8/22/2019 Anand Teltumbde Article on Freeship

1/2

MARGIN SPEAK

aug ust 6, 201 1 vol xlv I no 32 EPW Economic & Political Weekly10

Playing Foul with the Oppressed

Anand Teltumbde

Anand Teltumbde (tanandraj@gmail.com) is a

writer and civil rights activist with the

Committee for the Protection of Democratic

Rights, Mumbai.

The Maharashtra government has

renounced its freeship scheme

for students belonging to the

ranks of the oppressed and has

thereby jeopardised the future of

13 lakh students. Their parents

and the concerned schools have

challenged such delinquent

governance in the courts, but

the government seems bent on

implementing the neo-liberal

policy of self-nancing of schools.

In its name itself, Maharashtra dons

the rhetorical armour of being great.

In hard matters of economy, the colo-

nial gift of Mumbai the capitalist hub of

India still covers up its lack of develop-

ment and puts it in the statistical lead in

the ranking of states of the Indian union.

In matters of culture and history, it takes

for granted its pre-eminence; one of its

litterateurs of yesteryears, Acharya Atre,

wrote Only Maharashtra has history; others

have geography. But when it comes to

dalits and other such oppressed people, its

rhetoric knows no bounds; it becomes a

Mecca of social justice, a la Maharashtra

of Phule-Ambedkar, notwithstanding the

Khairlanjis and a callous record of dealing

with caste atrocities.

The current instance of disowning its

responsibility towards 13 lakh school stud-

ents from these marginalised social groups

goes beyond callousness; it reveals how

the state government plays foul and un-scrupulous games with the oppressed.

Freeship Scheme

From 1970 onwards, Maharashtra had a

freeship scheme for the students belonging

to the scheduled castes, vimukta jati,

nomadic tribes and special backward classes.

This arrangement has been reiterated

through its circulars emphasising that stu-

dents from these categories will get free

education from Standard 1 to 10 in all

schools irrespective of their parents income.

In 1996, well after the adoption of neo-

liberal policies, the government explicitly

stated that this freeship will be applicable

to all non-government recognised, aided

and non-aided schools as per the standard

rate. As such, the schools kept on getting a

fee reimbursement for their students belong-

ing to the above backward categories from

the social welfare department of the govern-

ment. Around 2000, a dispute arose because

of a discrepancy between the amountsanctioned by the school education depart-

ment as the standard rate and the amount

sanctioned for reimbursement by the social

welfare department. At the instance of the

courts, the government issued an order on 15

November 2000 that it would reimburse fees

for all students at prescribed rates. On 27

May 2003, one more order was issuedwhich, inter alia, said that the fee structure

and its quantum and criteria will be decided

by the social welfare department and the

Scheduled Tribes Department.

Notwithstanding the convoluted circu-

lars, which usually help governments to

strangulate whatever little progressive con-

tent their policies have, in this case the

responsibility for reimbursement, whatever

its quantum, was never denied. Interest-

ingly, the scheduled tribe students were

administratively segregated from these cat-

egories, their fees being sanctioned/reim-

bursed by the scheduled tribes department,

entirely at different rates compared to

those authorised by the education or social

welfare departments.

Retrograde Retraction

Then, without any communication, the

social welfare department stopped reim-

bursement of fees to schools from 2007.

The schools pursued the matter with thegovernment for some time but to no avail.

They were verbally informed that it was a

mistake that they got reimbursements so

far. The schools did not have any option

other than to ask parents to pay the fees.

Some schools carried on for some time,

some threatened not to declare the results

unless the fees were paid, and some simply

asked the students to go away. Parents also

responded variously according to their

capability. The real sufferers were the stu-

dents, who ultimately bore the brunt of the

anxieties of their schools, as well as their

parents. The matter was eventually taken

to Court in 2010 by both.

On 21 December last year, the govern-

ment pleader informed the Court that the

decision on the report submitted by the

committee constituted on 18 February 2010

recommending the rates at which reim-

bursement of fees should be made by the

government would be decided upon within

a month. Secretaries of both the key depart-ments, viz, social justice and nance,

were present in the Court. The committee

8/22/2019 Anand Teltumbde Article on Freeship

2/2

MARGIN SPEAK

Economic & Political Weekly EPW august 6, 2011 vol xlvI no 32 11

comprising the principal secretary, social

justice, as president; principal secretary,

tribal development department; secretary,

school education department; and secre-

tary, rural development department; as

members, and director, directorate of social

welfare, Pune, as member-secretary, had

provided three options, but recommendeda fee reimbursement at the highest rate

(option 3), irrespective of the actual claims

by the schools. It had provided an estimate

of the number of students as 13 lakh and a

rough calculation of the nancial burden in a

range from Rs 226.20 crore to Rs 382.20

crore, corresponding to option 1 and option 3.

