Author: mkukrishna

Statement of solidarity with Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University, against state led harassment! Uphold the Right to Freedom of Expression!

Click here for the pdf of the statement

27 May 2025

Statement of solidarity with Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad of Ashoka University, against state led harassment! Uphold the Right to Freedom of Expression!

The All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) strongly condemns the action of the Haryana police lodging FIRs at the direction of the chair of the Haryana State Women’s Commission and others against Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad, Associate Professor at Ashoka University, and his subsequent arrest for his social media posts which were in the public domain. AIPSN also views with concern the subsequent pronouncements of the Honourable Supreme Court two judge bench while giving interim bail. Stringent restrictions of freedom have been imposed and formation of SIT has been ordered even while no criminal intent was found.

The whole process is not just an attack on Dr. Mahmudabad’s right to freedom of speech and expression but an unlawful denial of his right to personal liberty. The lodging of the FIRs by itself required no custodial interrogation, given that his movements and place of residence and work were known.

We condemn the action of the state police which chose to go ahead with two FIRs, arrested him and sought extension of his police custody to more than a week to harass him. It is apparent that in an effort to drum up so called public opinion and influence judicial decision making, several vice chancellors were mobilized to send a message to academics to remain quiet. It is apparent that legitimate opinions on the developments in the country which differ from the official government narrative are not being tolerated but being treated as a crime.

Clearly, the social media posts neither contained any divisive overtone nor a threat to the sovereignty and integrity of India, as alleged. Dr. Mahmudabad spoke on a matter of public interest and expressed a view that many people may share. The AIPSN believes that we cannot remain silent because the arrest of Dr. Ali Khan Mahmudabad is an issue of wider concern for the scientific community and for society. As the citizens of a constitutional democracy, we are concerned that the freedom of people to express themselves and to be informed by scholars is under threat now. The attack on him is not just an attack on academic freedom but it is an attack on the democratic rights of the people.

With due respect for the Honourable Court, we believe that the court went beyond the call of duty in commenting on the case in a manner that led to the impression that any departure from the official narrative of the state would lead to an arrest. We are disturbed that an academic who should enjoy academic freedom is facing an SIT for merely expressing his opinion.

The court order issued is seemingly a gag order, restraining him from expressing his opinion and depriving his students of the benefit of his views on matters of public interest.

Although Dr Mahmudabad has been released on interim bail, we are deeply concerned about the entire premise of the complaints filed against him.

The legal system is operating in a selective form against a chosen few who are perceived to be political and ideological opponents of the regime. Persecution is replacing prosecution and the process itself is becoming a punishment. And it is not the rule of law but the rule of the police that is in operation.

The proceedings on this matter do not augur well for a constitutional democracy founded in the wake of a glorious struggle of the Indian people against the British rulers who often used the provision of sedition to put the freedom fighters behind bars for expressing themselves in public. The complaints filed against him under several sections including Section 152 of the Bharatiya Nyay Sanhita for alleged “acts endangering India’s sovereignty, unity, and integrity” make a mockery of the right to freedom of expression.

Since the official motive behind the arrest is unsupportable, the severity in approach towards Dr. Mahmudabad gives reason to believe that a Muslim is being targeted for his identity.

Dr. Mahmudabad’s social media posts, which critique jingoism and underscore the human cost of war, fall squarely within the realm of legally protected right to speech under Article 19(1)(a) of the Constitution of India. His remarks, including concerns about communal polarisation and the imperative to safeguard marginalised communities, reflect a commitment to constitutional values. To equate such critiques with “sedition” or threats to sovereignty is morally and legally untenable. It is an attempt to undermine the very foundations and ethos of constitutional democracy.

We disagree that Dr. Mahmudabad’s nuanced commentary, which seeks to locate the role of women officers within the larger context of the current political scenario, is any form of “disparagement” of women or an “attempt to create disunity”. His posts explicitly lauded the armed forces’ professionalism while urging vigilance in protecting the socially oppressed from state-sanctioned, communally motivated persecution.

While appreciating the fact that Dr. Mahmudabad has been provided interim bail, we wonder why the SIT has been constituted, even though the court noted that it has found nothing incriminating in the posts. The restrictions imposed on him deprive him of his constitutional rights and the order signals that any form of reasoned disagreement with government policies—no matter how well-founded – may be met with criminal proceedings and loss of liberty.

AIPSN notes that critical pedagogy and dissent are essential pillars of democracy and the rule of law. The AIPSN stands in solidarity with Dr Mahmudabad and calls for immediate withdrawal of all charges against him which are legally baseless in their entirety. We hail the solidarity shown by Ashoka University students and faculty and salute the larger academic community that has come out to stand in solidarity with Dr. Mahmudabad.

The AIPSN calls upon the Honourable Court to recall the order and recognise the action of the state as a misuse of law and take remedial action to protect his right to free speech and liberty. AIPSN resolves to continue the struggle to protect and uphold the Constitutional Right to Freedom of Expression.

