NCERT row: Name withdrawal 'spectacle' disrupting curriculum updation, say academics
As many as 73 academicians, including vice chancellors of central universities, NIT directors and IIM chairpersons, on Thursday (June 15) termed the withdrawal of names over the NCERT textbook row a “spectacle” by some “arrogant and self-interested” people.
They also alleged that it was disrupting the much-needed curriculum updation process.
A couple of days earlier, a number of academicians and political scientists, Yogendra Yadav and Suhas Palshikar, who were part of the NCERT’s textbook development committee, had asked the council to drop their names from textbooks over “several substantive revisions of the original texts”.
‘Deliberate attempts to malign NCERT’
The joint statement issued on Thursday night (June 15) alleged that in the past three months, there have been deliberate attempts to malign the NCERT and it reflects the “intellectual arrogance of academicians who want students to study 17-year-old textbooks”.
The signatories to the statement include Vice Chancellors of JNU, Tezpur University, Mahatma Gandhi Central University, The English and Foreign Languages University, Central University of Jharkhand, Ranchi University, Bangalore University, Indira Gandhi National Tribal University, NIT Jalandhar Director, Chairman, Board of Governors, IIM Kashipur, ICSSR secretary, and NIOS chairman, among others.
“In the past three months, there have been deliberate attempts to malign the NCERT, a leading public institution, and disrupt the much-needed process for curriculum updation.
“Academicians trying to capture media attention through this name-withdrawal spectacle seem to have forgotten that textbooks are an outcome of collective intellectual engagement and rigorous efforts,” the statement said.
It added, “The scholars who have suggested the changes in the textbook have not suggested any epistemic rupture in the existing domain of knowledge but just rationalised the course content as per contemporary knowledge need.”
“As regards the decision of who decides what is unacceptable and what is desirable, it is argued that every new generation has the right to make additions/deletion to the existing knowledge base,” the statement added.
NCERT rules out removal of anyone’s name
The National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT), however, had said the withdrawal of anyone’s association is out of question as textbooks at the school level are developed based on knowledge and understanding on a given subject and at no stage individual authorship is claimed.
“Through misinformation, rumours, and false allegations, they want to derail the implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP 2020) and disrupt the updation of NCERT textbooks. Their demand that students continue to study from 17-year-old textbooks rather than updated textbooks in sync with contemporary developments and pedagogical advancement reveals intellectual arrogance,” the joint statement said.
“In their quest to further their political agenda, they are ready to endanger the future of crores of children across the country. While students are eagerly awaiting updated textbooks, these academicians are continuing to create hurdles and derail the entire process,” it said.
Opposition blames the Centre of ‘whitewashing with vengeance’
The dropping of several topics and portions from NCERT textbooks last month triggered a controversy, with the opposition blaming the BJP-led Centre of “whitewashing with vengeance”.
At the heart of the controversy was the fact that while the changes made as part of the rationalisation exercise were notified, some of the controversial deletions were not mentioned. This led to allegations about a bid to delete these portions surreptitiously.
The NCERT had described the omissions as a possible oversight but refused to undo the deletions, saying they were based on the recommendations of experts.
It had also said the textbooks were anyway headed for a revision in 2024, the year when the National Curriculum Framework kicks in. However, it subsequently changed its stand and said “minor changes need not be notified”.
(With inputs from agencies)