06-26-2004, 02:49 AM
<b>Did NCERT panel of experts exceed brief? </b>
Navin Upadhyay/ New Delhi
The three-member review committee which decided to recommend scrapping of NCERT books appears to have overstepped its brief and took the controversial decision without consulting the affected authors and identifying the so-called distortions.
<b>The decision has sparked a major controversy with writers like Makhan Lal and Meenakshi Jain, whose books could be dumped if the Government accepts the committee's recommendations. The two writers have attacked the committee for not giving them the chance to present their views and accused it of acting under political pressure</b>.
While constituting the three-member committee comprising S Settar, JS Grewal and Barun De, the Human Resources Ministry had clearly spelt out its mandate through an order dated June 12, 2004.
The order asked the committee to remove "distorted and communally biased" portions and include "short passages which will fill the gap which some of these books are supposed to be having or could develop after removal of the aforesaid mentioned passages."
More importantly, the order clearly stated that "these text books have been mostly printed for the current year and in a substantial number of schools, teaching has already started, based on these books. It is, therefore, impractical to withdraw these books at this stage and replace them with more appropriate books without causing dislocation in the studies of millions of students," the order stated.
Now the point is why the committee did what it was not asked to do. "We decided to recommend scrapping of the books from the current academic session itself because we realised there was an alternative in place. There were books available which could replace the existing ones without any delay," Mr Settar told The Pioneer.
No matter what the committee says, the two writers are all fire and brimstone. In a stinging criticism of the committee overstepping its brief, Ms Jain alleged that "the books have been scrapped to satisfy the Leftist cabal determined to retain its vice-like grip over the rendition of Indian history." Ms Jain is the author of Medieval India for Class XI.
But the committee sought to give its own explanations. On the question of the committee ignoring its second brief on specifically identifying the "communal" and "distorted" passages, Mr Settar said: "It was not necessary because the matter has been debated for over a decade and the facts are well known."
However, <b>Mr Makhan Lal said the committee kept silence on it because they could not locate any such passages. "I challenge them to point out any distortion or communal passage or inadequacy in my books which the committee has come across. If so, I would reply to them from my own writing and also from the writing of Mr Settar himself,"</b> he said.
Mr Lal said the debate on the so-called saffronisation of texts was settled conclusively after the publication of 'Fallacies in the IHC report' in response to the <b>'Index of Errors' brought out by the Left-dominated Indian History Congress</b>. The 'Fallacies in the IHC report' is a NCERT publication which is a point-wise rebuttal to the allegations of errors and distortions in the new NCERT books.
Said <b>Ms Jain: "Why are they shy of identifying those objectionable passages? </b>it is obvious that they could not lay their hands on even one such instance. In all fairness, as an author, whose books are under scrutiny, I should have been given a chance to explain my point of view."
Ms Jain described the committee's decision as an insidious attempt to fragment and erase India's civilisational memory, which has long been the agenda of the Marxist historiography.
Ms Jain was upset that despite her June 18 letter to Mr Settar, where she had promised to provide all cooperation and clarification to the committee, she was not given a chance to present her case. <b>"The whole process of trial and judgement without even a chargesheet and giving opportunity for defence surpasses the fraudulent trials that were the signature tune of the Leninist and Stalinist regimes," </b>she said.
Mr Lal is equally upset over being denied an opportunity to plead his case. "I spoke to Mr Settar on June 21 and said I would like to meet him to clarify if he thought there was any inadequacy in the books. But Mr Settar said he was not meeting anyone," he said.
Mr Lal also said he pleaded with Mr Settar to consider the quality and standard of the book before taking any decision. "I was shocked when Mr Settar said that it is not so much about the quality of books or anything else, but politics. It is obvious he was acting under political pressure," Mr Lal alleged.
When contacted, <b>Mr Settar denied he meant what is being implied by Mr Lal. "I was talking about the political philosophy of the books being scrutinised by us," </b>he said. However, Mr Lal insists that from what he could gather from his talks with Mr Settar, it seemed clear that the committee was determined to overlook the facts and come to a conclusion which suited the "powers that be".
