Freedom of Education
English Essay on "Freedom of Education" - Compositions on "Freedom of Education"
It could have been worse. This is how a top legal luminary in Delhi reacted to the supreme court’s judgment on the minority educational institutions. The verdict was, indeed, close: 6-5. The line that the dissenting judges took was harsher and bleaker for the minorities, whether religious or linguistic. The majority judgment has two parts: one is on the state- aided institutions and the other on the unaided. The aided ones - most minority institutions belong to this category will be governed by the rules and regulations the state lays down for admission. But they will be “minimal.” The minority educational institutions will retain their character. But they will have to admit “a reasonable” number of non-minority students.
Although the states interference is minimal, the BJP-run governments can play mischief. Since there is no assured quota for students from the minorities; the state can drastically reduce then admission on the grounds of “merit.” Both prejudice and politics may come into play. Economically strapped minorities have been dependent on reservation in admissions.educationsight.blogspot.com It helps them overcome their educational backwardness and get admitted to technical, professional and other institutions.
Aligarh Muslim University is one example. It has benefited the Muslims in terms of admission to medical and engineering institutions on comparatively low marks. One hopes that they will not be handicapped after the judgment. The central government can empower the university to admit Muslim students straightaway to medical and technical institutions instead of devising methods to do so.
However liberal the government, it is not insulated against politics. At a time when the saffron forces are chipping away at the rights of minorities in the name of doing away with “appeasement,” the pre-eminence of the state as regards the aided institutions can be more of a hassle. It can frame rules that may whittle down the character of minority institutions without making it obvious.
True, the new judgment modifies the supreme court’s earlier verdict (St Stephen’s College case). That judgment had given up to 50 per cent seats to students from the majority community in the aided minority institutions. Now there is no such obligation. But some other requirements depress the minorities. They would have liked to go back to the rest Stephens College criterion, which prevailed from 1950 to 1993.
Article 30 has been reinterpreted. It can be interpreted again after some years. The provision is still the bedrock of minority educational institutions rights. The article says, “They (minorities) have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” It also tells the state not to discriminate against them while granting aid on the grounds that it is under the management of a minority. The right is absolute. There is no proviso to the Article. Unlike the fundament al rights guaranteed by Article 19, it is not subject to reasonable restrictions.
It is subsequent - and not prior - to Article 29, which says that no citizen can be denied admission to the aided institutions on the grounds of religion, race or language. There are valid reasons for a provision like Article 30. After partition the minorities were worried, the Muslims particularly. They felt handicapped because most of the qualified among them had gone to Pakistan. How would the preponderant Hindu majority treat them? The worry of Christians was over the government’s interference in schools and colleges they efficiently ran.
The constitution framers were conscious of such dangers in a polity where the Hindus numbered more than 80 percent. Therefore, the effort was how to ensure that the minorities could pursue their own culture. It was all the more important for a nation that had preferred secularism to a religion based state.
Educational institutions topped the constitution framers’ agenda. The farmers wanted to give the minorities confidence and a feeling of identity against the onslaught of conformism. A nation that had gone through the traumatic experience of division was bold enough to give the minorities educational institutions of their own.
In fact, the first task that engaged the attention of the constituent assembly, which met a few months before independence, was the adoption of the Objectives Resolution on the subject of fundamental rights, minorities, etc. Several subcommittees met to finalize assurances given to the minorities before independence. They adopted what was called the Right to Religious and Cultural Freedom. it was spelled out as: “All citizen are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and to the right to profess and practise religion.”
On education and culture, the constitution framers, who had suffered through years of freedom struggle, were clear. The society they had in view was pluralistic and hence required to give special attention to minorities. The draft was prepared accordingly. It came to be adopted later as Article 30. The draft said: “All minorities whether based on religion, community or language, shall be free in any unit (part of the country) to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The state will not, while providing state aid, discriminate against schools under the management of minorities rather based on religion, community or language.
It is a pity that many madrassahs have misused Article 30. Now that the education imparted there is on the mend, the government would do well to leave them alone. The Muslim community itself should see to it that the madrassahs teach more science and humanities than religion.
The supreme court has left the unaided institutions alone. The danger in such a step is that higher educational becomes a preserve of the elite. True, the capitation fee will go. But it will come back under some other name. Admission may become so expensive that ordinary persons will not be able to afford it. Money will come to play a bigger role than merit. The judgment says that the procedure for admission should be “fair and transparent.” When the unaided institutions are allowed to lay down procedures of their own, as the supreme court has done, the dice is loaded against an ordinary person. The institutions will see to it that h does not rub shoulders with the sophisticated rich. The constitution, which has “socialism’ in its preamble, cannot afford to be feudal in its educational policy. The judgment once again underlines the necessity of brother judges on the constitutional benches sitting together to come to some unanimity. The chief justice himself wrote the main judgment. But four other judgments were written by different judges to give their interpretations. In handing down so many individual opinions, the court provides disturbing proof of its own confusion.
Incidentally, I have felt horrified over Karnataka chief minister S.M. Krishna’s defence of his nonchalant attitude towards he supreme court on the Cauvery water dispute. In a press interview he has said that being a lawyer he was careful which words to use while facing the contempt notice. The question was about not releasing water to Tamil Nadu despite the, supreme court’s orders to do so. He defied them till the rains came. He can say that he got away with the disobedience of the supreme court but he should not take credit for being “clever.” The court was too lenient with him.
