This article was downloaded by: [UOV University of Oviedo]

On: 24 October 2014, At: 01:22

Publisher: Routledge
Informa Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registered
office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

International Journal of Disability,

Development and Education
Publication details, including instructions for authors and
subscription information:
http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cijd20

Inclusive Education in India:

International concept, national
interpretation
a
Nidhi Singal
a
University of Cambridge , UK
Published online: 22 Jan 2007.

To cite this article: Nidhi Singal (2006) Inclusive Education in India: International concept, national
interpretation, International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 53:3, 351-369, DOI:
10.1080/10349120600847797

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10349120600847797

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the
“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,
our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as to
the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinions
and views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,
and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Content
should not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sources
of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,
proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever
or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or
arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Any
substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,
systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &
Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-
and-conditions
 International Journal of Disability, Development and Education
Vol. 53, No. 3, September 2006, pp. 351–369

Inclusive Education in India:

International concept, national
interpretation
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

Nidhi Singal*
University of Cambridge, UK
30NidhiSingal
sn241@cam.ac.uk
000002006
International
10.1080/10349120600847797
CIJD_A_184712.sgm
1034-912X
Original
Taylor
2006
53 and
& Article
Francis
Francis
(print)/1465-346X
JournalLtd
of Disability,
(online)
Development and Education

This article examines education of children belonging to marginalised groups, with particular
reference to children with disabilities, within the Indian context. Based on an analysis of post-
independence Government documents, various educational provisions made available for chil-
dren with disabilities are discussed. It explores the Indian Government’s focus on the develop-
ment of special schools, its efforts towards integration, and the more recent emphasis on
inclusive education. Furthermore, it attempts to elucidate “inclusive education” as understood
in various official documents. The article concludes by arguing for a need to develop a contex-
tual understanding of inclusive education that is reflective of current educational concerns in
India.

Keywords: Disability; Education for all; Inclusive education; India

Introduction
India is home to 16% of the world’s population, making it the world’s biggest
democracy (World Bank, 2005). With respect to landmass, India occupies 2.24% of
the world’s total area. Its education system, with 108 million school-going children
in the 6 to 10 age group, is the second largest in the world after China (World Bank,
2003). It comprises a diverse group of citizens in terms of linguistic, social,
economic, and cultural backgrounds.
In 1947, the year of India’s independence, education in the Constitution of India
was presented as a directive principle rather than a fundamental right. While funda-
mental rights in the Constitution are guaranteed to all citizens and take precedence

*Faculty of Education, University of Cambridge, 184 Hills Road, Cambridge CB2 2PQ, UK.
Email: sn241@cam.ac.uk

ISSN 1034-912X (print)/ISSN 1465-346X (online)/06/030351–19

© 2006 Taylor & Francis
DOI: 10.1080/10349120600847797
 352 N. Singal

over any other law of the land, directive principles are asserted as being fundamental
in the governance of the country but are not legally enforceable. Instead they are
guidelines for creating a social order, as enunciated in the constitution’s preamble.
The provision of education is stated in Article 45 of the directives principles as “the
State shall endeavour to provide, within a period of 10 years from the commencement
of the Constitution, free and compulsory education for all children until they
complete the age of fourteen years” (Ministry of Law and Justice, 2004; emphasis
added). However, this constitutional obligation has been time and again deferred by
the Government. Now the 10th Five-Year Plan, for the period 2002–2007, has set
the target for all children to complete 5 years of schooling by 2007 (Planning
Commission, 2002a). In 2000, of the 192 million children in the 6 to 14 years age
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

group, 40 million children continued to remain outside the school system (Ministry
of Human Resource Development, 2003a). A similar estimate of out-of-school chil-
dren is stated in the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (2005) report. Referring to the
Multiple Cluster Indicators Survey carried out in 2000, it notes that approximately
27 million primary school children (6 to 11 years old) in India do not attend school.
While both these documents indicate that about 21–25% of children do not attend
school, the Planning Commission of India suggests that “the figure is higher; that
out of approximately 200 million children in the age group 6 to 14 years, only 120
million are in school” (quoted in Department for International Development, 2001,
p. 3)—thus stating that 80 million children remain out of school, or 40% of children
in the 6 to 14 years age group. While these discrepancies in statistics could be due to
a range of reasons, an in-depth analysis of the statistical data is not the focus of this
article. Essentially it cannot be overlooked that India “has the highest absolute
number of out-of-school children” (UNESCO Institute for Statistics, 2005, p. 21),
and it is one of the 35 countries most unlikely to meet education for all goals by
2015 (UNESCO, 2005).

Structure of School Education

While a uniform structure of education exists across India, there are slight variations
in some of the 28 states. Primary education encompasses the first 5 years (6 to 11
years old) of school education (Grades I–V), while the next three grades (11 to 14
years old) are those of upper primary education (Grades VI–VIII). Together these 8
years of education are now a fundamental right of all children according to the 86th
Amendment of the Constitution enacted in December 2002 (Department of Educa-
tion, 2004). Education at the pre-primary level is not compulsory and provisions
vary significantly between rural and urban areas (Kaul, 2002). In parallel to the
formal school system, India has also built alternative systems of education, namely
Non-Formal Education (NFE) and the National Institute of Open Schooling
(NIOS) (formerly the National Open School). Both these systems are discussed in
detail later. The focus of curriculum at the primary level is on the development of
basic skills of literacy and numeracy, study of the environment in terms of physical
and social phenomena, and participation in activities that would develop productive
 Inclusive Education in India 353

skills, creative expression, and habits of healthy living (Department of Education,

2005).

