Abstract

Tribal education is a product of colonial historiography. Initially, the agenda for tribal education was imposed upon the colonial project of the Company, which eventually turned into an organized state response towards modernity, development and national integration in the post colonial period. At the ground level, the work was spearheaded by the charity/voluntary spirit and private institutions through the grant-in-aids within the welfare framework. Over the years, there has been a gradual shift of this welfare commitment towards rights and justice. Along with it, there is a likelihood of the greater role played by the private/business institutions. In this backdrop, it has become pertinent to redefine education to include children belonging to tribe/Adivasis. This is directly connected to the Constitutional commitment for inclusive education.

Ideas, People and Education: A Theoretical Framework

As observed in mainstream theory of education, the idea of education widened to include aspects of social, political and experience in the 19^th century. John Dewey (1916) and Lev Vygotsky made important contributions in which social and experiential learning became very important. This led to the emergence of the general understanding of education in the social sense, as rooted in the structural functionalist paradigm, which fundamentally establishes the intricate relationship that exists between education and democracy, education and society, individual and society. This approach conceives education as a means for social integration by instilling sentiments, ideas and tendencies that sustain group life. It moved away from an individual and the cognitive development focus to the social environment. It invariably refers to the role that it plays for the good of self and society. However, in the structural and political sense, this role can be broadly classified into two namely: a) as a process that reproduces cultures of domination from time to time b) as a process that resists structural and cultural domination. Both of these are interlinked. In particular, the latter can be generally referred to being critical and political. This approach questions and moves beyond the role of education for social solidarity and equilibrium. It highlights the political nature of education as an instrument for cultural domination. In this approach, education is conceived as a process against structural cultural assimilation and domination by the lower and marginalized sections of the society. The ‘state apparatus’ by Althusser (1972) and ‘cultural capital’ by Bourdieu (1977) are examples that describe the process of cultural reproduction and hegemony through educational institutions. In particular, ‘pedagogy of the oppressed’ by Freire (1972), ‘alternative schooling’ by Ivan Illich (Bhatia and Bhatia 1997, p. 306–316), ‘invisible pedagogy’ by Bersnstein (1997), ‘Hidden Curriculum’ by Apple (1995) and ‘pedagogy of the opposition’ by Henry Giroux (1983) are critical theoretical perspectives on education and its process in society. Besides, Illich’s De-schooling Society (1971), which critiques the existing, institutionalized system of education as being ineffective is another example in point.

In this backdrop, education is conceived as a process (more than a mere tool) for the upliftment of people and region where there is social discrimination, poverty and marginalization. In such context, education actually becomes a very important aspect for social empowerment, especially of the weaker sections such as the women, disabled, and other socially marginalized groups of the society. In this context, education is envisioned to generate social mobility, development and empowerment. Therefore, the domain of education is dynamic and complex closely related to social, economic and political structures of a human society.

In this approach, education has to be informed by the local context. For example, the context of India and/or South Asia represents a typical context where there has been a history of a colonial past, girl child and caste discrimination. In such contexts, education becomes an emancipatory project for fighting against girl child and caste discrimination. This happened in the context where the earliest societal indigenous education systems such as Tols/pathshalas and madrasas were exclusively meant only for the upper caste of the society. These learning institutions were local based which imparted socio-religious education to persons through a vernacular—Sanskrit in the former and Arabic and Persian in the latter. By the very nature, such schools were specified for certain sections of the society. The lower sections especially the lower castes were not included in these institutions. In such a background, the modern education system was different. It introduced mass education to some extent. Towards this, the idea and work of Jyotiroa Phule, Savitribai Phule and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar stood out as a value contribution in education; a way of understanding education in a caste based social context. They gave new perspectives to education in the context of India. They advocated for equality in education for all. They are pioneers to the cause for equality through education beginning from the Maharashtra context within the South Asian region. This thinking challenges the dominant idea of education and indicated important aspects of how education can become the tool for further exploitation and establishment of status quo in the society in the interest of the powerful.