Navin Upadhyay/ New Delhi
The three-member review committee which decided to recommend scrapping of NCERT books appears to have overstepped its brief and took the controversial decision without consulting the affected authors and identifying the so-called distortions.
<b>The decision has sparked a major controversy with writers like Makhan Lal and Meenakshi Jain, whose books could be dumped if the Government accepts the committee's recommendations. The two writers have attacked the committee for not giving them the chance to present their views and accused it of acting under political pressure</b>.
While constituting the three-member committee comprising S Settar, JS Grewal and Barun De, the Human Resources Ministry had clearly spelt out its mandate through an order dated June 12, 2004.
The order asked the committee to remove "distorted and communally biased" portions and include "short passages which will fill the gap which some of these books are supposed to be having or could develop after removal of the aforesaid mentioned passages."
More importantly, the order clearly stated that "these text books have been mostly printed for the current year and in a substantial number of schools, teaching has already started, based on these books. It is, therefore, impractical to withdraw these books at this stage and replace them with more appropriate books without causing dislocation in the studies of millions of students," the order stated.
Now the point is why the committee did what it was not asked to do. "We decided to recommend scrapping of the books from the current academic session itself because we realised there was an alternative in place. There were books available which could replace the existing ones without any delay," Mr Settar told The Pioneer.
No matter what the committee says, the two writers are all fire and brimstone. In a stinging criticism of the committee overstepping its brief, Ms Jain alleged that "the books have been scrapped to satisfy the Leftist cabal determined to retain its vice-like grip over the rendition of Indian history." Ms Jain is the author of Medieval India for Class XI.
But the committee sought to give its own explanations. On the question of the committee ignoring its second brief on specifically identifying the "communal" and "distorted" passages, Mr Settar said: "It was not necessary because the matter has been debated for over a decade and the facts are well known."
However, <b>Mr Makhan Lal said the committee kept silence on it because they could not locate any such passages. "I challenge them to point out any distortion or communal passage or inadequacy in my books which the committee has come across. If so, I would reply to them from my own writing and also from the writing of Mr Settar himself,"</b> he said.
Mr Lal said the debate on the so-called saffronisation of texts was settled conclusively after the publication of 'Fallacies in the IHC report' in response to the <b>'Index of Errors' brought out by the Left-dominated Indian History Congress</b>. The 'Fallacies in the IHC report' is a NCERT publication which is a point-wise rebuttal to the allegations of errors and distortions in the new NCERT books.
Said <b>Ms Jain: "Why are they shy of identifying those objectionable passages? </b>it is obvious that they could not lay their hands on even one such instance. In all fairness, as an author, whose books are under scrutiny, I should have been given a chance to explain my point of view."
Ms Jain described the committee's decision as an insidious attempt to fragment and erase India's civilisational memory, which has long been the agenda of the Marxist historiography.
Ms Jain was upset that despite her June 18 letter to Mr Settar, where she had promised to provide all cooperation and clarification to the committee, she was not given a chance to present her case. <b>"The whole process of trial and judgement without even a chargesheet and giving opportunity for defence surpasses the fraudulent trials that were the signature tune of the Leninist and Stalinist regimes," </b>she said.
Mr Lal is equally upset over being denied an opportunity to plead his case. "I spoke to Mr Settar on June 21 and said I would like to meet him to clarify if he thought there was any inadequacy in the books. But Mr Settar said he was not meeting anyone," he said.
Mr Lal also said he pleaded with Mr Settar to consider the quality and standard of the book before taking any decision. "I was shocked when Mr Settar said that it is not so much about the quality of books or anything else, but politics. It is obvious he was acting under political pressure," Mr Lal alleged.
When contacted, <b>Mr Settar denied he meant what is being implied by Mr Lal. "I was talking about the political philosophy of the books being scrutinised by us," </b>he said. However, Mr Lal insists that from what he could gather from his talks with Mr Settar, it seemed clear that the committee was determined to overlook the facts and come to a conclusion which suited the "powers that be".