On 22 April 2025, Maharashtra Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis hit back at Tamil Nadu CM M.K. Stalin’s criticism regarding the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP), asserting that Stalin should first gain a comprehensive understanding of the policy before questioning the Prime Minister. Fadnavis also questioned Stalin’s reluctance toward promoting multilingual education.

The exchange came in response to a post made by Stalin a day earlier, in which he raised concerns over Fadnavis’ claim that Marathi was the only mandatory third language in Maharashtra under the NEP. Stalin accused Fadnavis of backtracking amid public backlash over the alleged imposition of Hindi, and demanded clarification from the Prime Minister and the Union Education Minister on whether Fadnavis’ position reflected the official stance of the central government.

What Fadnavis Wrote

In a post on his official X account, Stalin wrote, “Facing a massive backlash for imposing Hindi as the third language, Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis now claims that only Marathi is compulsory in the state. This is a clear manifestation of his trepidation over the widespread public condemnation against imposition of Hindi on non-Hindi speaking States. Hon’ble PM and Union Education Minister must clarify:

• Does the Union Government officially endorse his position that no language other than Marathi is compulsory in Maharashtra as the third language under National Education Policy (#NEP)?
• If so, will the Union government issue a clear directive to all states affirming that the NEP does not require the compulsory teaching of a third language?
• Will the Union Government release the Rs. 2,152 crore it unjustly withheld for Tamil Nadu on the premise that the state must subscribe to the teaching of a mandatory third language?”

Facing a massive backlash for imposing Hindi as the third language, Maharashtra CM Devendra Fadnavis now claims that only Marathi is compulsory in the state. This is a clear manifestation of his trepidation over the widespread public condemnation against imposition of Hindi on…

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) April 21, 2025

In response, Fadnavis shared a link to the NEP document on X and suggested Stalin study it thoroughly. He emphasized that the NEP does not impose any language but allows flexibility, encouraging students to learn any two Indian languages in addition to English.

“Mr. Stalin,” Fadnavis posted, “Before seeking clarifications from Hon PM Narendra Modi ji, you need a deep understanding of National Education Policy. First you need to study what exactly NEP is ! Here is link for your ref – https://education.gov.in/national-education-policy. NEP never insisted or made compulsion on language choice but only asks to study any 2 Indian languages other than English, out of 3. As far as Maharashtra is concerned, we are open to Hindi, Tamil, Telugu, Kannada, Sanskrit or any language of student’s choice which they wish to study as the third language. Main question is why are you not open to multi-lingualism & have a problem if someone wants to study in Hindi?” 

Mr. Stalin,
Before seeking clarifications from Hon PM Narendra Modi ji, you need a deep understanding of National Education Policy.
First you need to study what exactly NEP is !
Here is link for your ref – https://t.co/BXshh6G5Bw#NEP never insisted or made compulsion on… https://t.co/fRHZqvYsIl

— Devendra Fadnavis (@Dev_Fadnavis) April 22, 2025

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Maharashtra CM Fadnavis Fact-Checks TN CM Stalin On Marathi Language Claim, Schools Him On NEP appeared first on The Commune.

Tamil Nadu BJP president K. Annamalai has bashed on the DMK’s stance against the National Education Policy (NEP), countering their anti-national education narrative. Speaking at a public meeting in Trichy on 23 March 2025, organized by the Tamil Nadu BJP to explain the new education policy, Annamalai emphasized the massive public support for the signature campaign launched by the BJP. He revealed that the campaign had already gathered 27 lakh signatures in just 18 days, with a goal of reaching 1 crore signatures by the end of May.

Refuting the DMK’s claims, Annamalai reminded the public that education policies in India were not introduced by the BJP. He explained that the first National Education Policy (NEP) was implemented in 1968, followed by the second in 1986, which was later revised. The current NEP, introduced under Prime Minister Narendra Modi, is only the third in independent India’s history.

A committee was formed under PM Modi’s directive to revise and modernize the education system, and its recommendations were submitted in 2019. One of its key proposals was that students should study in their mother tongue from Classes 1 to 5, a practice that has led to remarkable educational progress in countries like Japan, China, and Germany. Despite Tamil being recognized as the primary language of instruction under the NEP, the DMK deliberately misleads the public, refusing to acknowledge this.

Furthermore, the policy aimed to extend Tamil-medium instruction to Classes 6, 7, and 8, while recommending that students learn an additional Indian language instead of making Hindi mandatory. Contrary to DMK’s accusations, it was actually the Congress-DMK alliance that had historically imposed Hindi when they were in power.

In a fiery attack, Annamalai criticized several DMK ministers, questioning whether those with criminal backgrounds and corrupt histories should have any say in shaping Tamil Nadu’s education policies.

He pointed out that Tamil Nadu’s Education Minister, Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, seemed more interested in promoting Udhayanidhi Stalin than focusing on education. Mocking his priorities, Annamalai called him the ‘real leader’ of the Akhil Ulaga Udhayanidhi Fan Club, stating that instead of working for education reforms, he spends his time organizing events for Udhayanidhi Stalin.

Annamalai said, “Why don’t the DMK members understand the power because no one earned it through studies. Sister Tamilisai said, ‘Look at this! I studied and passed in how many subjects.’ Do we know if Udhayanidhi Stalin has a degree? We don’t know. Where did he study? Unknown. Who wrote his exam papers? Unknown. The Education Minister of Tamil Nadu, Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi, hails from this town, yet he seems to have a more important responsibility than this (overseeing education). He is the leader of the Akhil Ulaga Udhayanidhi Fan Club. I’m not saying this for applause. The real head of Agila Ulaga Udhayanidhi Fan Club (Global Udhyanidhi Fan Club) Anbil Mahesh Poyyamozhi. He spends his time organizing song launch events, following Udhayanidhi Stalin around. After all this, if he finds any spare time, he might talk about the education department. But what do they actually know about education? Think about it. Do they know what your children should study? They don’t.”

Highlighting the tainted pasts of DMK’s Textile Minister R. Gandhi, Annamalai said, “Take an individual named Gandhi—one might assume he is like (Mahatma) Gandhi. But in the 1990s, he was jailed under the Goondas Act for brewing bootleg liquor and later became the Minister Gandhi. Look at the history of each.”

Calling out DMK Minister Prohibition and Excise, He said, “Senthil Balaji who jumped five parties and become Liquor Minister. He served one and a half years in jail. Who knows if he’ll serve another five or ten years? Yet, he is a minister.”

Then taking out the DMK Minsiter of HR&CE, He said, “Then there’s Sekar Babu, the Minister of the Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department . He was once in the Chennai’s rowdy sheeter. A person whose name was in the rowdy history register is now Minister of Hindu Religious and Charitable Endowments Department. Can you imagine? Will the country prosper this way?”

Taking out on DMK’s Law Regupathy, He said, “Minister Regupathy, from a neighboring district, has an ongoing case against him for amassing assets beyond his income. He is in charge of the Prisons & Law Department. Think about it—Will the country prosper this way?”

Annamalai warned that criminals and corrupt politicians deciding education policies would only lead to disaster, saying, “Look at the history of each and every minister. These joint thieves, are coming together to decide what our children should study. If a rowdy teaches a class, we will get rowdy students. If a good teacher teaches, we will get good students. These thieves who have been to jail, looted public money, been a rowdy, and engaged in bootlegging are discussing about how Tamil Nadu’s  education policy should be, Will you agree to that?”

Annamalai emphasized that while the educational vision of Karmaveer Kamaraj, the policies of MGR, and the reforms introduced by Prime Minister Modi can be respected and accepted, an education system shaped by corrupt politicians, criminals, and lawbreakers cannot be trusted.

He urged the people of Tamil Nadu to reject the DMK’s misleading propaganda and support an education system built on merit and integrity.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post “Head Of Udhayanidhi Fan Club Is School Education Minister, A Rowdy Is HR&CE Minister”: BJP TN Head Annamalai Shreds DMK To Pieces appeared first on The Commune.

