[sacw] SACW #1 (24 Sept. 01)

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire | Dispatch #1
24 September 2001
http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex

------------------------------------------

#1. An ordinary Pakistani's terms (M. B. Naqvi)
#2. Pakistan: Letter from Rina Khan on media's role in manufacturing=20
consent for war
#3. The Taliban Tangle (by P. Radhakrishnan)
#4. India: Jang Roko Abhiyan (Anti-War Campaign) formed | Rally on 25=20
Sept, Delhi
#5. India: A Candle Light Vigil For Peace in, Hyderabad, 25 Sept.
#6. 'Blossoms in the Dust' - on anti-war organizing in New York. (by=20
Mir Ali Husain)
#7. Doctoring Minds: Consensus be damned on India's Education policy
#8. India: Bombay's far right Shiv Sena is wild at a school for=20
introducing a handbook for teachers authored by a secular activist

________________________

#1.

Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001
Article for The News

AN ORDINARY PAKISTANI'S TERMS
By M. B. Naqvi

This is in fact a reply to both Gen. Pervez Musharraf and US President
George Bush who have implied a request for my support in their coming
war on terrorism. Since I disapprove of terrorism and its parents ---
religious intolerance and refusal to think rationally --- I promise my
cooperation.

I forego the pleasure of pointing out to Bush that he didn't have to
wait for those Sept 11 attacks. Or remind Musharraf that it was his
Army's foolish policy to rear and nurse this terrorist dragon,
represented by Taliban and Osama and Jehadis and it is history's sweet
irony that the same Army is being forced to undo the wrong it had done.
I therefore extend total support to the goal of religious tolerance (in
other words, pluralism) which can only be sustained by rational thought
and scientific mode of thinking (which is a more developed form of
rationalism). To me war against terrorism means willing acceptance or
tolerance of people with other religions, race, language, culture and
opinion. I go further --- and I am sure Mr. Bush also does --- and say
that pluralism requires human freedoms (in other words democracy). Do
you Mr. Musharraf agree? If so, what is the proof from daily life, yours
or mine? LB polls are not enough.

I need assurances from both Presidents that they will not temporise or
compromise with terrorists or protectors of terrorism. Both of you will
say how so? I explain: I suspect that Bush will eventually mount an
invasion of some sort on the Taliban Government. Mere aerial bombardment
or even rocketing, a la 1998, will not satisfy the anger of American
chauvinists. Willy nilly --- and for good strategic reasons too ---
Pentagon will feel compelled to send in troops, at least a lot of
commandos or Marines. A few days into the desultory or intense (but
unequal) fighting, the leaders of the other side will either surrender
or disappear. You will proceed to instal new men to run your conquered
areas. Who will they be? Out of gratitude to Pakistan for its willing
cooperation, you might nominate other Mullahs from the rich stable of
ISI, even if you reject the aging Seven Sisters of Peshawar. That will
be letting in Taliban by the backdoor, the arch bigots again in under a
new name. That will be a betrayal of the war against terrorism. I will
not let you do that, if I can help it. Are you sure you will stay the
course?

I am a very suspicious person. Between you, me and the doorpost, I don=92t
like any government: mine, yours or the third person's. They all believe
in quick fixes, taking short cuts, making compromises over principles
and not pursuing a goal beyond the point when the going gets rough and a
higher price has to be paid. I can see you will remain gung ho until the
regime of Mullah Mohammad Omar is formally overthrown. After that you
will be tempted to find pliable men who might just pass muster as
non-Taliban or being anti-Osama. You Mr. Bush might be tempted to rely
on Zalme Khalidzad and blindly appoint his nominees --- likely to be
graduates of American schools --- as the new government of Afghanistan.
It will just not do; I don't want to hand over Afghanistan to American
stooges. In comparison I will let the US make Afghanistan its dependency
by the right of conquest and run it directly. Let the world see what the
deal is.

