PM SHRI: what is needed is clarity in stance and determination

The controversy surrounding Kerala's signing up to the Central Government's education reform scheme, PM SHRI (Pradhan Mantri Schools for Rising India), has been a major point of contention in state politics for some time. The primary dispute began when the Pinarayi Vijayan-led LDF government, after initially raising objections and refusing to sign, subsequently went ahead and inked the agreement through bureaucratic channels without any deliberation in the Left front’s coordination committee or the state cabinet meetings. The core issue of the controversy was that the agreement required signing a Memorandum of Understanding (MoU) agreeing among other things to implement the National Education Policy (NEP). Following this secretive move made without policy-level consultations, the CPI — the second-largest ally in the front — raised strong objections and exerted pressure for withdrawing from it. Since there was no clause to opt out of the signed contract, the LDF temporarily froze further proceedings. The UDF, who were in the opposition at the time and had severely criticised these actions, are now facing intense criticism after coming to power. They are being questioned for the apparent decision to proceed with PM SHRI without making any efforts to modify the previously signed agreement.

Also read: PM SHRI row: UDF-LDF clash ends in oppn walkout in Kerala Assembly

As envisaged in the PM SHRI, two schools in each local self-government body will be upgraded, with the Centre covering 60% of the cost and the state bearing the remaining 40%. Central assistance for the project, which commenced in 2022-23, is available for five years, which means funding will cease by the end of 2026-27 financial year. Consequently, the state government will be left with the long-term obligation of implementing the agreed-upon NEP. Out of the total five-year financial outlay of ₹27,360 crore for 14,500 government schools nationwide, the Centre provides 60% (₹18,128 crore), leaving the states to arrange the rest. Kerala is slated to receive approximately ₹1,400 crore over the project's duration. Financially more crucial is the fact that non-implementation of this scheme would result in the withholding of substantial funds due to Kerala under another major central scheme, Samagra Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA). The loss of these vital funds was the justification used by the Pinarayi government to sign the pact, and the current UDF government is citing the same rationale. In contrast, the MK Stalin government in Tamil Nadu and Mamata Banerjee in West Bengal adopted a completely different stance of not subscribing to the deal. Stalin declared that if the agreement was bound by strings, Tamil Nadu would rather willingly forgo its share of ₹2,000-plus crore. Following their legal recourse to the Supreme Court, the Centre temporarily released partial funds to Tamil Nadu.

Also read: Pinarayi questions UDF’s U-Turn to implement PM SHRI in Kerala

The crux of the controversy lies in the conditions attached to PM SHRI and the anxieties regarding certain elements of the Centre's education policies. Previously, the Pinarayi government’s justification was that despite having ideological objections, they were forced to sign the agreement because the state could not afford to lose out on the financial assistance. At the same time, they had clarified their stance that only Kerala's own curriculum would be applied in the schools. They emphasised that principles and sciences aligned with the Sangh Parivar agenda would not be taught, and that the history chapters currently being taught in the state would neither be omitted nor replaced with content tailored to the Centre's interests.

Also read: Tamil Nadu will continue two-language policy, says TVK govt

Currently, a four-member cabinet subcommittee headed by General Education Minister N. Shamseeuddin is conducting a study to provide recommendations for Kerala's stance in the existing scenario. But this is not merely an issue of dispute between the political alliances. The demand that history education and teaching should not be based on divisive politics—which goes against the grain of Kerala's pluralism and communal harmony—is not an issue confined to the two political fronts alone; rather, it is in the larger public interest of the state. If a stage arises where Hindutva ideologies and unscientific 'science' teaching have to be introduced in the name of the NEP, the government will be answerable to the people. Therefore, since the PM SHRI agreement has already been signed, and the government has no way other than to proceed with it, it should obtain a written assurance regarding autonomy over matters like the curriculum, or failing that legal recourse must be sought against the injustice in the Centre's conditional fund distribution. Through that, the freedoms allocated to the state within the federal system must be safeguarded. While it is true that the Centre holds legislative power because education is a subject in the Concurrent List, central dominance over the state’s autonomous domains, such as textbooks, cannot be accepted. That would then be a violation of the federal structure, which is a basic feature of the Constitution. Only after making every possible effort to formulate an action plan, keeping all these factors in mind, can the government throw its hands up in helplessness regarding PM SHRI. For that, there must be clarity in its own convictions and stances coupled with the determination to implement them.

Also read: PM SHRI row: To act in interests of Kerala my job, says MP Brittas