Financing Education in India

The Kothari Commission Report (Education Commission, 1966) recommended
that 6% of the nation’s Gross National Product be spent on education, but public
expenditure on education continues to be around 3% (Ministry of Human Resource
Development, 2000a). According to the Human Development Report 2001 (referred
to in Tilak, 2003), among the 143 countries listed, India ranked 104th with respect
to the share of Gross National Product spent on education. The central government
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

accounts for only 12% of the total expenditure, and it is this money that is used to
fund new projects for improving teaching. Ninety-seven per cent of the total expen-
diture on education incurred by a state is spent on teacher salaries, while libraries,
consumables, teaching equipment, and furniture are allocated a mere 0.18% (Raina,
1998). In the 1990s, several interventions such as Operation Blackboard (Ministry
of Human Resource Development, 1987), Lok Jumbish (1992), and the District
Primary Education Programme (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1993),
were launched to improve the quality of education. These interventions were based
on multiple strategies of improvements in infrastructure, human resources, curricu-
lum, materials, pedagogical approaches, teacher capacity-building, and an increased
focus on specification and measurement of learner achievement levels (Ministry of
Human Resource Development, 2001). Due to the lack of rigorous evaluations of
these programmes it is difficult to make any assertions about their effectiveness with
confidence. However, as suggested in the global monitoring report “Education for
All: The Quality Imperative” (UNESCO, 2005), the quality of education provided
in countries of Southern Asia remains of significant concern. Additionally, in India,
as in many other South Asian countries, there is evidence of continued disparities in
the education of children belonging to different groups.

Existing Educational Disparities across Different Groups of Children

Appasamy, Guhan, Hema, Majumdar, and Vaidyanathan (1995) note the continued
existence of “multiple forms of inequality—‘market inequality’ (poverty), ‘status
inequality’, ‘spatial and sexual disparity’—which continue to render certain social
groups incapable of achieving freedom from illiteracy and innumeracy” (p. 42).
Government documents (such as Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1986,
1992a) note that children belonging to certain groups—such as those from schedule
caste (SC) groups/schedule tribes (ST), girls, children from various religious,
linguistic and ethnic minority groups, and children with disabilities—are more likely
to be excluded than others.
Of the total number of children not in school, Nayar (2002) estimates that 67% of
these are girls. Nambissan and Sedwal (2002) note the considerable discrepancy in
school attendance rates between boys from SC groups compared with those of non-
 354 N. Singal

SC groups. They state that in rural areas boys belonging to SC groups had an atten-
dance rate of 64.3% compared with 74.95% for boys from non-SC groups. In urban
areas SC boys had higher attendance rates of 77.5% (compared with their rural
counterparts), however, there continued to be a lag of 10 percentage points in their
attendance rates compared with non-SC boys, whose attendance rates stood at
86.8%. Similar discrepancies are evident in the education of children with disabili-
ties in comparison with their non-disabled peers; these are discussed in detail later.
The Government has made various efforts to address these discrepancies. In the
National Policy on Education (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1986)
emphasis has been placed on the “removal of disparities”, along with an attempt “to
equalise educational opportunity by attending to the specific needs of those who
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

have been denied equality so far” (p. 9). From 1990 onwards, the Government has
approached these concerns by adopting a targeted approach, in which different
ministries and/or departments have launched various schemes and programmes. For
the purpose of this study a review was undertaken of various annual reports of
Government departments and the Programme of Action (Ministry of Human
Resource Development, 1992a). The review revealed that a range of departments
and ministries continue to address educational concerns for different groups. For
example, issues regarding the education of children from different schedule castes or
tribes are the concern of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, the
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, and the Department of Education. Similarly, the
education of children with disabilities is a responsibility of the Ministry of Social
Justice and Empowerment, the Department of Women and Child Welfare, and the
Department of Education.
In an effort to meet the needs of children unable to attend regular school, the
1990s saw the development of cost-effective and alternative systems, such as the
NFE scheme—recently reframed as the Education Guarantee Scheme and Alterna-
tive and Innovative Education—and the NIOS.
Initially, the NFE scheme was implemented in 25 States/Union Territories (UTs)
and had a total coverage of about 7.4 million children (Ministry of Human Resource
Development, 2002). Several evaluations and assessments by state governments,
institutions and, most notably, the Programme Evaluation Organisation of the Plan-
ning Commission indicated that the implementation of the scheme was unsatisfactory
(Department of Education, 2005). Therefore, the scheme was modified and re-
launched as the Education Guarantee Scheme and Alternative and Innovative Educa-
tion. Like the NFE scheme, it aims to provide flexibility in approaches to education
for out-of-school children (6–14 year olds who may be out of school for a variety of
reasons, such as those living in villages or communities without any schools, children
belonging to migrating communities, those living in streets or slums) to ensure their
regular participation and completion of the elementary level of education. In the case
of children with disabilities, this form of education can be accessed until they are 18
years of age (Department of Education, 2005).
The NIOS provides educational services in the distance education mode involving
the delivery of printed materials and face-to-face programmes in study centres. It
 Inclusive Education in India 355