I want to hold both Presidents to their supposed or implied commitment
to fighting terrorism and its sources. Anyone will agree that terrorism
of all kinds arises from intolerant or excessive faith, religious,
political or any other. It springs from the refusal to tolerate other
opinions, faiths or assessments. Unless you two Presidents show a
credible way of promoting tolerance --- in the US, in Pakistan and of
course in Afghanistan --- mere claim of fighting terrorism will not
carry conviction. I certainly will not be impressed. Musharraf perhaps
does not know the ugly face of terrorism, having lived behind adequate
security as a President and the Army Chief. But he ought to know what
the men with guns have been doing in this country. Has he been able to
suppress sectarian terror; he ought to know how do the minorities of all
kinds --- Hindus, Christians, Shias and Ahmedis --- are living in more
or less terror. Everybody knows the nexus of Pakistan Army's
intelligence agencies with sectarian outfits, both Sunni and Shia. If
they really lean on terrorists, the benign outcome will not take long to
manifest itself. What has prevented him to ask his spook masters to do
their duty --- or have they disobeyed?

The American President, I concede, has started doing something to dilute
the rampant prejudice against South Asians, Muslims, Arabs and other
ethnic minorities across the United States. He certainly has to do more.
I don=92t know whether he will or will merely be content to make a few
gestures and sit back. One is interested in concrete results. America
was the land of hopeless refugees who later became tolerant when they
began harvesting the output from a land brimful with resources and long
after had eliminated the natives. Thousands of flowers bloomed all the
time in America. But now one hears new hate crime statistics. Hasn't
Bush a task force to tackle the hysteria of hate against Asians in
America? It is a strange backdrop to a long and sustained war against
religious intolerance and terrorism. Is Bush listening?

The two Presidents --- and other PMs and Presidents too if they join in
--- must show concrete results as they go along in the ensuing new war.
Show results where? In Pakistan and Afghanistan, at least their
beginnings, in the shape of creating conditions in which tolerance
flourishes and intolerance gets abridged through political and social
processes. But they all have to show some results in their own countries
too. I cannot give credence to a commitment for fighting terrorism when
intolerance flourishes in their own countries. What are those conditions
in which tolerance and pluralism flourishes? Do the Presidents of two
English-speaking nations, or almost, need someone to spell them out?

Finally, again, are they fighting against religious bigotry or strategic
gain? Strategic gains may be good for the American economy. I will
support one and oppose the other --- and no compromises, please. I was
intending to go on some more in this vein. But then a friend barged in
and wanted to know what was I writing. When told of its outline he
became furious. You are stupid, he sagely pronounced, more in sorrow
than in anger or denunciation. Said he: you impotent Pakistani liberals
are always expecting others to give you democracy and freedoms. Who will
do that? And why? What you cannot achieve by your own exertions, you
expect Bush to give you out of the goodness of his heart. Why would he
be so foolish as to help set up a democracy in Pakistan when the present
military regime suits it fine: he can get all his wishes accepted by a
military dictator in a jiffy (who simply cannot dream of saying no to
the a superpower). A representative Prime Minister, even a Nawaz Sharif,
would ask Bush to wait till he consults at least his Cabinet, party and
legislators before signing on the dotted line=92. Said he liberty is won
by those who want to be free; it can not be given as alms. So do
tolerance and rationality require action by those who want them. What is
the point of whining?

________

#2.

From: "Beena Sarwar"
Date: Sun, 23 Sep 2001 15:24:55 +0500

Dear all
This depressing but thought proviking email is from Rina Saeed Khan, a form=
er
colleague from weekly The Friday Times, now a freelance journalist
stringing for the BBC Newsnight team. I thought it might be interesting for
everyone to get a view from the ground in Pakistan. I think she is=20
very right in her views on the media's role in all of this. Something=20
for us all to think about - and take action in whatever way we can.
beena

******************

Dear All,

Sorry for this generic email but I have had no free time since I got here
(average: 4 hours of sleep) and the connections are extremely slow.

Anyhow, I have not disappeared into the wilds of Afghanistan (at least, not
yet!). I am sitting here in Islamabad. surrounded by the travelling media
circus (that really is the only way to describe them). The performers are
not just the usual suspects: CNN, BBC, CBS, Fox, Star, Sky etc. but
representatives from all the major European, Japanese and Arab channels.
They tell me this is the biggest story since WW II - and unfortunately, the
focus is on Pakistan and the Taliban.

I suppose I should write a proper account of all that I have experienced
since I arrived here last Saturday. But for now, here's a summary.