Contrary to its earlier indication that the

government will take a decision on these

recommendations, the government com-

municated to the Court its decision taken

on 10 March 2011 that it will not reimburse

fees. The Court noted that the stand

adopted by the state government was not

only arbitrary and unreasonable, but that it

violated Article 14, Articles 21 and 21A read

with Articles 45 and 46 of the Constitution,

and hence ruled that the government reim-

burse the schools as per option 1 (lowest)

along with the arrears within six weeks. It

explicitly rejected the plea of the govern-

ment to stay the order even as the latter

had decided to appeal against the order inthe Supreme Court.

Accordingly, the government should

have deposited the amount of arrears with

the schools by mid-June. But true to its

character, it did not pay heed and pursued

its case in the Supreme Court. The case

came before the Supreme Court on 11 July;

as expected it was dismissed. It might then

be of some interest to anticipate the gov-

ernments next move.

Self-Financing Schools

Even if the government pays the amount to

the schools, along with arrears for the previ-

ous years, which is the least expected of it,

the problem will not be resolved. The school

managements have already submitted that

the rates recommended by the committee

under all the three options are lower than

the rates at which they are constrained to

charge fees from the students. Even the rate

of Rs 350 per month per student in Stand-

ard 8 to 10 under option 3 is much less thanwhat the schools needed, in view of the rising

pay scales of teachers and other expenses

incurred by the schools. The government

had indicated that a committee formed

under the chairpersonship of the minister

(school education) with the minister (tribal

development), minister (social justice), and

minister (minority affairs) as members

would examine whether the scheme imple-

mented by the tribal development depart-ment can be applied to the students of the

above categories. In the meanwhile, it has

drafted a bill for self-nancing educational

institutions, which could become an Act

soon, obviating the problem itself.

This is the real solution the government

has in mind for the problem of nancing

education. The government takes credit for

the Right to Education Act, conveniently

hiding the fact that not only was it already

enshrined in the Constitution but also that

the Constitution had specically mandated

it to introduce the free and compulsory edu-

cation to all the children up to the age of 14

years within 10 years of its coming into

effect. The government was reminded of

this responsibility by the Supreme Court in

the Unnikrishnan case in 1993. It still played

mischief by restricting the liability to cover

children only in the 6 to 14 years age group,

thereby excluding 170 million children

through the 86th Constitutional Amend-

ment Act in 2002 and then enacted the so-called Right to Education Act in 2009. It

projected this retrograde step negating the

concept of neighbourhood schools (provid-

ing the same standard of education to all

children in the locality) as per the spirit of

the Constitution, explicated by the rst Edu-

cation (Kothari) Commission in 1966, as a

revolution. Actually, it legitimised the multi-

layered education system that had mush-

roomed with the neo-liberal ethos. Notwith-

standing these serious lacunae, the govern-

ment appeared to undertake the responsi-

bility as it promised to complete the task

within ve years, i e, by 2015. But, it began

shirking its responsibility right from the rst

year itself under the age-old alibi of a

resource constraint and under its cover

opened the oodgates for private capital to

inundate the entire terrain of education.

Challenging Delinquent

Governance

In accordance with its constitutional obliga-tion, the government extends freeships to

the students belonging to the backward

communities in the government and aided

schools. It cannot arbitrarily shy away from

this responsibility in non-aided schools, as

they have basically come up because of its

inability to provide education to all children.

The case under review does not concern the

scheduled tribe students just because they

are paid for by a separate department. Assuch, it has not been a question of principle

but a question of mal-governance in not hav-

ing basic policy coordination across its vari-

ous arms, viz, education, social welfare and

tribal departments. Instead of being ashamed

of this fact, it has the temerity to dismiss the

whole issue saying it was a mistake that it

reimbursed fees in the past a mistake that

squandered crores of rupees of the exchequer

over many years without being accounted

for! The government also came up with the

standard alibi of a budget constraint.

Notwithstanding the exposure that the

state government actually failed to utilise

more than Rs 2,000 crore collected

through the education cess and provided

by the central government in the last

nancial year, a resource constraint can-

not be a reason for not meeting the obliga-

tion in respect of fundamental rights. But

who will pose such questions to the gov-

ernment? The fact that people have to go

to Court against the government upon theviolation of their fundamental rights by

the latter bespeaks volumes of the repre-

sentative character of the governing insti-

tutions of the democratic republic of India.

In the present case, a poor vegetable ven-

dor had gone to court as he could not

afford to pay fees for his son and a nephew.

The whole episode depicts the plight of

the majority of the people; those who are

said to live off a paltry income of Rs 20

a day are impelled by the government

to seek justice against its delinquency

through the courts. Instead of waking up

to its irresponsibility, the government per-

sists with it and plays more foul games

with people who challenge it. The insensi-

tivity of the government in the subject

case, jeopardising the future of 13 lakh

students belonging to the backward classes,

towards whom the Constitution swears

special responsibility, is indeed striking,

but is in no way an isolated case. It has

become a mark of its character. Can peo-ple then be blamed if they resort to uncon-

stitutional means to get justice?