Dear  Mr. Sanjay Jadhav and Mr. V. Ranganathan,

Thank you for your observations on my article on Right to Education.

I think there are some impressions about the implications of the Common School System (CSS) due to lack of familiarity with the evolving discourse. The uniformity and rigidity of curriculum is the hallmark of today's education system operating under CBSE, ICSE or the State Boards of Education. CSS rejects this lack of flexibility, diversity and creativity on philosophical grounds. Indeed, as you say, no school system can meet the needs of all children of India unless it can respond to the rich diversity we have and the creative individuality of each child. The CSS is designed to move towards this objective.

CSS would never reject the contribution of the private school but would include them in the system. However, CSS requires that each private school fulfills its obligations under the Constitution and its duty to the nation and the society.

Yet, the role of the State as the major provider of education can't be replaced by the private capital. In December 2007, Prof. Amartya Sen told CII precisely this since no private enterprise, not even all of them put together, can match the requirement of resources for this purpose. In all the G-8 countries, the government has historically played this role and the publicly funded school system remains the major source of education. In France, Germany and Japan, the State is almost the only source. The private school, at best, can be a supplementary source.

Sanjay ji, please pardon me, your paras 3, 4 and 5 are problematic. Let me, for a moment, keep aside my ideological perception of equality as the very foundation of public welfare, progress and peace for a moment. History bears testimony to this principle. We can discuss this later. However, your doubts regarding the validity of the concept of 'Right to Free Education' and 'Right to Early Childhood Care' and let 'government [can] decide its course of action depending on its competence or resources' will require us to re-write India's Constitution, not merely to amend it. Your ideas in a very fundamental sense challenge the structure and the premises on which the Constitution stands. I would further contend that if we accept your implied thesis, India will fail to provide education to its masses, as it has until to date.

Regarding Sweden's recent experiment with school vouchers, it would suffice to say that this idea has not worked in most of the countries or cities where it was tested unless there was a relatively level playing field (socio-economically) for all or most of the population. The conditions in India are contrary to Sweden's conditions and do not provide any rational for even testing this idea, let alone implementing it on a pilot scale. Interestingly, there is a sharp debate going on in the US between Obama and McCain on the school vouchers. It can be accessed on the internet.

There are several other important issues raised in your emails. But I would rather stop here for the moment and refer you to two essays: first one by me being published in a book and the second one by an American professor on the historic role played by the publicly funded school system in building nation-states and citizenship in Europe and North America. I would like to believe that you might find answers to some of your questions and doubts, if not all.

We can continue our dialogue.

Regards,

Sincerely,

Anil Sadgopal