The draft National Education Policy 2019 stepped into controversy the moment it was made public, thanks to a clause that imposed Hindi on non-Hindi speaking states. As the storm raged, the panel decided to revise the draft to remove the clause that offended many, especially in Tamil Nadu. The chairperson of the committee, former ISRO chief Dr K Kasturirangan tells TNM that it was never the committee’s intention to impose Hindi, and that the clause had been misinterpreted. “Somehow, the paragraph that was put in there was open to interpretation. We knew that kind of interpretation should not be the signal we wanted to send,” he says.
Excerpts from the interview:
Why did you reiterate the three language policy in the National Education policy, 2019?
We reviewed all the options available; previous experience with the policy, previous policies and their efficacy to meet the aspirations of various states with regard to language, changing scenarios with regard to the need for learning languages – all these were addressed. All the inputs were carefully examined in the context of factors like its national and international importance, availability to teachers to achieve these goals etc. There were multiple dimensions to formulating the language policy.
We reviewed the existing language policy and how well it was received by the states and how well they will respond to it if we continue with that. That made us decide that we would recommend the three-language formula as envisaged earlier, but with a flexibility. The flexibility of the choice of languages to teach, and the medium of instruction, we leave it to the states to decide.
Why was there a mandatory Hindi language learning recommendation for non-Hindi speaking states in the original draft NEP, whereas Hindi-speaking states had the choice of picking any third language?
That is where we thought it is sending a wrong signal that Hindi is being imposed on the south, which was not our intention at all. Somehow, the paragraph that was put in there was open to interpretation. We knew that kind of interpretation should not be the signal we wanted to send.
We discussed this in great detail within the committee. We had a formulation approved by the committee which was in the spirit of the language policy that we wanted to convey. Hence we replaced the earlier clause with the new one to stay in line with the spirit of the language policy without imposing any language on anyone.
The Committee took months to frame the draft NEP, but the revision was made within 24 hours. Was there political pressure on the committee to carry out an urgent revision?
Not at all. One thing I want to assure you – there was no political interference in the formulation of this policy. The government gave us (the Committee) all the freedom to frame a good policy which would work for the next 20-30 years. I want to categorically place it on record that there was absolutely no political advice, interference, or even suggestions while drafting this policy.
There was a lot of emphasis given on making the medium of instruction one’s home language. Doesn’t this contradict with the language policy in the draft?
That is where a choice has to be made. In India, science is learnt only in English, in most cases. Experts say that if science is instructed in one’s own home language, comprehension by the students is much better. So our policy says that in case of teaching of science, have a dual language policy where you learn it both in English and in the language in which the students are proficient locally. This should ultimately enable the students to think in their own local language about science concepts.
There is a suggestion to overhaul the schooling system, effectively to do away with junior colleges. What is the reasoning behind such a recommendation?
Education is a continuum. Students need to have flexible but integrated knowledge acquisition. Since education is a continuum and conceptual ideas and concept-based learning is typically introduced in middle school level, that is not the age when they take be plucked and placed in a whole new environment. Students need to have an environment where there is a continuum. That is where they prepare for a livelihood and also for higher education. Hence we recommended the 5+3+3+4 idea of schooling.
About the overhauling of undergraduate programmes to four-year courses, why is that important?
There are two things: one, the four year undergraduate programmes will be courses with liberal education. It means that the courses are an integration of several knowledge bases and doing away with the entire silo-based ideas of science, arts, humanities etc. In the current system, a student who is a BA in Philosophy would have learnt only that during the three years, and the job he ends up in will have no connection with what he studied. He cannot switch to any other stream either. Ending up in a job he doesn’t like means that the professionalism suffers. When professionalism suffers, productivity suffers. Hence we want to introduce more subject options that the student can study in his undergraduate phase which can enable him to make an informed choice about what his career path should be.
The other thing about the four year courses is that every stage has a safe exit option for students who are unable to continue studies due to various reasons. For example, a student who discontinues UG in after second year gets awarded a diploma certificate and a student who discontinues after third year gets a degree certificate. Four years of study includes a research phase too. This concept will enable the students to get back to completing their course even several years after they opt out, and will also give them recognition based on the stage they completed before opting out.
Touching upon the flexibility in subjects in UG courses, wouldn’t it be better to implement that in classes 11 and 12? Though the draft NEP recommends subject flexibility, how is the committee expecting schools to practically implement this?
Yes. We have recommended liberal concepts for classes 11 and 12 also. You can have streams where students can learn music, arts and fine arts as subject.
But one thing I wanted to tell you is that the major problem in implementing these recommendations at school level in the need for teachers and infrastructure. That is why we have also recommended a change in the governing structure of the schools and establishment of school complexes.
School complexes will have many schools in the same campus which will enable them to share resources like teachers, libraries etc. This, we believe, will enable a school with just two students who opt for music as a subject, to offer it to the students without having to hire one teacher exclusively to teach music to two students.
The draft has also proposed a National Higher Education Regulatory Authority (NHERA) to be an umbrella body for all professional courses in India including law, medicine and engineering. What about CA, CWA and Company Secretaryship?
The idea is to make NHERA as a body for regulating the professional education in the country. Once NHERA is in place, the erstwhile regulatory bodies like the Medical Council of India, Bar Council of India etc will function as Standard Setting Bodies for professionals practicing those professions. This should ideally include CA, CWA and CS too.
We still have to see how these three courses will fit in NHERA. As of now, we have recommended regular courses like engineering and medicine to be brought into the ambit of NHERA.