Latest
DU Beat – Delhi University's Independent Student Newspaper
Tag

national education policy

Browsing
Campus Central

DUTA Marches to Parliament Street and Courts-Arrest

By

On 10th January 2020, University of Delhi (DU) teachers marched from Mandi House to the Parliament Street demanding absorption of all teachers, promotion and pension among other issues. Following them Courting-Arrest, Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) office bearers were invited to meet the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) Secretary, UGC Chairperson and Jt. Secretary, MHRD at the Ministry.

Releasing a Press Release, DUTA Office Bearers expressed their discontentment with MHRD’s failure in the implementation of the 5 December Record of Discussions in entirety. The officials have expressed their commitment to implement the same. In this context, DUTA representatives pointed out the inaction on the Vice Chancellor (VC)’s part in implementing the 5th December Record of Discussions with respect to releasing option forms and initiating the promotion process. They also pointed out the non-implementation of the proposed relief on screening criteria and counting of past services.

The release of additional Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) expansions on student-teacher ratio along with University’s (in)action to ensure that no ad hoc is displaced due to the EWS reservation until permanent appointments are made; were also raised.

Dr Agnitra Ghosh, Professor, Kamla Nehru College, Member of DUTA, told DU Beat, “The ruling regime is hell bent on pushing more and more policies of contractualization to destroy public universities. And the DUTA and faculty members of DU are fighting against that. The entire system of ad hocism has created a situation of employment without any security and dignity. Now, the admin further wanted to downgrade ad hoc position to guest, which was resisted. For the last 10 years, DU faculty members have been denied promotions. A university can’t run in this way without basic minimum facilities provided to it’s faculty members. But DU teachers are consistently fighting back and we have also received overwhelming solidarity from the student community of DU.”

With regard to the association’s key demand, one-time absorption of temporary ad-hoc teachers, MHRD stated that only Governemt should take a decision on the same. DUTA expressed their disapproval and sought justness of the fact that several thousand young teachers have been languishing for long years without permanent jobs.

Discussing over the release of the corrected concordance tables for revision of pensions, DUTA officials were informed that the matter was presented before the Finance Ministry. Demand for the withdrawal of the letter dated 21.04.2019 to the University by MHRD was also raised, for which they were asked to pursue the matter with the Finance Ministry.

Apart from this, DUTA submitted a memorandum stating the other long-standing demand of teachers, the resolution of the UGC Regulations 2018, which has a direct bearing on the pending promotions. DUTA officials also expressed their opposition to the Draft New Education Policy 2019’s anti-education recommendations, uniting against the corporatisation of higher education. DUTA reiterated their demand for the VC’s resignation.

Since 4th December 2019, Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) has been on an indefinite strike and a 24-hour indefinite dharna outside the Vice Chancellor’s Office seeking absorption, promotion and pension for ad hocs and temporary staff.

Feature Image Credits: Hindustan Times

Anandi Sen
[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
Uncategorized

The Elitism of Education: Acknowledging the Privilege

By

There are people from all walks of life who aim of accessing education but, the elitism around it stands as an overcast shadow, giving chances to some and leaving others behind.

Each year, when the results of the 12th grade examinations are declared, the nation collectively holds its breath. It does not matter if your kid is actually in 12th, or if they are in the second grade. The results reach new heights each year, with students working hard to achieve seemingly impossible scores. It is with these scores that come the impossible cut-offs.

It is a thinly veiled fact that the University of Delhi (DU) remains to be one of the most sought after universities in India. The “DU Tag” is a golden goose to catch, since it offers both – a subsidised education, and a status symbol. Thus, every passing year becomes a blood-bath of score battles to get into the best colleges. The idea of over-achievement is now so deeply internalised that even students who are fully aware that one exam set for one day is hardly enough to judge their worth, get carried away and caught in this vicious trap.

Many feel a sense of elitist pride for having been admitted to one of the more prestigious universities of India and our conditioning tells us – “well, why shouldn’t we?” After all, we worked hard to achieve it and it is a big deal. It is at this stage in the stream of thoughts that we contribute to forgetting our privilege. In economics, the “cycle of poverty” is the “set of factors or events by which poverty, once started, is likely to continue unless there is outside intervention”. This cycle is built on gate-keeping the weaker sections of our society from accessing the resources, education being an important one of them, which they direly require to come out of their existing state of situations.

