CITIZENS, NOT SUBJECTS: RECLAIMING IT AMID ORCHESTRATED POLARIZATION

       Breaking Boundaries, Building Unity in Diversity Through True Patriotism

 

India, with her vibrant diversity, is facing a storm of polarization. Political lines are sharper, religious rhetoric rings louder, and divisions with rising religious fundamentalism seem forced into everyday life. In a country marked by rich diversity, yet torn by deep fault-lines of religion, caste and politics, the call to genuine patriotism and responsible citizenship has never been more urgent. Respectful religious dialogue must be championed—especially by those in power. Grassroots unity remains elusive amid institutional compromise and centralization. The nation needs role models of citizenship that transcend caste, creed, and political loyalties. Patriotism must be rooted in values, not birthplace; talent must rise above religious identity. Only inclusive civic engagement can preserve India's pluralism and foster peace, growth, and brotherhood. Today’s India demands citizens who rise above sectarian divides. Who respect religious dialogue. Who embrace the full sweep of the Indian-idea—unity through diversity. Especially when polarization and fundamentalism threaten to hollow out the social fabric.

Landscape of Division

Dialogue and respect—two foundation stones of democracy—often get missing from public discourse. Instead, what is heard are accusations, threats, and the silencing of dissent. Political polarization is not new in India. But under the present regime, it has grown more orchestrated, more calculated. The ruling dispensation is driven by identity politics, selective majoritarian memory-making, and a narrowing of what “India” means. This frames patriotism in dangerously exclusionary terms.

Major central institutions—judiciary, media, investigative agencies—once pillars of democracy, now find themselves under shadows. Critics argue many have lost independence, bought off or pressured to toe the ruling regime’s line. Laws pass without debate. Parliament sessions have gotten shorter. Investigations appear politically motivated. For many, democracy looks less like open exchange, more like staged events.

In this environment, religious dialogue becomes not a luxury but a moral imperative. If leaders of the current government heed nothing else, they must hear this: genuine patriotism recognizes the Other. Citizenship recognizes equal dignity for every community. Local-level peace, grassroots unity, must begin with ordinary citizens. But in many places that remains a pipe-dream. Why? Because the central bureaucracy, regulatory institutions, oversight agencies have been brought to heel. Autonomous voices are dwindling. Checks and balances muted. The result: local grievances fester, local minorities feel unprotected, local democracy erodes.

Take employment and livelihoods. The economy may show growth—but that growth has not trickled down uniformly. The International Labour Organization and Institute for Human Development find that India’s youth make up nearly 83 % of the jobless. Religious minorities have seen rising unemployment rates in 2023-24 (Business Standard, Nov. 04, 2025). This compounds the sense of exclusion for large sections of the citizenry. Hence, patriotism cannot mean celebrating big numbers while ignoring jobless youth. Citizenship cannot mean waving flags while neglecting fundamental rights. Real India-unity must embrace economic justice and social dignity.

Citizenship: Beyond Rituals, Beyond Religion

Yet, in these testing times, the idea of India shines through the acts of ordinary and extraordinary people. True patriotism is not shrill; it is compassionate and constructive. It is found on local streets, inside humble homes, and at crowded stadiums. India needs living models of citizenship—people who uphold unity through action, not allegiance to religious or caste labels. When we speak of united citizens for a united India, we need to move beyond slogans. We must ask: Who is the citizen? What does it mean to love one’s country? In the present climate, these questions are urgent.

Citizens across religions, regions, and languages have built and defended this nation. Their stories of courage and brotherhood are what will keep India strong and united. For example, many Christians have made a deep mark on the social, cultural, and literary life of India as a whole. Though small in number, Christians have remained active, united, and influential far beyond their size. Unfortunately, political and religious biases have sometimes twisted history, hiding the positive role Christianity has played. These distortions have also fueled attitudes and actions that threaten the spirit of religious freedom guaranteed by India’s Constitution. This reflection seeks to highlight the real and constructive contributions of Christianity to the region’s social, cultural, and educational growth. Therefore, citizenship is not about birthplace alone. It is about participation, contribution, responsibility. A Tamil-Muslim doctor in Kolkata is as patriotic as a Punjabi-Hindu farmer in Punjab. A Christian schoolteacher in rural Andhra serves the Indian nation just as surely as a Hindu engineer in Bengaluru. Talent is not tied to religion. Patriotism is not measured by birthplace or demographic fixity.

True patriotism is not blind allegiance. It is a willing, critical love for the country — one that calls the nation beyond its failures, weaknesses and injustices. It is the kind of citizen who holds the government to account. Who demands independent institutions. Who affirms minority dignity, religious dialogue, constitutional values. We need more of those citizens: across caste, community, creed, rite. The kind who understands that diversity is India’s strength—not its weakness.