 

Asha Mishra Satyajit Rath

General Secretary, AIPSN President, AIPSN

 

 

 

by

Condolence Resolution for Dr. Jayant Narlikar

Click here to download pdf in letter head

ALL INDIA PEOPLE’S SCIENCE NETWORK (AIPSN)

Condolence Resolution for Dr. Jayant Narlikar     

With the passing of Dr. Jayant Narlikar on May 20th 2025, the world has lost an outstanding Astrophysicist and Relativist, and India, one of its most eminent scientists . In addition to his important research contributions, Prof. Narlikar made outstanding contributions in the area of scientific outreach. He authored numerous popular books and articles on Astronomy, Cosmology, History of science, science fiction, in Marathi, English and Hindi. In the field of science and mathematics education, he along with his life partner Dr. Mangala Narlikar, played leadership roles in curricular and textbook development at both the national level and at the Maharashtra state level. He was the founder Director of the Inter-University Centre for Astronomy and Astrophysics, which developed under his leadership as a world renowned centre for scientific research as well as public outreach in science.

In his preface to his book ‘The Scientific Edge: The Indian Scientist from Vedic to Modern Times’, Prof. Narlikar writes “ When as a young lad of twenty-two I enrolled myself as a research student in science my aim was to restrict my attention and career to research in astronomy. More than four decades later, I see that aim as confining myself to the proverbial ivory tower.

Indeed it was fortunate that my research supervisor was Fred Hoyle, a man hailed as the most original astronomer of the twentieth century and a distinguished popularizer of science and a writer of science fiction. A close association with him gradually introduced me to the wider vista of the interaction of science and society as well as the subject of the historical evolution of science. Hoyle’s example showed me that it is possible to maintain a satisfactory level of research productivity while enlarging one’s interest in these wider issues. In fact these interests provided a more mature background to my research.

So it was that while in the UK and later after having returned to India I continued and expanded these interests through writing and lecturing. I discovered that the evolution of science in the subcontinent has followed a different track from that in the West. While interacting with the public one runs into two different viewpoints. On the one hand there is awareness that for various reasons India mounted the bus of science and technology rather late and has to make up for this. On the other hand , there is the feeling that in our ancient past we led the world in knowledge. More often than not these views are stated with undue vigour”

In his writings and speeches , Prof. Narlikar consistently articulated a critical view of undue or ahistorical glorification of the past and stood unambiguously with those promoting scientific temper. Together with Dr, Narendra Dabholkar and two others, he authored a research paper which clinchingly demolished any claim of astrology to being scientific . A few weeks after the martyrdom of Dr. Dabholkar in 2013, he presented these ideas and explained the importance of scientific temper, secularism and the values of the Indian constitution as the keynote speaker to a mass public meeting organised in Pune to protest the murder.

When the AIPSN resolved in 2018 and joined hands with MANS to initiate observance of August 20th as National Scientific Temper Day, Prof. Narlikar was the first signatory to the joint AIPSN-MANS appeal for schools , colleges and organizations to publicly observe NSTD each year. He was the main speaker the first NSTD public meeting held on the eve of NSTD 2018 in Pune in which he spoke eloquently and movingly about his association with Dr. Narendra Dabholkar.

The scientific work and writings of Prof. Narlikar will continue to inspire coming generations of young scientists. The AIPSN pays respectful homage to this great scientist, science publicist and promoter of scientific temper.

 

Asha Mishra                            Satyajit Rath

General Secretary, AIPSN     President, AIPSN

 

 

by

Comments on Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024

Click here to see the email that was sent  

Click here to see the pdf of the comments  

09 Feb 2025

To

Secretary,

Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change,

New Delhi- 110 003

e-mail: sohsmd-mef@gov.in

Sub: AIPSN Comments on Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024

            Ref: Yr. Gazette Notification dt 9.12.2024

Please find below the comments from All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) on the Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024.

The comments are regarding  Segregation at household level, Segregation after Collection at Waste Collector/Processing Facilities, Waste pickers, Waste to Energy (WtE) Plants, Sanitary/Operational Landfills & Existing Dumpsites, Over-centralization, Monitoring in public domain and Penalties.

Kindly acknowledge receipt of this document.

The comments received and the action taken should be put  in the public domain in the interests of transparency.

Yours sincerely

Asha Mishra

General Secretary, AIPSN

AIPSN Comments on Draft Solid Waste Management Rules 2024 (hereafter SWM 2024)

1) Segregation at household level     At the very outset, SWM 2024 sets itself for failure by imposing an onerous responsibility on the household waste generator, namely to segregate and hand over 4 (four) segregated waste streams to the waste collector viz. wet waste, dry (recyclable waste), sanitary waste and “special” or bio-medical or other hazardous waste, and also requires the householder to separately store and dispose of horticultural/garden waste and construction and demolition waste (CDW)! Even now, India is struggling to ensure that households (HH) even segregate into 2 streams (wet and dry waste). One understands that technically, garden waste is different from kitchen/ food waste but again to expect HH to segregate these is too much. 2 Streams from HH are adequate, and the rest should be left to the Segregation/Pre-processing/ Waste Processing facilities as further defined in the Draft Rules.

