Debate and dissent are cornerstones of any robust democracy, particularly when it comes to the mechanisms that shape a nation’s future through education, representation, and cultural cohesion. Against this turbulent backdrop, the recent statements of Congress MP Manickam Tagore have spurred heated dialogue about the direction of India’s National Education Policy, representation via the delimitation process, and the enduring tensions between societal unity and division. The underlying theme is unmistakable: Who gets to define India's future? And, more pressingly, whose interests are served by the policies and narratives that guide education, politics, and community identity?
The National Education Policy (NEP) in India has been positioned as a transformative roadmap for the next generation, yet its implementation has generated fierce controversy, nowhere more evident than in the remarks by Manickam Tagore. As a Congress Member of Parliament, Tagore’s warnings are unambiguous—he believes the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) seeks to “hijack” the country’s education system, reshaping it in ways that could fundamentally alter not just learning, but the very fabric of Indian society.
Such apprehensions echo wider worries about the politicization of Indian curricula. Critics fear that prioritizing certain historical narratives or language preferences—such as the reported push to promote Hindi, which Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. K. Stalin recently decried—risks alienating non-Hindi speaking states and watering down multicultural representation. Education, after all, doesn’t just impart knowledge; it shapes identities and loyalties. If curricular content leans toward any ideology, the argument goes, it could marginalize minorities and stoke social fissures that echo throughout generations.
Yet, it is important to understand that comprehensive consultation is both a political and logistical challenge. With India’s sheer diversity of languages, cultures, and regional histories, forging consensus is never straightforward. Delays and policy paralysis are risks—but many would argue these are preferable to the prospect of alienating entire communities.
Fear underpins much of the opposition criticism. Tagore conveys apprehension that the same playbook might be used for the next national delimitation. Instead of bolstering trust and fairness, he argues, such moves risk entrenching inequity and fueling regional resentments.
The crux, according to Tagore, is consultation and consensus. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge’s pledge to coordinate with other opposition chief ministers suggests mounting efforts to create a unified response. The underlying goal is to counteract what they see as central overreach and ensure changes reflect the will and diversity of all states, not just the priorities of the political center.
The reality of festival-related disputes—sometimes stoked by online misinformation or inflammatory political statements—is that they can rapidly escalate. In the context of a diverse, multi-religious electorate, any suggestion that one group’s celebrations or beliefs are being privileged over another’s becomes highly combustible. Tagore’s pledge that “Nafrat ka bazar nahi chalne denge” (“We will not let the market of hatred thrive”) is, therefore, a direct response to a widely shared anxiety: that religious differences might be manipulated for political gain.
The particular danger in India’s context is how deeply such politicization could cut, given the nation’s scale and diversity. Education systems capable of impartiality foster scientific temperament, critical thinking, and unity. Delimitation exercises conducted transparently uphold the legitimacy of democratic representation. Any deviation—real or perceived—has the potential to provoke unrest or delegitimize state authority in the eyes of millions.
Tagore’s plea for “consultation with all parties” may sound idealistic, but it is rooted in the recognition that top-down policies often overlook those at society’s margins. The challenge is ensuring that inclusiveness is more than a buzzword—and manifests tangibly in decision-making processes.
India’s democracy is remarkably resilient, but its strength depends on the continued belief—however tested—that institutions can be trusted to serve the public interest. Tagore’s interventions, whether or not one agrees with his specifics, underscore the essential need for transparent and accountable governance.
If acted upon, this preference for collective decision-making could help mitigate the worst excesses of partisanship and counteract burgeoning regional or linguistic fault lines.
At their best, these debates can foster a more inclusive, responsive, and self-aware polity—a nation comfortable with its complexity and confident in its diversity. At their worst, they risk entrenching divisions so deep that governance itself is rendered a partisan battleground rather than a vehicle for common good.
India’s future will not be written by any one party or ideology. It will emerge, messily and haltingly, from the interplay of voices like Tagore’s, counter-arguments from the government, and—most crucially—the input of ordinary citizens. As the next chapters of this story unfold, the essential question remains: Will the country’s education, representation, and social bonds be forged in the crucible of dialogue, or fractured by the forces of exclusion and politicization?
The answer will shape not just textbooks and electoral boundaries, but the everyday lives of over a billion people. That, more than any party political point, is the true scale of what’s at stake.
