LBA system in primary schools across Karnataka must go: Experts
Prominent educationists have strongly opposed the policy and called for its immediate withdrawal, urging the government to reinstate the Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) method instead.
According to experts, LBA requires students to appear for a test after each lesson, amounting to nearly 350–360 tests a year.
'This is not only overwhelming for students but is also severely burdening teachers, who are now forced to spend more time preparing, conducting, evaluating, and uploading data for assessments than actually teaching,' said Baraguru Ramachandrappa, noted writer and educationist. 'Teachers are not machines. The classroom must be a space for learning, not non-stop testing,' he added.
The LBA system, introduced this year by the Department of School Education and Literacy, has drawn criticism not only for increasing the workload of teachers but also for allegedly violating Section 29(2)(h) of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, which mandates a Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation system for student assessment, according to educationists.
'LBA violates the very essence of what the RTE Act stands for,' said Niranjanaradhya VP, an educationist. 'CCE was introduced after years of discussions and is now part of law. LBA, on the other hand, forces frequent testing, leaves little time for teaching, and narrows the focus to rote memorisation.'
He added that the decision to implement LBA was taken without consulting educators, teachers, or academic experts. 'It is a unilateral move. Policies that directly affect children and teachers should go through democratic processes and expert consultation. This has not happened,' he said.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
News18
5 hours ago
- News18
Karnataka Education Policy Commission proposes sweeping education overhaul
Bengaluru, Aug 8 (PTI) The Karnataka State Education Policy Commission has called for a sweeping overhaul of the state's education system, proposing structural reforms from pre-primary to professional courses, tighter regulation of private institutions, and a substantial increase in government spending on education. The Commission's chairperson Prof Sukhadeo Thorat on Friday submitted his final report in three volumes to Chief Minister Siddaramaiah in the presence of his cabinet colleagues and senior government officers, sources in the office of Higher Education Minister M C Sudhakar said. The 17-member Commission, which also comprises six subject experts, advisors, and one member-secretary, was formed to formulate an education policy. According to a note issued by Sudhakar's office, the panel has proposed adoption of a 2+8+4 system in school education — two years of pre-primary, eight years of primary, and four years of secondary education — coupled with a firm emphasis on Kannada or the mother tongue as the medium of instruction up to class five in all board schools. In its report, the commission recommended that school education be complemented by a bilingual policy pairing Kannada or the mother tongue with English, ensuring children are rooted in their linguistic heritage while gaining access to global language skills. It has also called for residential schools for children from migrant families, a gradual extension of the Right to Education Act to cover those aged between four and eighteen, and the universalisation of secondary education across Karnataka. To enhance the educational quality, it proposed ending the state's dependence on National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) textbooks in favour of locally developed content, boosting government school standards to the level of Kendriya Vidyalayas, and stopping the appointment of guest or contract teachers. Privatisation, it said, must be checked through a dedicated regulator for private schools, while block education offices should be empowered to make academic decisions. Agencies working in parallel should be merged into an integrated commissionerate, the Department of State Educational Research and Training (DSERT) should be transformed into an autonomous State Council of Educational Research and Training (SCERT) with a focus on research and development, and the Directorate of Lifelong Learning revitalised. It also called for raising education's share in the state budget to 30 per cent, ensuring per-student spending grows by five to ten per cent each year. In higher education, the Commission wanted a comprehensive financing framework that guarantees timely and adequate funding, with expenditure on higher education gradually increased to one per cent of Karnataka's GSDP by 2034-35. Further, it recommended raising the share of higher education in the overall education budget between 25 and 30 per cent, and earmarking at least a quarter of this increased funding for infrastructure. For academic structure, it proposed a 3+2 model for undergraduate and postgraduate programmes in general education, a 4+2 model for professional courses, and the continuation of the pre-NEP 2020 re-entry policy. The report sought to keep fees in government and aided institutions within reach, regulate private institutions through a permanent mechanism, and extend full fee waivers and scholarships to girls in government, aided, and unaided private colleges. It urged reservation compliance in private unaided institutions, creation of a State Quality Assessment Board, and the filling of all sanctioned teaching posts within five years. The commission advocated for the introduction of short-term diploma and certificate programmes, government-funded internships, and region-specific skill councils led by industry leaders. Emerging technologies such as quantum computing, artificial intelligence, machine learning, data science, life sciences, and nanoscience should be embedded in engineering and polytechnic curricula. Agriculture studies, according to the panel, should begin at school-level and continue into higher education, with opportunities for dual or joint degrees, international internships, and public-private partnerships with foreign universities. PTI GMS GMS ROH (This story has not been edited by News18 staff and is published from a syndicated news agency feed - PTI) view comments First Published: August 08, 2025, 22:15 IST Disclaimer: Comments reflect users' views, not News18's. Please keep discussions respectful and constructive. Abusive, defamatory, or illegal comments will be removed. News18 may disable any comment at its discretion. By posting, you agree to our Terms of Use and Privacy Policy.
