RTE and the government's responsibilities

With the Supreme Court of India upholding the constitutional validity of the Right to Education (RTE) Act (2009), many human rights' and social organisations are cheering out loud. This, they say, will allow children of economically weaker sections to study in private schools, where tuition costs are definitely higher and perhaps not affordable to all those who are meritorious enough to deserve them. But, the main hurdle, like all other laws of our country, is how to effectively implement this act. The implementation should not unduly burden those students' parents who are legitimately paying their wards' fees, through their hard-earned (and well deserved) salaries. How will the government ensure this?

The government imposes a 2% education cess on all the taxes that we pay (income tax, service tax, etc.). Thus, all those who pay taxes, are already sharing a certain amount of the burden. So, isn't the ball now in the government's court, to put this money to its stated use? If schools begin to pass the burden of those students whom they admit under the RTE Act provisions to the others who have already paid full fees, this situation will lead to double taxation on the families. The Minister for HRD, Kapil Sibal, has said 

...under the RTE Act schools which have not taken any benefit from the government will be compensated by the government...

 But, what has not yet been clarified is what would constitute these 'benefits'. Most education institutes have received land at concessional rates from the government. This is the basic government policy, so that infrastructure costs get lowered and the cost of education does not spiral skywards. Thus, the government has to clearly list the items which would render a school ineligible for such compensation. In the Times of India, HRD Minister Kapil Sibal has written

Reimbursement provided by government, therefore, will be adequate to meet the costs of educating children from weaker sections in such schools. But states must put in place open and transparent systems, preferably online, for reimbursement in a time bound and efficient manner.

Granted that the institutes will be reimbursed student expenditure at a rate decided by the government. But, what is the guarantee that records will not be fudged? Though Mr. Sibal says that most education institutes are run by charitable and religious trusts, many such trusts are headed by politicians, who were part of formulating the RTE Act. Recently, the Maharashtra government decided to conduct an actual head count of the number of students enrolled in government-aided schools. Unsurprisingly, it found that the head count was inflated, in some cases, by more than thrice the actual number of students attending, thereby siphoning government money into the pockets of the schools (and 'charitable' trusts). With these charitable trusts being headed by political persons, we can now realise, where the government's money goes.

In many countries (especially in the developed ones), school education is the state's responsibility. The provincial government runs the schools and functions like the educational institutes in our country. Thus, with the government partially (or fully) subsidising primary education, this reduces the financial stress on parents. Providing education is definitely the responsibility of the government. This has been the case since the beginning of civilisation. In ancient India, education of all sorts received infrastructure and operating support from the state. The sages built and lived in ashrams, which were developed with help from the king/emperor. Universities used to run on support from the empire and the wealthy in the community. This is because an educated society definitely has a better outlook towards life. Educated people can take informed decisions and also realise what it takes to lead a better life. That is why education should be a social issue, not a privilege. By asking unaided schools to share the government's burden the government is trying to shrug off its responsibility. Instead, it should improve and strengthen the government-run schools by introducing better infrastructure and increasing the accountability of the teachers employed.

Mr. Gumaste, Belgaum is not about the city only

By now, most of the net-savvy people must be aware of the border dispute between Maharashtra and Karnataka, related to the district of Belgaum. And every nationalist has something to say against "regionalism" and every regionalist has something to say about the importance of local language and the injustice meted out to the disputed areas in Karnataka. In all this, rediff.com took efforts to publish an article by a common man from Belgaum, Vikas Gumaste. He argues how language shouldn't be at the centre-stage and that development is more important and all other nationalistic and historical clichés.

And of course, I would like to differ with Mr. Gumaste, not only because I am a Maharashtrian, but also be the issue needs deeper thinking than what Mr. Gumaste has written about. He begins the article, bragging about how he cornered a family member with unanswerable questions like

Does it really matter if Belgaum becomes a part of Maharashtra or not? Are you prevented from running Marathi schools or learning Marathi in Belgaum? Do you feel like an outsider when you walk down the streets of Belgaum? And are you discriminated against when you apply for jobs because you speak Marathi?

Well, Mr. Gumaste, it may not matter to you. People might not have been prevented from running Marathi schools. But, what if all state government documents are published in Kannada only? Will your Marathi education help you in grasping all that those documents have to say? Now, you might be able to read the English part of the document, since our governments would be proud in publishing the text in English, but not publish it in a language that is locally dominant. But, what about those people in small towns and villages, where vernacular language is still the dominating medium of instruction? Or where, they do not have people who can speak or understand the impeccable English in government documents? For them, it is most convenient if it is published in Marathi. Now, won't you feel like an outsider, if the government does not give you its documents published in Marathi language?