The war of words over the National Education Policy (NEP) escalated when DMK Deputy General Secretary and Thoothukudi MP Kanimozhi, using the typical victim card tactics employed by the DMK, urged Tamil Nadu BJP Chief Annamalai to ensure that the Centre released education funds if he truly cared about students. This shifted the focus away from the original issue. Annamalai had earlier raised concerns about the DMK’s opposition to the third language policy, especially regarding Hindi, highlighting how it neglects only government school students who are excluded from the policy, while private run matriculation and CBSE school students are given the option to choose. Over the past two days, DMK MP Kanimozhi entered the fray, attempting to buttress the party’s stance, but ignoring the core issue. This time, Annamalai slammed the her political hypocrisy and urged her to get to the point and answer the question directly.

Tamil Nadu BJP President Annamalai, through his official X account, took to task DMK MP Kanimozhi, saying, “Anbu Akka Tmt @KanimozhiDMK, if the GOI-published data is critical of the TN Govt, you would call it biased. If the data is appreciative, you will publish it on the front page of Murasoli & Dhinakaran – typical of Review Gating (Receptive only to positive reviews & filters out negative feedback). The Pseudo truth environment that the DMK wishes to construct will be dismantled even if the GoTN commissions a survey to understand the quality of education imparted. We are confident that the results would point out the deteriorating education standards in TN today under your brother’s regime. Ennum ezhuthum, illam thedi kalvi & morning breakfast scheme were proposed in NEP2020/ Samagra Siksha. As a member of Parliament, you should have known that many of the NEP recommendations were rolled out for implementation in other states even before they were introduced in TN (without the effort of having to invent a new name for pasting stickers). For DMK, politics takes precedence over the future of our children. Did @BJP4TamilNadu compel the DMK Govt to send a letter to the Central Govt committing that PM Shri would be implemented starting this academic year? We are sure you know that PM Shri has subsumed many aspects of Samagra Siksha, even if you & the part-time school education minister of TN say otherwise in front of the media. Your brother and nephew have been avoiding answering this question. Would you at least care to answer? “Why is the opportunity to learn a third language denied to our government school students when it is provided to students studying in private CBSE/ Matriculation schools, including private schools that your family and your ministers run?”

Anbu Akka Tmt @KanimozhiDMK, if the GOI-published data is critical of the TN Govt, you would call it biased. If the data is appreciative, you will publish it on the front page of Murasoli & Dhinakaran – typical of Review Gating (Receptive only to positive reviews & filters out… https://t.co/b4xIoyjesv

— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) March 4, 2025

This sharp yet respectful rebuke came from Tamil Nadu BJP Chief Annamalai in response to DMK Thoothukudi MP Kanimozhi’s remarks. Kanimozhi had criticized the ASER 2024 report, claiming that the data provided was manipulated and selectively presented. She repeated the familiar rhetoric, accusing the BJP of financially strangling states while failing to implement schemes for receiving funds.

DMK MP Kanimozhi stated, “Thiru @annamalai_k, the world knows how BJP manipulates data—Dr. Parakala Prabhakar exposed it in The Crooked Timber of New India: Essays on a Republic in Crisis. BJP thrives on selectively quoting statistics, twisting numbers to fit its propaganda. Your ASER data? We know how it’s cooked up, which is why we’re conducting our own survey on the real impact of education policies. Even your 2025 Economic Survey praised Tamil Nadu for revolutionizing education through landmark schemes like Illam Thedi Kalvi, Ennum Ezhuthum, and the breakfast scheme for schoolchildren. Unlike BJP-ruled states struggling with literacy, we invest in our students’ future. You claim to care about Tamil Nadu’s students—then why has your government withheld ₹2,152 crore in Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) funds rightfully owed to Tamil Nadu? If you truly care, tell your union government to release these funds instead of preaching to us. You talk about fairness, yet Kendriya Vidyalayas (KVs) have removed German and other foreign languages while continuing to impose Hindi and Sanskrit, depriving students of global exposure while pushing BJP’s divisive ideological agenda. If you are truly advocating for a three-language policy, give us the data about how many KV schools teach Tamil? Do you even know that many KVs in Tamil Nadu don’t have Tamil teachers? Tamil Nadu will never accept BJP’s agenda of misinformation, financial strangulation, and Hindi imposition.” 

Thiru @annamalai_k, the world knows how BJP manipulates data—Dr. Parakala Prabhakar exposed it in The Crooked Timber of New India: Essays on a Republic in Crisis. BJP thrives on selectively quoting statistics, twisting numbers to fit its propaganda. Your ASER data? We know how… https://t.co/r3jagnGlAX

— Kanimozhi (கனிமொழி) (@KanimozhiDMK) March 4, 2025

The exchange of words between DMK Deputy General Secretary and Thoothukudi MP Kanimozhi, and Tamil Nadu BJP Chief Annamalai, was sparked by Annamalai’s criticism of Kanimozhi’s brother, Chief Minister MK Stalin. Stalin had raised concerns about the teaching of a third language in Tamil Nadu schools, questioning why students were being denied this opportunity. He stated, “Some guardians of lopsided policies, wailing in great concern, ask, “Why are you denying Tamil Nadu students the opportunity to learn a third language?” Well, why don’t they first say which third language is being taught up north? If they had just taught two languages properly there, where’s the need for us to learn a third?”

Some guardians of lopsided policies, wailing in great concern, ask, “Why are you denying Tamil Nadu students the opportunity to learn a third language?”

Well, why don’t they first say which third language is being taught up north? If they had just taught two languages properly… pic.twitter.com/LZGwxYXrsa

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) March 3, 2025

In response, Annamalai argued that supporting the new National Education Policy, which aims to create equality in education, was not a “lopsided” stance. He added, “The education system you wish to impose only on our Govt school students forever, while allowing a different standard for private school students, is lopsided. We are surprised that you trimmed our question to suit your convenience. Our question was, “Why is the opportunity to learn a third language denied to our government school students when it is provided to students studying in private CBSE/ Matriculation schools, including private schools that your family and your ministers run?”

Annamalai also expressed surprise at Stalin’s implication that people in northern India are not proficient in English, challenging him to reflect on Tamil Nadu’s own education system. “We are also surprised that you indicate that the people in the north of India are not conversant in English. How conversant are you, Thiru@mkstalin? Thiru @mkstalin, we humbly request you to take time to read the recent ASER Rural 2024 report on the Tamil language proficiency of our students in Class III, V, and VIII before demeaning others for one’s language proficiency as your part-time School Education Minister is living in denial and jeopardising the future of our children.”

Speaking for the new National Education Policy created for equality in education is not lopsided, Thiru @mkstalin. The education system you wish to impose only on our Govt school students forever, while allowing a different standard for private school students, is lopsided. We… https://t.co/wjNNbRr2FL

— K.Annamalai (@annamalai_k) March 3, 2025

Feeling hurt by the pointed criticism and questions by Annamalai aimed at her brother, Chief Minister MK Stalin, Kanimozhi responded to Annamalai’s post, dismissing the ASER data as false and malicious, claiming it portrayed the state in a negative light.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post TN BJP Chief Annamalai Slams Kanimozhi’s DMK Rhetoric, Demands Straightforward Answers appeared first on The Commune.

Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M K Stalin escalated his confrontation with the Modi government on Friday regarding the National Education Policy (NEP) and the distribution of funds. He stated that the DMK could easily refuse to pay taxes collected by the Union government from the state, emphasizing that “federalism is about give-and-take.”

In response to Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan’s claim that Tamil Nadu could lose ₹5,000 crore for not implementing the PM Shri scheme linked to NEP, Stalin accused the Centre of being envious of the states’ progress and attempting to hinder their development.

Stalin also criticized the Centre for withholding states’ rightful share of resources, stating, “After extracting all state taxes through the GST regime, the Union government is now refusing to release the dues owed to states, deny new schemes, or provide funds for joint state-federal projects.”

Warning the Centre not to provoke Tamil pride, Stalin said, “Don’t stir the hornet’s nest. Don’t challenge the unique spirit of Tamil people. As long as I am here, and as long as the DMK is here, no anti-Tamil agenda will succeed.”

Pradhan responded to Stalin’s opposition to the NEP, accusing Tamil Nadu’s stance of being politically motivated and harmful to students. On his X handle, he shared a letter to Stalin, calling the state’s opposition to NEP “highly inappropriate” and “narrow-minded.” He criticized the Tamil Nadu government for using “intimidation for political reasons” and urged the state to focus on students’ well-being instead of politicizing education. Pradhan emphasized that the Modi government was dedicated to promoting Tamil culture globally and clarified that the NEP was designed to modernize the education system while respecting linguistic and cultural diversity, reiterating that no language would be imposed on any state or community.