I flew into Islamabad with the BBC Newsnight team (the programme comes on
every week-night on BBC2). Since then, I have gone up and down the majestic
Khyber Pass (near the Afghanistan border), crossed the River Kabul on a
rickety wooden boat, visited over-crowded Afghan refugee camps that stretch
for miles, tried to bluff my way into the Taliban Embassy in Islamabad, bee=
n
harassed by moronic Pakistani intelligence, been admonished by a
bearded/turbaned fundo from the Movement for Jihad, and actually been
impressed by an erudite Mullah who pointed out that to a large extent, the
media is to blame for this debacle. "One hour after the blast the media
began blaming Osama Bin Laden. and without evidence, the American governmen=
t
declared him the enemy".

These views are not just held by the mullahs or the Taliban (who are also
asking for proof in order to hand over Osama Bin Laden) - wherever we have
gone and whoever we have met here in Pakistan (scores of journalists,
analysts, govt. officials and ordinary citizens of this country), the same
question keeps recurring: "What evidence is there to prove that Osama Bin
Laden is responsible for the WTC bombing? And why should the people of
Afghanistan have to suffer for an act they did not even commit?"

We have no answer to give to them except that the Americans are angry and
they want someone to pay for what happened in New York and Washington. So, =
a
devastated, drought-stricken nation it will have to be - a country already
bombed into the stone-age and ruled by psychotic soldiers. Who exactly are
the Taliban? They are the orphans of the Cold War, whose fathers bled
Communist Russia for 10 years, allowing the Americans to become the world's
only superpower. The holy warriors have now been turned into evil
terrorists. Yesterday the Taliban, under enormous pressure from Pakistan,
announced that they have "asked Osama to leave voluntarily" - the Americans
have responded by saying that is "unacceptable". It looks like we are heade=
d
for war. the Americans are determined to retaliate.

The media, smelling blood, is hyping itself up for the strikes - sadly, no
one is asking the most crucial question: WHY? As Robert Fisk writes, "Every
effort will be made in the coming days to switch off the 'why' question and
concentrate on the who, what and how. CNN and most of the world's media hav=
e
already obeyed this essential new war rule".

I don't know what will happen in the next few days. but I do know that once
the attack begins, there will be a huge backlash that will not just affect
Pakistan, but the entire region. Bush keeps saying "Make no mistake" -
unfortunately, I think he's about to make the biggest mistake of the
century. As this retired General, who has close links with the Afghan
people, told me "This is the wrong people, the wrong country and the wrong
time - the Americans have no idea what they are about to unleash". In the
words of Robert Fisk, "Retaliation leads to retaliation and more
retaliation. War without end."

I'm sorry for being so depressing. but maybe all this craziness has to
happen before some sort of sanity prevails in the world.

[...] Rina

_________

#3.

The Hindu
24 September 2001

The Taliban tangle
By P. Radhakrishnan

THAT THE terrorist attacks on the U.S. should not have happened,
and reprisal is awaiting those who are suspected to have aided,
abetted, and perpetrated them might be stating the obvious. What
may not be so obvious is that the attacks and strategies to avert
them in future have not been in perspective.

In terms of their execution, the attacks remain at the level of
terrorism and not an ``act of war'' as made out by the U.S.
President, Mr. George W. Bush, inasmuch as no country has
declared a war on the U.S. , and no country has claimed
involvement in the attacks. Obviously, the U.S. President has
given a twist to the meaning of war apparently to overcome his
mortification that the world's ``superpower'' which he heads has
also been at the receiving end, to appease the angry and
anguished Americans, and to justify the much-touted U.S.
``retaliatory strikes''.

Stretching the U.S. President's claim to our own traumatic
experience, would India have termed Rajiv Gandhi's assassination
an act of war by the LTTE and attacked at least the LTTE-occupied
areas of Sri Lanka? If an LTTE suicide squad were to smash the
Mumbai Stock Exchange building or Parliament House, could India
have seen it as an act of war and launched retaliatory strikes?
As India is not the U.S., it could not have done these. In any
case, if India were to attack Sri Lanka, as the global policeman
would the U.S. have remained a silent spectator? It has one kind
of moralism for itself in its self-interest and other kinds of
moralism for developing countries.

If the fast-approaching retaliatory strikes by the U.S. are not a
``clash of civilisations'', as the U.S. President has claimed,
there is every likelihood that these strikes will generate a
series of such clashes. For, it is commonsense that virtually all
the countries that the U.S. has bombed, devastated, and tried to
strangulate through economic sanctions and whatnot have been
Islamic.

