aif-rte english newsletter reconstructing education april 2012

April 2012, Year 1, Issue 2

InsIde edItorIal

An organ in support of free and equitable education from KG to PG and in resistance to all forms of trade in education

Quarterly publication of All India Forum for Right to Education

The idea of “structural adjustment” in public sector that had begun to gain some currency in India about two decades ago was accompanied by another illusory panacea of all Indian problems, namely the argument of “economic liberalization”. In spite of state’s claims to champion the public good, these two together implied a shift from recognizing the state responsible for providing all basic necessities through an improvement and expansion of public system to principle acceptance and defense of the reliance on market forces as the only feasible alternative.

Notwithstanding many previous efforts, this shift in the political economy of education was most powerfully epitomized in the RTE Act (2009) and now the same trend is going to engulf the sphere of higher education as well if the bills on higher education lying before the Parliament are enacted. We are experiencing a historical juncture in the political economy of formal education as we are about to realize the full brunt of the above-sketched shift in the sphere of formal education.

Everything is being restructured as part of an all pervasive ‘reform drive’, but do we anywhere in the world see mass movements pressing for such changes? Is it not therefore obvious to believe that these changes in public system, health and education for instance, are imposed from above? This also stands corroborated by the extremely accelerated pace of such changes with characteristic arrogance and indifference to difference of opinion and dialogue.

On the contrary, what we know in general; and what is also apparent from this issue of Reconstructing Education is that there are various movements, largely scattered so far, but genuine in intent that are making all possible efforts to oppose the very design of such so called reforms. This volume is an effort to put together a few such efforts with the expectation that from these initially not so united battles, an alternative in education will be established one day that responds to peoples’ needs and aspirations. The example of Finland included in this volume is an additional booster.

RECONSTRUCTING EDUCATION

“Educate! Agitate! Organise!”and continue struggle for

Reclaiming Knowledge, Reconstructing Education

PERSPECTIVESManu, Macaulay & Manmohan 2WTO-GATS-Education & India 4 Public versus Private Schools 9

REPORTSAIF-RTE National Council Meeting 11AIF-RTE National Council Resolution 14People’s Dialogue: Khairwada 16

CAllCall Against Higher Education Bills 21Letter to Prime Minister 23

INTERNATIONAlFinland’s School Success 24

COmmENTARYResponse to AIFETO and Colombo Declaration 27 Colombo Declaration 28High Court Stay on School Closures 29

ORGANISATION’S DIARY 30

Editorial BoardConvenor:

V. N. Sharma (Ranchi)

Members: Meher Engineer (Kolkata)

Madhu Prasad (Delhi)Vikas Gupta (Delhi)

Editor:Madhu Prasad (Delhi)

Assistant Editor:Vikas Gupta (Delhi)

Editorial Assistance: Mohit Pandey (Hyderabad)

Lokesh Malti Prakash (Bhopal)

Design:Lokesh Malti Prakash (Bhopal)

Contact:Dr. V.N. Sharma

A-100, SAIL Satellite TownshipRanchi 834004, Jharkhand

E-mail: [email protected] Mob. : +91 9431102680 Tel. : +91 651-2441524

Contribution: ` 20/-

Manu, Macaulay and ManMohanIndia is one society that has inherited one of

the most iniquitous social structures that remained stubborn notwithstanding several socio-political movements including the freedom movement. Manu, the Brahmnical Hindu ideologue provided the framework and justification for not allowing all sections of the society, more so the labouring classes and women of all communities not having access to written word. This dictum survives through thousands of years after the written word had been invented by the human species. The language of the powerful, Sanskrit, through which they wrote and communicated was their exclusive prerogative. Hinduism perhaps is the only religion that believes that human beings were born unequal and prevents equal access to God, supposedly the creator of man and woman. The denial of access to formal learning not only divided and hierarchised the society, but provided scope and space for manipulation by the propertied and the powerful. This social arrangement continued all through the medieval and colonial period.

It was during the colonial period the English language started replacing the Sanskrit and other local languages. After the first war of independence in 1857, Macaulay advocated the introduction of English language and held that it was the only way to create a support base for the colonial rule. He thought, rightly so, that the English educated Indians would be Indian in colour and English in belief and behaviour. It was again the upper castes who took advantage of their social position and linguistic skills monopolized the opportunities in civil service, legal profession, media, teaching and so on. The English language was as alien to the people as Sanskrit except that the Christian missionaries opened schools where the hitherto forbidden sections had an entry point. In fact they provided access to God though Church and formal learning though schools. This opening up made no qualitative difference to the basic structure of social relations, but created a class of people, as Macaulay believed, who were entrapped into colonial mind-set and continue to perpetuate it even after six decades of the so-called victory of anti-colonial freedom struggle.

It was Phule and Savitribai Phule realising the importance of role of education started schools,

particularly for girls. Education for all as an idea entered the freedom movement in the early part of the last century and picked up momentum and by 40s came to be accepted by the Congress party who resolved to universalise right to education within a decade after independence. Given the aspirations and promise of the freedom movement it ought to have been incorporated in the fundamental rights chapter but on the grounds of resources and Nation’s preparedness it was pushed into non-justiciable directive principles of State policy.

The silver lining immediately after independence was that whatever or wherever schools existed or newly opened they were all publicly funded common schools resembling the ‘neighbourhood schools’ concept as all children living in the vicinity went to the same school and studied through their mother tongue as medium of instruction. The limitation was that there was no concerted effort to ensure that all children go to the school which resulted in an India that has the distinction of having the largest number of illiterates in the world. This policy, by and large, continued till 1985-86. There was a shift in the policy which instead of initiating measures to provide access and quality education to all children introduced the policy of multi-layered schools bringing in inequity and inequality that Manu and Macaulay did earlier.

The widespread mass unrest in India on various counts including the growing inequalities compelling the rulers to take some measures and Right to Education Act of 2009 is one such step which is supposed to have encoded the right to education as a fundamental right. While this step is important in letter, the spirit of the Act is not qualitatively different from Manu, Macaulay mindset. The Act should have straight away scraped all the private schools and gone for common school through neighbourhood schools, raising the standards of each school, at the same time, to that of central school. Instead the Act talks of private-public partnership which, in principle, concedes the continued presence of private schools at one level and accentuates the medium of instruction divide. It talks of 25% reservation of seats to poorer children in corporate schools. One starts wondering how a fundamental right could

2RECONSTRUCTING EDUCATIONApril 2012, Year 1, Issue 2

PERSPECTIVES

3 RECONSTRUCTING EDUCATIONApril 2012, Year 1, Issue 2

be so dividing and discriminatory. This has led to a country-wide debate whether the right in this form can ever be treated and accepted as a fundamental right. The public-private partnership is a device of the neo-liberal model to plunder public resources for private profiteering. The corporate schools used to amassing of wealth challenged the Act in the Courts opposing the admission of poor children into their schools. Assuming that the Court in principle concedes, which is very unlikely, what happens to the other 75% of the poor children condemned to study in government schools which are poorly funded and qualitatively inferior. Is it not the time that the nation in one voice demands that all children of this country in the age group of 0-18 have equal access to quality education through common schools in neighbourhood schools?

The scenario in higher education is equally pitiable. There are six to eight bills waiting for parliamentary ratification. Of all the bills the most Macaulian is the Foreign Universities Bill. Kapil Sibal addressing the last All India Vice Chancellors conference looked concerned about only two issues: the Foreign Universities Bill and introduction of semesterisation in Delhi university as if they are the only issues afflicting higher education. Of course, during the recent visit of Manmohan Singh to the USA, one of the items that came up in the discussion with Obama was opening up of higher education for foreign investment. The Prime Minister in his Independence day address to the nation from the Red Fort made a specific reference to the urgency of educational reforms. The saddest part of higher education is the pathetic conditions of State Universities. No state government, without exception, has any interest left in higher education as the sons and daughters of the ruling classes go for private medical, engineering, legal and other professional streams of education. The most prosperous are sending their children to foreign universities and are arguing that the ‘craze’ can be met only by inviting foreign universities to the Indian soil. It is precisely this cause that led to serious cuts in grants, stopping recruitment of new staff and all forms of support of the state. In the same breath they also want to privatise accreditation, distance education, tribunalization of educational litigation, abolition of UGC and manning the new council for higher education with corporate representatives. The teaching fraternity lured by the 6th pay commission evinced no interest in the neo-liberal

assault on higher education.

It is the wake of these drastic changes in school and university education, the All India Forum for Right to Education held its national conference in Yusuf Meharelly centre near Mumbai. The forum draws its membership from socialists, Lohiaites, Gandhians, leftists, radicals and democratise. They are drawn from 16 states of India and are engaged in building a nationwide movement against these undemocratic, uncalled for, anti people reforms in education. It is time that spirit of freedom struggle is retrieved and we build a movement for an equitable, humane, fair and just society. The cause of education is one of the powerful weapons to realize this goal. This would invariably be a fight against Manu-Macaulay-Manmohan mind-set. The posterity may not forgive this generation of academia. These sections are bound to carry their own battle against unjust society with or without the support of the academia.

G. HaragopalMember, Presidium

All India Forum for Right to Education

Upset with the plan of the Union HRD Ministry to regulate the legal education sector through the proposed Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011, the Bar Council of India (BCI) on Monday called a nationwide protest on January 20. Lekh Raj Sharma, chairman, Bar Council of Punjab and Haryana, said “The Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011, proposes to take away the duties and functions entrusted to the BCI and state Bar Councils and it proposes to vest all these powers with a national commission constituting a few academicians. The Council strongly condemns the attempt of the HRD Ministry by which it has tried to encroach upon provisions of Advocates Act, 1961, with a view to use the functions and duties of elected bodies comprising more than 15 lakh advocates of the country”.

BCI strike against ‘Higher Education and Research Bill,

2011


Wto-Gats-educatIon & IndIaWorld Trade Organization (WTO) was

established on 1st January, 1995. Its present membership, as on 10 February 2011, is 153 countries including India. The WTO came into being as an enlargement of earlier General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT). While GATT had a limited role in world economic affairs, WTO intends to cover whole economic activities of all member countries. Further, WTO intends to transform every human activity including education, culture as a tradable activity. General Agreement on Trade in Services - GATS is different from GATT and is one of the agreements under WTO regime along with GATT and deals with trade in services.

The countries of the world are classified as 1) Developed, 2) Developing and 3) Least Developed by WTO. One need not dispute this classification. The point of dispute is whether the WTO was formed for the benefit of all the three categories of countries or with imperialist motives? It is felt that the WTO was formed to serve the interest of developed countries; and that it is detrimental to the interest of the least developed nations. Developing countries like India joined the organization to make the possible best for its corporate houses in the changed international conditions. With the liquidation of parallel world socialist market, the developed capitalist countries could impose these enlarged ‘agreements’ on least developed countries. The developing countries like India which used to benefit from both developed capitalist countries and socialist countries are now circumscribed to search for benefits in the ‘unified’ world capitalist market. The class inequalities and social inequalities are aggravated due to different agreements under WTO regime in all countries for the last two decades. It is apprehended that these inequalities would further aggravate with expansion of WTO operations through DOHA round.

WTO has got three Integrated Multilateral Agreements along with two Legal Instruments and two Plurilateral Agreements in its ambit. The integrated multilateral agreements are (1) General Agreement on Trade and Tariff (GATT-1994), (2) Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) and (3) the General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). GATT-1994 is an expanded version of GATT-1947 through many a round

of trade negotiations over five decades. ‘Trade Related Intellectual Property Rights (TRIPS) is otherwise known widely. However, in this piece of write up, it is only attempted to elaborate on General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). We are interested in GATS because, trade in education comes under this particular agreement.

GATS & EDUCATIONAs is said earlier General Agreement on Trade in

Services (GATS) is one of the multilateral integral agreements under WTO regime. 161 services are recognized as tradable services by GATS Council. Education is also considered a tradable service! Now it is officially talked as Trade in Education Services. As GATS is one of the integral multilateral agreements of WTO, all member countries of WTO are bound to GATS. However, this agreement can not be operationalised in a country until the country submits its commitment schedules service wise and sector wise to Council of Trade in Services. Different countries made commitments in different service sectors before year 2000AD and the agreement is under operation to that extent. The ‘July (2004) package’ of WTO sought wide spread commitments from member countries. For this purpose, negotiations are taking place among the member countries as a part of Doha Round of Negotiations. As is known widely, the Doha round trade negotiations are yet to be concluded.

Sectors and modes of Trade: According to the ‘central product classification’ which is followed by GATS every service is divided into several sub-sectors. GATS recognized five sub-sectors in ‘education service’:

1) Primary education, 2) Secondary education, 3) Higher Education, 4) Adult Education and 5) Other education.

So also GATS recognize four modes of trade in services. With respect to education service the modes are as follows:

Mode 1 - ‘Cross border supply’: In which neither the student (‘consumer’) nor the teacher/ institute (supplier) move from their respective countries. This mode is actually a mode of correspondence


education. In the present scenario it is an e-education. The student (consumer) pays the service charges to the institute (supplier).

Mode 2 - ‘Consumption Abroad: Under this mode, the student (‘Consumer’) move from his country to a foreign country (‘supplier’) to receive education (the service). The student (consumer) pays the service charges to the institute (supplier).

Mode 3 - Commercial Presence: Under this mode, educational institutions of a country (suppliers) establish their branches in another country, i.e. make their commercial presence in another country to ‘provide’ education. Academic community of India has genuine apprehensions on this mode. It is apprehended that the coming of foreign universities to India (under this mode) is detrimental to Indian universities and to the students of poor and middle class families. Further, allowing foreign educational institutions would be detrimental to cultural diversity of the country where the strength of India lies and which is the core of our sovereignty. The imposition of foreign educational standards would lead to the so called standardization of education stifling the space for diversity. The utilitarian approach to educational and cultural aspects of life, which will be prompted by trade in education would lead to desocialisation of education both in access and content. Entry of foreign Universities creates a need for comparative quality assessment between foreign and domestic Universities and the actual problem lies in identifying and applying a yardstick for such an assessment. It is apprehended that in the given circumstances, such yardsticks would be essentially western and because of their alien nature would thereby exclude the indigenous knowledges.

