Educational Insights | Stay Informed with Edinbox

In a city that boasts of intellectual tolerance and cultural acceptance, the increasing concern among Kashmiri students in Pune is both pathetic and heart-wrenchingly sad. Although Pune itself has not seen any direct threat, the ripple effect of hate and violence from other states—specifically the reported attacks on students in Punjab and Uttarakhand in the wake of the Pahalgam terror attack—is being felt in hushed phone calls from anxious parents and silent disappearances from classrooms.

Alloof more than 1,000 students have come here in Pune from Jammu & Kashmir already. Getting here for all of them did not prove that simple—there was sacrifice asked from families, resistance of fear overcome, gambling with hope against uncertainty of refuge and possibilities. And yet with the fear kicking in now, all this belief can shatter, and its very first victim may be education.

These students, already battling the traumas of displacement, cultural adaptation, and educational stress, are now emotionally besieged—a reminder that for them, even education is contingent. It is not just individual resolve on their part to remain on and learn but also the faith of their parents in a system that does not always shield them when they most need protection, as seen through students like Mohammad Shafi and Ruqaiya Maqbool.

This is not the first time. Post-Pulwama, numerous students went back home in compulsion and never returned. To let history repeat itself is not administrative sloppiness—it is a failure of our collective conscience.

Schools, local police, and civil society in Pune need to act now—not respond later. Meetings with the police commissioner are always welcome, but talk must be turned into policies: 24/7 helplines, checks for safe accommodation, and public messaging that encourages inclusion are the need of the hour. The message must be clear—terror will not divide us, and students will not be punished for crimes they did not commit.

India's promise to its youth is that education will make them better, not worse. To shatter that for any group, particularly one as vulnerable as Kashmiris studying outside their state, is to violate the principles of a fair and democratic republic. Let us not fail them again.

America is experiencing an unprecedented demographic transformation as its birth rate falls to record low of 1.62 births per woman, far below the replacement rate of 2.1. The staggering figure is raising concerns about the long-term implications for the labor market, economic growth, and national security. Consequently, the Trump administration has offered a variety of incentives with the aim of triggering increased birth rates, from a "baby bonus" for expectant mothers to easier access to IVF procedures, parent scholarships, and even creating a National Medal of Motherhood to celebrate the social contribution of mothers. While the US is concerned about reversing its declining population trend, India with all its increasing population is dealing with a different set of population issues.

For India, it is a reverse scenario. While the population is still increasing in the country, it is the failure to give equal access to healthcare, education, and resources to the increasing youth that is the issue. India's birth rate, while still well above replacement level at approximately 2.2 births per woman, is also declining in some areas. The government has increasingly been placing greater emphasis on controlling population growth by means of family planning programs, promoting smaller family sizes, and offering incentives for family planning. Here, India's population issues are less a matter of growing its gigantic population and resolving issues such as unemployment and underemployment, than about managing its population.

The Trump administration's plans, like offering a $5,000 baby bonus to new mothers, are actually the antithesis of India's population-control strategy. America is trying to create a motive for people to have more children by compensating them for it as it sees an aging population and future worker shortage looming. India, by contrast, has continued to go for population-control measures like sterilization drives and family planning seminars with the intention of stopping overpopulation.

Another field where the US and India differ is healthcare. The US is increasing access to IVF treatment to support childless couples, taking into consideration the increasing role of family planning played by reproductive technologies. In India, though IVF is increasing in urban areas, it is beyond the reach of most people because of its price and lack of easy access to expert medical facilities.

Moreover, there is a unique economic context of hardships involved with childrearing in India. Whereas the proposals of the US government involve scholarships for parents to ease the financial burdens, Indian economic welfare programs like the Public Distribution System (PDS) and the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Act (MGNREGA) focus on general welfare but are criticized for not meeting population requirements.

And as for the National Medal of Motherhood, which is a proposal currently under discussion by the Trump administration, it's a curious cultural gesture expressive of a Western cultural value on motherhood. In India, however, cultural reverence for mothers is already a deeply rooted aspect of its society with little requirement for official certification in the form of medals or awards. Instead, India consistently focuses on women empowerment policies, such as promoting female literacy, ensuring maternal care, and eradicating child labor.

Both nations are driven by various issues in the government's population policy: the US is worried about its shrinking and aging population issues, while India is concerned with how to manage its fast-growing population and how to equip its large youth population with the resources and opportunities needed to succeed.

As the US looks to monetary rewards and policy adjustments to increase its population, India remains to fight to control its current demographic issue. Both countries, however, have serious hindrances in the way of economic inequality, education access, and a rising cost of living. Whether in the form of incentives to boost birth levels or population policies, both nations are attempting to address complicated population trends but through different means more suited to their own socio-economic and cultural climates.

As the US moves forward with its initiatives, only time will determine whether they will be able to reverse the birth rate decline. In the meantime, India continues to labor towards solving the increasingly pressing issue of taking care of its vast population, keeping growth in harmony with sustainability. Both countries need to turn towards more holistic social policy that encompasses not only the quantity of births, but the quality of life of the families that bring those children into being.

