19 Aug 2024
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
click here for the pdf AIPSN-NEETStatementJuly4LrHd
4 July 2024
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:
AIPSN views the following as our concerns:
AIPSN rejects all kinds of centralized entrance examinations for any kind of state hr. education admissions including NEET, CUET, etc., .
Contact:
AIPSN General Secretary Ms. Asha Mishra
9425302012 gsaipsn@gmail.com
Prof. P. Rajamanickam, AIPSN Higher Education Desk Convnenor
968025569
28 Mar 2024
AIPSN brief to the political parties for consideration in their election manifesto
The All India People’s Science Network (AIPSN) – a platform of people’s science movements across the country has the following positions on various critical issues e.g., propagation of scientific temper, S&T policy and process, Environment and Water resources, Health and Agriculture. As the country gears up for the 18th General Election, we would like to present these positions to be considered for inclusion in the electoral manifesto of the secular, democratic political parties of the country.
Article 51A (h) of the Constitution of India speaks of the duty of citizens to promote scientific temper. Recently, new challenges have emerged in the country in the form of strong socio-political narratives, backed by the State power, that seek to oppose any scientific approach, evidence-based reasoning or, indeed, any perspective that acknowledges universal scientific knowledge. We demand:
Various dilutions of regulatory provisions for environmental protection have taken place in the recent past that would have serious impact on our natural resources and climate and will affect people’s livelihoods and wellbeing. There will have to be reversals of these changes. The specific demands are the following:
Right to land, water and commons for all
Right to Food, Employment, Education, Health and Social Protection
Right to public and bank finance, production inputs, knowledge and market
For clarifications contact:
Asha Mishra, General Secretary, AIPSN gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9425302012, Twitter: @gsaipsn
Statement on Scientific Temper in the Current Context
Executive Summary There is an urgent need for a renewed commitment to evidence-based reasoning, critical thinking and a scientific approach in India, especially amidst growing socio-political movements that challenge a scientific temper and universal knowledge production based on commonly agreed methods and understanding. Given the changes in society and technology since the earlier declarations on scientific temper in 1981 and 2011, we emphasise the importance of embracing natural and social sciences, humanities, and the rational experiences of ordinary people in the common endeavour to combat the post-truth culture, the intentional promotion of ignorance, and diminishing trust in science exacerbated by misuse of technology. We call for action across three fronts: the State’s role, the involvement of scientific and academic institutions, and combating the undermining of science by the State, the erosion of academic freedom, and the spread of pseudo-science and unscientific beliefs. We urge scientists, intellectuals, and other like-minded individuals to support evidence-based thinking and policy-making and to uphold constitutional values to foster a scientific temper.
Introduction Since the Coonoor Statement on Scientific Temper in 1981 and the Palampur Declaration in 2011, there have been significant socio-political changes in India and around the world. Briefly, these earlier statements had emphasised the importance of fostering a scientific attitude among the people for development and social advancement. Over time, movements promoting scientific temper in India have also evolved in accordance with changing public perceptions of science and technology (S&T).
Recently, new challenges have emerged in India and elsewhere in the world in the form of strong socio-political movements, backed by the State power, that seek to oppose any scientific approach, evidence-based reasoning or, indeed, any perspective that acknowledges universal scientific knowledge. Globally, a post-truth culture is spreading, marked by a deliberate spreading of ignorance and an anti-intellectual atmosphere, along with a diminishing trust in science. It is ironic that technology, part of the broad umbrella of science, is being harnessed to support these trends through social media, such that manufactured sentiment, prejudice, false narratives, baseless opinions and conspiracy theories gain acceptance as valid ways of thinking.
Against this background, the current situation requires a renewed commitment to robust evidence-based reasoning, drawing from accumulated knowledge in the natural and social sciences, and humanities, as well as from the know-how and rational experiences of working people. Such reasoning aligns with well-recognized methodologies of different disciplines, including emerging interdisciplinary research, applicable not only in academic environments, but also in public discourse and understanding. Both scientists and lay practitioners need to actively embrace and popularise these methods considering the new socio-political realities in India.