Stalin, speaking at a gathering in Cuddalore, argued that the true disaster for India was the Union government’s failure to understand federalism. He claimed, “NEP isn’t about improving education; it’s about advancing the agenda of creating a homogeneous India.”

This is not the first time that the DMK has resorted to separatist rhetoric.

Earlier in November 2024, DMK scion Udhayanidhi Stalin received a map of separate South India, which indirectly references the “Dravida Nadu” separatist ideology once propagated by the DMK.

On 10 June 2021, the DMK IT wing’s official Twitter account quoted late former Tamil Nadu Chief Minister Annadurai, saying that the demand for a separate “Dravida Nadu” is still relevant, and has fuelled separatism.

(With Inputs From TOI)

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post DMK’s New Dravidian Model Of Separatist Politics?: TN CM MK Stalin Threatens To Withhold Taxes To Centre appeared first on The Commune.

Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan has hit back at Tamil Nadu Chief Minister MK Stalin amidst the controversy over the three-language formula in the National Education Policy (NEP), accusing Stalin of creating a “false narrative” of Hindi imposition for political gain. Pradhan argued that Tamil Nadu had initially agreed to implement the NEP but reversed its stance for political reasons.

On 21 February 2025, in an interview with NDTV Pradhan stated that Stalin and the DMK were depriving students of educational progress for their own political agendas.

The three-language policy, a key component of the NEP 2020, mandates that students learn at least three languages. The government has argued that previous education policies failed to adequately promote Indian languages, which led to an over-reliance on foreign languages, and that the NEP aims to elevate languages like Tamil to their rightful place in education.

Stalin had previously written to Prime Minister Narendra Modi, claiming that Pradhan had threatened to withhold funds for the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan, a centrally sponsored initiative, unless Tamil Nadu adopted the NEP.

Pradhan responded, emphasizing that the three-language formula has been part of India’s educational framework since the mid-1960s, with nearly all states following it. While acknowledging Tamil Nadu’s preference for a two-language formula, Pradhan insisted that the NEP, introduced by Prime Minister Narendra Modi’s government, focuses on the importance of the three-language policy. He refuted claims of Hindi imposition, explaining that the NEP does not mandate the imposition of any language in any specific state.

Pradhan further questioned how students in Tamil Nadu’s border regions, who might need to learn languages like Kannada, Telugu, or Marathi for job prospects, would benefit under the current system. He stressed that in today’s globalized world, learning multiple languages is crucial, and pointed out that many Tamil people are moving across India, making a broader linguistic education valuable. He also noted that Prime Minister Modi has consistently recognized Tamil as an ancient and significant language.

Regarding Stalin’s claims that over ₹2,000 crore in funding for the Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan had been withheld due to the NEP, Pradhan called such language “derogatory” and politically motivated. He criticized Stalin and the DMK for stoking fear about Hindi imposition, asserting that such rhetoric is meant to create a political narrative rather than address the true issues at hand.

Pradhan also pointed out that the PM-Poshan (mid-day meal) scheme and other important educational initiatives had not been stopped in Tamil Nadu, accusing the state government of denying students an additional Rs 2,000 crore under the PM SHRI scheme due to their stance on the NEP.

Pradhan explained that the NEP recommends teaching in the mother tongue until the eighth grade, and that Tamil could continue to be the primary medium of instruction, especially under the PM SHRI program, which includes high-tech features like digital blackboards and Atal Tinkering Labs. He questioned why the Tamil Nadu government was opposed to these modern educational initiatives, which could help students succeed in a technology-driven world.

The minister reiterated that Hindi is not being forced in any state and emphasized the flexibility of the three-language formula across India. He cited Odisha as an example, where students in border regions are taught different languages based on local needs, such as Telugu in areas near Andhra Pradesh, Hindi in the north, and Bengali in the east.

Pradhan also criticized the Tamil Nadu government’s opposition to the NEP, claiming that they had initially agreed to implement it but had backed out due to political motivations. He suggested that the reversal was an attempt to create an anti-Delhi sentiment, which ultimately harms the students and society of Tamil Nadu.

Accusing the DMK of playing a double game, Pradhan stated, “I don’t want to disclose certain classified information, but at one point, they (Tamil Nadu government) were ready to implement NEP. They had agreed. An MoU (Memorandum of Understanding) had been drafted. But they backed out, why? Because they see politics in that, they think they can create an anti-Delhi narrative. It may suit them, but it is hampering the students and society of Tamil Nadu. This fear psychosis of Hindi imposition is uncalled for, unfortunate and politically motivated.”

Pradhan also highlighted that several non-BJP-led states have implemented the policy under similar conditions. He remarked, “Why is a particular government taking such a stand? Because they want to live in a primitive time.” 

Huge revelation by Minister of Education Shri @dpradhanbjp avl – @mkstalin govt agreed to implement #NEP and MOU were exchanged between central govt and TN govt.
But later Stalin backed out as they feel anti-Delhi politics will help DMK to win elections.
Tamilnadu people must… pic.twitter.com/0jq0uelgCb

— Arvinth Easwaran (@arvinth_e) February 22, 2025

The post ‘TN Was Ready To Implement NEP, But Backed Out For Anti-Delhi Narrative’: Union Minister Dharmendra Pradhan Exposes DMK’s Politically Motivated Backtrack On NEP, Slams ‘False Narrative’ Of Hindi Imposition appeared first on The Commune.

For the past three days, the DMK and its ally parties, along with Dravidianist media, have been relentlessly pushing the narrative that the Central Government is imposing “Hindi” on the state. However, the Tamil Nadu BJP chief attempted to clarify that the Central Government’s intention was to introduce a third language, not to force Hindi. Despite this, the same narrative was being repeated and amplified by various stakeholders of the Dravidianist ecosystem. Annamalai, in turn, began exposing the hypocrisy of the DMK and its allies, pointing out that many of their schools already teach Hindi, even as they opposed the idea of a third language. This revelation shifted the conversation, and people at the grassroots level began to realize that the 3 language policy was being implemented in private schools run by Dravidianist politics while kids from government school students have been deprived of the opportunity.

Once this hypocrisy was exposed, the DMK fell silent, with their leaders being questioned about their contradictions during press conferences.

It is in this context that former IAS officer Israel Jebasingh, who also runs an IAS academy, has put a video which seems like an attempt to buttress the ruling DMK with fabricated points and half-truths to defend their stance. Instead of directly quoting or discussing the NEP 2020, he avoided the actual policy altogether, knowing he would be exposed. Instead, he resorted to spinning baseless stories in a desperate attempt to reinforce the DMK’s narrative in a brief 20-minute video.

In his entire video, Israel Jebasingh just sees only the “morning breakfast scheme,” as a positive aspect in the entire NEP 2020, which too he attributes to the DMK government. However, this narrative has already been debunked, as the DMK simply implemented what the NEP suggests.

Misinformation Peddled By Israel Jebasingh About Language Policy In Other Countries

Regarding the three-language policy, Israel Jebasingh, a former IAS officer, simply opposes it. He argues that countries like China, the USA, Germany, and Israel do not have such a policy, and therefore, India does not need one either was his first argument.

And about Germany or Israel following only 2 language policy, Mr. Israel Jebasingh is wrong. He has confidently peddled half-truths thinking that his viewers and students would take it as gospel truth. However, here are some facts about the language policy in some of the countries he mentions.

In Germany, German is the primary language of instruction in most schools. English or French is typically introduced as a compulsory subject in primary or early secondary education. In Gymnasium (academic secondary schools), students are generally required to learn a second foreign language, which can be French, Spanish, Latin, or another language. This is usually mandatory until at least Grade 10. So, Germany in effect follows a 3 language policy.

Same is the case with France where students have the opportunity to learn three languages – French and two other foreign languages.

Israel’s language policy emphasizes multilingual education, with Hebrew as the primary language in Jewish schools and Arabic in Arab and Druze schools, while some bilingual schools teach both. English is mandatory from Grade 3 or 4, becoming a core subject in middle and high school, with standardized exams like the Bagrut. Many schools also offer a second foreign language in high school, such as French, Russian, Spanish, German, or Yiddish, while some Jewish schools make Arabic compulsory to promote cross-cultural communication. This structured approach ensures linguistic diversity, global competitiveness, and national integration, similar to India’s proposed Three-Language Policy under NEP 2020.