When Institutions Fail, Citizens Must Rise

True patriotism is service—helping wherever one lives, not outshouting others. Within India, labels persist. Competent officers are tagged by religion, not achievement. Politicians give incendiary speeches that threaten social harmony. The present regime has declared multiple “wars” of destruction and division— on livelihoods, on minorities, on truth, on independent institutions. It is a war not always shot with bullets, but one waged through policy, through silencing dissent, through monopolizing narrative.

War on livelihoods and the poor: Despite claims of high growth and job creation, the data tell a different story. Unemployment remains stubbornly high. Youth particularly are excluded. The gulf between elite growth and mass stagnation widens. Income inequality grows—the poorest 20% saw their earnings drop by over 50% in five years. When the many feel they are being left behind, patriotism becomes hollow.

War on minorities, on civility, on the rule of law: Minorities face violence and discrimination. Stories of lynching, of hate speech, of demolition drives disproportionately targeting minorities litter headlines. Independent institutions that once protected rights are being weakened. A democracy that silences dissent is no longer fully democratic.

War on science and history: When STEM subjects are sidelined, when textbooks recast history in ideological frames, the nation’s intellectual future is compromised. A citizen can only flourish when knowledge, history, critique are alive.

War on institutions: Freedom of the press is under threat. India’s rank on press freedom has plummeted. Fake news spreads rapidly, dissent is punished or silenced. When the judiciary, election commission, regulatory bodies are seen to be under government control, citizens lose recourse. Regulatory bodies and commissions lose independence. At the grassroots, this means fewer protected spaces. At the national level, this means weakened accountability.

None of this helps, and much of it divides. So, while leaders may divide and distract, the real hope lies with citizens standing firm. At local levels. In small acts of resistance. In everyday devotion to democracy.

Faith, Freedom and the Spirit of Citizenship

The recent remarks by social worker Jimmy Mathew on cricketer Jemimah Rodrigues have stirred concern. He cautioned that her open testimony of faith in Jesus and her father’s public witness might “backfire.” Such a comment reflects the unease of our times, where expressions of personal belief are viewed with suspicion. As citizens of a pluralistic India, we must reject this mindset. To suggest that Jemimah’s Christian faith could harm her career is to imply that faith itself has no place in the public square. That is not patriotism—it is prejudice. Patriotism, rightly understood, means safeguarding the dignity and conscience of every Indian, not silencing them.

Jemimah’s faith is her compass, not a campaign. It is not political propaganda but a personal conviction that guides her life and work. Agreeing with Journalist C.M. Paul, I would say, in a secular democracy, such openness should be celebrated, not feared. If speaking of Jesus is seen as a “risk,” then something is deeply wrong with our understanding of freedom. Our Constitution guarantees the right to profess, practice, and propagate one’s faith. Yet when public figures are told to hide their beliefs, the idea of secularism is distorted. True secularism does not mean the absence of faith, but equal respect for all faiths. Jemimah’s testimony is not a threat to national unity—it is an example of integrity in diversity. To link her to unverified allegations against her father is unfair and unethical. It undermines both her individual dignity and the spirit of citizenship. In India’s vibrant democracy, no one should be shamed into silence because of belief or background.

Patriotism today must stand for the protection of conscience, not its suppression. It must affirm that every Indian—Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, or atheist—has the right to speak, pray, and live according to conviction. The strength of our republic lies not in uniformity but in mutual respect. Let us therefore appeal for maturity in public discourse. Faith should never be treated as a liability, nor should belief be forced into secrecy. The true test of citizenship is not how alike we are, but how well we honor our differences. Jemimah’s quiet courage is a reminder that in a divided society, authenticity itself becomes an act of patriotism.

Local Patriotism: The Heartbeat of National Unity

For a united India, citizenship must begin at the local level. Unity does not emerge only from large symbols. It grows first in small places — villages, urban neighborhoods, local schools, community centres. Mutual respect, neighborly help, and community engagement lay the foundation. Yet, polarization and institutional pressures often turn neighbors into strangers. Building harmony means defending every citizen’s Rights, regardless of their background. It means creating safe spaces for dialogue, standing up against prejudice, and holding leaders openly accountable. If India is a mosaic, every tile must hold. Here is the practical mode:

Start with religious dialogue and respect:  In a neighborhood mosque, a Hindu family walks in to greet Ramadan. In a Christian church, the imam is invited for Iftar. These small acts matter. They signal that religion is a bridge, not a boundary.

Champion joint citizenship rights: In local panchayats, all community members — Hindu, Muslim, Christian, Sikh, Dalit, Adivasi — must have equal voice. When school committees, village councils, urban wards reflect the full diversity of India, then unity deepens.

Elevate talent and service over identity: Award local youth not by religion, but by merit. Celebrate the community teacher, the woman who runs a micro-enterprise bridging caste divides, the youth who volunteers in flood relief regardless of creed. These are the living models of citizenship.