Source: www.lokmattimes.com RSS wants to hijack education system: Congress MP Manickam Tagore - www.lokmattimes.com
The National Education Policy (NEP) in India has been positioned as a transformative roadmap for the next generation, yet its implementation has generated fierce controversy, nowhere more evident than in the remarks by Manickam Tagore. As a Congress Member of Parliament, Tagore’s warnings are unambiguous—he believes the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS) seeks to “hijack” the country’s education system, reshaping it in ways that could fundamentally alter not just learning, but the very fabric of Indian society.RSS and the Politics of Pedagogy
To grasp the full weight of Tagore’s concerns, it’s essential to recognize the legacy and agenda of the RSS. With roots in promoting a vision of Hindu cultural identity and nationalism, the RSS wields significant ideological influence over the current Indian government led by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP). Tagore alleges that the RSS attempts to “capture the education” system, projecting a scenario where educational content is not merely about math, science, or history, but shaped to reinforce cultural and political narratives that could sow division.Such apprehensions echo wider worries about the politicization of Indian curricula. Critics fear that prioritizing certain historical narratives or language preferences—such as the reported push to promote Hindi, which Tamil Nadu Chief Minister M. K. Stalin recently decried—risks alienating non-Hindi speaking states and watering down multicultural representation. Education, after all, doesn’t just impart knowledge; it shapes identities and loyalties. If curricular content leans toward any ideology, the argument goes, it could marginalize minorities and stoke social fissures that echo throughout generations.
The Perils and Promise of Consultation
Tagore insists that any education policy must be constructed via broad-based consultation, imploring the government to involve all stakeholders. This call is not merely procedural—it’s a demand for safeguarding pluralism. Decisions that affect millions of young minds should, he argues, transcend partisan lines. Only through such inclusive dialogue, Tagore and other opposition voices contend, can education serve as a bridge rather than a fault line in Indian society.Yet, it is important to understand that comprehensive consultation is both a political and logistical challenge. With India’s sheer diversity of languages, cultures, and regional histories, forging consensus is never straightforward. Delays and policy paralysis are risks—but many would argue these are preferable to the prospect of alienating entire communities.
Delimitation Debates: The Battle for Fair Representation
Parallel to the educational flashpoint is the equally contentious issue of delimitation, the process through which political representation is allocated based on population.Assam, Jammu and Kashmir, and the Anxiety of Precedent
Delimitation is supposed to ensure that every citizen’s vote carries roughly equal weight. In practice, the mechanics of where lines are drawn can profoundly affect which parties, communities, and regions wield power—the stakes could hardly be higher. Tagore and his allies are especially wary given recent exercises in Jammu and Kashmir and Assam, where many perceived the process as rushed, non-transparent, or designed to benefit the central government’s political fortunes.Fear underpins much of the opposition criticism. Tagore conveys apprehension that the same playbook might be used for the next national delimitation. Instead of bolstering trust and fairness, he argues, such moves risk entrenching inequity and fueling regional resentments.
Calls for Equitable and Inclusive Approaches
The Congress leader emphasizes that population growth—often uneven across states—must be handled judiciously in delimitation. “Equitable representation” is the guiding principle he invokes. States with rapid population growth have legitimate claims to greater representation, but if the process is politicized, those gains could be undermined or weaponized.The crux, according to Tagore, is consultation and consensus. Congress President Mallikarjun Kharge’s pledge to coordinate with other opposition chief ministers suggests mounting efforts to create a unified response. The underlying goal is to counteract what they see as central overreach and ensure changes reflect the will and diversity of all states, not just the priorities of the political center.
Festivals and Fracture: The Holi-Ramzan Divide
India’s social cohesion often comes under strain during major religious festivals, and the same pattern emerges in Tagore’s recent comments. Referring specifically to the simultaneous timing of Holi and Ramzan, the MP accuses the RSS of deliberately sowing discord along communal lines.The Dangers of the “Divide and Rule” Narrative
Tagore’s rhetoric draws a direct line between the colonial-era “divide and rule” strategies used by the British and what he perceives as the RSS’s current maneuvers. The comparison is provocative, implicitly accusing the organization of undermining India’s tradition of syncretism.The reality of festival-related disputes—sometimes stoked by online misinformation or inflammatory political statements—is that they can rapidly escalate. In the context of a diverse, multi-religious electorate, any suggestion that one group’s celebrations or beliefs are being privileged over another’s becomes highly combustible. Tagore’s pledge that “Nafrat ka bazar nahi chalne denge” (“We will not let the market of hatred thrive”) is, therefore, a direct response to a widely shared anxiety: that religious differences might be manipulated for political gain.
Beyond Accusations: Can India Move Past the Binary?
While it is common for opposition leaders to blame the ruling party or its ideological affiliates for social strife, genuine healing requires more than rhetoric. Tagore’s critique prompts a broader question: What does it take to foster a culture where festivals are sources of shared joy rather than polarization? State policy, educational content, and political language all have roles to play—but so too does proactive community engagement and citizen-to-citizen dialogue.Underlying Risks in the Current Climate
A close reading of Tagore’s criticisms, however impassioned, reveals several broader systemic risks facing India’s body politic.Politicization of Institutions
Whether discussing the NEP or delimitation, the specter of institutional capture looms large. Tagore’s warnings about the RSS resonate with those who fear that once-neutral institutions—including educational boards and electoral commissions—could tilt toward political objectives. This is not a concern restricted to any one country; globally, democracies face the challenge of keeping public institutions impartial.The particular danger in India’s context is how deeply such politicization could cut, given the nation’s scale and diversity. Education systems capable of impartiality foster scientific temperament, critical thinking, and unity. Delimitation exercises conducted transparently uphold the legitimacy of democratic representation. Any deviation—real or perceived—has the potential to provoke unrest or delegitimize state authority in the eyes of millions.
