National Education Policy - 2019
A Critical Review.
By
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam
Government has always given top most priority for providing inclusive and quality
education for all without any discrimination. It is note worthy that,Tamil
Nadu was the first state to start a Primary school for every 3 km and a High
School for every 5 km as early as in 1950s. During the Chief Ministership of Kalaignar
M. Karunanidhi, Government of Tamil Nadu opened an Elementary School for every 1km, an Upper Primary School
for every 3 km, a High School for every 5 km and a Higher Secondary School for
every 7 km.
When ever the
central government brought anti people education policies based on WTO-GATS agreement,
DMK strongly opposed them. On 19th December 2015, former Chief Minister of
Tamilnadu Kalaignar M.Karunanithi has stated“A number of orgainsations urged the BJP
government at the Centre not to sign WTO – GATS agreement ,which makes
education as a commodity. As per the agreement,scholarship and reservation to
the oppressed communities will be cancelled. Further the agreement dictates to
provide only 1 percent scholarship for economically weaker sections and 1
percent for the best students.Hence DMK has been repeatedly urging the BJP
Government at the Centre to take all steps to withdraw from WTO – GATS
agreement”.
Many
of the policy proposals in the DNEP are in accordance to the provisions of GATS
and against the vision and provisions of the Constitution of India.DMK has been
continuously demanding that Education must be in the State List.Kalaignar
M.Karunanidhi had categorically
stated on 23.7.2016, as
follows``Education must be brought back to the
State List. We should not permit the rutting elephant, the new education
policy to undo Tamilnadu’s excellent
attainments in education and our long cherished social justice and
principles of equality’’. Following the footsteps of Dr. Kalaignar
M.Karunanidhi, the D.M.K. strongly opposes the ‘Draft National Educaion Policy
2019’.
India,
a country with second largest population in the world is a land of diversity.
Unity in diversity is the basic unifying force in India. The Draft National
Education Policy-2019 (DNEP) fails to recognise the pluralistic nature of our country
while framing the DNEP.
The
Draft National Education Policy 2019 is in favour of complete centralisation,
privatisation, corporatisation, commercia-lisationand saffranisation of
education. It aims to transfer the Education to the Central List from the
Concurrent List. It will eliminate
social justice and reservation. DNEP attempts to make education more accessible
to elite and upper castes.The purpose of education is to serve the people and
not the corporate business houses.
A
single, cenrtralised overarching, micro-managed national education policy for a
country of multi cultural, multi linguistic society is totally unacceptable. No
developed country in the world, large or small, with federal form of government
has such a centralised education policy.
DNEP
proposes an all India formula right from anganwadi to university under one
national authority. This anti people,education policy of the BJP Government is
against the basicprinciples of Constitution like democracy, secularism,
socialism and federalism.
DNEP
infuses regressive ideas and backward thinking. It is not inculcating rational thinking and
the sprit of self respect.
Dr.Kasturirangan’s
committee on DNEP has submitted a controversial and biased report, which would affect the educational rights of people
of India and the existing education system.
The
Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) is of the view that this document has hidden
agendas to deprive oppressed communities from education. The DMK which has been
working for the development of oppressed people will not accept this anti
people policy,which is based on GATS agreement and Manudharma.
DNEP
is against constitution.The vision of the Constitution of India as stated in
the Preamble and various provisions including Articles 14, 15, 16, 21, 23, 24,
38, 39,39A, 41,45, 46, 246 and 254 are clearly violated in DNEP at all stages
of education. Instead of Constitutional values the DNEP is guided by the market
demand especially global finance capital.
Reservation
based on social and educational backwardness is not mentioned anywhere in the
DNEP. In higher education and research,
scholarships for socially and educationally backward is also totally absent. In
a society where the majority suffers from social oppression, the DNEP speaks
only about merit and merit based scholarships. The concept of merit is an illusory
social construct . DNEP proposes a National Research Foundation which makes
provision for scholarship to International students (Page No. 151 Para 12.4.4)
but at the same time, DNEP fails to make such provision for the socially and
educationally backward classes of Indian citizens. This is against the vision and
provisions of the constitution and also against the principle of social justice .The advancement of
socially and educationally backward people is not possible without adequate
representation in higher education institutions, which can be achieved only
through guaranteed reservation in admissions, appointments and research
fellowships. Absence of such provisions is a clear violation of articles 15 and
16 of the Constitution of India.
DNEP fails to recognise the federal structure of
the Constitution of India and reduces the States to the position of implementing
agencies of the decisions made by the central regulatory authorities.
School Eduction
DNEP Chapter 1 proposesto bring in Early Childhood
Care and Education (ECCE) under formal Education. The period is a transition from the learning
process that started within the family to the learning process in the school.
Good nutrition and most informal way of learning needs to be assured at this
stage. Merging Pre - Primary and Primary Grade 1 & 2 and prescribing a
formal syllabus for Pre-Primary will not allow the Child to enjoy the
Childhood. Anganwadi has a larger role and ECCE should be designed in such way
that they are not merged with Grades 1 & 2 and all facilities to learn in a
healthy atmosphere through the mother tongue should be ensured. Foundational
course of 5 years as suggested in the DNEP is not acceptable.
DNEP Chapter 2there is no clarity in this chapter
that deals with educating the children in Grades1 to 5. There is no clarity in the medium of instruction .National Tutors Programme (NTP), Remedial Instructional
Aides Programme (RIAP) and the role of Instructional Aides (IA) termed as local
heroes are nothing but undermining the role of teachers and the responsibility
of the society as a whole in ensuring the enrolment and education of Children.