Reject the politics of division: When local elections reduce to ‘us vs them’ along communal lines, the nation suffers. Citizens must encourage multi-faith platforms, ensure that the local welfare schemes reach all, and resist the temptation of vote bank identity politics.

Why This Matters Now

India stands at a crossroads. On the one hand, we see growth. GDP numbers that dazzle. Large infrastructure projects. Global diplomacy victories. But growth alone is not enough. On the other hand, we see social fault-lines widening. Religious hate-speech rose by 74% in 2024, according to a US-based research group (www.reuters.com. Feb 10, 2025). Youth unemployment remains severe. Democracy is under strain. Institutions compromised.

When a nation’s citizens are splintered by identity, when citizenship is conditional, when patriotism is defined in narrow terms, the promise of India is imperiled. The India dream is not of a singular culture, but of many cultures living in solidarity. Of many faiths offering respect to each other. Of many languages and communities knitting the fabric of one nation.

Today, India needs growth that includes everyone. Harmony among citizens—whatever their language, region, or religion—will drive this growth. This means acknowledging hardship, fighting injustice, and supporting the marginalized. It means rejecting hate and divisive politics, demanding accountability and transparency. Citizenship and patriotism are not to be dictated by politicians or loud media figures. Every Indian, regardless of background, can be a builder of unity. Such unity will not erase diversity, but celebrate it. True progress arises not from uniformity, but from the free, equal participation of all. The present political dispensation may resist this. It may push majoritarian narratives. It may centralize power. It may incentivize divisions. But citizens—active citizens—can counter that momentum.

A Citizens’ Checklist for Unity

India’s history is filled with lessons on the dangers of division—be it through caste, creed, or ego. Yet, the nation’s greatest victories have come when people stood together. All across the country, from metros to fields, from courts to classrooms, many Indians rise above narrow labels. To make this more concrete, here are simple actions citizens can commit to:

Engage in inter-faith conversation: Invite, listen, respect. In your local club, school, church, mosque, temple.

Support inclusive institutions: Whether it’s your neighborhood school, youth club or sports team—advocate for diversity.

Speak out for economic justice: If the system bypasses the poor, the marginalised, the minorities—demand better. Your patriotism is reflected in how your neighbour lives.

Defend democratic norms: If institutions are weakened, dissent stifled, minority rights threatened—you have a duty to protest respectfully and persistently.

Value talent over identity: Celebrate achievers from all communities. Break the stereotype that talent belongs to one religion or region.

Elevate citizenship beyond ritual: Claim your rights. Fulfill your duties. Vote responsibly, volunteer locally, participate in civic life.

A Closing Challenge to the Regime and the Citizens

To the regime: If you truly believe in India’s unity and growth, then you must enable pluralism—not only in rhetoric but in practice. You must strengthen institutions, protect minorities, uphold the rule of law, foster scientific temper and historical truth. You must ensure that growth is inclusive, that jobs reach the youth, that citizenship is unshackled by religion or community.

To the citizens: If you truly love India, then your patriotism must be active. It must not be passive flag-waving. It must be rooted in justice, dignity, dialogue and diversity. It must reflect the India of 1.4 billion citizens—not of one community alone. It must begin at the local level—not waiting for top-down leadership.

In our times of orchestrated polarization, the call is not to retreat. The call is not to surrender to division. The call is to rise. Rise as citizens. Rise for diversity. Rise for unity. Rise for India.  It is a call to unity in India’s diversity

For in the end, if we do not live the ideals of citizenship and patriotism in our everyday realities—our neighborhoods, our schools, our workplaces—then no grand rhetoric, no national slogan, no independent religious affiliation, will hold the dream together. Let us build India not only as a geographic entity—but as a community of mutual respect, shared purpose and vibrant diversity.

Because India does not need another monolith. It needs many voices, many traditions, many citizens who say: I belong. You belong. We all belong. And together we will build a nation—not by silencing difference but by celebrating it.

  

AN ELITIST AND OPPORTUNIST’S EXCLUSIONARY EDUCATION

Challenges and Concerns over the Entry of Overseas Education Institutions in India

Introduction: The Promise and the Paradox

India’s higher education sector is one of the largest in the world, with over 1,100 universities and more than 45,000 colleges serving millions of students across urban and rural landscapes. It is vast, diverse, and ambitious, reflecting the aspirations of a young nation where education is not merely a stepping stone to employment but also a pathway to social mobility and national development. Against this backdrop, the Government of India’s decision to allow overseas universities to establish campuses in India is being hailed by some as a “progressive” and “visionary” move. However, beneath the rhetoric of globalisation and world-class education lies a series of concerns that cannot be ignored.

