NEP 2020: The devil lies in the details of implementation strategy

 

The National Education Policy 2020 could dare to recommend some fundamental changes in the very idea and approach of Indian education as many of those who prepared the NEP document thankfully, had no faith in the earlier system of education. However, many of those who have now the responsibility to implement the policy, are products of the same earlier education system. Those who believe in the earlier system, have never been trained or encouraged to think out of box and to explore innovative ideas. NEP 2020 has very efficiently pointed out the deficiencies in our earlier education system and consequently prescribed the remedies. But to achieve the same, the most important issue is to design and develop the implementation strategies. Such strategic issues were not a part of the document since these are bound to be different at different places. It was therefore most judiciously left to the ability of the implementers to decide these concerns.

The fact that our earlier education system was incapable of producing visionaries, thinkers and innovators have got exposed in this process by those who had the responsibility to affect the changes and implement NEP. The earlier education system was such that most of the innovators were necessarily rejects of the system. The human resource product of our earlier education system always looked for decisions and instructions in all the documents that were to be followed but was not explicitly written in the policy. NEP has no such set of instructions but it only mentions the targets. But most unfortunately, academic administrators kept on trying to find instructions in the same even in this case. They were used to finding out instructions in all such documents and therefore searched for the same even in this case. They tried to decipher some kind of instructions from their discussion with the higher authorities who could never be logically expected to have adequate understanding of the exact local status and institutional environment throughout the length and breadth of this huge country.

Many clever academic administrators used this opportunity in getting their vested interest satisfied. As a classic case, I have no hesitation in stating that our the then Head of the Department of Physics of Delhi University misused this opportunity in cutting down the practical lab component in the undergraduate physics course. His famous claim that teachers don’t take practical labs seriously and that is why this aspect must be done away with as far as possible. Imagine how did he arrive at this conclusion from the document of NEP that talks of increasing the hands-on practical approach throughout the document.

Another statement of a similar academic administrator that they are least concerned about the workload of the teaching faculty only highlights that they were very poor in understanding and foreseeing the problems and thereby suggesting a tailor made solution in that particular environment. This is clearly an escapist’s approach and these administrators were able product of our earlier education that was designed primarily to produce escapists. 

Due to this the administrators tried to race through its implementation, while it should have been a slow and consolidating process. The administrators that were product of our earlier system just wanted to showcase their efficiency to their seniors by making all changes in one go which could have never been advisable just because the change this time was not a routine one.

Those who would attempt to go through the NEP document and would look for the need of VAC and SEC courses will be convinced that VAC (Value Added Courses) should have been primarily aimed for school going students and SEC (Skill Enhancement Courses) should have basically targeted students of higher education. But in the race and scoring points, VAC courses were introduced in a big way even in the higher education with an intensity similar to SEC. 

To accommodate VAC and SEC courses and that too without compromising on the core courses led to a situation wherein the attention on core courses have got diluted to undesirable levels. Papers that required 4 to 5 lectures per week are given only 2-3 lectures now. Due to this, for example in University of Delhi, the number of papers to be studied by the undergraduate students jumped from 4 to 7 in each semester. Such an increase can never be balanced by reducing the credits and lectures in each paper since the burden of number of papers itself became too much for the students to absorb. To ease themselves, students started opting for courses not to gain skills or values but to somehow manage them. Courses like ‘Fit India’ & ‘NCC’ became so much sought after that the university had to notify a rule that only those students who were engaged in such activities in their schools will be able to take these courses. Increase in the number of papers to such a level increased the number of events of making assessments at the cost of their time that could have gone in studies. The result is that students are passing out having little skills and that is just opposite to what the NEP 2020 had been prescribed for. Students will pass out having neither the skill of following instructions and nor the skill of carrying out innovations.

If the trend is not arrested, I am afraid, those who wanted this excellent well-meaning NEP policy document to fail, will have the last laugh.