Indian Express
14 hours ago
- Indian Express
Ten years on, understanding India-Bangladesh Land Boundary Agreement and the unique citizenship situation it creates for many
Written by Anindita Ghosh Forty-year-old Rezaul Haque was arrested in June this year during a Delhi Police crackdown on 'illegal Bangladeshi immigrants' in the national capital. Haque, a resident of the former Indian enclave of Dashiarchhara in Bangladesh, has been living in Delhi with his family since earlier this year, following the signing of the Land Boundary Agreement (LBA) between India and Bangladesh. To prove his Indian citizenship, he presented documents, some of which were issued by the Indian High Commission in Dhaka. He also described his stay in a state-funded temporary settlement in Cooch Behar before relocating to Delhi a year ago. It took several hours for the police to understand the complexity of his citizenship status before he was released the following day. Haque's case is not an exception. It highlights the confusion that continues to surround the complex legacy of the India-Bangladesh border agreement. Over the five decades of their shared existence as neighbours, India and Bangladesh have resolved multiple international border issues through diplomatic efforts. A key milestone in this journey was the ratification of the Land Boundary Agreement, which marked its tenth anniversary on June 6. The physical exchange of territories under the agreement took place on July 31, 2015. This was a rare and historic event for both nations, which share a 6,000 km-long border, the fourth-longest international border in the world. Yet, few are aware of the history of this agreement and its impact on the people living in these border regions. What was exchanged in the LBA 2015? Though long delayed, the LBA 2015 involved the transfer of 111 Indian enclaves (17,160 acres) to Bangladesh and 51 Bangladeshi enclaves (7,110 acres) to India. Additionally, India retained 14 adverse possessions located along the borders of Assam, West Bengal, Meghalaya, and Tripura. The agreement determined the citizenship of approximately 52,000 people living in these enclaves and adverse possessions. These residents were allowed to choose their citizenship and either relocate or remain in the same place. Adverse possessions are small territories contiguous to the international border of a nation and within the control of that nation while legally a part of the bordering nation. People living in the Adverse possessions possess land beyond the international boundary but are governed by the laws of the country of which they are citizens and where they enjoy all legal rights, including the right to vote. In the case of India, territories like Lobachera-Nuncherra, Pyrdwiha, Naljuri, Lyngkhat and Dawki-Tamabil along the Meghalaya-Bangladesh border, Pallathal and Boroibari along the Assam-Bangladesh border, Chandannagar along the Tripura-Bangladesh border, South Berubari, Patari, Bousmari-Madhugari, Andharkota, Pakuria, and Char Mahiskundi along the West Bengal-Bangladesh border were adverse possessions. These areas had long witnessed tension and conflict due to a lack of territorial clarity. Enclaves are unadministered territories of one nation that are surrounded by the territories of another nation. A total of 162 territories shared by the princely state of Cooch Behar and the district of Rangpur in Bengal Presidency emerged as enclaves. They were locally called Chittmahal (patches of land). Brendan Whyte, in his extensive study of these enclaves, notes that the enclaves came into existence in 1950 when the princely state of Cooch Behar acceded to India without a detailed cartographic study of the region. The Radcliffe Commission used the boundaries of the princely state as last recorded in a treaty in 1713 to draw the international borders of India and Pakistan. All Bangladeshi enclaves in India were situated in Cooch Behar district, West Bengal, while Indian enclaves in Bangladesh were spread across four districts of Rangpur Division: Lalmonirhat (59), Ponchogarh (36), Kurigram (12), and Nilphamari (4). Some of these enclaves even had counter-enclaves within them. Isolated deep inside foreign territory, these enclaves were cut off from their home country. The people living in these land pockets have strong affinities and religious attachments to these spaces and their surroundings. They interacted more with the host nation than the home nation. The LBA 2015 rightly summarises that 'the exchange of the enclaves denotes only a notional exchange of land'. India and Bangladesh also shared about 6.1 km of un-demarcated land along three segments: Daikhata-56 (West Bengal), Muhuri River–Belonia (Tripura), and Lathitila–Dumabari (Assam). These areas remained disputed due to seasonal river shifts and dense forest cover. History of LBA 2015 In 1947, when the Indian subcontinent was divided into India and Pakistan, the Radcliffe Award defined the boundaries of the new nations. The Bengal Boundary Commission defined the northeastern boundaries of India and the state of West Bengal till the borders of the princely state of Cooch Behar. A few boundary disputes between East and West Bengal were raised in the Indo-Pakistan Boundary Disputes Tribunal in 1948 at the Inter-Dominion Conference in Delhi. The Tribunal included Algot Bagge, a Swedish jurist, among others. They studied the Radcliffe Award and the