This contemporary statement on Scientific Temper has become essential, to address present challenges. This statement shall not undertake a critical review of the previous statements / declarations or debate their points. Instead, it acknowledges past debates and critiques, incorporating their essence into the current statement, recognizing the commonality of scientific disciplines and their methodologies. Rather than revisiting old debates, the focus here is on delineating the significant challenges faced in contemporary India for the constitutionally mandated task of promoting scientific temper, the spirit of inquiry, and humanism. Knowledge production and advancement through purposeful discovery and evidence-based reasoning, including thorough consideration of diverse opinions, is currently under severe threat both in academia and in society at large.
Dangerous new theatre As noted earlier, the arena for fostering scientific temper has evolved significantly in recent decades, becoming increasingly contested, including aggressive socio-cultural forces as well as governmental policies and administrative measures antagonistic to scientific temper. The current situation in India demands critical understanding and action on three interrelated fronts: the role of the State and polity, the character and function of scientific research and academic institutions, and malign influences in society and among the general public.
Article 51A(h) of the Constitution of India speaks of the duty of citizens to promote scientific temper. There is concern in some quarters that responsibilities of the State in this regard have not been adequately highlighted. While it might have been assumed that the State’s primary responsibility is implicit when citizens are called upon for certain duties, there is a need for a clearer delineation of the State’s role.
Note: In the declaration, the terms ‘scientists’ and ‘scientific institutions’ are used as terms denoting all natural sciences, social sciences and humanities disciplines, and those others following an evidence-based path of knowledge production and understanding.
Role of the State In the initial post-Independence decades, the Indian State placed significant trust in scientists1 and scientific institutions. Development policies were evidence-driven, with research institutions and centres of excellence enjoying high priority and prestige, and enjoying substantial autonomy. Documents like the Industrial Policy Resolution and a unique Scientific Policy Resolution were foundational to planned development, guided by a multidisciplinary group of experts in the Planning Commission. Independent scientists and social scientists, both from India and abroad, were involved in policy-making, underlining the importance given to science and evidence-based policy-making. Notably, religion played a minimal role in state affairs, and secularism, defined as non-discrimination and equal respect for all religions, was practised. However, the evils of casteism and communalism have never been properly eliminated.
However, in subsequent years, bureaucratism, elitism, and a techno-fix mentality crept into the system, creating something of a divide between scientists and the general public. Trust in scientific institutions also eroded as a perception grew that “establishment science” primarily served officialdom and corporate interests, rather than the public good as supported by verifiable data. During this period, academic, professional, and informed activist voices in civil society critiqued official narratives, influencing public opinion and contributing to critical thinking and evidence-based policymaking. While the State may not have proactively cultivated scientific temper, it engaged with and supported activities to popularise science among the wider public and children. The State also provided considerable space in governance and public discourse for non-official scientific, expert, and informed lay opinion.
Undermining science and a scientific approach Presently, the State displays a stark departure from this earlier stance. Government and its various organs now actively oppose a scientific approach, independent or critical thinking, and evidence-based thinking and policy-making. This antagonistic stance is widely and persistently communicated to the public through various means, perpetuating such attitudes. State support for research and development (R&D), already below comparable countries as a percentage of GDP, has hit historic lows, raising serious concerns about India’s future in the knowledge era. Domestic assembly by cheap labour is misrepresented as self-reliance, thus also underplaying the need for research and knowledge production.
Funding, fellowships, and independent research face severe cuts in academic and research institutions, burdened by overpowering bureaucratic structures. Career advancement now favours adherence to dominant ideologies, sycophancy, and obedience to government directives over adherence to imperatives arising from domain expertise and research-based insights. Development data and India’s position in reputed international rankings are contested on spurious grounds. Similar data generated in India, even by government institutions, are rejected or manipulated to fit political narratives. On numerous issues, the government claims to lack data, but still proceeds with policy decisions. Open discussions in higher learning institutions are discouraged, hindering critical thinking, pluralism, and academic freedom.
Beyond image management, these tendencies undermine a scientific approach and evidence-based policymaking, demoralising the knowledge production community and fostering anti-intellectual attitudes.
The State and allied social forces directly undermine science and its methods among the public. Unscientific claims by prominent figures in political circles, boasting of imaginary technological achievements and exaggerated ideas about ancient Indian knowledge, are used to build and support a hyper-nationalist narrative. These assertions lack evidence, relying on ambiguous mythological references and dubious interpretations of ancient texts, often draped in quasi-religious cover so as to suppress dissenting voices. Such fanciful and boastful claims undermine many actual substantial contributions of ancient India emanating from various cultural streams and covering intellectual as well as artisanal and technical accomplishments. Critics of such claims are readily branded as anti-national or westernised, questioning both history and science, and undermining the scientific method. Dissent and plurality of opinion, known to be enabling conditions for intellectual progress, are presently under threat.