2)  Segregation after Collection at Waste Collector/Processing Facilities is the achilles’ heel of SWM systems. Improper segregation causes multiple problems at Dumpyards, Waste to Energy (WtE) plants etc. This is not emphasized enough in the Rules. Payments to Waste pre-processing Contractors (the system most Urban Local Bodies (ULBs) are following these days) should be linked to the extent of Segregation achieved, not total quantity of Solid Waste handled as provided for.

3) Waste pickers can play a significant role in proper segregation, and have not been adequately emphasized in the Draft SWM2024. Peculiarly, their role has been stressed in Rural Areas, where even the role of CSOs in organizing them has been mentioned, but not in Urban Areas! New clauses should be inserted calling upon ULBs to actively involve Waste Pickers organised in SHGs or other collectives, hopefully with CSO assistance, and incentivize them through payments for segregation achieved and share from sale of recyclables to recycling units as provided for in the Rules.

4) Waste to Energy (WtE) Plants               There is huge confusion in the Rules regarding WtE or other methods of processing dry/recyclable waste. Chapter II.9.1 says that non-recyclable waste with high Calorific Value shall only be used to produce Refuse-Derived Fuel (RDF) or given to a facility producing RDF, but various other parts of the Draft SWM Rules 2024 appear to suggest that WtE Plants would be directly using such wastes. Simultaneously, Ministry of Housing and Urban Affairs (MoHUA) is encouraged (Chapter VII(2)(xii) to “drive” setting up of “adequate numbers” of WtE plants by 2028, contradicting other parts of the Rules underplaying WtE and speaking only of RDF. This appears to be a thinly disguised attempt at making WtE plants using the Incineration method a mainstay of the SWM system. Although the Draft Rules specify standards for emissions from WtE Plants, which are close to EU standards, experience from Delhi so far clearly testifies to highly inefficient, non-conforming and polluting WtEs, often if not mostly using unsegregated solid waste. Without going into details, Incineration-based WtE Systems have been a total disaster in India and should be avoided altogether, or strictly defined and monitored as regards process, technology, temperature, emissions etc.

5) Sanitary/Operational Landfills & Existing Dumpsites                   A similar situation obtains regarding Sanitary/ Operational Landfills (Chapter III.1) and Existing Dumpsites (Chapter III.2). Both these very different systems are spoken of in different places of the Draft SWM2024 with various different specifications, technologies and standards. Chapter III.1.(4) states that “only non-recyclable and non-energy recoverable dry wastes and inerts shall be disposed of” in Sanitary/Operational Landfills,” while Schedule I governing Specifications for Sanitary Landfills say Landfill gas including collection and utilization “should be considered,” (Schedule I(F)(i) to (iii), incidentally without specifying methane emission limits, clearly implying that Landfills can also be used for wet/bio-degradable wastes! Further, the Draft Rules in III.1(5) and.1(6) provide for charging fees for dumping unsegregated solid wastes “till the time” proper Sanitary Landfills are built and made operational, without specifying any outer time limit!  This is not acceptable. Especially so, since provisions for Existing Dumpsites speak only of Mapping by 2026 (III.2(a)) and talk of bio-mining and bio-remediation only “as practicable.” If the current provisions in the Draft SWM2024 remain, it suggests that unsanitary Dumpyards will likely continue well into the future. Some time may be given to Local Bodies to shift completely away from Dumpyards, but Sanitary Landfills should be unambiguously defined in the Rules.

6) Over-centralization                     The Draft SWM2024 calls for vast amounts of information including monitoring details to be uploaded into a Centralized portal. This is an unnecessary over-burdening of a single Portal and an unnecessary degree of over-centralization. It is suggested that all Information be uploaded in State portals and then also compiled into a single National-level portal. This will make State Governments more partners of SWM processes than they appear to be at present.

7) Monitoring in public domain and Penalties             Most of the penalties and fines seem aimed at the first rung of the waste-management chain namely the household, who can be penalized even by the Waste Collector (!), or contracted (private) facility operators for simple or obvious infractions. For example, the Draft speaks of heavy penalties for anyone burning horticultural or garden wastes (IV(7)). However, there is no mention of monitoring of performance of Local Bodies (LB) or their licensed operators and penalties for failures to adequately or properly collect, segregate, handle, treat etc. For example, if a LB continues to run Dumpsites with unsegregated waste, or a WtE Operator does not ensure conformity to air pollution standards, what will be the penalties? There is also no provision for making public the data from Monitoring of pollution levels of air, ground, water bodies or sub-soil water. Without provisions for these, and without strict timelines for the Rules, the Draft SWM Rules 2024 will remain a paper tiger with a set of pious expectations.

 For Contact:

Asha Mishra                                                    D. Raghunandan

General Secretary, AIPSN                              Convenor, Environment Desk, AIPSN

Mobile: 9425302012                                       Mobile 9810098621

Email: gsaipsn@gmail.com                                      Email: raghunandan.d@gmail.com

by

Feedback on the draft UGC Regulations 2025 

Click to see the email sent to UGC

Click to see the pdf of the points in the feedback

The feedback  was accompanied by  a cover letter  signed by the General Secretary on AIPSN letter head .