With regard to tribes and adivasis, it is important to note the existence of indigenous education in every tribal village. Education in such context can be referred to as foundational and constitutive of the tribal village. It is the foundation of their existence as socially embedded processes that defines and negotiates their worldview and daily-lived experiences. This can be observed in the existence of village based learning institution in villages from where children learn and grow in their worldview, knowledge, customs, traditions, values, socialization and working skills for daily living. This underscores the importance of indigenous perspectives of education. Semali and Kincheloe (1999), Tripura (2014), Kundu (2003), Dhebar Commission (1961) and Xaxa Report (2014) give us indications towards this. The studies highlight that in the indigenous context, where there has been a history of colonization, education was used as an important means to capture indigenous people, their land and resources. Schools became institutions for dismantling the culture and identity of the indigenous and tribal people. Education became an engine to push the traditional or the tribal societies as people who needed to be civilized and tamed for the colonial and imperial project of resource exploitation in the region. Today, such contexts define education in a very different light. Tribes and Adivasis conceive education as a project of decolonization and freedom from exploitation. It is an epistemological struggle for the reclamation and protection of people and lives.

State and Schooling History

Pre-Independence

The idea of formal education, which is generally referred to as the modern education in the Indian context, has its root in the British company’s education system since the Charter Act of 1813. In this Act, the British Parliament directed the British East India Company to take responsibility of education. This raised the social responsibility of the Company. It was a new responsibility that had major implication on their business endeavor and administration. It immediately generated debate around it. In particular, it raised concerns about the nature, system of education and funding. It became imperative to define the aim and purpose of education within the administrative and business policy of the Company. In this endeavor, two important approaches could be observed during this time a) universal primary education, mass education and b) downward filtration theory. The former is the idea laid out in William Adams Third Report, 1938. This approach considered the importance of building a system of education taking into consideration the local, indigenous systems of education. However, Macaulay Policy of education, 1835 was not in favour of indigenous or the oriental systems of education. Macaulay policy established the importance of English education. This policy introduced, for the first time, English Education or the western education in the Indian context. Within the colonial frame of traditional versus modernity, English education became the colonial state building project where the idea of education was limited to the state’s institution for training the bureaucratic professionals for the state became actively debated within the Government of the Company. However, this was soon rejected so as to build a conducive political environment. In particular, by Charles Wood’s Despatch, 1854, the company’s role on education became clearer, as it became a policy to establish the department of public instruction in all the five provinces of the Company. The Despatch rejected the downward filtration theory of Macaulay and recommended that vernacular or modern Indian Languages were to be the medium of instruction at the schools. Indigenous schools were included and grant-in-aid was established for the provincial governments. It also supported missionary schools and private schools through grant-in-aid. In fact, this was further reaffirmed in Lord Stanley’s Despatch, 1859 (Roy, 2005, p. 22–23). By this time, the British Crown has taken over the government. This Despatch recommended that government schools should take the main role in spreading mass education. It also established local taxes particularly on land to be collected to meet the needs of education. The Despatch, 1859 in particular, shaped education as a state response to the emerging national feeling in the region. Following this event, the Indian Education Commission of 1882 (Hunter Education Commission) made elementary education as a policy of the state. Some aspects as cited in Roy (2005, p 23–24) are;

i) Primary education be regarded as the instruction of the masses through vernacular in such subjects as will fit them for their position in life and not be necessarily regarded as leading up to the university.

ii) Selection of persons to fill the lowest offices under government would give preference to candidates who can read and write.

iii) The state should devote itself to the spread of elementary education.

iv) Primary education be extended in backward districts, especially to those areas which were inhabited by the “aboriginal races” (tribes) by extending grants-in-aid to those who were willing to maintain them.

Since, this policy, primary Education became the responsibility of the districts and municipals. Therefore, the Commission established the importance of education for individual as well as social development. It became the root of Modern Education System of India in general as it laid emphasis on primary education in terms of policy, finance, legislation and administration, incorporation of indigenous schools in the official system of education and the curriculum content of schools. With regard to financing, it recommended that separate amounts of money should be sanctioned for primary education in the municipal areas and rural areas so that fund meant for the latter will not be utilised for the development of the former. The Government was mandated to assist in bearing the local funds for the primary education through a suitable grant-in-aid. The Commission recommended that the legislation and administration of primary schools should be handed over to the district and municipal boards. Flexibility should be maintained while modifying the school curriculum, working hours in a day and in the structure of academic calendar as best suited to the context where it is to be followed. Managers should be allowed to select textbooks of their choice to be taught in their schools (Khanna et.al, 1992:66). Another important event in the evolution of primary education in India dates back to 12^th March, 1911, when for the first time, a Bill was introduced in the Imperial Legislative Council under the leadership of Gopal Krishna Gokhale. The Bill aimed at making primary education free and compulsory in areas where at least 35% of the boys and girls of 6 to 10 years were being enrolled and that the defaulting parents/guardians should be penalised for not sending their wards to recognised primary schools. The educational expenditure was to be borne by both the local bodies and provincial government. The local bodies were authorised to levy taxes to meet the cost of this free education. Though the Bill was rejected, the Government came up with a new educational policy in 1913 (Aggarwal, 1984:33–40 and Khanna et.al, 1992:66). In 1929, Hartog Committee which was appointed as a support to the Statutory Commission to study the education position of the country realised that there was a huge gap between the increased number of primary schools (input) and the attainment of expected literacy rate (outcome). It pointed out a high prevalence of wastage (dropping out of children at any stage before completing primary education) and stagnation (being detained in the same class for more than a year) and recommended the introduction of primary education for democracy; a focus on qualitative improvement rather than on increasing the number of schools. Some of its important recommendations include