This move, if implemented uncritically, risks creating an elitist and exclusionary education model that benefits only the wealthy, marginalises the poor, and drains India’s intellectual and financial resources. The promise of global institutions in India appears enticing, but the reality may be one of increased inequality, diminished autonomy, and further erosion of the inclusivity that higher education in India has long aspired to achieve.

Entry of Foreign Universities: Status, Networks, and Global Aspirations

Every year, between eight to ten lakh Indian students leave the country to pursue education abroad. Their motivations extend far beyond the classroom. For many, it is the lure of global exposure: experiencing life in another culture, building international networks, and accessing professional markets with higher wages and better job security. For others, foreign education is a stepping stone to immigration opportunities, offering the possibility of permanent residency or citizenship in developed nations.

Thus, while foreign campuses in India may replicate some academic curricula, they cannot reproduce the broader package that motivates Indian students to go abroad. Studying in an Indian city at an American or European university outpost will not offer the same cultural immersion, professional environment, or immigration prospects. Instead, these campuses will likely serve a narrow demographic: the Indian elite who can afford high fees but prefer to stay closer to home. This creates a system where education becomes less about knowledge and more about status signaling, further dividing students along lines of class and wealth.

The Shiny Promise of Globalized Education

India’s education headlines are full of opportunity and optimism. Prestigious institutions announce new programmes—BIMTECH’s Postgraduate Diploma in Management, IIT Jodhpur’s M.Tech in Sustainable Energy, IIITDM Kurnool’s Ph.D. in Electronics and Communication Engineering. Globally, scholarships such as Canada’s Ontario Graduate Scholarship, Australia’s Destination Australia Scholarship, and Ireland’s International Education Scholarships entice Indian students toward international platforms of learning. The steady rollout of GATE 2026 signals the government’s projection of India as a research powerhouse.

At first glance, this paints a picture of a vibrant knowledge ecosystem: world-class research, global scholarships, international collaborations, and a government eager to rebrand India as an “education hub.” But beneath the glossy headlines lies a disturbing truth. These opportunities are not designed for all Indians—they are structured for the privileged few. The rural poor, Dalit, Adivasi, and minority students—the real backbone of India’s demographic—find themselves excluded, marginalized, and silenced.

 The Economics of Exclusion: Who Can Afford Foreign Campuses?

 India’s embrace of foreign universities is framed as progress, yet it risks creating deeper inequality. High costs, exclusionary politics, and profit repatriation threaten to erode public education, turning learning into a privilege for the few rather than a right for all.

Foreign Universities and the Two-Tier Trap: Foreign universities are unlikely to align with India’s cost-sensitive education system. Most global institutions operate on high-cost models, charging tuition far beyond what Indian public universities require. For example, while an engineering degree at a government college can cost under ₹1 lakh annually, a foreign campus may demand ten to twenty times more. Such disparities will restrict access largely to affluent families, excluding middle-class and marginalized students. The result is predictable: a stratified system where wealthy students attend foreign-branded institutions while the poor remain confined to underfunded public universities. Instead of narrowing inequity, overseas institutions will intensify it, reinforcing higher education as an elite privilege rather than a universal right.

The Politics of Exclusion and Resource Drain: The embrace of foreign universities is less reform than political strategy, reflecting the Modi government’s larger agenda of privatization and corporatization. For years, private lobbies have pushed for policies that convert education into a multi-billion-dollar market. Glossy rhetoric about “world-class campuses” masks the deliberate weakening of public institutions through closures, underfunding, and neglect. In this model, education becomes an investment for those who can pay, not a constitutional right. Poor students from rural and tribal belts are invisible casualties of this exclusionary framework.

Equally troubling is the financial design: while Indian universities reinvest in research, faculty, and infrastructure, foreign campuses will likely repatriate profits to their home countries. Tuition paid by Indian students will fuel foreign economies, creating a steady outflow of resources. This financial drain echoes the intellectual brain drain already afflicting India. Instead of building capacity within, India risks becoming a profitable marketplace for global universities—serving their interests more than its own.

Displacement of Indian Institutions: Branding and Competition

India’s higher education sector is already diverse, with elite institutions like IITs, IIMs, and AIIMS standing alongside smaller state universities and rural colleges. The entry of foreign universities risks destabilising this balance. With their global brand power and prestige, foreign institutions could easily attract the best students and faculty, leaving smaller and lesser-known Indian universities struggling to stay relevant.

Such displacement would create a concentration of talent in expensive foreign campuses, further hollowing out India’s own institutions. This could lead to long-term damage: a system where Indian universities are perceived as “second-class” compared to their foreign counterparts, even within our own borders.

The Myth of Quality: Will Foreign Campuses Deliver?