also provides skills-based vocational courses and courses that lead to traditional
school certification. Presently, the Open School has approximately 238,069 students
enrolled (NIOS, 2005). It has also launched the Open Basic Education, a three-level
programme equivalent to the Elementary Education Programme of the formal
education system.
Programmes such as NFE and NIOS have been successful in bringing about a
significant increase in enrolments, as suggested in the Education for All Assessment
Report (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2000b). While these
programmes have increased enrolment figures, the quality of education they offer
has come under criticism. For instance, Dreze and Sen (1995) and Nambissan
(2000) point out that these systems offer second-track, subquality education. Bernt-
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

sen (1995) argues that these systems must be recognised as the last resort and as
temporary stop-gap arrangements until children can be enrolled in mainstream
settings. Nonetheless, the Government continues to place significant emphasis on
them.
Results of educational assessments (Ministry of Human Resource Development,
2000b) suggest an accelerated growth rate in literacy, a decline in the male–female
literacy gap, and increased enrolment of girls in schools. However, the rate of enrol-
ment of children with disabilities continues to be low. The Programme of Action
(Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1992a) had envisioned universal enrol-
ment of “children with locomotor handicaps and other mild disabilities in primary
schools” (p. 12). Five years later, the Planning Commission (1997) stated that all
children requiring special education would be enrolled in special schools or special
classes by 2002. However, these goals have remained unfulfilled.

Education of Children with Disabilities

At this juncture it is necessary to reflect on the development of educational
provisions for children with disabilities over the past 50 years. In India, there are
serious concerns regarding the accuracy and reliability of reporting the number of
people with disabilities. These concerns are also reflected in a report by the Office of
the Registrar General (2006), which notes that it is well accepted that there are seri-
ous difficulties in carrying out a survey of persons with disabilities due to various
reasons, such as the lack of well-trained field investigators and the reluctance on the
part of families to disclose information about members with disability due to social
stigma. According to this census, persons with disabilities constitute 2.13% of the
total population in India.
Mukhopadhyay and Mani (2002), referring to a 1992 report of the Department of
Education, note an estimated 12.59 million children with disabilities in the 5 to 14
years age group. In the same chapter, they refer to the National Sample Survey of
1991 and state that there are approximately 10.39 million children with disabilities
in the 5 to 14 years age group. The variation between these two figures may seem
rather minor when compared with the figures quoted in a more recent Ministry of
Human Resource Development (2004) document, which suggests that “states have
 356 N. Singal

identified 1.6 million children with special needs (CWSN) in the 6 to 14 years age
group of the total child population of 209 million in 2001” (p. 25). This document
does not elaborate on the term “children with special needs” and uses it inter-
changeably with the term “children with disabilities”. Singal (2005), reviewing the
literature on inclusive education in India, also notes that the term children with
special needs is used synonymously with that of children with disabilities. Reflecting
on the discrepancies in estimates in the population of children with disabilities, the
Office of the Chief Commissioner for Persons with Disabilities (2003) notes that the
figures available are highly unreliable and, depending on how conservative the esti-
mate is made, there are between 6 million and 30 million children with disabilities
in India. It further notes that the “Rehabilitation Council of India takes the figure of
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

30 million disabled children as the best estimate” (Office of the Chief Commis-
sioner for Persons with Disabilities, 2003, p. 1). These variations highlight the lack
of availability of reliable estimates of children with disabilities for whom provisions
need to be made. Thus, the task of responding to their needs is made even more
difficult. Such discrepancies in numbers are also evident in the educational status of
children with disabilities.
Mukhopadhyay and Mani (2002) state that there is “inconsistency in data
(regarding the enrolment levels of children with disabilities) from various sources”
(p. 103). They note that according to a National Council of Education survey
carried out in 1998, about 84,000 children with disabilities are enrolled in schools.
They also quote unpublished data gathered for the Ministry of Human Resource
Development in 1999, which suggests that approximately 55,000 children with
disabilities are enrolled in schools. Mukhopadhyay and Mani contrast these figures
with the total population of children with disabilities in the 5 to 15 years age group,
estimated to be about 10.39 million. Hence they state that “the picture (of school
enrolment for children with disabilities) is dismal” (Mukhopadhyay and Mani,
2002, p. 101). The figures given by Mukhopadhyay and Mani suggest that less than
1% of children with disabilities attend school. A position paper drafted by the
National Council for Educational Research and Training (2005) notes that, “the
Office of the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities stated that not more
than 4 percent of children with disabilities have access to education” (p. 8). In
complete contrast, figures by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (2005)
state that of the 18.53 lakh (approximately 1.8 million) children with disabilities in
the 6 to 14 years age group, 14,62,364 (approximately 1.4 million) children with
disabilities are being educated. Similar figures are noted in another document of the
Ministry of Human Resource Development (2004), which states that of the 1.6
million children with disabilities in the 6 to 14 years age group, 1.08 million children
with disabilities are attending schools—thus, stating that 67.5% of children with
disabilities are receiving education. The discrepancy between figures suggested by
Mukhopadhyay and Mani and those released by the Office of the Chief Commis-
sioner of Persons with Disabilities is very significant when compared with the figures
used by the Ministry of Human Resource Development. These differences could be
attributed to different definitions of disabilities, and also differences in what is
 Inclusive Education in India 357

considered to be education. The lack of details presented in these documents makes

it rather difficult to elaborate on this argument.
The focus in this article is specifically on primary education, and hence the kind of
educational provisions provided for children with disabilities at this level of school-
ing are examined. Here the Government’s focus on adopting a dual approach to
providing education for children with disabilities, developments in the field of
special education, earlier efforts towards integration, and the more recent emphasis
on inclusive education will be examined.