Mode 4 - ‘Presence of Natural Person’: Under this mode, teacher/trainer of a country moves to another country, stay there temporarily and market his / her service there - It is assumed that India has got good manpower resources (teachers in different disciplines) and can make the best use of this mode. The genuine apprehension, again, is that the best teachers would go to foreign lands. Students from poor and middle class families can neither go to foreign countries nor can join branches of foreign Universities in India because of high fee structure and would forego quality education.

‘Offers’ and ‘Commitments’: According to the present scheme of negotiations, every country can make ‘requests’ to all or few of other WTO member countries to open up their respective markets in all or few listed services for commercial activities. It is natural that every country also receives such ‘requests’ from other countries. A country, in response to the received ‘requests’, can make ‘initial offers’ on opening up its services market. It is not obligatory for a member country to open its market in all services. Even, within a service, a country can be selective sector wise and mode wise in opening its market. The member countries, through mutual bargain in special sessions of ministerial meetings of the council of Trade in Services (already established under WTO), would finalize the ‘offers’ of different countries. In this mutual bargain, member countries may withdraw or modify some ‘offers’ which they have made earlier. When, an agreement is arrived at, the ‘offers’ become ‘commitments’ on the part of the respective countries. As is said earlier, negotiations in services to expand trade in services are a part of ‘Doha Round’ which is yet to be concluded

The point here, to be noted is that while every country has got a choice either to allow or not to allow foreign traders in its Education Service (for that matter in any service), it has also got the choice to be selective both in sector-wise and mode wise dimensions. Actually, both the ‘requests’ and ‘initial offers’ and ultimately ‘commitments’ are made in sector wise and mode wise dimensions. However, the said choice is limited by the article 19 of the agreement which creates a pressure on member countries to progressively open their respective markets.

India has submitted ‘offers’: In persuasion of Hong Kong Declaration made in 2005, India has submitted its ‘offers’ in ‘Higher Education Sub-sector’ to GATS Council. If Doha Round is ‘completed successfully’ and if the ‘offers’ are not withdrawn before conclusion of the round, the ‘offers’ automatically become ‘commitments’ on the part of India. But, ‘commitment’ means a lot. The GATS has got many dangerous provisions. It is not possible to detail all the provisions here. Here, it is only attempted to give a brief note of few provisions and their possible affect on Indian education system.

mFN Status: According to the ‘Most Favored

6

Nation’ provision; each member country has to consider each other member country to be ‘Most Favored Nation’. All member countries are to be treated on par. It is not possible that we open market to South Africa and not to US. When a country opens its market in a particular service, it is opening it to all member countries (Favor one, favor all). Though, some exceptions are there, they would be handy only to developed countries. This provision becomes a fetter to the cooperation between developing and under developed countries. They can not make separate agreements in their mutual interest.

National Treatment: According to this

provision all foreign providers are to be treated on par with domestic providers. Analysts of the trade relations are apprehensive of this provision. They are of the opinion that it can mean even equal patronage to foreign providers on par with domestic private providers in the areas of subsidies with respect to land, roads, power water, tax exemption and reimbursement. Say, if some minority private institutions are supported by government in one or other form, there is every possibility that same support would be demanded by the foreign providers. Otherwise it can be construed as discrimination between domestic and foreign providers. The national government would have no right to help the institutions of its

own people! WTO will rule the roost.

G o v e r n m e n t Procurement: Supply of a service by government to its people is termed as Government Procurement and the same is ‘provided’ for in GATS. There is no problem if a government college is not collecting any fees from students. But, if a government college is collecting some fee from the students, it is widely apprehended, again, that such government college can be construed as a private provider by GATS (articles in Journal of Critical Educational Policy Studies-JCEPS, 2005). The clause ‘national treatment’ comes into picture immediately if the fee collecting Government College is construed as a private provider even though the fee is nominal and the college is essentially providing free

Neoliberal reforms in education has fueled students unrest across the globe. This poster is from Bangladesh published to mobilize support against commercialisation of education.

RECONSTRUCTING EDUCATIONApril 2012, Year 1, Issue 2


education. In a government college, education is essentially provided free of cost. Even the college collects some fee from the students that is only spent on contingent items. The main financial support comes from government. But, if the college is considered as a private provider by GATS rules for collecting some fee from the students, the support given to the college by the government can be considered as a discrimination against other private providers. If the apprehension proves to be real, the government either will have to provide same facilities which it provides to its own colleges to all domestic and foreign private providers (educational institutions) providing same courses of study or to completely withdraw support to the public institutions. We know our government may ultimately do a mix of it through PPP benefiting domestic and foreign private providers. The support extended to government colleges will be gradually decreased and they will be asked to become ‘self reliant’ by increasing fee to be collected from the students and private colleges will be increasingly provided with government subsidies and reimbursements. Ultimately, public and private; domestic and foreign all institutes will be treated on par! Is not this process under way? The ground is under preparation for implementation of GATS. Sam Pitroda’s national commission report on higher education is very close to GATS ideology. Even, Prof. Yash Pal report also attends essential needs of GATS. The result will be that even the government colleges will also be transformed as commercial ones.

Domestic Regulation: Domestic regulations are to be gradually changed to trade friendly and global trade friendly regimes. A sub-committee is appointed under the aegis of Council for Trade in Services (GATS Council) to prepare reports on regular basis on rules and regulations of trade in different countries. These reports lead to ‘reforms’ in different countries. The Trade Policy Review Mechanism (TPRM), one of the legal instruments under GATS yearly review the trade policies of different countries and ‘suggest’ the countries to change their respective policies. This regulation of domestic policies may tantamount to the infringement on freedom of the nations in formulation of their respective public policies. In all possibility, the public policy of member countries would be controlled by WTO regime. Developing and under developed countries would fall victim to this provision more. The officials of

above said TPRM officially meet the ministers and secretaries of HRD ministry on yearly basis. They enquire every year about the so called reforms in education. Kapil Sibal is accountable to TPRM officials more than to people of India. So, he is turning every stone to pass the Higher Education Bills. This ‘domestic regulation’ by WTO and its organs can lead to infringement on sovereignty of the member countries, more particularly the developing and underdeveloped countries.

Transparency Clause: Transparency is one

of the provisions of the GATS. The Right To Information Act is not brought in the interest of people as many activists believe it so. It has come as one of the compliances with GATS. Multinational corporations require that all information is available to them. They want to know the position of a file and even the comments made on it by different officials. They want that bureaucracy do not come in its way. They want a legislation to empower them to know necessary information from government offices. There shall be legislation, they said. There is legislation! We find this RTI is enacted in many a countries and neo-liberal NGOs lobbied for it everywhere. The point is that the corporate houses are opposed to corruption at execution level. They prefer corruption at policy level. The corporate houses prefer to bribe policy makers and get a deregulating Act passed in their favor rather than bribing officers at all tables to bypass regulations. The ‘Right To Education Act’ is an example of the sort. It clearly allows the private providers to increase fee to be collected from the students as they like it. Now, the private operators need not give bribe to D.E.Os in districts to allow them to increase fee.

Independent Regulatory Authorities

(IRAs): In the recent times, we find Independent Regulatory Authorities (IRAs) are established in many a service sectors. We have IRA for Power, IRA for Insurance and IRAs for many other services. Sam Petroda and unfortunately Prof. Yash Pal also suggested one IRA for Higher Education. Sam Petroda, Chairperson for Knowledge Commission, suggested in his report (November, 2006) on Higher Education to the government to establish an ‘Independent Regulatory Authority of Higher Education (IRA for Higher Education)’ to regulate higher education. Prof. Yash Pal, in his report on ‘Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education (2008)’ suggested the government to establish


an overarching body ‘National Commission for Higher Education and Research’ by abolishing or subsuming all India educational authorities working in different domains of education like UGC, AICTE, NCTE, MCI, BCI and so on and so forth. Both the Knowledge Commission and ‘Prof. Yash Pal Committee’ have recommended for an independent regulatory body as a centre of power. These IRAs can only be understood as a compliance with ‘Additional Commitments’ provision under GATS. These IRAs are established only to keep the representative governments away from decision making.

National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER): A Bill is introduced in the Parliament in December, 2011 on the basis of recommendations of Prof. Yash Pal Committee to enable the government to establish a ‘National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER)’. This Bill establishes an Independent Regulatory Authority, as elaborated earlier, in higher education in the name of NCHER. The proposed NCHER concentrates power in its hands relating to different domains of education and research. Again, this NCHER disarms state governments in taking appropriate decisions in the field of higher education affecting balance of power between states and centre. The IRAs working in different fields and NCHER which is to be established to regulate higher education would not be accountable to the people of the country in any form. This bypassing of legislative and executive processes would prove detrimental to the institutional democracy. The established IRAs in different services and the NCHER which is to be established in the field of education will be ‘independent’ from public pressure and ‘regulate’ education system in favor of domestic and foreign capital.

CAll Of THE HOURGovernment of India, as is said earlier, has

already submitted its ‘offers’ to GATS Council with respect to higher education. The ‘offers’ are submitted in all of the four modes as elaborated earlier. It means, that India has agreed to consider education a tradable service. Further, it means that India has agreed for a global trade in education without any barriers. This agreement is not like any bilateral agreement between two interested countries that can easily be reviewed; it is a multilateral agreement between all member

Ramesh PatnaikOrganizing Secretary

All India Forum for Right to Education

countries. The provisions of the GATS would only prove that the withdrawal of commitments would be costlier than continuation. So, the commitments are almost irrevocable. WTO/GATS regime reduces education into a commodity and student into a consumer in clear cut legal terms and of course, in objective reality. When education is reduced to a commodity, not only that poor and disadvantaged will be denied of it even, those who get it will not get it worth the name. If one is opposed to trade in education or if one is at least opposed to global trade in education one should demand immediate withdrawal of the ‘offers’ given to GATS Council of WTO in higher education sector by Government of India. The first priority for any education loving organization or person is to oppose encroachment of WTO-GATS on Indian education system.


dIscourse on PublIc versus PrIvate schools

The recent controversy on the role of government schools (public school) in generating Naxlites versus the Private Schools producing Swayam Sevaks is an interesting issue on which there seem to be little discussion. Most of the private schools in India are strangely called as public schools. It is a misnomer. However, the debate on public education is as old age as the movement for self respect and modernization. Mahatma Phuley who is credited for the backward classes movement was the first in modern India to apprise the British about the parochial nature of English education in India. In his memorandum (reproduced in one of my books) to the Hunter Commission in 1882, Phuley questioned the rationale in restricting public education to dvijas and denying the same to shudra and ati- shudra farmers who had contributed to the education of others through special cess. School education became public in modern India after the implementation of the recommendations of Hunter Commission. Thus, the debate on public and private schools is not a new occurrence and has always been there to reflect a deep rooted prejudice against the universalisation of education in India.

The apathy and indifference in implementing the constitutional directive of providing free and compulsory education during the last five decades after independence has compelled the government to bring the RTE in 2009. The rules are prepared and individual states are asked to produce rules for the implementation of the Act. The central government has made budget provision for the RTE through Sarva Siksha Abhiyan with a provision of not less than Rs 20000 crores in each budget. In fact, policy makers have delayed the RTE for decades quoting that it would be difficult for the government to find funds for its execution. Now funds are available yet, the allocated money for SSA seem to have not been fully utilized, if spent they are stories of embezzlement. What does it really indicate?

We may for a moment get back to the cultural history of this country to understand the low levels of literacy and underdevelopment. While most of the East Asian countries including Japan through

Meiji restoration have achieved almost universal literacy by the end of 19th century, the goal is still eluding us. There are still pockets of high levels of illiteracy (around 80%}, while the 2011 census has estimated an average literacy of 75 percent for the country as a whole. But, illiteracy in rural areas is still a problem due to lack of schooling. It is not difficult to identify the groups and we need not spend millions on research to find out the reasons. This possibly could be attributed to our cultural ethos that invokes education as a prerogative of men and for a chosen few. This characteristic perhaps unconsciously guides our policy makers. Therefore, we cannot find fault with some of our gurus and corporate Babas reflecting the popular sentiment. In this context, we can find Andhra Pradesh as a unique state where the dichotomy of large number of higher educational institutions simultaneously flourish with one of the lowest levels of literacy (lower than Odisha} in the country. It never pricked the conscience of policy makers and the politicians.The gap is widening due to the education market created by the policies of the government that purport to slam such tendencies particularly in elementary education. The hullabaloo of public or government school and private school is due to the well entrenched involvement of the private corporate sector in school education. Naturally, they would find ways to undermine the government schools like the statements made by some Babas in whom they have invested to create a brand value. The sentiment that government or public schools produce Naxlites would make the parents even in rural areas to withdraw their children from such schools. This would enable the private corporate sector (they have already produced a document on business possibilities in education) to enlarge its’ tentacles.

Nowhere in the developed countries including the UK, USA and the OECD, is primary education left to the private sector. In the USA schooling is compulsory. The state through local governments and educational districts manages institutions with necessary funding. It is reported that the enrollment in pure private and non-profit schools in capitalist America comes to around 10 percent. Even these schools are supposed to follow certain


standards laid down by the government as they are identified as denominational with church or other such groups. The situation in India particularly after the debates on compulsory primary education and Art 45 and now the RTE has become trivial. The enrolment in private schools now stands at 25 percent of the total in elementary sector. This is not an urban phenomenon. The Economic Survey 2012 mentions that enrolments in the private primary schools in rural areas range between 30 to 50 percent of the total. This is preceded by the fall in standards where 48 to 54 percent of students in Fifth standard cannot read a text book of Second standard. In the meanwhile, it is alleged that some courts have interpreted the 25 percent reservation of seats as per RTE in corporate schools include economically weaker sections. Now, it is easy for anyone to get a certificate to admit their children in corporate schools and would get the assistance from the government. The private schools are allowed to collect their dues. This has widened the net of private corporate schools both in urban and in the rural areas as the fees would be paid by government. The policy makers would soon come out with a report saying that they have accomplished the universal (MDG) target like perhaps the poverty figures?

