Creating a conducive learning environment

The constitutional proviso of reservations for certain categories of people identified as SC/ST was initially meant for ten years only. Dr BR Ambedkar himself never wanted it to last long, as that would amount to the negation of the objectives which necessitated its implementation. It was a case of socially inherited inequalities that also led to economic and cultural deprivation. In other words, the inequalities created by the caste system and the related inhuman practice of untouchability were considered the main culprits. Both of these were rejected by the Constitution. Those outside this classification accepted the provisions of reservations, as the logic behind them was clear and convincing to one and all.

The Constitution was framed by men and women of unimpeachable integrity and total commitment to the nation. Most of them were part of the great freedom struggle and had earned the respect of the people through sheer sacrifice and suffering during alien rule. As the generations changed, adherence to human values was impacted globally. Advances in science and technology had created gadgets and implements that could reach every home and hearth that had the requisite resources. In India, the urge to accumulate more brought about a great attitudinal transformation among those who were in power and authority.

In a democratic setup, it was the politicians who were the privileged ones. They realised the ‘benefits’ that could accrue to an elected representative of the people, or better still, to being in a position of power. Expectedly, the approach and attraction to being in politics changed drastically. Exceptions apart, the prime consideration for being in public life, as articulated by Gandhiji - to serve the ‘last man in the line’ — was quietly replaced by ‘politics for privilege and pelf’, and for preparing inheritors from within the family. The Constitution was amended frequently; how power had changed the scenario was witnessed during the imposition of the Emergency, the 42nd Constitutional Amendment, and much more that followed.

Young persons in colleges and universities in the sixth decade of the 20th century were convinced that the caste system would disappear, as they thought the political persons around them were true to their words and were all committed to the upgradation of deprived people. After about three to four decades, the political generation had changed; so had the approach to democratic principles, and the people — the electors. Now politics, and the politician, were busy exploring the new avenues that had suddenly appeared before them, and were indeed alluring and attractive. Being in the seat of power pays, and there are ways and means to ensure zero accountability. The integrity, sincerity, and honesty that were needed to make reservations for the SC/ST a success were shifted to the back burner. This is one project that has never been evaluated sincerely and scientifically. Now, these are not the only categories for which constitutional provision was made. There are many more. Gandhi was just forgotten, interestingly and most obviously by those who continue to claim to be the only inheritors of his legacy and values. The ‘last man in the line’ was lost in the glare and glamour that were blinding the political power scenario.

After four decades of the Constitution being in place, things were analysed at various levels. Dr Karan Singh wrote in 1993: “Our understanding was that castes would gradually erode, and that the whole point was to build a society where caste would no longer remain significant. But what do we find today? We find that attempts are being made to institutionalise caste, and not only four castes, but 3,000 castes. Is this what the Constitution envisaged? How does this tally with the whole question of equal democratic rights?” It would be interesting to recall how the environment that promised total liquidation of the caste system was transformed into one that assures its continuation, and consequently a horrifying fragmentation of Indian society.

To arrive at a clearer picture of the current socio-cultural scenario on a broader canvas, one must recall the provisions specifically made for minorities in the Constitution in Article 30 of the Constitution of India, which, in fact, did not synchronise with the text and spirit of Article 15. The apparent contradictions are noted by every alert and active citizen who is not restricted by ideological or political leanings. As a practising academic, my impression stands gradually confirmed that the provisions of Article 30, with all the noble intents behind them, have, in actual practice, done more damage to minorities than supporting them in their educational advancement. The provisions have been grossly misused. I have personally observed how teacher-training (minority) institutions refused to follow any norms and obviously prepared teachers who were not trained adequately. There are numerous examples in other areas and sectors also. Article 30: Right of minorities to establish and administer educational institutions — (1) All minorities, whether based on religion or language, shall have the right to establish and administer educational institutions of their choice. (2) The State shall not, in granting aid to educational institutions, discriminate against any educational institutions on the ground that they are under the management of a minority, whether based on religion or language.

The problem is that no learned discussion or sincere deliberation is allowed on such issues that are projected as sensitive zones. The fact remains that caste considerations and specific provisions for minorities are now creating unacceptable socio-cultural environments at various levels of educational institutions, which is not conducive to generating social cohesion and religious amity. What happened after the UGC Regulations on Equity were notified on January 13, 2026, and became effective from January 15, 2026 onwards?

Having served in institutions of varied levels for over five decades, one could safely state that concerns of harassment or ill-treatment among students could best be handled by the head of the institution and the faculty. National guidelines are needed, but the autonomy of institutions must remain sacred. Creating a socially conducive campus environment is best supported by instilling a sense of responsibility among the stakeholders.

This is also high time to evolve ways and means on how to relate culturally evolved environments in schools and other institutions. National-level deliberations must be organised, sponsored, and supported. Let the intelligentsia of the nation re-read the constitutional provisions that could help move towards culturally enthralling, socially cohesive, and religiously amicable campuses. Eminent people have been thinking along these lines, but it needs to be organised seriously. I quote, as an example, the words of the late Vasant Sathe, a freedom fighter, Supreme Court lawyer, Union Minister, and a highly respected public figure. He wrote in 1993 about Article 30 of the Constitution: “This article should be deleted because to recognise some sections as minorities based on religion is contrary to the provisions of equality specified in Article 15 and threatens to create perpetual discrimination for such sections on the basis of a factor like religion, which is irreversible.”

The NEP 2020 expects to move towards excellence in education. The prime requisite is a learning environment bubbling with mutual respect and positive energy. Mere changes in a couple of words in notifications, without a well-considered socio-cultural analysis supported by dynamic constitutional provisions, may not really work anymore.

The author is an educationist, a Padma Shri awardee, and works in religious amity and social cohesion; views are personal