Comparing Apples And Oranges

His argument reaches a new level of absurdity when he claims that the preface of the NEP document states its goal is to transform India into a $10 trillion economy. To support this, Jebasingh cleverly points to the USA and China, highlighting that they have only two official languages and still became economic powerhouses.

His argument reaches new heights of absurdity when he quotes the preamble of the NEP document, claiming its goal is to make India a $10 trillion economy. Jebasingh then shamelessly concludes that since the US and China only have two official languages, and yet they are economic powers, India should follow the same model.

If that is the case, China or for that matter USA does not have a multi-party democracy offering more political stability for development. Is it okay for Jebasingh if India replicates this model under the Modi government to achieve faster development like China or USA?

This kind of reasoning about economics is not only shocking, but it’s even more surprising coming from a former IAS officer. He seems to be treating the NEP document as nothing more than another language policy, speaking as if Tamil Nadu has already achieved everything there is to accomplish. How can that be true? He is either overlooking the real objectives of the policy or looking at the issue through a narrow, language-specific lens. The real objective of the NEP is not just introducing a third language; it also focuses on vocational education, skill development, self-sufficiency and an education system that is in tune with India’s needs for the future.

Yet, Jebasingh’s rhetoric appears to distort these true objectives, pushing a narrative that favors the DMK. This kind of thinking perpetuates a parochial mindset, which the NEP is specifically designed to eliminate. The goal of the policy is to empower future generations to make decisions based on what is best for India, rather than waiting for external forces, like China or the USA, to dictate changes. Unfortunately, individuals like Jebasingh, who cling to outdated views, spread misleading ideas that undermine this progress.

DMK Propagandist Mode

In the entire video, Israel Jebasingh was simply making misleading claims. For instance, he questioned his audience, asking, “Did Tamil Nadu lose anything by not implementing Hindi?” His answer will be perplexing. Jebasingh narrated that Tony Blair Foundation, a UK-based institution, recommended Africa follow Tamil Nadu’s model to eradicate poverty. This claim is not just illogical but outright laughable. What does Hindi or Tamil Nadu’s language policy have to do with Africa’s poverty alleviation strategies?

Upon reviewing available information, there is no evidence to support the claim that the Tony Blair Foundation has recommended African nations adopt Tamil Nadu’s model for poverty eradication. The Tony Blair Institute for Global Change has analyzed Tamil Nadu’s inclusive growth, particularly the role of political leadership and governance in the state’s development. This analysis does not constitute a recommendation for African countries to emulate Tamil Nadu’s approach.

However, this analysis does not constitute a recommendation for African countries to emulate Tamil Nadu’s approach. Therefore, the assertion that the Tony Blair Foundation has advised African nations to follow Tamil Nadu’s model lacks factual basis.

By making such claims, he deliberately shifts the focus away from the actual debate—whether Tamil Nadu benefits or loses by rejecting Hindi—and instead injects baseless narratives to reinforce Dravidianist propaganda. If Tamil Nadu’s supposed “anti-Hindi success story” were truly a model for the world, why do many of the state’s top politicians and their families enroll their children in CBSE schools that teach Hindi? This contradiction, much like Jebasingh’s statement, exposes the sheer hypocrisy behind such arguments.

To further support his argument, he cited the Human Development Index (HDI) and claimed Tamil Nadu and Kerala were top-ranking states, which is false.

According to 2022 data, Kerala has an HDI of 0.758 and ranks high, while Tamil Nadu is at 0.670, placing 14th, behind Maharashtra. Uttar Pradesh ranks 35th with an HDI of 0.596. If Jebasingh wanted to make a fair comparison, he should have compared Maharashtra to Tamil Nadu, as they have similar populations. Instead, he chose to compare Kerala, with a population of 34.6 million, to Tamil Nadu (72.1 million) and Uttar Pradesh (241 million). It’s clear he understands this, but his bias is evident as he pushes an agenda in favor of the DMK.

Former IAS Cadre Turns DMK Cadre

At one point, Jebasingh even shifted gears and openly aligned himself with the DMK, claiming the only purpose of the new education policy was to promote Hindi. He mentioned seeing an RTI online (posted by the DMK IT wing), which claimed there were no Tamil teachers in Kendriya Vidyalayas. This was nothing more than parroting the statements made by DMK MLAs in the media. In reality, there are advertisements for Tamil teacher recruitment in Kendriya Vidyalaya even as recent as February 2024, and many teachers have been working in these schools, which Jebasingh conveniently ignored to push his false narrative. Many students in Tamil Nadu who have studied in Kendriya Vidyalaya have vouched that students have the option to choose a third language – Tamil or German. So, this is yet another false propaganda of the DMK parroted by Jebasingh.

Israel Jebasingh also thinks that bringing Telugu, Malayalam, Kannada teachers to Tamil Nadu to teach the respective language is totally unnecessary. The fact that such statements are coming from a former IAS officer who should be promoting national integration is shocking.

He then goes on to say that one can learn functional sentences in any language they want in a span of 10-15 days. But not many will have access to linguistic experts or technology to learn languages in a jiffy. Why should a poor child of a government school be deprived of the opportunity to read and write Hindi or any other Indian language for free? How will someone who doesn’t know how to read and write Hindi figure out what’s the route written in a bus in Pune? It is a given that a Tamil candidate’s resume will standout even if he knows any other Indian language apart from Tamil and English.

Israel Jebasingh claims that Dr. APJ Abdul Kalam never studied Hindi but went on to become President of India. But what he didn’t say was APJ Abdul Kalam was fluent in several languages, including Tamil, English, Hindi, Urdu and French.

He then goes on to cite the Constitution of India saying that Hindi is not a national language but another official language like English. But the same Constitution under Article 351 says that  it shall be the duty of the Union to promote the spread of the Hindi language so that it may serve as a medium of expression between different people of composite culture.

Rather than informing his audience about the true aims of the new education policy, Jebasingh spent his time spreading lies, weaving together illogical stories, and misleading his audience about the three-language policy.

The DMK and its Dravidianist supporters, like Israel Jebasingh, often bring up the 1963 anti-Hindi agitation, presenting it as a haunting chapter of history. They warn that if such a movement were to rise again, it would be a looming threat. However, what they fail to grasp is the context of that time. The 1963 movement was set against the backdrop of India’s recent independence, a time when the public’s anger towards British rule was still fresh and protest was their part of socio-political mileau. The DMK capitalized on this sentiment to oppose the Congress government, and the movement gained momentum rapidly.

He then resorts to fearmongering and incitement, claiming that if the Centre enforces the Three-Language Policy, it will trigger a protest a thousand times more intense than the Jallikattu agitation.

Inciting Separatism?

Jebasingh goes on to mention that after independence, Pakistan followed a 3 Language policy – mother tongue, which is Bengali in East Pakistan, Urdu for official communication between West & East Pakistan and English for global exposure. This he says paved the way for the creation of Bangladesh.

Is Jebasingh saying that implementing NEP would pave the way for a creation of separate Tamil Nadu?

Where Do Israel Jebasingh’s Kids Study?

To sit comfortably in air-conditioned rooms and claim that “people will not allow trilingualism” is not just chauvinistic but also highly arrogant. Jebasingh whose academy charges a minimum of ₹1.5 lakh per student can afford to put his kids in world-class CBSE or international schools where 3 language policy is implemented. Poor parents who have no choice but to put their kids in government schools do not have that privilege. They too deserve to receive an education on par with Jebasingh’s kids.

It is to be noted that all the south Indian states of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Karnataka along with states like West Bengal, Odisha, Maharashtra, that takes pride in their language as much as Tamil Nadu does, follow the three language policy. Even in Tamil Nadu, most of the private CBSE and matriculation schools offer three languages till 8^th grade. However, the political parties in Tamil Nadu – the DMK, AIADMK, VCK and others whip up unwarranted claims of Hindi/Sanskrit imposition.