Adopting a Dual Approach

Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

Analysis of two Government reports, nearly two decades apart—the Sargent

Report produced in 1944 and written prior to independence (Central Advisory
Board of Education, 1944), and the Kothari Commission (Education Commis-
sion, 1966)—highlight some common issues. Both these reports noted the contin-
ued neglect of the needs of those with disabilities and recommended the adoption
of a dual approach to meet the educational needs of these children. These reports
suggested that children with disabilities should not be segregated from normal chil-
dren; rather, integrated education should be adopted. The Kothari Commission
observed that “many handicapped children find it psychologically disturbing to be
placed in an ordinary school” (Education Commission, 1966, p. 109) and in such
cases they should be sent to special schools. The Sargent Report also endorsed
similar recommendations. Thus both the reports stressed the need to expand both
special and integrated facilities.
This dual approach continued for the next 20 years and was reaffirmed in the
National Policy of Education (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1986).
Section IV of the National Policy of Education entitled “Education for Equality”
states that “where feasible children with motor handicaps and other mild handi-
caps will be educated with others, while severely handicapped children will be
provided for in special residential schools” (Ministry of Human Resource Devel-
opment, 1986, p. 6). A similar focus is articulated in the Persons with Disabilities
Act, 1995 (Ministry of Law and Justice, 1996), which notes that, “it [the Act]
endeavours to promote the integration of students with disabilities in the normal
schools” (p. 12) and also promotes the “establishment and availability of special
schools across the nation” (p. 12) in both Government and private sectors. Thus,
not surprisingly the most recent national project undertaken by the government,
the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (started in 2004) also calls for the use of special
schools for some children with disabilities, while stating that other children with
disabilities should access mainstream schools. The Draft National Policy for
Persons with Disabilities (Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2005) also
argues that:
Many children with disabilities may not be in a position to join inclusive education
system due to the nature and degree of disabilities. These children would continue to
get educational services from special schools. (p. 16)
 358 N. Singal

Special Schools
The Government actively supports special schools, but it is not directly involved in
establishing or running them. Rather, the Ministry of Social Justice and Empower-
ment, formerly known as the Ministry of Welfare, provides grants-in-aid to various
non-government organisations (NGOs) that run these schools. The Plan of Action
(Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1992a) envisioned the establishment
of one special school at each district headquarter, across the country. In India, each
State or UT is subdivided into districts for administration purposes, and the district
headquarters are the seat of administration not only for administration purposes, but
also for law and order. The spread of special schools as envisaged at each district
headquarter in the Plan of Action has not yet eventuated. However, there has been a
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

steady increase in the number of special schools. In the Second Five-Year Plan
(Planning Commission, 1956), 118 special schools were mentioned. Most of these
were private institutions funded by the Government. In the early 1990s there were
about 1,035 special schools (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1992a).
Nearly a decade later it was estimated that there were about 2,500 special schools in
the country (Rehabilitation Council of India, 2000). The largest numbers of these
schools are in urban areas, with Mumbai having the highest number of schools
(Mukhopadhyay & Mani, 2002).
Government records suggest that approximately 450 of these special schools
receive government grants towards their operational costs, while the majority are
managed by autonomous voluntary organisations and receive no government
support (Government of India, 1995). In 2003, the Ministry of Social Justice and
Empowerment increased its ministerial budgetary allocations to 2.1 billion rupees,
of which 700 million rupees have been given to NGOs (Ministry of Social Justice
and Empowerment, 2003). Many of these NGOs have also been very successful in
attracting large amounts of international funding provided by organisations such as
the Canadian International Development Agency.

Integrated Education
As suggested earlier, even before independence, the Sargent Report (Central Advisory
Board of Education, 1944) voiced the need to educate some children with disabilities
in the mainstream. After independence, the Kothari Commission (Education Commis-
sion, 1966) and the National Policy on Education (Ministry of Human Resource Devel-
opment, 1986) reasserted such a need, and the Government made efforts to meet
these recommendations by launching various programmes and schemes.
Among the first of these efforts was the Project Integrated Education of the
Disabled Children launched in 1987 in collaboration with UNICEF. This project
aimed:
… to provide equal educational opportunities as well as equal educational experiences
to disabled children … demonstrate that the general education itself could be geared to
meet the educational needs of disabled children. (Mani, 1994, p. 1)
 Inclusive Education in India 359