The text of the letter and feedback is given below

02 Feb 2025

To

Prof. Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar

Chairman, UGC

cm.ugc@nic.in

draft-regulations@ugc.gov.in

Sub: Feedback on the draft UGC Regulations 2025

                        Ref: UGC Secretary  Lr No. F. 6-1/2025 (Regulations Feedback) dt 6 Jan 2025

Based on the request in your above referred letter from the UGC site, please find attached the feedback from AIPSN on the draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2025

 Do acknowledge the receipt of this document.

 Look forward to having all the inputs received made available publicly.

 There are 11 points of concern that AIPSN has raised in the 2 pages below. Importantly AIPSN demands the withdrawal of the draft revised UGC Regulations-2025 which goes against the federal structure of the constitution, destroys the academic autonomy and is against the interests of marginalized students and goes beyond the UGC mandate.

Yours sincerely

Asha Mishra

General Secretary, AIPSN

Mobile: 9425302012

cc:  Secretary, UGC Email: secy.ugc@nic.in

02 Feb 2025

All India People’s Science Network

Feedback from AIPSN on the draft UGC (Minimum Qualifications for Appointment and Promotion of Teachers and Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges and measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education) Regulations 2025

                      UGC Secretary Lr.  No. F. 6-1/2025 (Regulations Feedback) dt 6 Jan 2025

Points of serious concern:

  1. Non-Academicians as Vice-Chancellors: The regulations (10.1.i) permit the appointment of non-academicians as Vice-Chancellors, which has sparked fears about the privatization of universities and the marginalization of disadvantaged students especially if business persons or others with vested interests are made Vice-Chancellors. The draft regulations have far-reaching implications for the higher education sector in India. The appointment of non-academicians as Vice-Chancellors may lead to the privatization of universities, undermining their social responsibility to provide access to education for marginalized students.

 

  1. Chancellor’s Nominee as Chairperson: The draft regulations (10.1.iv.a) propose that the Chancellor’s nominee will be the chairperson of the search-cum-selection committee for appointing vice chancellors. The Chancellor being the Governor for State Universities, this move raises concerns about potential political interference in academic appointments and is against the autonomy of the public funded State run Universities. It is a back door move that deprived the State of control over the University it has created for the welfare of students in that region.
  2. A nominee of UGC: This (10.1.iv. b.) also helps the union government’s indirect control over selection of candidate. UGC which was an independent body established under an act has now almost become the wing of the Union Govt. to implement New Education Policy which was not accepted by many state governments.
  3. Against the Statutes of each state university: 10.1.v refers that the conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the respective University in conformity with these Regulations. If so, how UGC can lay down conditions to constitute a selection committee when the statutes are made by the State Government. Hence the selection of Vice-Chancellor should be based on existing rules and regulations of each and every university as the conditions of service of the Vice-Chancellor shall be prescribed in the Statutes of the respective University in conformity with these Regulations. The Search Committee should be constituted as per the rules and regulations of each and every university.

 

  1. Appointment of Asst.Professors: Provision for recruitment of Academic Staff in University and College have been separately mentioned implying that cadre selection and service conditions for University and College will be different but with the same academic qualifications. It will dismantle the parity among the staff with the same qualifications. It’s against the spirit of equality. 3.3 states that if the discipline/subject chosen in the 4-year undergraduate programme (NCrF level 6) or postgraduate programme (NCrF level 6.5/7) is different from the chosen discipline/subject in NET/SET, the discipline/subject in which a candidate qualified NET/SET shall be considered eligible for appointment as Assistant Professor in that discipline/subject. This guideline will not help to get qualified people for the subject concerned and instead help institutions to fill the vacancy with candidates of their choice.
  2. Recruitment and Promotion (3.8): The candidate for appointment and promotion need to have any four of the nine notable contributions may deprive the candidates from appointment and promotions as these opportunities are inaccessible to all unlike educational opportunities. These opportunities may be given to all after recruitment.
  3. The withdrawal of the cap on contract appointments (8.0) in teaching positions will lead to HEIs becoming teaching shops with contractual labor especially in the context of governments reducing and withdrawing from financial support of State Universities. The sanctioned post must be filled by permanent faculty.
  4. Violation of UGC regulations(11.0)These regulations are based on NEP-2020 which is not accepted by some States and in the  context of these regulations and the imposition of NEP  it will provide a handle for the Union Government controlled UGC to threaten and coerce HEIs to start following NEP.
  5. Privatization and Commercialization: The regulations’ emphasis on industry partnerships and entrepreneurship has raised concerns about the increasing privatization and commercialization of higher education, which may lead to a decrease in funding for social sciences, humanities, and other non-lucrative fields. This will also reduce access to education for marginalized students.
  6. Though the draft regulations are open for public feedback, it seems more like a ritual given the time frame and the history of earlier invitation of comments which are never made available in a transparent manner. The comments received and the response to the comments should be made available in the website.