This is a very important fact which the U.S. and other countries
on its side ought to remember. In this context, it is important
to keep in mind at least three issues.

One, as the Western countries have been acting in tandem with the
U.S. on matters concerning the developing countries, especially
military action and blockade, whether they are justified or not,
and this has been made easier by the break-up of the Soviet Union
which again was the working out of the tandem strategies of these
countries (what Sartre characterised as the Master World) the
divide between them and the developing countries, no matter to
which religion and to which civilisation stage they belong, is
too wide, which is intensely and intrinsically used by the Master
World to its own gains. So, and given the elusive nature of the
enemy, it will be naive to assume that the terrorists who
attacked the U.S. are Taliban and Taliban alone and that as the
Taliban is in Afghanistan, it, and those who support it should be
exterminated.

Two, the overzealous overture of India's ruling class (read BJP
politicians) in offering support to the U.S. (call it turning
adversity into opportunity, fishing in troubled waters, and what
have you), is ominous. For one thing, while the U.S. may
devastate Afghanistan through retaliatory strikes, by allowing
the U.S. to use Indian space for its military operations, India
will be allowing the U.S. to have a permanent U.S. ``Panoptican''
in India through which it can have surveillance on all regions in
this part of the world.

For another, as Generals may come and go and Pakistan will
continue to remain India's immediate neighbour, considering that
the BJP is Hindutva's political outfit whose rabid religious
chauvinism is only too well known, any involvement by India in
the U.S. attack on Afghanistan, which by all available
indications would be deplored and even resisted by the Islamic
world, will make Pakistan [...] more aggressive [...towards ] India,
and Kashmir a still more dangerous problem.

Three, if the claim or evidence that Osama bin Laden is the man
behind the ``WTC mission'' is already clinched and all that the
U.S. President wants is Osama bin Laden's head on his breakfast
table, and if Afghanistan is bound to be devastated by the U.S.
even after handing over Osama bin Laden (which is most unlikely),
it is naive on the part of the U.S. to assume that the Mullahs
and clerics are so muddle-headed as to lose both head and tail.

If the purpose is to ferret out the terrorists and put an end to
their sprouting through a ``global assault on terrorism'', it has
larger ramifications and moral and ethical dimensions concerning
deprived groups who have no alternative but to take on heavily
armed insensate states through violence and weaponry.

Closely related to this is the question of differentiating
between terrorism and terrorism. For example, the LTTE is
distinctly terrorist, fighting for what many would consider
legitimate political demands. Contrast this with the BJP, which
is a political outfit of the Sangh Parivar - a heterogeneous
ensemble of fundamentalist organisations. Are we not justified in
drawing the inference that a mafia is ruling us? How are we to
judge whether the demands of the pressure groups are legitimate
or not? What alternatives can there be for such groups to
transform their demands into reality? Will stripping them of what
they consider their only source to take on the state not amount
to silencing them through state terrorism. Stated differently,
the strategies for a ``global assault on terrorism'' are fraught
with dangers, paradoxes and contradictions, and in the ultimate
analysis, the states themselves are the worst terrorists.
To conclude, there is much to be said in favour of Noam Chomsky's
following observations on the attack: ``The events reveal,
dramatically, the foolishness of the project of ``missile
defence''. ... But today's events will, very likely, be exploited
to increase the pressure to develop these systems and put them
into place. ``Defence'' is a thin cover for plans for
militarisation of space, and with good PR, even the flimsiest
arguments will carry some weight among a frightened public. In
short, the crime is a gift to the hard jingoist right, those who
hope to use force to control their domains. That is even putting
aside the likely U.S. actions, and what they will trigger -
possibly more attacks like this one, or worse. The prospects
ahead are even more ominous than they appeared to be before the
latest atrocities. As to how to react, we have a choice. We can
express justified horror; we can seek to understand what may have
led to the crimes, which means making an effort to enter the
minds of the likely perpetrators.''

(The writer is Professor, Madras Institute of Development
Studies, Chennai.)

_______

#4.