It was launched in 10 blocks in 10 States and UTs across the nation. Each block
comprised a cluster of populations in a designated project area in a State or UT.
Rather than the project focus being on an individual school, all the schools in the
area were expected to enrol children with disabilities. Training programmes were
also given to the teachers. An evaluation of this project noted remarkable results in
terms of increased enrolment of children with disabilities, comparable achievement
with their non-disabled peers, improved school environments, greater parental
awareness, community collaboration, and effective inter-departmental links (Mani,
1994).
Taking note of the outcomes and recommendations of the Project Integrated
Education of the Disabled Children, the Integrated Education for Disabled Children
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

scheme, initially launched in 1974 under the aegis of the Ministry of Welfare, was
shifted to the Department of Education. The scheme was also revised with a greater
focus on providing assistance in the education of children with disabilities within
mainstream schools. The Integrated Education for Disabled Children scheme is
currently operative and offers financial assistance towards the salary of teachers,
assessment and provision of aids and appliances, training of special teachers,
removal of architectural barriers, provision of instructional materials, community
mobilisation, early detection, and resource support (Ministry of Human Resource
Development, 1992b). It covers 15,000 schools and has enrolled a total of 60,000
children (Rehabilitation Council of India, 2000).
In addition, the UNESCO-funded project Special Needs in the Classroom (Ainscow,
1990) was launched in India and was based on the view that there is a need to nurture
and respond positively to individual differences. It involved 338 experienced teachers,
248 pre-service teachers, 9,896 children, and 115 schools. In their evaluation the
researchers concluded that “relatively small changes in schooling, supported by better
teacher preparation, can facilitate the education of many children with disabilities and
make better arrangements for many others who experience difficulties in learning”
(Ainscow, Jangira, & Ahuja, 1995, p. 131). While plans were made to upscale this
project across the country, these have not been implemented.
Since the 1990s the focus on educating children with disabilities in the mainstream
has gathered further momentum as a result of a range of developments at the inter-
national and national level. Significant among these has been the Salamanca State-
ment (UNESCO, 1994), to which India is a signatory. This statement articulated the
need “to promote the approach of inclusive education” across the globe (UNESCO,
1994, p. iii). It recommended that mainstream “schools should accommodate all
children, regardless of their physical, intellectual, social, emotional, linguistic or other
conditions” (UNESCO, 1994, p. 6). It urged all member countries to:

adopt as a matter of law or policy the principles of inclusive education, enrolling all children
in regular schools, unless there are compelling reasons for doing otherwise. (UNESCO,
1994, p. ix)

This declaration marked the incorporation of inclusive education in the official

documents of many signatory countries (Holdsworth, 2002), including India. As a
 360 N. Singal

result, the language used in India shifted from integrated education to inclusive
education. At a Rehabilitation Council of India (2001) workshop, a background
paper stated that “while special education began in India with the establishment of
special schools, it was in 1960s–1970s that integrated education began to be advo-
cated; however, after 1994, inclusive education is strongly recommended” (p. 2).
The increased usage of the term inclusive education in various government docu-
ments, programmes (e.g., in the District Primary Education Programme and the
Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan literature), and publications of national institutes, such as the
National Council for Educational Research and Training, the National Institute of
Educational Planning and Administration, and the Rehabilitation Council of India,
is indeed noteworthy.
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

Inclusive Education
Even though the term inclusive education is frequently used in official documents, it
has been elaborated only in a few instances. For example, the District Primary
Education Programme report states:
Inclusion is a philosophy … bringing children with special needs well within the purview
of mainstream education … recognizes the diverse needs of the students and ensures
quality education to all through appropriate curricula, teaching strategies, support
services and partnerships with the community. (District Primary Education Programme,
2000, p. 5)

This report, while commenting on “changing terminology” in the field, lists “main-
streaming”, “integration”, “inclusion”, and “full inclusion” as the new terms
(District Primary Education Programme, 2000, p. 6). In more recent plans formu-
lated under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, the focus of inclusive education is specifi-
cally on the education of children with disabilities (Ministry of Human Resource
Development, 2003b).
It is interesting to note that this endeavour is not concerned with bringing all
children with disabilities into the mainstream education system. Rather, at a national
level workshop (District Primary Education Programme, 1999) it was suggested that
a child with disabilities must fulfil a range of prerequisites before being included into
the mainstream. The workshop report laid emphasis on the child’s “academic readi-
ness, emotional readiness, physical readiness and communication skills” (District
Primary Education Programme, 1999, p. 12). It also listed 14 statements that
covered various aspects, such as, “the child should be able to interact in a group
situation”; “should not be easily distracted”; and “should not require too many
repetitions for learning” (p. 15). Thus, it was argued that a range of pre-requisites
were essential in determining what was termed as the child’s “integrability” (District
Primary Education Programme, 1999, p. 15).
The identification of these pre-conditions draws support from the argument that
in India a high proportion of children with disabilities come from poor families who
have little awareness of disability issues and meagre resources, and, in the absence of
an effective social security system, these children are ill-equipped to be included in
 Inclusive Education in India 361

the mainstream. Hence the focus is on making them ready for school (Guha, 1999).
However, such an argument is feeble as it places the responsibility completely on the
child, alongside unreasonable exclusionary parameters such as “(the child) should
not require too many repetitions for learning” (District Primary Education
Programme, 1999, Annexure C).

Inclusive Education: Another alternative system?