We demand the withdrawal of the draft revised UGC regulations-January 2025 which go against the federal structure of the constitution, destroys the academic autonomy and is against the interests of marginalized students and goes beyond the UGC mandate

 For Contact:

Asha Mishra                                                    P.Rajamanickam

General Secretary, AIPSN                              Convenor, Higher Education Desk AIPSN

Mobile: 9425302012                                       Mobile 9698025569

Email: gsaipsn@gmail.com                                      Email: rajamanickamponniah@gmail.com

by

18th All India Peoples Science Congress 27 Dec to 30 Dec @ Kolkata

Click here to see a You Tube video showing glimpses of the 18 AIPSC 

QR code for 18AIPSC photos

QR code for 18AIPSC photos Click here for the URL

QRcode for 18AIPSC presentations

QRcode for 18AIPSC presentations                            Click here for the URL

 

Click here for the Abstract book of the 18 AIPSC 

Click here to see the Kolkata Declaration booklet released at 18 AIPSC

Click here for the theme paper of 18AIPSC

Click here to see the program brochure 

Click here for quick schedule view

 

 


 

 

 

 

by

AIPSN Condolence Resolution at the passing of Professor Parthiba Basu

 

 

Click the link to download pdf AIPSN-PB-Condolence

6 Nov 2024

AIPSN Condolence Resolution

at the passing of Professor Parthiba Basu

With the passing of Professor Parthiba Basu, on 4th November 2024 at Kolkata, at the fairly young age of 60 years, the All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN), People’s Science Movement (PSM) and the larger democratic movement has suffered a heavy loss, losing a colleague whom people from many walks of life would turn to on various political, organizational, administrative and personal issues.

Hailing from a family with a long active background in left and democratic politics, Parthiba Basu joined the PSM in the late 1980’s, when he was a doctoral scholar at the newly established Central University, Pondicherry. For several years Parthiba was an active member of the Pondicherry Science Forum (PSF) and maintained links with the PSMs in South India, particularly with those of Tamil Nadu and Pondicherry. For the last thirty years, he was a leading member of the Pashchim Banga Vigyan Mancha (PBVM).

As an academic and researcher, Dr. Parthiba Basu contributed to wide areas of ecological sciences, with intensive fieldwork followed by modeling, for which had gained recognition amongst his peers, in national and international levels. Notably,he was awarded the Boyscast, Smithsonian and Darwin fellowships. He and his group focused on problems of pollination, which has a deep bearing on food production and food security. He was a core member of the Food and Agriculture Organization (FAO) of the United Nations’ Pollination Action Team, where he articulated steps to mitigate pollination loss globally. Under Professor Parthiba Basu’s guidance about twenty researchers have completed their doctorate degrees and some more will submit their theses soon.

Dr. Parthiba Basu had several research collaborations at the national and international levels. He considered agroecology to be a field that combined science, transformative practice and social movement. In the last decade or so, he had trained about 100 resource persons in the field of agroecology, who continue to be active in this field giving important inputs in different branches of the field and to different communities and groups.

For the PSMs, he utilized this practical experience to impart training to PSM activists by intensive training in agroecology workshops. He was the convener of the AIPSN’s agriculture desk, since the 17th Congress at Bhopal, held in 2022.

Professor Parthiba Basu had a long career in teaching, at the college and university levels, establishing a living bond with students, teachers and administration. He served both as secretary and president of Calcutta University teachers’ association and was an active critic of NEP 2020. He fought for the democratic environment and autonomy in higher education. While activating his organization through different mass actions, he always kept the movement’s focus on challenging the ideology of neoliberalism and facing the social threats that this ideology has unleashed upon people’s lives.

This challenge has intensified in the last few decades in India, more so, with the rise of communal, obscurantist, fascistic forces and corporate communalism. In such a scenario, Parthib articulated how PSM ideology, livelihood issues and agroecology itself can be built to counter this. In this, he emphasized “self-reliance for life and livelihood.”

His contributions to the PBVM encompassed many areas. Parthiba enriched the AIPSN as a whole, for which he was elected to the Executive Committee of the AIPSN in its 17th Congress in Bhopal in 2022.

Deeply interested in culture and politics, Parthiba Basu was deeply conversant with Bengali literature and was associated with many publications and publishers. While busy with several commitments, he also enjoyed his holidays, with long drives to different parts of the country.

The AIPSN, while mourning Parthiba’s passing, will celebrate his contributions to the movement and surge ahead.

The AIPSN conveys heartfelt deepest condolences to his family, friends, and comrades in the PSM and the PBVM. He was very eager to witness a very successful AIPSC 18, to be held in his own city, Kolkata. He will not be there with us at the congress. But its success will owe a great deal to the team, of which Parthiba, till the end of his life, remained a very important and inspiring member.

 

 

by

National Scientific Temper Day 2024: Advocating Scientific Integrity and Unhindered Rational Inquiry

Click here for the press release of this statement 

Click here for the statement 

 

19  Aug 2024

National Scientific Temper Day 2024

Advocating Scientific Integrity and Unhindered Rational Inquiry

 

The 7th National Scientific Temper Day (NSTD 24) will be observed across the nation on August 20, 2024, to honour Dr. Narendra Dabholkar, a notable proponent of science and rational thought, who was tragically killed on this day in 2013 by anti-science extremists. His assassination was followed by the murders of others equally vocal and of similar thinking – Govind Pansare, M.M. Kalburgi, and Gauri Lankesh – who were also murdered. In 2018, the All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN), in collaboration with the Maharashtra Andhshraddha Nirmulan Samiti (MANS), established National Scientific Temper Day (NSTD) as an annual event to commemorate these individuals and to promote a scientific mindset.