Friends,
A forum has been formed in Delhi called Jang Roko Abhiyan (Anti-War=20
Campaign), in the context of the current situation following the=20
attacks in the US on September 11. This Forum has representation from=20
trade unions, students' and women's organizations, democratic rights=20
groups as well as committed individuals.
It has been decided to hold a rally against the current warmongering=20
atmosphere, on Tuesday September 25 beginning from Red Fort at 4pm=20
and marching to Feroz Shah Kotla. We will carry out systematic=20
campaigning after that in different parts of Delhi, the programme for=20
which will be announced after the march. Please do come in large=20
numbers for both.
The following is a summary of our statement in English and Hindi=20
which we will distribute as we march.

The Jang Roko Abhiyan condemns the horrific acts of violence in=20
America on September 11, 2001 in which more than 5000 people have=20
died. Nothing can justify the massacre of unarmed civilians by any=20
group, whatever the nature of its grievance. However, the US cannot=20
escape its share of the responsibility for the deaths of those=20
innocent people, for the events of that day are a direct fallout of=20
US foreign policy for decades.
Those responsible for the attacks in the US must be identified and=20
brought to justice, but nothing can justify the US government seeking=20
to extract revenge from the innocent civilian population of=20
Afghanistan, squeezed between the Taliban on the one hand and US=20
imperialism on the other. Osama bin Laden is an American creation ,=20
one of the many trained by the CIA as part of US policy against the=20
Soviet occupation of Afghanistan since 1979. In twenty years of war,=20
ten lakh Afghans have been killed, 50 lakh made refugees and 20 lakh=20
displaced, leaving the country ravaged. If the US now bombs=20
Afghanistan, it will be calamitous not just for that unfortunate=20
country and its people, but for the subcontinent in general.
We are therefore outraged by the offer of "full support" made by the=20
Indian government to US military efforts, in a game of one-upmanship=20
with Pakistan. Being sucked into this war will make an already grim=20
situation worse for all of us grappling with the government's=20
anti-people policies on various fronts, from the economic to the=20
political.

Please note that on the same day there is a vigil from 12-3pm=20
organized by MIND outside the Israeli Embassy (3 Aurangzeb Road) to=20
show solidarity with the world-wide campaign to free Mordechai=20
Vanunu, an Israeli anti-nuclear activist, sentenced to 18 years in=20
prison by the Israeli state. Many of you may want to come to both the=20
vigil and the rally afterwards.

Nivedita Menon (for Jang Roko Abhiyan)

________

#5.

A Candle Light Vigil For Peace on Tank Bund, Hyderabad

on

Tuesday, 25th September 2001

We are shocked and pained by the recent terrorist violence in the US=20
in which thousands of innocent people belonging to many nationalities=20
and religions died. We were equally shocked and pained in the past=20
when some countries attacked, bombed or starved thousands of innocent=20
people in different parts of the world.

Like millions of others, we feel this spiral of violence and=20
terrorism of all kind must stop. However, we are horrified to see and=20
hear the language of war and hatred being used by the US and many=20
other governments.

The US government is hell bent on invading Afghanistan and mustering=20
support from other countries. It is obvious that war brings along=20
immense destruction and misery to humankind. Violence is not the=20
answer for Violence and neither can terrorism be defeated by war.

Many of us are concerned about this mindless escalation of "war=20
rhetoric" and propose to meet at the Tank Bund (opposite the Buddha=20
statue) to hold a candle light vigil for peace on Tuesday evening,=20
25th September 2001 between 6 -7 PM.

Let's join hands to voice our concern for peace. Please come along=20
with messages of peace on placards, banners, posters, songs ......We=20
hope you will be there on the 25th .

Asha, Amla, Bhanu, Laxman, Madhoo, Mrinalini, Nirvan, Nishant, Rose=20
(Indira), Ravi, Raju, Ram Babu, Sagari, Savitri, Sonny, Satyam, Uma,=20
Venu, Vijay............................

Please send this on to your friends and family and add your names

_______

#6.

Outlook Magazine (india)
Oct 01, 2001

'Blossoms in the Dust'.
by MIR ALI HUSAIN
Article on anti-war organizing in New York.

http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=3D20011001&fname=3DIndian+Vict=
ims+%28F%29&sid=3D5

_______

#7.

The Hindustan Times
Monday, September 24, 2001

Consensus be damned
by Anil Bordia

As an observer of educational developments, I have noticed with deep=20
concern the issue of the new 'National Curriculum Framework' for=20
school education. I am concerned because of the non-secular nature of=20
this curriculum.

Also, because it makes serious departures from education policy and a=20
due process of consultation has not taken place.