a) making primary education (to be four years) compulsory by advocating a stronger policy,

b) making the curriculum more liberal and scientific, and

c) developing it in accordance with the school environment and daily experiences of the pupils.

It was envisioned that primary schools should also serve as important centres for rural development, adult and mass literacy, health care, sanitation and recreation. The standard of service conditions and salary of the primary school teachers should be improved and the number of supervisors in such schools should be increased to achieve adequate performance. In 1937, the Abbot-Wood Committee and Zakir Hussain Commission (1939) were set up under the leadership of the Congress Government. The Commissions prioritised activity and child-centred primary education based on children’s interests rather than on bookish learning. This task should be done by well-trained teachers, preferably women teachers who have undergone three years of pre-service training (Khanna S. D. et.al, 1992:72–73). Zakir Hussain (inspired by Mahatma Gandhi’s ideology) gave a comprehensive report which considers primary education as an affordable and need-based education (Aggarwal, 1984:51). It was regarded as a self-supporting education which gives emphasis on developing craft-centred skills. In 1944, Sargent Plan report given by the C.A.B.E. (Central Advisory Board of Education set up by the Government of India) set a target of universal compulsory primary education within a period forty years for children in the age group of 6 to 14 years (Aggarwal, 1984:58, Raj, 1984:162 and Khanna et.al, 1992:75).

Post Independence

In post independence period, the role of the state on education got stated and reaffirmed in the Constitution. Education became an important aspect of the poverty alleviation project of the country since 1950s. It aimed at reduction of inequality among people in the country. Education occupied an important role in the imagination of the social and state building processes. It envisioned to train and educate individuals and groups especially, the marginalised towards social development and empowerment within the premise of change and social transformation. It was designed to supply the essential manpower required for various tasks in different fields of human development. Under the Kothari Committee report 1964–66, National Education Policy 1968 was arrived at. The policy established the purpose and the system of education within the national integration and development. In particular, education was defined as “an investment on human resource development” in the New Education Policy 1986. As observed, there had been a concern for the quality improvement of education at all levels for human development and the expenditure in this sector has been regarded most vital. This had occupied major space in successive five years plans since the first five year plan. Ramamurti Report, 7^th May, 1990 (a review committee on NPE, 1986 appointed by the then governing power/party National Front/Janata Dal headed by Acharya Ramamurti) entitled, “Towards an Enlightened and Humane Society” succinctly flags the main purpose of education stating;

“To bring about genuinely an egalitarian and secular society through maintenance of equity and equality in education among deprived sections of the society like backward classes, minorities and women both as a right and also a means of social transformation with enlightenment and a sense of humanity. Education, being the basic need of human development should be ensured to all by eradication of the prevailing casteism, communalism and obscurantism in our institutions. Work orientation in education is another concern. In short, educational equity and decentralisation of its management at all levels through social justice, establishment of participative educational order and work empowerment, inculcation of necessary values to achieve Enlightened and Humane Society.”

Some of the important Constitutional provisions for the Scheduled Tribes (ST) are stated below;

i) Article 15 (4): empowers the state to make special educational provisions for the Scheduled Castes (SC) /STs and other weaker sections.

ii) Article 29 and Article 29 (1): ensures preservation of the distinct languages, cultural and educational rights to all the citizens

iii) Article 30: promises the right of the minorities to establish and administer educational institutions

iv) Article 35 (a): emphasises instruction in mother-tongue at primary stages

v) Article 45: ensures free and compulsory education for children up to the age of 14 years (93^rd Amendment Bill, 2001 has been passed for fundamental right to education; Article 45 has now been backed up by Article 21 (a), which has reduced Article 45)

vi) Article 46: ensures the promotion of educational and economic interests and protection against social injustice and all forms of exploitation of the Scheduled Tribes/Scheduled Castes and other weaker sections of the society.