Upholding Constitutional Values:

Since its establishment, NSTD has received considerable support from a variety of groups and individuals throughout India, with events occurring in numerous regions. This year’s emphasis is on the Kolkata 2024 Declaration on Scientific Temper, which underscores the urgent need for a renewed commitment to evidence-based reasoning and critical analysis in India. This is especially crucial in light of emerging socio-political movements that challenge scientific inquiry and the generation of universal knowledge. The Kolkata Declaration highlights three primary areas for focus: the role of government, the responsibilities of scientific and educational institutions, and the necessity to combat the erosion of academic freedom and the proliferation of pseudo-science. It calls upon scientists, intellectuals, and advocates promoting evidence-based thinking and upholding constitutional values, thereby fostering a scientific perspective.

NSTD also includes the “Ask Why?” campaign, which aims to advance scientific temper and promote Article 51A (h) of the Indian Constitution. This initiative seeks to reinforce the constitutional right to scientific inquiry and to enhance investment in employment; people centred development, education for all, science, technology, humanities, and the arts.

Interplay of Politics and Education:

Concerns are mounting regarding the influence of Hindutva-related initiatives within research institutions and universities, reflecting a significant political agenda that deserves condemnation. A contentious aspect of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2021 was the introduction of Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) into educational curricula at all levels. The policy proposed integrating IKS content into existing subjects and introducing specialized IKS courses at both undergraduate and postgraduate levels.

It is essential to recognize that the foundations of modern knowledge are rooted in various ancient and modern cultures, including India, which also encompass oral traditions from marginalized groups such as tribal communities and unwritten knowledge related to agriculture, livestock, and local practices.

The implementation of IKS into educational curricula has been fraught with contention at the school and UG/PG levels. The NCERT’s recent introduction of new textbooks for Class VI, particularly in social science, gives an inaccurate and biased sanskritised representation of Indian knowledge traditions. Scholars and Ayurveda experts have noted that the NCERT Class XI textbook’s portrayal of Ayurveda includes exaggerations and inflated claims of Ayurveda as being codified 4000 years ago. In reality evidence points to around 6th century BCE.

At the higher education level, guidelines issued by UGC for incorporating IKS are unrealistic. Moreover, due to lack of faculty who understand that IKS even in earlier times has been evidence based, many HEIs are implementing courses that misrepresent, simplify and distort its rich history. Thus, the introduction of IKS has opened the door for individuals with naive or pseudoscientific views on Indian science and mathematics to gain influence. For instance, the director of IIT Mandi has faced widespread criticism for making outrageous claims that have circulated on social media, yet he represents only a small part of a much larger issue.

Haunting the System:

This year, IIT Mandi has introduced controversial topics such as “reincarnation” and “out-of-body experiences” into its IKS curriculum for B.Tech students, eliciting mixed reactions. Similarly, Banaras Hindu University (BHU) has established an entire unit within the faculty of Ayurveda dedicated to Bhoot Vidya. This six-month certificate course aims to educate doctors holding BAMS and MBBS degrees in psychotherapy, treatment of psychosomatic conditions, and paranormal activities as part of their Ayurvedic practice.

It is essential not to entirely dismiss Ayurveda and other ancient or folk medicines as irrational, as they were based on empirical practices of their times. India has a long legacy of Ayurvedic medicine grounded in experience and trial and error formulations. However, these need to undergo rigorous randomised clinical trials, which are considered the gold standard in contemporary evidence-based medicine. It has been shown that it is possible to evaluate ancient practices using modern scientific methods while maintaining their cultural significance. There is a need for rigorous research and evidence-based approaches to ensure their credibility and relevance in contemporary health practices. Consequently, AIPSN continues to emphasize the necessity of adhering to evidence-based medicine, where healing and wellness are founded on published and verified evidence.

These regressive IKS-related incursions into research institutions and universities have become commonplace, creating a persistent challenge for rational thinkers to issue statements in response. Nevertheless, in this ongoing struggle, AIPSN cannot remain silent simply because the government is a repeat offender.

Academic Freedom:  

In a separate development, South Asian University recently raised concerns regarding a PhD student’s research proposal on Kashmir, which was labelled as ‘anti-national’ by university authorities. The university’s actions led to the resignation of the student’s supervisor, Professor Sasanka Perera, raising alarms about the diminishing space for unbiased research in society.

The situation at South Asian University pertains to academic freedom and the international character of the institution, rather than being an Indian institution where the directives of the government, however misguided, may be viewed as “legitimate.” If this is how South Asian University is to be operated, it may be more prudent to relocate it outside of India, shut it down, or place it under the oversight of a completely independent body comprising South Asian representatives.

Importance of NSTD 2024:

The issues related to IKS outlined here exemplify a broader agenda that necessitates critique. Similarly, the coercive influence exerted at institutions like South Asian University poses a significant threat to academic freedom and demands vigilant oversight.

These developments highlight the critical importance of NSTD 2024, which is anchored in the Kolkata Declaration on Scientific Temper, serving as a vital advocate for scientific integrity and unhindered rational inquiry in India.

