Although collective opposition by various State Governments and political parties has forced the BJP-led Government at the Centre to back track on its programme of saffronisation of school education, the defence of Saraswati Vandana by Prime Minister Shri A.B. Vajpayee at the inauguration of the BJP election campaign in Delhi proves beyond any doubt that the Agenda for the Conference not only reflected the secret agenda of the Sangh Parivar but also it was a deliberate political move in the context of the ensuing mini-election. The secret agenda is equally reflected in various changes in school culture, curricula and text-books introduced by the BJP governments in various States in the past and at present as well as in the recent Country Report in Education submitted by the Government of India to the World Education Conference held in Paris under the auspices of the UNESCO.
No one can find fault with Dr. Joshi for having invited the NGO's to submit their views and proposals on educational reforms but it was an act of ideological partisanship on his part to substitute an official presentation on educational reform with an 'unofficial' presentation by the Vidhya Bharti, an NGO known to be affiliated to the RSS. The suggestions, proposals and recommendations submitted by various NGOs could have been compiled and circulated to the participants as additional inputs but not as part of the official agenda.
No one can even find fault with Dr. Joshi, if he had chosen to make 'official' recommendation or proposals which would reflect his ideological predilection or political line. Naturally his ideas would be subject to democratic debate and discussion in the light of the Constitution.
Since school education is primarily the responsibility of the State Governments and even without a national consensus, some States which are controlled by the BJP have been implementing some of the idea enunciated in the official agenda, perhaps they wanted a national endorsement and justification for the continuance and intensification of their programme of saffronisation already initiated.
The cat is out of the bag. The primary purpose of the Government at the Centre is to provide a benevolent umbrella to promote the ideological mission of the RSS, particularly, in the BJP-led States. So far, the secular parties had largely ignored the steady and blatant saffronisation of education in such States. The secular parties have to look closely at the changes already introduced in BJP-governed States like Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan and Gujarat and mobilise public opinion for elimination of the Hindutva elements, in the interests of seeular education. Even the other State Governments should screen their school syllabus and textbooks.
The organised protest by Education Ministers of the States may have derailed Murli Manohar Joshi's ill-conceived but astutely timed bid to saffronise school education in India but it has served to focus on the contradictions and flaws of the secular order in practice, The secular forces have long ignored and slurred over observance of Hindu religious rites on official occasions and permitted slow but steady saffronisation of the state, Time has come to scrutinise all such practices with a clear understanding of the difference between a secular and a theocratic state.
The Sangh parivar never tires of proclaiming the secular character of Hindu Rashtravad, and the 'pan panthic' superiority of Hindu Dharma. In the Indian context, the secular state does not merely acknowledge religion as a social institution and treats all religions with equal respect, but it does not identify itself with any religion, even in the name of culture or associate any religious rites or practices with the conduct of official business - be it the inauguration of an official event, the foundation stone laying of a public project, the launching of a vessel or the commencement of a session of the legislature or of the Council of Ministers. The state has no religion; the State cannot, therefore, act as the defender of the faith or the protector or promoter of a religion. The state protects the rights of various religions and of various religious groups, sects, denominations against violation by individuals or groups and the state adjudicate conflict of interest among them without any tilt, in absolute neutrality.
The Congress had developed its own variety of secularism e.g. recitation of the scriptures of all religions at official functions to prove equal treatment. But in actual practice, obviously on most occasions, the biggest religious group by sheer dominance gets the cake, of sometimes the cake was designed and flavoured to suit the taste of the Chief Guest, who, in most cases happened in profess the majority religion. This practice, therefore tends to accord a 'most favoured religion' treatment to the majority religion and must be abandoned, as it does not serve any purpose except to provide an undue advantage to one religion It is essential to make a distinction between a religious society and the secular state. No one can object in performance of religious rites of one's choice at any private function - organised by an individual or by private institution. Thus the students of all schools l4 North India organise Saraswati Puja, as well as Majlis Milad-un-Nabi which are occasion for demonstrating bolt their religious piety as well as inter-communal fraternisation.
If the official Conference of the State Ministers of Education can be inaugurated with Saraswati Vandana, the next step would be the inauguration of the Parliamentary Session with the recital of Hindu scriptures. Surely Mr. Vajpayee, Dr. Joshi and other leaders of the Sangh Parivar appreciate that the Indian State is not a Hindu state, at least not yet. And they also know that the non-Hindus in India do not believe in Hindu gods or goddesses and regard Saraswati as the goddess of learning or worship her.
Hindu rites cannot be imposed on non-Hindus under the Constitution. Nor does Hinduism permit Hindu rites being imposed on non-Hindus. The Vandana has absolutely no place on an official occasion, if secularism has any meaning Saraswati Vandana - invocation to the Hindu goddess of learning - is a purely religious rite. No non-Hindu worships Saraswati. To make it a part of official agenda is nothing short of identifying the state with Hinduism and of imposing Hindu worship on non-Hindus. If a secular state does so, can it be called secular? When there would one draw the dividing line between the secular state and the Hindu State. What else would a Hindu state do? Why should a Hindu rite take the place of the national anthem at an official function?
The same applies to any invocation or worship of a Hindu god or goddess or even of Bharat Mata or recitation of Vande Mataram under compulsion, if anyone objects to it in good conscience. Certainly the innovation introduced in UP to respond to roll call in classroom with Vande Mataram is designed as a subtle hint to the non-Hindu children to stay away or to accept Hinduisation. In a way, it shuts the doors of education to the non-Hindu children. Why not Jai Hind? Why not the plain 'Yes, Sir'. Obviously, such innovations have a symbolic meaning and serve a political purpose - to assimilate all religions into the fold of Hinduism with state support and to promote Hindu Rashtravad. Is it a permissible function of a secular state?
Apart from the school culture, the Vandana and the Vande Mataram, the textbooks particularly of languages, history and social studies have been progressively Hinduised. Since school education is the responsibility of the State Government, every state under the BJP, particularly in the Hindi-speaking region has experimented with teaching of Sanskrit, virtually as a compulsory language in the place of the Mother Tongue, other than Hindi. Inclusion of Hindu religious texts and myths and legends, even RSS literature, in prescribed Social Studies textbooks of Hindi, distortion of history to generate feelings of hatred and revenge in the young mind at an impressionable stage and even introduction of questionable forms of school drill.
The Sangh parivar aspires to make Sanskrit compulsory at school level. The question arises how many languages can or should a child learn? By any educational logic, he must learn his Mother Tongue; he must learn Hindi as the link language, if it is not his Mother Tongue, and he must learn English as the world language. In a Hindi speaking state, a Hindi-speaking child may take Hindi, another MIL, or Sanskrit. If he so chooses, and English. But a non-Hindi speaking child has no option. He has to learn his Mother Tongue, Hindi and English where is the scope for a 4th language? And why should he be forced to sacrifice his Mother Tongue for Sanskrit, howsoever beautiful, scientific and culture-oriented it may be. The situation is far more difficult in a non-Hindi state for the children of linguistic minorities.
Take a Marathi-speaking child in Karnataka. He must learn Marathi, Kannada and English. But he must also learn Hindi. Now does Dr. Joshi want him to learn a fifth language - Sanskrit? Without going into the merits of the various suggestions made by the BJP-led Government, one would like to emphasise the gross injustice to the linguistic minorities implicit in the proposal to make Sanskrit compulsory from Class III to Class X. However, every child has the right to learn his mother tongue as his first language right up to Class X. He has also the right to have his mother tongue as the medium of instruction at least at the primary level up to Class V. As children of linguistic minorities in every State must also" learn the principal languages of the State at the primary level in order that they can adapt themselves to the principal languages as the medium of instruction at the secondary stage. No linguistic minority objects to the principal language being made the compulsory second language for them at the secondary level under the Three-Language Formula. The addition of Sanskrit at the primary level would add an third language which would become an intolerable burden for any child at the primary level, particularly, for non-Hindi speaking children in non-Hindi States. At the secondary level, compulsory addition of Sanskrit would deprive the linguistic minorities from learning Hindi or English as the third language except at the cost of their mother tongue. This is nothing short of a move to eliminate the mother tongues of linguistic minorities other than Hindi in non-Hindi States. This amounts to cultural genocide and goes against the spirit and letter of the International Covenants and Declarations to which our country is a party and militates against the assurances given to the linguistic minorities by successive Governments since Independence.
Yes, Sanskrit must be promoted. Sanskrit should be available as a classical language or as an optional language for the students who volunteer. But it cannot and should not be made compulsory, in the name of Indian culture, in substitution of the Mother Tongue or the Principal Language of the State or even English.
Another aspiration of the Sangh parivar is to introduce 'moral instruction' or 'spiritual education'. This is indeed a highly sensitive area. One purpose of education no doubt is to instill a moral sense, but this implies inculcation of universal moral and ethical values, common to all religions and cultures, and not the teaching of the texts and scriptures of any particular religion. One sees no objection to moral instruction, if a group of experts including religious scholars could work out a proper curriculum and suitable textbooks for the purpose without making the course a vehicle for Hindu-karan or Shuddhi-karan, for propagation of a particular religion. Religious instruction in government or government-aided schools is indeed against the Constitution. A secular state cannot permit tax payers money to be used for propagation of religion, for teaching the Veda, the Quran and the Bible! Every religious community can make its own arrangement for teaching the fundamentals or the religious rites of its religion to its younger generation in its own private institutions which may supplement the general education in the government or government-aided institutions.
I would like to felicitate the State Governments particularly of Punjab and Andhra Pradesh for objecting to the Agenda. I also appreciate the opposition by the AIADMK leader Jayalalitha and TC leader Mamata Banerjee. This brings to the fore the shameless silence of the so-called 'avid secular parties' like the Samata Party of Fernandes-Nitish Kumar duo.
In the name of teaching the essentials of Indian Culture and Indian Philosophy, what is intended is nothing short of catching them young and brain-washing them through the government educational programme. In actual practice, through selective curricula and texts, the emphasis will be on the Hindu elements in the Indian culture - the Hindu philosophy and the Hindu religion. The curriculum may even include distorted version and misinterpretation of other cultures and religions and the RSS version of Indian history.
The project to 'Indianise, nationalise and spiritualise' education is nothing short of declaration of war against Indian Nationalism, the pluralism of the Indian society, the multi-ethnic character of the Indian State and the secular order. Its objective is assimilation of all religious, cultural and linguistic minorities. The battle has been joined. The BJP's hidden agenda stand exposed. The BJP-government has shown itself to be nothing more than the agent of its ideological guru - the RSS.
New Delhi,
1st December, 1998