As inferred from the above, the constitutional commitment of providing this basic educational right to all the children was previously covered under the Directive Principles of State Policy meaning it was non-enforceable in any court of law. This has now become a fundamental right by inserting Article 21 (A) enforceable in any court of law under the 86^th Amendment Act of the Constitution in 2001. This finally led to the Right to Education Act, 2009.

The commitment of the Constitution is also reflected in the planned development process, which strongly considered primary education as an important sector of the country’s development. It was the Secondary Education Commission, 1952 that gave full emphasis on primary education after independence. The recommendations of the Commission found space in the first five-year plan (1951–56). Since then, the role of the state to recognize and develop primary education in a systematic manner became vital in the country. For instance, the first three five-year plans (1951–1966) showed focus on reconstruction and expansion of the system. Tribal and backward areas began to emerge within the plan during the successive years.

In 1957, the Planning Commission suggested two phases in its endeavour to achieve the targeted eight years of free and compulsory education for all the children in the age group of 6 to 14 years. The first phase aimed at five years’ course of primary education for children between the ages 6 and 11 years to be achieved by the end of third five-year plan (1961–66). The second phase set a target of three years’ course of primary education for children between the ages 11 and 14 years to be achieved by the end of fifth five-year plan (1974–79). However, after ten years of independence, the inability to achieve the target was first registered and since then, the targeted years to achieve the same have been extended from time to time as a policy evolution. In line with this effort, various commissions and committees have been appointed to review and study the situation of education in the country and submit the reports from time to time. Based on these findings, necessary modifications and changes have been made drastically in the educational policies and practices. For instance, with the establishment of National Council of Education Research and Training (NCERT) in September 1961 and State Councils of Education Research and Training (SCERTs) during 1970s as apex bodies to bring about improvement in education at the national and state levels respectively, the need for a third tier training institute as a supporting centre at the district level was highly felt in order to improve the quality of basic education. With this aim in view, District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) were set up in almost all the districts of all the states in the country under the NPE, 1986. During 1964–66, Kothari Commission was instituted to study the problems. The Commission after a study recommended the target of free and compulsory education for all by 1975–76. With this point in time, expansion in terms of both quality and quantity was realised (Ramanathan, 1965:177–78 and Aggarwal, 2002:402). In 1968, during Indira Gandhi’s Prime Ministership, the National Policy of Education was made wherein a strong emphasis was given on primary education. The policy introduced the concept of basic education and work experience. The basic premise of the policy aimed to bring about maximum enrolment by means of making schools available to all children. This policy became the guiding principle of the Planning Commission in the successive plans; the fourth, fifth and sixth five-year plans (1969–1985). Around the same time, education, which was previously a state subject, was shifted to the concurrent list under the 42^nd Amendment Act, 1976. Under the Act, both the State Governments and Central Government are authorised to make a collective decision while framing an educational policy. Since the implementation of these plans, considerable progress has been reported especially, in terms of school accessibility.

However, after realising the presence of persistent illiteracy in the country the National Policy of Education (NPE, 1986) was set up with a view to best match the changing times. It redefined the policy of education along ‘an investment on human development’. In fact, in the ‘foreward’ of the seventh five-year plan (1985–1990), Prime Minister Rajiv Gandhi articulated literacy as an essential part of human resource development. The policy earmarked 6% of the Gross Domestic Product (GDP) for education sector of which 50% was to be allotted for the cause of primary education. The policy defined that the accessibility of primary schools should be within a distance of one kilometre. At the higher education level, the Policy introduced a 10+2+3 pattern of education system. The District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) is one of the most significant educational interventions in the country, which has been initiated on the recommendation of this policy (http://www.kkhsou.in/main/education/national_policy1992.html).

