ABSTRACT
The 1970s, 1980s and 1990s saw some significant shifts in the approach to education and development, the most important of which related to seeing education being inextricably linked to development and the importance of social mobilisation to enable people to demand services and facilities. This was also a period when iconic thinkers like Paulo Freire and Noam Chomsky were read and discussed across the education community; their work inspired educators in India to critically reflect on what they were doing in schools and in literacy programmes. At the same time, these decades also saw turmoil and churning in Indian politics and society. There was a fairly big group of educators and civil servants who saw great potential in using the new ideas 2 to question the way planning was done and also for exploring new ways of doing things. These decades were also characterised by disillusionment with mainstream structures. People within and outside the government explored alternative pathways to circumvent the mainframe of administration. Mr Anil Bordia, to whom this volume is dedicated, was instrumental in designing such projects and in creating a space for carving out a new path in education. He was bold enough to enter the grey zone between a fully government-owned and administered project and one that was owned and administered by NGOs. He brought together diverse groups to brainstorm ideas (like getting together government officials with NGOs and vice versa) and to think through processes and implement them (Ramachandran and Jandhyala 2012). One must hasten to add that many social activists, civil society organisations and researchers played an active role in the consultations leading up to National Policy on Education 1986; therefore, they were open to collaboration with the government on educational initiatives. Mr Bordia seized the opportunity. He belonged to a generation of civil servants who believed that officials have to be proactive in nation-building and promoting constitutional values of equality and non-discrimination. He firmly believed in the agency of key officials and as a result gave primacy to individuals over systems and processes.