Education is freedom. It is for that reason that education became such an important tool for the British to keep their colonies “in-line” – for that is precisely why only a certain set of Indians were educated in order to create a divide, and the perfect set of subordinates. It is then, that it becomes interesting to see that even after 72 years of Independence, it is exactly what we continue to replicate in slightly different ways. This is not a secret that in India, a Government school education is inherently sub-par when compared to the private education. This divide exists not just because of more highly qualified, high-paid teachers who can be held accountable but it also exists because of every other element that a private education entails. It entails an ability to afford dedicated teachers, extra reading material, and even private tuitions – something that has become a rite of passage in possibly every Indian household that can afford to do so, and most importantly, a support system that enables this culture of education.

It is then that the prospect of Government colleges being revered over private institutions becomes an asset. It works towards bridging a gap of working towards the façade that it is not just money that would get you a good education, but it is your own merits, too. However, when the Government of India introduces policies like the National Education Policy of 2019, which works towards privatisation of these government institutions, this re-enforces a privilege that already has had a strong base, to begin with. When we make Government institutions autonomous and give them the liberty to set up courses with their own fee-structures, when we allow the Government to take away the job security of those who put “quality” in quality education, we allow a culture of gate-keeping.

Not every student can afford to pay lakhs to be able to go to a university. It is then that it becomes important to recognise this cycle of elite education, and to make conscious efforts to resist it.

Feature Image Credits: DU Beat Archives

Shreya Juyal

[email protected]

Keep Reading
By
DUB Speak

The Three Language Formula and Unity in Diversity Do Not Go Hand in Hand

By

The progressive National Education Policy (NEP) was in headlines recently when an old controversy reappeared in its document.

‘Balkanisation’ is a geo-political term used to explain the fragmentation of a large sovereign territory into smaller units due to social, political or cultural differences. The optimal examples of countries that surrendered themselves to this phenomenon are Yugoslavia and USSR. There are other failed attempts of segregation where states could not attain sovereignty because of compromise or suppression. Among others, the Indian state of Tamil Nadu is an astute example. The unflattering and relentless opposition of Tamilians towards the Hindi language has an 80-year-old history. It has led to violent protests, polarization and demand for a separate nation at different epochs of 20th century.

The current draft of the NEP is progressive in many ways. Orchestrated by noted scientist K. Kasturirangan, it promises to revitalize the ailing education system of India. Among other reforms, it changes the focus group for imparting education from 6-14 to 3-18 years. It also brings accreditation system in schools and envisions that by 2035, the gross enrolment ratio in schools will increase to 50% compared to the current 25%. But these amendments did not grab the eyeballs as much as a paragraph in the policy to implement the Three Language Formula did.

The Formula first appeared in the NEP in 1968. The clause suggests that along with Hindi and English, any Modern Indian Language be taught to students in Hindi-speaking states and the regional language be taught in non-Hindi speaking state. The formula resurrected the long-running resistance against Hindi imposition in South Indian states, especially Tamil Nadu. Tamilians, in order to conserve their identity and culture, have been protesting against compulsory Hindi education since 1937. Leaders like Periyar, who formed the Dravidar Kazhagam, initiated this anti-Hindi agitation when the then Indian National Congress government made teaching of Hindi compulsory in schools of Madras Presidency. The anti-Hindi sentiment has given genesis to the idea of Dravida Nadu, a hypothetical sovereign country comprising the non-Hindi speaking states of Southern India. E.V Ramasamy (Periyar) and C.N Annadurai, who were the initial proponents of Dravida Nadu, made an attempt to Balkanise India as they feared the hegemony of Hindi would repress their native languages.

But the fear is not inappropriate either. One of the most controversial subjects in the Constitutional Assembly debate was the selection of India’s official language. Noted historian Ramachandra Guha writes that when R.Dhulekar, a member of the house from United Provinces stood up to move an amendment, he started speaking in Hindustani. When the chairman reminded him that many people do not know the language, he replied, “People who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India.” The amount of chauvinism reflected in his majoritarian perspective makes it evident why our dear ones in the South are sceptical about compulsory Hindi education.