While the NEP 2020 offers all children in public and private schools the opportunity to learn three languages of their choice, what the political parties and the Tamil Nadu government are doing is disadvantage government school children while the private school children continue to benefit from learning three languages. In essence they ‘impose’ the 2 language policy on underprivileged government school children saying “We will let you study only 2 languages in government schools. If you want to study a third language, you should join a private school”

Vallavaraayan is a political writer.

Subscribe to our channels on Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Officer’s IAS Academy Or Oopi’s Training Academy? Israel Jebasingh Parrots DMK’s Talking Points On NEP & 3 Language Policy, Peddles Misinformation And Borderline Incites Separatism appeared first on The Commune.

Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) represent a repository of indigenous knowledge that remains relevant in modern contexts, such as wellness, sustainability, and interdisciplinary research. IKS is a term that has come into vogue recently and its meaning might be mostly unclear to many lay persons.

What is IKS? Is it a new development in studies of epistemology or is it of ancient provenance? Is it mostly a qualitative and incoherent jumble of superstitions and stories about an imaginary India where everything was just fine? Or were we just untamed savages waiting for the white man to come and educate us and make us civilized and after we got educated, are we trying to imagine something glorious in the past and ascribe everything we know to IKS? Still, others note that the government of a secular country should not indulge itself or support an education system that is rooted solely in the religious and socio-cultural beliefs of one community, namely the Hindus, even if they account for 80% of India’s population today. Even here, the naysayers hold that IKS is the property of savarna Hindus, and it is by no means inclusive in nature.

The meaning of IKS can be described by the three words Indian, Knowledge, and Systems. By Indian, we mean the entire land that is called Bhāratvarsha, namely all the land between Kandahar and Mandalay, from the Himalayas to the Indian Ocean, in today’s terminology consisting of all countries that are loosely clubbed together as South Asia. This is the geographical sacred space of Sanātana Dharma and when one refers to IKS, one refers to the knowledge systems that were developed and emanated from this sacred space. IKS uniquely belongs to Sanātana Dharma and may be enjoyed and appreciated by all who adhere to the principles of Dharma.

By Knowledge, we mean the entire corpus of written documentation and oral traditions accompanying Sanātana Dharma in addition to various allied bodies of knowledge that have accrued from experiences in day-to-day life, folklore, traditions, and customs that have enabled this sturdy civilization that is going strong after 5000 years, some say possibly longer. The written documentation is based around the 14 knowledge silos or chatrurdasa vidyasthanas, namely the four Vedas, the six darshanas, the epics, and the Puranas.

PurAna nyAya mimAngsA dharmshAstrAnga mishritAh |
VedAh sthAnAni vidyAnAm dharmasya cha chaturdasha ||

The Vedas are the blueprint and the Vedāngas, literally, the limbs of the Vedas, unlock the Vedas and make them accessible. The six Vedāngas are Siksha, Chhanda, Vyakarana, Nirukta, Jyotisha and Kalpa. These subjects were an integral and essential part of the ancient Vedic education system, aimed to promote an all-round development of the students with a better understanding of the Vedas and Vedic practices. The aspects from the Vedas that lead to better living for all are also a part of the knowledge corpus. These include the medicinal treatises of Chāraka and Susruta, the Arthasāstra of Chānakya, the Patanjali Yoga Sutras, the Kāvyas of Kalidasa and others, Bharatā’s Natyasastra, Sārangadeva’s Sangita Ratnākara and the Rasa Ratna Samuchchaya of Vāgbhata and Nagārjuna, the study of chemistry and materials. This is just a sampling. There was a time when Sāmaveda, which is just one among the four Vedas, had over a thousand branches! It is practically impossible to collect and collate all of the knowledge available to us within the Sanatani tradition.

In the context of IKS, the term Systems refers to structured frameworks of thought, practices, and disciplines developed in ancient and classical India that span various fields of knowledge. These systems are holistic and interdisciplinary, addressing subjects such as philosophy, science, arts, medicine, and governance. The key components are Philosophical Systems (Darshanas etc), Medical Systems (Ayurveda, Siddha), Linguistic and Grammatical Systems (Pānini), Mathematical Systems, (Aryabhata, Varāhamihira. Brahmagupta, Bhāskara), Artistic and Aesthetic Systems:
Political and Economic Systems (Arthshāstra, Nitisastra), Environmental and Ethical Systems, Spiritual and Ritualistic Systems. Systems refer to the manner in which these items are integrated into a holistic unity that is both contextual and practical.

In summary, IKS is intimately connected with our ancient scriptures. The Nyāya Darshana, or school of thought, centres on logic and epistemology, emphasizing rational inquiry to attain knowledge and truth. Key features include methods of debate, valid sources of knowledge (perception, inference, comparison, and testimony), and techniques to distinguish valid reasoning from fallacies. Its foundation is in Indian philosophy for developing rigorous logical methods. IKS is similarly based on a methodology of rigorous questioning and rejection of fallacies that fail the tests of logic. In the context of the scientific disciplines, the Vaiseshika Darshana focuses on categorizing reality into fundamental elements or dravyas. It emphasizes atomism, proposing that all physical substances are composed of indivisible atoms. Key features include exploring six categories or padārthas: substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, and inherence, aiming for liberation or moksha through knowledge of these universal principles. The strong influence of holism is again shared with IKS which should be imparted with the goal of being able to solve advanced scientific problems of the modern age.

There is little doubt that the time is ripe for an educational revolution in India. For too long, we have struggled with a system that had its roots in the Macaulay dictum and was then further corrupted after independence by a situation where a very limited amount of funding was available to educate a population that was just around 12-18% literate. This number has risen to 77% today but let us remember that being technically literate does not mean that one is educated. We still limp along and there is little connection between formal education as expressed by a school or college degree and employability. The economic problem more or less spontaneously led to a social problem with the limited funding available for education being cornered by special interest groups with political influence—an educational jati system. This was formalized in the institutionalization of reservations, initially for the SC ST communities but later going up to a minimum of 49.5% across the country with the inclusion of the OBC group, and further delinking merit from outcomes (in Tamil Nadu this number is an absurd 69%). Realizing these almost insurmountable contradictions between aspirations and abilities, the governments of the day sporadically instituted various commissions to look into the education system and make recommendations, specifically in 1948, 1964, 1986, and most recently in 2020, the National Educational Policy (NEP 2020). Most of the recommendations of these committees never saw the light of day.
It is in this disappointing context that one must look at the Indic Knowledge System (IKS) initiative, which attempts in its own way, a reversal of the education pattern to a system that is more reminiscent of what prevailed in this country before Macaulay, in other words, to go back to a cognitive system that relied on holism, inductive logic, and intuitive thinking. Holism is the essence of IKS and it embodies the holistic and integrative wisdom of ancient India, covering diverse domains like science, art, medicine, philosophy, and spirituality. Unlike modern Indian education, which often focuses on rote memorization and standardized testing, IKS nurtures critical thinking, contextual knowledge, and values-based education.

Rooted in texts like the Vedas and Upanishads, IKS emphasizes experiential learning, ethics, interconnectedness, and lifelong inquiry. There is no doubt that IKS is derived from Sanātana Dharma, and no one should artificially try to conflate it with woke ideas of Nehruvian secularism or try to integrate it with concepts that are unique to the Abrahamic faiths. The twain do not intersect, and IKS is and will only be a part of the Hindu Rashtra that is eagerly awaited by an overwhelmingly large section of our population, namely the 80% Hindus of India. IKS is based in the Hindu religion and as such it cannot be interpreted within the rubric of Abrahamic faiths.

India’s NEP 2020 recommends integrating the IKS into the educational curriculum to promote a deeper understanding of the country’s traditional wisdom, sciences, languages, and cultural heritage. This includes learning about ancient sciences, arts, linguistics, philosophy, and environmental conservation practices, along with modern subjects. The goal is to foster holistic education, instill pride in India’s diverse heritage, and bridge the gap between traditional knowledge and contemporary learning methods.

Now, all this is very well but it simply restates what is known about the nature of IKS. How exactly do schools and colleges go about in this business and is it really possible to integrate IKS within a Macaulay system that is fundamentally different, in that the very cognitive processes in the two systems are diametrically opposite? One option is to not even try and mix these two streams but rather set up universities like Nalanda University or Rishihood University to operate wholly within the IKS pattern, more or less like Jewish Yeshivas that are based on Talmudic principles, and yet are able to turn out graduates that easily take their place in the secular world outside. Operationally, an IKS curriculum needs appropriate teachers and at present, we see the need for teachers with expertise in three different areas: (i) the domain expertise in the subject being taught; (ii) the Sanskrit language, and; (iii) a working knowledge of the Vedas. It will be difficult to find people with simultaneous expertise in all three areas till two or so generations of IKS students graduate at the PhD level. Faculty in IKS departments need therefore to be wisely chosen.