It is disheartening to find that the situation in the school education which is supposed to produce secular and responsible citizens is totally out of focus of both the parents and the intellectuals. Most of those who are popular in public life today including the Nobel laureates were educated through the so called panchayat or municipal school. They have learnt from each other group and appreciated the diversity of the country. In fact one of my colleagues, an enlightened Muslim lady has informed me that most of the Madarasas are run in areas that are ghettos without proper infrastructure, teachers and aid from government. I am told they are run with little support from the community sometimes by the jealous so called fundamentalists as they are ones who are coming to the rescue of the poor Muslims. Therefore, the Hindus do not have an opportunity to know how they look like and what they think. It is also true about the other community. Some of the tensions in our society are due to the fact that we do not know enough about our own people due to sectarian schooling. Realizing the cultural diversity of the country, the Kothari commission on Education in 1966 recommended a common school for

everybody. This has not been implemented and now all kinds of deviations with the sole aim of creating profitable investment opportunities in Education sector are being recommended by those who do not have adequate knowledge about our society and education.

India is not USA and not even Pakistan in terms of its diversity and plurality. It is exactly for this reason the British had introduced a secular grant-in- aid code for educational institutions to discourage denominational and communal orientation in education. The Indian republic stands for a secular state and the education system should comply with it through a uniform curriculum and goals. It was found in a study conducted by us about three decades ago that our education system is class oriented. A Municipal or Panchayat school is for the wretched of the earth, the so called Public school or convent for the rich and the aided school for the middle classes. The students would perhaps never meet and share the sublime dreams of our founding fathers who wished that India should emerge one day as a single Nation and not multitudes of classes and nations through schools that promote parochialism and discordant culture.

K.S. ChalamFormer Vice-Chancellor, Dravidian UniversityEx-member, Union Public Service Commission

[email protected]

Our Publication

NEO-LIBERAL ASSAULT ON HIGHER EDUCATION

An Agenda for Putting India on Sale

Compilation & Editing: Dr. Anil Sadgopal

Price: ` 20/-

Available at:E- 8/29, Sahkar Nagar,

Bhopal 462039Madhya Pradesh

Email: [email protected]. : +91 040-2330-5266Mob. : +91 9440980396

REPORTSaIF-rte natIonal councIl MeetInG

a rePortThe National Council meeting of the All India

Forum for Right to Education was held from 9th to 11th December, 2012 at Yusuf Meherally Centre, Tara Village of Rayagad District, Maharashtra. 26 organizations from 18 states sent total 81 representatives to the National Council Meeting. The National Council meeting were preceded by a meeting of the National Executive.

The delegates of the National Council meeting were welcomed by Dr. G.G. Parikh, well known Socialist leader and moral head of the Yusuf Meherally Centre. The veteran leader said that the ‘Right to Education’ is a subject very close to his heart and also part and parcel of the agenda of the Yusuf Meherally Centre. He expressed his strong belief that AIF-RTE is a committed organization and would take the peoples’ struggle for right to education to its logical end. On this occasion, two News Letters ‘Reconstructing Education’ and ‘Talim Ki Ladai’ of All India Forum for Right to Education were released by Dr. Anand Teltumbde (IIT, Kharagpur). This was followed by presentations on pertinent issues of education. Building the foundation for subsequent discussions, Prof. K. Chakradhara Rao underlined the crises of capitalist economy from World War- I onwards. Dr. Anand Teltumbde and Prof. G. Haragopal critically underlined the implications of the assault of neoliberal policies for Indian education system. Prof. Anil Sadgopal presented the vision of Common School System. Ms. Simantini Dhuru and Prince Gajendra Babu spoke on problems of and new attacks on school education, Dr. Vikas Gupta and Dr. Rajendra Kumbhar spoke on commercialization and communalization of higher education. Ms. Madhu Prasad spoke on the NDA governments `offer’ in 2000 to include higher education sector under World Trade Organization regulations and its negative effects on the autonomy of education and sovereignty of the nation. Sh. Sunil presented issues of struggle in the field of education. Sh. Ramesh Patnaik presented a list of demands covering pre-primary to higher education. Sh. Surjit Thokchom drew the attention of the house to questions of diversity in our conception of education.

BRIEF OVERVIEW OF mOBIlIzATIONS AND ACTIVITIES

Very encouraging reports of struggles from

all corners of the country were placed before the council by the central AIF-RTE and its member organizations. All delegates were enthused to learn about the struggles of the people in other regions and states.

The report on the activities of AIFRTE for the period 25th Feb, 2010 to 9th Dec, 2011 was presented by the Organising Secretary Sh. Ramesh Patnaik.

The National Council of AIF-RTE had met on 25th of February, 2010 at Rajendra Bhavan, New Delhi, the day after the historic March to Parliament organised by AIF-RTE against the anti-people ‘Right to Education Act, 2009’ and the proposed Bills in higher education, which have now been introduced in Parliament. They are intended to `open up’ the higher education sector for domestic and foreign trade. The massive rally demanded introduction of Common School System and a Public Funded Education System from KG to PG.

The National Executive organized many programmes of protest, in collaboration with its member organizations, covering as many as about hundred districts throughout the country against commercialization of education and for mobilizing public opinion in favor of Common School System based on Neighborhood Schools and an all-India public-funded Education System from KG to PG.

On 1st April, 2010 when the Central Government

implemented the farcical ‘Right to Education Act, 2009’, AIFRTE gave a call for observing a ‘Black Day’. Our member organisations the black day programme in about 100 districts. We opposed this Act from the stage of Bill itself because it institutionalizes multi-track discriminatory school education against the directives of the Constitution. It promotes commercialization of education and allows private managements to increase fees as they wish. It further provides for the neo-liberal scheme of Public Private Partnership in the form of fee reimbursement to siphon the public funds to private agencies.

AIFRTE organised a Dharna at Sashtri Bhawan on 26th of July, 2010 against the Higher Education Bills (‘Foreign Educational Institutions Bill, ‘Educational Tribunals Bill, ‘National Accreditation Authority Bill’ and ‘National Council for Higher


Education and Research Bill’). A delegation of AIFRTE met the Standing Committee on Education, Ministry of Human Resources Development and submitted a memorandum in opposition to these anti people Bills.

A National Seminar on Higher Education, organized by Delhi Siksha Adhikar Manch, was held in Delhi on 22nd August, 2010. Representatives of many rogressive teachers and students organizations participated in the seminar. The keynote address was delivered by noted economist Prof. Prabhat Patnaik. The seminar exposed thoroughly the Bills pertaining to Higher Education and showed how they are a preparation for inclusion of higher education sector in the global market as a tradeable commodity to be governed by WTO regime.

Akhila Bharat Samajwadi Adhyapak Sabha (ABSAS), a member organization of AIFRTE gave a call to observe Satyagraha from 28th November (the death Anniversary of Mahatma Jyoti Rao Phule) to 6th December, 2010 (The death anniversary of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar). The presidium of AIFRTE called its other member organizations to actively observe the Satyagraha. AIFRTE’s call included demands for public-funded education system at all levels along with the demand for Common School System raised by ABSAS. It was a big success as many member organizations in different areas participated actively. In many a places, our activists courted arrest.

A ‘Workshop on Education and Language’ was conducted by AIFRTE on 2nd and 3rd January, 2011 at Itarsi (Madhya Pradesh). The workshop was hosted by Siksha Adhikar Manch, District, Hoshangabad (Madhya Pradesh). There was a serious discussion on the question of Multi-linguality and issues relating to education in the mother tongue. The workshop issued a call proposing further debate on multi-linguality and suggested that united struggles be launched against the sinister design of the ruling classes to hinder the free development of India’s many languages.

An online petition was initiated on 25th of January, 2011 against the nefarious Bills related to Higher Education. A face to face signature campaign and a post card campaign were initiated by AIFRTE. In Andhra Pradesh the card campaign was taken up in almost all districts. Our organizations in Delhi, Mumbai, Gujarat also took some initiative

in this programme. On 18th and 19th of February, 2011, delegations

of AIFRTE met leaders of different political parties in Delhi to sensitize political opinion against the nefarious Bills and the ‘offer’ still pending before World Trade Organisation. Leaders of CPI, CPI(M) and the RSP said that they were trying their level best to mount opposition against higher education bills even with their meager strength in the Parliament. We appealed to them to directly take up campaigns among the people.

A delegation of AIF-RTE met Sh.Sharad Yadav, the leader of Janata Dal (United) who gave a patient hearing to our ‘case’ but has not been able do anything against these Bills till date. A delegation headed by Prof. Anil Sadgopal also met Sh. Rahul Gandhi, General Secretary, AICC. Members explained the dangerous consequences of commercialization of education to the polity and to society in the long run. They appealed to him to get the party to propose that government initiate a nationwide public debate on proposed educational reforms as was done in the case of the GM foods issue AIFRTE could not get an appointment with BJP leaders.

All India Students Association (AISA), a member organization, and AIF-RTE organized a Shiksha Jansansad at Parliament Street against the nefarious Higher Education Bills. Hundreds of students and youth participated in the day long programme held on 21st of February, 2011. AISA, reportedly organized similar programmes at different levels before this central programme.

Delhi Siksha Adhikar Manch (DSAM) took many activities in Delhi against different anti people policies of the central government as it is located in the capital. Fortunately, we have a number of active comrades, member organizations and other organizations in Delhi who raise our banner on almost all important issues ranging from school education to higher education, including the threat posed to any democratization of education by the sinister designs of the Hindutva forces.

Andhra Pradesh Save Education Committee

(APSEC) is working among the government school teachers through its member organizations. While taking up struggles on the service related problems of teachers APSEC is also striving to mobilize common teachers for the demands of children, demands related to conditions of schools



and concerning the education system as a whole. It is a particular experiment where teachers of government schools are being mobilized for the cause of education and for common school system with some success.

Tamilnadu State Platform for Common School System (TNSPCSS) is organizing the teachers and parents of private schools for their sectional demands,but it is also trying to mobilize the parents and teachers for the cause of education, and for Common School System.

School Development and Monitoring

Committee Coordination Forum, Karnataka and its fraternal organisation ‘Prarambhik Shikshak Samiti (Karnataka)’ are trying to mobilize parents and teachers of government schools for the cause of Common School System. Committee for Equal Fundamental Right to Education, Mumbai, which is working in different sections of the masses on educational problems has recently taken up two issues which relate them with teachers, parents and students. They are fighting against the Maharashtra Government’s withdrawal of aid to Marathi medium schools and demanding fee reimbursement to the BC students in unaided private schools. They are trying to mobilize these effected sections for wider demands of education and Common School System.

Bihar Arajpatrit Prarambhik Shikshak Sangh is taking up the problems of contract teachers along with the problems of the regular teachers. They are trying to sensitize the regular teachers on the problems of contract teachers and on the problems of education system as such.

Adivasi Ekta Parishad, Gujarat is working among the tribal people in Gujarat and building struggles on their legitimate demands. They are trying to draw the masses of the tribal people for the cause of education.

Of course, here, it is not intended to give a complete report of the activities of member organizations. However, the exemplary and diversified activities of different member organizations are part and parcel of the all India struggle for Common School System and a democratic education system.

All India Forum for Right to Education and its member organisations stand firmly against commercialization and communalization of education. We strive for ‘education for all’, ‘equal education for all’ and ‘public funded education system at all levels from K.G to P.G which

includes Common School System’. We demand establishment of an education system which is built on democratic, secular, egalitarian and socialist values enshrined in our constitution. A democratic education system excludes all inequalities and includes all diversities. We, on behalf of All India Forum for Right to Education, envision an education system which can promote pro-people national development, respond with sensitivity to the people’s aspirations for equitable distribution of resources, optimization of socio-cultural and knowledge-related diversity and securing civil liberties and democratic rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution.

AIF-RTE strives to build a nation-wide mass movement to achieve it.

The meet of the National Council was attended by persons with ideologies ranging from Ambedkarites, different shades of Communists, Gandhites and different shades of Lohiaites and Socialists with a great resolve to fight commercialization and communalization of education and to achieve a democratic education system. It was an event where people of different democratic ideologies exchanged their ideas and appreciated strengths in each other. The National Council stood united on behalf of the All India Forum for Right to Education to condemn anti-people educational policies of the state and expressed its strong will to work for the cause of a democratic, secular, egalitarian, just and enlightened education system.

The Committee for the Fundamental and Equal Right to Education (a member organization of AIFRTE) took this occasion as an opportunity and organized a public meeting. ‘Crisis of Education and Struggle for Social Justice’ was the banner. It was argued in the meeting. The public meeting, held at Vanmali Hall, Dadar (west), Mumbai, carrying forward the ideas and spirit of the National Council strongly expressed the view that equal education opportunity can protect our democracy . Vetaran freedom fighter Dr. G.G. Parikh presided over the meeting and Prof. Anil Sadgopal, Ms. Madhu Prasad, Adv. Gayatri Singh, Sh. Vivek Korde and Ms. Simantini Dhuru spoke on the occasion.

A press conference was held on 12th of December, 2011 at Marathi Patrakar Bhavan in Mumbai to announce the resolutions passed by the National Council and announced the action programmes taken up in the National Council.


India has a long and ancient history of a deep-rooted exclusionary and discriminatory socio-religious structure. The oppressive hierarchy and violence of the caste system has dominated all aspects of life and deprived the vast majority of the Indian people from access to the benefits of their own labour and the fruits of the rich resources of the land. In the context of sharp class divisions, this framework facilitated and aggravated other forms of oppression – communal, gender, disability, and the dispossession of tribes and other marginalized communities. The long struggle against the brutal exploitation of British colonialism eventually resulted in the spread of a wide-ranging freedom movement. Demands of all sections of the people were raised in the course of the struggle leading to the overthrow of British rule and the establishment of a constitutional republic which enshrined values of equality and non-discriminatory rights and opportunities as the basis of the future development of the country.