This chapter remains very vague without proper understanding of actual needs
that may differ from State to State. The NTP & RIAP are against the
principle of equal access to education for all. Quality care and education can
only be given by the trained teachers to all especially the dropouts and
children with special needs and that responsibility should not be given to the
NTP and RIAP.
Proposals in DNEP Chapter
3,especially in Para 3.12 is paradigm shift from input method to output
method. Alternate models of education that is being pursued by religious and
linguistic minorities is something that needs to be encouraged and it is a
Fundamental Right guaranteed in the Constitution of India for preservation of
culture and language.Allowing multiple models with different infrastructure and
loosening the input restrictionsin
schools in general is against the spirit and the provisions of the
Constitution of India, especially Article 14. The DNEP fails to ensure
equitable access to quality education for all Children which is possible only
by establishing fully State Funded Common School System. DNEP is against Common
School System and on the contrary it promotes multiplicity which will further
commercialise school education.
DNEP Chapter 4:
Para 4.1.1: Restructuring school curriculum and pedagogy in a new 5+3+3+4
design:
5
years of the Foundational Stage:
3 years of pre-primary
school and Grades 1, 2.
3 years of the Preparatory (or Later Primary) Stage: Grades 3, 4, 5.
3 years of the Middle (or Upper Primary) Stage: Grades 6, 7, 8.
4 years of the High (or Secondary) Stage: Grades 9, 10, 11, 12.
Restructuring school curriculum and pedagogy in a new 5+3+3+4
design is totally unwarranted as the present system of 10 + 2 is working fine
and should continue with certain changes and better provisions for learning.There
is no hard separation of vocational and
academic streams proposed in Para 4.4.4 . The vocational exposure proposed in para
4.6.6.1 is not in the interest of the students and highly detrimental to their
vertical upward movement in the mainstream education. Exposure to three or more
languages in schools is only a burden for children.
National Text Books
proposed in para 4.8 is against the federal spirit. States should be given full
freedom to have their own syllabus and text books. Para 4.9.4 proposes State
census examination for Grades 3, 5 & 8 students. There is no examination
till completion of elementary education that is upto Grade 8. The continuous
and comprehensive evaluation must continue and it should be further
strengthened and democratized.
DNEP Chapter 5proposes
recruitment and promotion of teachers without consideration to the reservation
policy based on social and educational backwardness.
DNEP Chapter 6 fails to
understand the Social and Educational Backwardness of different sections of the
people due to deprivation of opportunity for education for a long time. The
language used and the way the unemployed teacher graduates are projected in Para
6.3.1 is highly derogatory, objectionable and written without understanding the
issue of social and educational backwardness.
DNEP Chapter 7 talks extensively
about creation of school complexes and
sharing of resources. Merger of schools will deny the students from poor
families,the access to schools in the neighborhood.
DNEP Chapter 8says
that the State School Regulatory Authority with
Quasi Judicial Powers until Tribunals are established will report to the State
Education Commission (SEC) headed by the Chief Minister or in the absence of
SEC report straight to the Chief Minister. This is not correct.
DMK firmly
believes in the policy of “Samacheerkalvi” (Equitable system of education for all). The
vision and various provisions of the Constitution of India are to ensure
equality in opportunity for all people.“Samacheerkalvi”
introduced by DMK government in schools ensured that.
Imposition of Vedic Culture.
Instead
of improving science and technology for the welfare of the people this DNEP
gives importance to Sanskrit, Hindi and Vedas. In page 26, the DNEP glorifies
ancient period upper caste intellectuals like Chanakya, Aryapatta, Pathanjali,
Bhaskarachariya and Panini. The DNEP is
not mentioning scholars of other social sections. The DNEP with ulterior motive has avoided
mentioning the names of Tamil poets Thiruvalluvar, Tholkappiyar, Kamban,
Ilango,Bharathiyar and Bharathidasan. It
has also not mentioned any Buddhist, Jain, Christian or Islamic scholars.
The draft has enough room to make
strong suspicion that Carnatic music, Hindustani Music / Bharathanatiyam alone
will be given importance which is part and parcel of Brahminical lifestyle
today.DNEP has not mentioned Tamil Music.
It
is evident that the purpose of DNEP is not to promote scientific and
technological developments, but to impose vedic culture on the whole of India.
Education should be in
the State List
In
USA the Federal Government has no power on education; education is in the state
list. In Canada, provinces have power to
make laws and policies relating to education.
In Australia power to make laws on education is left to the States. In
Switzerland the powers to make laws on education is given to Cantons.
In
the beginning, education including universities was included in the State List
of the Constitution of India. But,
during the period of emergency in 1975-77, the subject Education was
transferred from State List to Concurrent List. DMK has been continuously
opposing this retrograde step and demanding retransfer of education from the
Concurrent List to the State List.
Against
Social Justice
Report
of the Ministry of Human Resource Development 2016-17 says that in India 5.2 % S.T, 14.3% S.C,
34% O.B.C, and 46.5% Forward Caste students study Higher Education. With the
provisions of reservation only a small percentage of ST., SC., OBC Students
could go to higher studies. If reservation opportunities are denied, it will
have great negative impact and even that percentage would go down.
Already
46.5% forward caste students study higher education. This report further
promotes the forward caste students in higher education. In this pathetic
situation, it is felt that this policy is against the social Justice.
Anti
Reservation Policy
Reservation
has been one of the main principles of D.M.K. It has been serving for the socio
economic and educational development of the oppressed and down trodden people.