Assault on the education sector It is disheartening to witness these trends now being introduced into the formal education system, potentially influencing an entire generation unless effectively countered. School textbooks and readings in higher education are undergoing revisions that promote the idea of the unquestioned superiority of knowledge in ancient India, while downplaying the role of other civilizations and their groundbreaking contributions. Whereas addressing Euro-centrism and acknowledging the contributions from ancient India, China, and other “eastern” civilizations is essential, denying the emergence of modern science and technology and the industrial revolution, and the factors leading to it, is not only untruthful but also misleading. The giant strides of modern science and technology cannot be undermined or replaced by fictional narratives, as seen in revised school textbooks of agencies at the Centre and in various states.
These revised textbooks also omit chapters on crucial historical, societal, economic, and ecological issues in India. In an examination-oriented system not fostering critical thinking, this leaves students ill-prepared for higher studies or research and for their roles as informed citizens contributing to national development.
In higher education, mandatory courses on “traditional knowledge systems” are being introduced, presenting a-historical and distorted accounts of knowledge in ancient India. These courses exclusively glorify the Vedic-Sanskritic tradition, neglecting other cultural streams in ancient India and completely disregarding the significant generation of new knowledge in mediaeval India, out of prejudice against particular religious and cultural
streams. This deliberate slant aims to erase or rewrite historical evidence and obstruct critical thinking, leaving students and citizens vulnerable to bias and instilling a distorted view of syncretic Indian traditions and multicultural reality. In the long run, this will result in incalculable damage to the progress of Indian science and to social harmony.
Societal attack In recent decades, India has witnessed the growth of socio-religious orthodoxy, traditionalism, and revivalism, fueled by majoritarian socio-political forces. Traditional religious practices, festivals, and communal forms of organisation have proliferated. Numerous “Godmen” have emerged with substantial resources, sizable followings, and at times, significant political backing. These cults, despite projecting high-thinking spiritualism, have propagated superstitions, pseudo-scientific beliefs, and socio-religious orthodoxy.
Today, social forces aligned with the ruling establishment and supported by the State, disseminate pseudo-science and a belief in mythology as history. False narratives are being used to construct a unitary majoritarian religion and culture, contrary to the diverse religious beliefs even among the majority community. False and unscientific narratives, such as vegetarianism as a dominant “traditional” practice, are being promoted, contradicting scientific surveys conducted by official agencies.
During the COVID pandemic, superstitions and pseudo-scientific notions related to health were actively promoted under the guise of endorsing “traditional” or ancient Indian health systems while implicitly or explicitly criticising modern medicine. Highly placed authorities encouraged practices like lighting lamps and clanging utensils to ward off the virus, with social media amplifying purported “proof” of efficacy, such as recordings of “cosmic vibrations” by NASA. Other pseudo-scientific claims are similarly backed by false evidence supposedly coming from reputed scientific agencies. Artificial creation of long-lost legendary ancient rivers is being undertaken to perpetuate mythology. All these exploit the enduring respect common people hold for science and its truth value. The forces of unreason seek to sow confusion regarding evidence and scientific methods.
Social media and digital technologies play a pivotal role in the State-backed dissemination of unscientific and anti-scientific views, pseudo-science, false narratives, and conspiracy theories aimed at undermining a scientific approach.
In closing, it is important to address the idea that “other worldly” religious beliefs pose the only or major obstacle to fostering a scientific temper in India. Faith poses many challenges which science or rationalism may not always be able to tackle, insofar as faith itself may be defined or perceived as belonging to a non-physical domain. Freedom of religion or Individual faith may indeed be accorded due recognition. At the same time, discriminatory practices or those that impinge on others’ rights or affect public order, must be opposed, and their irrational basis explained. Obscurantism persists due to ongoing weaknesses in society itself, highlighting larger battles that need to be fought, of which the present one may be just a part. Given the organised challenges to a scientific approach discussed earlier, a more focused and targeted strategy is required for the campaign to promote or strengthen a scientific temper.
