Indian Express Editorial Summary

Editorial Topic : Education in India: A Tug-of-War Between Central Vision and State Autonomy

 GS-2 Mains Exam : Education

Question : Examine the key features of the Pradhan Mantri Schools for Rising India (PM-SHRI) scheme. How does it aim to align with the vision of NEP 2020?

The Promise of Universal Education:

India has made significant strides towards universal education with initiatives like the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) launched in 2001. This program, aiming to get all children in school, has seen appreciable improvement in enrolment rates across the country. However, challenges remain, particularly in improving learning outcomes, infrastructure, teacher training, and equitable access to quality education.

The National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 seeks to address these issues by reforming education from primary to higher secondary levels. It emphasizes student-centric pedagogy, focusing on experiential learning and practical application of knowledge.

Central vs. State Control: The PM-SHRI Scheme

Here’s where things get complicated. The central government, eager to implement the NEP vision, introduced the Pradhan Mantri Schools for Rising India (PM-SHRI) scheme in 2022. This scheme aims to develop 14,500 government schools as model NEP institutions. These schools would showcase all components of NEP, including environment-friendly practices and a focus on learning outcomes.

However, several states, particularly those governed by opposition parties, are pushing back against the PM-SHRI scheme. Here’s why:

• States’ Rights vs. Central Mandates: Some states, like Delhi and Punjab ruled by the AAP (Aam Aadmi Party), argue they already have similar initiatives like “Schools for Excellence.” They see the PM-SHRI scheme as an attempt to centralize control and take credit for their existing efforts.
• Branding Concerns: West Bengal, governed by the TMC (Trinamool Congress), objects to the “PM-SHRI” branding. They argue that despite contributing 40% of the funding, the central government gets all the credit. This highlights the ongoing debate about federalism in India, where states often feel their autonomy is undermined by central government programs.

Caught in the Crossfire: Students and Schools

Unfortunately, this political tug-of-war is impacting students and schools. The central government’s decision to withhold SSA funds for states unwilling to participate in PM-SHRI has created a financial crunch in Delhi, Punjab, and West Bengal. This translates to:

• Delayed Salaries: Teachers and staff salaries in government schools are being held up, impacting their livelihoods.
• Disruptions in Learning: Essential resources like textbooks and uniforms are not being provided, hindering education delivery.
• Stalled Progress: The focus on political one-upmanship threatens to derail efforts to improve learning outcomes in these states, despite some like Delhi showing strides in education.

The Way Forward: Collaboration, not Competition

The key to achieving quality education for all Indian children lies in collaboration, not competition, between the central and state governments. Both parties need to:

• Acknowledge State Efforts: Recognize and build upon existing successful initiatives in different states.
• Focus on Outcomes, Not Branding: Prioritize improving learning outcomes for all students over political branding exercises.
• Increase Flexibility: The central government should offer more flexibility in implementing NEP principles, allowing states to adapt them to their specific contexts.

By working together, the central and state governments can ensure that the promise of quality education becomes a reality for every child in India.

 

 

Indian Express Editorial Summary

Editorial Topic : Critical Look at India’s New Criminal Codes

 GS-2 Mains Exam : Polity

Question : Critically analyze the key changes introduced in the new criminal codes – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA). How do these changes compare to the provisions of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act?

The fanfare surrounding India’s recently introduced criminal codes has given way to scrutiny. Critics argue that these codes, while presented as a major overhaul, are more like a cosmetic makeover. Here’s a breakdown of the key points:

Changes on the Surface, Not in Substance:

• The new codes – Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita (BNSS), and Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam (BSA) – replace the Indian Penal Code (IPC), Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), and Indian Evidence Act, respectively.
• However, a closer look reveals a lack of significant changes. The BNS, for instance, modifies only a third of the IPC provisions, and most changes are minor. Just eight new sections were added, raising questions about the actual impact.
• Restructuring chapters within the BNS further fuels concerns. Critics argue this might be a case of rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic rather than a genuine overhaul.

“Indian” in Name Only?

• The government’s claim of introducing “Indian” laws is contested. The much-criticized sedition law remains, albeit renamed “Deshdroh.” This is seen as a superficial change that ignores demands for its abolition.
• The penalty for sedition has even been increased, contradicting recent Supreme Court directions and raising concerns about stifling free speech. This move is seen as a potential tool for state oppression, especially against those who question authority.

Remand Period:

• The BNSS modifies the permissible remand period for detainees. While the total period remains the same, authorities can now split it into smaller chunks within a specific timeframe.

• This seemingly minor change has sparked debate. Critics argue it creates uncertainty for detainees and increases the potential for harassment. The constant threat of further detention can be psychologically damaging.
• The government defends this change by claiming it allows for more flexibility. However, critics counter that swift and focused investigation should be the norm, eliminating the need for piecemeal detention.

Missed Opportunity for Real Reform:

• The new codes fail to address the critical issue of massive backlogs in the criminal justice system. Courts are overburdened with pending cases, leading to delays and a decline in efficiency.
• The report suggests adopting the “Recorder” system from the UK. Recorders are experienced lawyers who handle less complex cases, expediting the judicial process.
• Additionally, utilizing experienced but less-active senior advocates for temporary judicial roles is proposed as a way to tackle the case backlog.

Conclusion

• The new criminal codes are seen as a disappointment. They fail to deliver on the promise of substantial reform and miss the opportunity to address structural issues plaguing the system.
• The lack of meaningful changes and the absence of a concrete plan to tackle case backlogs leave the dream of a more efficient and just criminal justice system unfulfilled.