The role of education was conceived as an essential component in the struggle for achieving this goal and hence universalization of free and compulsory education, to be achieved by 1960, was included in the Directive Principles of the Constitution. But today, despite sustained protest and critique, we find that a stunted, multi-track and discriminatory scheme of education, which denies the right of all children to get education of quality, has been legitimized in the form of ‘The Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act 2009’. Embedded in the limiting framework of the 86th Constitutional Amendment Act 2002, which denied rights of children under six years to early childhood care and pre-primary education, and made education the only fundamental right to be exercised as “the State may, by law, determine”, the RTE Act 2009, has given legitimacy to neo-liberal multi-track and non-formal education schemes already which had been initiated in the 1990’s under World Bank-IMF’s Stuctural Adjustment conditionalities. Motivated by the desire to promote a market in education and to dismantle the existing structure of government schools, which alone could have formed the basis of quality education for all, this approach has not only led to rapid deterioration of the approximately 12 lakh government schools, except for the special categories of central and model schools, but has also paved the way for a mushrooming growth of private schools and growing commercialization of education. The passage of the RTE Act has only accelerated this process.

Freeing private schools from state regulation, the 2009 Act has led to an alarming rise in fees and yet allowed for transfer of public funds to such institutions through development grants and so-called ‘re-imbursement’ for admitting 25% EWS pupils. This scheme, due to the media’s almost exclusive focus, has diverted attention from the State’s abdication of its own constitutional obligation to provide free and compulsory education of equitable quality for all.

Therefore, we demand that the Union government,

1. Repeal RTE Act 2009 and hold public hearings at district levels to draft a new Bill on the egalitarian principles of the Common Neighbourhood School System which draws in all children including the disabled;

2. Amend the Constitution to undo the negative impact of 86th Amendment to ensure free and compulsory education to all from the stage of early childhood care and pre-primary right up to Class XII;

3. Impose a complete ban on child labour;4. Provide constitutionally for adequate funding, and ban privatization and commercialization of education,

including all forms of Private Public Partnership (PPP).Until these steps are taken, we further demand that1. No closure or merger of government schools should be permitted.2. School faculty and auxiliary staff of all government schools should be adequately enhanced and teacher

education and curricular reform should be undertaken to strengthen the system.3. Necessary steps to adequately train para-teachers and other teaching personnel be immediately undertaken

to allow for their regularization;4. The trend of diverting public funds to private managements must be stopped forthwith.5. Land and other physical assets of private managements that close educational institutions should be entirely

accessed by the public system of education.

HIGHER EDUCATION

Neo-liberal ‘reforms’ are being extended over the entire education system right up to higher education. Over the past decade successive governments have promoted policies that treat higher education as a ‘private good’ and a tradeable commodity although the Constitution envisioned it as the primary vehicle for achieving social justice and equal opportunity. The NDA government commissioned the Ambani-Birla for the corporatization of higher education in 2000 and put higher education on the WTO agenda by offering it up for regulation under the General Agreement

Resolution of the National Council, AIf-RTE


of Trade in Services (GATS) regime. Since 2004 the UPA governments have failed to withdraw the offer even though completion of the DOHA Round trade negotiations would bring higher education under the GATS regime in perpetuity, affecting both the character of higher education and constituting a major threat to national sovereignty. In fact the Bills brought before Parliament by the present government, and those still on the anvil, are designed to facilitate this process, by creating a highly lucrative market, an estimated fifty billion dollars by 2015, in education for foreign and domestic capital. Instead of reforming the 500 universities and over 25,000 colleges in dire need of improvement, Government’s present policy will sacrifice the future of lakhs of students enrolled in these institutions to aggressively privatize and commercialize education to benefit foreign and domestic investors.

The Bills are undemocratic in content and restrict the freedoms of both students and faculty. Focussed on the need to promote and secure investment in the sector rather than enriching learning and research, they provide ‘single-window’ entry points for ‘education providers’ even as they homogenize education by imposing highly centralized governing mechanisms that disregard significant historical and regional diversities. The privately borne high costs of education will certainly lead to a decline in fundamental research and social critique but market-driven courses will be at a premium. Further, existing disparities in access and infrastructure across different sections and regions will be aggravated by the sharp decline in public funding.

Why has no national debate preceded the offer to the WTO and the formulation and presentation of the current

Bills which represent a radical reversal in national policy and perspective? The critical, transformational role of higher education plays a central role in strengthening civil society and democratic processes of governance. If it comes under the control of market forces and WTO strictures, the very idea of higher education as a social good will be severely undermined.

THREAT TO DEmOCRATIC FREEDOmS

An equally grave threat challenging the system of education in particular and democratic freedoms in society in general is the rise of right-wing vigilante-groups and reactionary fundamentalist, communal and fascist forces. These violent, anti-democratic forces are not only exploited by market forces but also succeed in instilling fear psychosis in democratic institutions (whether elected governments, administration, media, and even the judiciary), groups and individuals. Their actions are leading to a shrinking of that necessary democratic space for dissent, negotiation and consensus without which society can neither advance its knowledge systems, nor can it further the growth of transparent, participative and democratic forms of governance.

The democratic movement must resist and counter these forces and expose their anti-people designs. We must also demand that the state and authorities at all levels perform their necessary function in acting swiftly and firmly against such forces. We must strongly condemn any failure to do so or expose all attempts to ‘accomodate’ the actions of such forces for narrow political or social ‘gains’.

The need to uphold the banner of radical, democratic demands in the struggle for an egalitarian system of quality education which can only be realized through state-funded common neighbourhood schools that ensure access for every single child to a diverse and pluralist learning environment right up to university, requires to be highlighted by the AIF-RTE. The crisis of neo-liberalism is evident all over the world and protests are erupting everywhere. In India too, although some sections of the population are still under the illusion of benefits accruing from neo-liberal developmental strategies, the people’s anger is beginning to find expression and will only grow and spread. Alternative pro-people strategies and democratic ideals must be formulated and promoted to inform and galvanize the inevitable wave of protests which will rise in the future.

FUTURE PROGRAmS

The national Council of AIF-RTE held on 9-11 December 2011 adopted three programmes namely: 1. To observe an all India protest day on 9th February, 2012 (which was subsequently changed to 16th February,

2012) against the six higher education bills which are in different stages in parliament and which are aimed at thorough commercialization of higher education and opening up for foreign capital operations in the field of education.

2. To observe 1st April, 2012, the second anniversary of the anti-child, anti-education and anti-Constitutional so-called ‘Right to Education Act, 2009’, in order to seek its replacement by a new Act founded in the framework of Common School System based on Neighborhood Schools.

3. To organize a national convention against trade in education and for Common School System in Tamil Nadu (Tamil Nadu Platform for Common School System will organize the programme) in month of June, 2012.

PeoPle’s dIaloGue on educatIonKhaIrWada

Jagaruk Shikshak Sangathan has been working continuously for resolving the problems of teachers, students and guardians in the Khairwada block of Udaipur district (in the Indian state of Rajasthan) for last five years. Its efforts has led to awakening of a new consciousness among the teachers of the area and as a result they are getting associated with the Sangathan on a regular basis.

Many teacher associations are working in the area. Yet, Jagaruk Shikshak Sangathan has established its identity among teachers, students and guardians of the area by its thought and work.

Following the same thought and work-process, Jagaruk Shikshak Sangathan, in its meeting during December 2011 decided that teachers and guardians need to understand the meaning of education, so that they can fathom the anti-people changes occurring in education and can resist the same as an organized collectivity. Thus the Jagaruk Shikshak Sangathan (hereafter called the Union) decided to invite the famous educationist, Dr. Anil Sadgopal, who has been fighting for the cause of Nai Talim all over the country. An organizing committee was constituted for the programme. Mr. Shantilal Damor was made the Coordinator/ Convener of this programme. Plans were made to disseminate the information about this programme among the government schools of the area using post-cards and to collect donations for the same by personally visiting each school. Many teachers and youth took on this responsibility very enthusiastically. This preparatory phase generated many new experiences which acted as a part of context-building exercise, which further developed an understanding for further work. In the end, 26th February was fixed as the date for the programme.

THE PROGRAmmE

A People’s Dialogue on Education was

organized by the Jagaruk Shikshak Sangathan on 26th February 2012 at Khairwada. Among the participants were more than two hundred men, women and children from many villages of Khairwada block, engaged in range of activities from learning to teaching and participating in the process of education directly or indirectly. Apart from them, Dr. Anil Sadgopal, Member, Presidium, All India Forum for Right to Education; Mr. Bhagchandra Kumawat, Vidya Bhawan Society, Udaipur; Social activists of Udaipur - Mr. Kishore Sant and Mr. D.S. Paliwal; Ms. Snehal Shah from Delhi; Amarendra Pandey, Asst. Professor of English at Gujarat Vidyapeeth, Dr. Vikram Singh Amarawat, Professor of History along with his four students – Bharat, Ravindra, Heval and Nayan also participated in the programme.

The venue for the programme was the playground of the Government Secondary School of Khairwada. Some detailed discussion on the venue is due here, as the lifeless, mute playground was also trying to tell its story while hosting the People’s Dialogue. The open space did not look like a school’s playground from any angle. Barring a stadium-like amphitheatre- stairs on one side, the space did not display any qualities of being a playground or a school’s playground meant for children. Probably the stadium was also seemed to be raising doubts on its existence, every now and then. It seemed to search for the possibility of its existence and the question which seemed to confront it was – “Am I really a stadium of a school’s playground?” This playground of the school situated on National Highway number 8 (NH8), seemed to merge with NH8 itself. On inquiry, it was found that there is a wall between the playground and the road, which is not visible now in many places. When it was difficult to even walk easily on the uneven and rocky surface of this so-called playground, one would tumble (or tremble?) even at the thought of playing on it. On one side of the playground, houses stood adjoining the wall, for which the side of the wall towards the playground was working as a dustbin and


dumping yard. The entrance of the playground, which opened towards the Highway, seemed to be serving as the dustbin for the whole of Khairwada. Some temporary huts were standing inside the playground itself in which people were staying. The playground was also being used for commercial purposes. An open godown of bamboo and bricks could be seen. Many small shops were built along the wall of the playground. Summing up, this playground was a multi-purpose utility/space where possibilities existed for many works other than play and these works were being done as well.

The programme schedule was like a Public Hearing or Jan Sunavayi. The first session of this two-session programme was for questions and issues to be raised, while the second session was for the Jury’s report. The programme started without any formalities at 12.00 noon, an hour past the scheduled time. The stage was made at ground level and the members of the jury sat on the ground. The programme began with a tribal song. Then, Mr. Kantilal Asodaa of Jagaruk Shikshak Sangathan described how he was inspired by an article, which he read while travelling in a bus going to his village from Udaipur two years back, on the Right to Education Act, written by Anil Sadgopal; and how the People’s Dialogue became possible now only due to that inspiration. Mr. D.S. Paliwal threw light on the need for such a People’s Dialogue on Education and informed about its form. Mr. Paliwal elaborated on the inequality, corruption and discrimination pervading the society and Government’s suspicious role in it. He clarified that the programme was a Public Hearing (Jan Sunavayi), in which a four-member jury would hear the people’s problems related to current education and would then suggest ways of resolving these problems. The Jan Sunavayi then began. A four-member jury was constituted, which included Dr. Anil Sadgopal, Ms. Snehal Shah, Amarendra Pandey and Dr. Vikram Singh Amarawat.

Students of far-flung villages of Khairwada

block, staying and studying in hostel/ government residential schools, students of other government schools, parents of school-going children, representatives of various communities and Unions, Social activists of

Khairwada among others, participated in the Jan Sunavayi. Various types of ideological and practical questions related to the education system were put to the Jury, by the children staying in tribal hostel, students of ITI (Industrial Technical Institute?), college-going girls, laborer guardians, teachers of government and private schools.

It was decided that first the people of Khairwada would raise their questions, mention their problems, which the jury would write down and later, the jury would divide the questions into various categories and present their thoughts on the same. The questions started raining. For almost two hours, questions were raised one after the other. Sometimes, in order to further clarify the questions, the Jury discussed it with the person raising the question and elaborated upon the questions. It seemed that questions were many and the time too less. So after the decided time, the organizers closed the question-session and invited the jury to present its report. In a very short time, the jury compiled all the questions and temporarily classified them into various categories. It was decided that Prof. Vikram Singh Amarawat would initially present the questions to the floor in a compiled form and later Dr. Anil Sadgopal would discuss them in detail while presenting the opinion of the jury.

The second session of the Jan Sunavayi started and in the beginning, Dr. Vikram Singh Amarawat put forth all the questions that were raised in the first session in a concise form and presented their categorization based on the nature of the issues. Various questions were raised in varied manner, from different directions, covering various aspects. The questions were so many and of such nature, that it was beyond the capacity of the jury to suggest the complete and final responses to all of them. This was indicated by Dr. Sadgopal urging that if the original issues are faced by the people of Khairwada then the final solution can only come from the people of Khairwada. The jury can give its own contribution and indicate/ guide the path, but the finally, it is the people of Khairwada, who have to come out with an appropriate and sustainable solution.

First of all, Mr. Dhularam, a senior social activist of Khairwada had mentioned many problems


of tribal culture and history of Khairwada and asked the floor why, even today, that history is not taught. He severely criticized the policies that alienate the tribals and ignore their history. The questions that had emerged from the floor were categorized into four categories based on their nature. These four categories (to which all the questions generally related) were as follows:

1. Fundamental or ideological issues/ issues of principle/ theory,

2. Policy related issues,3. Issues related to shortage, and 4. Issues related to corruption and wrong

methods.

FUNDAmENTAl OR IDEOlOGICAl ISSUES/ ISSUES OF PRINCIPlE/ THEORY

• What is the meaning of education? What is the difference between literate/ schooled and educated?

• Why are there contradictions between subject-matter of education and local culture?

• Why does a local student fall back in/cannot cope with today’s’ competitive era? She/he cannot reach even a Navodaya school, why so?

• Why does a child of a laborer become only a laborer and one of a farmer only a farmer?

• Children of all government functionaries, officers, leaders study in private schools. Don’t they trust their own (government-run) schools?

• Why are there hundreds of types of education?

• Why is the education of rich and poor so different?

• A laborer is paying Rs. 500 (separately in a government school) for mathematics tuition. What type of right to education is this?

• Can there be (or can it become) an education system, in which a tribal can become a scientist and a Dalit can become a literary icon?