DNEP is against the principle of Social Justice. Based on the Mandal Commission
Report the Central Government introduced 27% reservation to OBCs. But, still it is not fully implemented. In
this situation, BJP Government has hurriedly introduced 10% reservation for the
economically weaker section of the forward communities in education and
employment. But the DNEP has
purposefully avoided the word reservation in its full text. This is against the spirit of Constitution,
Social Justice and Dravidian ideologies. Hence,
DMK strongly opposes this anti-reservation DNEP.
DNEP
ignores Women’s Education
Justice
Party Government and D.M.K. Government enacted several laws and introduced several
schemes for promotion of the educational development and welfare of women and
child. Particularly, DMK Government provided special Reservation for women in
teacher appointments in primary schools.
It has enacted laws for free education of girl students upto post
graduate level. Dravidian leaders Thanthai Periyar E.V.Ramasamy, Perarignar
C.N.Annadurai, Dr. Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi had served for the the development
of women education and women welfare. DNEP has not given importance to women
education.
Ignoring
the Classical Tamil language
DNEP
talks more about Sanskrit language. Only about 25000 people speak Sanskrit in
India. But Sanskrit language is given undue importance in this draft. The report says that Sanskrit was base for
all other languages. This is not fact. Tamil the most ancient language in India
can function independently without the help of Sanskrit. Further, after the
sustained efforts of Dr. Kalaignar M. Karunanidhi, Tamil has been accorded
classical language status. Such a great Tamil language has not been given due
place in this report.
Imposition
of Hindi
DNEP
proposes three languages formula in the schools which is only a guise to impose
Hindi. DNEP bristles with contradictions. While lamenting the learning load on
children, it imposes an incredible load of learning three languages on school
children, two from class 1 and three from class 3. The D.M.K. founder and
former Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu, Perarignar C.N.Annadurai,
introduced two language formula in Tamil Nadu
on 23-1-1968. Since then it has been in practice in Tamil Nadu.
Three
Language Formula.
DMK
strongly opposes Three Language Formula proposed by this biased DNEP.In
addition to three languages, DNEP also proposes school students to study more
languages including foreign languages like French, German, Spanish and
Japanese. (Page - 84)
P 4.5.10 as optional languages. It would be very difficult for pre primary and
primary students to learn more languages.
.
Admitting Child in the formal
school at the Age of 3 is against the
International Norms
The
Universal Declaration of Human Rights 1948, in Article 26, talks about the
Right to Education. Article 27, talks about cultural rights of communities. The
U.N. Declaration of Rights of the children 1959, in classes 5 and 9 talks about
the rights of children towards education.
The world conference on the education for all, held in Jomtein, Thailand
in 1991, strongly emphasised education for all children. DNEP 2019 is against
the declarations of these International organisations. In several countries,
formal education of child starts from the age of 5. Advanced countries like
America, China, Japan, England and Finland admit children in schools only after
the age of 5. Contrary to this internationally accepted child education age
limit, this reports says that, education of child begins from the age of
3. (Page-46). The present DNEP policy of
admitting child in school for formal education at the age of 3 is against the
children’s rights.
Attempt
to abolish the Midday Meals scheme
Midday
Meals Scheme was first introduced in one of the schools in Chennai Corporation
by one of the founders of the Justice Party and President of Chennai
Corporation Sir. P.Theagaraya Chetty.
Later, Midday meals scheme was given more importance by Congress leader
Perunthalaivar K.Kamaraj. During his Chief Ministership, he reintroduced midday
meals scheme in schools all over Tamil Nadu.
This scheme was further improved by former Chief Minister of Tamilnadu
Dr. M.G.Ramachandran. Later Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi, the former Chief Minister
of Tamil Nadu, further improved this scheme. He allocated more funds and
extended the scheme to more schools and provided eggs.
At
present, students of class 1 to 10, (age 5 to 15) have been provided midday
meals. But this DNEP attempts to introduce midday meals scheme only in pre
primary and primary schools. Up to 5th std. (Page-58). So, as per
this report, students of high school from
6 to 10 classes, who have been getting the benefit of midday meals will
be denied. This will lead more dropouts among the poor students.
Caste Based Hereditary
Education System (Kulakkalvi Thittam) in the name of Vocational Courses
Vocational
Courses are given very big importance in this DNEP. This is RSS and BJPs indirect attempt to
drive away the rural students from the main stream education to their caste
based hereditary occupation. Such an
attempt was earlier made in the name of caste based education (Kulakkalvi
Thittam) in Tamil Nadu. Our Dravidian leader Thanthai Periyar E.V.Ramasamy,
Perarignar C.N.Annadurai, Muthamizharignar Dr. Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi,
Congress leader Perunthalaivar Kamarajar, Communist leader and Scholar
Jeevanantham and other leaders of Tamilnadu, vehemently protested. Due to the
strong opposition the caste based hereditary education system was dropped. Now
this DNEP is proposing same caste based hereditary education at national level
which will be against oppressed people. It is an attempt to safe guard
varnashrama dharma and caste system. This cannot be accepted.
Government
should provide equal educational opportunities to both city and rural
students. Instead of providing standard
and quality education to students, DNEP indirectly compels them to choose
vocational courses. This will not help students to get government job. Instead,
this will compel them to go for their hereditary family occupation.DNEP in page
94, P 4.6.61, purposefully talks about gardening, pottery, play making, wood
work for students in name of vocational training. DNEP will segregate and drive
away students towards caste based hereditary occupations. Instead of promoting
science and technology, DNEP in the name of vocational courses attempts to
bring back Varnashram system and take India back to
feudal and pre feudal period.
