Indians were literate. The Brtish education system was geared only to provide clerks for the British East India company, later the British Raj. There was only rote learning, no innovation and creativity. Yet at the other end of the spectrum there are people who praise Macaulay. Many Indians believe and claim he helped connect India with the rest of the world. The Bristish instituted many universities – Bombay, Calcutta, Madras universities, and modern science took hold in pockets and in silos. Modern science was begun to be taught in India. So far, so good. Everything has both good and bad, there are positive and negative sides to every story. The baby cannot be thrown out with the bathwater. For example, Mahatma Gandhi ruined his childrens’ lives by failing to provide them with a modern education.

 

Let us now review the Indian education system after independence. After independence many institutes of higher learning were established in India– IITs, later IIM’s. Nehru’s objective of education was to end the narrow religious rules and to promote a scientific and humanitarian mindset. Nehru was also the supporter of regional languages as the primary medium for the success of educational Program. India has so far three education policies after independence. The first national education policy in India was unveiled in 1968 and the second one in 1986 during the tenure of Rajiv Gandhi as Prime Minister; The national education policy of 1986 was revised in 1992. The third national education policy was launched more recently in 2020. All NEP’s recommend free and Compulsory Education: The NPE (1968) recommended that 'strenuous efforts' should be made to fulfill the Constitutional mandate of free and compulsory education for all children upto the age of 14 years, and to ensure that every child who is enrolled in school. There were also attempts to improve teacher qualifications and training, promote the use of regional languages in education, and equalize educational opportunities across India. The 1986 policy called for "special emphasis on the removal of disparities and to equalise educational opportunity," especially for Indian women, and underprivileged classes.

 

The 2020 National Education Policy was India's first education policy formulated in the twenty-first century, aiming for an equitable and vibrant knowledge society through access to better education, equity, quality, affordability, and accountability in education. Key aspects of the New education policy of 2020 include a new 5+3+3+4 pedagogical structure, early childhood care and attention, a focus on foundational literacy and numeracy, curriculum flexibility, the removal of hard, rigid and regimented separations between arts and the sciences and vocational and academic streams, personalized learning and individual attention, and the promotion of the mother tongue or local language as a medium of instruction wherever practical and possible. The new NEP also introduces assessment reforms, with board exams testable twice a year and a focus on core competencies. 

 

Criticism of India's National Education Policy 2020 primarily focuses on its ambitious but unclear implementation roadmap, association with Hindutva ideology, allegations of backdoor imposition of Hindi, concerns about increased privatization and commercialization, the potential for exacerbating inequalities due to the digital divide, - as emphasized by Marxists and left-leaning intellectuals (who as always do not provide any recommendations as it would diminish the importance of their ideology, lack of thorough stakeholder consultation, and fears of over-centralization of power and right-wing ideological infiltration into the education system. Critics also allege funding gaps, insufficient infrastructure for new methodologies, incompatibility with latest trends in pedagogy, lack of trained teachers for vocational education, and the potential devaluation of public universities. The DMK of Tamil nadu rejected The NEP of 2020 and promoted its own policy. The Tamil Nadu government’s policy seems to be a copy of NEP more or less, albeit with minor modifications.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                       

 

We have authored a large number of papers on pedagogy. As such, we would request our readers to  read them. We have also called for innovation creativity, less rote learning, scientific method , practical skills, lexical development of Indian languages, logic and reasoning, time and space encapsulation etc  etc. We have called for functionalism in education. We have called for AI in education in the long –term. We have called for automation of education in the long-term. We request readers to go through  all our publications in detail. Tamil Nadu has set a trend. We request other Indian states to follow suit, but act responsibly and in the interests of science and education. This will differentiate states from one another

This will promote competitive rivalry, in the true spirit of competitive federalism.  Getting the central government to initiate changes will take time, as there will be dogma, and political exigencies involved. State governments must take the lead wherever possible. This will goad the central government into action n the long term.