During the seventh plan period (1985–1990), several developmental policies and programmes were launched. For instance, in 1987, as a move for the improvement of educational facilities in schools run by the Government, Panchayati Raj and local bodies and specifically, to enhance enrolment of children in the schools the operation blackboard scheme was introduced. Under the scheme, primary schools should be provided with two large rooms and separate toilets for boys and girls. There should be at least two teachers, one of them to be a woman. Teaching-learning materials such as blackboards, maps, charts, toys and practical work equipment should be provided. Besides, sufficient fund should be sanctioned by the Central Government to maintain proper housing, required equipment and furniture for such schools. During 1987–88, Navodaya Vidyalayas (numbering 261 schools in 22 states and 7 Union Territories at class VI level) were established by the Government to promote the progress of talented children in the rural areas. The admission tests in such schools are conducted by NCERT in a non-verbal form in the mother-tongue or the regional language. Seats are being reserved for ST, SC and girl students. During 1988, National Literacy Mission (NLM) was set up by the Government of India throughout the country through the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), Department of Education and collaborating agencies of education. The main objective was to eradicate mass illiteracy by making literacy the people’s mission. The Mission aims to ensure ‘functional literacy’ to 80 millions illiterate persons in the age-group of 15–35 years; reaching out to the 30 millions by 1990 and to the remaining 50 millions by 1995. Functional literacy means achievement of self-reliance in literacy and numeracy, becoming aware of the causes of one’s deprivation and going forward to improving oneself through participation in the development process and lifting up one’s status economically with the acquired skills and education of the people with the values of national integration, environment conservation, small family planning norms and a sense of equality towards women. In an effort to achieve this aim, some of the steps undertaken to move forward include establishment of a nationwide network of continuing education, open and distance learning and non-formal education both at the school and higher education levels (Bhatia and Bhatia, 1997:318–20). The observation made after this policy reported an increase in enrolment (Education for All, Year 2000 Assessment, Government of India:18–19).

The years following the 1990s marked a shift of paradigm in the primary education system of the country. This paradigm shift is very much related to the emerging global policy on ‘education for all’ under Jomtien Declaration (1990) made in Thailand. The global focus on human development in the developing and third world countries gave emphasis on education as a primary means of social and economic development. Primary education (classes I–V) was the main focus of the Declaration. Human development became a priority in such a context. India being a signatory to the Declaration since 1992 began implementing the ‘universal’ primary education.

With a view to strengthening the education system, there have been various policy and practice developments in India after 1992. Worth mentioning among them is a revision on National Policy of Education, 1986 and the introduction of Programme of Action (POA, 1992). The revised policy considers primary education as a basic tool for the empowerment of weaker sections of the society. The main objective of these policies in general, was to establish a national system of education wherein all the students can have access to education of a comparable quality on equal footing, free from any kind of discrimination and particularly, to provide all the elementary school children education of a sustainable quality which is to be manifested in their level of learning. The policy got expressed in the eighth five-year plan (1992–97) during which universal access, retention and achievement became the planned target. This raised the need for teachers’ training programmes. Thus, District Institutes of Education and Training (DIETs) were instituted for training teachers. Such processes were further redefined under the 73^rd and 74^th Amendment Acts of the Constitution (1992), which empowered the local bodies like the Panchayati Raj institutions and city Municipals to run the primary schools. Some of the important schemes that have been launched for universalization of primary education system are District Primary Education Programmes (DPEPs, 1994), Lok Jhumbish and Shiksha Karmis (Aggarwal, 2002:1–2).

It could be observed that that has also been kept in mind in the education missions for universalization of education for all children as seen in the central schemes such as the Black Operation (1987), District Primary Education Programme (1994), Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (2001) at primary level (upto class VIII), Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (2009) at secondary level. This got figured in the tribal sub plan and integrated tribal development programmes. Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan scheme (RUSA) for the state higher education institutions 2013 reaffirmed to address education issues of equity, access and excellence in higher education.

Ideology, Policy and Processes

As stated in the National Education Policy 1968 (onwards), the national education system is conceived within the larger national integration framework, where education is an important welfare service provided by the states for the social and economic upliftment of the tribes. At the ground level, it aimed at poverty alleviation and reduction of inequality. Towards this, the idea of ‘basic education’ (Nai Talim) was proposed from the very inception as suggested in Zakir Hussain Report, 1939.

In this backdrop, it can be noted that the current overall approach to tribal education is shaped by two realities; a) the Peninsular region, generally today referred to as Scheduled Tribes and b) the North-East region Scheduled Tribe areas. These areas have specific contexts, issues and experiences.