Syllabus
for Parents - a dangerous attempt
The
additional synopsis document also has got several unacceptable, impractical,
contradictory and objectionable points.It is said, in page-11&12 of the
MHRD Tamil Summary of DNEP that School
syllabus will be framed for parents and teachers. It has ignored the rural
uneducated parents. Children of such parents, who cannot get parental
educational support will not able to perform well. It will compel them to
discontinue from Schools. Syllabus is framed only for Students. Teachers will
teach the syllabus. There should not be syllabus for parents. DNEP proposal
will be favourable to upper class only.
Three
Months Special Camp for Class 1 Students
The
DNEP says that all students who study in Class 1, should participate in 3
months Special Camp Program. (Page-13 in Tamil Summary Copy).How a child of
Class 1, could be sent to such special camps organized in faraway places.
Practically this is not possible. This will only increase drop outs.
State
Census Examination for Classes 3, 5 and 8 students
At
present students studying upto class 8 are evaluated on the basis of Continuous
and Comprehensive Evaluation and promoted without detention. This system
reduced stress among students and teachers. State level examinations for Grade
3, 5 and 8 proposed in DNEP will be very
difficult for school students.DNEP has with ulterior motive proposed to conduct
semester examinations for high school students from class 9 (Para 4.9.5). Even
in higher education semester system is debatable one. Such a system will be
more stressful for secondary school students.
This will increase drop outs from Schools.
Corporate Companies in
Education System in the name of
Private Examination Board
Examinations
have been conducted by government. Representative bodies like school education
department and universities. But, this DNEP says there will be three
examination authorities. They are central government, state government and
private examination board. Why and how a private examination board could
conduct eight semester examinations in schools from class 9 to class 12
students. Examination is a serious, main and final evaluation process in the
academic career of every student. This should be done only by teachers not by
outsiders.
No
suggestion to fill 10 lakhs teachers vacancies
Page
115 of the report says the existence of 10 lakhs teacher vacancies but DNEP
does not suggest for filling up of those vacancies. Instead of filling
vacancies it talks about appointing music teachers, social workers and volunteers
in schools with ulterior motive.
D P2.7 says
"qualified volunteers (such as retired teachers and army officers,
excellent students from neighbouring schools and passionate socially conscious
college graduates from across the country ) will also be drawn on a large scale
to join the NTP and the RIAP on an unpaid basis ,during the academic year as
well as in the summer, as a service to the communities and to the country. Thus
the NTP and RIAP programs will each have to modes .Conventional (consisting of
peer tutors and paid IAs from the local community) and volunteer; both modes
will be highly encouraged...'' This has been proposed to pave way for Hindutva
idealists to enter into education institutes as volunteers.
Closure
of Rural Schools
In
page of 161 Para 7.1.2 says “…It will be upto the individual State governments
to group schools into school complexes according to the population
distribution, road connectivity and other local consideration…” it may lead to
closure of thousands of schools all over the country.
Teachers
Promotion
DNEP
proposes promotion of teachers on the basis of performance and appraisal by the
Head of the School without taking into consideration the experience and
seniority. It may lead to partiality and bias in consideration. It will affect
the morale of teachers.
HIGHER EDUCATION
National
Level Entrance Test for admission in Colleges
including Arts ana Science College
Conducting
national level entrance test to admit students in Arts and Science colleges is a dangerous
attempt. It will seal the future of students for higher studies. As admissions are done in medical colleges
through NEET, DNEP suggests to conduct national level test by NTA (National
Testing Agency) for admissions to degree courses in Arts and Science colleges.
Those who pass the national entrance test only will be given admission in B.A.,
B.Sc., B.Com., and other courses in Arts and Science colleges in India. Now colleges are directly admitting students.
This national level entrance test will bring hardship to students. Further, it
will facilitate mushrooming of commercial coaching centres. Regulation of
university including admission is a state subject under article 246 of the
Constitution of India. State Government and the universities established by the
state government must be allowed to decide the qualification and admission
process in the colleges and universities in a state. These rights are grabbed
by central educational authorities. This is against the constitutional
provisions. D.M.K. Government abolished entrance examinations to professional
College admissions. DMK has been continuously opposing imposition of central
government’s entrance examination for the State Government controlled seats in
educational institutions. DMK is against NTA conducting national level entrance
examinations for Tamil Nadu State quota seats.
Breaking
Higher education structure
Now
Colleges are affiliated to universities. Universities only confer degrees to
students. Colleges do not have power to frame syllabus or to confer degrees.
This DNEP suggests colleges can frame their own syllabus and offer degrees to
students.
So
far universities have been the syllabus framing and degree awarding
authorities. University degrees have International and national level
recognitions for higher studies and jobs as they are accredited by national
bodies.
If
colleges are allowed to confer degrees to students it will create several
problems. Getting national and international accreditation and recognition to
such degrees will be a serious problem. It will affect graduates’ higher
studies and job opportunities. This will
increase drop outs at degree level. It will also create under employment,
unemployment problems.
Bleak job opportunities
P
10.4. says “Universities will have no affiliated colleges.
All (currently) affiliated colleges, must develop into autonomous degree
granting colleges (Type 3) by 2032, or merge completely with the university
that they are affiliated to, or develop into a university themselves.... Thus,
there will no affiliating universities or affiliated colleges after 2032” There
are about 40,000 colleges all over India.