Restoring the tradition of religious evolution: Ram Mandir

In the mediaeval period, for the first time in her history, Bharat witnessed a kind of invasion that was completely different from earlier ones. This land was unaware of such a variety of military invasion that was carried out with an aim to religiously convert the inhabitants of the conquered territory. To accomplish this, the invaders were ready to indulge in any level of brutality and inhuman practices then unimaginable for such purposes. Bharat suffered very heavily for not being prepared to counter this phenomenon of religious fanaticism that was using force and military to spread a religious philosophy. In the conquered territory, normal people were subjected to unthinkable harassments and atrocities to ensure ‘conversion’. Muhammad Bin Quasim beheaded Dahir, the King of Sindh after victory, and then paraded with his head on the roads besides said to have enslaved all his family members. Such open displays of terror by Quasim and others were aimed at creating an easy ground to carry out conversion of ‘infidels’. There are several such accounts written by contemporary historians, narrators and killer-kings themselves, who have openly boasted about having left no infidels  ‘unconverted’ or ‘uncircumcised’ unless killed or enslaved. Quasim, Khilji, Taimur, Tipu, Ghazni, Babar, Akbar and Aurangzeb – none of them can be left out from this list. This brutal form of religious fanaticism was unknown to Bharat by then, since we had no tradition of forcibly spreading a religious philosophy. Such a feature of our ancient tradition, clearly differentiate us from invaders’ culture.

Bharat had a tradition of practicing religious democracy. People of this land had absolute freedom to worship and pray to one’s own choice of faith, liking and understanding. To shift from one religious philosophy to other was considered as evolution and we were unaware of the idea of such a possibility in a forced manner. While change in one’s religious beliefs was perfectly acceptable, but asking for a commitment of not indulging in any change of belief in future, was termed as ‘conversion’ – a concept that never existed in this part of the world. While the tradition of convincing anyone to change one’s understanding of the mysteries of the world existed in the name of ‘Shastrarth’, it never asked anyone to stop evolving again in future. More than providing answers to the mysteries of this universe, religion is known for keeping alive the attitude of knowing, questioning and exploring. Such an attitude has helped us in keeping us open for religious evolution.

'Shastrarth' between Adi Shankaracharya with Mandan Mishra is just one such example of our rich and scholarly tradition of logic and openness. The modern religious and semi-religious philosophies viz. ‘Islam’, ‘Christianity’ and ‘Marxism’ are completely intolerant to the idea of religious evolution and for this reason, they came in direct conflict with our Bharatiya tradition. These foreign philosophies demanded an end to the process of our religious evolution. ‘Religion’ for them was considered to be providing ‘unquestionable’ final answers. The struggle of Bharat in the mediaeval period and after has been precisely for continuing with this tradition of openness that suddenly came under threat in that era. Our understanding of ‘religion’ was completely different from these invaders. The invading forces tried to prove that our religious tradition is not different in any sense and made continuous historical attempts to establish this. In fact, a century old campaign by the colonisers and leftist historians to somehow establish that we are also like them, through their prejudiced understanding of ‘Indian’ history has failed to stand the test of logic and scientific investigations. Our history of the last thousand years needs to be analysed in this way. Bharat continued to struggle just to save its freedom of religious evolution. When Kashmiri Pandits asked the ninth Sikh leader, Guru Teg Bahadur to help them, they wanted to save exactly this tradition of religious evolution, freedom and democracy. The Sikh movement itself was a part of our religious evolution process, wherein we evolved to save this feature.

The fanatic military attack in the mediaeval era was so brutal and inhuman that the struggle to save ourselves demanded innovative responses from the leaders of that era. Bhakti movement was yet another example that proved to be pretty effective also in saving this tradition. Evolution of a Vedic era text ,Valmiki’s Ramayana, to a contemporary Ram Charit Manas in the sixteenth century is yet another instance in support of this understanding. The fanatic attack on the mandir of Ram Janamsthan led to its complete destruction. To make this destruction irreversible, a new structure was built at that place and was called Babri structure. Destruction of Ram Mandir and the attempt to convert the character of that place is representative of the mentality that mindlessly destroyed thousands of such places of knowledge and wisdom. Nalanda, Taxila and other universities witnessed similar destructions and was associated with demolition of temples that were also used as institutions of spreading knowledge and wisdom. Our struggle to restore the tradition of religious evolution has continued since then.

The mediaeval attacks also changed the idea of temples from being institutions of knowledge and wisdom to merely places of worships and pilgrimage. Temples were compelled to become merely tools of forgiving/justifying sins committed by their committed believers. Scientists, known as Brahmins, were left with no choice but to start practicing priesthood to save themselves from the mindless atrocities. The invaders were so much driven from religious faiths and beliefs that they were unable to accommodate wisdom beyond their boundaries of faith. Restricting the history of evolution of earth within a few thousand years, imagining earth as flat and other such dogmatic beliefs hampered our scientific understanding of history and the astronomical mysteries of universe in that era itself.

Restoration of Ram Mandir in Ayodhya shall prove to be our first significant move towards our march to a resurgent Bharat. Revival of temples as centres of knowledge, wisdom, scientific research, societal reforms and upliftment will establish our arrival on the global canvas as a ‘world saver’ in a near future.