Secularism is an indispensable part of the basic structure of India's=20
Constitution. Not only is it postulated in the preamble, the light of=20
this principle radiates in several provisions of the Constitution. As=20
for the National Policy on Education (NPE), formulated in 1986 and=20
revised in 1992, it states that the national system of education will=20
be based on a national curriculum framework, which contains a common=20
core along with other components that are flexible. The common core=20
is to be designed to promote values, which include India's common=20
cultural heritage and secularism. The policy makes an unequivocal=20
statement: "All educational programmes will be carried on in strict=20
conformity with secular values."

While referring to common core components, the new curriculum=20
framework begins by affirming the values identified in NPE, including=20
India's common cultural heritage and secularism. Having thus observed=20
the formality of adherence to NPE, the framework shows its real=20
colour.

A medley of confusion is constructed to introduce numerous=20
value-related issues. Recommendations of the Justice J.S. Verma=20
Committee on Fundamental Duties of Citizens, and the Parliamentary=20
Committee on Value-based Education, chaired by S.B. Chavan, are=20
invoked to make fundamental duties a part of the core curriculum and=20
to bring in the values of truth, righteous conduct, peace, love and=20
non-violence.

Numerous phrases which could lend themselves to non-secular=20
interpretation are brought in, such as the best Indian tradition,=20
Indian wisdom, tradition rooted in Indian ethos, thinking rooted in=20
Indian tradition, spiritual quotient, etc.

One may ask, if fundamental duties are to form part of the core=20
curriculum, why not the values written in the preamble? One of the=20
fundamental duties is "value and preserve the rich heritage of our=20
composite culture", to which a reference is also made in NPE.=20
However, common cultural heritage and secularism do not figure either=20
in the main thrust areas (there are 13 of them) of school education=20
or the 18 skills and values which the curriculum is "to help generate=20
and promote among the learners".

It is obvious that after making token reference to secularism and=20
common cultural heritage, these are effectively excluded from the=20
framework of curriculum.

It is also interesting that the NCERT gave no indication in the draft=20
curriculum framework (circulated for discussion in January 2000) that=20
it was planning to incorporate a strong section on education about=20
religions. In the section on 'Education for Value Development' the=20
draft only refers to NPE '86 - values and fundamental duties. That=20
document adds one sentence in another section to the effect that=20
objective and sympathetic study of all major religions of India=20
should be provided for.

The final version of the framework calls for integration of education=20
about religions with all subjects of study and in all co-scholastic=20
areas. Thus, dharmanirpekshta (secularism) is replaced by=20
panthanirpekshta (non-discrimination on the ground of religion). This=20
is violative of NPE and, arguably, also of the Constitution.

This issue was debated when the 1968 and 1986 policies were being=20
formulated. A section of opinion was in favour of the use of=20
education about religions to inculcate the spirit of equal respect=20
for all religions (sarva dharma samabhav) and to make that the source=20
of value education. This proposition was not accepted because it was=20
considered contrary to secularism. It was recalled that already=20
school prayers tended to remain confined to Hindu forms and while=20
birthdays of Hindu gods are celebrated, rarely is this consideration=20
shown to the Prophet of Islam or Jesus Christ.

It was feared that education about religions would become an=20
instruction about Hinduism. Rather than promoting national=20
integration, it could be divisive and have a deleterious affect on=20
the participation of non-Hindu children.

There are several other areas where major departures have been made=20
from NPE and there are equally important areas which have got omitted=20
- both these categories lack conformity with the accepted policy.

Take the 'three-language formula'. The 1986 policy reiterates the=20
provision of the 1968 policy and states that, in addition to Hindi=20
and English, in the Hindi-speaking states, a modern Indian language,=20
"preferably one of the southern languages", should be taught after=20
the primary stage. The new curriculum, while technically reiterating=20
the three-language formula, omits to mention about the preference to=20
southern languages.

An interesting case is of Sanskrit. Here, too, the 1986 policy=20
reiterates the provision of the 1968 policy which recognises the=20
unique contribution of Sanskrit to the cultural unity of the country=20
and suggests that facilities for its teaching should be offered on a=20
more liberal scale. The 'discussion document' of January 2000 only=20
raises a one-line question: "Could the classical languages be taught=20
as part of a composite course with mother tongue/regional languages=20
originating from them?" The final version provides a full page on=20
Sanskrit.