If all those institutions issue degree certificates, it would be
difficult for the employing companies to find out the genuineness of the
certificates. There are also the
possibilities of fake degrees. Further,
at present, the rural college students are getting degree from the recognized
universities, which would enhance/brighten their chances of employment. On the other hand, the college degree
certificates will not be of such help for students to get jobs. This would definitely darken their
future (P.10.13)
Reducing
the Number of Higher Education Institutions.
DNEP
Chapter 9 and 10 propose moving towards
a higher educational system consisting of large, multi-disciplinary
universities and colleges. It talks of having three types of institutions,
namely the research universities, teaching universities and colleges. The
policy proposes to retain only larger institutions with above 5000 students and
directly proposes closure of all other smaller institutions. The policy states
that it is enough to have 150 to 300 research universities, 1000 to 2000
teaching universities and 5000 to 10000 colleges. The colleges will admit 5000+
students and universities will admit 25000+ students. It boldly states that
these reductions in the number of institutions from the present 40000 to 10000
i.e., 1/4th will ensure multidisciplinary and research approach to education
and these 10000 institutions are not enough to cater to the whole country’s
higher education needs. Right now locally situated smaller institutions, be it
private or public institutions play a vital role in enrolling students from the
oppressed sections. Girls are usually enrolled in the nearby local colleges.
The reduction in number of institutions will reduce inclusion of the socially
and educationally backward and scheduled castes into the higher education fold.
Closure
of Colleges
Former
Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu Dr. Kalaignar M.Karunanidhi promoted school
education and higher education. During DMK regime more Arts and Science
colleges and schools were opened in rural areas to enable students from
villages to get high standard education. Further DMK Government opened
Engineering, Medical colleges and Universities in every district and enabled
more professionals to emerge from rural society.
DNEP
in Para 9.8 and Para 10.14 suggest that the rural colleges which lack
infrastructure and education standard would be closed. Those building would be
utilised as adult education centres, libraries and industrial training
centers. Closure of rural colleges will
be a death blow to Gandhian principle that India lives in villages. The closure
of colleges is against democratisation of education. It will deprive the
education rights of rural youth.
DNEP
also says that further permissions will not be given to open new affiliated Arts
and Science Colleges after 2020. This
will affect the students and higher educational development of India.
Abolition of UGC
DNEP
says that the existing academic regulatory bodies like UGC will be
abolished. It suggests to create Higher
Education Grants Council. The proposal to abolish reputed democratic higher
education institutions, like UGC will create multiple problems in national
education system.
Medical Education
DNEP
2019, P16.2.1says` The RSA (Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog) will commission a
comprehensive perspective plan for professional education in India”
This
will lead to centralization of medical and other professional education. This
will pave way for authoritarianism in medical education.
DNEP
2019, P 16.4.2 talks about “faculty shortages in multiple ways….making use of
talents from private sector, inviting overseas researchers, etc..
Lakhs of professionals across India are
remaining unemployed or underemployed. The DNEP 2019 has not bothered to give
employment to them and to satisfy their need and utilise them properly.
But,DNEP encourages and prefers faculties of
private sector and overseas researchers who are non Indians .
DNEP
-2019 , P-16.5.1 Fees for professional education , says ``In line with the spirit of providing
autonomy to educational institutions to charter their own course, fees for
professional education courses will be left to the management of educational
institutions ,both public and private….”
This
will deny the educational opportunity of the economically weaker sections of students,
OBC, SC and ST students. It is worth noting that , in states like Tamil Nadu,
Kerala and Puducherry fee for government quota seats and management quota seats
of self financing medical colleges are fixed by ``fee fixation committee’’
appointed by the respective state governments.
Through
this mechanism the fee for, “all the hundred percent seats” of self financing
medical colleges are fixed!. Hundred
percent of students are getting benefitted because of this . But, some
colleges are illegally collecting more fees and it can be curbed by
implementing the ‘capitation fee elimination act’ stringently. On the contrary
the DNEP-2019, gives total autonomy and rights to the college management to fix
fees for “all seats without cap as per their wish”. This will prevent the
students of SC/ST/OBC and economically weaker sections from getting admission
in medical colleges. This is against social justice.
Now
for government medical colleges and institutions the uniform fee is fixed by
the government for all its medical
colleges .There are no differences in fees structure of government medical
colleges of Tamilnadu under Tamilnadu MGR medical university. As per
DNEP 2019, there can be different fee structure for each college for
both government and private. This is a regressive step! The poor, economically
weaker sections and oppressed community students will be affected very badly. Due
to the DNEP 2019, not only private but also the doors of government medical
colleges will also be closed to them.
DNEP
-2019, P-16.5.1 Fees for professional education, says``…. Fees for professional
education courses will be left to the management of educational institutions
both public and private. They will however, be required to fulfill their social
obligations and provide scholarships to students from the socially and
economically weaker sections of society.
Up to 50 % of students qualifying for admission must receive some degree
of scholarships and a minimum of 20 % of these must receive full scholarships”
In
this paragraph, the responsibility of providing scholarship to the students has
been shifted to the colleges and the governments shirks it’s responsibility. The
DNEP -2019 makes it a social obligation of private and public institutions to
provide scholarship to students. What will be the assurance that these
institutions will fulfill the obligations? To fulfill the obligation, these
institutions will collect more fees from other students. Providing scholarships
to the students is the duty of the central and state governments. The term
“full scholarship for a minimum of 20% students” is not only low but also
obscure in terms of what constitutes as full scholarship.
The
failure to clearly define what ‘some degree of scholarship’ mean and that too
for 50% of the admitted students, may allow the colleges to arbitrarily fix
very low sums that suits them. This could be defeating the very purpose of
scholarships leaving a large majority of
the students in distress.
