Is Modi waiting for another Vyapam scam?
Prime Minister Narendra Modi is a man who rose to power demanding a society and a government which had vision and possessed decisiveness. Yet, of late, his silence on major issues of policy makes one wonder if feedback, debate and communication are among the biggest casualties of his regime. When one looks at agriculture, medicine and education, one realises that his regime almost lacks direction.
Modi is reputed to be a man who is quick on the tweet and responsive to global questions. Yet think of the following events and his lack of response. The Vyapam scandal is spreading like an epidemic not only leaving behind a trail of murder but conclusively proving that education, probably more than food and medicine, is the most adulterated commodity in the country.
Lack of research
Then, last week Infosys co-founder NR Narayana Murthy, addressing the convocation of the Indian Institute of Science, told the audience that there is not one major global commodity that could be traced to the research work of the IIT and IIMs.
Third, the number of fake degrees possessed by our politicians from the AAP and the BJP makes one wonder about the cynicism around education. This scandal cannot be met merely by claiming that Rahul Gandhi's and Sonia's claim to certified education is spurious. It merely shows that while education is deeply valued, certificates rarely certify.
The media has created a wave of games around the phenomena of ranking and accreditation which are just spurious. A huge and questionable industry has grown around the question of rankings, creating ancillary groups of consultants, fixers and public relations officials.
Major media events are sponsored by many of these dubious institutions. Recently, media reports on Delhi University showed that the university lacked enough good colleges to accommodate even reasonably competent students. Many of them were thus forced to join vocational and correspondence courses for the sheer lack of seats.
The whole debate about good history is conducted by organisations like the Shiv Sena and the RSS while academic historians watch helplessly. Stalwarts like Dinanath Batra, who would have been happier on some inquisition committee, is now better known as the chairperson of the UGC.
The above list is only a part of the assorted reports signalling the crisis of education. Unfortunately, today there is no normative framework to fall back on when discussing these issues. The Kothari and Radhakrishnan reports, provided in the Nehruvian era, were classic documents. While their value frameworks are still relevant, there are a lot of concrete issues these reports have little to say on.
Sam Pitroda's Knowledge Commission was more about information and IT and was too deeply embroiled in controversy for it to be effective. Kapil Sibal, while being education minister in the UPA, did kick off a new education commission report but aborted it a week later for reasons that are still not clearly understood. Today, there is little at the normative or policy level around which to discuss issues like unemployment, student suicides, the future of the university, questions of intellectual property, the relevance of a liberal arts education, the questioning of cloning satellite IITs and IIMs and the idea of skill development.
Quality of analysis
One needs a holistic frame, the link knowledge, education and democracy which can match the concern and quality of analysis one sees abroad. The time has come for a new Kothari report but with a full realisation that times have changed. It may be a state-sponsored report, but it has to be autonomous, representative and professional. Creating a committee for a report like this cannot be conducted with the same acrimony that greets the decisions of the Indian Council of Historical Research. Modi and in fact all of civil society, must realise that such a report is a promissory note to the future because the future is a major stakeholder in such a debate.
Crucial issues
Time and representation are crucial issues for the report. Its framework of creativity has to fit both systems. For this, the committee needs to create a perspective which can discuss innovation and obsolescence, play and relevance simultaneously.
Such a committee has to be a consultative process, where social movements, educationists, school teachers, philosophers and students can articulate their concerns. The process of dialogue has to be diverse and transparent but there must be a timeline where the committee can close debate and formulate priorities.
Thirdly, it should not be swept away by superficial and misleading questions about Nobel prizes and rankings and look to create what science policy expert Helga Nowotny has called a robust form of knowledge which is also reflexive.
Such a committee, which will be hopefully interdisciplinary, will have to have a pluralistic theory of culture, knowledge and pedagogy, where the oral, the textual and the digital can coexist in reciprocity. India is a society that exists in multiple times. Therefore when questions of epistemology that is theories about the validation of knowledge are discussed, one must realise that epistemology is not validated in a laboratory but links life, livelihood, lifestyle to life chances. Epistemology must be life-giving.
I hope such a report becomes a possibility because the Modi regime, like the Congress, is an accumulation of stereotypes and outdated pedagogy. If India is to be a knowledge society, a report which is synoptic of this world is urgent. One hopes it does not get shelved like many of the current legislations of this regime.