Proponents argue that foreign universities will raise academic standards and foster healthy competition. However, India already has successful international collaborations within IITs, IIMs, and other premier institutions. Joint degree programmes, exchange initiatives, and global research projects are already underway. The entry of standalone foreign campuses offers no guarantee of better quality; it may simply replicate existing curricula at inflated costs.

Moreover, the global prestige of these universities often comes from their context—decades of research investment, strong economies, and robust ecosystems. Transplanting them into India does not automatically translate into the same outcomes. Without cultural immersion or global mobility benefits, their appeal is primarily symbolic.

Social Inequality and Educational Elitism: Who Gets Left Behind?

At its core, the biggest challenge of foreign universities in India is their potential to institutionalise inequality. Education is not only a tool for personal growth but also a means of bridging social divides. The National Education Policy (NEP 2020) aspires to inclusivity and equitable access, but the entry of high-cost, elitist campuses risks undermining this vision.

Poor and marginalized students, especially those from rural areas, Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and other disadvantaged groups, will find themselves further excluded. Even if scholarships are introduced, they are unlikely to match the scale of need. The system risks creating an ‘educational caste system’ where foreign-branded degrees become a ticket to elite jobs, while ordinary degrees push students into a saturated, competitive job market with fewer opportunities.

Therefore, NEP 2020 is geared to promote not inclusivity but exclusive elitism. This  NEP policy was marketed as a transformative roadmap for equitable access and lifelong learning. Its proponents hailed it as revolutionary: flexible curricula, internationalization of higher education, and the much-publicized “Multiple Entry Exit System.” Yet, the devil lies in the details. While NEP 2020 promotes tie-ups with foreign universities and explicitly opens the door for them to set up campuses in India, it remains ominously silent on how poor students—already struggling with rising fees, inadequate facilities, and shrinking scholarships—are to benefit.

By pitching foreign university entry as a badge of modernization, the Modi government signals that global branding matters more than grassroots equality. In reality, foreign campuses in India are unlikely to provide affordable or accessible education. They will charge tuition fees far higher than public institutions, operating in English and catering to urban elites. For the vast majority of Indian students, the promise of a “global classroom” will remain a mirage.

The Cultural Dimension: Whose Knowledge Counts?

Education is not just about skills; it is also about values, culture, and social responsibility. Foreign campuses, driven by profit and global branding, may prioritise marketable courses over socially relevant ones. Subjects critical to India—such as rural development, public health, or indigenous knowledge systems—may be sidelined in favour of high-demand global disciplines like business, technology, or finance. These risks producing graduates who are well-trained for global markets but disconnected from India’s socio-cultural realities. In a country still grappling with poverty, inequality, and ecological crises, education cannot be divorced from context. An imported model may alienate students from their own society, weakening the role of education as a force for nation-building.

Privatization Disguised as Reform

The Modi government’s education reforms, marketed as “internationalization” and “flexibility,” are in reality a push towards privatization and a retreat from the state’s responsibility. The NEP, hailed as visionary, offers little for inclusivity. Instead, it paves the way for commercialization, with no serious provisions to strengthen government schools, expand public funding for higher education, or address the systemic exclusion of Dalits, Adivasis, minorities, and the poor.

A central feature of NEP 2020 is the opening of India to foreign universities—long demanded by global corporations and domestic private lobbies. These institutions will primarily serve the wealthy, further marginalizing disadvantaged students. Their brand appeal will weaken smaller public colleges, already struggling with funds and faculty shortages, deepening inequity rather than bridging it. Far from a leap forward, this shift drains resources and undermines the constitutional promise of education for all.

Simultaneously, BJP-ruled states are closing thousands of government schools under the pretext of “mergers” and “rationalization.” This forces children from marginalized communities to travel long distances or abandon schooling altogether, eroding the right to free and compulsory education guaranteed under Article 21A. These closures reflect a deliberate weakening of public education, leaving space for private players, including the Sangh’s Vidya Bharati schools. Alongside privatization, NEP enables ideological control through “Indian values,” legitimizing saffronized curricula that rewrite history and narrow pluralism.

While the government projects India as a “knowledge hub” through flashy international tie-ups and scholarships for a select few, the reality for most students is stark: soaring fees, shrinking fellowships, and the expansion of self-financing colleges. Student protests across campuses—from JNU to Allahabad University—signal resistance to this commodification. When education is transformed from a right into a privilege, democracy itself is eroded, leaving the majority excluded from the nation’s future.

Impact of School Closures on Higher Education: The Silent Crisis

While the government trumpets global summits and scholarships abroad, it is quietly shutting down the foundational tier of education at home. Across BJP-ruled states, thousands of government schools have been merged. For rural Dalit, tribal, and minority children, these schools were lifelines—  now inaccessible due to distance. Many students, therefore, withdraw from  education. This so-called “rationalization” is nothing less than abandonment. It violates the constitutional guarantee of free and equitable education. Instead of investing in more teachers, libraries, and laboratories for government schools, the state has chosen to dismantle them, creating a parallel system: one for the privileged, another for the marginalized.