Declaration We scientists and intellectuals across disciplines, activists and all individuals passionate about spreading a scientific temper, acknowledge that the struggle to promote a scientific temper is wide-ranging and embraces many dimensions. Yet we also understand that, given the grave threats posed in the current context, the major challenge in this period is to combat and roll back these threats. We realise the imminent danger posed by organised multi-pronged attacks to undermine a scientific attitude among the populace. Such attacks not only disseminate pseudo-science, blind faith, and unreason but also promote obscurantism, communitarian prejudices, and discrimination, striking at the core of a humanist approach. False narratives, unfounded opinions, and a cloak of religiosity are wielded to instil adherence to a manufactured, homogenised, majoritarian idea of India.
We, the signatories of this declaration, re-attest the importance of working towards promotion of scientific temper in society. We recognise the grassroots work put in by people’s science movements, other like-minded organisations and dedicated individuals, and commit to support these and other similar efforts. We appeal to like-minded individuals in academia and research institutions, the bureaucracy, and the political class to take a stand upholding constitutional values.
List of Signatories given below
For further information contact
Satyajit Rath 9868877399
Asha Mishra 9425302012
Arunabh Mishra 9831105979
Krishnaswamy 8012558638
Aniket Sule 9820273239
Convinced that India that is Bharat grew for several centuries as Hindostan, and where the people of various religions chose to live together after becoming politically independent from the British Empire and experiencing the partition, is not a society of comparative and competitive religious fanaticism;
Certain that Hindostan is not the land of make-believe demands on Astha (the tradition of belief systems) alone, but that Hindostan is also the land of modern interpretations of religion;
Confident that Hindostan is the land of the rich tradition of syncretism (combining different traditions) and of seekers of the Universal Truths in religions, and that the people cherish civilizational heritage and celebrate the unity in diversity in food, dress and language on everyday basis;
Clear that Hindostan is the land where Nastiks and Astiks coexisted, materialistic philosophical traditions, for example, lokayata flourished, and the revolution of equality through Buddhism appealing to large sections of society took root, and where the traditions of rebellion and resistance grew through the teachings of Basava, Kabir, Nanak, Narayana Guru, Periyar and many more, promoted inclusiveness and syncretism of sufi and bhakti spiritual preachers;
Accepting that the people care for the legacy of the freedom movement, constitutional vision, national unity and integrity, and do not doubt that the majority is concerned about economic, ecological and social justice, and they continue to think about fundamental rights and directive principles of state policy enshrined in the Indian Constitution;
Recognizing that the people as bearers of historical knowledge, skills and culture, and as social carriers of agro-food diversity, culinary heritage, dietary selections, continue to enjoy variegated range of food, health and fitness practices, and they would be willing to stand up once again against the bearers of sectarian politics trying to take away their economic, social and political freedoms;
Recalling that the contributions to modern science & technology made by J C Bose, M Visvesvaraya, P C Ray, C V Raman, M N Saha, P C Mahalanobis, S N Bose, S.S. Sokhey, SS Bhatnagar, Homi Bhabha, Vikram Sarabhai, Satish Dhawan and by many others who challenged the colonial order in S&T, and the perspective and strategy of Scientific Policy Resolution (SPR, 1958) which cherished self-reliance and, embraced scientific approach to policymaking, the scientific and technological communities would not let the people suffer unreason and eliminate the space for pluralism and diversity from the world of higher education, science, technology and humanities;
Persuaded that as the post-independent India’s transformative impulses of self-reliance that accommodated the Gandhians, Nehruvians and Leftists to practice their own S&T heuristics for development in the parallel, gave a place to the ethos of scientific temper and humanism in the Indian Constitution, and in the National Curriculum Framework (2005) and in the Right to Education legislation (2008), the Indian S&T community and the people can be mobilized to defend these gains;
Knowing that the ecumenical (promoting unity among religions), cosmopolitan and modern traditions of scientific and technical practice have deep roots in India, the S&T community can be made to appreciate that the sources of ancient and medieval contributions to science involved multi-cultural interactions, and that the attempts to present mythology as history and fiction as science do not resonate well with the people, the vast majority of Indian people can be made to understand how the latest modern construction of the past traditions is to present an ideology that glosses over and hides the inequalities and exploitation based on caste, class, gender and community;
