Supreme Court on Sanskrit-KVS controversy: Blunting the outrage factory
Supreme Court of India
Writing for Niti Central, this author has earlier explained at length what the entire matter was all about. The manner in which this decision was misinterpreted and distorted by some sections betrayed a sense of ignorance. The Three Language Formula that the Congress government devised back in the 1960s did not contain the option of having a foreign language.
Despite this, MoU was entered into between KVS and Goethe-Institute Max Mueller Bhawan in 2011 in the presence of UPA’s MoS (HRD) which sought to offer German as the third language in KVS schools. Note that Congress-led UPA could have changed the three language policy itself and then introduced German. It could have addressed the nation on the importance of German for Indian school students and why the three language formula needed change.
But it didn’t. Instead, without officially changing the policy, UPA took this step.
The term of the MoU being three years, it came up for renewal in end
of August this year. August is, indeed, bang in the middle of the
academic term. Ms. Irani, therefore, had to decide whether to continue
with this violation of the Union’s three language formula to avoid a
mid-term change, or to take a bold stand to end this infirmity.She chose the latter and was roundly criticized for it. What was bizarre was the fact that most of the criticism was based on a conjured up charge against her of ‘saffronising’ education by replacing German – a ‘modern’ and ‘global’ language – with Sanskrit – an ‘ancient’ and ‘obsolete’ language. As this author again explained, Ms. Irani’s decision was to end the violation of government’s own policy.
It wasn’t a simple case of replacing Sanskrit with German as most ignoramuses saw it as. German could not be the third language and was, therefore, made as an optional language still available to students who desired to learn it. What became the third language was Sanskrit or any other modern Indian language – exactly as the three language formula required.
And this, as we will see, was exactly how SC saw it too.
The real question – which eluded most critics obsessed with saffronisaton – was how the mid-term change would affect students in Classes 6, 7 and 8 who studied German since the MoU came into effect. That’s what SC focused on solely – how to ensure that students are not adversely affected.
It disposed of the petition challenging Ms. Irani’s decision with the following measures:
– In the current academic session (2014-2015), there wouldn’t be any examination/assessment for Sanskrit language for students in Classes 6, 7 and 8;
– Students who were already learning German language as the third language would take the examination/assessment for current academic session as an optional language;
– From the next academic session, students of Classes 6, 7 and 8 will take examination in Sanskrit or any other modern Indian language as the third language;
– Those students who wanted to continue to learn German could be free to do so as an optional subject;
Here is the link to the judgment.
The underlined portions clearly convey that the three-judge Bench of the Supreme Court (Justice Anil Dave, Justice Kurian Joseph and Justice Arun Mishra) reaffirmed Ms. Irani’s decision to ensure that the third language is Sanskrit or other modern Indian language and German was available an optional subject.
Indeed, while examination in Sanskrit or another modern Indian language wouldn’t be taken in this academic year (given that students would have little time to prepare), examination in German would mean examination in the optional language. Even in taking measures to avoid hardship to students, SC did not think it proper to reverse Ms. Irani’s decision, thus confirming Ms. Irani’s decision to uphold the Union’s three language policy.
With this decision, the apex court has quite clearly blunted the outrage factory that loves to spread fear of a conjured up ‘saffronisation’.
Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this article are the
author's personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the
Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not
responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for
accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in
this article. See details
No comments:
Post a Comment