Spectacle over Substance

Even as government schools are shuttered, elite institutions bask in global applause. IISc Bengaluru’s breakthroughs in AI-driven protein design and Indian students’ victories at competitions like iGEM and Microsoft’s Imagine Cup are held up as evidence of India’s “knowledge superpower” status. But who really benefits? These achievements emerge from a narrow band of well-funded, well-networked students. For millions who lack even electricity, let alone laboratories, such triumphs are stories from another planet.

Cultural and academic events like the Indo-French Education Summit or the International Student Film Festival in Hyderabad showcase creativity and collaboration. Yet without meaningful investment in public education, they risk becoming elite spectacles—stage sets of privilege masquerading as progress.

Alternatives to Foreign Campuses: Building an Inclusive Model

India does not need foreign universities to deliver quality education. It needs political will to strengthen its own institutions. If the goal is to improve India’s higher education ecosystem, there are better, more inclusive alternatives than inviting foreign universities. A truly inclusive vision requires:

1.      Strengthening Indian Universities: The foremost priority must be to increase funding for public universities, expand infrastructure, and invest in faculty development. Indian institutions can be world-class if given the resources.

Robust Public Investment:  Expanding scholarships, upgrading state universities, and ensuring equitable distribution of resources across rural and urban India.

Grassroots Infrastructure: Investing in government schools, especially in marginalized areas, with teachers, libraries, labs, and safe transport.

2.      Encouraging Global Collaborations, not Colonies: Encouraging faculty exchanges, joint research, and virtual learning platforms without ceding sovereignty to foreign campuses. Instead of standalone campuses, joint research projects, faculty exchange programmes, and integrated curricula with global universities can bring international exposure without high costs.

3.      Technology and Virtual Learning: Online lectures, international webinars, and virtual exchange programmes can connect Indian students with global faculty, democratising access to world-class education.

4.      Scholarships and Mobility Support: Expanding government scholarships for study abroad can allow talented but underprivileged students to access international opportunities without creating domestic exclusion.

5.      Equity at the Core: Centering policy on Dalit, Adivasi, tribal, and minority students, not just the urban elite.

6.      Localised Research and Innovation: Strengthening research ecosystems in Indian universities can help address India’s unique challenges—climate resilience, rural healthcare, renewable energy—while producing knowledge relevant to our society.

7.      Strengthening Regional Languages: Enabling learning in mother tongues to expand access and bridge divides.

Conclusion: Toward Equality – Education as a Right, not a Marketplace

 

India’s education system stands at a critical turning point. One vision upholds education as a public good, rooted in equity, justice, and empowerment. The other, dangerously enticing, reduces it to a commodity—privatized, globalized, and reserved for the privileged. The Modi government, by championing foreign universities and private lobbies under the guise of “progress,” has embraced the latter. Behind the gloss of international tie-ups lies a harsher reality: collapsing government schools, teacher shortages, and millions of poor and marginalized children left behind. When education becomes a passport only for the wealthy, India risks dividing itself into two nations—one globalized and privileged, the other silenced and abandoned.

Though NEP 2020 is presented as reform, its underlying push for privatization betrays the democratic promise of education for all. Instead of investing in public schools, strengthening regional universities, and expanding scholarships, the government has chosen optics over substance and corporate branding over grassroots empowerment. The entry of overseas universities may be packaged as progress, but it threatens to deepen inequality. Education is not a marketplace but a right, a responsibility, and the soul of India’s constitutional vision. Unless citizens demand another path, NEP will be remembered not as reform, but as betrayal.

  

‘সম্মান সমাধি’: মানবিক সেবার এক নতুন পথ এবং দেহ চাঁদা প্রথার অমানবিক বাস্তবতা

ডিগনিটি সমাধি উদ্যোগের সাফল্য   ও দেহ চাঁদার দুর্ব্যবহার ও ভবিষ্যৎ সংস্কারের প্রস্তাব

 ১. একটি সাফল্যের গল্প: মর্যাদার সঙ্গে শেষ বিদায়

এক ঐতিহাসিক পদক্ষেপে কলকাতার খ্রিষ্টান সম্প্রদায় শুরু করেছে ‘ডিগনিটি বারিয়াল / সম্মান সমাধি’—একটি উদ্যোগ যা মৃত্যুর মুহূর্তেও প্রত্যেক মানুষকে সমান মর্যাদা দেওয়ার নিশ্চয়তা দেয়। মল্লিকবাজারের ঐতিহাসিক ১৮৪ লোয়ার সার্কুলার রোড সেমিট্রি–তে এর যাত্রা শুরু। এই উদ্যোগ শহরের এই বিশ্বাসকে জোরালো করে—জন্ম যেমন গুরুত্বপূর্ণ, মৃত্যুও তেমন সম্মানের দাবিদার।

