In every society, a book is never just paper and ink. It is memory, argument, and influence bound together. A single chapter, once printed in a school textbook, travels far beyond the classroom. A teacher explains it, a child carries it home, parents discuss it over dinner, friends debate it in corridors, and slowly the words settle into the public mind. When something is written in an authorized textbook, especially one prescribed for children, it acquires the weight of truth. That is precisely why the recent controversy over a chapter in an NCERT textbook has stirred such intense debate.
At the heart of the matter lies a fundamental question: Does a textbook merely describe reality, or does it shape it? And if it describes uncomfortable realities—such as corruption within institutions—should it be restrained in the name of institutional dignity?
The Judiciary as the Last Resort
In India’s constitutional framework, the judiciary occupies a unique position. When citizens feel wronged by the executive or the legislature, they turn to the courts. The Supreme Court, in particular, is often seen as the final guardian of rights and the Constitution. But what happens when questions are raised about the judiciary itself?
Over the years, concerns have surfaced about investigative agencies like the CBI and the ED. Their functioning has been questioned not only in public discourse but also in courtrooms and Parliament. Debates have erupted over the appointment of Election Commissioners and whether the Chief Justice of India should be part of the selection panel. The government has argued that such matters fall within governance mechanisms rather than strict legal mandates. Yet, these arguments reveal deeper anxieties about institutional balance and independence.
Simultaneously, data on pending cases paints a sobering picture. Over 81,000 cases remain pending in the Supreme Court, more than 62 lakh in High Courts, and nearly 4.7 crore in district and subordinate courts. A chronic shortage of judges has long been acknowledged—even publicly lamented by former Chief Justices. The debate over judicial appointments, whether through the collegium system or through a proposed judicial appointments commission, reflects ongoing tensions between institutional autonomy and accountability.
In such a climate, when a textbook chapter reportedly referred to complaints against judges, case backlogs, and perceptions of corruption at various judicial levels, the reaction was swift. The Supreme Court took cognizance, expressing concern that the presentation might damage the morale of the judiciary and undermine public trust.
The Education Question
Yet the controversy is not merely about the judiciary. It is about education itself.
What should children be taught about democracy? Should they encounter only the ideals—constitutional morality, rule of law, access to justice—or should they also be introduced to systemic challenges such as delays, complaints, and institutional weaknesses?
The Supreme Court reportedly felt that the chapter emphasized allegations and complaints against judges while insufficiently highlighting the judiciary’s crucial role in safeguarding constitutional values and ensuring legal aid. From this perspective, the concern was not with discussion per se, but with balance and tone. If young students are led to believe that an entire institution is compromised, it could erode respect for constitutional structures.
On the other side stand those who argue that education must cultivate critical thinking. If corruption exists in multiple spheres—legislature, executive, media, bureaucracy—why should the judiciary be exempt from scrutiny in textbooks? Transparency, they argue, strengthens institutions rather than weakens them. Shielding students from difficult truths may produce obedience, but not maturity.
Institutional Dignity vs. Freedom of Expression
This episode has sharpened a larger tension between two principles: the dignity of institutions and freedom of expression in education.
Supporters of the Court’s intervention contend that institutions are pillars of democracy. Undermining public confidence in them—especially through school curricula—could have long-term consequences. They argue that discussions of corruption must be accompanied by clear solutions and a broader context. Simply listing problems without pathways to reform may foster cynicism.
Critics counter that problem-solving begins with problem-recognition. An eighth-grade student may not be expected to design judicial reform, but awareness of institutional challenges is part of civic education. Democracies thrive not on blind reverence but on informed engagement.
The government, responding to the Court’s observations, withdrew the textbooks and expressed regret. Notices were reportedly issued to concerned officials. The move was framed as respect for judicial remarks and constitutional propriety. Yet this compliance has raised further questions. If educational content on corruption is objectionable in one context, why were earlier curriculum revisions—concerning historical periods or political events—not subjected to similar urgency?
The Broader Political Context
The debate does not unfold in isolation. It intersects with ongoing concerns about political funding, electoral processes, and institutional appointments. The Supreme Court itself has, in recent years, delivered significant judgments on matters such as electoral bonds and gubernatorial actions, sometimes ruling that certain practices were unconstitutional.
In this charged atmosphere, any mention of corruption within a constitutional body becomes politically sensitive. Lawyers aligned with the ruling establishment have argued that corruption should be discussed comprehensively across all branches of government, not selectively. Some maintain that including such content in a school syllabus is inappropriate, especially if it risks misinterpretation.
Others see a pattern: a shrinking space for institutional self-critique. They warn that if even academic discussion about systemic weaknesses is curtailed, democratic culture may suffer.
The Economic Divide in Access to Justice
Another dimension often overlooked is inequality in access to justice. Legal representation in higher courts can cost enormous sums, while district courts—where the bulk of cases remain pending—operate with limited resources. The disparity raises uncomfortable questions about whether justice is equally accessible to all.
Should students be shielded from these realities? Or should they understand that democracy is a work in progress, not a finished monument?
A Defining Moment for Democratic Education
Ultimately, the controversy over two pages in a textbook has grown into a larger national conversation. It asks whether democracy is best served by protecting institutions from criticism or by inviting scrutiny in measured, responsible ways.
Education systems across the world grapple with similar dilemmas. Civic education must inspire trust in constitutional values while also fostering the courage to question. Excessive glorification breeds complacency; relentless negativity breeds distrust. The balance is delicate.
If institutions are strong, they can withstand criticism. If they are fragile, suppression will not make them stronger. Transparency and ethical conduct cannot be defended by prohibition alone. They require engagement, reform, and open dialogue.
The deeper issue, then, is not whether a particular chapter should exist in its original form. It is whether India’s democracy is confident enough to let its children read about both its achievements and its imperfections.
A mature republic does not fear informed citizens. It trusts that knowledge, even when uncomfortable, is the foundation upon which stronger institutions are built.
No comments:
Post a Comment