 

Contact:

General Secretary AIPSN – Asha Mishra 9425302012  gsaipsn@gmail.com @gsaipsn

Arunabha Misra, Convenor, Scientific Temper Desk,  AIPSN 9831105979

 

 

by

AIPSN deplores harassment of organisations that criticise the government

click here to get pdf of statement

25 July 2024

AIPSN deplores harassment of  organisations that criticise the government

 

On July 10, 2024 the Ministry of Home Affairs (MHA) revoked the Foreign Contribution Regulation Act (FCRA) registration of the parent entity (CACIM) of the non-profit Centre for Financial Accountability (CFA), an organization that critically examines the role of financial institutions in development, human rights, and environmental issues. Earlier in January, the MHA had also cancelled the FCRA registration of the Centre for Policy Research (CPR), a leading public policy research institution in New Delhi. These are only a very few cases from the hundreds of NGOs whose FCRA registrations have been cancelled in an arbitrary and non-transparent manner. An unmistakable common thread is that many of these organizations are known for their stout defence of civil rights, government accountability, democratic norms and people’s interests, and have often been critical of government policies and actions. In several cases of FCRA cancellation, reasons given by the government include positions taken against certain development projects or support for people’s struggles against specific industrial projects perceived by locals as being against tribal rights or destructive of the environment. If there are indeed any actual procedural or other “violations” of the regulations by any of these Organizations, they should be afforded the opportunity to take corrective action, institute measures to avoid repetition, and resume operations. But the government’s misuse of FCRA provisions and cancellation of permissions smacks of vindictiveness, intolerance towards criticism and manipulation of regulatory institutions and mechanisms. The government has clearly weaponized FCRA to silence dissenting civil society voices and intimidate others. AIPSN calls upon the government to stop harassing organisations that criticise  actions and policies of the government.

AIPSN has earlier noted similar trends of selectively targeting journalists, online news outlets, cultural personalities, academics and public intellectuals, and even stand-up comics and Youtubers, who have been active in raising public awareness on a variety of civic, governance and policy issues. These trends have serious implications for democracy in India, freedom of expression, and for pluralism. As a network of people-centred science movements, AIPSN is acutely aware that science and a scientific temper cannot thrive if critical thinking and pluralism are suppressed in all spheres.

AIPSN is aware that there are differing opinions in India as to the role of foreign financial assistance to civil society organizations. AIPSN itself does not receive foreign funds nor is it registered under FCRA. Yet AIPSN works with many progressive civil society organizations who do receive such funding, and recognizes their positive contributions to perspectives on development, environment, civic rights and governance. AIPSN will steadfastly defend the right of these Organizations to conduct their activities in accordance with regulatory frameworks in the country. AIPSN recognizes the need for some regulation of fund flows to civil society organizations as exist for commercial activities too. However, the FCRA as it currently operates is totally non-transparent, allows for arbitrary decisions, and gives a dominant role to the bureaucracy and its political masters, with poor oversight and even less accountability. FCRA as it stands requires thorough re-examination, institutional mechanisms for independent oversight and provisions for quasi-judicial appeals and arbitration, beside full recourse to the justice system.

It is indeed ironic that even while this vindictive and partisan crackdown on civil society recipients of foreign developmental funds is underway, several NGOs, so-called “socio-cultural” organizations and even political parties with close ties to the ruling establishment have been quietly receiving foreign funds without scrutiny, exposing the hypocrisy of the on-going onslaught on NGOs receiving foreign assistance. Why is there no level playing field? This is yet another reason for an independent regulatory mechanism, oversight and quasi-judicial review processes.

 

Contact: Asha Mishra, General Secretary 9425302012 gsaipsn@gmail.com

by

Statement on NEET

click here for the pdf AIPSN-NEETStatementJuly4LrHd

4 July 2024

AIPSN Statement on NEET

NEET-2024 (National Eligibility cum Entrance Test-2024) has been under severe attack from all quarters, from public, educational to political. This year it was greatly exposed by its rigging, leaking and corruption and the future of 24 lakh students appeared for NEET is at stake. Over the years since its inception, it was opposed by Tamil Nadu Govt. as it was against the state’s autonomy, social justice, educational quality and healthcare system.

NEET was introduced in 2010 by the then Medical Council of India (MCI).  NEET replaced AIPMT (All India Pre Medical Test) and other state-level examinations. NEET was initially proposed to take place from 2012 onwards. Following the announcement from the Medical Council of India that it would introduce the NEET-UG exam in 2012, several states, including Andhra Pradesh, Karnataka, Gujarat, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, strongly opposed the change, stating that there was a huge variation in the syllabus proposed by the MCI and their state syllabi. The CBSE and MCI deferred NEET by a year.

But the test was later announced by the Government of India and was held for the first time on 5 May 2013 across India for students seeking admission for both undergraduate and postgraduate medicine.

The Supreme Court of India quashed the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) for admissions into all medical and dental colleges on 18 July 2013. The apex court ruled that the Medical Council of India cannot conduct a unified examination.