While it can be argued that the debate about inclusion in India has focused on issues
of disability, it is also important to ask questions relating to inclusion into what kind
of school system. An analysis of relevant documents reflects that the focus is on
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

including children with disabilities into the education system, but not necessarily
into the mainstream. Rather, evident in the government documents is a perception
that inclusive education is an alternative system, in addition to NFE and the NIOS,
which is available to children with disabilities. At a national workshop organised to
discuss the role of inclusive education in the District Primary Education
Programme, the Director of Elementary Education and Literacy argued:

Zero rejection policy had to be adopted as every disabled child had to be educated. But
multiple options could be used … [these] include inclusive education, distance education,
home-based education, itinerant model and even alternative schooling. (District Primary
Education Programme, 2001, p. 3)

Such an understanding of inclusive education raises important concerns regarding

its interpretation and implementation. Moreover, recent trends indicate that many
so-called inclusive schools in urban areas, such as Delhi, are admitting children with
disabilities into the mainstream but these children are made to follow the NIOS
curriculum and examination process (Jha, 2005). Such a scenario raises important
concerns about the reality of the child’s participation in the mainstream classroom.

Inclusive Education: Access, aids and appliances

Another important issue that needs to be examined is the range of efforts being
undertaken by the Government to make inclusion a reality for children with disabili-
ties. Various programmes and schemes addressing the education of children with
disabilities indicate a strong emphasis on the provision of aids and appliances.
Schemes such as Integrated Education for Disabled Children (Ministry of Human
Resource Development, 1992b) focus on provision of free aids and appliances, free
uniforms, books and stationery, transport, readers, and escort allowances. Under the
District Primary Education Programme, the identification of disabilities and the
provision of children with necessary aids and appliances has been the primary focus
(District Primary Education Programme, 2001), with the number of aids and appli-
ances distributed in a particular state being the main concern rather than the quality
of education provided. Indeed, such statistics make encouraging reading as they
reflect that something is being done. However, these statistics do not reflect the
 362 N. Singal

inadequacy of some of these efforts. Particular concerns have been expressed regard-
ing the lack of facilities available for the maintenance and regular upkeep of these
aids and appliances. For instance, even though hearing aids have been distributed in
rural areas, poor parents have no money to buy new batteries when the old ones run
out; neither do they know where to go for repairs when the aid malfunctions.
In addition to the distribution of aids and appliances, efforts towards inclusive
education have been largely defined in terms of access, where infrastructural issues,
such as schools with ramps and lifts are of paramount concern. This understanding
prevails both at the official and at the school level (Singal, 2004). For example, the
Integrated Education for Disabled Children Scheme (Ministry of Human Resource
Development, 1992b) provides an escort allowance of 75 rupees per month to
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

enable children with disabilities to access mainstream schools. It may be argued

that provision of an escort allowance not only reinforces dependency, but can be
seen as resulting in efforts being directed only at input aspects (access and
resources), while overlooking other important issues for consideration, such as
teachers’ pedagogical skills, the curriculum, and attitudes towards those with
disabilities. Such concerns were highlighted by Singal, who noted the lack of train-
ing among Delhi’s primary teachers in how to respond to the needs of children
with disabilities in so-called inclusive schools. Furthermore, the teachers inter-
viewed in that study expressed their frustration at the lack of resources and support
available to them.
Such findings are not surprising because even though the Government is high-
lighting a need to include children with disabilities into the mainstream, they have
not paid sufficient attention to the training of teachers. Rather, teacher preparation
remains categorised as either general education or special education. In Bachelor’s
and Master’s level programmes of education, special education is not a compulsory
paper, and it is too theoretical with no provision for practical experience. Similar
concerns have been expressed with regard to teacher training programmes offered to
mainstream teachers. Seshadri (2001) and Seetharamu (2002) state that training
institutes regard primary teacher education as synonymous with secondary educa-
tion, and the specific problems of primary teaching are overlooked.
Teacher educators in primary training institutions “do not possess appropriate
stage-specific professional training or experience” (Seshadri, 2001, p. 212). They
generally have a college degree and B.Ed., and are likely to have trained as secondary
school teachers. Furthermore, Seshadri (2000) notes that the training for primary
teachers relies heavily on chalk-talk approaches, is isolated from schools, and has a
focus on imparting theoretical knowledge. On the other hand, the training of special
educators is the responsibility of the Rehabilitation Council of India and other insti-
tutions under the aegis of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. These
rigid professional boundaries are further reinforced in the classroom, as indicated in
the 10th Five-Year Plan (Planning Commission, 2002a). This Plan notes that it will
encourage the “appointment of special teachers for mildly handicapped children”
and “provide special in-service training to teachers in schools for the disabled
children” (Planning Commission, 2002a, p. 23).
 Inclusive Education in India 363

Discussion

In India, the term inclusive education is rapidly becoming a part of the official rheto-
ric. One of the primary influences in shaping this has been the Salamanca Declara-
tion (UNESCO, 1994). Holdsworth (2002) notes that the use of the term inclusive
education has become part of politically correct usage of many developing countries.
Its adoption in India has been greatly assisted by the fact that English is an official
language and hence the shift from “integration” to “inclusion” has been linguistic
and devoid of engagement with the more fundamental issues. Thus, while some
official documents mention the need to move away from integrated education to
inclusive education, they do not elaborate or suggest any significant changes in the
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

processes and practices underpinning this shift.