Also
for getting scholarships, the eligibility criteria has been changed. Instead of
stating as `Socially and educationally backward” it has been stated as ``
socially and economically backward”, purposefully with ulterior motive!
``Educationally backward’’ has been replaced with the word ``Economically
backward’ which is unconstitutional. This is against social justice. Through
this P16.5.1, it is confirmed that social justice will be endangered.
P16.5.2,
says`` …equitable access shall be the most important principle guiding
decisions regarding the setting up of new institutions and of investment in
improving infrastructure and learning
resources..’’
But,
the clause 16.5.1 is contradictory to 16.5.2 in principle as it defeats the
equitable access to quality professional education to all as provision of
scholarship is not in the hands of the government.
In
P 16.8,It is stated``….This makes it important to impart medical education in an integrative health science frame work
and replace the current silos in which it is imparted in India. Health care
education must ensure that that skilled doctors, nurses and paramedics are
trained in a scheme that appreciates pluralistic health education perspectives
alongside specific disciplinary foci…”.
Modern
universal scientific medicine which is based on evidence cannot be diluted in
the name of pluralistic choices of people. Nevertheless, each system of
medicine has its own uniqueness.
Integrating these medical systems (where each
one is based on unique concepts) to modern medicine is proposed by DNEP. This
will affect the quality and standard of modern
scientific medicine. This will pave the way for teaching and practicing
scientifically unproven methods and pseudo medical sciences.
There
is a danger of diluting modern scientific medicine by infusing obscurantist
concepts and ideals in modern scientific medical education.
DNEP
2019 P16.8.1 says``…All MBBS graduates must necessarily possess : (1) medical
skills (2) diagnostic skills (3)
surgical skills (4) emergency
skills….The compulsory rotation internship ,which has become virtually non –
existent ,will be reintroduced and made more robust and effective”
DNEP
2019’s recommendation to conduct common EXIT test will be contradictory to
these four objectives. Since EXIT is made as an entrance examination for PG
medical admissions and screening test for Foreign medical graduates, students
will start preparing for the EXIT test from the first year. Students will not
concentrate on wider and deeper studies and acquiring broader medical knowledge
.They will not bother about acquiring medical, surgical, diagnostic and
emergency skills! This will affect the standard and quality of doctors. DNEP
says Compulsory rotatory residential internship is virtually non -existent. This
is not true! CRRI training is the back bone of medical training.
In
some private colleges there are no adequate patients. In all government medical
colleges, interns are not properly trained according to MCI norms and various
types of works not related to them are imposed on them. They are doing MNA, FNA
and Nurses’ (para medical) work and severe exploitation is taking place. Due to these reasons, interns are denied
appropriate clinical exposure and expertise. In some places interns are
preparing for PG entrance examination instead of training. It could be
rectified with appropriate actions. But, EXIT is not the remedy for this.
P
16.8.2, suggests`` The first year or two of the MBBS courses will be designed
as a common period for all science graduates, after which they can take up
MBBS, BDS, Nursing or other specialisations .Common foundational courses based
on medical pluralism will be followed by core courses focused on specific
systems, and electives that encourage bridging across systems…”
Now,
the first year syllabus for MBBS students has been framed according to the
needs of a MBBS doctor and further future specialization by him/her. The nursing
students’ first year syllabus is framed according to the needs to bring up a
nurse. These should not be confused. If the syllabus is made common, the
standard of medical education will decline. The idea of common syllabus for
AYUSH and modern scientific medicine to follow medical pluralism will dilute
the modern scientific medicine and its further development and progress. This
will facilitate to infuse pseudo medical sciences in the name of ancient
medical system, Vedic medicine, Yoga etc. This will adversely affect the
scientific and technological development of modern scientific medicine in India
and will affect the people of India. They will be deprived of getting
scientifically and technologically
advanced medical treatment for their various ailments. The concept of
pluralistic medical education will be a retrograde step, introduced due to the
``Hindutva Ideology’’ of the BJP led NDA government.
Bridge
courses will affect quality and standard of medical education and medical
services .This will lead to quackery and dilution of modern scientific medicine
and pluralism in medical treatment as stated in DNEP-2019.
P16.8.3
says about EXIT Test ``Just as the NEET has been introduced as a common
entrance examination for the MBBS ,a common EXIT examination for the MBBS will
be introduced (as has been suggested in the National Medical Commission Bill) that will play a dual role as also the
entrance examination for admission into postgraduate programmes. This exit
examination will be administered at the end of the fourth year of the MBBS so
that students are relieved of the burden of studying for a separate,
competitive entrance examinations at the end of their respective period…”
The
NEET examination has already usurped the rights of states in medical
admissions. Due to NEET, students studying in state board syllabus, Tamil
medium, Government schools and rural area schools are affected very much. This is
against social justice. In this situation, DNEP 2019 has recommended for EXIT
(NEXT- National Exit Test) tests. This is against social Justice, states’
rights and federal system of India. Students are studying in medical colleges
recognised by MCI and passing through various tough examinations conducted by
universities of state and central governments or universities approved by
central and state governments. Then, why should an exit test be forced on them?
The structured medical education and multiple exams during the course study
prescribed by approved universities are rendered meaningless by EXIT test.
EXIT
test will only be helpful to the,`` examination conducting private agencies’’
to appropriate more profits. Examinations have been made as profit making
commodities.
As
stated earlier, a single test cannot ensure the quality of a doctor. Life long
continuous training in medical science and technology , better working
conditions with adequate modern facilities, and with a skilled medical team ,
and opportunities to update their scientific and technical skills and mentoring
by teachers are essential to ensure the
quality of a doctor.
