By Dr Swati Jindal Garg
Two former chief advisors have initiated steps to get their names removed from political science textbooks of National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) due to “irrational cuts and large deletions”. The NCERT, on the other hand, has emphasised its right to make changes based on copyright ownership and stated that the “withdrawal of association by any one member is out of the question”, given that the textbooks are the product of a collective effort.
The NCERT was set up in 1961 by bringing together seven organisations, such as the Central Institute of Education, the Central Bureau of Textbook Research, the Central Bureau of Educational and Vocational Guidance, the Directorate of Extension Programmes for Secondary Education, the National Institute of Basic Education, the National Fundamental Education Centre and the National Institute of Audio-Visual Education. The basic purpose was to assume the functions of all these organisations and much more.
Suhas Palshikar, an academician and political scientist, and Yogendra Yadav, a political scientist and Swaraj India leader, were chief advisors for the political science books for Classes 9 to 12. Their names are mentioned in a “letter to students” and in the list of the textbook development team members at the beginning of each book.
The books in question were initially published way back in 2006-07 on the basis of the 2005 version of the National Curriculum Framework and have now become a cause of extreme disappointment to the advisors, who claim that the books “that were once the source of pride for us, are now a source of embarrassment”. The academicians further said: “While the modifications have been justified on grounds of rationalization, we fail to see any pedagogical rationale at work here. We find that the text has been mutilated beyond recognition. There are innumerable and irrational cuts, and large deletions often without any attempt to fill the gaps thus created. We were never consulted or even informed of these changes,” they said. “If NCERT did consult other experts for deciding on these cuts and deletions, we explicitly state that we fully disagree with them in this regard,” they added.
They also stressed on the fact that “if NCERT has legal authority to ‘distort and mutilate’ educational material, they should also be able to exercise their ‘moral and legal right’ to disassociate themselves from books they do not endorse.” They further stated: “Both of us would like to disassociate ourselves from these textbooks and request the NCERT to drop our names…. We request you to give effect to this request immediately and ensure that our names are not used in the soft copies of the textbooks available at the NCERT websites and also in the subsequent print editions.”
The tiff started after Palshikar and Yadav expressed their concerns in a letter to NCERT Director DP Saklani, stating that they were unable to find any pedagogic justification for the textbook rationalisation exercise and expressed embarrassment at being associated with “mutilated and academically dysfunctional” books. These remarks were made in the wake of a controversy over the removal of several topics from the high school syllabus in 2022, including passages on the theory of evolution, references to the Cold War, the Mughal courts, the industrial revolution, the 2002 Gujarat riots, the contribution of agriculture to the Indian economy, and a section on challenges to democracy. The advisors are concerned that the selected removal of certain topics from the textbooks has rendered them unrecognisable and totally changed. They state that the said topics were chosen after careful deliberations—discussions that were so elaborate that even the sequencing of the topics included was given great thought.
The dropping of several topics and portions from NCERT textbooks has now triggered a controversy as it seems that the same was done without keeping pedagogic considerations in mind. While some claim that the move is a political one, with the Opposition blaming the BJP-led centre for “whitewashing with vengeance” others say it is just mindless act of the NCERT showing its disconnect from its original mission and vision. At the heart of the controversy is the fact that while the changes made as part of the rationalisation exercise were notified, some of the controversial deletions were not mentioned. This led to allegations about a bid to delete these portions surreptitiously.
According to Press Trust of India, NCERT had described the omissions as a possible oversight, but refused to undo the deletions, saying they were based on the recommendations of experts. It also said the textbooks were anyway headed for a revision in 2024, when the NCF kicks in. However, it later changed its stand and said “minor changes need not be notified”.
NCERT, on the other hand, retaliated by releasing a public statement the same day highlighting that the textbook development committees (of which Yadav and Palshikar were members) were constituted during 2005-08 and they ceased to exist once the books were published. It said: “All members of the textbook development committees had given their concurrence on this through written undertakings.” And hence copyright of the educational materials remains with NCERT, independent of the committee.