Exclusion and Marginalization
Both in education and political representation, exclusion is an ever-present threat. Changes in school curricula can result in the erasure of regional or minority history, while skewed delimitation can diminish the voices of already disadvantaged communities.Tagore’s plea for “consultation with all parties” may sound idealistic, but it is rooted in the recognition that top-down policies often overlook those at society’s margins. The challenge is ensuring that inclusiveness is more than a buzzword—and manifests tangibly in decision-making processes.
The Erosion of Trust
Perhaps the gravest risk is the corrosion of public trust. When citizens believe policies are formulated without transparency or as vehicles for consolidating political power, cynicism and alienation fester. Over time, this disillusionment can manifest in everything from disengagement with electoral processes to radicalization and unrest.India’s democracy is remarkably resilient, but its strength depends on the continued belief—however tested—that institutions can be trusted to serve the public interest. Tagore’s interventions, whether or not one agrees with his specifics, underscore the essential need for transparent and accountable governance.
Notable Strengths in the Opposition’s Approach
Balanced against these warnings are some strengths and opportunities latent in Tagore’s and the broader opposition’s responses.Emphasis on Consensus-Building
Repeated references to “consultation” and pan-state dialogue reflect a commitment—at least rhetorically—to consensus-driven politics. While the efficacy of such approaches is always subject to political will and realpolitik, their articulation signals an intent to lower the temperature in polarizing debates.If acted upon, this preference for collective decision-making could help mitigate the worst excesses of partisanship and counteract burgeoning regional or linguistic fault lines.
Highlighting Regional and Linguistic Diversity
In standing up for states like Tamil Nadu and rejecting what he perceives as a “Hindi imposition,” Tagore speaks to a broad base concerned with the preservation of regional languages and cultures. This resonates not just politically, but also culturally, reinforcing India’s federal character and multilingual ethos. For many, this is more than a point of pride—it is a bulwark against cultural homogenization.Adapting Historical Lessons
By invoking historical analogies—whether to colonial tactics or recent political decisions—Tagore situates current disputes in a broader context. This ability to frame contemporary issues against the backdrop of history is valuable, encouraging voters and policymakers to weigh present developments with an eye to their long-term consequences.Navigating the Path Forward: A Delicate Balance
India’s composite culture and federated political system demand a nuanced approach to policymaking—one that can balance national aspirations with regional realities. The issues spotlighted in Tagore’s remarks exemplify how challenging this can be.Practical Recommendations Amidst the Rhetoric
To move beyond stalemate and suspicion, several practical steps suggest themselves:- Institutional Transparency: Whether for curriculum development or delimitation, public processes and visible oversight are paramount. Independent commissions, open consultations, and the publication of detailed rationales for decisions are hallmarks of healthy democracies.
- Inclusion of Multiple Stakeholders: True consultation involves more than just political parties. Civil society, educators, community leaders, and student representatives should all contribute to debates about education and representation.
- Promotion of Civic Nationalism: Curricula can be crafted to promote constitutional values, pluralism, and critical thinking without diminishing regional or religious identities. Modeling such an approach could help inoculate young generations against divisive rhetoric.
- Continuous Dialogue: Mechanisms for ongoing consultation—not just one-off meetings—can help policies remain adaptive and responsive to emerging concerns.
Recognizing the Limits and Potentials of Dissent
Criticism is, by its nature, easier than construction. While Tagore’s remarks highlight real and pressing risks, the opposition must eventually pivot from critique to constructive proposal. Can it articulate a coherent alternative on education? Can it shape a new delimitation formula that balances fairness with political practicality? The answers to such questions will determine not only the fortunes of individual parties, but also the country’s trajectory on unity and diversity.Conclusion: Stakes for India’s Democracy
The debates surrounding the National Education Policy, delimitation, and interfaith relations in India are not merely political disputes; they are fundamentally about the kind of country India aspires to be. Manickam Tagore’s intervention throws into relief both the fragility and the strength of India’s democratic tapestry.At their best, these debates can foster a more inclusive, responsive, and self-aware polity—a nation comfortable with its complexity and confident in its diversity. At their worst, they risk entrenching divisions so deep that governance itself is rendered a partisan battleground rather than a vehicle for common good.
India’s future will not be written by any one party or ideology. It will emerge, messily and haltingly, from the interplay of voices like Tagore’s, counter-arguments from the government, and—most crucially—the input of ordinary citizens. As the next chapters of this story unfold, the essential question remains: Will the country’s education, representation, and social bonds be forged in the crucible of dialogue, or fractured by the forces of exclusion and politicization?
The answer will shape not just textbooks and electoral boundaries, but the everyday lives of over a billion people. That, more than any party political point, is the true scale of what’s at stake.
Source: www.lokmattimes.com RSS wants to hijack education system: Congress MP Manickam Tagore - www.lokmattimes.com
Last edited: