The Directorate of Education (DoE) has, earlier this week, introduced a sweeping new protocol. Schools across the State must now obtain prior written approval before inviting any external speaker, activist or organisation onto their campuses. Institutions are expected to submit detailed speaker profiles, transcripts or drafts of their presentations, and compliance reports after the event. The trigger for this directive appears to be security concerns flagged by the North Goa District Collector and the Special Branch over the activities of the Students Islamic Organisation of India (SIO).
Meanwhile, the organisation has strongly objected to the circular, describing the allegations against it as “sweeping and unsubstantiated”. It argues that a legally recognised nationwide student body committed to academic excellence and social responsibility cannot be portrayed as a security threat without credible evidence, adding that such an approach is not only unfair but also in contravention of the laws. A section of politicos has denounced the directive as a “draconian attack on free speech and open education”.
The circular appears to be an overreaction that risks undermining the autonomy of educational institutions. By making every invitation subject to government clearance, the DoE is effectively treating every scientist, industry expert, environmental activist, social worker and NGO representative as a potential risk. If the government has credible concerns about a particular organisation, it should deal with that organisation directly, and that would make better sense. Instead, it has imposed restrictions on every school in the State in pursuit of a single perceived threat.
More worrying is the message this sends to those entrusted with running schools. DoE Director Shailesh Zingade has defended the move as a precaution to prevent students from being influenced by political or religious agendas, referring to a separate incident in which a political aspirant reportedly canvassed for votes inside a school. But in taking this route, the department has effectively signalled that principals and school managements cannot be trusted to exercise sound judgment on whom to invite for an event. School heads and teachers know their students and have long been responsible for deciding who should be allowed to engage with young minds. Requiring every decision to be vetted by the government is like questioning their competence or integrity to discharge that responsibility.
The policy’s biggest casualty is likely to be extracurricular learning. Faced with an additional layer of departmental scrutiny of presentations and the prospect of disciplinary action for procedural lapses, many schools may simply decide it is not worth the effort. Invitations to environmentalists speaking on conservation, cyber experts discussing online safety, healthcare professionals, entrepreneurs or artists could quietly disappear, not because they lack value, but because the administrative burden has become too heavy to handle.
That would be a loss for students and the curriculum. Exposure to people beyond the classroom broadens perspectives, sparks thoughts and connects academic learning with the real world. Ironically, these are precisely the goals prescribed by the National Education Policy (NEP), which the Directorate of Education itself has cited in support of the circular. This type of directive achieves just the opposite. Safeguarding students and preserving political neutrality are legitimate objectives, but they must be pursued with balance and proportionality. The Directorate of Education should rethink this blanket approval mechanism, withdraw the excessive restrictions and restore the trust that school leaders have earned through the years.
