The recent textbook revision row has created a ruckus in the State of Karnataka. The revision of sections relating to legendary thinkers, social reformers, freedom fighters, and writers — such as Basavanna, Kanakadasa, Narayana Guru, Tipu Sultan, Periyar, Kuvempu and Ambedkar — is not only hurting the sentiments of the people who revere these individuals but is also an attack on the constitutional values that we collectively prize. Additionally, the unjustifiable revisions have further derailed the learning of children who have already borne the brunt of deprivation of education, among the other devastating effects of the pandemic, for nearly two and a half years.
The ongoing discourse reveals that the process of textbook revision is not only the exclusion or addition of a few lessons in the texts of Language courses, but also a tweaking of Social Science textbooks of Classes 6 to 10. By design, it is a deliberate endeavour to propagate a particular ideology, contrary to the pre-existing and well-defined normative framework used for the determination of curriculum, school syllabus, textbooks, and their revisions, in accordance with core constitutional values.
This article aims to examine the validity of the current undertaking for textbook revision, and contrast it with the established, normative parameters and mandates of the state laid down for the process of revision.
Values and school curriculum
The first National Curriculum Framework (NCF) of 1975, which is based on the first National Education Policy of 1968, provides a well-defined framework for the determination of school curriculum. It states: “The values enshrined in our constitution point towards the development of a pluralist open society and a state which is secular, democratic and socialist in nature. The school curriculum should reflect these aims and values in its structure, content, implied methodology – in fact, in its entire design.”
Subsequently, the framework was revised in 1988, in accordance with the new National Policy on Education of 1986. The new framework reiterated that constitutional values were to be borne in mind while preparing the contents and processes of education.
Thus, the process hitherto followed for preparation or revisions of textbooks was based on a broad normative framework that corresponds to the aims and objectives of education. It proceeds with a well-defined framework for the determination of curriculum, based on the goals to be achieved by the process of education. Usually, these goals are derived from the international education policy framework, national policies and, most importantly, the Constitution adopted by the nation state that defines the contours of nation-building on the basis of certain core, non-negotiable values. In order to achieve the larger goals outlined in the NCF, the process of preparing the syllabi and thereby developing appropriate textbooks, or revising them from time to time, must be based on the curriculum framework.
Explained | The textbook controversy in Karnataka
Attempts at distortion
The attempts of deviating from the core constitutional values and the vision of an open, democratic, secular, pluralist state which promoted a progressive outlook for independent India started in 1998, when the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) came to power at the Centre. Hindutva ideology began to slowly percolate into the contents of history books, and the process of rewriting history to promote Hindu nationalist ideology was aggressively pushed from the corridors of power to academic bodies such as the National Council of Educational Research and Training and State Councils of Educational Research and Training.
This process started through the tinkering of the aforementioned curriculum framework. The framework was revised in 1988, and subsequently, a new NCF for school education, grounded in the Hindutva ideology, was prepared in 2000. A preface to the new NCF stated: “...the education system of a country has to be built on the firm ground of its own philosophical, cultural and sociological tradition and must respond to its needs and aspirations. Indigenousness of the curriculum, therefore, is being strongly recommended… A profound sense of patriotism and nationalism tempered with the spirit of Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam must also be infused into the students.”
The present controversy needs to be understood in the context of the above mentioned statement, wherein similar attempts were made between 1998 and 2004, when the BJP was in power. Through this, the BJP’s agenda of building a state based on Hindu nationalist ideology by using history textbooks as instruments to further their vision of a narrow, sectarian and ‘Talibanised’ Hindu nation is revealed.
Correctives in 2005
Thereafter, in 2004, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance government initiated the process of setting things right by bringing the constitutional values to the forefront to be used as guiding principles, and a new framework was prepared in 2005.
The NCF 2005 started with the Preamble of the Constitution, and reiterated the necessity of placing the Constitution as the cornerstone while deciding the curriculum and syllabi of textbooks. The NCF 2005 quoted from the National Policy on Education, 1986: “The National System of Education will be based on a national curricular framework, which contains a common core along with other components that are flexible. The common core will include the history of India’s freedom movement, the constitutional obligations, and other content essential to nurture national identity. These elements will cut across subject areas and will be designed to promote values such as India’s common cultural heritage, egalitarianism, democracy, and secularism, equality of sexes, protection of environment, removal of social barriers, observance of small family norm and inculcation of scientific temper. All educational programmes will be carried on in strict conformity with secular values.”
The current case in Karnataka
The issue began with the Karnataka Brahmin Mahasabha presenting a memorandum to the government, expressing displeasure over a couple of paragraphs in the Social Science textbook of Class 6. Raising objections about the contents of a social science lesson as an aggrieved party is well within the principles of natural justice in a democratic set-up. However, such grievances need to be addressed in a procedural manner.
The trouble started when the Minister of Primary and Secondary Education at the time arbitrarily ordered the omission of the contested portion from the textbook in a note dated December 17, 2020, without providing an opportunity to the original author and the members of the textbook committee to defend their viewpoint, and without an examination of the relevant evidence and references cited by them to include the said portion.
Another strange dimension of the incident is that the Minister presumed that there might be more such issues in all Language and Social Science lessons of Classes 1 to 10, and instructed the concerned officials to constitute a committee of teachers and experts to produce a report on the same within 15 days from the date of his note. Following the arbitrary instructions issued in the note, a circular dated February 17, 2021 was issued by the Managing Director of Textbooks Society to the Deputy Directors for Public Instruction and Block Education Officers across the State to exclude the contentious portions for teaching, learning, and evaluation for the academic year 2020-21.
Furthermore, a government order dated September 8, 2021 was issued to drop the contentious portion from the texts of all mediums for the academic year 2020-21. The order additionally instructed that a committee, headed by Rohith Chakrathirtha, would review the complex issues in the Social Science, Environmental Studies, and Language textbooks of Classes 1 to 10 in the State. While it is clear from the government order that the said committee only had a partial mandate to review the presence of any complex issues in the textbooks and to submit a report within a deadline, the committee has gotten into the revision of textbooks in the absence of a legal mandate. The committee does not have the authority to revise and rewrite textbooks that are based on a defined curriculum framework and syllabi.
Also Read | Karnataka textbook revision row | Lessons on icons of Bhakti and Sufi movements dropped
The revision done by the committee without a mandate was approved in a meeting presided by the sitting Minister of Primary and Secondary Education on January 27, 2022. The Minister also approved the detailed draft report of the revision and directed the committee to submit the same to the government through proper channels. The report was submitted to the Managing Director on March 8, 2022. On the next day, the file was put up by the Managing Director and sent to the government for further orders. The government issued another order dated March 19, 2022 giving post-facto approval to the elaborative revision done by the committee on the behest of the Minister.
Interestingly, the government disowned the entire revision process through the order saying that if any objections were raised on the contents of the textbooks in the future, Mr. Chakrathirtha would be responsible for responding.
Not in the interests of children
An analysis of the chain of events reveals fundamental flaws in both the understanding of the parties involved and the methodology followed by the committee for revision of textbooks. This process is not in accordance with the larger normative framework. Furthermore, it devalues the contents of various school subjects and perpetuates a myopic understanding of the subjects. The process of revision has been reduced to a mockery of dropping and adding lessons, and twisting of histories to suit the communal sectarian agenda of the current government.
The revision of textbooks, repugnant to the normative framework, is undemocratic, unscientific, and undermines core constitutional values. The development is unequivocally dangerous and antithetical to the best interest of children and their future. Compromising the interests of children for narrow political gain is an indication of an immature democracy.
( Niranjanaradhya V.P. is a Bengaluru-based development educationist)