With regard to the peninsular region, the welfare agenda of tribes focusing on education can be traced back to the work of A. V. Thakkar in Gujarat in 1919. The idea of Ashram schools, residential schools as practiced across this region today is part of this history. Taking the basic idea of education as advocated by Mahatma Gandhi, these schools were supposed to be holistic in approach. The tribal children were brought from the villages and are educated in the local context. This model of school is rooted in the basic philosophy of the nationalist within Gopal Krishna Gokhale who founded the organization, Servants of Society with the aim of training Indians for Swaraj (self-rule, this concept was developed during the Indian freedom struggle). A. V. Thakkar who became closely associated with Gandhiji was a member to this organization. He became a very important person with regard to adivasi and tribes during the formulation of the Constitution. In the post-independence period, the idea of Ashramsalas or basic schools came under the Grant-in-Aid, which today is under the purview of the Ministry of Tribal Affairs.

With regard to the North-East and some regions in Chotanagpur, the Christian missionaries were very much crucial in their idea and implementation of the education system. In particular, establishment of Serampore missions is vital. The missionaries, the American Baptist and Welsh Mission were very influential since the Company era. Missionary work and education were closely related. The missionaries were closely monitored to make a conducive environment for the company.

Although, both of them converge in their perspectives of civilizing tribes referred to as the primitive, adimjati or aborigines, they differ at the religious and cultural levels. In particular, the A. V. Thakkar School wanted to prevent the spread of Christianity in the region and supported the propagation of Hindu culture and education among the adivasis. This can be inferred from the National Conference in 1954 conducted under the leadership of A.V. Thakkar. This approach, to the tribes in the peninsular region became very important institutions for the tribal children to learn and grow in the idea of Indian culture as envisioned by these pioneers.

On the other hand, the Christian missionaries were very successful in North-East tribal regions and parts of adivasi communities in the Chotanagpur region. In fact, the North-East region is outstanding in literacy rates. Education and Christianity have reinforced their culture and empowered them. This model is basically rooted in the debates and approaches to scheduled tribes in the Constitution influenced by the school of thought by Elwin Verrier, an isolation approach to tribes drawing from the understanding of the reality of Baigas and tribes in the north-eastern frontier region/agency. It advocated that tribes should be left unto themselves. The state should adopt an isolation and protection approach. This approach was pitched against the project of assimilation, particularly by G. S. Ghurye who propagated assimilation of the tribes into the caste social system. This approach considered tribes as ‘backward Hindus’. Therefore, the state should assimilate them to the mainstream society. However, this idea got confronted by the reality of tribes in the North-East region wherein they are culturally and linguistically not related with the Hindu social system. In fact, this is also true of the Chotanagpur adivasis who were living a lifestyle, which was very distinct from the caste social system. However, it should be noted that both these approaches moved away from Macaulay’s policy of filter down theory approach, wherein education should be focused only on a limited few. The education/knowledge gained by such a handful of people should slowly teach others and families of the educated should grow gradually. The two approaches focused on education for all children. In fact, the idea of equity in education could be rooted in these undertakings. Moreover, this confrontation produced an idea of India where there are caste and non-caste societies. The non-caste societies are generally referred to as adivasis and tribes. Although, the concept of tribe is colonial, however, there was no alternative to this and in the constitution with the intervention of Dr. B. R. Ambedkar, they are referred to as Scheduled Tribes, a political administrative and legal term. In the light of this, the concept of tribe and adivasi although not endogenous, are today, used in a legal and struggle sense. The tribes and adivasis have been fairly accepted and are used to connote non-caste societies who are very heterogeneous across regions in their lived experiences but have certain common values, customs and worldviews such as the idea of culture, language, customary practices and self rule. The founding fathers of our nation and our constitution framers took a positive approach called ‘integration’. This is a middle path approach. Mahatma Gandhi emphasised the need to develop the tribes living in inaccessible places so as to ensure their integration. In particular, Jawaharlal Nehru in the strategy for development called ‘Panchsheel’ mentioned that they should be integrated without disintegration of their social distinctiveness (Shymlal, 1987.2). In the light of this, Dhebar Committee (October 14, 1961) for the first time, made an affirmative statement for a specific education policy for the tribes towards development. Among other things, it advocated for local teachers for the tribal areas. This report provided guiding principles for the National Education Policy 68 and New Education Policy 1986/1992 with regard to scheduled tribes. The Report as a policy matter recommended that,

“To end the present chaotic conditions in the field which prevail in some of the states, we recommend that there should be one system, one policy-making body and one operating channel in the tribal areas. Education is primarily the responsibility of the State Government and they so far as primary and secondary education is concerned, must take over the sole responsibility.”