The NCERT also said: “The roles of members of the Textbook Development Committees in various capacities…were limited to advising on how to design and develop the textbooks or contributing to the development of their contents and not beyond this. Textbooks at the school level are ‘developed’ based on the state of our knowledge and understanding of a given subject. Therefore, at no stage is individual authorship claimed, hence the withdrawal of association by any one member is out of the question.”
Palshikar and Yadav, on the other hand, clarified their stance by stating: “The continuation of our names inside the present version of the book creates a false impression of endorsement, and we have every right to dissociate with this insinuation. Besides, the two of us are clearly the ‘authors’ of the signed letter that introduces each book. How can we be forced to introduce a textbook that we no longer recognise?”
Yadav and Palshikar also called NCERT’s defence “ridiculously technical” and stated: “If the name of the Textbook Development Committee is there to acknowledge our contribution, as NCERT claims, then we must be free to decline this generosity…”
The NCERT claims to give due credit to those who do not want it—or so it seems! The controversy which might seem amusing to some goes deep and has a strong legal argument to back it up. While the NCERT acknowledges the academic contribution of the advisors and claims that only because of this, for the sake of record, it publishes the names of all textbook development committee members in each of its textbooks, in the same breath it also claims that “at no stage is individual authorship claimed, hence the withdrawal of association by any one member is out of the question.”
The tussle will ensue when once, certain members of the committee that suggested the inclusion of certain topics at a stage in time and is being given credit for it till date, start demanding that their names be removed from the credits in the light of the fact that their original suggestions have now been rendered unrecognisable due to huge additions and deletions in the subject textbooks rendering it to be for all intents and purposes a new and independent work that depicts a different ideology altogether!
Yadav and Palshikar have now not only demanded that their names be removed as they want no credit for the work that does not truly belong to them or reflects their ideology, but they have also demanded that the NCERT should publish the names of experts who suggested the changes. “The NCERT cannot hide behind our names as chief advisors. Hence, we reiterate our limited demand to the NCERT: please remove our names from the textbooks that were once the source of pride for us but are now a source of embarrassment.”
The NCERT has further clarified its stance by saying that as the copyright owner of all its textbooks, it adopts clear procedures to make corrections and changes from time to time which include “feedback received from their users (teachers, students, etc.)” or identification of “factual inaccuracies” and “incompatible expressions” and several factors such as “overlapping topics”, “topics not relevant or outdated in the present context”, or topics that were “difficult” or “easily accessible to children and can be learned through self-learning or peer-learning,” that are taken into account during the rationalisation process.
The question that remains unanswered is can the NCERT take shelter of its copyright claims and disallow the deletion of names of the advisors who no longer want to be associated with it? The fact remains that any change which violates the inherent spirit of a literary work and hence changes it completely cannot be said to be an extension of the original work. An act that brings about a restructuring of such a nature that the entire work changes in form and spirit, will, for all intents and purposes, be termed as another original work. There is also no doubt that as believed by the advisors, any text has an internal logic and if by imposing any “cuts and deletions” the spirit of the work itself is violated especially in the light of the fact that the frequent and serial deletions do not seem to have any logic except to please the powers that be, it would certainly be another original work and hence its credit cannot be given to the people who had no hand in suggesting or initiating the said cuts and deletions.
The miffed advisors have also very strongly condemned the changes made in the textbooks through their letter by saying: “Textbooks cannot and should not be shaped in this blatantly partisan manner and should not quell the spirit of critique and questioning among students of social sciences. These textbooks as they stand now do not serve the purpose of training students of political science both the principles of politics and the broad patterns of political dynamics that have occurred over time.”
In a world that is fighting for credit, the current saga is truly original where the writers are fighting for removal of their names from the credits though whether their wish is granted or not remains to be seen.
—The writer is an Advocate-on-Record practicing in the Supreme Court, Delhi High Court and all district courts and tribunals in Delhi