Some associations of teachers and university students have recently made submissions to the top officials of the state's department of higher education, seeking the latter's permission to introduce a single window system of admission to the state's government-aided arts and science colleges and private self-financing colleges.

The office-bearers of the associations -- Association of University Teachers (AUT), Madurai Kamaraj, Manonmaniam Sundaranar, Mother Teresa and Alagappa University Teachers' Association (MUTA), Makkal Kalvi Kootiyakkam, and Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI) -- have been banking on the state government to introduce the system in the coming academic year; the majority of them noted that the system would bring transparency in fee structure and reservation.

In April of last year, while K Karmegam was the collegiate education commissioner, a committee for the purpose was formed and made recommendations on the adoption of the single-window system.

But the process was suspended subsequently by the higher education department.

AUT former president P Thirunavukarasu described to TNIE that the system, already implemented for admission into engineering and government arts and science colleges, could surely be used in government-aided arts and science colleges and self-financing private colleges.

If introduced, the system will stop collection of capitation fees and make admissions and reservations transparent. One application will suffice for a student to apply for admission to a course in state government-aided arts and science colleges, he added.

Makkal Kalvi Kootiyakkam coordinator Prof R Murali said, "While initiating the system, the government has to clearly mention that stringent action would be initiated against institutions that act against the norms."

MUTA ex-general secretary M Nagarajan stated that a merit-based entry system, besides providing social justice, would enable the students to select colleges and courses according to their preference.

"Today, aided colleges are extorting huge amounts of fees from the students for the aided courses. It should be done away with," he remarked, making the allegation of inaction by the government on this count against the managements of institutions on the complaints of students.

He further added that introducing the single window system of admission would "put an end to all the irregularities that are being done at government-aided colleges and self-financing institutions."

DYFI district treasurer S Veldeva said, "The government can establish district-wise facilitation centres to facilitate the admission process smoothly, enabling students to select colleges and courses online."

Although TNIE tried, higher education department principal Secretary C Samyamoorthy and joint secretary private college management association of Madurai Kamaraj University Zone M Davamani Christober could not be contacted for comment.

Catherine Hezser's Rabbinic Scholarship and the Rise of Scholasticism: The Case of the Talmud Yerushalmi is a richly ambitious and learned book on the history of rabbinic literature. Situating the Talmud Yerushalmi in the wider intellectual universe of late antiquity, Hezser offers the reader a bold new vision of how rabbinic scholarship developed in Roman-Byzantine Palestine.

Hezser starts by relocating the Yerushalmi rabbis as intellectuals on a par with their Greco-Roman and early Christian peers. She makes astute comparisons between rabbinic "sages" and Greek-trained Christian authors, laying the groundwork for detailed examination of educational systems of the era. Rabbinic education, she demonstrates, occurred in various venues—from study groups to public ad hoc encounters—instead of within the formal institutional schools. This is typical of Roman and Hellenistic practice, under which sophisticated studies had a tendency to group themselves around close disciples' circles. One of the book's strengths is the manner in which rabbinic scholarship was transmitted orally from one generation to another.

The procedure, it is claimed, was largely oral, with written records being taken as little as possible for personal use. She points out the antipathy which rabbis held against codified compendia due to fear of widespread dissemination into halachic anarchy. Her critique of the activity of "tradents," the ideologically correct to quote verbatim the sayings of sages, is especially astute, offering a comparison to such behavior elsewhere in late antique scholarship. The book further engages with the networks along which rabbinic traditions were circulated and maintained, both horizontally in relations between contemporaries and vertically in lines of teacher and student. Hezser's comparative methodology is strongest here, comparing rabbinic means of transmission of knowledge against more general tendencies in Greco-Roman and Christian intellectual networks.

Another highlight is her comparison of the Yerushalmi’s compilation techniques with those of Hellenistic philosophical works and Roman legal digests. Unlike early Christian texts that often aimed for doctrinal unity, the Yerushalmi embraces a pluralism of voices and opinions, echoing the works of Diogenes Laertius, Plutarch, and the Roman jurists. This plurality underscores the rabbinic value placed on debate, dialogue, and interpretive diversity.

Hezser also analyzes the rabbis' judicial functions in relation to Roman jurists who combined knowledge and public service. The rabbis not only instructed students, but they also addressed the public, responding to questions and providing advice and thereby expanding their mission of teaching into the public sphere.

In explaining editing and redaction of the Talmud Yerushalmi, Hezser demonstrates to us how it developed as a multi-voiced, layered digest instead of being the work of one author. She explains meticulously how redactors structured traditions topically based on the structuring of the Mishna, but expanded on it in halakhic debates too. Her analysis of editor-scribe interactions provides us with another vision of how the Talmud developed.

Yet a few of Hezser's conclusions are maybe debatable. Her account that the orality of rabbinic instruction was largely to maintain the authority of the rabbis underemphasizes theological motivations for orality, i.e., Sinai-like imitation. Likewise, her doubts over the reliability of attributions in rabbinic literature might have been less categorical, given the dynamics of manuscript transmission.

