*C For Commerce*

*A new Bill seeks to put the constitutional promise of free and quality
education for all at the mercy of market forces, warns **ANIL SADGOPAL*

TODAY, FOR example, if a parent petitions the Court seeking a pupil:teacher
ratio of 1:30 instead of 1:40, or pleads that her child's potential for
music, art or games is not supported since there is no provision for
teachers in these critical areas — in such examples, if the judges see merit
in the petition they may pass a favourable judgment.

This became possible because of the Supreme Court's historic Unnikrishnan
judgment in 1993, which gave all children up to 14 years of age a
Fundamental Right to Education. The Court contended that the Fundamental
Right to Life (Article 21) of the Constitution should be read in "harmonious
construction" with the Directive in Article 45 to provide Free and
Compulsory Education to children of 0-14 years, including those below six
years of age. By implication then, free and equitable education became their
fundamental right.

This judicial framework will be dismantled once the current Draft Right to
Education (RTE) Bill, 2008 becomes an Act. The UPA government was all set to
present this Bill in the Budget Session, but it did not happen. Strangely,
this may turn out to be a blessing in disguise.

The Unnikrishnan judgment sent jitters down the spine of the ruling elite.
It meant that the government would have to reprioritise the Indian economy
in favour of the masses. Even more frightening to the rulers was the
political implication of the entitlement of the masses to education of
equitable quality. They will then be enabled to compete with the privileged
classes and demand their equal share in economic and democratic life.

Since 1993, successive governments at the Centre have tried to undo the
impact of the Unnikrishnan judgment; to dilute and distort the meaning of
the fundamental right to education. This culminated in the 86th
Constitutional Amendment Act (2002). The Act inserted a new Article (21A)
which limited the fundamental right to the 6-14 age group, thereby
disentitling 17 crore children below six years of their right to nutrition,
health and preprimary education. It further stated that free and compulsory
education shall be provided "in such manner as the State may, by law,
determine." This conditionality enables the State to circumscribe the
fundamental right of even the 6-14 age group.

The issue of Right to Education is critically linked to the Common School
System founded on the principle of 'neighbourhood schools'. In 1966, the
Kothari Commission had argued that such a system was necessary to build a
socially cohesive society. All children in a given neighbourhood, drawn from
diverse backgrounds, should be able to study and socialise together in a
common public space. This has been the organising principle of school
education in G-8 countries like the USA, Canada, France, Germany and Japan.

Is it not absurd to even think of a 'right' to unequal and inferior
education? Yet, this is what is provided through the current multilayered
school system. The Draft Bill legitimises the schools that promote
inequality, such as the elite government schools (eg. Kendriya Vidyalayas)
and private unaided schools. This reflects in its provision of 25 percent
reservation of seats in such schools for purportedly 'free' education of the
weaker sections from the neighbourhood. For 75 percent of admitted children,
both the principle of neighbourhood and the fundamental right to free
education stand violated. The 25 percent provision shares its rationale with
the neo-liberal guru Milton Friedman's school vouchers that are meant to
promote private schools out of public funds. The Eleventh Plan also pushes
school vouchers along with public-private partnership. By providing for
shifting of public funds to private schools, the Draft Bill becomes an
instrument of the market forces.

THE PRIME Minister constituted a High Level Group (HLG) comprising the
Finance Minister, Planning Commission's Deputy Chairman, PM's Economic
Advisory Council Chairman and the Human Resource Development Minister. The
HLG concluded that the Centre lacked resources for implementing the RTE Bill
and that it should primarily be a state government responsibility. This
amounts to kowtowing to neo-liberal pressure for abdication of the State's
Constitutional obligation.

A recent Note prepared by the HRD Ministry for the Union Cabinet warns that,
unless the 86th Amendment is immediately enforced through an RTE Act, the
Unnikrishnan judgment covering the 0-14 age group will prevail. This
vindicates this author's decade-old stand that the hidden agenda of 86th
Constitutional Amendment is to snatch away the fundamental right gained by
the children below six years and also to circumscribe, by law, the right
being purportedly given to the 6-14 age group. Yet, the Central government
has balked at introducing even a diluted and distorted Bill (see box). It is
clearly not a matter of lack of resources but of the government's framework
leaning towards neo-liberal policies. This is why it backed out.

The dilemma was underscored at the November 2007 meeting by HLG chairperson
Arjun Singh who suggested that "the only logical way out is to report to the
Prime Minister that the Constitutional Amendment... was legislated in a
hurry without taking into account all the attendant problems." This is
indeed an irony, particularly because all political parties had voted for
the 86th Amendment. It is not unlikely that market forces and neo-liberal
advisers are pressurising the government to repeal the 86th Amendment, but
for the wrong reason

A public campaign is called for to seek replacement of the 86th Amendment by
an Amendment that would give an unconditional fundamental right to children
from birth to 18 years, encompassing early childhood care and pre-primary
education onwards through Class XII. The Right to Education Bill could then
be imbued with a vision of systemic transformation for equality in and
through education, rather than adjusting itself to neo-liberalism. This will
create the framework for building a Common School System in order to forge a
sense of common citizenship for a democratic, egalitarian and secular
society. •

*WRITER'S E-MAIL:*
[EMAIL PROTECTED] <http://www.tehelka.com/writer%27s%20Email>
  *From Tehelka Magazine, Vol 5, Issue 23, Dated June 14, 2008*
 http://www.tehelka.com/story_main39.asp?filename=cr140608cforcommerce.asp

Reply via email to