Even on the second count, which is the more controversial of the two decisions, there is a further (but not dissenting) note from Justice D. M. Dharmadhikari, one of the three-member bench. He has cautioned that "in teaching religions, there is a possibility for indoctrination or brain-washing of the children and thus curbing their inquisitiveness and free-thinking in the name of religion", and consequently warned against any "personal prejudice, religious dogmas and superstitions creeping into the curriculum."
 
Clearly, therefore, the judgment relates only to the relatively narrow focus of the petition, so it cannot be taken to imply an endorsement of the new curriculum and the associated revisions in the textbooks. This means that the battle on this front must immediately be taken to Parliament at this point. This is crucial because there are many aspects of the NCFSE and the new curriculum that are extremely problematic and deserve much wider debate and discussion before being accepted.
 
The NCFSE states that "education about religions and the inherent values of all religions is to be imparted at all stages of school education". Given the present government's track record in this regard, it is not at all surprising that critics have condemned this as introducing unnecessary discussion of religion in what should be a secular activity, when values can be taught and transmitted without such religious bases in any case.
 
It is interesting to note that, in keeping with this government's general tendency to promote irrationality and obscuranticism, the NCFSE makes religion compulsory, but science optional! It is even more ironic to recognise that this proposal emanates from a government that, more than any other, has contributed to "de-spiritualising" religion, and cynically using it instead as a tool for divisive political mobilisation and social oppression.

But another aspect of the NCFSE may be even worse. This is the implicit division between two streams of learning at the higher secondary level - specialised academic courses or job oriented vocational courses. This negates the basic aim of providing equality of opportunity through a uniform pattern of education, which was the declared goal of our national education policy and should indeed remain the goal in any minimally democratic society.
 
The NCFSE openly proposes a dual stream of education for the haves and the have-nots in Indian society.  For the latter group, subjects like English language, mathematics and science learning are to be truncated and substituted with various vocational courses, for they are obviously destined to drop out of school after Class X and join the workforce. The biases of the NCERT become clear when the document emphasises that such vocational programmes "must meet the needs of disadvantaged groups like women, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes and physically challenged persons". Such people – who incidentally constitute together a significant majority of the population of India – must remain content to be second class citizens, denied the educational means to any kind of social mobility and self-fulfilment.
 
The anti-democratic, and even anti-Constitutional, nature of this division is so appalling that it is surprising that it has not received greater publicity. No doubt the discussion on the issue has been affected by the long shadow cast by wider attempts to saffronise education and social science research in the country. But this remains one of the most disturbing aspects of the proposed framework, and one that must be opposed by the people's representatives in Parliament.