Addressing a meeting of Overseas Indians on his US visit this year, Atal Bihari Vajpai remarked on the recent Supreme Court judgement on the saffronization of Education. He referred to the judgement upholding his Govt.’s point of view and then asked “Even if there is saffronization, who has objection?” On 7th of October 2002 a felicitation programme was held at Delhi for Murli Manohar Joshi, to mark his ‘victory’ in the Supreme Court.

These examples summarize the shot in the arm that the recent judgement of the Supreme Court on this issue has given to the Hindutva elements. Irrespective of the Supreme Court’s very positive views on the particular content of the National Curriculum Framework (NCF), the fact is indisputable that through every avenue and channel available, the BJP led NDA Govt. is out to further distort Education in India. The structure is to be further and more severely tilted towards privatization of higher education and for cost based education. These are part of WTO dispensation and have the consent of all ruling class parties in India. The content is to be medevialized and Hinduized. The former is a pro imperialist and anti people step, taking an even bigger number of students in India out of the purview of science-oriented education in the name of, for e.g., Sanskrit and vedic maths. The latter, using phrases like ‘value based education’ and in the background of the former, pushes through the ‘Hindu Rashtra’ concept of one people, one culture, one nation on the multi religious, multicultural, multinational plurality of India. On this there is conflict of opinion among the ruling classes, along with opposition by all those progressive forces which also oppose privatization and medevialization. To even imagine that the vicious drive of the Hindutva forces would steer clear of the NCF is to either view these forces through rose coloured spectacles or to concretely take their side.

The Concrete Features of the Judgement

The PIL filed by some activists before the Supreme Court addressed two questions, First, the legality of bypassing the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) in implementing the NCF by concretely changing the NCERT books. A second aspect was whether the NCF, with its emphasis on giving ‘education about religion’ and ‘value based education’ was violative of constitutional provisions upholding secularism.

The judgement was delivered by a three-judge bench. One judge (Justice Dharmadhikari) gave a concurring judgement and the third (Justice Sema) differed on the aspect of consultation with the CABE.

Federal Character Undefended

The Govt.’s defence on the first issue was that neither had the Board been reconstituted and nor was it statutory. The reality is that the NFC was bitterly opposed by all major opposition political parties and almost all of them hold power in various states. The Parliament discussed the NFC in Aug. 2001 and this pattern was apparent. Education Ministers of as many as 14 states walked out of the NCERT’s General Body meeting in June 2002. Since Education is listed on the concurrent list, the constitutional provision for it is that it has to be dealt in consultation with the states.

The judgement has held that non consultation with the CABE could not be a ground for setting aside the new curriculum as it was not a statutory body. On this technical ground, and in absolute violation of the spirit of federalism, the NFC could bypass it. Even if this is technically sound, no ‘note of caution’ has been sounded on violating the spirit and letter of the constitution regarding items on the concurrent list. One judge, in his separate but concurrent judgement directed the Govt. to consult the CABE ‘expeditiously’ but in any case concurred with the judgement in upholding the NFC. The third judge endorsed the need to build national consensus and involve CABE but also upheld the NFC and specifically stated that he did not mean that NFC implementation was illegal. Then if the Board were to now strike down the NFC, what are the options? – Will there be ‘contempt of court’ possible against it or will its opinion be bypassed as ‘non statutory’?

On the issue of whether the NFC was pushing through the agenda of saffronization, the judgement has unanimously defended the NFC. In doing so, some specific issues have been raised and discussed by the judges.

What is to become of Article 28?

Article 28 specifically prohibits religious education in state run institutions. The judgement has counterpoised the imparting of religious education against ‘education about religion’ which the NFC purports to do, and specifically stated that it can be carried out in state run institutions. It says that the NFC specifies that it will teach that the essence of all religions is same and only practises differ and defends “It nowhere talks of imparting religious instructions as prohibited under Article 28 of the Constitution”. Justice Dharadhikari’s judgement further says that religious education could be permitted based on ‘religious pluralism’ even in state run institutions. The judgement has further upheld the NFC’s premise of ‘essential similarity of religions’ and then struck notes of ‘caution’ about what ‘value based education’ must not degenerate into.