যেখানে ধনী–গরিব সকলেই সমান

কলকাতা ক্রিশ্চিয়ান বারিয়াল বোর্ড এই উদ্যোগে সমাধিস্থানের একটি অংশ সম্পূর্ণ বিনামূল্যে বরাদ্দ করেছে তাদের জন্য—যাদের পক্ষে শেষকৃত্যের খরচ বহন করা অসম্ভব।
বোর্ডের মূলমন্ত্র—
“প্রত্যেক বিদায়ে মর্যাদা।”

প্রাপ্তবয়স্ক ও তিন বছরের নিচের শিশুদের জন্য পৃথক অংশ রাখা হয়েছে; রক্ষণাবেক্ষণের সব দায়িত্ব বারিয়াল বোর্ড বহন করবে।

ঐক্য, নাগরিক দায়িত্ব ও করুণার সম্মিলন

উদ্বোধনী দিনে ক্যালকাটা আর্চডায়োসিস থেকে শুরু করে বিভিন্ন প্রোটেস্ট্যান্ট ও স্বাধীন চার্চ নেতারা উপস্থিত ছিলেন—দারিদ্রদের সেবায় খ্রিষ্টীয় ঐক্যের উজ্জ্বল দৃষ্টান্ত।

সাংসদ সুদীপ বন্দ্যোপাধ্যায়, ফাদার মলয় ডি’কোস্টা, এবং সাংসদ ডেরেক ও’ব্রায়েন অনুষ্ঠানে অংশ নেন। কোলকাতার  সাধ্বী মাদার  তেরেজার মিশনারিজ অব চ্যারিটি–র দুই সন্ন্যাসিনী ফিতা কেটে এই মানবিক কর্মসূচির সূচনা করেন।

এমপিএলএডি ফান্ড থেকে ২০ লক্ষ টাকার অনুদান এই প্রকল্পের প্রতি সরকারি সমর্থনকে আরও দৃঢ় করেছে।

মিশনারিজ অব চ্যারিটির মানবতা

এমসি সিস্টারদের প্রতিষ্ঠানে মৃত্যু অভিমুখে থাকা বহু মানুষ পরিত্যক্ত। তাদের অনেকেরই কেউ নেই।
এই উদ্যোগ সম্পর্কে ক্রিশ্চিয়ান বারিয়াল বোর্ডের ডেনিস স্মিথ বলেন—
“এ উদ্যোগ নিশ্চিত করছে যে তারাও শান্তি ও সম্মানের সঙ্গে শেষ বিদায় পাবে।”

লোয়ার সার্কুলার রোডের পর বিস্তৃত হচ্ছে উদ্যোগ

২০২৬ সালের শুরুতেই টালিগঞ্জ সেমিট্রিতে দ্বিতীয় ‘ডিগনিটি সমাধি’ চালু হবে।
সাথে রয়েছে নতুন খ্রিষ্টান সেমিট্রি তৈরির জন্য জমির আবেদন—কারণ ব্রিটিশ আমলের সব সেমিট্রি প্রায় পূর্ণ।

 জনমত: কৃতজ্ঞতা, আশাবাদ ও উদ্বেগ

প্রতিক্রিয়াগুলো উষ্ণ—

• “২০২৫ সালের সেরা উপহার… গরিব ভাই–বোনদের জন্য আশীর্বাদ।”
• “বৃদ্ধাশ্রমে এই খবর পৌঁছে দিন।”
• “অল সোলস্ ডে-তে এই উদ্যোগের উদ্যোক্তাদের সালাম।”

তবে পাশাপাশি সতর্ক কণ্ঠ—
“উদ্যোগ ভালো, কিন্তু এল.সি সেমিট্রির দুর্নীতি ও দালালি বন্ধ করতে হবে।”

এই উদ্যোগ একদিকে প্রশংসা পেলেও অন্যদিকে সংস্কারের দাবি তুলেছে।

২. সাফল্যের আড়ালে লুকিয়ে থাকা এক অমানবিক বাস্তবতা: দেহ চাঁদার দুর্ব্যবহার, লিখছেন রেভারেন্ড ইম্মানুয়েল সিং।

‘ডিগনিটি সমাধি’ শহরের গরিবদের জন্য সম্মানজনক সমাহিতকরণ নিশ্চিত করছে—এ এক আশার আলো।

কিন্তু আলো যখন উজ্জ্বল হয়, অন্ধকারও স্পষ্ট হয়। আমাদের সমাজের সেই অন্ধকার দিকটির নাম—দেহ চাঁদা।

