 So, you can see even in the state initiatives now in Tamil Nadu, there are many initiatives being taken like Non-Modulban and Uniform Curriculum in Higher Education. And so many other initiatives being taken in Tamil Nadu are also indirectly following the tour of the national education policy 2020. One is it is market driven, sir. Another one is they try to indoctrinate through education Sanatana Dharma. I don't mind, I don't shy away from discussing or deliberating the national education policy 2020 within the committee. We are bound to discuss also. I have no problem. There is a little correction that I'm not blaming the state. It is the committee. The state, I don't know. I'm not aware that whether the state is involved in doing that. I cannot comment on it. Hello, welcome to New State. The DMK led Tamil Nadu government had rejected the center's new education policy 2020 and formed a committee to formulate a distinct state education policy, SEP for Tamil Nadu in June 2022. Professor L. Javahar Nesan, a member calm convener of the high level committee, dropped the SEP to signed on May 10, 2023, citing frequent interferences by certain higher officials in the state government. We have with us Professor Nesan today. Thank you, sir. Thanks a lot for joining us. Thank you, Ms. Shruti. Thank you for inviting me. Sir, can you start by telling us, the state had rejected the NEP and formed a committee to formulate an alternative and you are part of it, but you are alleging the state is also formulating the SEP similar to the NEP. What exactly is this conflict? There is a little correction that I'm not blaming the state. It is the committee. The state, I don't know, I'm not aware that whether the state is involved in doing that. I cannot comment on it. But as I was part of the main committee, the high level committee, formulating the policy, I found that there are the moves and deliberations and the incidents that happened all together. I could collectively feel that it is not heading towards formulating a distinct education policy for the state. And it is being diverted and trying to incorporate the few major ideals of the national education policy, not just only national education policy, but we, I would say, whatever you call it, like anti-people policy, like corporate policy or driven by some vested elements of the society. So that is why I found that this is the case within the committee. And there were not much deliberations happening within the committee as regards the distinct policy for the state. So that is why I thought that it is not heading towards the direction it is supposed to. Sir, what were the clauses of the NEP you asked to include in the draft state education policy? And why do you think that including these clauses were problematic? No, it is not like literally the clauses are the recommendations of the NEP that are drawn in the state education policy. I am not trying to portray a situation where literally these are the particular recommendations incorporated in it. But the deliberations happening within the committee and the manner in which I was dragged into the bureaucracy and the way I was treated and compelled and pressurized by the bureaucracy and the agenda being taken in the deliberations of the policy, the high level committee, and all were fostering the national education policy. So if we go along with that, it would end up only with the replica of national education policy. And I am not against the national education policy, I am not against discussing the national education policy within the committee. But why I was worried was that why there is a need for the bureaucratic elements invited and involved in making the policy decisions and that too with reference to the national education policy. So there are a lot of policies all around, for the past 75 years of independent India, we have created. So all policies deserve some deliberations and we have to consider all those policies. And if there are any good elements there, we cannot shy away to incorporate them and consider them for implementing or incorporating in the state education policy. But deliberately why you avoid all those policies and only discussing this national education policy in particular at every stage of the deliberations in the high level committee. That is my worry. And the other thing is it is backed by, it is supported by the bureaucracies, another thing. So that means that a policy, if it is to be distinct for the state and the distinct problems associated with attributed to the state, the social conditions, the economic conditions and the educational functions of that particular state and the marriage and demerits and the all other conditions should be consumed first. And with reference to that local conditions, then you have to draft, identify the policy alternatives and choose the best alternative that fits well to the state. And when if you ignore all these things and only you are just blindly discuss about the various aspects of the national education policy as the main agenda, then how are we going to create a distinct education policy that would really resolve the long-pending problems in the state as regards to education. So these are the main contentions. I was at every time I had submitted all my reports and I submitted about 132 pages problem statement a long way back. And that was not discussed at all, not deliberated at all. But I would say that though it was not deliberated, the high level committee considered it as a gating document that I appreciated. But what I wanted was how to, we have to discuss whatever I submit, it cannot be blindly endorsed. So we have to discuss it and seriously involve those affairs that I thought wrong. I'm open to change my ideas or whatever the things that I laid out in the documents I submitted. So that means the problem statement I submitted to the committee was not discussed. And in