Although the scholarly level of the book might render it a challenge to a general readership, its well-researched material is a requirement for scholars. Hezser's command of sources in late antiquity—the New Testament to Roman law—is a deep expression of scholarship in depth.

Last but not least, Rabbinic Scholarship in the Context of Late Antique Scholasticism is a rich new contribution to our understanding of the intellectual culture that produced the Talmud Yerushalmi. Even if readers do not agree with some of Hezser's speculations, the book will surely stimulate additional research and discussion. For anyone genuinely interested in rabbinic literature or late antique intellectual history, this book is a necessary and rewarding read.

Taking a decision that has set off a controversy storm, the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) has added Hindi titles to English-medium textbooks. The decision, one of the roll-out plans of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020, has been ferociously attacked, primarily by non-Hindi states.

At the center of the storm are the new titles themselves. Class 1 and 2 English textbooks have been named 'Mridang', and that of Class 3 has become 'Santoor'. The Class 6 English textbook 'Honeysuckle' is now 'Poorvi'. Although the idea behind this step might be to promote linguistic diversity, its critics say that it does the reverse.

Kerala General Education and Employment Minister V Sivankutty has been one of the loudest voices opposing the move. He referred to the renaming as an "ignorance of India's linguistic diversity" and argued that it was against the federal spirit of the Constitution. Sivankutty explained that titles of books deeply influence the imagination and mind of children, and it is a wrong effort to homogenize India's linguistic richness by enforcing Hindi book titles on English textbooks.

Similar concerns have also been expressed in Tamil Nadu, where there have been recurring complaints of "Hindi imposition" following the NEP. Chief Minister MK Stalin has accused the central government of denying funds to schools which are not being victims of the imposition of the three-language formula as prescribed by the policy.

While the debate rages on, it has once again brought to the fore the complex and controversial question of language in education. In a country as linguistically diverse as India, the question of what language to teach is a highly politicized one. While some argue that promoting the use of Hindi as a link language will be a step towards bridging cultural divides between multicultural groups, others argue that it is part of a process of movement towards a hegemonizing language imposing itself upon marginalized communities. With its recent move being a lightning rod for protests and bad publicity, however, the question of language in education by no means resolved, it seems.

Lastly, the choice of what language to employ for educational purposes should be done in light of values of social justice, inclusivity, and diversity. Through listening to all the stakeholders' complains and engaging in an enlightened and thoughtful conversation, we can endeavor to come up with an education system that best addresses the linguistic diverseness of the nation.

In a first that is a radical shift in the landscape of Indian education, Get Set Learn has partnered with Harvard Business Publishing Education (HBP Education) for the launch of leadership development and 21st-century skill development in K-12 schools. It is India's first to offer students an opportunity to build future-proof skills with a blended learning model that fuses digital platforms with live facilitation.

The curriculum is designed to foster the basic skills that the World Economic Forum's Education 4.0 report has listed as required for future workers—problem-solving, creativity, critical thinking, leadership, and emotional intelligence. As technological innovation and automation continue to revolutionize industries, students must not only be well-informed but also attitude and resilience to thrive in uncertain working environments.

At its center is a mixed learning design that combines interactive web-based modules, scenario simulation, and synchronous facilitator guidance. This allows the balance between self-learning and guided mentorship, maintaining students' motivation, focus, and needed guidance. Students are encouraged to relate learning to practice, mimicking real problem conditions and decision-making contexts. This mixed method of experiential learning achieves greater understanding of content and creates teamwork-based problem-solving and innovation.

One of the most significant elements of this collaboration is access to HBP Education's large library of over 400 carefully curated resources specifically designed for use by K-12 students. They include interactive case studies, leadership models, digital proficiency resources, and emotional intelligence software. All such materials are aligned to particular skills and micro-skills, so it is a well-organized but flexible learning process that is compliant with the National Education Policy (NEP). Learners thus acquire corresponding competencies while strengthening their current curriculum.

In addition to acquiring skills, the program aims to bridge the age-old gap between "hard" and "soft" skills in Indian education. Technical competence has so far been given priority over people and leadership skills. The program emphasizes both equally, redefining success in education as a spin-off of overall development.

In conversation with ETNOW.in, Ameet Zaverii, CEO and Co-founder of Get Set Learn, emphasized that the program’s long-term goal is to integrate these resources into school curricula across the country. “We’re not just teaching students to learn—we’re teaching them to lead,” he stated. The partnership aims to reach a broad network of schools, laying the foundation for a scalable model that can be replicated both nationally and globally.

The program's key performance indicators will be student engagement levels, analysis and leadership skill development, educator feedback, and practice skill development through projects and competitions. Ease of integration into existing curricula will also be a success measure.

In the years to come, the program can transform Indian school education from plain rote memorization to active skill-based learning. With more schools implementing this template, it can serve as a model for educational reform that makes Indian students not only educated, but future-ready.