• Now no student is going to fail from first to eighth, then what is the need of any teacher?

• Subjects cannot be studied in-depth in the semester system.

• What can be our role against privatization of education?

• What is that helplessness of parents/ what are the constraints on parents that make them not send their children to schools/ not educate their children?

• If there is compulsory education then why isn’t there compulsory employment?

• Should we send our children to government schools or private schools?

• What is the politics behind the shortage of teachers?

• How to determine/ decide/ ensure future of orphan children?

• What arrangements can be there in education so that we can study as well as earn simultaneously?

• If the government can create the two-child constraints, then why can it not make it compulsory for government functionaries to enroll their children in government schools?

• How can the parents who are laborers (daily-wage earners working long-hours) can attend a Parent-Teacher Meeting?

POlICY RElATED ISSUES

• As per the government’s policy, how is a single teacher (how can a single teacher be expected to) going to teach five classes?

• The formalities to provide a scholarship amount of 5 or 6 (or 15) rupees take over 15 days of work (on part of the teacher).

• Why the policy of not failing any child upto class eight has been made at all?

• One has to teach class seven and eight simultaneously.

• The new course is of CBSE, which does not have any relation with the society-culture of the state.

• The new syllabus does not have grammar.• Most of the teachers are busy with Mid-day

Meals and other development schemes.• Why is a child who is enrolled in an

Anganwadi also enrolled in a school? • What is the intention of the government

behind 25% reservation under the Right to Education Act? Why can this reservation not be 50-60%?

• Why are the teachers made to works on tasks other than teaching?

• If there is shortage of teachers in the rural schools, why does the government not fulfill it?

• For how many years can a teacher stay in a village?

• The responsibility of Adolescent Girl Scheme is given to an Anganwadi worker is it appropriate?


• It would be good if education is given in school instead of food. The work of providing food should be left to parents.

• There are educated and trained unemployed (persons), and yet teachers are made to work on other tasks.

• Why is there a shortage of teachers?• How far is the semester system appropriate?• How far is the Education Policy right and

how far is it wrong?• For how many days in a year does a school

run? Teachers are busy with the Census, elections, animal census, polio etc.

• A child’s name is not removed from the enrollment list even if a child remains absent or present, why so?

• While no training is provided on computer in I.T.I., no degree (diploma/certificate) is given without a certificate of computer training, so one (is asked to) has to bring a certificate from a private institute, for which two-three thousand rupees have to be spent. How far is this policy appropriate?

• The government puts pressure on female education and empowerment, but today, females are unemployed even after doing B.Ed. and M. Ed., then how would female education get encouraged?

• Government teachers do (private) tuitions, is there any law to stop them?

• Why is the teacher-recruitment process delayed?

ISSUES RElATE TO SHORTAGE

• There is provision of providing books till class VIII, but no books are there.

• A single teacher has to teach five classes, there is shortage of teachers.

• There are 150 students in Physics, Chemistry and Biology and the teacher is only one-one (not clear is there one each or one for all?), who have to take care of theory and practical both.

• There is no laboratory in school till class Xth.• There is shortage of facilities for girl

education.• There is shortage of a separate college for

girls.• There is shortage of teachers at every level.• There is no arrangement whatsoever for

water in the school for last many years.

• There is no proper road for reaching the school.

• There is no electricity.• There is shortage of Principal/ professors in

the college.• There is no arrangement of water, bed,

toilets etc. in the hostels.• There is no computer training imparted in

the I.T.I. • There are neither mathematics nor science

teachers in the I.T.I.• There is nobody to teach Engineering

Drawing, we have to learn it ourselves.• There is no separate hostel for girls.• There is no Principal in the school.• We do not know what is School Management

Committee.• There is lack of awareness about what the

Right to Education Act is.

ISSUES RElATED TO CORRUPTION AND WRONG mETHODS

• Most of the time of teachers is spent in taking care of Mid-Day Meal.

• If the scholarship comes for Scheduled Castes, then the one for Scheduled Tribes does not arrive, so many forms have to be filled again and again, so much time is wasted.

• Why are the policies not implemented on the ground level?

• Warden does not stay in the hostel during nights; children have to take care of themselves (from outside elements).

• In the hostels, (arbitrary punishments are meted out to children/) children are treated as per the whims and fancies of the authorities for e.g. Two children are being removed/ rusticated from the hostel on the grounds that they went to a picnic by mistake with some other group.

• The scholarship given in eleventh and twelfth standard is Rs. 700-700 only, instead of 1400-1500. No grievance redressal takes place for these issues.

• Why is no action taken on the government teachers who take private tuitions?

• When answers to various issues are sought, threats are issued (of beating up/ breaking bones), there is no redressal of such incidents.

After categorization of the questions, Dr. 19 RECONSTRUCTING EDUCATION

April 2012, Year 1, Issue 2

Anil Sadgopal started talking about the same. Analyzing in detail, the history of education from Macaulay to Manmohan Singh, informing about the real purpose behind making the Right to Education Act and describing the chain of events that illustrates how the government law confuses/confounds the real goal, Dr. Sadgopal termed the RTE Act as the ‘Black Act’ in the history of Indian education. He also called the five bills being proposed in the upcoming Parliament Session - i.e. the bill bringing foreign universities in India, viz. The Foreign Educational Institutions Bill- 2010; The Educational Tribunals Bill- 2010; The National Accreditation Bill - 2010; The Prohibition of Unfair Practices Bill – 2010; and The National Council for Higher Education and Research Bill-2011 – a new and naked assault of globalization on education. On the quick spread of education, he said that this was, in reality, privatization of education and a conspiracy to alienate the common person from education and use the common person for global market. He said that the BJP-led coalition government and Congress-led coalition governments have continued to transfer education into corporate hands in the name of PPP (Public Private Partnership) and reducing the expenditure on education, at the same time adopting policies of providing many overt and covert/ hidden subsidies to them in addition to providing land for free or at subsidized rates. He described an example that strengthened the government school system, which was of the Collector of Erode district in Tamilnadu (and his wife), who had admitted his (their) daughter in a government school and thus changed the prevalent thinking about government system.

While elaborating in detail on the experiments on education in tribal areas, Dr. Anil Sadgopal called on the common people to rise up for bringing about the change in education system and also informed about the People’s Education Campaign being carried out by All India Forum for Right to Education in seventeen states of India. He said that people and teachers (could/ should) work together and solve the problems one by one/ each problem at their level.

He informed how the government school system is slowly being demolished so that its commercialization becomes possible. In order to maintain the dominance over ninety percent of the population, the dominant elites of India have very calculatedly opened only five percent private

schools, so that the children of poor classes become laborers and all their opportunities of reaching the level of governing elite remain obliterated and only the rich upper class continues to occupy the position of power. Dr. Sadgopal made it clear that nothing can be hoped from the current system. So it is the people’s power that will have to rebuild the public education system keeping in mind the common and neighborhood school system in addition to making the education free from K.G. (nursery/ kindergarten) to P.G. (post-graduation).He described the Khairwada People’s Dialogue on Education as a historic initiative and called on the students, teachers and guardians present in the meeting to build the foundation of education on the twin concepts of Sangharsh (struggle) and Nirmaan (Constructive work) by combining the struggle for education with the struggle for Jal-Jangal-Zameen-Jeevikaa (Water-Forest-Land-Livelihood) and build a People’s Education Model of Khairwada through a political movement.

In the context of the questions, Dr. Sadgopal said that it is not that the root cause of the problems lies only in Delhi; it is (also?) there in areas like Khairwada. But, one thing is for sure that the solution of the problem can start from Khairwada, and in the process of resolution Delhi can be reached and the ultimate solution can be brought about, which can become possible only through our unity. The problems that have been raised can be ultimately/fundamentally solved by people of Khairwada only. Others can at best provide guidance to some extent as it is the problem faced by the people of Khairwada, and it is only they who know their social-economic-cultural and historical context, based on which, the root of the problem can be accessed and a sustainable solution be formulated.

After Dr. Sadgopal’s talk, the programme was concluded by a tribal song, which described how the tribals were not only oppressed by the white-skin Britishers but also exploited by the black (brown) skin Englishmen/ oppressors of India/ Indians, who are exploiting India even today just like the Britishers. The programme was presided over by Mr. Nathulal Kharaadi of the local teachers’ union.

The programme concluded with thumping/ enthusiastic songs and slogans.

Report prepared by Dr. Vikram Singh Amrawat (Ahmadabad) and translated by MS. Snehal (Delhi)


Protest aGaInst the hIGher educatIon bIlls

Dear Friends,The UPA Government implemented the ‘Right

to Education Act’ from 1st April 2010. The result, as everybody can see, has been the weakening of public education system and big hikes in fees in private sector. The Common School System or democratic curricular objectives have had no place in our education system either before or after the implementation of the Act. However, MHRD minister Kapil Sibal is now carrying out a program for restructuring the entire education system. Having destroyed the school system, he has now initiated market reforms in higher education. A series of Bills related to higher education are before the parliament and maybe passed in the budget session this year which my start on 12th of March. If enacted, these bills will make higher education an unprotected prey for both domestic and foreign corporations. The academic consequences of such `reforms’ will be catastrophic. The privately-borne high cost of education will put a premium on disciplines and courses that are directly linked to the demands of domestic and foreign markets that currently generate some jobs and the biggest salaries for few. Fundamental research both in social and natural sciences and pro-people research and democratic syllabi will suffer an inevitable decline. As a consequence, the critical and transformational purpose of institutions of higher education will recede into the background, as they are rapidly turned into `providers’ of a commodity called `knowledge’.

NEW BIllS

The Foreign Educational Institutions (Entry and Regulation) Bill, opens flood gates for foreign trade in education sector. The Educational Tribunal Bill system seeks to establish a draconian grievance redressal system in conditions in which unionization and collective action, and even recourse to the courts, would be denied to all sections of the university community. The Abolition of Unfair Practices Bill defines only those exorbitant demands for fees that have not been announced at the time of admissions as constituting `unfair practice’ and thus legitimizes the rest of all unfair practices!

The Bill to set up an Accreditation Authority has the declared objective of maintenance of quality. Yet its main purpose is not academic; it functions as an aid to students to decide where they should ̀ invest’ to get the best `returns’ from the system. In an educational environment as historically, regionally and socially diverse and unequal as contemporary India, it would seriously compromise those courses and institutions that would in fact merit the most support. The said accreditation authority gives licenses to private and public accreditation agencies reducing National Accreditation Council of India to become one among the countless. In the new regime, if established, private agencies will give accreditation to private and public Universities.

A ‘National Council for Higher Education and Research’, is proposed to be established through “Higher Education and Research Bill” as the ̀ single-window’ entry point, so favored by corporate capital, to replace bodies like the UGC, MCI, AICTE, NCTE which regulate diverse academic streams. Now these are seen as hurdles in the onward march of trade in education. The important point to be noted here is that the World Bank suggests to and the World Trade Organization imposes on their member countries to set up a single and ‘independent’ regulatory authority in every service sector. These independent regulatory authorities will be independent of democratic pressure from people and regulate trade in favor of corporate houses. Again, the proposed ‘Universities for Innovation Bill’, even its revised version, empowers the central government to establish new or ‘elevate’ the existing universities and go for collaboration with foreign universities on trade lines bypassing all existing norms including reservations, procedures of appointment of teachers and admission of students with the only condition that they enroll 50% students from within the country. These universities will bypass all other rules of recognition. Another proposed Bill would legislate on the regulations for Public Private Partnership - a euphemism for siphoning public funds to private agencies.

CALL

Call of AIF-RTE to oppose market oriented reforms in higher education and to organize nation-wide decentralized protest on 16th February against the higher education bills in the Parliament.


result in dissolution of public institutions and establishment of a few elite institutions and many `teaching shops’ in the private sector. Public money will be siphoned off to private agencies while the poor and disadvantaged will have to pay for poor quality degrees.

The NDA government had already ‘offered’ the higher education sector as a tradable commodity to be regulated by World Trade Organization. The UPA is continuing the ‘offer’. In fact, the current Bills are aimed at putting in place the legal structure that would facilitate implementation of the regulations of the WTO. If the offer is not withdrawn before the completion of the Doha Round of trade negotiations, Indian higher education would be governed, in perpetuity, by multinational trade regulations. This would pose a grave threat to academic independence and national sovereignty.

It is high time for students, teachers, educationalists organizations and activists and for all people to stand against commercialization of education and wage a determined struggle for common school system and public funded education from KG to PG. It is time for all to struggle for a truly democratic education system that excludes inequalities and includes diversities, an education system that liberates individual creativity and strengthens society to stand against any threat internal or external to the democratic rights and freedoms of the people. Let us all unite and resist higher education bills. Make success the all India protest day on 16th of February, 2012.

Since the 1990’s it has become very well-known that ‘reform’ in any sector only means privatization, globalization and liberalization of trade regulations. The current agenda of Kapil Sibal is to bring these ‘reforms’ into the education system and convert it into a market for domestic and foreign capital. That is why the singular purpose behind all the higher education bills is to bypass regulation by the legislative, judicial and executive systems and clear the path for unrestrained trade in education.

The crisis in the educational system, its institutions weakened over time due to corrupt practices under the pressure of profit oriented private institutions on the one hand, and a failure to invest public funds in a sustained manner, on the other, contributed largely to dereliction of duties at different levels. What is required at this stage to bring about genuine reform is to ban trade in education on one hand and decentralize and democratize regulatory bodies on the other. Again, the expansion of the system (only about 12% of young people in the relevant age group are in higher education institutions) and ensuring greater access to students from marginalized and weaker sections of society must form the basis for improving and reforming higher education. However, the Kapil Sibal guided reform process is going in the opposite direction.

