By Bhamy V Shenoy

Draft New Education Policy (DNEP) was unveiled on May 30, 2019. Since then, hundreds of articles have been written, analysing the 484-page report by a nine-member committee, headed by former ISRO chairman, K Kasturirangan. Some have praised the report, highlighting the recommendations, which, they felt, would bring about transformative changes in our dysfunctional education system. But, many more have been critical of the report.

Some criticism is just nitpicking, without any convincing argument while some is driven by ideology. Some oppose DNEP because they do not like the current government. In a democracy like ours, expressing one’s opinion is fully justified and necessary. But, criticism would have added value if it were fully supported with sound argument and suggestions to improve the report. Let us take a look at some of the glaring/shocking criticisms.

One oft-stated criticism is that DNEP “pushes centralising agenda, and is against the Constitution by encroaching on the rights of the state”. There is no implicit or explicit agenda to push centralisation. Neither is there any attempt to encroach on states’ rights. Goa has already decided to implement some of the recommendations of DNEP. In fact, if implemented in its true spirit, it has the potential to start a ‘million mutinies’ in the education sector.

Let us, for example, take one of the major recommendations of getting rid of grade X and XII exams. They will be replaced by four-year high school with semester and choice-based credit systems.

Only the owners of coaching schools, and teachers losing opportunities to give tuition will be unhappy with this recommendation. Which state would be unwilling to implement this recommendation? Still, very few have highlighted the strategic importance of this recommendation.

Every one talks of the need to promote critical thinking and creativity in students. When the goal under the current system is to score high marks in these public examinations, we are indirectly giving no importance to critical thinking. Under the new system, school education will develop a scientific temper, an aesthetic sense, communication, ethical reasoning, digital literacy, knowledge of India, and knowledge of critical issues affecting the local community and the world. Also, students today have lost the habit of reading books since it is not a requirement to score high marks, and if any thing, reading would impinge on their “rote learning” time.

Another often repeated criticism is that the report is not inclusive. This is a totally unjustified criticism. I wonder how many of these critics have visited small government schools, where there are no libraries, no lab facilities, no playground, no toilets, no drinking water, etc, and where teachers take classes for several grades. The report has recommended school complexes where, if needed, students will be bused, and where all facilities will be provided. When the government allocates enough funds and keeps political intervention to the minimum, it is perfectly capable of running world-class schools, which, in turn, will help students from poor families.

There are several recommendations in the DNEP to make education inclusive. One such outstanding suggestion is the high priority given to early childhood education by strengthening the anganwadis, either as part of the school complex, where possible, or by building high-quality standalone pre-schools. States will prepare a cadre of professional educators unlike today’s caretakers, with little or no training to impart pre-schooling.

Some have referred to New Education Policy as “Old Wine in New Bottle”. This, too, is completely unjustified. Either they have not read the report carefully, or refuse to consider the recommendations as new. Replacing the current 5+3+2+2 school system by 5+3+3+4 semester-based system, to prioritise pre-schooling from three years of age in fully-equipped schools, has never before been suggested. Is there any earlier report that suggested dropping public examinations? Who has suggested three types of higher education institutions—research universities, teaching universities and autonomous multi-faculty colleges—earlier?

Current undergraduate education will be replaced by liberal, multidisciplinary, broad-based institutions. Has any one recommended closing down of standalone teacher training colleges and replacing them with four-year degree colleges attached to multi-faculty college or universities? No objective analyst of DNEP will conclude that it is like rearranging chairs on the Titanic, as some critiques have alleged.

Students’ Federation of India protested against DNEP by burning copies of the report throughout India. Their argument was that DNEP “served the market” and not the interests of students. They argued that it will be easy to get a grant to do research on ‘gaumutra’ and not on topics related to astrophysics. Such criticism is based not on the contents of the report but on some pre-conceived ideas. Some have even alleged that Hindutva has influenced the policy recommendations. My careful reading of the report did not reveal any such impact.

In fact, my criticism is that they should have emphasised the need to teach about India’s civilisational contribution much more. Not even once is there a reference to the study of India’s epics, Ramayana and Mahabharata, of which our students know so little today.
The most unkind criticism came from the three topmost science academies in the country—Indian National Science Academy (New Delhi), Indian Academy of Sciences (Bengaluru) and National Academy of Sciences, India (Allahabad). These academies should be the first to know how our higher education system has failed to produce any Nobel laureates despite having having abundant talent in the country. They do appreciate some of the recommendations, but do not see any need for major structural changes.
Opponents of DNEP have been quite organised in opposing it. But, those who want reform of the current education system have not done enough to support it. It is not that NDA is too enthusiastic to implement DNEP—they delayed the unveiling by five months. It is time that we, the public, put pressure on the NDA government to adapt, if not the whole report, at least most of its recommendations.

Former manager, Conoco
Views are personal