Minister slams Lakshadweep administration for ‘removing' Arabic, Mahal languages from school curriculum
This move, taken under the guise of implementing the National Education Policy (NEP), blatantly contradicts the Union government's professed commitment to promoting mother tongues and regional diversity in education, he said in a statement.
By denying Lakshadweep's children the opportunity to learn their own language, the Centre is violating the constitutional rights of linguistic minorities. By doing so, it is undermining the very pluralism and inclusiveness that define our nation, the senior Left leader said.
''Language is not merely a medium of communication. It is a carrier of identity, history, and culture. The systematic erasure of native languages through education policy is nothing less than an assault on the cultural fabric of our society,' Mr. Sivankutty said.
The Minister recalled that the Government of Kerala had earlier raised strong concerns about the underlying intent and direction of the PM SHRI project and the broader NEP framework. 'Our decision to oppose its implementation in the State was based on precisely such apprehensions--that centralised policies would override regional, linguistic, and cultural realities in the name of standardisation,' he said.
Pointing out that education is a subject in the Concurrent List of the Constitution, the Minister said both the Centre and States have a role in its governance. 'Any attempt by the Union government to unilaterally impose educational directives that marginalise local languages and cultures is a clear case of overreach and must be resisted,' he said.
Expressing strong solidarity with the people of Lakshadweep on this issue, Mr. Sivankutty urged all democratic forces, educators, and civil society organisations to raise their voices against this 'linguistic injustice' and to demand an immediate reversal of the decision, the statement added.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hindu
28 minutes ago
- The Hindu
What are the pros and cons of the Employment-Linked Incentive scheme?
The story so far:The Union Cabinet approved an Employment-Linked Incentive (ELI) scheme with an outlay of ₹99,446 crore. The scheme, a promise made in the 2024-25 budget, is aimed at creating employment, particularly in the manufacturing sector. It is a part of the Prime Minister's package of five schemes to facilitate employment such as internships with big companies and measures to improve skills of the youth. What are the key provisions? The ELI scheme, according to the Labour Ministry, incentivises creation of more than 3.5 crore jobs over a period of two years. The Centre expects 1.92 crore newly employed people to get the benefit of the scheme, which comes into operation from August 1, 2025 and ends on July 31, 2027. The Employees Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) will implement the scheme. Newly recruited employees, with salaries up to ₹1 lakh, will get a one-month EPF wage up to ₹15,000 in two installments. The EPFO will pay the first instalment after six months of service and the second instalment after 12 months of service — both as direct bank transfer. A portion of the incentive will be kept in 'a savings instrument of deposit account for a fixed period and can be withdrawn by the employee at a later date'. The establishments, registered with EPFO, will get up to ₹3,000 per month, for two years, 'for each additional employee with sustained employment for at least six months'. The Centre adds that for the manufacturing sector, incentives will be extended to third and fourth years as well. How have employers responded? Employers have welcomed the scheme, with caveats. Former Federation of Indian Chambers of Commerce and Industry president Subhrakant Panda said that ELI is a 'laudable initiative'. It will drive employment, especially in the manufacturing sector, through an innovative approach which combines support for those joining the workforce for the first time with incentives for creating sustained employment, he added. CII's office-bearer Sachit Jain said the ELI scheme has the potential to reshape India's employment landscape and boost labour-intensive sectors. The Sangh Parivar-backed Laghu Udyog Bharati pointed out that the focus of the scheme must be directed towards micro, small manufacturing units and allied service sectors. 'We also urge that units with less than 20 employees, which form the majority, are not left behind. These units must be included under the scheme benefits,' it demanded in a statement. The founder of the Association of Indian Entrepreneurs, K.E. Raghunathan, told The Hindu that the scheme must be repositioned under the Ministry of Micro, Small and Medium Enterprises, with a structured reimbursement model based on actual payroll data addition. 'For every new employee a specific percentage of the salary must be paid to the employee and employer as a subsidy directly on a monthly basis, as long as the employee remains in service. Make it simple and ensure a wider coverage,' he suggested. What about trade unions? Barring the RSS-backed Bharatiya Mazdoor Sangh (BMS), all 10 central trade unions have questioned the scheme. The BMS has welcomed the ELI scheme with a rider that the government must expand the social security base and improve the quality of employment. Other unions fear that workers' money will be used to incentivise employers. Citing the fate of the Production-Linked Incentive of 2020, wherein certain sectors were given sops by the Centre to create jobs, but the money had gone into the pockets of big companies. They argued that the EPFO had to conduct a probe and ban certain companies after finding the scheme was misused for employers' benefits. What are some of the concerns? There are concerns on the role of the EPFO in the scheme. As EPFO is only a custodian of savings of employees, unions are asking how it can act as an agency to implement the scheme. As the EPFO has no government funds in its books, there are doubts over the reimbursement of the money which could go to the employer or a newly recruited employee. As EPFO is not an agency with the responsibility of creating jobs, there are demands to create a separate agency to implement the scheme. Industry experts are also questioning why the government is not addressing the slowdown in the economy, and not taking steps to improve the purchasing power of workers.