Recognising that as the people resisted Brahmanism and caste oppression in the ancient and medieval times, the latest attempts to cultivate and impose the irrational and unreasonable ideas on the Indian Women, Youth, Adivasis and Dalits can also be defeated among the people across North, South, East and West of India by mobilizing the people against the assault on scientific temper in the relevant spheres of school and higher education, scientific research and science popularisation;
Feeling alarmed at the Union Government’s blatant unconstitutional attempts to impose on the states the National Education Policy (NEP, 2020), that has the potential to damage irreparably the national character and destroy the secular and democratic contributions of Indian education, the Peoples’ Science Movements (PSMs) call upon the state governments to resist the efforts that sow the seeds of hatred and conformism deep into the mind of the young under the influence of the idea of Hindutava – a destructor of social progress and universal brotherhood/sisterhood, and rededicate themselves to developing quality education with public purposes of national importance
As PSMs,
We solemnly affirm our constitutional right to defend the integrity of Article 51 A(h), and to ensure that the investments in education, science, technology, humanities and arts are considerably enhanced and directed to work for the realization of the scientific temper/outlook[1], for the cultivation of linguistic and socio-cultural diversity, for the universally cherished message of love (‘Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam’ – the world is one family’ ) and for the secular and socialist idea of India and for the reduction of inequalities;
We will contribute to the movements seeking economic, social and ecological justice, and work for the dignified livelihood for the Indian people as a whole through education and research, commit to redouble our own efforts for the promotion of progressive anti-imperialist nationalism, and to strengthen the role and contribution of Indian S&T institutions in the processes of decision making and evaluation of the socio-economic policies under implementation;
We continue with the work started by Dara Shikoh, Savitribai and Jyotriba Phule, Ramabai, Rabindranath Tagore, Nehru, Mahatma Gandhi, Periyar, Bhim Rao Ambedkar, EMS Namboodripad, Ashfaqullah, Bhagat Singh, Subhas Bose, Meghnath Saha, S.S Bhatnagar, Homi Bhabha, S.S. Sokhey, Vikram Sarabhai Husain Zaheer and many others who stood their ground and established the edifice of post-independence period modern S&T institutions, and helped the people to realize the idea of India and the legacy of progressive traditions of the freedom movement;
Mobilize the scientific community to stand up for academic freedom, and actively collaborate with the democratic movement and civil society to defend civil liberties and democratic rights, freedom of expression, organization, representation and struggle through constitutional means, and expose and isolate the forces supporting the babas spreading fatalism and unreason,
Collaborate and work with the rationalists, scholars, academics, scientists, technologists, social scientists, teachers of humanities and sciences, and professionals about the way forward for the realization of the above stated goals of social progress, propose policies, build institutions and establish a standing mechanism to pursue the challenge of cultivation of scientific temper, humanism and world peace.
[1] The term scientific temper is broadly defined as “a modest open-minded temper—a temper ever ready to welcome new light, new knowledge, new experiments, even when their results are unfavourable to preconceived opinions and long-cherished theories.
For further information contact
Satyajit Rath 9868877399
Asha Mishra 9425302012
Arunabh Mishra 9831105979
Krishnaswamy 8012558638
Earlier events
ON 17 October 2023, NCERT released a number of special modules in English and Hindi on Chandrayaan 3, for circulating to millions of school students as supplementary reading material. However due to severe criticism as seen in press and media coverage the NCERT initially took down the webpage on the modules but after the Government defended the modules in a PIB release on 25 October saying “Mythology and philosophy put forward ideas and ideas lead to innovation and research” the website came back online! These modules were targeted towards different learning stages as described in NEP 2020 (Foundational, Primary, Middle School, Secondary and Higher Secondary). Shockingly, many scientific and technical errors occur in the content of these modules, some of which are pointed out below. In addition, there are pseudo-scientific claims and misleading scientific content, and even a reference to a Nazi scientist, quite out of sync with the usual standards of material from NCERT, apart from numerous grammatical errors in the English versions.
There is a clear danger that this wrong information will be transmitted to students as-is and cause real harm. Or worse: the content is so badly written that students will be put off this exciting field.
Members of the scientific community and all rationally minded citizens should summarily reject this shoddily prepared material. The way NCERT reacted after the criticism to withdraw them and then put them back on after the government defended the mythology must not happen again. The demand is that NCERT recalls all these modules at once permanently.
