On behalf of the plethora of Educational Institutions owned, managed and manned by the Christian Community, APCLF unequivocally demands the repeal and reframing of The University Grants Commission's (UGC) draft Learning Outcomes-based Curriculum Framework (LOCF) that proposes integrating "ancient wisdom" and Indian Knowledge Systems (IKS) into undergraduate curricula across multiple disciplines like chemistry, commerce, mathematics, economics, and anthropology with elements such as referencing Vedic concepts like 

• Parmanu in atomic theory,
• teaching Kautilya's Arthashastra and "Ram Rajya" in commerce,
• exploring mandala geometry and temple architecture in mathematics,
• Incorporating dharmic thought on wealth in economics.
• sutra-based algebra (ancient Indian method using mathematical formulas)
• division of polynomials using the Paravartya Yojayet Sutra
• Kala Gaṇana (traditional Indian timekeeping)
• Sūrya Siddhānta and Āryabhaṭīyam, explains the structure of cosmic time—from Yugas and Kalpas to Brahma’s day (Brahma Varṣa)—and introduces divine time cycles like Vishnu Varṣa and Shiva Varṣa
• panchaṅga (Indian calendar) and how it determines auspicious moments (muhūrtas)
• ancient Indian Vedic time units of Ghatis and Vighatis compare with modern systems like Greenwich Mean Time (GMT) and Indian Standard Time (IST).
• references to V.D. Savarkar's work in history readings
   

The framework under the guise of aligning with the NEP's goal of decolonizing education is concerning to APCLF over the ideological bias. 

1.    Regressive Nature:
APCLF is of the opinion that while proponents may view this as a way to reclaim cultural heritage, such a curriculum overhaul is profoundly regressive, as it risks undermining modern, evidence-based education by conflating mythological or ancient philosophical ideas with empirical science and critical inquiry. For instance, 

equating Vedic notions of Parmanu with Bohr’s atomic model in chemistry dilutes scientific rigor, potentially fostering pseudoscience over testable hypotheses and discouraging students from questioning unverified claims from ancient texts. 

In mathematics, prioritizing "yantras" and "rangoli" as core concepts could sideline global advancements like advanced calculus or computational methods, stunting India's competitiveness in STEM fields where innovation relies on universal, not culturally specific, principles. 

This backward-looking approach echoes outdated educational models that prioritize rote memorization of heritage over forward-thinking skills like data analysis or ethical AI, ultimately hindering societal progress in a globalized world. This can roll back progressive values by reviving dogmas and superstitions rather than fostering a scientific and rational outlook as mandated by the Constitution.

2. Attempt to Saffronise Education:
APCLF believes that this move represents a clear attempt to saffronise education, infusing curricula with Hindutva ideology under the guise of "decolonization." References to Saraswati salutations, "Shubh-labh," "Ram Rajya," and Vedic ethics align closely with BJP-led narratives that promote Hindu supremacy, as seen in the inclusion of Savarkar's nationalist text, which has been criticized for its communal undertones. This effort essentially homogenizes the diverse social fabric of India by privileging Hindu religious texts and cultural symbols, sidelining other religious and cultural narratives.

Such moves serve to legitimize cultural and religious dominance of the majority community under the guise of celebrating "ancient wisdom," masking exclusionary politics behind cultural nationalism. It as an effort to rewrite education to favor a majoritarian worldview, potentially eroding secularism in public institutions and politicizing academia to serve electoral agendas rather than foster inclusive knowledge. 

3. Impact on Minorities and Social Concerns:
APCLF is of the firm view that this curriculum forces minorities—such as Muslims, Christians, Sikhs, or atheists—who do not relate to or identify with Vedic scriptures to acknowledge and incorporate them into their learning, amounting to cultural coercion. Students from non-Hindu backgrounds would be compelled to study and potentially internalize concepts like dharmic economics or Vedic anthropology as mandatory credits, risking alienation, identity erasure, and a sense of second-class citizenship in a diverse nation. This imposition could exacerbate communal tensions, as it prioritizes one religious tradition over others, encroaches on India's constitutional rights.

By imposing a Hindu-centric curriculum, minorities lose educational autonomy and face forced cultural assimilation, conflicting with secularism and equality principles and compelling minorities to validate a narrative that may contradict their own beliefs or histories.

4. Violation of Constitutional Guarantees and Judiciary Observations:
APCLF reminds the UGC of its constitutional obligations and to the judiciary that has reaffirmed that public education should not promote religious instruction or a particular religion’s scripture, to uphold secularism and religious freedom. Incorporating the Ramayana, Vedas, or similar texts as central educational content in government institutions violates the spirit of the Constitution by mixing religious teachings with secular education. Promotion of casteist or patriarchal verses from these texts contradicts constitutional guarantees of equality, non-discrimination, and social justice.

# Violation of Article 28: Prohibition on Religious Instruction in State-Funded Educational Institutions –

• Article 28(1) of the Indian Constitution explicitly states that "no religious instruction shall be provided in any educational institution wholly maintained out of State funds." The draft curriculum's emphasis on Vedic scriptures amounts to imparting religious instruction, as these elements are drawn from Hindu religious texts and philosophies, potentially compelling students to engage with them as part of mandatory coursework.
• Court Observations/Judgments: In Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002), the Supreme Court upheld the inclusion of value-based education drawn from various religions but clarified that it must not promote any specific religion or involve religious instruction, emphasizing that education should foster a "scientific temper" and secular values without indoctrination. The Court observed that any curriculum promoting religious dogma violates secularism. Similarly, in challenges to similar initiatives, such as the Uttar Pradesh government's Ramayana and Vedic workshops in government schools (2025), petitioners argued it violated Article 28 by using public funds for religious propagation, with courts noting that such programs blur the line between cultural education and religious instruction. In D.A.V. College v. State of Punjab (1971), the Supreme Court reiterated that state-aided institutions cannot compel religious observance or instruction, as it infringes on individual freedoms.