Over the last decades, the policy commitment and responsibility of Government on tribal education can be inferred in the number of schemes introduced that covers tribal children. In the post 1990s, there has been a shift of approach; from welfare to rights and justice accompanied with a growing influence of the private/market on education. This has given rise to issues of educational rights of the poorest against inequality created by the emergence of elite private schools. The Right to Education Act, 2009 is a major intervention. In fact, the Right to Education Act in the context of tribes needs to include the idea of equity taking into consideration the nature of isolation and deprivations they faced. This idea seems to have become louder within the emerging public-private social responsibility in the recent times.

Moreover, with regard to the tribes/adivasis, the educational issues are complex and needs specific policy commitment to address it. On the whole, issues of accessibility and dropouts still persist. There is no respite to issues of geographical isolation, backwardness, cultural difference, poverty, ignorance and ignorance which has been highlighted even before Independence as one can read them in A. V. Thakkar Memorial lecture in 1941. In spite of all efforts made in the Governments over a period of time for tribal education after 1950s, the situation is still gloomy. This is confirmed in the 1970 ICSSR (Indian Council of Social Science Research) survey, Suma Chitnis (Maharashtra) and Kabui Gangmumei (Northeast) survey reports. The problem is further highlighted in the recent ICSSR survey (yet to be published). The survey indicates the persistence of accessibility issue. This is further affirmed in the Xaxa Report, 2014. This Report observed (based on the census data) that the government efforts have positive impact on educational status of scheduled tribes, although the gap is still there (58.97 per cent against 72.99). In this backdrop, the report further problematized government policies and programmes in relation to the project of national integration. Based on the data available on displacement of tribals in the development projects, the report questioned integration and viewed it as an adverse inclusion and dispossession. This report comes in the wake of the government attempts to bring inclusive education since the twelfth five-year plans. Over and above, emerging data from the tribal areas indicate a trend suggesting privatization and commercialization and the likelihood of exclusion for the tribes. In the similar lines, the latest move for New Education Policy has been critiqued by many tribal activists. In particular, Sadgopal (2016), critiquing on the draft education policy, indicates that the proposed policy is not inclusive.

Towards Inclusive Education with Equity

The present condition of tribal children in Schools as observed in the U-DISE ((Unified District Information System for Education) data, in some sense, indicates a minimalist approach. In particular, one can conclude with some sense that tribal education initially rooted as a voluntary response to the condition of tribal peoples in India still forms the philosophical foundations of education of the tribal children. This sector became an active partner of welfare service delivery system in the post-independence period. The sector has the commitment and could reach out to places where it is difficult for the Government to reach. However, this social response is likely to be limited as its motivation is rooted in a belief of religious endowment, charity and philanthropy. It could be a detached work where there is a likelihood of tribes being taken as mere beneficiaries.

Moreover, the empirical data also highlights policy issues emanating from a certain perspective towards tribes raising questions of membership as citizens and their stake in the formulation of the policy. It indicates the possibility of a gap between policy and reality of the people. This gap will appear if the policy does not recognise and give space for people to be constructive, interpretative persons and collectives in the realization of the policy. This can be also observed in the event of tribes being driven to the peripheries. This mind set can have immense influence on the policy makers and the administrators. If such is the case, the aim of establishing a conducive environment for the children will get defeated. Children are likely to be marginalised and de-motivated to learn and grow which will adversely affect their growth and development as children.

A possible solution to the problem will come from the policy and change of mind set of the policy makers, administrators and teachers. This has to begin with a policy that evolves from the lived experiences of the people. In this, Dhebar Committee report (1961–62) can give a good direction. Education should entail creation of space for the positive recognition of tribal children, villages and rural reality. It should ensure a system where every child, tribal/adivasi child in particular, regardless of the socio-economic status, gender, caste and religion has equal access to quality education.

