‘Content was correct, we stand by it’: NCERT scholar Danino on judiciary row

New Delhi: Michel Danino, one of the three NCERT academics earlier barred by the Supreme Court over a controversial Class 8 textbook chapter on the judiciary, has said he “certainly didn’t expect” the now-withdrawn section to trigger such a major controversy, while maintaining that the content was “correct” and that he stands by it.

A Padma Shri awardee and French-born Indian scholar, Danino chaired the curricular group responsible for drafting social science textbooks for the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT).

The controversy centred around a subsection in a now-withdrawn chapter discussing the role of the judiciary in society. Along with Danino, academics Suparna Diwakar and Alok Prasanna Kumar had also come under scrutiny.

Last week, the Supreme Court modified its March 11 order that had effectively barred the three academicians from association with institutions receiving government funds. The court later left it to the Centre, states, Union Territories and public institutions to independently decide on the matter.

‘Content was correct, we stand by it’

In an interview with PTI, Danino said the March 11 order had immediate professional consequences, including the termination of his guest professor contract at IIT-Gandhinagar.

“That contract was instantly terminated after the March 11 order. There were no discussions with me,” he said, adding that the institution “rushed to the media to declare loud and clear that they had no association with me anymore”.

Danino also expressed disappointment with the NCERT’s handling of the issue.

“We were disappointed because they did not explain the entire process to the court,” he said, asserting that the textbook content was finalised not by NCERT alone but through broader committees including the Teaching Learning Material Committee (NSTC) and the NCF Oversight Committee (NOC).

“Had we, the active committee members, together approached the Supreme Court and said ‘allow us to explain the context, why this is not derogatory to the judiciary’, I am quite sure that the March 11 order would not have been deemed necessary,” he added.

Responding to the Supreme Court’s continued observation that the content was “wholly undesirable”, Danino said the academicians “respectfully disagreed” with the assessment in affidavits filed on April 4.

“We do not accept that there was anything fundamentally objectionable,” he said, while admitting that “perhaps a few sentences could have been worded differently”.

“The title of the particular subsection could have been worded differently. But essentially, the content was correct. We stand by it,” he said.

Danino maintained that the chapter relied only on “authentic sources” and insisted it was never written with any “derogatory intention”.

‘Students should discuss real-life issues’

Recalling earlier textbook controversies, Danino said debates surrounding social science content were not new and had surfaced under different governments since the 1970s.

“I have been observing textbooks in India since the 1990s. I have accumulated a lot of papers. I can assure you that controversies about social science started in India in the 1970s,” he said.

He added that while he expected debates over history or culture-related chapters, he did not anticipate objections to the judiciary chapter.

“I did expect some (controversies) on the chapters on history or culture, but I certainly did not expect anything about this particular chapter,” he said.

Danino argued that the now-removed chapter was intended to encourage critical thinking and expose students to “real-life challenges”.

“The perspective imposed on us by the NEP and the NCF-SE was that we should develop the critical mind of the students, engage them and stimulate independent thinking right from Grade 6,” he said.

He stressed that the chapter was not aimed specifically at the judiciary and that discussions about other democratic institutions, including Parliament, were also included in the textbook.

“If you are not bringing to the students real-life discussions and some of the challenges facing our country and the world today, you are not doing justice to NEP 2020, and much more so to the students,” Danino said.

Danino also said students should be encouraged to discuss “real-life issues” at a “mature age” so they could become responsible citizens.

“It’s like you are giving them the sign of trust that we can discuss real issues together, and when they become adults, maybe they can do something about them,” he said.

“Unless we realise the institutional shortcomings, we will never be able to resolve them,” Danino added.