# Violation of Articles 25-26: Freedom of Conscience and Right to Manage Religious Affairs

• By mandating the study of Vedic and Hindu-centric concepts in a secular curriculum, the draft forces students, including those from minority faiths or non-believers, to acknowledge and internalize religious ideas that may conflict with their beliefs, effectively propagating one religion at the expense of others.
• Court Observations / Judgments: In *S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994), a landmark case, the Supreme Court held that secularism is part of the basic structure of the Constitution and that the state cannot favor or promote any religion and could lead to communal discord. The Court emphasized that education must remain neutral to uphold Article 25. In Rev. Stainislaus v. State of Madhya Pradesh (1977), the Court clarified that propagation of religion cannot involve coercion, and imposing religious texts in education constitutes indirect coercion, violating individual conscience.

# Violation of Article 51A(h): Fundamental Duty to Develop Scientific Temper

• Article 51A(h) imposes a fundamental duty on citizens "to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform." The curriculum's conflation of ancient mythological concepts with modern science risks promoting pseudoscience and superstition over empirical evidence and critical thinking, thereby undermining this duty in educational policy.
• Court Observations/Judgments: In *Ashok Thakur v. Union of India (2008), the Supreme Court stressed the importance of scientific temper in education to combat regressive ideas. More directly, in Ashok Kumar Thakur v. Union of India (dismissal of PIL on superstition, 2024), the Court observed that fostering scientific temper is an educational imperative, not merely a judicial one, and that curricula must prioritize rational inquiry over unverified ancient claims to align with Article 51A(h). The bench noted that blending untested "ancient wisdom" with science could hinder progress, echoing Nehru's vision of scientific temper as essential for national development. In broader observations, courts have critiqued similar IKS integrations for lacking empirical validation, as seen in academic challenges to UGC mandates.

# Violation of Articles 14 and 15: Equality Before the Law and Prohibition of Discrimination

• Article 14 ensures equality before the law and equal protection, while Article 15 prohibits discrimination on grounds of religion, race, caste, sex, or place of birth. The curriculum's exclusive focus on Vedic/Hindu knowledge systems discriminates against minorities by privileging one cultural-religious tradition, potentially alienating non-Hindu students and creating an unequal educational environment where majoritarian views are normalized.
• Court Observations/Judgments:  In *Indra Sawhney v. Union of India (1992), the Supreme Court underscored that equality under Article 14 requires substantive fairness, not just formal, and that state actions favoring one group (e.g., through religiously biased curricula) violate this. In the recent Uttar Pradesh Board of Madrasa Education Act case (2024), the Supreme Court upheld the Act's validity but struck down provisions that could lead to religious favoritism, observing that education must be secular to avoid violating Articles 14 and 15, and that minority rights under Article 30 (right to establish and administer institutions) are undermined if the state promotes majority religion. The Court noted that such imbalances foster a sense of exclusion. Similarly, in Society for Unaided Private Schools of Rajasthan v. Union of India (2012), the bench observed that discriminatory educational policies breach equality, emphasizing inclusive curricula.

These violations collectively threaten the secular fabric of Indian education, as enshrined in the Preamble's commitment to secularism—a basic structure immune to amendment, per Kesavananda Bharati v. State of Kerala (1973). While the draft aims at "decolonization," its implementation could lead to legal challenges, as seen in opposition from states like Karnataka to similar UGC directives on IKS.

DEMAND ::
We, the Andhra Pradesh Christian Leaders Forum, unequivocally condemn the UGC's draft Learning Outcomes-based Curriculum Framework as a brazen assault on –

• India's secular ethos, 
• constitutional mandates, 
• and the pluralistic fabric of our nation. 

This curriculum, riddled with majoritarian religious impositions and pseudoscientific conflations, flagrantly 

• violates Articles 14, 15, 25, 26, 28, and 51A(h) of the Constitution, as affirmed by landmark judgments such as S.R. Bommai v. Union of India (1994) and Aruna Roy v. Union of India (2002), which enshrine secularism as an unamendable basic structure and prohibit religious indoctrination in state-funded education.

By coercing minorities to internalize Vedic scriptures and Hindutva ideologies under the guise of "decolonization," it fosters alienation, erodes scientific temper, and perpetuates communal discord, betraying the vision of a united, progressive India. 

We demand – 

• The immediate repeal of this regressive framework 
• comprehensive redrafting through a transparent, inclusive process 
• Involve diverse stakeholders, ensuring alignment with empirical science, constitutional secularism, and equitable representation of all faiths and cultures. 
• Upholding of the constitutional rights and privileges 
• Respecting the observations and judgements made by various Courts in matters such as these.

We are of the firm belief that failure to act will invite widespread resistance, legal challenges, and a resolute defense of our democratic rights— let this be a clarion call to safeguard education as a beacon of unity, not division.