turn, instead the national education policies are placed or the recommendations in that NDP 2020 have been found recurrently in many of our discussions. And that also have been supported by the bureaucracies. So these are the major things. It is altogether driven in the interest of the certain ideals on which the NDP is working now, like privatization, commercialization, and suffronization. So these are the major elements, the thrust in the national education policy, though it may not be explicit, but it is implicit that they are, this is the main agenda behind it. So you can see even in the state initiatives now in Tamil Nadu, there are many initiatives being taken, like Non-Modulvan and Uniform Curriculum in Higher Education. And so many other initiatives being taken in Tamil Nadu are also indirectly following the tour of the national education policy 2020. And they may have a right intent in doing so in the state, but eventually it will end up with the ulterior motive of the national education policy 2020. So for instance, when you adopt the ABC, the academic bank of credit, the multiple entry exit, and the other, the privatization and progressive relief of the governments from the educational responsibilities, these are the major focus of national education policy 2020. And that is what happening also partially in Tamil Nadu as well. So that means that is going to be reflected in the state education policy. That is how it is going along. So that means this shows that the majority of the people will be deprived of their educational rights. And by doing so, the educationally and socially backward people of Tamil Nadu will be largely affected and they will be prevented from progressing in the education. And this is supported by the commercialization and market forces. So the market forces are playing a major role in this, in all the implementation, in implementation of both NEP and the state educational initiatives now being taken by Tamil Nadu. Also you could see that a large influx of the outsiders like the market and the NGOs who are playing a major role now. And it looks like while after some period, then it will be left to only the society and the other dominant players outside. So that means that the state or the union government is progressively relieving itself from its responsibility of providing a just education to the people of the country and the state. So these are all the result of the government's decision to adhere to the World Trade Organization, that the WTO was God's agreement, which were directly emphasized and stipulated the constituent states to privatize education and to progressively relieve the states from the educational responsibilities. So that is what is happening. On the other hand, the result of the national education policy is going to you know, inculcate the kind of the Sanadana Dharma, which has been the ideal of the right wing establishment. And that they try to inculcate through various forms. So these are all practically going through, even in curriculum formation, pedagogies and teaching learning and textbooks formation. You can see there are hundreds of examples going on how they distort history and how they distort even science. The science also being distorted. So that is progressively going in a rapid manner all across the country. And so the Tamil Nadu state education policy should resist it, should ensure that all these anti-people policies or recommendations should be outright rejected. But nowhere in the committee's deliberations or in its manifestations, I could notice such attitude against the national education policy or in making the state education policy on its own. So these are the major things. One is it is market driven, sir. Another one is they try to indoctrinate through education Sanadana Dharma. And then the ruling establishment wants to make its own citizenry. And that is the national education policy. And that national education policy in no way is going to be different from the state education policy. Because in all the deliberations the state education committee, the policymaking committee has been at the end of the day, end up with only the national education, the constraints and limitations and recommendations fostered in the national education policy. So that means that without deliberating the state's own conditions, without deliberating the state's problems, challenges in the rest of the 21st century, we cannot make a justifiable education policy to prepare the people for the 21st century. So this is my main contention. And within the committee and also outside the committee with the bureaucratic, you know, collision, this committee has been diverted from its task of making a distinct policy. So that is the main reason for me that as single-handedly I have been trying to correct for the last 11 months. And at the end of the day, then when it went beyond my control and with all aggressions, bureaucratic aggressions and even the committee's failure to correct itself, then I had to exit. And I have to now support even that main committee to do what it was ordered to do based on the terms of reference. Of course, the bureaucrats are trying to influence the policymaking in the state. Actually, the committee has been ordered to, given the task and the committee is supposed to deliberate whatever. I don't mind, I don't shy away from discussing or deliberating the national education policy 2020 within the committee. We are bound to discuss also, I have no problem. But the problem is, if it is aggressively pushed in the agenda of the state education policy deliberations and when majority fall in line, then I fear I'm worried whether people of the state will get justice. That is the problem. Okay. So thanks a lot for joining us and for detailed explaining all that has happened since the committee was formed and your contribution in it. Thank you, sir. Thank you, Ms. Shruti.