It
is a myth that a single test can ensure the quality of a doctor. Final year
examination or an examination conducted during the MBBS course is a qualifying
examination. Making a qualifying examination into a competitive examination
(Entrance examination for PG medical admissions) will lead to lot of
confusions, corruptions and scandals. If the exit (NEXT) test is conducted at
the end of fourth year, and it serves as the entrance examination for PG
medical admissions, students will start preparing for this examination from the
first year of MBBS. The overall reading habits to acquire more wider medical
knowledge will decline. It will deteriorate the standard of medical education!
No
more PG diploma courses
P16.8.7
says ``…..Diploma courses such as the one being offered by the College of
Physicians and surgeons, Mumbai will be promoted throughout the country ,to
help produce sufficient numbers of intermediate specialists’’
These
type of courses will create confusions. Already the diplomas have been
eradicated by the central government after justifying it .Then why should
diploma like courses be started again? This only will allow private players in
PG medical education.
DNEP-
2019 P 18.3.1 Says`` All the other regulatory authorities such as NCTE, AICTE,
MCI, BCI etc, shall transfer their regulatory function to NHERA which shall
become the sole regulator for higher education. These bodies may transform
themselves in PSSBs”
DNEP
2019’s this recommendation will eliminate all the democratic institutions of professional
courses. Authoritarianism and centralisation of professional education will
lead to disastrous consequences in future. This will lead to imposition of
Hindutva ideology in professional education. This will facilitate corporates to
engulf the professional education system of India.
Legal Education
The
DNEP says that the curriculum of legal education
has to fall back upon the culture and traditions of people, the history of
legal institutions and history of Dharma over Adharma writ large in Indian
Literature and Mythology (Para 16.7.2.)
One
is at a loss to understand what it meant by that. If the intention is to recognize the Legal
Education based on the contents of cultural, traditional and social conditions
as reflected in ancient literature before 1500 or 2000 years, we soli be
travelling back by thousands of year instead of taking forward the Legal
Education as per the current developments that are taking place after the world
becoming a Global village particularly after the First and Second world wars
which have resulted in the coming into existence of League of Nations, United
Nations Organisation and UN specialised agencies like I.L.O., IMF, ICJ, Human
Rights Commission and so on which have aided the growth of thousands of
conventions and codification of recent International Practices and Rules, that
has been developing and changing every day.
While the DNEP declares its laudable object is to make Legal Education
globally competitive, the remedy suggested puts the check back taking us to
ancient time, thus presenting a measure which is self contradictory and self
conflicting.
Secondly
DNEP speaks about strengthening the Legal Education heavily drawing from Dharma
and Asharma at discussed, described and advocated in ancient mythology.
The
word mythology denotes the study of myth and the total corpus of myths in a
particular culture or religions tradition.
Myths usually a story of unknown origin relating to some practice,
belief, faith especially associated with religion rites and beliefs. This refers us to another pertinent and
consequential question mythology of which religion, in view of the fact that
Jainism, Buddhism and Hinduism all of which are in existence even from 300 BC. However it looks absurd and ridiculous to
fall back on ancient literature and mythology as the source material for
updating the Legal Education to make it acceptable for the requirements of 21st
century and globally competitive.
Further
the bulk of Law, worldwide as known to jurists are made of customary Law;
social practices evolved on current social necessity and law recede by
litigations. Nowhere Law is made or
connected with Dharma, Adharma or morality, though they may have some place in ethics. One should not lose sight of the fact that
morality is a concept of time depending upon the composition of community of
the respective country, which in most cases having its root in the religious
faith. It may be noted that what is
morality in one time, or in one religion may not be the same at a different
time or in a different religion.
To
accept morality or Dharma to be taken as a content and source to evolve law, it
will end up in creating disastrous results.The use of the word Dharma indicates
that DNEP is advocating Manu Dharma .
DNEP
is pinning its hope to achieve such results on the philosophy taught at Thakshasheela and Nalauda as well as the writings of Chanakya in his Arthasasthra. Democracy and Human Rights are of a recent
development, as seen and practiced in the preceding few centuries. Moreover the concepts of Arthesasthra or Manusmrithi
are all against Democratic principle and basic principles of Human Rights. Thus in the light of the above, DNEP seems to
be basically under a confused state of mind.
DNEP whiles attempting to re-orient the Legal Education gets itself
mixed up with problem of Legal Profession, Judicial Administration and Justice
delivery mechanism.
Para:16.7
and 16.7.1. which deal with the policy on Legal Education has not said remedial
measures. It should more as a
declaration or political slogan or a manifesto couched in a decorative
language.
Citing
Wrong Examples
If
the Draft Report cites internationally famous universities such as Oxford University,
Cambridge University, Harward University etc., as role model universities, we would welcome it. But P.9.1 and P.10.15 cite Nalanda University
and Takshshila University as role model universities and declare Nalanda
Mission and Takshshila Mission for the improvement of modern Indian
Universities. The syllabus of Nalanda
and Takshshila Universities are 2000 years old and out dated and they could not
stand before the modern scientific test.
Further,
only upper caste students were permitted in those universities. A vast majority of people were refused
admission in those universities. Hence,
the suggestion that the modern Indian Universities should function following
the model of Nalanda and Takshshila universities cannot be accepted.
Dual
leadership in University Administration
DNEP
suggests the abolition of the existing syndicate and the formation of Board of
Governors. DNEP says that the Vice chancellor will be the chief executive officer
of the university.But, the power of appointing officers and staff of the
university and supervising the functions of the university are vest with the
Chairperson Of the Board of Governors(P.17.1).This will create dual
leadership and chaos in the administration of the university.