Then, Mr. Gumaste goes on to point out how he is a Marathi from his father's side, but Kannad from his mother's and hence he is confused about the identity of a Marathi. Well, Mr. Gumaste, for that purpose, we all evolved from monkeys (if you believe in the Theory of Evolution). Does it mean, we forget our regional identities? And you may be of such mixed ancestry, but what about people who know their ancestry upto a large extent? Just as you put forward being confused about what constitutes a Marathi and hence argue that Belgaum need not be a part of Maharashtra, some one can come and argue about being a Marathi and hence Belgaum should be a part of Maharashtra. Yours is an individual case, and a movement cannot be based on individual considerations.

And finally, Mr. Gumaste points out to the provisions in the Official Languages act, 1963 and 1981, which say that "areas where the linguistic minorities constitute 15 per cent or more of the local population arrangements have to be made to translate government circulars, orders, extracts and land records into the minority language." Well, acts in India are good on intention but not on implementation. While local bodies may do that, but what if the state level bodies refuse to do so?

These violations might be open and therefore difficult to commit in the days of news-hungry media channels, but there may be subtle discriminations. Like, enforcing the necessity of Kannada language for state level jobs, or not putting up official boards in Marathi language, etc.

All, in all, Mr. Gumaste, I would like to say that you are skimming the surface. You may never feel discriminated, because you speak English and Kannada, and fortunately, Marathi. But, Belgaum is not only about the city, but hundreds of villages that surround it, where there are people who have no access to English language education and Marathi is probably the only language they know. By forcing Kannada upon them or marginalising them by not accepting Marathi language, the Karnataka government is definitely making a case for the merger of such places with linguistic minorities into Maharashtra.

P.S. Before any reader tries to educate me in nationalism, please realise this: You may feel I am a regionalist and anti-national, but then isn't the Karnataka government too anti-national? When it suppresses the border area people and their aspirations by not accepting Marathi as their medium of communication and hence getting official work done in Marathi too? Isn't it promoting regionalism?And no one raises an eye-brow, when Karnataka government contemplates to make Kannada education compulsory even in CBSE/ICSE schools.

Acts and Penal Codes in India

The Indian Constitution and legal administration is one of the most comprehensive collections in the world. Legislative acts and the IPC cover almost every aspect of life in India. And they are planning to cover more. But, apart from the seriousness of these acts, and penal codes they have a funny side too. Their names sound funny, the aspect they cover sometimes sounds funny and sometimes, their existence itself sounds funny. Here is a list of a few acts and IPC sections, which might tickle your funny bone

1. COFEPOSA: Does this sound like your neighbourhood coffee shop? Not your fault entirely. It stands for Conservation of Foreign Exchange and Prevention of Smuggling Activities Act. Enacted in 1974.
2. MISA: Maintenance of Internal Security Act. Enacted in 1973, by Indira Gandhi. It was then repealed by the Janata government in 1977. Lalu Prasad Yadav named his daughter Misa Bharti, after this act, as she was born when he was in jail under this act.
   
3. Sarais Act, 1867: Enacted to regulate the sarais or inns in India. It has peculiar provisions. Under this act, it is compulsory for any inn-keeper or provider of food in his premises, to serve water free of cost. Sometime back, a five-star hotel was pulled in the Supreme Court for violation of this act. Also, the inn-keeper has to make provisions of space and amenities to bullocks, camels and horses. So, if anybody refuses to park your animal, you can take them to court.
4. Bengal Districts Act, 1836: In short, this act gives the Bengal government the power to create as many districts as it wants in its state. It is still in place.
5. Sections 44, 45 and 46: These sections of the IPC define the words injury, life and death respectively. The word "death" as per section 46 applies to the death of a human, unless the contrary appears from the context.
6. Section 375: This section defines the word "rape". However, under this section, only a man can rape a woman and not vice-versa.
7. Fort William Act, 1881: An act that makes provisions to provide for the better governence of Fort William, Calcutta. Covers lot of peculiar things, such as soil removal in unauthorised hours, beating drums or tom-toms, servants smoking hookahs in their masters' house, etc.
8. Hackney-carriage Act, 1879: It was formulated to regulate the hackney-carriages in some areas of British India. Wonder, where are hackney-carriages used anymore?
9. Kazis Act, 1880: It sets the rules for the government to appoint any person to the post of Kazi.
10. Sheriffs' Fees Act, 1850: An act for deciding the clauses for remuneration of the sheriffs of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras.
11. Sir Dinshaw Maneckji Petit Act, 1893 and Sir Jamshetji Jejeebhoy Baronetcy Act, 1915: Tried to find information on these, but couldn't get any. These are probably the only two acts in India, named after two persons.
12. MCOCA: Does this also sound like your neighbourhood hookah-serving joint? Again, not your fault totally. This stands for the Maharashtra Control of Organised Crimes Act. A very stringent act and can be used in extreme conditions only.