Not degenerate into? There is a majority communal organisation and its political party clearly advocating ‘one religion, one people’, bludgeoning this concept down the throats of the minorities in Gujarat and propagating it in the vast masses in the country through state sponsored violence and Goebelsian intent. This party sponsors a document which talks about “essential sameness of religions.” Instead of steadfastly upholding Article 28 what will semantics about whether ‘study of religions’ is ‘religious study’ or not, or striking notes of ‘caution’, do? The utter jubilation of all sections of the Sangh Parivar at the stance of the Supreme Court cannot leave any scope of confusion about which scales the judgement has tilted and what purpose it will serve. Already the NCERT books have appeared, with all the historical distortions anticipated, intact.

‘Hinduization’ by ‘Indianization’ of secularism

The position of the judgement on Article 28 needs to be seen with its position on secularism. It says “In our view the word ‘religion’ should not be misunderstood nor the contention could be raised that as it is used in the national policy of education, secularism would be at peril … If basic tenets of all religions all over the world are learnt it cannot be said that secularism would not survive.” In his separate judgement justice Dharmadhkari is more explicit, “Secularism narrowly understood to mean neutrality of the state towards religion and berefit of positive approach to religions….” He has then stated that secularism should mean ‘sarva-dharma sambhav.’

All these are far reaching comments out to challenge and dilute the basic concept of secularism. It is of course quite acceptable even to the soft Hindutva stance of Congress. Rather in the 1980s, Shri Kamlapati Tripathi of Congress had proposed that in the Hindi translations of the Constitution the term ‘sarva dharma sambav’ be used to translate ‘secularism’ and not ‘dharamnirpeksh’. ‘Secularism,’ clearly connoting the separation of religion from state arose during post-Renaissance Period in Western Europe. The danger now is that its ‘swadeshization’ will be concretely suggested, and the concept discarded altogether, which anyhow is what this Supreme Court judgement has set out to do.

Not that this judgement is path breaking on this score. Earlier too the Supreme Court has upheld ‘Hindutva’ to connote Indianness. In the case of demolition, of Babri Masjid, the Chief Minister of UP got a sentence of a few hours for contempt (while Rajender Sail got six months for criticizing a decision to let off the killers of Shankar Guha Niyogi). These are cases in point to show that the Court does not take sides by accident. For instance one wonders if the Court would show the same tolerance if talk was that ‘sameness of religions’ should expose their uniformly opiate nature!

It at least this judgement could teach a lesson to those PIL enthusiasts, esp. NGOs, who rush to Court to settle opinions which are actually the purview of politics and mass movements, as if totally oblivious of the regressive and anti people stand of various courts esp. in the NEP years, then at least some good may emerge. The Anti Enron agitation was needlessly taken to the Supreme Court which rubber stamped Enron; the struggle against privatization & MNCization of telecom industry ended with the Supreme Court stepping in. These are actually forces who, in the name of ‘friends of people’, play a good role in siding with the powers that be in running to the courts. A case in mind is the public litigation of HD Shourie which resulted in unemployment of thousands and thousands of workers in Delhi thanks to the Supreme Court judgements.

“.... Let knowledge, like the sun, shine for all and that there should not be any room for narrow-mindedness, blind faith and dogmas.” When the varna system is not to have a materialistic interpretation, when Aryans become Hindus, when Nazism is a ‘response to Stalinism” rather than a despicable response of monopoly bourgeoisie to divert people’s rising revolutionary energy and socialist aspirations towards race chauvinism- what would incorporation of such items in textbooks be called? Broad-mindedness? But the judges of Supreme Court were well aware that these and other ‘new’ truths lay in the NCERT books awaiting release once the NCF was passed. If knowledge were “to shine for all” there should be no capitation fee system, but an earlier Supreme Court judgement had endorsed it. Will the Judges like to strike it down?

Major ruling class parties have publicly reacted to the judgement. While the Hindutva forces are overtly smirking with satisfaction, the Congress has interpreted the judgement as the Court’s caution against biased teaching. CPI and CPM have called for a ‘review’ of the judgement.

But the questions to be really faced are twofold. For one, how long will we allow Court enunciations to set limits to mass agitations? Is it after all too much to ask for example, that all forces in favour of democratic rights take note of the fact that a Court which could take ‘suo motto’ notice of a school bus falling into a river should choose to maintain silence over the state sponsored communal genocide in Gujarat with wilful participation of the police? Two, when Courts as also Govts. infringe on the rights of the people, is there or is there not need to continue agitations and fight back?