Abolition
of Syndicate
As
per P .17.1 ,The Syndicate which has been so far successfully functioning in
the university would be abolished. In that palce new body called board of
governors will be formed. The appointment of members in the initial period has
not been spelt out. But, after constitution of the board of governors the
members of the same body will identify be the new members and admit them to the
board of governors. Further, the majority members of the board may pass a
resolution against any other member and remove him from the member.The
chairperson of the board can initiate this process.This will create groupism and infight among the members. The
members may elect the Chaiperson of the
Board or may even nominate an outsider as Chairperson.
Till
now , the teachers working in higher educational institutions are given
promotions on the basis of merit and seniority.But as per P 17.5 and P 9.5 of
the DNEP promotions to teachers will be given only on the basis of merit and
seniority will not be taken into account.This will only lead to biased approach
and corruption.
Concentration
of authority at the Centre
P18.5
of DNEP proposes the establishment of National Higher Educational Regulatory
Authority. It would be vested with the power to regulate the functioning of
all higher education organization such as UGC,AICTE,MCI,DCI etc.Any Higher body
can advise and aid other institutions for better functioning .But the phrase
regulatory authority seems to threaten the higher education body to adhere to
its regulations.This centralization of authority will be against democratic
functioning of higher education bodies.
Political
headship toNational Education Commission
To
realise the basic objective of centralisation, a spree of institutional
creation is to be set off, covering the entire gamut of education, starting
from Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog (National Education Commission), headed by the
Prime Minster that is empowered to take all important decisions, National
Education Commission, National Testing Agency, General Education Council,
Higher Education Grants Commission, National Research Foundation, National
Higher Educational Regulatory Authority and others. These are to be the final
arbiters in their respective areas of jurisdiction. The state governments would
have no say in curricular, regulatory, evaluatory, or certifying matters. Such
a violation of the federal structure, which is a basic feature of the
constitution, cannot be permitted.
Of
the above institutions to be set up, Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog (RSA) will be the
new apex body for education. “It will be responsible for developing,
articulating, implementing, evaluating, and revising the vision of education”. This
Rashtriya Shiksha Aayog will be headed by the Prime Minister. It will be completely
a central governmentorganisation. It will be chaired by the Prime Minister, and
includes the Niti Aayog Vice-chairman and several ministers. This will be a
greater blow to the federal structure and the widely varied needs of our states
cannot be imagined.
Further
,P18.4.2 says`` the state department of education and SHEC will not have any
regulatory role or administrative control over the HEIS. Thus states are
wrapped off their basic rights of providing education to all.
WITHDRAW
THE DRAFT NATIONAL EDUCATION POLICY 2019
Draft National Educational Policy 2019, is against the constitution, federalism and social
justice. It is not addressing the core issues of scientific and technological
advancement of India.
Indirectly it wants to protect caste hierarchy system and
varnashrama dharma. It is against equality.
It has not uphold the constitutional values such as democracy, secularism,
socialism, fraternity, equality and liberty.
DNEP aims to transfer the educational powers of the state
Government to the central government. It is against educational rights of children
and rural people of India. It talks about closure of rural schools, colleges,
UGC and Universities and other education institutions.
The alternative mechanism suggested by DNEP is more
dangerous and disastrous. Instead of talking about national and people’s
development, it talks more about caste based education (Kualakkalvi Thittam).It
talks about Hindi and Sanskrit imposition.It will hinder the educational development.
Based on the above valid factors, the D.M.K. Party strongly
opposes and rejects this anti people, anti Constitutional and anti student, Draft National Education Policy
- 2019. Hence DMKdemands the BJP
Government, to withdraw this Draft National Educational Policy - 2019.Further,DMK
urges the BJP government to retransfer Education from the Concurrent List to
state List.
***
Acknowledgment
D.M.K. profusely thanks the following
educationist and others, who have offered their views and opinion on the “Draft
National Education Policy - 2019”.
1.
Dr.Sathik,
Former Vice-Chancellor, University of Madras
2.
Dr.
V.Vasanthidevi, Former Vice-Chancellor, Manonmaniyam Sundaranar University.
3.
Dr.
Jagadesan, Former Vice-Chancellor,Bharathidasan University.
4.
Dr.
Sabapathimohan, Former Vice-Chancellor, Manonmaniyam Sudanranar University.
5.
Dr.
Thangaraj, Former Vice-Chancellor, Bharathiyar University.
6.
Dr. Kalyani
Anbuselvam, Former Vice-Chancellor, Tamil Nadu Open Univeristiy.
7.
Dr. Janaki,
Former Vice-Chancellor, Mother Terasa University.
8.
Dr. A.
Ramachandran, Scientist, Anna University.
9.
Prof. K.
Karunandhan, Former Syndicate Member, Madras University.
10. Dr. Bernadsamy, Educationist.
11. Dr. Susan Edward
12. Dr. Murugan Pakkirisami, Tamil Nadu Educational
Research Institute, Chennai.
13. Dr. Velu Thambi, Senior Scientist.
14. Thiru. A.V.Jawahar,
15. Thiru. Balaji Kaliyaperumal
16. Thiru. Muthu Ashok.
17. Thiru. K. Gowthaman, Educationist.
18. Thiru Shan Velu.
19. Pudhiyakural - an Acadamic Research Institute.
20. Dr. Murugan, Secretary, Madras
University Teacher’s Association.
and
Hundreds of others who have
sent e-mails.
***