It asserts that Sanskrit is to be treated as a living phenomenon and=20
is to be introduced as a part of the study of Hindi and regional=20
languages, insisting that "the course has to be so planned that the=20
study of Sanskrit may not be ignored". In practice, this may mean=20
making Sanskrit compulsory for all.

While the new framework refers to globalisation, IT, multiple=20
intelligence, it makes no mention about the education of minorities,=20
Urdu, and the role of education in women's empowerment. This is=20
disconcerting for persons who view education as a means of national=20
integration and empowerment of women and oppressed sections.

The NPE 1986, as revised in 1992, calls for its review every five=20
years. After he took office as HRD minister, Murli Manohar Joshi had=20
indicated that he was going to revise the education policy. At some=20
stage he seems to have given up that idea. Some of the changes he had=20
in mind seem to have got incorporated in the curriculum framework.=20
Although this framework contains several provisions which are not in=20
conformity with the education policy, it was finalised without=20
observing the due process for its validation.

Education being a part of the concurrent list, NPE laid great=20
emphasis on treating education as a matter of partnership between the=20
Centre and the states. It laid down that the Central Advisory Board=20
of Education (CABE), the membership of which includes education=20
ministers of all states and Union Territories, must play a vital role=20
in the review of educational developments.

Consensus on education has a long tradition in our country.=20
Recommendations of the commissions on higher education (1949) and=20
secondary education (1953) were considered in CABE. A committee of=20
Parliament deliberated for months on the formulation of the education=20
policy in pursuance of the recommendations of the education=20
commission (1964-66). The policy which emerged in 1986 was considered=20
by Parliament before adoption.

The preparation of the 1986 policy was preceded by wide-ranging=20
consultations. Formal meetings were held with representatives of=20
national political parties and the draft was debated with the=20
education ministers of all states and UTs and in CABE. It was adopted=20
after being endorsed by both Houses of Parliament.

Likewise, the 1992 amendments were processed in a committee with=20
membership of all major parties. These amendments were considered in=20
a conference of education ministers of all states/UTs and were=20
finally adopted by Parliament.

The NCERT had undertaken two earlier exercises to develop curricular=20
guidelines. The Curriculum for the Ten-Year School - A Framework, in=20
1975, and the National Curriculum for Elementary and Secondary=20
Education: A Framework, in 1988, were both processed in meetings of=20
NCERT and meetings in which education ministers of all states and UTs=20
participated.

A surprising thing about the new national curriculum framework is=20
that it does not seem to have been validated by a process of=20
consensus-building.

What seems to be an attitude of cynical indifference towards=20
consensus-building, CABE has not been constituted since 1994 and=20
obviously, the new framework could not have been processed in a=20
meeting of CABE. The council of NCERT includes ministers of education=20
of all states/UTs. As far as one knows, the new framework was=20
released by the HRD minister even before the meeting of the council.

So who approved this document prior to its release?

The writer is former Education Secretary, Government of India. He was=20
associated with the 1986 Education Policy and its revision in 1992

_______

#8.

The Hindustan Times
Monday, September 24, 2001
=09=20
[Shiv] Sena ruffled by book describing Shivaji as Sudra
Farida Shaikh
(Mumbai, September 23)
Does Shivaji's caste matter? To the Shiv Sena it certainly does. The=20
Sena's sensibilities have been hurt by a Class VI handbook in=20
Mumbai's Don Bosco School which describes the warrior king as a Sudra.

The bone of contention is a handbook for teachers authored by human=20
rights activist and joint editor of Communalism Combat, Teesta=20
Setalvad. The book traces the rise of Shivaji from humble beginnings=20
to fame and glory, and praises him for representing the toiling=20
peasants and battling caste barriers.

However, the word Sudra did not go down too well with some parents=20
who approached the local Shiv Sena unit.

The school authorities say that they have been asked to withdraw the=20
book. They are planning to take up the issue with human rights bodies.

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

SACW is an informal, independent & non-profit citizens wire service run by
South Asia Citizens Web (http://www.mnet.fr/aiindex) since 1996. Dispatch
archive from 1998 can be accessed at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/act/messages/ . To subscribe send a blank
message to: <act-subscribe@yahoogroups.com> / To unsubscribe send a blank
message to: <act-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com>
________________________________________
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.

--=20