The feudal mindset loves inequalities and tries hard to perpetuate these without any hesitation. In the current idiom, the elite—and those aspiring to join this coveted category—ensure the widening of the economic and socio-cultural gap between them and the ‘remaining’ from the downtrodden and deprived. Social alienation is particularly on the rise and those who could be effective in checking it, generally, remain unconcerned. The insensitivities are on the rise. In the system, a salaried person accused of even the most heinous crime, scandal or having amassed assets disproportionate to known sources of income, is at its worst, suspended and paid suspension allowance. Yes, it helps the family to survive.
The death of a young researcher in Hyderabad raises a significant concern: why should it not apply to a 27-year-old research scholar who, coming from a deprived background—forget his caste—would invariably be helping his family out of the stipend received? In the prestigious JNU, another research scholar threatened to commit suicide within a week. The new vice-chancellor released his scholarship within 48 hours of taking over. He received—very rightly—ample praise for it. Even this prudent action leaves behind a point to ponder: should such decisions be based on set procedures or be left to the discretion of the individual incumbent? There is a far bigger issue that emerges from these two instances (and there are many more that occur regularly): If universities fail to provide guidance and counselling to the young in their ‘growing up’, who else would do it? This issue needs a national debate, free from considerations of caste and caste politics.
The strategy to achieve the constitutional provisions of equality, opportunity, access, participation and success was contained in the original Article 45, which says: “The State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of 10 years from the commencement of the Constitution, for free and compulsory education for all children until they attain 14 years of age”. The State miserably failed to do so. The 86th Constitutional Amendment Act, 2010 separated these children in two groups when it inserted the provision: “The State shall endeavour to provide early childhood care and education for all children till they complete six years of age.” The provisions for the age group 0-6 years that come in the shape of anganwadis, crèches and the like are too sparse and too weak in implementation. This is the stage that seals the fate of malnourished children, who are also deprived of appropriate healthcare. Obviously, the 6-14 age group is a different category. When the RTE Act came into force in April 2010, the nation was assured that every child shall be in school within three years. It did not happen. What happens in universities is an outcome of these conditions. It reveals how the spirit of the Constitution is trampled in the neglect of its provisions that assured equality and justice in unequivocal terms.
While researchers alone would be fully equipped to point out what has led to the present situation in the country’s education system, it is common knowledge that education in India now stands fiercely bifurcated: for the resourceful and for the rest. To harmonise it across the board, education must be democratised.
Growing elitism in education that has converted it into a market commodity must be checked. It is not an impossible task as enlightened individuals in society are willing to help the system in supporting and monitoring it. The neglect of people’s education system would be disastrous as it would create serious fissures in social cohesion and religious amity that are the nodal element in the development of India. Democratisation of ‘education of the people’ is a must, and it can be achieved only ‘by the people’ who care ‘for the people’ and are convinced that quality education for all is the only ray of hope ‘for the people’. rajput_js@yahoo.co.in
Rajput is a former director of the NCERT