While there is an observed attempt by the present Government to bring about a relevant and contextually arrived at policy of education grounded on values, knowledge and skills, the policy makers cannot be blind to the realities of the rural and tribal areas. The Government has a Constitutional commitment to bring education to all children. The responsibility of evolving an inclusive education system built on the principles of access, equality and equity fundamentally lies on the Government. In this direction, the reality insists that Government Schools are important to uphold an education system that responses to the lived experiences of the people, especially those in vulnerable locations. The government is accountable to the Constitution article 21 (A) and Right to Education Act, 2009. Right to Life is fundamental to it. Education should generate a dignified social environment for every child to grow to full maturity. In particular, when it comes to the tribal children, the attempt to evolve an environment that satisfies dignified life has to be understood from the lived experience and worldviews. The tribal children as agents are critical aspects in the process of arriving at a conducive environment. In this sense, creating a pragmatic education system is closely linked to recognition of the agency and worldviews of the tribal children. They are a critical part of building an inclusive system. They are not mere target groups and beneficiaries for the charity and welfare but are active parts of the working of the system. The worldviews, culture, identities and their struggles are foundational to inclusive education. A policy recognition of cultural diversity and values as foundations of a new education policy will get realised only when this frame is grounded on principles of access, equality and equity. The policy recognition and protection of diversity of worldviews is a fundamental responsibility of Government, a non-negotiable reality in the Indian context. In the absence of such a perspective, institutional assimilation and social exclusion/adverse inclusion are bound to happen.

References

• Aggarwal, A. C. 1984. Landmarks in the History of Modern Indian Education. New Delhi: Vani Educational Books. pp. 36–40.
• Alexander, R. 2008. Education For All, The Quality Imperative and the Problem of Pedagogy. London: Institute of Education, University of London.
• Bara, Joseph. April 1997. Western Education and Rise of New Identity: Mundas and Oroans of Chotanagpur. Economic Political Weekly, Vol. 32, No. 15, pp. 23–25.
• Althusser, L. 1972. Ideology and Ideological State Apparatus in Consin B. R., (ed.), Education, Structure and Society. Harmond-sworth: Penquin. pp. 242–280.
• Apple, Mishael W. 1995. Education and Power. London: Routledge.
• Bernstein, B. 1997. Class and Pedagogies: Visible and Invisible in Halsey A. H. Et al (ed.). pp. 59–79.
• Bhatia and Bhatia. 1997. The Philosophical and Sociological Foundations of Education. Delhi: Boaba House.
• Bourdieu, Pierre. 1997. The Forms of Capital in Halsey A. H., et al (Eds.). pp. 46­–47.
• Chitnis, Suma. 1971. The Education Problems of Scheduled Caste and Tribe in College Students in Maharashtra. New Delhi: ICSSR (unpublished).
• Chitnis, Suma. 1981. A Long Way to Go…., New Delhi: Allied Publishers.
• Dewey, John. 1916. Democracy and Education. New York: The Macmillan Company.
• Giroux, Henry A. 1983. The Theory and Resistance in Education: A Pedagogy of the Opposition. New York: Bergin and Garvey.
• Jha, Jyotsna and Jhingran, Dhir. 2005. Poorest and Other Deprived Groups: The Real Challenges of Universalisation. Delhi: Manohar.
• Kundu, Manmatha. 2003. Tribal Education: New Perspectives. New Delhi: Gyan Publishing House.
• Palmer, Joy A. 2011. Fifty Great Thinkers on Education: From Confucius to Dewey. London: Roultedge.
• Sadgopal, Anil. 2016. Skill India or Deskilling India. EPW, Volume LI, 35, August 2016. pp. 33–37.
• Report of the High Level Committee on Socio-Economic, Heath and Educational Status of Tribal Communities of India, Ministry of Tribal Affairs, Government of India, 2014.
• Sharma, Sugan. 1996. Education Opportunities and Tribal Children. Udaipur: Shiva Publishers Distributors.
• Tribal Subplan in Maharashtra: A Diagnostic Study (November 2014), Tata Institute of Social Sciences Sponsored by UNCIF, Mumbai.
• Tripura, Biswaranjan. 2014. Educational Experiences of the Indigenous Peoples. New Delhi: A Mittal Publication.
• Vinoba (Translated version 2010). Thoughts on Education. Varanasi: Sarva Seva Sangh Prakashan.
• Kabui, Gangumei. 1971. Scheduled Tribe High School and College Students in Manipur and Nagaland. New Delhi: ICSSR.
• Khora, Sthabir. 2011. Education and Teacher Professionalism: Study of Teachers and Classroom Processes. Jaipur: Rawat Publications.
  

 

Kimnei Salviana Leivon is PhD Scholar Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai

Alex Akhup is Associate Professor, Center for Social Justice and Governance, TISS, Mumbai

IJDTSA Vol.3, Issue 1, No.1 pp.1 to 17, April, 2018

Have you like this article?