List of Scientific Errors, Pseudoscientific claims and Falsehoods in the NCERT modules on Chandrayaan
Foundational Stage (code 1.1F, kindergarten and grades 1-2):
Reality: The launcher rocket worked perfectly, and although the lander failed, the orbiter module of Chandrayaan kept working and ISRO kept receiving data.
Reality: The rocket (LVM3) carried the Chandrayaan 3 spacecraft. The spacecraft itself had an orbiter and a lander. The rover was kept inside the lander to get released after landing on the Moon.
Reality: It has been conclusively shown through research that the origin of the much touted Vymaanika Shastra text can only be traced to the early 20th century and the designs, engines and instruments described in it are completely imaginary, unscientific and useless.
Reality: All these mentions of flying vehicles in various vedic texts and epics are understood to be products of the poets’ imagination. Almost all ancient cultures around the world have literary references about their gods flying in the sky. However, they are not taken as proof of the existence of flying vehicles in ancient times. There is no proof of any human leaving the Earth to travel to space before Uri Gagarin did it in 1961. And the Rgvedic reference given in the text is simply wrong as the 16th sukta of the 1st mandala of Rgveda does not even have 48 verses.
Reality: As mentioned above such literary references could be found in multiple ancient cultures and Sarabhai and other scientists’ vision for the Indian space programme was not a product of these poetic inputs. Claiming so would be an insult to the legacy of Sarabhai and pioneering works of many contemporary scientists
Reality: Although the lunar axis of rotation is almost perpendicular to the ecliptic plane, any mountain peak can be in ‘near constant sunlight’ only if it is almost at the south pole. The landing site of Chandrayaan 3 is more than 500 km away from the lunar south pole. Thus, finding such mountain peaks near the landing site is not possible.
Reality: ISRO has not publicly released any educational materials regarding this and hence this activity is just a game of guesswork and reproducing jargon from ISRO pages without any understanding.
Reality: As discussed above, these texts are either just poetic imaginations or not ancient at all.
Comment: This is tautology, undesirable in any educational text.
Comment: If a spacecraft passes close to a celestial body without entering in an orbit around that body, then it is classified as a ‘flyby mission’. Given this classification, no flyby lunar missions have explored the south pole of the moon.
Comment: This and other similar instances of invoking NASA are name dropping exercises. Using the name to NASA does not add credibility to such nonsense.
Comment: This is not related to the Chandrayaan missions. Further, “receive signal from ground observatory” does not make any sense.
Moon during the period.
Comment: The Nakshatras is the background and it is the moon that transits in the foreground.
Comment: Although authors attribute this belief to folklore, it should be avoided here as it is irrelevant. If it must be mentioned there should be a clear assertion that this claim of the moon’s rays possessing healing properties is not supported scientifically.
Make a Solar System → Locate the sun at the centre of Solar System → Make the elliptical path that orbit the Sun → Locate the planets on each elliptical path → Locate the satellite on each planet that orbit the planet again → Show the Moon of our planet
Comment: Here the level of English is so poor that the meaning is completely lost. How “paths orbit the sun”, how “satellites are located on each planet”, everything is a mystery. Sentences such as “locate the satellite on each planet” are meaningless. This is a rehashed version of the activity which was already present in class 8 NCERT book and just retaining the same text as in that book would have been better than this text.
Comment: What is meant by “the most expected theory suggested” makes no sense.
Comment: This is a poorly written paragraph which creates a lot of misconceptions. The moon appears to be the largest body, but that is due to its proximity. Moon protecting the earth from the solar wind is also scientifically inaccurate and the second part of that sentence “ideal for studying the universe” does not have any connection to the first, and is meaningless here
Comment: This is total mischaracterisation of the scientific results. The mission confirmed the presence of water molecules. Moreover, “Ice Sheet” refers to a thick layer of only ice, whereas the amount of water in lunar craters is too small to form ice sheets.
Comment: Completely misleading portrayal of how space research will develop in near future. Commercial space tourism is not a priority of ISRO and space tourism (even in near earth orbits) will remain prohibitively expensive for most of the human population at least for another generation or two.
Comment: If one says the satellite is injected without mentioning that it is injected into orbit, the meaning of the sentence changes completely.
The correct wording should be: “Once a rocket reaches the right altitude from the Earth, it injects the satellite or the spacecraft into desired orbit.