The Medical Council of India has moved a Review Application before the Supreme Court against the Order dt. 18.07.2013 and the Bench consisting of 5 judges and presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave who dissented in the main case has allowed the Review Application and recalled its Order dt. 18.07.2013 vide the Order of this Court dated 11.04.2016.

Subsequent to this, Sankalp Charitable Trust moved a Writ Petition before the Supreme Court seeking a Mandamus directing the Union of India to conduct NEET for admission to M.B.B.S. Course throughout the country for academic session 2016 – 2017. This case was heard by a three-member bench presided over by Hon’ble Mr. Justice Anil R. Dave. The Respondent submitted that it is proposed to conduct NEET in pursuance of the Notification dated 21.12.2010. Based on this submission, Orders were passed on 28.04.2016 permitting the Union to Conduct NEET.

The reasons for conducting the NEET placed before all:

1) Admissions should be transparent.

2) Admissions should be based on merit.

3) There should be no mandatory donations.

4) Students should not have to take multiple entrance exams for the same course.

But what actually happened over the years:

  1. Lakhs and lakhs of rupees have been spent by the aspirants to get coaching to appear before NEET. This is not possible for the poor and underprivileged who got admission earlier by their school marks. Nearly 20 students committed suicide in Tamil Nadu alone, though they got good marks at school level and not good score for admission through NEET.
  2. Though admission was said to be merit based, students with a low score may get admission to private medical colleges as the poor who got eligible score marks for private colleges could not get admission because of high fees, though there were said to be no capitation fees.
  3. It is pity that many students attempted NEET two to three times.
  4. From the beginning, it was alleged that the NEET exam had no transparency and there were malpractices, and 2024-NEET proved that there was a question paper leak (supposed to be benefited by 40000 students), rigging and corruption to the tune of 30-40 lakhs per student who attempted malpractices.

AIPSN views the following as our concerns:

  1. Since the NEET is the tool and gate way for entering medical education, students start preparing from 6th std onwards, omitting the regular school subjects and not worried about +2 marks and found that even failed students in +2 get more NEET marks due to several years coaching for NEET which is not at all worthy for pursuing medical examination. It is pity that Dr.Radhakrishnan committee recommends 12 years of study is a must and enough for any higher education which is taken as “take it for granted’.
  2. NEET exams being conducted on a different pattern, which indirectly compels students to go to coaching, where they have to pay a hefty sum which is many, many times higher than the application fee for so-called independent entrance examinations as fees and students who do not undergo coaching for NEET will suffer in exams and thus, there is no level playing field in centralised exams.
  3. NEET was earlier conducted by CBSE and now it is conducted by NTA as per National Education Policy-2020. NTA is not an academic body to conduct entrance exams for Hr.education. NTA behaves like an employment recruitment agency.
  4. Because of the nature of NTA, many foretold that it would lead to a scam and it happened in 2024 on a bigger scale. It is alleged that NTA itself indulged in scam by allowing grace marks for delayed exam which was not at all mentioned in the rules of examination-2024
  5. The Union Govt stated that NEET was brought for transparent merit-based admissions and without mandatory donations to Private Medical Colleges and Universities. But both seem like mirages now.
  6. Private Medical Institutions have raised their fees and other amenity fees which are not affordable to the poor and even to the middle class and are not joining, which has resulted in low score  admission and the very fact of merit-based admission being defeated.
  7. Conducting centralized entrance exams is impractical in a multicultural society, imposing uniform rules in the conduction of exams (removal of ornaments including mangal sutra, hizab, safety pins used for safety dressing etc.,) which is a terrifying act  psychologically upsetting the students.
  8. NTA not a professional body to conduct theses examinations should be withdrawn immediately.
  9. AIPSN objects to intervening and preventing state autonomy in admission to higher education.
  10. The 92nd Report of the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee – Health and Family Welfare was tabled in both the houses of parliament on March 8, 2016: Para 5.26: “The Committee, therefore, recommends that the Government should move swiftly towards removing all the possible roadblocks to the Common Medical Entrance Test (CMET) including legal issues and immediately introduce the same to ensure that merit and not the ability to pay becomes the criterion for admission to medical colleges. The Committee also recommends that introduction of CMET should be done across the nation, barring those states who wish to remain outside the ambit of the CMET. However, if any such states wish to join the CMET later, there should be a provision to join it.
  11. In a democratic – federal system, such a centralised system managed by a non-academic agency, can hardly function efficiently.
  12. NEET is a complete failure, NEET is building a coaching industry, NEET discriminates against good students interested in medicine who want to serve the people of their states, NEET is devaluing school boards and NEET does not promote quality in education, be school education or medical education.

AIPSN rejects all kinds of centralized entrance examinations for any kind of state hr. education admissions including NEET, CUET, etc., .

  • NEET is against federalism.
  • NEET is against social justice.
  • NEET contradicts the fundamental requirements of our constitution.
  • To fulfill the needs of the medical aspirants and the demands of society, the union govt. may permit state medical colleges and medical college hospitals for every district of the state, which is deficient in many of the states.

 

Contact:

AIPSN General Secretary Ms. Asha Mishra

9425302012 gsaipsn@gmail.com

Prof. P. Rajamanickam, AIPSN Higher Education Desk Convnenor

968025569