Furthermore, the term inclusive education is primarily used with reference to the
education of children with disabilities. Understood within the Indian context, this is
not surprising, as the Government has historically adopted what it regards as a
“targeted approach” in meeting the needs of those children who are most likely to be
marginalised from the education system. The Programme of Action (Ministry of
Human Resource Development, 1992a) recognises these children as primarily
belonging to certain groups; namely, children from SC/ST groups, girls, and
children with disabilities. In order to respond to the needs of each of these groups,
the Government has assigned various ministries or departments, and has launched
specific schemes and programmes. However, post-independence, while children
from SC/ST groups and girls have long qualified for greater benefits, such as positive
discrimination in education and employment, people with disabilities, in compari-
son, have remained marginalised in terms of public policy action (Ghai, 2002).
Commenting on the status of disability in India, Erb and Harris-White (2001) argue
that, “on the social welfare agenda issues of poverty, caste and gender have pushed
disability concerns to the foot” (p. 10). This overlooking of disability issues can be
explained by the political weakness of people with disabilities and the perceived high
financial costs in meeting their needs (Erb & Harris-White, 2001). However, in the
past few years, the disability movement in India has become more organised and
active, while also gaining support from growing international attention given to
disability concerns (Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, 2001). As a result,
it has been successful in achieving some landmark developments. The adoption of
The Persons with Disabilities Act, 1995 (Ministry of Law and Justice, 1996) has
been one such achievement, which has given significant impetus to the education of
children with disabilities.
Reflecting on developments in the history of public education in the United States
(U.S.), Lipsky and Gartner (1996) note a similar pattern towards inclusion of vari-
ous groups into the mainstream education system. They state that initially, publicly
provided education in the U.S. excluded young people on the basis of gender, reli-
gion, class, and colour, as well as disability. Over the course of the history of educa-
tion in the U.S., each of these exclusions have been removed, and the last among
these has been disability. This pattern of progressively responding to the needs of
 364 N. Singal

various marginalised groups is also reflected in India. While the time frame of events
has been different, the focus is now finally on disability and these concerns are
voiced under the term inclusive education. Thus, it may be argued that in India
inclusive education has provided a platform from which to voice the educational
concerns for people with disabilities.
On the one hand, it can be argued that a targeted focus on people with disabilities
is essential, as they have been historically marginalised from social, political, educa-
tional, and economic participation. On the other hand, it is imperative to consider
the effectiveness of adopting a targeted approach to respond to the needs of those
with disabilities. Groupings, such as those with disabilities, girls, and children from
SC or ST groups are not homogeneous in nature; rather, there exists a considerable
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

overlap in their composition. For instance, in the Indian context, a girl with disabili-
ties belonging to a SC family living in a rural setting will be at the greatest risk of
exclusion when compared with a boy with disabilities in a rural setting.
Not only are these groupings not homogeneous, but concerns have also been
expressed about the coordination and communication among the ministries (and
their departments) responsible for the education of various groups. Referring to the
education of children with disabilities, which is shared by the Ministry of Human
Resource Development and the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment, a
background paper published by the Rehabilitation Council of India (2001) notes:

… at present, there is no convergence either between the two ministries or within two
different Departments of the same Ministry. As a result, duplication, divergent qualities
and lack of uniformity are common phenomena. (p. 2)

Similar views have also been expressed during interviews with officials of both these
ministries who indicated a complete lack of appreciation of the work done by the
other and an inability to situate their roles within the larger developments in educa-
tion (Singal, 2004). Noting a similar scenario in many countries, Booth (1996) has
argued that such fragmentation of ministerial responsibilities is likely to result in
attention being deflected away from the conceptualisation and development of
efforts that can minimise educational difficulties for all children. Herein lie some
tensions in the Indian context.
Indeed, while the more dominant international discourse in inclusive education
focuses on all children, it is important that such a focus does not overlook the partic-
ular concerns regarding the education of children with disabilities in India. Ainscow
et al. (1995) also highlight such concerns when they note that that in many develop-
ing countries like India, “the continuing struggle to achieve compulsory education
for a majority of children takes precedence over meeting the needs of those with
disabilities” (p. 135). However, the identification of children with disabilities as a
homogeneous group in this way results in an accentuation of their difference, and
increases the likelihood of their continued exclusion. The challenge, therefore, lies in
finding a common ground, which does not result in disability denial but also contin-
ues to situate concerns about the education of children with disabilities within efforts
to reform the general education system.
 Inclusive Education in India 365

Moreover, while the Government is focusing on bringing children with disabilities

into the mainstream, the focus is on the child and on her/his deficits. This is
reflected in the paramount role accorded to experts (namely, psychologists and
others in the medical profession) who determine the suitability of a child to attend
the mainstream or special school. A handbook published by the Planning Commis-
sion (2002b, p. 22) notes that “a three member assessment team comprising of a
psychologist, a doctor, and a special educator” will determine whether the child
should be directly enrolled into a mainstream school. Similar views are also
expressed in various other government documents and in the Integrated Education
for Disabled Children scheme (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 1992b).
Such thinking seems to reinforce a perception that disability is inherent in the indi-
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