Time of India
34 minutes ago
- Time of India
Govt Intervenes in Onion Row; Calls for Direct Market Purchase from Farmers
Nagpur: Amid rising discontent among onion growers over declining prices and irregular procurement practices, Maharashtra Revenue Minister Chandrashekhar Bawankule intervened to address the crisis. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The senior BJP leader held urgent discussions with Union ministers Pralhad Joshi and Piyush Goyal after former MLA and Prahar Janshakti Party leader Bacchu Kadu initiated a hunger strike in Amravati, demanding a Rs24 base price and the elimination of middlemen control. Following the protest, Bawankule convened a high-level meeting at Vidhan Bhavan this week, attended by ministers Jaykumar Rawal (Marketing), Manikrao Kokate (Agriculture), and senior officials from various departments. The discussions focused on overhauling the procurement system to ensure farmers receive fair compensation for their produce. "The primary objective is to prevent farmers from distress-selling. We are working on a mechanism in consultation with the Centre to ensure transparent, efficient procurement directly from the producers," Bawankule stated, emphasizing that onion farmers must not depend on commission agents. Marketing minister Rawal argued that the current system had been dominated by a few vested interests operating intermediary procurement centres. "Procurement and exports are unrelated. The system must be corrected. Farmers must get the benefit, not middlemen," he asserted, proposing the closure of all non-transparent procurement centres. Agriculture minister Kokate supported this view, stating, "All govt procurement should be routed through APMCs. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now It's the only way to guarantee traceability, fair pricing, and systematic procurement." Bacchu Kadu, who ended his fast following the state's assurance, reiterated that central agencies like the National Cooperative Consumers' Federation (NCCF) and NAFED should buy onions directly from markets or farmers, not from agents. "A base price of Rs24 per kg should be fixed immediately. Onion procurement from outside the APMC system must stop," he demanded. In the last procurement cycle, delays and poor storage conditions caused significant spoilage, with thousands of tonnes of onions rotting in godowns. Farmer groups have warned of a repeat if corrective steps are not implemented immediately.
The Hindu
43 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Why is Maharashtra debating over Hindi?
The story so far: The linguistic debate in Maharashtra continues days after the Maharashtra government withdrew two orders introducing Hindi as the third language in primary education across Marathi and English medium State Board schools. The government has appointed a committee under renowned economist Dr. Narendra Jadhav to study the three-language policy. What is the language debate in Maharashtra? On April 16, the Maharashtra government issued an order making Hindi mandatory as the third language in all English and Marathi medium schools of the State Board in Maharashtra. The government said that it was as per the provisions of the National Education Policy (NEP), 2020. 'At present, two languages are being taught from Grade 1 to Grade 4 in all the English and Marathi medium schools in the State. As per the State Education Framework, 2024, Hindi will be mandatory as the third language in all the English and Marathi medium schools from Grade 1 to Grade 5,' the order stated. Till now, third language was introduced only in Grade 5 in English and Marathi medium State Board schools. The other medium schools already have a three-language policy in primary education. What was the reaction? There was widespread opposition to the government's decision on two grounds — first, that a third language should not be imposed in primary school from Grade 1 to Grade 5. The second ground was about the imposition of Hindi. Regional linguistic groups, academics, civil society members, and prominent literary figures raised their voice against the move which was dubbed as an effort to 'force Hindi', and a move towards 'cultural hegemony'. The Maharashtra government's own language committee wrote to the government seeking its immediate revocation. Experts argued that the NEP, 2020 focussed on R1 and R2, which is the mother-tongue, and an additional second language for primary education. They said that children should not be burdened with learning three languages in primary school. 'Why should there be an imposition of Hindi? This is a concerted effort for cultural hegemony. This is in line with the RSS' plan of 'Hindi, Hindu, Hindustan'. In Maharashtra, the Marathi manoos will stand for his linguistic, cultural identity. This is a historic moment since the movement for the reorganisation of States on linguistic basis. The entire State has stood against the government's imposition of Hindi,' Deepak Pawar of Marathi Abhyas Kendra said. How did the government respond? After a severe backlash, Maharashtra education minister Dada Bhuse promised to revise the government resolution (GR). 'Hindi will not be mandatory,' he announced. On June 17, the government revised the GR, making Hindi a 'general' third language in schools. It stated that the students had the option to learn any other Indian language as the third language, but that it was mandatory for at least 20 students to come together to make the demand. 'The government will make a teacher available or will make provision for online learning if at least 20 students come together to learn any other Indian language apart from Hindi,' the revised GR stated. Also read:Language of unity: On Maharashtra and the issue of Hindi However, this drew further backlash as academics and regional linguistic political parties called it an effort to impose Hindi through the backdoor. 'The whole exercise of the meeting of the steering committee was carried out in secrecy by the government. The language committee of the government itself was never consulted on the move. The decision is illogical. It has no scientific backing by educationists, child psychologists. It has been taken without any consultation with the stakeholders and experts. At a time when the Marathi culture and language is not being respected by its own government, this is an assault on the linguistic identity of the State,' said Laxmikant Deshmukh, head of Maharashtra's language committee. What about political realignments? The issue provided a fillip to Raj Thackeray's Maharashtra Navnirman Sena, which counts 'Marathi asmita' or linguistic chauvinism as its core ideology. 'We are Hindus, not Hindis,' he said. It paved the path for the reunification of the Thackeray cousins after two decades. Uddhav Thackeray and Raj Thackeray joined hands against the government's move, even holding a joint rally. Deputy Chief Minister Ajit Pawar too openly expressed his displeasure with the government's decision and said that Hindi should not be imposed till Grade 4. This has led to an unease within the Mahayuti with Eknath Shinde not wanting to be seen as standing against the cause. In the face of upcoming local body elections, the language debate has led to changed political dynamics. What is the way ahead? The government has announced the scrapping of the two controversial GRs issued on April 16 and June 17. Chief Minister Devendra Fadnavis announced the formation of a committee under Dr. Narendra Jadhav to look into the three-language policy, and said the government will accept his report. Academics have raised questions on Dr. Jadhav's expertise in school education, and have demanded the scrapping of the committee as well as the decision to impose the three-language policy in primary education. Opposition parties have said the government should scrap the three-language policy altogether. 'We will not accept the three-language policy,' Sanjay Raut, Shiv Sena UBT leader, said.
