By Glenn C. Kharkongor
No policy is perfect and no policy can fit all communities. This aphorism pertains to the National Education Policy (NEP) and the People’s Education Policy (PEP) alike. What one must look for in any policy is whether it meets the needs of the times and the community for which it is meant for.
Given the abysmal indices of school education in Meghalaya and the sad levels of learning outcomes, starkly pointed out by annual reports such as the Annual Survey of Education Rural (ASER) and the Performing Grade Index (PGI) means that we need to look beyond conventional models of learning. In higher education, even the top Indian universities still languish at the bottom of world rankings.
A new education policy was long overdue and NEP 2020 filled the void. A group of knowledgeable scientists and academicians came together under the widely respected K. Kasturirangan, former chairman, ISRO. The drafting committee of four persons included Manjul Bhargava, professor of mathematics, Princeton University, USA, and Anurag Behar, Vice Chancellor, Azim Premji University. I am unable to find any ‘Hindutva ideologues’ lurking in this august list.
The consultation process to formulate the draft policy included the sifting of over two lakh suggestions from 2.5 lakh gram panchayats, 6,600 blocks, 6,000 Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) in 676 districts. This was a bottom-up exercise. I, along with many other academicians, also submitted suggestions via the portal.
Those who are against the political dispensation at the Centre, imagine certain demons between the lines of NEP 2020 and regard the entire document as a shady conspiracy. Amongst this group there is little attempt for discernment and nuance, or to find anything of value in NEP 2020. This broad-brush approach demonstrates bias and loses out on the valuable concepts and models inherent in the NEP.
The value of NEP
Knowledge and life itself are interdisciplinary. The integration of silo departments into learning is an important feature of the NEP. Interdisciplinary means the fusion of subjects to engender analytical and critical thinking so as to solve problems and promote creativity and innovation. The NEP promotes a liberal arts curriculum which produces well-rounded graduates. Individualised learning is made feasible instead of one-size-fits-all syllabi.
The Academic Bank of Credits promotes mobility of students. Examination reforms facilitate formative assessment, and multiple assessment tools. The various levels of the National Skills Qualifications Framework, identical to international models, provides upward mobility outside of the rigid Indian systems of eligibilities and examinations which stifle academic movement up the ladder of academic aspirations.
Recognition of Prior Learning, a UNESCO initiative to which India is a signatory, enables all kinds of non-formal learning including traditional and experiential learning experiences that count towards formal qualifications such as diplomas and degrees.
Tribal aspects in
the NEP 2020
The section on Indian Knowledge Systems, far from valorising a particular religion or ideology includes provisions such as, “tribal knowledge and indigenous and traditional ways of learning, will be covered and included in mathematics, astronomy, philosophy, yoga, architecture, medicine, agriculture, engineering, linguistics, literature, sports, games, as well as in governance, polity, conservation. Specific courses in tribal ethno-medicinal practices, forest management, traditional (organic) crop cultivation, natural farming, etc. will also be made available.” What could be more inclusive and reassuring?
The NEP uses the word ‘tribal’ 13 times and contains passages like, “accurate inclusion of traditional Indian knowledge including tribal and other local knowledge throughout into the curriculum, across humanities, sciences, arts, crafts, and sports…Teachers must be grounded in Indian values, languages, knowledge, ethos, and traditions including tribal traditions…Efforts to preserve and promote all Indian languages including classical, tribal and endangered languages will be taken on with new vigour.”
The NEP prioritises learning in one’s mother tongue. Section 4.11 states that “the medium of instruction until at least Grade 5, but preferably till Grade 8 and beyond, will be the home language/mother tongue”. The rest of the section elaborates strategies for this recommendation including preparation of learning materials in the mother tongue.
People’s Education Policy
The PEP has several fine recommendations, especially the increase in the education budget. Free education up to Std 12 is beneficial as school education is a public good compared to higher education. The PEP proposes at least 10% of the central budget and 20-25% of the state budget for education. The first is a much-needed recommendation but to expect the states to allot such a large percentage is quite impractical.
The PEP states that “The government should take total financial responsibility for education.” This is fine as long as the government ensures high quality education. Even if it does, a pluri-educational model in which there is a mix of private and public education adds to the diversity and overall quality of education, as seen in most developed countries. When the state takes over all social sectors as did the erstwhile Soviet bloc countries, we have seen the stark deterioration of quality and democratic values.
The recommendations to do away with national selection examinations like CUET and NEET are also sound. Accessibility of education in rural and remote areas will increase inclusivity and opportunity.
Unfortunately for all its lofty ideals, the PEP is caught in a time warp, hanging on to outdated precepts and practices. It recommends continuation of the 3-year UG program, and is against the 4-year degree with its entry and exit options, and cafeteria system of selection of courses. It regards the multi-disciplinary approach of the NEP as “unscientific”. There are several other examples of this obscurantist mindset, the most glaring of which are the rigid continuation of annual examinations, and formal class room teaching as against hybrid modes of teaching introduced by the ΝΕΡ. No supportive data is presented.
Insistence on fixed number of years for undergraduate and postgraduate degrees and the retention of MPhil are long outdated, and reeks of obscurantism. It is only with flexible curricula, innovative frames of learning, and the use of blended learning that we can guard against obsolescence of knowledge and better enable students to keep abreast of emerging knowledge and its applications.
The accusation that the NEP is permeated with a certain ideology is to miss the wood for the trees. Nowhere are the words Hindu or Vedic mentioned. In fact, where Sanskrit is mentioned, it is compared to the classical languages like Greek and Latin. It is only cited as an option. The same section (4.17) recommends “storytelling…written by people of various religions as well as non-religious people, and by people from all walks of life and a wide range of socio-economic backgrounds over thousands of years.” This broad basis for the NEP is reassuring.
NEP 2020 is ideal
for India
The NEP 2020 is truly a visionary policy which will enable India to soon rank alongside the best universities in the world yet retain national, regional, and local cultural flavour and relevance. The best universities, especially those with a social agenda, have adopted the provisions of NEP 2020 with verve and enthusiasm.
Economic liberalization in India started in 1991 with the introduction of the New Economic Policy (NEP) by the Narasimha Rao government. The New Education Policy will have the same rejuvenating effect. Even the normally rigid and retrograde UGC has issued its recent notifications mostly as guidelines, rather than regulations. University autonomy is being emphasised, freeing higher education from the strangulation of a permit raj.
A refreshing wind is blowing over Indian education.
(The writer is Chancellor, Martin Luther Christian University)