The point Krishna has to consider is that if chief minister does not respect the institutions and the supreme court is one of them why he should imagine that the public should. Maybe, he is reminding the nation that his leader, Mrs Indira Gandhi, made mincemeat, of institutions during the emergency and that he too did not care for them. He is mistaken. She paid the price when she was ousted from power. Krishna is taking the credit too soon. He should wait for the outcome of the next election.
Although the states interference is minimal, the BJP-run governments can play mischief. Since there is no assured quota for students from the minorities; the state can drastically reduce then admission on the grounds of “merit.” Both prejudice and politics may come into play. Economically strapped minorities have been dependent on reservation in admissions.educationsight.blogspot.com It helps them overcome their educational backwardness and get admitted to technical, professional and other institutions.
Aligarh Muslim University is one example. It has benefited the Muslims in terms of admission to medical and engineering institutions on comparatively low marks. One hopes that they will not be handicapped after the judgment. The central government can empower the university to admit Muslim students straightaway to medical and technical institutions instead of devising methods to do so.
However liberal the government, it is not insulated against politics. At a time when the saffron forces are chipping away at the rights of minorities in the name of doing away with “appeasement,” the pre-eminence of the state as regards the aided institutions can be more of a hassle. It can frame rules that may whittle down the character of minority institutions without making it obvious.
True, the new judgment modifies the supreme court’s earlier verdict (St Stephen’s College case). That judgment had given up to 50 per cent seats to students from the majority community in the aided minority institutions. Now there is no such obligation. But some other requirements depress the minorities. They would have liked to go back to the rest Stephens College criterion, which prevailed from 1950 to 1993.
Article 30 has been reinterpreted. It can be interpreted again after some years. The provision is still the bedrock of minority educational institutions rights. The article says, “They (minorities) have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice.” It also tells the state not to discriminate against them while granting aid on the grounds that it is under the management of a minority. The right is absolute. There is no proviso to the Article. Unlike the fundament al rights guaranteed by Article 19, it is not subject to reasonable restrictions.
It is subsequent - and not prior - to Article 29, which says that no citizen can be denied admission to the aided institutions on the grounds of religion, race or language. There are valid reasons for a provision like Article 30. After partition the minorities were worried, the Muslims particularly. They felt handicapped because most of the qualified among them had gone to Pakistan. How would the preponderant Hindu majority treat them? The worry of Christians was over the government’s interference in schools and colleges they efficiently ran.
The constitution framers were conscious of such dangers in a polity where the Hindus numbered more than 80 percent. Therefore, the effort was how to ensure that the minorities could pursue their own culture. It was all the more important for a nation that had preferred secularism to a religion based state.
Educational institutions topped the constitution framers’ agenda. The farmers wanted to give the minorities confidence and a feeling of identity against the onslaught of conformism. A nation that had gone through the traumatic experience of division was bold enough to give the minorities educational institutions of their own.
In fact, the first task that engaged the attention of the constituent assembly, which met a few months before independence, was the adoption of the Objectives Resolution on the subject of fundamental rights, minorities, etc. Several subcommittees met to finalize assurances given to the minorities before independence. They adopted what was called the Right to Religious and Cultural Freedom. it was spelled out as: “All citizen are equally entitled to freedom of conscience and to the right to profess and practise religion.”
On education and culture, the constitution framers, who had suffered through years of freedom struggle, were clear. The society they had in view was pluralistic and hence required to give special attention to minorities. The draft was prepared accordingly. It came to be adopted later as Article 30. The draft said: “All minorities whether based on religion, community or language, shall be free in any unit (part of the country) to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. The state will not, while providing state aid, discriminate against schools under the management of minorities rather based on religion, community or language.
It is a pity that many madrassahs have misused Article 30. Now that the education imparted there is on the mend, the government would do well to leave them alone. The Muslim community itself should see to it that the madrassahs teach more science and humanities than religion.
The supreme court has left the unaided institutions alone. The danger in such a step is that higher educational becomes a preserve of the elite. True, the capitation fee will go. But it will come back under some other name. Admission may become so expensive that ordinary persons will not be able to afford it. Money will come to play a bigger role than merit. The judgment says that the procedure for admission should be “fair and transparent.” When the unaided institutions are allowed to lay down procedures of their own, as the supreme court has done, the dice is loaded against an ordinary person. The institutions will see to it that h does not rub shoulders with the sophisticated rich. The constitution, which has “socialism’ in its preamble, cannot afford to be feudal in its educational policy. The judgment once again underlines the necessity of brother judges on the constitutional benches sitting together to come to some unanimity. The chief justice himself wrote the main judgment. But four other judgments were written by different judges to give their interpretations. In handing down so many individual opinions, the court provides disturbing proof of its own confusion.
Incidentally, I have felt horrified over Karnataka chief minister S.M. Krishna’s defence of his nonchalant attitude towards he supreme court on the Cauvery water dispute. In a press interview he has said that being a lawyer he was careful which words to use while facing the contempt notice. The question was about not releasing water to Tamil Nadu despite the, supreme court’s orders to do so. He defied them till the rains came. He can say that he got away with the disobedience of the supreme court but he should not take credit for being “clever.” The court was too lenient with him.
The point Krishna has to consider is that if chief minister does not respect the institutions and the supreme court is one of them why he should imagine that the public should. Maybe, he is reminding the nation that his leader, Mrs Indira Gandhi, made mincemeat, of institutions during the emergency and that he too did not care for them. He is mistaken. She paid the price when she was ousted from power. Krishna is taking the credit too soon. He should wait for the outcome of the next election.
No comments:
Post a Comment