Bengal Boundary Commission to update the border maps and called it the Bagge Award. The enclaves were not accounted for while drawing the borders between India and Pakistan. They were factored into the Tribunal when the princely state of Cooch Behar was incorporated into India in 1950. The Tribunal presided over the issue again and declared the need to exchange these territories between India and Pakistan. The boundary demarcation issue was heard by the Supreme Court of India, which ruled that a constitutional amendment was required to materialise the Bagge Award. In 1958, Indian Prime Minister Jawaharlal Nehru and Pakistani Prime Minister Feroz Khan Noon signed the Nehru-Noon Agreement to implement It included the exchange of enclaves and the transfer of the Berubari Union no. 12 to East Pakistan. However, public litigations were filed against the agreement in India for the extra land area of about 10,000 acres. This led to the Indian Supreme Court ruling that a constitutional amendment is needed to transfer the extra territories to Pakistan. In 1960, the Indian parliament amended Article 368 of the Constitution to transfer the land. The border demarcation was based on the 1959 advisory of the Indian Supreme Court and the Bagge Award. However, the territories were not exchanged due to the continued opposition from the people of West Bengal and the deteriorating India-Pakistan relationship. During the India- Pakistan war of 1965, the official land exchange system was suspended. Immigration between the two nations stopped too. However, many Muslims moved into the East Pakistani enclaves within Indian territories, anticipating a future transfer. Following Bangladesh's independence in 1971, India and Bangladesh resumed negotiations. In 1972, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman and Indira Gandhi signed a Treaty of Friendship, Cooperation and Peace. Commonly known as the Indira-Mujib Treaty, this pact was the first step towards resolving the India-Bangladesh borderland disputes. The premiers of the two nations also signed the Land Boundary Agreement in 1974. Accordingly, Bangladesh amended its Constitution, which legalised the exchange of the enclaves and adverse possessions. India agreed to lease the Tin Bigha Corridor to connect the enclaves of Dohogram- Angorpota to Bangladesh, while Bangladesh agreed to transfer South Berubari to India. Bangladesh transferred South Berubari to India immediately, while India had to make amendments to the Constitution to fulfil the LBA 1974. However, Sheikh Mujibur Rahman's assassination in 1975 and changes in Bangladesh's leadership delayed the agreement's implementation. India's reluctance, due to the 10,000-acre land deficit, also contributed to the stalemate. Through the Indira-Ershad Agreement of 1982, the Tin Bigha Corridor was partially approved. Tin Bigha Corridor is a strip of Indian land in the Cooch Behar district leased to Bangladesh to connect the enclaves of Dohogram-Angoporta to mainland Bangladesh. India leased the corridor to Bangladesh permanently. However, the corridor could be used only during the day (12 hours), becoming the world's only part-time enclave. From 2000 onwards, protests escalated in the enclaves and adverse possessions. Ethnographers like Willem van Schendel documented the residents' Kafkaesque reality: ungoverned, unrepresented, and without basic services and political representation. A few enclaves established local councils for administration, which also raised funds to build the necessary infrastructure. Organisations like the Dashiarchhara Enclave Committee, Shitmahal United Council, Indian Enclaves Refugee Association, and Chhitmahal Binimay Samanyay Committee demanded free movement, land reform, civic amenities, and immediate implementation of the LBA 1974. Some of these organisations also evolved to draw the attention of the governments of the nations to fast-track the land exchange. In 2007, a joint survey by a delegation from India and Bangladesh revealed that most enclave residents did not want to leave their homes. In 2009, when Sheikh Hasina became the Prime Minister of Bangladesh, she pressed India to prioritise the implementation of the LBA 1974. The Joint Boundary Working Group survey began in 2010. According to the survey, people living in the Bangladeshi enclaves surrounded by India chose to join India, while nearly 600 residents of the then Indian enclaves chose to migrate to India. Together, human geographers Azmeary Ferdoush and Reece Jones conclude that factors like 'India's resettlement package and India's image as a more economically solvent country than Bangladesh' aided their choice. In 2011, the two nations actively intended to resolve the boundary issue. The first step was the full-time opening of the Tin Bigha Corridor. Today, Dohogram-Angorpota are geographically surrounded by India but well connected to Bangladesh by the Corridor. It is the only unexchanged Bangladeshi enclave in India. However, the LBA 1974 was not fulfilled completely because the BJP opposed it, as India was giving 10,000 acres of land more to Bangladesh. The INC-led UPA failed to pass the agreement. When the BJP-led NDA came to power in 2014, it introduced the 'Neighbourhood First Policy'. The political party that had originally opposed the land exchange with Bangladesh quickly agreed to the constitutional changes and land exchange with its neighbour. The