The Government of India needs to actively fund IKS programmes in private universities because many extraneous political factors might creep in if IKS is aggressively pushed in public universities especially state universities in Tamil Nadu and other places. IKS should be taken forward in as many places where there is eagerness and willingness to learn subjects through IKS. Once it is seen that there are employment opportunities for IKS-trained graduates, its popularity and relevance are bound to grow.

Overall, for IKS to be a practical reality in India, we need a civilizational reworking, in other words integrating India’s re-awakening with respect to its identity. IKS cannot be treated as a purely educational exercise, nor even as a subpart of the overall educational policy of the country as most recently articulated in NEP 2020. IKS can only have viability and relevance when a nation-state, namely India, remakes itself as a civilizational state, namely Bhārat.

This is a major exercise that needs reforms in all aspects of governance: the judiciary, the executive, and the legislature. The reforms should be directed towards a redefinition of the country as a Hindu Rashtra. For, if Sanātana Dharma lives, Bhārat lives—if Sanātana Dharma dies, Bhārat dies. Education can and must be viewed as a part of a grand design in which a country comes out of a millennium of physical, mental, intellectual, and above all, civilizational servitude.

The colonial mindset that has persisted even after 75 years of independence from Britain has been a really serious problem in India partly because the upper echelons of decision makers, the highest-level politicians and bureaucrats, were largely Macaulayist in their thinking till the mid-1970s, conservatively speaking. The diplomatic and organizational aspects of governance were, inter alia, gravely impaired. The matter of the rediscovery of India and its remaking as Bhārat its origins in the very nature of Sanātana Dharma.

The civilizational revolution is an immediate and short-term priority. The several policy and governmental changes during the past decade can only increase the feelings of self-confidence and self-pride among vast sections of Indians. We are mostly concerned here with the effects of the civilizational and cultural revolution on bringing in a dharmic educational system, governance institutions, and overall social regulation that will give a long-term, resilient thrust to India’s economic expansion. It is in this context that IKS should be considered, and its practitioners should ideally be aware that the synergy of IKS with the overall movement towards a Hindu Rashtra can certainly lead to a fundamental change in our educational policies for the better.

Gautam Desiraju is Professor Emeritus in the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post Indian Knowledge Systems: Bridging Ancient Wisdom And Modern Education In The Journey Towards A Civilizational State appeared first on The Commune.

India’s education system stands at a crossroads, as calls grow for a civilizational shift to integrate the Indic Knowledge Systems (IKS) and redefine the nation as Bhārat, aligning education with its cultural roots and dharmic heritage.

There is little doubt that the time is ripe for an educational revolution in India. For too long, we have struggled with a system that had its roots in the Macaulay dictum, and was then further corrupted after independence by a situation where a very limited amount of funding was available to educate a population that was just around 12-18% literate. This number has risen to 77% today but let us remember that being technically literate does not mean that one is educated. We still limp along and there is little connection between formal education as expressed by a school or college degree and employability.

The economic problem more or less spontaneously led to a social problem with the limited funding available for education being cornered by special interest groups with political influence—an educational jati system. This was formalised in the institutionalisation of reservations, initially for the SC ST communities but later going up to a minimum of 49.5% across the country with the inclusion of the OBC group, and further delinking merit from outcomes (in Tamil Nadu this number is an absurd 69%). Realising these almost insurmountable contradictions between aspirations and abilities, the governments of the day sporadically instituted various commissions to look into the education system and make recommendations, specifically in 1948, 1964, 1986 and most recently in 2020, the National Educational Policy (NEP 2020). Most of the recommendations of these committees never saw the light of day.

It is in this disappointing context that one must look at the Indic Knowledge Systems (IKS) initiative, which attempts in its own way, a reversal of the education pattern to a system that is more reminiscent of what prevailed in this country before Macaulay, in other words to go back to a cognitive system that relied on holism, inductive logic and intuitive thinking. Holism is the essence of IKS and embodies ancient India’s holistic and integrative wisdom, covering diverse domains like science, art, medicine, philosophy, and spirituality. Unlike modern Indian education, which often focuses on rote memorization and standardised testing, IKS nurtures critical thinking, contextual knowledge and values-based education.

Rooted in texts like the Vedas and Upanishads, Indic Knowledge Systems emphasises experiential learning, ethics, interconnectedness, and lifelong inquiry. There is no doubt that IKS is derived from Sanatana Dharma and no one should artificially try to conflate it with woke ideas of Nehruvian secularism or try to integrate it with concepts that are unique to the Abrahamic faiths. The twain do not intersect, and IKS is and will only be a part of the Hindu Rashtra that is eagerly awaited by an overwhelmingly large section of our population, namely the 80% Hindus. IKS is based in the Hindu religion and as such it cannot be interpreted within the rubric of Abrahamic faiths.

IKS is intimately connected with our ancient scriptures. The Nyaya darshana, or school of thought, centres on logic and epistemology, emphasising rational inquiry to attain knowledge and truth. Key features include methods of debate, valid sources of knowledge (perception, inference, comparison, and testimony), and techniques to distinguish valid reasoning from fallacies. Its foundation is in Indian philosophy for developing rigorous logical methods. IKS is similarly based on a methodology of rigorous questioning and rejection of fallacies that fail the tests of logic. In the context of the scientific disciplines, the Vaiseshika darshana focuses on categorising reality into fundamental elements or dravyas. It emphasises atomism, proposing that all physical substances are composed of indivisible atoms. Key features include exploring six categories or padarthas: substance, quality, action, generality, particularity, and inherence, aiming for liberation or moksha through knowledge of these universal principles. The strong influence of holism is again shared with IKS which should be imparted with the goal of being able to solve advanced scientific problems of the modern age.

India’s NEP 2020 suggests integrating the Indic Knowledge Systems into the educational curriculum to promote a deeper understanding of the country’s traditional wisdom, sciences, languages, and cultural heritage. This includes learning about ancient sciences, arts, linguistics, philosophy, and environmental conservation practices, along with modern subjects. The goal is to foster holistic education, instil pride in India’s diverse heritage, and bridge the gap between traditional knowledge and contemporary learning methods. Now, all this is very well but it simply restates what is known about the nature of IKS. How exactly do schools and colleges go about in this business and is it really possible to integrate IKS within a Macaulay system that is fundamentally different, in that the very cognitive processes in the two systems are diametrically opposite?

For IKS to be a practical reality in India, we need a civilizational reworking, in other words integrating India’s re-awakening with respect to its identity. IKS cannot be treated as a purely educational exercise, nor even as a sub part of the overall educational policy of the country as most recently articulated in NEP 2020. IKS can only have viability and relevance when a nation state, namely India, remakes itself as a civilisational state, namely Bhārat. This is a major exercise that needs reforms in all aspects of governance: the judiciary, the executive and the legislature. The reforms should be directed towards a redefinition of the country as a Hindu Rashtra. For, if Sanātana Dharma lives, Bhārat lives—if Sanātana Dharma dies, Bhārat dies. Education can and must be viewed as a part of a grand design in which a country comes out of a millennium of physical, mental, intellectual and above all, civilisational servitude.

The colonial mindset that has persisted even after 75 years of independence from Britain has been a really serious problem in India partly because the upper echelons of decision makers, the highest level politicians and bureaucrats, were largely Macaulayist in their thinking till the mid-1970s, conservatively speaking. The diplomatic and organisational aspects of governance were, inter alia, gravely impaired. The matter of the rediscovery of India and its remaking as Bhārat its origins in the very nature of Sanātana Dharma.

The civilisational revolution is an immediate and short term priority. The several policy and governmental changes during the past decade can only increase the feelings of self confidence and self pride among vast sections of Indians. We are mostly concerned here with the effects of the civilisational and cultural revolution on bringing in a dharmic educational system, governance institutions, and overall social regulation that mwill give a long-term, resilient thrust to India’s economic expansion. It is in this context that IKS should be considered and its practitioners should ideally be aware that the synergy of IKS with the overall movement towards a Hindu Rashtra can certainly lead to a fundamental change in our educational policies for the better.