Commercialization of education and concentration of regulatory powers are aimed at restricting entry into this sector only for the wealthy elite and with the onset of global trade in education, the Indian education system will lose whatever democratic nature it has been able to retain till date. Public Private Partnership will

An overview of the protests organised at various places is available in the ORGANISATION’S DIARY at page no. 30

Student writeS rejection letter to oxford !!Receiving a rejection letter from the University of Oxford is common, but one applicant has turned the tables by sending a ‘rejection letter’ to the prestigious University saying it is not up to the mark.Interviews for admission to the ancient seat of learning are considered the most challenging. Very few of those who apply make it, while thousands are sent politely worded rejection letters every year.But Elly Nowell, 19, who went to a state-funded school in Hampshire rather than an elite private school, parodied the admission process and sent a letter of rejection to the university, which has been widely read.Nowell, who was put off by the admission interview that is seen by many as daunting and intimidating, wrote: “I have considered your establishment as a place to read Law (Jurisprudence). I very much regret to inform you that I will be withdrawing my application. I realise you may be disappointed by this decision, but you were in competition with many fantastic universities and following your interview I am afraid you do not quite meet the standard of the universities I will be considering.”Nowell “warned” the university not to “reapply”.“You may believe your decision to hold interviews in grand formal settings is inspiring, it allows public-school applicants to flourish... and intimidates state-school applicants, distorting the academic potential of both,” she said, criticising Oxford’s “traditions and rituals” and a perceived gulf between “minorities and white middle-class students.”A university spokesman dismissed the claims.


letter to the Prime minister of IndiaDear Sir

Subject: demanding to withdrawal of all five higher education related Bills in the Parliament.

All India Forum for Right to Education (AIFRTE), its member organisation in Andhra Pradesh, A. P. Save Education Committee and its constituents are opposing the pending Higher Education Bills in the parliament. At the call of the AIFRTE, 16TH February is observed as All India Protest Day against the Bills in 18 states of India. The under signed join the protest for the reasons elaborated below.

Your government has introduced five Bills related to higher Education in the Parliament during the last two years (2010 to 2011). They, by short names, as you know are 1) ‘The Foreign Educational Institutions Bill- 2010’, 2) The Educational Tribunals Bill- 2010’, 3) ‘The National Accreditation Bill - 2010’, 4) ‘The Prohibition of Unfair Practices Bill – 2010’ and 5) ‘The National Council for Higher Education and Research Bill-2011’ These Bills have been introduced, ostensibly, to bring about a thorough reform in our higher education system. Yes, these Bills if enacted and implemented will bring thorough reform, of course, in the interest of domestic and foreign market. Your government is bent upon bringing about these legislations at the earliest.

The Bills listed above, if enacted, will a) open flood gate to Foreign Direct Investment in higher education and reduce education into a tradable commodity, further will, b) Tribunalise Justice in the field of education trade, c) reduce ‘National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC)’, a public authority, to a position where it becomes one of numerous private agencies resulting in widespread corruption, again, d) will reduce concept of fairness in trade in education service to one of transparency, e) establishes an ‘independent regulatory’ authority in Higher Education Service Sector (IRA in HE) in line with WTO guidelines ,of course, with a different name ‘NCHER’. This NCHER will be independent from democratic pressures of the people and regulate the ‘trade in education service’ in the interest of foreign and domestic corporate houses. Government of India has already made ‘offers’ to World Trade Organisation in Higher Education Sector which eventually will become ‘commitments’ if not withdrawn in course of Doha round. All the reforms in the field of education, the government intended to bring about, will only establish a legal and institutional set up for operationalisation of the agreement with the WTO immediately after completion of Doha Round.

Your government believes that the spread of education is possible only through profit oriented institutions. The government policies are formed on the basis of the following misconceived premises namely;

a) the economic capacity of the State is limited, resulting in resource crunch for education; there is thus no option but to depend upon private (and foreign) sources for funding education;

b) private agencies, compared to public agencies, can render better, efficient and cost effective services; c) the Constitutional principles of equality and social justice can be replaced by the neo-liberal principle of inclusion;d) education is a service rather than being a Right or an Entitlement of every child and youth and, therefore, equal

provision for all need not be ensured;e) education is a private good and a tradable commodity, making profiteering through education a legitimate

objective, just like in any other trade; therefore, it is valid that quality education is proportionate to one’s capacity to pay; and

f) education is an instrument for producing human resources for corporate and market needs; therefore, the character of knowledge should be determined by market, rather than by the internal requirements of the discipline or the developmental needs of society.

So, basing on its premises the government strives at bringing all reforms in the favor of trade in education sector. People of India cannot agree with the premises. Education cannot be spread in the medium of commerce and trade. Reducing education to a tradable service not only denies education to disadvantaged sections in the society, but also that those who get education will not get it worth the name. Trade in education develops servile attitude in the youth and such youth will not be able to protect the nation and its democratic polity from internal and external threats. Trade in education reduces society into a market. Instead, we demand, education should be developed as an instrument of social development or transformation,

We demand your government to immediately with draw all the Higher Education Bills introduced in the Parliament and to establish public education system from KG to PG. We demand establishment of an education system in conformity with the Preamble of the Constitution that directs the State to build an education system for promoting a democratic, socialist, secular, egalitarian and just society in the Republic of India! The education system must be envisioned such that it can promote pro-people national development, respond with sensitivity to the people’s aspirations for equitable distribution of resources, protect socio-cultural and knowledge-related diversity and securing civil liberties and democratic rights, as guaranteed by the Constitution. We demand allotment of 10% of Union Budget for education to meet all economic needs of the movement.



What aMerIcans KeeP IGnorInG about FInland’s school success

Everyone agrees the United States needs to improve its education system dramatically, but how? One of the hottest trends in education reform lately is looking at the stunning success of the West’s reigning education superpower, Finland. Trouble is, when it comes to the lessons that Finnish schools have to offer, most of the discussion seems to be missing the point.

The small Nordic country of Finland used to be known - if it was known for anything at all - as the home of Nokia, the mobile phone giant. But lately Finland has been attracting attention on global surveys of quality of life -- Newsweek ranked it number one last year -- and Finland’s national education system has been receiving particular praise, because in recent years Finnish students have been turning in some of the highest test scores in the world.

Finland’s schools owe their newfound fame primarily to one study: the PISA survey, conducted every three years by the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD). The survey compares 15-year-olds in different countries in reading, math, and science. Finland has ranked at or near the top in all three competencies on every survey since 2000, neck and neck with superachievers such as South Korea and Singapore. In the most recent survey in 2009 Finland slipped slightly, with students in Shanghai, China, taking the best scores, but the Finns are still near the very top. Throughout the same period, the PISA performance of the United States has been middling, at best.

Compared with the stereotype of the East Asian model -- long hours of exhaustive cramming and rote memorization -- Finland’s success is especially intriguing because Finnish schools assign less homework and engage children in more creative play. All this has led to a continuous stream of foreign delegations making the pilgrimage to Finland to visit schools and talk with the nation’s education experts, and constant coverage in the worldwide media marveling at the Finnish miracle.

So there was considerable interest in a recent visit to the U.S. by one of the leading Finnish authorities on education reform, Pasi Sahlberg, director of the Finnish Ministry of Education’s Center for International Mobility and author of the new book Finnish Lessons: What Can the World

Learn from Educational Change in Finland? Earlier this month, Sahlberg stopped by the Dwight School in New York City to speak with educators and students, and his visit received national media attention and generated much discussion.

And yet it wasn’t clear that Sahlberg’s message was actually getting through. As Sahlberg put it to me later, there are certain things nobody in America really wants to talk about.

* * *During the afternoon that Sahlberg spent at the

Dwight School, a photographer from the New York Times jockeyed for position with Dan Rather’s TV crew as Sahlberg participated in a roundtable chat with students. The subsequent article in the Times about the event would focus on Finland as an “intriguing school-reform model.”

Yet one of the most significant things Sahlberg said passed practically unnoticed. “Oh,” he mentioned at one point, “and there are no private schools in Finland.”

This notion may seem difficult for an American to digest, but it’s true. Only a small number of independent schools exist in Finland, and even they are all publicly financed. None is allowed to charge tuition fees. There are no private universities, either. This means that practically every person in Finland attends public school, whether for pre-K or a Ph.D.

The irony of Sahlberg’s making this comment during a talk at the Dwight School seemed obvious. Like many of America’s best schools, Dwight is a private institution that costs high-school students upward of $35,000 a year to attend -- not to mention that Dwight, in particular, is run for profit, an increasing trend in the U.S. Yet no one in the room commented on Sahlberg’s statement. I found this surprising. Sahlberg himself did not.

Sahlberg knows what Americans like to talk about when it comes to education, because he’s become their go-to guy in Finland. The son of two teachers, he grew up in a Finnish school. He taught mathematics and physics in a junior high school in Helsinki, worked his way through a variety of positions in the Finnish Ministry of Education, and spent years as an education expert at the

INTERNATIONALINTERNATIONALINTERNATIONALINTERNATIONAL

Sahlberg quotes a line from Finnish writer named Samuli Puronen: “Real winners do not compete.” It’s hard to think of a more un-American idea, but when it comes to education, Finland’s success shows that the Finnish attitude might have merits. There are no lists of best schools or teachers in Finland. The main driver of education policy is not competition between teachers and between schools, but cooperation.

Finally, in Finland, school choice is noticeably not a priority, nor is engaging the private sector at all. Which brings us back to the silence after Sahlberg’s comment at the Dwight School that schools like Dwight don’t exist in Finland.

“Here in America,” Sahlberg said at the Teachers College, “parents can choose to take their kids to private schools. It’s the same idea of a marketplace that applies to, say, shops. Schools are a shop and parents can buy what ever they want. In Finland parents can also choose. But the options are all the same.”

Herein lay the real shocker. As Sahlberg continued, his core message emerged, whether or not anyone in his American audience heard it.

Decades ago, when the Finnish school system was badly in need of reform, the goal of the program that Finland instituted, resulting in so much success today, was never excellence. It was equity.

* * *Since the 1980s, the main driver of Finnish

education policy has been the idea that every child should have exactly the same opportunity to learn, regardless of family background, income, or geographic location. Education has been seen first and foremost not as a way to produce star performers, but as an instrument to even out social inequality.

In the Finnish view, as Sahlberg describes it, this means that schools should be healthy, safe environments for children. This starts with the basics. Finland offers all pupils free school meals, easy access to health care, psychological counseling, and individualized student guidance.

In fact, since academic excellence wasn’t a particular priority on the Finnish to-do list, when Finland’s students scored so high on the first PISA survey in 2001, many Finns thought the results must be a mistake. But subsequent PISA tests confirmed that Finland -- unlike, say, very similar countries such as Norway -- was producing


OECD, the World Bank, and other international organizations.

Now, in addition to his other duties, Sahlberg hosts about a hundred visits a year by foreign educators, including many Americans, who want to know the secret of Finland’s success. Sahlberg’s new book is partly an attempt to help answer the questions he always gets asked.

From his point of view, Americans are consistently obsessed with certain questions: How can you keep track of students’ performance if you don’t test them constantly? How can you improve teaching if you have no accountability for bad teachers or merit pay for good teachers? How do you foster competition and engage the private sector? How do you provide school choice?

The answers Finland provides seem to run counter to just about everything America’s school reformers are trying to do.

For starters, Finland has no standardized tests. The only exception is what’s called the National Matriculation Exam, which everyone takes at the end of a voluntary upper-secondary school, roughly the equivalent of American high school.

Instead, the public school system’s teachers are trained to assess children in classrooms using independent tests they create themselves. All children receive a report card at the end of each semester, but these reports are based on individualized grading by each teacher. Periodically, the Ministry of Education tracks national progress by testing a few sample groups across a range of different schools.

As for accountability of teachers and administrators, Sahlberg shrugs. “There’s no word for accountability in Finnish,” he later told an audience at the Teachers College of Columbia University. “Accountability is something that is left when responsibility has been subtracted.”

For Sahlberg what matters is that in Finland all teachers and administrators are given prestige, decent pay, and a lot of responsibility. A master’s degree is required to enter the profession, and teacher training programs are among the most selective professional schools in the country. If a teacher is bad, it is the principal’s responsibility to notice and deal with it.

And while Americans love to talk about competition, Sahlberg points out that nothing makes Finns more uncomfortable. In his book


academic excellence through its particular policy focus on equity.

That this point is almost always ignored or brushed aside in the U.S. seems especially poignant at the moment, after the financial crisis and Occupy Wall Street movement have brought the problems of inequality in America into such sharp focus. The chasm between those who can afford $35,000 in tuition per child per year -- or even just the price of a house in a good public school district -- and the other “99 percent” is painfully plain to see.

* * *Pasi Sahlberg goes out of his way to emphasize

that his book Finnish Lessons is not meant as a how-to guide for fixing the education systems of other countries. All countries are different, and as many Americans point out, Finland is a small nation with a much more homogeneous population than the United States.

Yet, Sahlberg doesn’t think that questions of size or homogeneity should give Americans reason to dismiss the Finnish example. Finland is a relatively homogeneous country -- as of 2010, just 4.6 percent of Finnish residents had been born in another country, compared with 12.7 percent in the United States. But the number of foreign-born residents in Finland doubled during the decade leading up to 2010, and the country didn’t lose its edge in education. Immigrants tended to concentrate in certain areas, causing some schools to become much more mixed than others, yet there has not been much change in the remarkable lack of variation between Finnish schools in the PISA surveys across the same period.

Samuel Abrams, a visiting scholar at Columbia University’s Teachers College, has addressed the effects of size and homogeneity on a nation’s education performance by comparing Finland with another Nordic country: Norway. Like Finland, Norway is small and not especially diverse overall, but unlike Finland it has taken an approach to education that is more American than Finnish. The result? Mediocre performance in the PISA survey. Educational policy, Abrams suggests, is probably more important to the success of a country’s school system than the nation’s size or ethnic makeup.

Indeed, Finland’s population of 5.4 million can be compared to many an American state -- after all, most American education is managed at the state level. According to the Migration Policy Institute, a research organization in Washington, there were 18 states in the U.S. in 2010 with an identical or significantly smaller percentage of foreign-born residents than Finland.

What’s more, despite their many differences, Finland and the U.S. have an educational goal in common. When Finnish policymakers decided to reform the country’s education system in the 1970s, they did so because they realized that to be competitive, Finland couldn’t rely on manufacturing or its scant natural resources and instead had to invest in a knowledge-based economy.