Following backlash from political parties in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the government officially amended a portion of the NEP. In the new draft, students will have the choice of changing any language they want to. The war of language has been very sensitive and controversial in India. It has fabricated the politics of Tamil Nadu in such a drastic way that the implicit advocate of Hindi imposition, the Congress party has never come back to power after 1967 following the anti-Hindi agitation of that year.

The ship of Unity in diversity sails only when there’s unity without uniformity and diversity without fragmentation. Imposing uniformity by enclosing a country like India will bring consequences that we don’t need or deserve.

 

Feature Image credits: NCERT

Priyanshu

[email protected]

 

Keep Reading
By
DUB Speak

The Three Language Formula and Unity in Diversity Do Not Go Hand in Hand

By

The progressive National Education Policy (NEP) was in headlines recently when an old controversy reappeared in its document.

‘Balkanisation’ is a geo-political term used to explain the fragmentation of a large sovereign territory into smaller units due to social, political or cultural differences. The optimal examples of countries that surrendered themselves to this phenomenon are Yugoslavia and USSR. There are other failed attempts of segregation where states could not attain sovereignty because of compromise or suppression. Among others, the Indian state of Tamil Nadu is an astute example. The unflattering and relentless opposition of Tamilians towards the Hindi language has an 80-year-old history. It has led to violent protests, polarization and demand for a separate nation at different epochs of 20th century.

The current draft of the NEP is progressive in many ways. Orchestrated by noted scientist K. Kasturirangan, it promises to revitalize the ailing education system of India. Among other reforms, it changes the focus group for imparting education from 6-14 to 3-18 years. It also brings accreditation system in schools and envisions that by 2035, the gross enrolment ratio in schools will increase to 50% compared to the current 25%. But these amendments did not grab the eyeballs as much as a paragraph in the policy to implement the Three Language Formula did.

The Formula first appeared in the NEP in 1968. The clause suggests that along with Hindi and English, any Modern Indian Language be taught to students in Hindi-speaking states and the regional language be taught in non-Hindi speaking state. The formula resurrected the long running resistance against Hindi imposition in South Indian states, especially Tamil Nadu. Tamilians, in order to conserve their identity and culture, have been protesting against compulsory Hindi education since 1937. Leaders like Periyar, who formed the Dravidar Kazhagam, initiated this anti-Hindi agitation when the then Indian National Congress government made teaching of Hindi compulsory in schools of Madras Presidency. The anti-Hindi sentiment has given genesis to the idea of Dravida Nadu, a hypothetical sovereign country comprising the non-Hindi speaking states of Southern India. E.V Ramasamy (Periyar) and C.N Annadurai, who were the initial proponents of Dravida Nadu, made an attempt to Balkanise India as they feared the hegemony of Hindi would repress their native languages.

But the fear is not inappropriate either. One of the most controversial subjects in the Constitutional Assembly debate was selection of India’s official language. Noted historian Ramachandra Guha writes that when R.Dhulekar, a member of the house from United Provinces stood up to move an amendment, he started speaking in Hindustani. When the chairman reminded him that many people do not know the language, he replied, “People who do not know Hindustani have no right to stay in India.” The amount of chauvinism reflected in his majoritarian perspective makes it evident why our dear ones in the South are sceptical about compulsory Hindi education.

Following backlash from political parties in Tamil Nadu and Kerala, the government officially amended a portion of the NEP. In the new draft, students will have the choice of changing any language they want to. The war of language has been very sensitive and controversial in India. It has fabricated the politics of Tamil Nadu in such a drastic way that the implicit advocate of Hindi imposition, the Congress party has never come back to power after 1967 following the anti-Hindi agitation of that year.

The ship of Unity in diversity sails only when there’s unity without uniformity and diversity without fragmentation. Imposing uniformity by enclosing a country like India will bring consequences that we don’t need or deserve.

Feature Image Source: NCERT

Priyanshu

[email protected]

 

Keep Reading
By