Gautam Desiraju is Professor Emeritus in the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru.

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered to you personally.

The post How Indic Knowledge Systems Can Revolutionize Education And Spark A Civilizational Renaissance appeared first on The Commune.

On 9 September 2024, Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan accused Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin of attempting to create conflict between states to criticize the non-implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP).

Pradhan’s remarks were in response to Stalin’s allegations that the central government is withholding funds under the Samagra Shiksha Scheme from well-performing states that refuse to adopt the NEP.

Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan via his official X account stated, “Healthy competition amongst the states is always welcome in a democracy. However, pitting states against each other to make a point, goes against the spirit of the Constitution and the value of a unified India. NEP 2020 was formulated through wide range of consultations and has the collective wisdom of the people of India.”

The education minister also challenged Stalin on the state’s objections to the NEP and questioned, “I want to raise a few questions on your “principled” opposition to NEP:

1. Are you opposing education in mother tongue including Tamil ?
2. Are you opposing the conduct of exams in Indian languages including Tamil ?
3. Are you opposing the creation of textbooks and content in Indian languages including Tamil ?
4. Are you opposed to the holistic, multi-disciplinary, equitable, futuristic and inclusive framework of NEP? If not, I urge you to prioritise the interests of the students of Tamil Nadu over your political gains and implement NEP.”

Earlier, Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M.K. Stalin had shared a report from news column on X, that highlighted the reduction of Samagra Shiksha funds for states refusing to implement the NEP.

With the article, Stalin questioned the ruling BJP government at the Centre, “Denying funds to the best-performing states for refusing to bow to the #NEP, while generously rewarding those who are not delivering on the objectives – Is this how the Union BJP Government plans to promote quality education and equity? I leave it to the wisdom of our nation and our people to decide!”

Denying funds to the best-performing states for refusing to bow to the #NEP, while generously rewarding those who are not delivering on the objectives – Is this how the Union BJP Government plans to promote quality education and equity?

I leave it to the wisdom of our nation… pic.twitter.com/6whhTjD3bG

— M.K.Stalin (@mkstalin) September 9, 2024

Samagra Shiksha Scheme

The Samagra Shiksha Scheme is an integrated program that spans the entire education spectrum from pre-school through to class 12. It aims to provide inclusive, equitable, and affordable education and integrates the previous schemes of Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA), and Teacher Education (TE). The scheme covers 1.16 million schools, over 156 million students, and 5.7 million teachers in government and aided schools, from pre-primary to senior secondary levels. Launched by the Ministry of Education in 2018, it is implemented as a centrally sponsored scheme with a 60:40 funding split between the Centre and most states.

 Samagra Shiksha Scheme 2.0

The Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs has approved the continuation of the Samagra Shiksha Scheme 2.0 until the 2025-26 financial year. This upgraded version of the program aligns with the Sustainable Development Goal for Education and the 2020 National Education Policy (NEP).

Direct Benefit Transfer (DBT): To enhance outreach, the scheme will now deliver child-centric benefits directly to students through an IT-based DBT platform. This includes RTE (Right to Education) entitlements such as textbooks, uniforms, and transport allowances.

NEP Recommendations: The scheme introduces new components, including the appointment of language teachers, bilingual books, and teaching materials, in line with NEP recommendations. It will also support pre-primary education with funding for teaching materials, indigenous toys, and play-based activities, as well as training for master trainers and anganwadi workers.

NIPUN Bharat Initiative: This initiative provides annual funding of Rs. 500 per child for learning materials, Rs. 150 per teacher for manuals and resources, and Rs. 10-20 lakh per district for foundational literacy and numeracy assessments.

Digital Initiatives: The scheme includes provisions for ICT labs, smart classrooms, digital boards, virtual classrooms, and DTH channels, which have gained importance following the Covid-19 pandemic.

Support for Out-of-School Children: It allocates Rs. 2000 per grade to support out-of-school children aged 16 to 19 to complete their education through open schooling and emphasizes skills and vocational education.

Other Features: The scheme also offers financial support for the State Commission for Protection of Child Rights, introduces a Holistic Progress Card (HPC) to track student progress, supports PARAKH, a national assessment center, and provides additional sports grants. It includes provisions for Bagless Days, school complexes, internships with local artisans, curriculum reforms, and social audits covering 20% of schools annually to ensure comprehensive coverage within five years.

The Tamil Nadu government is resistant to initiatives from the central government aimed at benefiting underprivileged government school students, citing concerns over language policies and other measures that has no logic. This opposition is perceived as impeding the growth and development of young students in the state.

Subscribe to our Telegram, WhatsApp, and Instagram channels and get the best stories of the day delivered instantly.

The post Union Minister Pradhan Accuses Tamil Nadu CM Stalin Of Inciting State Conflict Over NEP Funding Dispute appeared first on The Commune.

When the Bharatiya Janata Party returned to power in May 2019, one of the first tasks that the newly formed government did was to release the Draft National Education Policy. Running to 484 pages, the document elaborated on structural, curricular, pedagogical and governance issues in school and higher education. After much discussion, deliberation and subjecting it to public debates, the Union Cabinet chaired by Prime Minister Narendra Modi gave its assent to the National Education Policy 2020 on July 29, 2020 paving way for the long awaited reforms in the education sector.

In the era of 4th industrial revolution, with technology ruling our lives and the world set to undergo unprecedented changes in the post-COVID era, India needs a framework for developing its human capital to deal with the challenges of this new age. The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has evolved keeping this as the central point and forms the blueprint for India’s growth and rise as a knowledge power.

It needs to be understood that any policy is only a vision document and any vision document will have its set of hits and misses. This article attempts to unpack certain important elements of school education section of the policy through a pragmatic lens.

RTE extension – How will it be done?

For the first time in the educational history of independent India, education is seen as a continuum and not in silos. One of the major lacunae in the 10+2 learning trajectory and the present Right To Education (RTE) Act is that it fails to recognize early childhood education (ECE) as the base for learning. The new policy considers early childhood as not just as the foundation over which further learning happens but also as a right. In essence, the policy says that children have to learn for atleast 15 years from age 3 – 18 up from the existing 12 years.

In order to implement this, the draft policy mentioned about extending the RTE downwards and upwards to enable free and compulsory education for children from the age group 3-18 years. But the phraseology of the revised policy shows a nuanced change by stating that “a concerted national effort will be made to ensure universal access and afford opportunity to all children of the country to obtain quality holistic education–including vocational education – from pre-school to Grade 12.”

Perhaps, the policy makers have realized that the RTE Act is a follow up legislation of Article 21 A, a fundamental right, and that the extension of RTE would require a Constitutional Amendment. It is also possible that the Centre might allow individual States to provide for compulsory ECE and secondary and higher education considering the fact that education falls under concurrent list.

Redesigning schooling structure

As mentioned before, the suggested 5+3+3+4 structure provides for 15 years of formal school education compared to the existing 12 years.  The initial 5 years is regarded as the foundational stage that comprises 3 years of pre-school followed by grade 1 and 2. The next three years (Grade 3, 4 and 5) will be the preparatory stage that prepares the child for entering middle school (Grade 6, 7 and 8). The high school period of 4 years seeks to give more agency to the learner by providing flexibility in terms of choice of subjects, frequency of assessments and also by breaking the hard separation between different disciplines, vocational and academic, curricular and extra-curricular. This restructuring of schooling design into four stages and the pedagogical approaches in each of the stages is based on Jean Piaget’s theory of cognitive development. Here, learning is seen as a constructive process where children actively engage with their environment and build knowledge by assimilation and accommodation of information. This is evident from the gradual progress of a play-based pedagogy in early years to a more subjected oriented pedagogy in higher classes. It is evident that the new policy is heavily inspired by NCF 2005 which remains the base document for constructivist approach towards learning.