Comment:“Who would be found on the moon”? Did we leave anyone there by mistake? Certainly wrong and a mystery. Perhaps the authors imply ‘what’.
Comment: Do students know what these bands are? Introducing terms without explanation is not educational.
Comment: Funnily, this appears under the section “planetary research”.
marked the commencement of the lunar day.
Comment: The lines should read as “However, the situation is not the same on the Moon. It takes nearly 27.3 Earth days to complete one rotation, so each location on the moon receives sunlight for about 14 earth days continuously. That date marked the commencement of the daylight period for the landing location.”
Comment: And with that we conveniently join USA to whitewash the fact that von Braun was a nazi scientist who built missiles V2 for Hitler.
Comment: Will students be able to make sense of this grammatically incorrect senseless description?
Comment: It should have said “… so that it can reach the gravitational sphere of influence of the moon”, not gravitational field, as the gravitational field extends till infinity.
Comment: The bodies will ALWAYS revolve around their common barycenter. If one of the bodies is much more massive than the other body, then the barycenter of the system will be closer to the centre of the large body and hence its motion is not perceptible. That’s all.
Comment: How do you “nail” Earth at the origin?!
For clarifications contact:
Asha Mishra, General Secretary, AIPSN
gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9425302012, Twitter: @gsaipsn
All India Peoples’ Science Network (AIPSN) says no to centralization and privatization of research funding and asks the Union Government to remit National Research Foundation Bill to Parliamentary Standing Committee on S&T, Environment and Forests for a comprehensive assessment.
The National Research Foundation (NRF) Bill, 2023 seeks to replace the Science and Engineering Board (SERB) Act, 2008 by establishing an entity that will not be a fully publicly funded, dependent on corporates, philanthropic bodies and international foundations for funds, centralized in decision making via the Prime Minister as ex-officio President and the Union Ministers of S&T and Education as ex-officio Vice-Presidents and controlling the directions of academic research across disciplines and domains of application. The original rationale of NRF was to redirect the flow of funds to the state universities to strengthen them as academic institutions.
In the five year allocation of Rs 50,000 crores for R&D through the NRF, 72% of will be financed by the private sector (through as yet unidentified process), and only 28% funded by government. The funding structure will seek the establishment of a stronger intellectual property mechanism of the Bayh-Dole kind which has been resisted by the academic institutions. In the current proposal corporates and elite institutions with access to power centers will have an edge.
Only 1% of the institutions of higher education engage in active research. In terms of the percentage of GDP, India’s spending on research and development (R&D) is among the lowest in the world. In 2022, India only spent 0.65% of GDP on R&D. The public funding for R&D has come down from 0.8% at the start of the 2000s to about 0.65% now; full time equivalent (FTE) researchers in the higher education sector declined from 39.96% in 2015 to 36.48% in 2018. Researchers employed in the publicly funded research sector declined from 30.32% in 2015 to 23.13% in 2018.
The NRF would not be able to address any of these structural impediments to the promotion of academic research and research of societal application and public value. The state universities need more qualified teachers and researchers in permanent posts. Rampant feudalism, gender and caste based oppression, lack of culture of collaboration are major obstacles to the climate for research and innovation. The NRF hands over executive control and channel of funding to the governing body with much say for corporate entities with no representation to state governments in the Union Government funds for R&D.
It is important to involve academics from all over the country, the state higher education councils and the line ministries of the Union Government to ensure decentralized decision making. The NRF can undermine the possibility of harnessing the energy of multiple sources of initiatives. Joint planning is a more effective way of realizing diversity and plurality of missions in the world threatened by climate change and inequality.
AIPSN demands that the “National Research Foundation Bill 2023” be re-examined. This bill should be sent to the Department Related Standing Committee on S&T, Environment and Forests for a comprehensive assessment. The Committee should invite the development authorities, line departments of the union government and state governments, the representatives of organizations working with the scientific community and individuals to submit their views on the Bill. The centralisation of funding, lack of academic oversight, not addressing the existing structural problems, privatisation of funding in NRF Bill needs re-examination and a thorough open scrutiny by the scientific community.
