Shouldn’t farmers speak English?
When Dr B.R. Ambedkar met Gandhi for the first time, Gandhi apparently was not aware that Ambedkar belonged to the Dalit community. Going by his attire and his speech, Gandhi had assumed that Ambedkar belonged to the upper caste. When Ambedkar’s caste became known later, Gandhi was taken aback.
Perhaps, that’s the reason why Ambedkar changed his attire, language, and way of life that reflected his caste. In this country, the reason why manual scavenging is still on is because we have created a caste only for the purpose of manual scavenging. Even now, we unconsciously believe that they exist only for that purpose.
To go beyond the identities emanating from his caste, Ambedkar projected a suit-clad identity. Similarly, to get over his upper caste-identity, Gandhi shed his suit and started wearing loin cloth. Even today, upper castes consider as an affront to them if Dalits lead a life of respect and dignity. Such attitudes lead to attacks on Dalits if they use a horse during a wedding or even move around in bikes before upper caste people. Narayana Guru wrote in Sanskrit not because of his love for the language but to prove to upper castes that Shudras can also learn Sanskrit. Kuvempu wrote his epic book as an act to spite the attitude of superiority among upper caste poets.
All the above incidents relate to caste and community. The ongoing farmers’ protest around Delhi have revealed that such attitudes also exist towards farmers in this country. The Centre and Sangh Parivar are using different methods to suppress farmers’ protests.
The government used police force; it also spread the fear of the Coronavirus. It went to the extent of digging roads and trenches to stop the farmers. But when the farmers fought all odds and reached Delhi, it alleged that the protestors were not farmers at all.
First, it said the protestors were ‘Congress representatives.’ When that allegation did not hold true, it alleged that the protestors were ‘Khalistani extremists’ pointing to the Sikhs’ beard and turban. At the same time, a few media organizations also tried hard to prove that the protestors were not farmers citing that many of the protestors were speaking English and wearing jeans.
A few of them owned vehicles. Revealing his stupidity, a journalist was seen asking the protestors ‘if you are farmers, how can you speak English’? But that begs a few fundamental questions - why can’t a farmer in this country wear Jeans? Or own a vehicle? Or speak English? Is this because all these rights are owned only by those in the IT, BT sector or corporate honchos and their followers and no one else? As the government also holds the same attitude, it has come forward to implement laws that practically hand over the lives of farmers to corporates.
Four decades ago, primary school texts had a poem titled ‘annadaata’ which portrayed the pathetic life that that farmers lived. Even today, the word farmer brings to mind the sad, skeletal visual of a person, ploughing the field. We have a deep-rooted belief that farmers exist only to be exploited.
Similarly, middle-men, brokers in the market, and politicians believe that it is their right to exploit farmers. No wonder then while farmers grow crops, others reap dividends and become rich based on the farmers produce.
When those manufacturing liquor or cigarettes that are not essential for life can become billionaires, why can’t a farmer who works day in and out to grow essential food grains become so? Now is the opportune time to raise this question. Why is it not a matter of pride for us when a farmer owns vehicles, speaks English, or wears suits? Contempt towards farming and farmers is deep rooted.
Such contemptuous attitude towards farmers and the farming community are responsible for children of farmers who are fairly rich to stay away from farming and choose careers in engineering and medicine or be enamoured with city life. Young men who rely on agriculture do not get suitable brides.
If a youth is asked about his profession and his answer is ‘agriculture’, there is a perceptible change in the attitude of the one who is asking the question who becomes pale on hearing the response. If someone who has completed his higher education later chooses agriculture, he is labelled as ‘unemployed’ and repeatedly asked the following questions:
“Why are you doing this after studying so much” or “Did you have to study so much to do this”? At the same time, we have amidst us many who have quit their engineering or medical jobs and surrendered themselves to agriculture and have become role models.
Newspapers publish stories of people who have grown different crops and have made crores of rupees owing to agriculture. Despite this, our prejudice against agriculture has not gone away. The contribution of Punjab towards the first Green Revolution is very significant.
Traditionally, they rely on agriculture and educated youth also do not hesitate to take up agriculture. Besides agriculture, they prioritise the army and have imbibed the motto of ‘Jai Jawan-Jai Kissan’ in their lives. As Punjab farmers are independent financially, educated, and are fluent in English, they are able to revolt against the government’s agriculture policy and question the government.