A lot of misinformation has been circulating about “board examinations” being conducted for grade 3, 5, and 8. While the draft policy did mention of “State census examinations” to be conducted by the State governments, the new policy mentions that to track progress of children throughout their schooling years and not just in grade 10 and 12, all students will take “school examinations” conducted by appropriate authority that tests core concepts rather than rote memorization. This form of “school examination” already exists in all good quality schools. This will not only help as a feedback mechanism in teaching-learning process but also reduce dropout rates particularly after grade 8 and 10 which is the case now as children who get automatically promoted till class 8 suddenly encounter the reality of examinations in grade 10.

Language and language politics

The insistence on education through home language/mother tongue/local language is in line with the sociocultural theory of Vygotsky which considers language as key in human development. Language is the repository of cultural beliefs and value systems. According to Vygotsky, thought and language remain independent till three years of age after which it becomes interdependent and drives cognitive development. Our thought process occurs in the language we are fluent with. For most children in India, it is the home language which is usually the mother tongue and not English. Having mother tongue as the medium of instruction will enhance not just the cognitive abilities but also articulation and communication skills which are very much necessary to negotiate in today’s world. It is in this light that the policy strongly advocates for home language/mother tongue as the medium of instruction at least till grade 5 and if possible till grade 8. This does not mean that the policy is anti-English. With the three language formula in place, children do get the opportunity to learn English and another Indian language.

Critics point out that the state promoting mother tongue based education denies a child from poorest of the poor family (the one who has access only to government schools) the opportunity to go through English medium schooling which an urban child studying in a private school has access to.

This argument is bound to fall flat because, as of today, neither are there enough good English language teachers nor is English spoken in rural government schools despite there being English medium. In fact, it is the children who become a victim of this misplaced sense of social justice as they are neither able to get proficiency in English nor their own language. ASER reports point out abysmal learning levels where children are not able to read basic text in their own language which handicaps the children in their learning journey.

Hence, one must go by what scientific evidence suggests and what works on the ground instead of trivializing the issue by bringing in the argument of social justice. In fact, teaching children in a language that is unfamiliar to them is what goes against the principle of social justice.

Whenever there is a discussion on language, there is always one state that rises up in involuntarily – Tamil Nadu. The policy states that “the three-language formula will continue to be implemented while keeping in mind the Constitutional provisions, aspirations of the people, regions, and the Union, and the need to promote multilingualism as well as promote national unity.” Although the revised policy has stated categorically that no language will be imposed on any state, there seems to be no end for Tamil Nadu political parties’ obsession over the two language policy. In fact, the policy provides room for states like Tamil Nadu by saying that “there will be greater flexibility in the implementation of the three language formula”.

It is to be noted that all the south Indian states of Kerala, Andhra Pradesh, Telangana and Karnataka along with states like West Bengal, Odisha, Maharashtra, that takes pride in their language as much as Tamil Nadu does, follow the three language policy. Even in Tamil Nadu, most of the private CBSE and matriculation schools offer three languages till 8^th grade. However, the political parties in Tamil Nadu – the DMK, AIADMK, VCK and others whip up unwarranted claims of Hindi/Sanskrit imposition.

In that case, it is pertinent to identify who is imposing what here. While the NEP 2020 offers all children in public and private schools the opportunity to learn three languages of their choice, what the political parties and the Tamil Nadu government are doing is disadvantage government school children while the private school children continue to benefit from learning three languages. In essence they ‘impose’ the 2 language policy on underprivileged government school children saying “We will let you study only 2 languages in government schools. If you want to study a third language, you should join a private school”

What is likely to be seen as a political agenda is the importance given to Sanskrit. The policy calls for providing Sanskrit as an optional language at all levels of school and higher education. But it also says that other classical languages like Tamil, Odia, Telugu, Kannada Malayalam, Pali, Persian and Prakrit shall also be available as options. So, Sanskrit is just one among the other options provided. The learner makes the decision of choosing a language. Hence, there is no imposition of any language on anybody.

India-centred education

The policy lays stress on education being India-centred. This is evident from the importance given to classical Indian languages and Indian knowledge systems. Contribution of Indian thinkers like Charaka, Susruta, Aryabhata, Panini, Chanakya, Patanjali, etc to various fields ranging from medicine, science, engineering and arts find mention in the policy. All these are bound to evoke reactions from certain sections, especially from the academic and political class on the left side of the ideological spectrum. However, one must understand that such a position of the government comes from the continuous neglect and unwillingness of the left dominated Indian academia to engage with indigenous epistemological sources as they did not consider such sources to be “academically qualified” to be part of our education system.

Vocational education

This has been the most contentious element as many have alleged that it is an indirect way of enforcing caste hierarchies. It is even dubbed as modern day version of Rajaji’s ‘Kulakalvi Thittam’ in Tamil Nadu. However, Rajaji’s Kulakalvi Thittam was very different from the idea of vocational education proposed in this policy.

In the Modern Scheme of Elementary Education 1953 mooted by Rajaji, it proposed to introduce two shifts in elementary schools. During the morning session, regular teaching-learning activity would be undertaken while the evening session was dedicated to learning the occupation of their parents. This was problematic as it would mean that a Dalit child whose father is a sewer cleaner would have to learn to clean sewers from his father.

But the idea of vocational education proposed in NEP 2020 is to expose ‘all children’ cutting across sections to various vocations – electric work, carpentry, gardening, metal work, pottery, etc when they are in grade 6-8 so that children learn the dignity of labour. The policy wishes to change the popular perception of vocational education which is currently seen as something inferior to the mainstream education by integrating vocational streams early in schools.

Critics argue that this would lead to underprivileged children many of whom drop out at class 8 or 10 to take up skill based jobs early on in their lives, which they say would restrict their academic and socio-economic mobility. In that case, how is the current system beneficial to those who drop out who have neither acquired academic skills nor vocational skills? The current system only pushes them into oblivion where these children end up doing unskilled labour work when they grow up. It is the current system that restricts their socio-economic mobility. Learning a skill would lead to both forward and backward linkages in the economy and would involuntarily result in upward mobility of disadvantaged communities.

It is to be noted that vocational education is accorded high priority in advanced economies. The United States has 52% of its workforce trained in formal vocational education while it is 75% in Germany and 96% in South Korea. If India has to reap its demographic dividend and become Atmanirbhar, it cannot afford to lose out on vocational education.

What may not work

Throughout the policy the word school complex is clubbed with schools. This shows the importance that the Kasturirangan Committee has attached to the idea. The concept of school complex was however mooted as early as 1966 by the Kothari Commission. It suggested two-tier integration where a middle school would be linked with primary schools in the first tier which would in turn be integrated with a secondary school of the area in the second tier. The Economic Survey 2018-19 also emphasised the need to merge schools to make them viable rather than build new ones. Similar to what was suggested by the Kothari Commission report, this policy suggests setting up school complexes consisting of one secondary school linked to other primary schools in the neighbourhood within 5-10 kilometers.

Before critiquing, let us see why the very idea of school complex finds place in this policy. According to U-DISE data of 2016-17, there are currently 1,05,352 single-teacher schools, with the majority of them being government schools (96,897) in rural areas. The policy says that these schools function at a sub-optimal level and have become operationally complex, in terms of allocating physical, financial and human resources. In view of this, school complex aims to bring in efficiency and effectiveness by sharing of resources and creating a community of teachers.

The idea of school complex might look reasonable on paper but is it really pragmatic? Will the children be brought to the secondary school to access education or will teachers from secondary schools go and deliver educational services in the neighbourhood primary schools? How will children get mid-day meals? How will playgrounds be accessed? How do we ensure teachers turn up after consolidation of schools given the problem of teacher absenteeism? In 2017, a study conducted by Azim Premji University reveals that, teacher absenteeism hovers between 18-20% in primary and middle schools. These logistical issues need much more thought before going ahead with implementation. However, the policy leaves it to the wisdom of states by stating that the “State/UT governments may adopt innovative formats such as school complexes, rationalization of schools, etc for effective school governance” implying that it is up to the states to go ahead with such a policy.

Any policy cannot be correct to the T. Policies are only frameworks for a government to put in place systems and programmes. The NEP 2020 acknowledges that education is a public service and quality education is a fundamental right of every citizen. The translation of this policy to practice should be guided by Gandhi’s Talisman – “Recall the face of the poorest and the weakest man/woman whom you may have seen, and ask yourself, if the step you contemplate is going to be of any use to him/her.”

The post NEP 2020: Unpacking the important elements in school education appeared first on The Commune.