For Contact:
Asha Mishra, General Secretary, AIPSN Mobile: 9425302012 Email: gsaipsn@gmail.com
P.Rajamanickam, AIPSN Higher Education Desk Convener, Mobile: 9442915101
13th Feb 2021
AIPSN Response to
Draft National Higher Education Quality Framework (NHEQF)
The UGC during the pandemic period has brought out the draft National Higher Education Quality Framework (NHEQF) on 30 Jan 2022 and through an undated public notice released at the same time on the website has asked for feedback from all stakeholders by 13th Feb 2022 via the gmail id nepnheqf@gmail.com
The response from AIPSN is given in two parts: a) Procedural inconsistencies and b) Long term deleterious impacts
8.The mobility that this framework is supposed to give is theoretical. Given our ground social realities even teachers and scientists find it difficult to move easily to different institutions. How will first and second generation students coming from rural and tribal backgrounds be able to move to different far off universities or colleges considering that there is no corresponding logistics provided for fellowships, accommodation transfers etc. Instead of putting the cart before the horse the Government would do well to consider putting in place enough accommodation and fellowships for underprivileged and marginalised students all across the country before embarking on such exercises as the NHEQF which will only favour the elite.
Building for National Qualifications Frameworks (AANZ-0007) -Volume II):
assure the way they are defined and applied;
education and training providers, and other key stakeholders including employers,
relevant government agencies and professional bodies;
quality; and
systems
The draft NHEQF put out by UGC has not looked at any of these points. It is better that UGC takes back this draft and does not implement the NHEQF for another 5 to 10 years till it does a more thorough process, the necessary effective infrastructure within and between HEIs develop. In the Indian context it is also necessary to ensure that social justice is not subverted in the process of bringing in a system that is fraught with potential to further marginalise the already marginalised and privilege the already elite sections of society.
We call upon UGC to abandon or keep in abeyance this flawed National Higher Education Qualification Framework (NHEQF) and instead first enable the infrastructure and functional requirements for such a Qualification Framework to function properly.
For clarifications contact:
gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn
Click here to read the AIPSN Press Statement
23 Sept 2021
“Reconstitute National Steering Committee for National Curriculum Framework”
The Union Ministry of Education has set up a National Steering Committee for the Development of National Curriculum Frameworks as per the perspectives of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020. The Committee is expected to develop four National Curriculum Frameworks, namely,
1) National Curriculum Framework for School Education
2) National Curriculum Framework Early Childhood Care and Education
3) National Curriculum Framework for Teacher Education
4) National Curriculum Framework for Adult Education.
According to the terms of reference, the 12-member Committee chaired by Prof. K. Kasturirangan will have tenure of three years. It will “discuss different aspects of School Education, Early Childhood Care and Education (ECCE), Teacher Education and Adult Education keeping in focus all the recommendations of NEP 2020 related to these four areas for proposing curriculum reforms”.
It is a matter of deep concern that the entire span of educational curriculum reform, from the early childhood years to adult education, has been entrusted to a small committee with no expertise in these crucial areas. Members include educational administrators and even entrepreneurs. This seems to be in line with the trend of the National Education Policy 2020 to usher in private players while making subservient established institutions of public education. Indeed surprisingly, no faculty members of NCERT are included, even though it is the apex national body responsible for the development of curricula; rather, the Director of NCERT is expected to ‘assist’ the Steering Committee.
A National Curriculum Framework is meant to provide a sound academic basis to guide a range of curricular interventions, for the development of syllabi, textbooks, teaching learning processes and assessments. It is worth noting that the Steering Committee for the NCF 2005 had thirty five members, with eleven from NCERT and twenty four persons from across the country with experience and expertise in different domain areas. These included eminent academics from the social sciences, sciences, language and mathematics; school teachers, principals of schools and colleges, educationists, and leaders of educational and rights based NGOs. An even larger group of well known experts were invited as members of the different Focus Groups to work on the set of position papers.
AIPSN calls for a re-constitution of the Steering Committee with persons having a deep understanding about learners in diverse and disparate socio-cultural contexts, disciplinary knowledge of school education and domain expertise in teacher education/adult education, as well as sound experience of the pedagogical processes required to develop a National Curriculum Framework. Moreover, if there is serious concern for the future of all our learners, the Committee will need to address the challenges of education with commitment to the Constitution and a focus on equity, quality and inclusion.
For clarifications contact:
P.Rajamanickam, General Secretary, AIPSN
gsaipsn@gmail.com, 9442915101 @gsaipsn