With America’s manufacturing industries now in decline, the goal of educational policy in the U.S. -- as articulated by most everyone from President Obama on down -- is to preserve American competitiveness by doing the same thing. Finland’s experience suggests that to win at that game, a country has to prepare not just some of its population well, but all of its population well, for the new economy. To possess some of the best schools in the world might still not be good enough if there are children being left behind.

Is that an impossible goal? Sahlberg says that while his book isn’t meant to be a how-to manual, it is meant to be a “pamphlet of hope.”

“When President Kennedy was making his appeal for advancing American science and technology by putting a man on the moon by the end of the 1960’s, many said it couldn’t be done,” Sahlberg said during his visit to New York. “But he had a dream. Just like Martin Luther King a few years later had a dream. Those dreams came true. Finland’s dream was that we want to have a good public education for every child regardless of where they go to school or what kind of families they come from, and many even in Finland said it couldn’t be done.”

Clearly, many were wrong. It is possible to create equality. And perhaps even more important -- as a challenge to the American way of thinking about education reform -- Finland’s experience shows that it is possible to achieve excellence by focusing not on competition, but on cooperation, and not on choice, but on equity.

The problem facing education in America isn’t the ethnic diversity of the population but the economic inequality of society, and this is precisely the problem that Finnish education reform addressed. More equity at home might just be what America needs to be more competitive abroad.

Anu PartanenJournalist

“© 2011 Anu Partanen, as first published on TheAtlantic.com.”


COMMENTARYdoWn WIth coMMercIalIsatIon !

A Response to AIfETO Press Note and Colombo Declaration

On AIFETO Document

No doubt, it is against commercialization of education, one wishes, however, that it had taken a clear stand against 86th Constitutional Amendment (2002) and RTE Act, 2009, both of which legitimized the problems relating to teachers’ status and ‘non-educational’ work loaded on them that the AIFETO document laments about. Indeed, the following statement in the document ends up lending some degree of legitimacy to the RTE Act due to having misread the farcical 25% provision in private schools:

“Only 25 % of the poor shall be enrolled in private schools according to RTE act 2009. The government doesn’t care about the remaining 75 %.”

Please note the following:

The Act provides for 25% seats out of the private school enrolment, beginning in Grade I in 2010 and covering one additional grade per year incrementally, not out of total number of children in the relevant age group viz. 6-14 year age group. The 6-14 year age group population is about 20 crores. One-fourth of this would be 5 crores. In contrast, the total enrolment of private schools in Grades I-VIII in 2009-10 was 5.7 crore (DISE Data, MHRD & NUEPA, 2011). This means that 25% of private school enrolment in Grades 1-VIII would be only 1.43 crores i.e. only 1.43 crore children from EWS category would be admitted in private school under this provision by 2017 or 2018 when all the eight grades of elementary stage would have been covered under the provision. In other words, after deducting the private school enrolment out of the 6-14 age group population, no more than 10% of the children of the EWS category would be admitted under this farcical provision; 90%

Press NoteAnti-educAtion Policy of the Government oPPosed by Aifeto

ALL INDIA FEDRATION OF ELEMENTARY TEACHERS’ ORGANISATIONS [AIFETO], WORLD FEDERATION OF TEACHERS’ UNIONS [WFTU] and NATIONAL CO-ORDINATION COMMITTEE OF INDIAN TEACHERS’ ORGANISATIONS [NCCITO] and MAHARASHTRA RAJYA PRATHAMIK SHIKSHAK SAMITEE [MRPSS]

New Delhi: A meeting of executive council of AIFETO has been held under the All India President Prabhakar Arade, overall discussion about anti-education policy of government, the present policy is opposed unanimously. The same decision is to be handed over to the Honorable Prime minister on 7 th April 2012 from all states within the country. The General Secretary Nawal Kishor Prasad Sing[Bihar] stated the Colombo declaration before the meeting in presence with zonal secretary A.Annamalai [ Tamilnadu]. Harsh Narayan Jha [ Bihar], Ram murty [Jharkhand], Jahrlal Chatargee [ West Bengal],Sudhakar Sawant[Maharashtra], Shaligram Patel [ Uttar Predesh] were present in the meeting. B.Vijaykumar General Secretary of World Federation (WFTU-FISE) and Mrinamy Bhattachary guided the meeting. The AIFETO Strongly advocated the redrawing & redrafting of the educational policies to serve the common man.The policy of privatization in education is spreading day by day over the country and education is becoming dearth. The poor of the country are being deprived from their right of education. Only 25 % of the poor shall be enrolled in private schools according to RTE act 2009. The government doesn’t care about the remaining 75 %. So, today the RTE act doesn’t give justice to the children of country. Therefore we demand the Free, Compulsory and quality education through common school system up to 18 years.Today most of the states are not paying salary regularly and also not as per scales. So the payment should be done regularly. The contract base teachers system like Shikshan Sevak, Shiksha Mitra, [all para-teachers] should be withdrawn and appointments should be done on regular basis. All states must impart elementary education in mother tongue of its state and in addition Hindi and English. The government should withheld the contributory pension scheme and old system of pension scheme be introduced immediately. Let the teachers teach only their regular work and not non-educational work including census, election etc. The school building construction, mid-day meals must not be loaded upon the teachers. Chanchal Kumar Basu, Uttam Gurav,Uttam Kumbhar,G.Murugesan, A.Vincent Paulmm, Anupam Kesari also put their views in meeting.The AIFETO next conference will be held at Chennai on 5th May 2012 . The seminar on ‘‘Impact of Education Policy on Children of Common Man” is the theme for discussion. The experts will state their views.

Sudhakar Sawant Spokesman, AIFETO


The decision of the 17th Statutory Conference of the World Federation of Teachers’Unions (WFTU-FISE) to hold the Administrative Committee meeting as Annual Conference was implemented here in Colombo, the capital of Sri Lanka on Oct. 15-16, 2011, hosted by Ceylon Teachers’ Service Union. The Colombo International Conference reviewed the developments since the December 26-28, 2010 Dhaka Conference which had been focused on “Build up a World Against Injustice, Illiteracy, Hunger, Poverty and War”. The conference strongly asserted the opposition to world-wide politics of exploitation through imperialism, capitalism, market economy which further added to large scale poverty, hunger, illiteracy, Injustice perpetuated through neo-liberal-ism and wars. The Colombo Conference held the International Seminar on the most topical theme “Social Responsibilities of Education.” The Colombo Declaration asserted radical changes in the socio-economic policies and structures to stop the ever increasing discrimination and oppression against the peoples the world over.

THE CONFERENCE(i) Strongly advocated the redrawing & redrafting of the educational policies to serve the common man.(ii) Expressed the regret that even the provision of Primary Education was a casualty in many countries and that the target

of Education For All was a far cry.(iii) Denounced the negative value orientation being nurtured by the fascist forces to demolish Democracy and Secularism.(iv) Demanded that the social responsibility of Education to protect the basic rights of all the peoples must be the most

important task of education policies.(v) Stressed the importance of preservation and promotion of pluralism and multiculturalism throughout the world.(vi) Regretted the increasing employment and un-der-employment, labor related issues which emerged from thepro-rich, neo-liberal policies of the Governments.(vii) Opposed the corporatization of Education and other sectors which promoted privatization and profiteering.(viii) Reiterated the great significance of the UN policy profiles which stressed for massification of Education from Primary

to the University level through democratic education system in the public domain.(ix) Supported the UNESCO declaration on Status of Teachers and demanded that the Covenants be respected by all the

signatory nations and thus provide proper pay scales and favorable service conditions to the staff working in educational institutions so as to empower all the people through instruments of Education at all levels.

(x) Expressed strong opposition to the neo liberal politics which had put Higher Education beyond reach of the people.(xi) Criticized the negative globalization engineered by WTO under the extremely exploitative statutes(xii) Demanded immediate implementation of UN General Assembly granting full state-hood to Palestine and full member

ship of UN.(xiii) Condemned unequivocally continued invasion of USA and NATO forces in the Middle-East particularly Iraq, Afghanistan,

Libya and threaten action in Syria and Yemen in fragment violation of UN Charter.(xiv) Fully supported the Peoples protests against the exploitative, Wall Street mechanizations in the USA which created

economic recession, drastic cuts in the social welfare schemes while giving huge financial inputs to promote the corporate culture

(xv) Demanded full rights to collective bargaining of the trade unions.(xvi) Welcomed the popular upsurges in Egypt, Tunisia and other nations for decent standards of living and democratic

polity,(xvii) Demanded revisiting the austerity measures deployed in Europe and elsewhere, which actually clamped unbearable

reductions in social welfare schemes.(xviii) Called upon the world to protect 1.4 billion people in developing countries from extreme poverty,(xix) Demanded review of nuclear energy related power plants which created FUKKUSHEYIA tragedies worse than that of

CHERNOBYL(xx) Supported the decision of the 100th Session of ELO Conference which lucidly focused on the right of about 100 million

domestic workers,(xxi) Opposed terrorism in all forms and condemned the terrorist activities unleashed in Afghanistan, Pakistan, India and

other countries.(xxii) Called upon the Workers, Employees of all sectors, Teachers in the Education sector and the Students and Youth to come

together on one platform to defeat neoliberal capitalism to usher in the Dawn of a New Era free from exploitation of man by man and thus to develop Socialist, Egalitarian societies the world over.

Colombo Declaration

children of this category would continue to study in government schools in 2018, provided these schools are allowed to survive by then!

The conclusion:If you accept the Act’s premise that quality

education is provided only in private schools, the above data imply that the Act has provided for quality education for only 10 % of the non-private

school children and has no plans whatsoever for quality education for 90% of the children in the non private school category. And this miniscule ‘inclusion’, too, would become possible only by 2017 or 2018! Of course, we must question the Act’s premise itself that quality education is the exclusive preserve of private schools. At the same time, we must also understand that the Act’s premise is indeed the hidden agenda of the

by the Conference which was signed by almost 150 nations, including India. This laid the basic framework for IMF-World Bank’s structural adjustment in education, opening floodgates for (i) steady decline of public funding till to date in all sectors of education, including both school education and higher education; (ii) replacing public funding of education by external aid and corporate capital through PPP; (iii) promoting corporate houses, NGOs and religious bodies in education in place of public institutions; (iv) reducing education to literacy and certain marketable skills; (v) undermining the status of teachers by pushing the policies of substituting Para-Teachers and contract teachers in place of replacing regular teachers. Indeed, the UN agencies have acted as the ‘human face’ of IMF-World Bank policies as well as of WTO-GATS agenda!

My published writings have consistently

shown for more than a decade that, without undertaking such policy analysis, we fall in a trap that undermines our ability to formulate effective strategies of struggle against the assault of the neo-liberal capital and global market on India’s education system.


Dr. Anil SadgopalMember-Presidium

All-India Forum for Right to Education

Act i.e. to destroy government school system and commercialize entire elementary education through PPP. The outcome of this hidden agenda would be exclusion of almost 80% children from elementary education or restricting their elementary education to merely literacy and skill training for global market!!

On Colombo Declaration

On the one hand, we must appreciate Colombo Declaration’s powerful stand against “corporatization of Education and other sectors which promoted privatization and profiteering” and its unambiguous rejection of “neo liberal politics which had put Higher Education beyond reach of the people” and “the negative globalization engineered by WTO under the extremely exploitative statutes”. On the other hand, however, this clarity of stand is contradicted by Colombo Declaration’s apparent endorsement of UN policy on “massification of Education from Primary to the University level through democratic education system in the public domain” and “UNESCO declaration on Status of Teachers”. A historical probe would reveal that UNICEF, UNESCO and World Bank collaborated to sponsor the infamous ‘Education for All’ Conference in Thailand in 1990 and draft the Jomtien Declaration released

The two impugned orders were issued on 24.9.2011. The public interest litigation filed by Rashtrakavi G S Shivarudrappa, Jananpeeth and Padmabhusana Awardees Dr.U R Ananthmurthy, Dr.Chandrasekhar Kambar and Dr.Girish Karnad. In the PIL, the petitioners while taking strong objection to the State Government’s move to closedown the government schools and also argued that the proposed move is the gross violation of the child’s fundamental right to education.

The PIL came before the two member bench,

Acting Chief Judge Justice Vikram Jeet Sen and Justice A S Bopanna. Honourable bench while setting aside the State government’s decision issued an interim stay. As a result, the state should maintain status quo. It is big boost for the ongoing campaign against the closure of government schools.

In fact, it is big set back for the unilateral and

Niranjanaradhya.V.PCentre for Child and the Law, National Law School of India

University, [email protected]

arbitrary decision of the state government to close down government schools that have less than five children on the roll despite strong apposition from the civil society and the literary community. The state has thoroughly failed to analyze the reasons for the sad state of government schools in the light of increasing commercialization, commodification and privatization policies in relation to school education.

I personally welcome the interim order passed by the honorable bench and it is a great move in protecting and upholding the fundamental right of children and especially children belonging to marginalized sections of the society to receive free and compulsory education in the neighborhood school.

hIGh court stay on school closure


ORGANISATION’S DIARY

No. Dates Place Organiser Activities

1. 9-11 December2011

Yusuf Meherally Centre, Tara (Dist. Raigarh, Maharashtra)

AIF-RTE with the help of Yusuf Meherally Centre.

Meeting of National Executive and National Council of AIF-RTE. Inaugural issue of AIF-RTE’s Newsletter – Talim ki Ladai (Hindi) and Reconstructing Education (English) released by Keynote speaker Dr. Anand Teltumbde.

2. 11 December2011

Thane, Maharashtra

Republican Party of India (Athawale Group), Thane city unit

Lecture by Dr Anil Sadgopal (Bhopal) on neo-liberal assault on Education and the issues related to Dalit Education at a public meeting in a Dalit ghetto in Thane city. Also present in the meeting were Shri Thokchom Surjit Singh (Shillong) and Shri Madhu Mohite (Yusuf Meherally Centre).