exchange of the enclaves and Adverse possessions was prioritised to securitise the international borders shared with Bangladesh. Within a year, the LBA 2015 was materialised. The Indian constitution approved the '… acquiring of territories by India and transfer of certain territories to Bangladesh in pursuance of the agreement and its protocol entered between the governments of India and Bangladesh. Under the agreement, each country will assume sovereignty over all enclaves and adverse possessions in its territory. Residents can choose to live in India or Bangladesh and will be granted citizenship accordingly.' The exchange of enclaves, adverse possessions, and undemarcated land was scheduled for completion between July 31, 2015, and June 30, 2016. Aftermath of LBA 2015 The Indian government sanctioned a Rs 3000-crore package for the development of the former Bangladeshi enclaves. It also formed guidelines for the exchange and settlement of the land of the former enclave residents. The Indian government also sanctioned Rs 1,000 crore for the rehabilitation of the Indian enclaves' returnees. A total of 987 Indian returnees from the Indian enclaves in Bangladesh, like Rezaul Haque, moved to one of the three state-funded temporary settlements in Haldibari, Mekhliganj, and Dinhata subdivisions of Cooch Behar district. Both governments of the two nations cooperated and orchestrated the safe passage for them with their personal belongings and movable property. They were provided necessary documents and one- time-use passports. Their immovable property like land was to be settled through the remittance of sale proceeds. But not much has changed for the people in the former Bangladeshi enclaves and the Indian enclaves' returnees. As journalist Debabrata Chaki writes in the Uttar Banga Sangbad (August 2025), these new citizens still lack access to welfare benefits. Their land, which is their primary source of income, has not been returned to them, and there are no alternative jobs available to them. Their citizenship documents remain unprocessed for many. Basic amenities are still missing in these areas. Former enclave residents in areas like Bakalirchhara, Purba Mashaldanga, and Madhya Mashaldanga have staged protests demanding their due entitlements. However, their voices remain unheard. The fear surrounding the Citizenship Bill 2019, combined with a narrow understanding of the LBA, has only worsened their plight. Speculations around their allegiance to Bangladesh continue to isolate and marginalise them, even a decade after the historic land swap. The case of 50-year-old Fazlu Mian from Chitt Falanapur, a former Bangladeshi enclave, captures the reality these residents face. Shortly after the ratification of the LBA in 2015, Mian moved to Delhi in search of work. He found a job as a labourer, but within months, he was arrested. Despite presenting documents proving his Indian citizenship, he was ordered to leave the city. When he returned to Cooch Behar, the nearest railway station to his village, he was arrested again. This time, police told him that both Mian and Chitt Falanapur still belonged to Bangladesh. He tried to explain that under the LBA 2015, his village had officially become part of India. His pleas went unheard. He was jailed for a month before a district court in Cooch Behar finally ordered his release.
New Indian Express
2 days ago
- New Indian Express
LBA system in primary schools across Karnataka must go: Experts
BENGALURU: A growing number of teachers and educationists across Karnataka are raising serious concerns about the newly introduced Lesson-based Assessment (LBA) system in primary schools, terming it 'unscientific, burdensome, and a violation of the Right to Education Act'. Prominent educationists have strongly opposed the policy and called for its immediate withdrawal, urging the government to reinstate the Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation (CCE) method instead. According to experts, LBA requires students to appear for a test after each lesson, amounting to nearly 350–360 tests a year. 'This is not only overwhelming for students but is also severely burdening teachers, who are now forced to spend more time preparing, conducting, evaluating, and uploading data for assessments than actually teaching,' said Baraguru Ramachandrappa, noted writer and educationist. 'Teachers are not machines. The classroom must be a space for learning, not non-stop testing,' he added. The LBA system, introduced this year by the Department of School Education and Literacy, has drawn criticism not only for increasing the workload of teachers but also for allegedly violating Section 29(2)(h) of the Right to Education (RTE) Act, which mandates a Continuous and Comprehensive Evaluation system for student assessment, according to educationists. 'LBA violates the very essence of what the RTE Act stands for,' said Niranjanaradhya VP, an educationist. 'CCE was introduced after years of discussions and is now part of law. LBA, on the other hand, forces frequent testing, leaves little time for teaching, and narrows the focus to rote memorisation.' He added that the decision to implement LBA was taken without consulting educators, teachers, or academic experts. 'It is a unilateral move. Policies that directly affect children and teachers should go through democratic processes and expert consultation. This has not happened,' he said.