They are able to convey to the government that they are not slaves of rulers, by barging into the capital. They have started to change the attitude of the country towards farmers. It is the bounden duty of each person who consumes food to stand with farmers. Humiliating farmers would amount to humiliating the food we eat.
Let the Truth be known. If you read VB and like VB, please be a VB Supporter and Help us deliver the Truth to one and all.
Single higher education regulator bill tabled in LS; Oppn flags ‘centralisation,' JPC likely
New Delhi: A bill to set up a 13-member body to regulate institutions of higher education was introduced in the Lok Sabha on Monday.
Union Education Minister Dharmendra Pradhan introduced the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, which seeks to establish an overarching higher education commission along with three councils for regulation, accreditation, and ensuring academic standards for universities and higher education institutions in India.
Meanwhile, the move drew strong opposition, with members warning that it could weaken institutional autonomy and result in excessive centralisation of higher education in India.
The Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan Bill, 2025, earlier known as the Higher Education Council of India (HECI) Bill, has been introduced in line with the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020.
The proposed legislation seeks to merge three existing regulatory bodies, the University Grants Commission (UGC), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE), into a single unified body called the Viksit Bharat Shiksha Adhishthan.
At present, the UGC regulates non-technical higher education institutions, the AICTE oversees technical education, and the NCTE governs teacher education in India.
Under the proposed framework, the new commission will function through three separate councils responsible for regulation, accreditation, and the maintenance of academic standards across universities and higher education institutions in the country.
According to the Bill, the present challenges faced by higher educational institutions due to the multiplicity of regulators having non-harmonised regulatory approval protocols will be done away with.
The higher education commission, which will be headed by a chairperson appointed by the President of India, will cover all central universities and colleges under it, institutes of national importance functioning under the administrative purview of the Ministry of Education, including IITs, NITs, IISc, IISERs, IIMs, and IIITs.
At present, IITs and IIMs are not regulated by the University Grants Commission (UGC).
Government to refer bill to JPC; Oppn slams it
The government has expressed its willingness to refer it to a joint committee after several members of the Lok Sabha expressed strong opposition to the Bill, stating that they were not given time to study its provisions.
Responding to the opposition, Parliamentary Affairs Minister Kiren Rijiju said the government intends to refer the Bill to a Joint Parliamentary Committee (JPC) for detailed examination.
Congress Lok Sabha MP Manish Tewari warned that the Bill could result in “excessive centralisation” of higher education. He argued that the proposed law violates the constitutional division of legislative powers between the Union and the states.
According to him, the Bill goes beyond setting academic standards and intrudes into areas such as administration, affiliation, and the establishment and closure of university campuses. These matters, he said, fall under Entry 25 of the Concurrent List and Entry 32 of the State List, which cover the incorporation and regulation of state universities.
Tewari further stated that the Bill suffers from “excessive delegation of legislative power” to the proposed commission. He pointed out that crucial aspects such as accreditation frameworks, degree-granting powers, penalties, institutional autonomy, and even the supersession of institutions are left to be decided through rules, regulations, and executive directions. He argued that this amounts to a violation of established constitutional principles governing delegated legislation.
Under the Bill, the regulatory council will have the power to impose heavy penalties on higher education institutions for violating provisions of the Act or related rules. Penalties range from ₹10 lakh to ₹75 lakh for repeated violations, while establishing an institution without approval from the commission or the state government could attract a fine of up to ₹2 crore.
Concerns were also raised by members from southern states over the Hindi nomenclature of the Bill. N.K. Premachandran, an MP from the Revolutionary Socialist Party representing Kollam in Kerala, said even the name of the Bill was difficult to pronounce.
He pointed out that under Article 348 of the Constitution, the text of any Bill introduced in Parliament must be in English unless Parliament decides otherwise.
DMK MP T.M. Selvaganapathy also criticised the government for naming laws and schemes only in Hindi. He said the Constitution clearly mandates that the nomenclature of a Bill should be in English so that citizens across the country can understand its intent.
Congress MP S. Jothimani from Tamil Nadu’s Karur constituency described the Bill as another attempt to impose Hindi and termed it “an attack on federalism.”
_vb_22.jpeg)
