The government’s new National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 seems to be a wanton exercise in futility. The fact that the NEP, an item in the BJP’s 2014 election manifesto, could take shape only in 2020 shows that the government itself is unsure of its education policy. Two, the NEP was not placed before, or debated or approved by Parliament. Three, there is no efficacy in increasing the tenure of undergraduate courses and watering down postgraduate programmes. There is no robust reasoning for any of these changes. It is the same as far as the sudden abolition of an erudite study like the M.Phil programme is concerned. Instead, Classes 11-12 could have been revamped for collegiate education such as the re-introduction of the former pre-university course and pre-medical course, and introducing afresh a pre-engineering course or pre-legal course. The only redeemable feature of the NEP is that it does not disturb the three-language formula system.

Ramanathapuram, Tamil Nadu

The first thing that strikes the eye is the proposed Higher Education Commission of India that dispenses with every other autonomous regulator in the sector. Notwithstanding its unconcealed proclivity for ideological ascendancy on education per se, the BJP, in NEP, has but added frills to the 1986 Education policy without altering the main motif. The continuity is welcome. In doing away with rigid separations between arts, commerce and sciences; curricular and extra-curricular activities; vocational and academic streams, the rehashed policy is akin to converting overnight medical clinics to multispeciality hospitals. Students would now select subjects across the streams . This would exponentially drive the needs be it infrastructure, funds, quantity, variety and quality of faculty. Taken together, the management of such involved matrix of matching each course to resources, would need first-rate professional administration. Our education spend is to be boosted. Our enduring incapacity to improve our health-care spend has been mercilessly exposed by COVID-19. One hopes the government has the will to fund two major sectors simultaneously.

Navi Mumbai

I write this as a retired Judge of the Madras High Court. Contempt of court is a kind of ‘nuclear arsenal’ which courts unleash without accountability. One has only to observe what happened in the case of former Chief Minister of Kerala E.M.S. Namboodiripad and author Arundhati Roy. Has the dignity of courts risen one bit? No. When a person wanted the Supreme Court of India to initiate contempt proceedings against then Law Minister P. Shivashankar for “making statements against the Supreme Court which are derogatory to its dignity, attributing this Court with partiality towards affluent sections, and in language which is extremely intemperate and undignified”, the Court instead chose the path of calling for institutional introspection. It is worth reading the chapter, ‘Contempt of Court’, by Supreme Court judge O. Chinappa Reddy in his book, The Court and the Constitution of India: Summits and Shallows. Here, the learned Judge has noted that the Supreme Court has held that criticism of a decision however strong and stinging should not be the subject matter of contempt. A litigious judge is not a free judge, he adds. Hence, the proceedings against lawyer- activist Prashant Bhushan should be dropped in keeping with constitutional values.

Chennai