শীতের মরশুম: মৃত্যুর সাথে লড়াই ও দেহ চাঁদার চাপ

নভেম্বর থেকে ফেব্রুয়ারি—খ্রিষ্টান সম্প্রদায়ে মৃত্যুর হার বাড়ার সময়।
শোকাহত পরিবার প্রয়োজন করে সান্ত্বনা, করুণা, প্রার্থনা—
কিন্তু অনেকেই প্রথমে মুখোমুখি হন একটি শকিং চাহিদার—
“চাঁদার বকেয়া মেটান, না হলে কবর দেওয়া যাবে না।”

এক বাস্তব ঘটনা: রুদ্ধশ্বাস অভিজ্ঞতা

ঠাকুরপুকুরের এক পরিবারের দুর্দশা—
তাদের বাবা মারা গেছেন হঠাৎ।
তিন কন্যা ভাবল, পাদ্রী সান্ত্বনা দেবেন।
কিন্তু প্রথম প্রশ্ন—
“দেহ চাঁদার বকেয়া কই?”

কফিন, কবর খরচ, হার্শ—সব মিলিয়ে পরিবারটি মানসিকভাবে ভেঙে পড়ে।
শোকের মুহূর্তে হিসাবের খাতা—এ যেন বিশ্বাস ও মানবিকতার পরাজয়।

দেহ চাঁদার আসল উদ্দেশ্য ও আজকের সমস্যা

একসময় দেহ চাঁদা দরিদ্রদের জন্য সামাজিক নিরাপত্তা ছিল।
সামান্য দান থেকে শেষকৃত্যের খরচ মিটত।
কিন্তু আজ তা অনেক স্থানে মানবিক সেবার বদলে আর্থিক দাবি হয়ে উঠেছে।

যাজক বা মণ্ডলী যখন আগে খোঁজে “বকেয়া,”
তখন সেবা হয় বাণিজ্যিক, আধ্যাত্মিক নয়।

সামাজিক নিরাপত্তা থেকে কুসংস্কার: এক বিপজ্জনক পতন

অনেক পরিবার মনে করে—
“টাকা না দিলে শেষকৃত্যও হবে না।”
মৃত্যুকে ঘিরে এই ভয় খ্রিষ্টীয় শিক্ষার বিপরীত, যেখানে মুক্তি, শান্তি ও করুণাই মূল কথা।

৩. ভবিষ্যতের পথ: কীভাবে পরিবর্তন সম্ভব?

‘ডিগনিটি সমাধি’ আমাদের দেখিয়েছে পরিবর্তন সম্ভব—
তাহলে দেহ চাঁদা প্রথারও সংস্কার কেন নয়?

১. বাধ্যতামূলক নয়, স্বেচ্ছাসেবী তহবিল : ধনী সদস্যরা চাইলে দান করবেন। গরিবরা কখনোই শোকের সময় টাকা দিতে বাধ্য হবেন না।

২. শেষকৃত্য ব্যক্তিগত নয়, মণ্ডলীর দায়িত্ব:  একজন বিশ্বাসীর শেষ যাত্রা একটি সামষ্টিক সেবা। কোনো পরিবারকে চাঁদার বকেয়ার জন্য অপমান করা অমানবিক।

৩. আর্থিক শর্তহীন মাণ্ডলীক সেবা : যাজকীয় সেবা সর্বদা টাকার ঊর্ধ্বে হওয়া উচিত। মৃত্যুতে স্নেহ, প্রার্থনা ও সহমর্মিতা—এই তিনটি হওয়া উচিত প্রথম প্রতিক্রিয়া।

৪. উপসংহার: পরিবর্তনের অঙ্গীকার

একদিকে ‘ডিগনিটি সমাধি’ আমাদের সামনে এক নতুন দৃষ্টান্ত স্থাপন করেছে—
যেখানে প্রত্যেক মানুষ সমান সম্মানের অধিকারী।

অন্যদিকে দেহ চাঁদা—যা একসময় দরিদ্রদের জন্য নিরাপত্তা ছিল—
আজ কখনো কখনো শোকের উপর বাড়তি বোঝা হয়ে দাঁড়ায়।

একসময় উপকারী হলেও আজ দেহ চাঁদা অনেক ক্ষেত্রে শোষণ ও কুসংস্কারে পরিণত হচ্ছে।

কোনো দরিদ্র পরিবার যেন কখনো মৃত্যুর মুহূর্তে টাকার হিসাব মেলাতে বাধ্য না হয়।

সময় এসেছে দুই সত্যকেই সামনে রেখে এগোনোর—
মণ্ডলী যেন মানুষের বোঝা কমায়—বাড়ায় না।
শোকের মুহূর্তে টাকা নয়, দরকার সেবা, ভালোবাসা ও সহমর্মিতা।

কেউ যেন মর্যাদা ছাড়া এই পৃথিবী না ছাড়ে—

এটাই হোক আমাদের সম্মিলিত অঙ্গীকার।