3. 12 December2011

Mumbai, Maharashtra

Saman Shikshan Mulbhut Adhikar Samiti, Mumbai

Resolution adopted by the National Council of All India Forum for the Right to Education was released to the Press in a press conference. In a public meeting chaired by Dr G.G. Parikh (Yusuf Meherally Centre), Prof Madhu Prasad (New Delhi), Prof Anil Sadgopal (Bhopal), Shri Thokchom Surjit Singh (Shillong), Advocate Gayatri Singh (Mumbai), Dr Vivek Korde (Mumbai) and Ms Simantini Dhuru (Mumbai) delivered lectures.

4. 26-27 December2011

Govt. Girls Inter College, Haldwani, Uttarakhand

Rachanatmak Shikshak Mandal, Uttarakhand

Fifth state-level workshop for opposing privatization, commercialization and NGOization of education and for discussing ‘the problems and the remedies in the implementation of common school system based on the concept of neighbourhood school’.

5. December, 2011

Districts of Andhra Pradesh- Karimnagar Mehboobnagar, Medak and Nalgonda


District-wise co-ordination meetings in order to strengthen Andhra Pradesh Save Education Committee.

6. December 2011

Manipur Synroplang, All Manipur Students Union

Beginning of state-wide demand for establishment of equitable education system in Manipur by All India Manipur Students Union on the initiatives of Shri Thokchom Surjit Singh

7. 10 January 2012

Mandya, Karnataka

Karnatak Vidyarthi Sangthan

Workshop of district representatives on internal contradictions in Right of Education Act and the concept of Common School System. Resource Persons: S/Shri Ramesh Patnaik (Hyderabad),

all IndIa ForuM For rIGht to educatIon(december 2011 - March 2012)


Organizing Secretary- All India Forum for the Right to Education and Prince Gajendra Babu (Chennai), Secretary- State Platform for Common School System, Tamilnadu.

8. 22 January2012

Bangalore, Karnataka

Karnataka Jan Shakti, Karnataka Vidyarthi Sangthan, Karnataka Dedbed Okuta, Various

Lecture by Prof Madhu Prasad (New Delhi) in the inaugural function of conference on ‘Struggle for Equitable and Common Education System’. The conference was organized in order to protest against the policy of state government to close the schools and to force the government to change its policies favouring common school system.

9. 22 January2012

Deulgaon Raja, District- Buldhana, Maharashtra

Satya Shodhak Shikshak Sabha, Maharashtra

Inaugural address by Prof Anil Sadgopal (Bhopal) at state-level ‘Conference on educational curriculum’. The conference was organized for preparing for struggle for inclusion of curriculum based on the knowledge, values and culture of the common masses in the current curriculum in place of knowledge, values and culture of the high-class and caste.

10. 23 January2012

Deulgaon Raja, District- Buldhana, Maharashtra

Satya Shodhak Shikshak Sabha, Maharashtra

Workshop on Common School System for the district representatives of Satyashodhak Shikshak Sabha. Resource Person: Prof Anil Sadgopal (Bhopal).

11. 27 January2012


Civic and Inhaf (Bangluru) and Hezards (New Delhi) jointly

Address by Prof G. Hargopal (Hyderabad) and his discussion with Dalit groups on ‘Right to Education, 12th Plan and impact of neoliberal policies constitutional provisions’.

12. January 2012

Goregaon, Mumbai, Maharashtra

Samman Shikshan Mulbhut Adhikar Samiti, Mumbai

Pressurizing the municipal corporation through a complaint to State Child Right Commission against operation of a private school in the compound of the municipal school in Transit Camp, Bimbisarnagar.

13. January 2012

Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh


Thorough discussion in a series of meetings on the ‘State Curriculum Framework’ released by the State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT). A 17-page critique of the ‘State Curriculum Framework’ was brought out pointing out the dangers of such a curriculum in a multilayered and divided school system.

14. January 2012

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

Shiksha Adhikar Manch, Bhopal

Three meetings were held with All India Revolutionary Students Organization, Revolutionary Youth Federation of India and other social activists on the call of AIF-RTE. The objective of the meetings was to launch a campaign against five bills presented to Parliament for putting education within the purview of WTO-GATS. It was decided to launch a 12-day campaign SAVE HIGHER EDUCATION, SAVE NATION across the country.

15. January and February, 2012

Gandhi Peace Foundation and Delhi University

Delhi Shiksha Adhikar Manch

On the call of AIF-RTE, DSAM held wide-ranging consultation and discussions with teachers, students and educational rights organizations in


order to prepare for the campaign against five bills pending in Parliament on higher education in different parts of the city.

16. January 2012

East Khasi Hills, Meghalaya

Synroplang, Shillong

1. Beginning of social intervention by seven ‘darbars’ (Khasi equivalent of constitutionally accepted village council) in the district in order to bring improvement in government school system.2. Work is underway to create awareness among people by translating Right To Education Act in Khasi and by drawing people’s attention to its anti-people format.

17. 2 February 2012

Khammam, Andhra Pradesh

Andhra Pradesh Save Education Committee (Khammam Unit)

A day-long seminar on Right to Education Act, higher education bills pending in Parliament and education policy.

18. 5-16 February 2012

Bhopal, Madhya Pradesh

Shiksha Adhikar Manch Bhopal, All India Revolutionary Students Organisation and Revolutionary Youth Federation of India

‘Save Higher Education, Save Nation Campaign’ 1. Seminar on ‘Attack of Corporate Capital on Higher Education and Our Alternative’.2. Public awareness through gate meetings in institutions of higher education and five market areas and signature campaign on five banners. 3. Every day one pointed questions were posed to both the state as well as the central government. The questions were published in Nav Duniya. But both the governments remained silent.4. Support was received from different trade unions, writers, organizations and intellectuals through dialogue and interaction. 5. Call for ‘Leeds-Met Quit India’ at the gate of India’s only foreign university ‘Leeds-Met’ in Bhopal. It was followed by burning of effigies and hunger-strike. 6. Rally and Dharna for entire day and submission of memorandum to the Governor addressed to the President of India.

19. 13 & 16 February 2012

Hyderabad Central University, Hyderabad

Forum for Protection of Higher Education, Hyderabad Central University Campus

On the initiative of Dr K. Lakshminarayan, member, state executive, Andhra Pradesh Save Education Committee, many progressive teachers, students and Dalit intellectuals got together to form ‘Forum for Protection of Higher Education’ on 13th February. Among the most active groups were Ambedkar Students Association, Bahujan Students Front, Students Federation of India, Dalit Students Union and Tribal Students Front. A seminar was organized on 16th February under the auspices of the newly established Forum to debate on five bills of higher education in Parliament. It was decided to launch a campaign to ensure that these bills are returned by parliament without consideration.

20. 16 February 2012

Jammu Progressive Students Association, Jammu University

A debate was organized on the call of AIF-RTE among students on five bills of higher education in Parliament.


21. 16 February Arts Faculty, Delhi University

Delhi Shiksha Adhikar Manch with Various Progressive Students and Teachers Organizations of JNU, JMI, DU and active Organizations on the issues of School Education and Higher Education

After deliberation on the attempts by the Govt. on incorporating WTO-GATS agenda in Indian education through five bills on higher education in Parliament, the representatives of different organizations decided that1. Public pressure must be brought upon to ensure that all the five bills are returned by Parliament itself. 2. Need for nation-wide debate must be stressed for the reconstruction of school and higher education. 3. A paper should be prepared on the alternative vision of education. Supporting organizations: DTF, LDTF, SFI, DYFI, AISA, IRSO, Vidyarthi Yuvjan Sabha, Common Teachers Front, Krantikari Lok Adhikar Sangathan, Sambhavna, KYS, New Socialist Initiative, Shiksha Adhikar Abhiyan and some 20 other organizations.

22. 18, 19 & 25 February 2012

Three Region of Karnataka

Karnataka Jan Shakti and Karnataka Vidyarthi Sangthana

Organization of public debates on the call of AIF-RTE in 3 different regions in the state on five bills on higher education pending in Parliament.


Udaipur, Rajasthan

Vidya Bhavan, Sewa Mandir and Mohan Singh

‘Meet the Press’ programme and lecture by Prof Anil Sadgopal (Bhopal) on neoliberal assault on Indian education policy and the

Mehta Memorial Trust & Lake City Press Club, Udaipur

need for strong and determined movement for alternative pro-people policy.


Khairwara, Rajasthan

Jagruk Shikshak Sangathan

Public Hearing on Education- Teachers, parents, children, youth and women of a tribal belt in Udaipur district raised dozens of questions to a 3-member jury of Prof Anil Sadgopal (Bhopal), Dr Vikram Singh Amarawat (Sadra, Gujarat) and Ms Snehal Shah (Delhi) ranging from KG to PG education system. The jury then responded to all the questions and suggested measures which could be taken by the people themselves to address the problems. Thinker Shri Kishor Sant (Udaipur) and educationist Shri Bhagchand Kumawat also participated in the hearing. Release of local newspaper ‘Ekjutataa Khabar’ by journalist Shri Ugrasen Rao. A call for creating a ‘Khairwada Model of Public Education’ which could act as a template for the nation.

25. February 2012

Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir

Progressive Students Association, Jammu University

Enactment of street play to expose the relationship between state government’s anti-youth policy in government services and the policy of commercialization of education.

26. February 2012

Mumbai, Maharashtra

Saman Shikshan Mulbut Adhikar Samiti, Mumbai

A planning meeting was held with progressive political parties, Dalit, tribal and women’s organizations along with those working in unorganized sectors for cancellation of bills lying before Parliament on higher education leading to commercialization of higher education.

27. February 2012

Andhra Pradesh Andhra Pradesh Save Education Committee

On the call of AIF-RTE, organization of dharnas, press conferences and submission of memorandum to the PM at 19 district headquarters of the State in order to oppose the presentation of five bills of higher education in Parliament which will lead to the enactment of WTO-GATS agenda in Indian higher education. 70000 leaflets and 2000 posters were distributed in these districts. Member of state executive participated in all these activities in different districts.

28. February 2012

Haldwani, Pithoragarh

Rachnatmak Shikshak Mandal,

Three meeting were organized in Haldwani (5/2), Pithoragadh (19/2) and Lohaghat

and Lohaghat, Uttarakhand

Uttarakhand (20/2) against the call given by AIF-RTE for preparing public opinion against the bills of higher education to be presented in Parliament.

29. 7 March 2012

Bhiduki (Palwal District), Haryana

Faridabad Group ‘Public Study of Education’ was initiated by the village council of youths. Public survey of schools was also conducted.

30. 7 March 2012

Hyderabad Central University, Hyderabad

Forum for Protection of Higher Education, Hyderabad Central University Campus

An online appeal to the PM was launched by ‘Forum for Protection of Higher Education’ with the aim of drawing his attention to the illusory beliefs underlying the presentation of bills of higher education in Parliament at the behest of WTO-GATS. An appeal was made to cancel these bills and to initiate a nation-wide public debate on these bills. 500 signatures have been collected till date and this appeal will be sent to the PM in the near future.

31. March Second Week


Karnataka Jan Shakti and Karnataka Vidyarthi Sangthana

Organization of week-long poster presentation and gate meetings on the call of AIF-RTE at different colleges and departments of the university across the city against the presentation of bills of higher education in Parliament for commercialization of education.

32. 12 March 2012

Mumbai Marathi Patrakar Sangh Hall, Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai


Press Conference, called by AIF-RTE, was addressed by human rights activist and well-known writer Dr Anand Teltumbde, state secretary of AISEC Shri Jeevan Surude and education rights social activist Shri Anand Hoval and Ms Simantini Dhuru for cancellation of bills of higher education in Parliament for commercialization of education.


33. 14 March 2012

In front of the head quarter of Chatrapati Shivaji Terminus, Mumbai


Dharna and signature campaign for cancellation of bills of higher education presented in Parliament for commercialization of education. 500 people participated in the campaign and 200 signatures were collected.

34. 17-18 March 2012

Jahanabad, Bihar Bihar Prathmik Shikshak Sangh (Gope Group)

Lectures by Shri Navendu Mathpal of Rachnatmak Shikshak Sangathan, Uttarakhand and Shri Ashutosh Kumar Rakesh of Bihar Arajpatrit Prarambhik Shikshak Sangathan on right to education versus RTE Act and policy of commercialization of education at Annual Meeting of the organization.

35. 19-21 March 2012

Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi

Centre for Dalit and Minorities Studies and Institute of Advanced Studies in Education Jamia Millia Islamia

A five-lecture series by Prof Anil Sadgopal (Bhopal) on ‘The Transformative Vision of Nai Talim’: Engagement with Battle for Knowledgefrom Colonialism to Neo-Liberalism. 1. Macaulayian Framework Vs. Phule-Gandhi-Ambedkar’s Emancipative Educational Discourse 2. Pedagogy of Productive Work, Language and Knowledge3. Education, Disparity and Diversity - The Politics of Class, Patriarchy, Caste, Language, Region, ‘Normal’ Body and ‘Ideal’ Childhood 4. Neo-Liberal Assault on Education Policy5. Reclaiming Knowledge, Reconstructing Education – Strategy of Change and Radical Path of Struggle & Reconstruction.

36. 22 March 2012

Dadar, Mumbai, Maharashtra


Dharna and signature campaign for cancellation of bills of higher education presented in Parliament for commercialization of education. Taxi drivers and coolies also participated in the campaign.

37. Last Week of March


Rang Nagri Cultural Group of Karnataka Vidyarthi Sangthana

Week-long street-plays were organized on the questions of language and government policy on education. People were called to participate in the campaign for equitable and common school system.

38. March 2012 Jammu, Jammu & Kashmir

Progressive Students Association, Jammu University

Poster presentation on relationship between sexual violence and patriarchy. Presentations on the question of inciting communal violence in Rajauri.

39. March 2012 Faridabad, Haryana

Faridabad Group New initiatives in long-standing discussion between AIF-RTE’s agenda and active political trade unions of industrial workers of Faridabad.

40. March 2012 Assam Synroplang, Shillong

Beginning of dialogue with local students bodies with the objective of starting work on education in tea plantation in two districts of the state.


Published by Dr. V. N. Sharma, A-100, SAIL Satellite Township Ranchi 834004, Jharkhand. Printed by Quality Printers, Suraj Pole, Udaipur-313001 (Rajasthan).

aif-rte english newsletter reconstructing education april 2012

Documents