Premium

Peter Ronald deSouza writes: Why I withdrew my name from NCERT books

Peter Ronald deSouza writes: NCERT’s revisions ignore the goals with which textbooks were written. It needs to be called out

"I asked for my name to be withdrawn from the TDC because I saw the NCERT’s behaviour, not just its obstinacy, as having serious implications for our working as a constitutional democracy," writes Peter Ronald deSouza. (Representational/ File)

Listen to this article

00:00

1x 1.5x 1.8x

It may seem like a trivial quarrel between some grumpy professors of Political Science and a recalcitrant NCERT. Ego versus ego. I wish it was so straightforward. We could then roll up our sleeves and sort it out. But, unfortunately, the issue is a lot more complicated. The professors write a letter saying they want their names withdrawn from the Textbook Development Committee (TDC). The NCERT says they cannot accept this request because NCERT possesses the copyright. The professors insist, arguing that possessing copyright does not entitle the NCERT to make substantial changes to scholarly texts. The NCERT demurs. They call it “rationalisation”. The chief advisors call it “mutilation”.

I asked for my name to be withdrawn from the TDC because I saw the NCERT’s behaviour, not just its obstinacy, as having serious implications for our working as a constitutional democracy. Such an attitude needed to be called out.

Important issues are involved, such as the place and role of textbooks in nation-making, the process to be followed when producing them, the pedagogic strategy to be adopted, the significance of autonomous knowledge-producing institutions in a democratic society, the qualities of their institutional leadership, the disconnect of the NCERT from its original mission and vision, the relationship between government and the NCERT, and, of course, underlying it all, the big issue of the balance between ideology and truth. The NCERT’s actions, it became clear to me, cavalierly disregarded these concerns. I hence needed to dissociate my name from the TDC.

In what follows I shall discuss only three of the above aspects: One, the objectives of the textbooks and the pedagogic strategy developed to achieve them; two, the process of revision to be followed so that the original integrity of the textbooks is maintained; three, the place of NCERT-like organisations in our constitutional democracy.

Also read | ‘Embarrassed to be associated with these textbooks’: Advisors ask NCERT to drop their names from Pol Science books

On the invitation of the chief advisors, I joined the TDC because I saw textbook-writing as central to citizenship education in India when seen from the finest Deweyan tradition. Our group of political scientists from different political persuasions and regions of India, by coming together to write textbooks, were signaling a firm commitment to the values of our republic. We chose topics to be studied, discussed their sequencing, identified political events to be highlighted — such as the Emergency, Gujarat riots, Cold War, challenges to democracy. These were carefully chosen after considerable debate. It is the only way to write textbooks.

The NCERT’s revisions ignored these goals. For them it was just a contract between the institution and a contributor. It was not a mission of building democratic citizens. A job had to be done and now that it was completed the professors were redundant. On its website, the NCERT announced that the “terms of these Textbook Development Committees (TDCs) have ended since the date of their first publication. However, NCERT acknowledges their academic contribution and only because of this, for the sake of record, publishes names of all Textbook Development Committee (TDC) members in each of its textbooks.” Hello, hello. Is that it?

The NCERT also acknowledged that the TDCs “were purely academic in nature”. If the process was “purely academic” then who determined the “revisions”? For example, who decided in the Class 10 textbook on Democratic Politics II, to drop Chapter 3 “Democracy and Diversity”, or images, 46, 48 and 49, in Chapter 4 on “Gender, Religion and Caste”, or the full Chapter 5 titled “Popular struggles and Movements”, or, more curiously, the full Chapter 8 titled “Challenges to Democracy’’? What were the arguments given for such decisive revisions of images, pages, chapters? Were they done internally by NCERT officials, or by ministry officials, or by external academics, or by politicians? Publish the names of the people who decided these revisions. Let the public know. And these are the revisions in only one textbook.

Allied to this is the second issue: How were the revisions done? Was it by committee in deliberative mode deciding on what should go and what should stay? We followed that method when we wrote the original textbook. There is a certain sanctity to the process of production. The NCERT textbooks are the standard for textbooks produced by commercial publishers and states. Does this matter to the current leadership of the NCERT, are issues of the integrity of the changes central to the process? Or is it just a chalta hai institutional culture? What is the logic of this “rationalisation”? A look at the list of “rationalised content” on the NCERT website makes one very sad. How did we get here?

Also read | JNU VC on NCERT deletions: There is no conspiracy

Which brings me to the third reason for my request for withdrawal. The NCERT was set up in 1961, by bringing together seven organisations, such as the Central Institute of Education, the Central Bureau of Textbook Research, the Central Bureau of Educational and Vocational Guidance, the Directorate of Extension Programmes for Secondary Education, the National Institute of Basic Education, the National Fundamental Education Centre, and the National Institute of Audio-Visual Education. It was supposed to assume the functions of these seven organisations, and more. Set up under The Societies Act, which means it has its own Governing Body (GB) and budget, it is supposed to be “autonomous”. The NCERT is not a department of government. Government only selects the director and has its nominees on the GB. The decision of “rationalisation” shows either that the NCERT does not value its autonomy or its leadership does not understand its place in a democracy. For the NCERT’s sake, and other similar knowledge-producing bodies, we must call out this damaging behaviour. The political science textbooks were a small opportunity to do so. India deserves better.

Just a footnote: It is ironic that the NCERT has chosen the word “rationalisation” to describe what it is doing. The word has two meanings. The first refers to actions that are logical, systematic, consistent, coherent, reasoned. The second refers to post facto justification for irrational choices and actions that are made. NCERT intends the first. It has, unfortunately, performed the second.

Peter Ronald deSouza writes: Why I withdrew my name from NCERT books

Peter Ronald deSouza writes: NCERT’s revisions ignore the goals with which textbooks were written. It needs to be called out

40 Years Ago

EXPRESS OPINION

Best of Express

Must Read

More Explained

Jun 20: Latest News