vidual’s mind and body, hence the focus is on diagnosis, and the aim is to cure or
cater for the child in the mainstream or special school setting. This dominance of a
medical perspective has led to a complete neglect of the social dimension of disabil-
ity. By focusing on the child and by regarding disability as a problem situated within
the child, the barriers operating within the education and larger societal systems
have not been explored. These systems do not have to take responsibility to ensure
that the needs of people with disabilities are fully taken into account in their organi-
sational structures.
Additionally, over the past decade, there has been a large increase in the number
of special schools in India. These developments suggest a complete lack of percep-
tiveness about the inequalities that special education systems themselves produce.
Reflecting on countries that have well-established segregated systems, Lynch (2001)
notes that the continuation of some children being labelled as special students and
the continued existence of special schools perpetuates a binary divide between ordi-
nary and special students and systems. Such divisions allow for segregation to be an
accepted practice (Ballard, 1995).
Not only is there an emphasis on the development of special schools within the
Indian context, but government documents also support the establishment of a range
of alternative systems (such as non-formal education centres and open schools) for
the education of children with disabilities. These alternative systems have been criti-
cised for the low quality of education they offer, resulting in reduced opportunities
available to individuals later in life (Dreze & Sen, 1995). The Government, however,
continues to encourage such alternatives. Indeed, inclusive education is regarded as
another such system that can be made available alongside the range of options for
children with disabilities.
The perpetuation of social inequalities by these alternate school systems also high-
lights tensions regarding the effective use of resources. Taking a purely economic
standpoint it can be argued that the development of alternative school systems takes
away precious resources that could be channelled into bringing about new develop-
ments in the general education system. Research carried out by OCED (2004)
suggests that while special schools, with their smaller class size and much better
resource provisions than mainstream schools, it may be argued, aid the goal of greater
equity for children studying in special schools, if these provisions were given to
 366 N. Singal

mainstream schools that enrol children with disabilities, then these resources could
be used for the benefit of all children. This issue of more effective use of resources is
especially pertinent in an economically developing country like India, where the pool
of resources is very small and demands on it are very high. In such circumstances, the
effectiveness of developing multiple systems needs to be critically examined.
A focus on building alternative systems takes the attention away from a critical re-
examination of factors that support exclusion from the mainstream education system.
Indian educationists have expressed their dissatisfaction with many characteristics of
existing mainstream education. Mishra (1999) has argued that the commonly used
chalk-and-talk method in the classroom is highly ineffective, whereas Anita (2000)
has voiced her concerns about the “domesticating orientation” (p. 192) adopted by
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

teachers. The Public Report on Basic Education (PROBE, 1999) noted the concerns
voiced by different stakeholders regarding the detrimental influence of an education
system that is largely driven by examination results. Indeed, in an education system
where approximately 27 million school age children remain out of school (UNESCO
Institute for Statistics, 2005), and the primary school drop-out rate before Class VIII
was 52.8% in 2002/03 (Ministry of Human Resource Development, 2004), the effi-
cacy of the mainstream education system needs to be examined. Thus, it is important
to address fundamental issues within the mainstream education system rather than
focusing on the development of alternative systems.
In its efforts towards achieving education for all, for instance, the Government
must become more aware of the historical, political, and social factors that have
marginalised children with disabilities from the education system. In doing so it
must ensure that concerns for children with disabilities are uniquely placed within
the mainstream education system, and are not regarded as being separate from it. As
the Government of India makes attempts to achieve the education for all goals by
2015 (UNESCO, 2005) it must focus on exclusionary factors that remain unad-
dressed in its mainstream education system. Efforts must be aimed at developing an
education system that responds to diversity, in terms of ability, gender, caste, and
economic status, and challenges the existing arrangements that have resulted in the
continued exclusion of a large number of children. An essential starting point for the
Government is to re-examine its understanding of inclusive education, the goals of
an inclusive system, the processes entailed in developing it, and the motivations
underpinning such efforts. In doing so, there is an increased likelihood of evolving a
shared understanding of inclusive education that is reflective of the Indian context
and is more responsive to its educational concerns.

References
Ainscow, M. (1990). Special needs in the classroom: The development of a teacher education
resource pack. International Journal of Special Education, 5, 13–20.
Ainscow, M., Jangira, N. K., & Ahuja, A. (1995). Education: Responding to special needs through
teacher development. In P. Zinkin & H. McConachie (Eds.), Disabled children and developing
countries (pp. 131–146). London: MacKeith Press.
Anita, B. K. (2000). Village, caste and education. Jaipur, India: Rawat Publications.
 Inclusive Education in India 367

Appasamy, P., Guhan, S., Hema, R., Majumdar, M., & Vaidyanathan, A. (1995). Social exclusion
in respect to basic needs in India. In G. Rodgers, C. Gore, & J. Figueiredo (Eds.), Social
exclusion: Rhetoric, reality, responses (pp. 40–51). Geneva, Switzerland: International Institute
for Labour Studies.
Ballard, K. (1995). Inclusion, paradigms, power and participation. In C. Clark, A. Dyson, & A.
Millward (Eds.), Towards inclusive schools? (pp. 1–14). London: Routledge.
Berntsen, M. (1995). Hard thinking needed. Seminar, 436, 35–38.
Booth, T. (1996). A perspective of inclusion from England. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26(1),
87–99.
Central Advisory Board of Education. (1944). Post-war educational development in India. New
Delhi, India: Ministry of Education.
Department for International Development. (2001). Children out of school. London: Author.
Department of Education. (2004). Overview. Annual report, 2004–2005. Retrieved February 11,
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

2005, from http://education.nic.in/Annualreport2004-05/ar_en_05_cont.asp

Department of Education. (2005). Background: The current NFE scheme. Retrieved May 10, 2005,
from http://education.nic.in/edu_guarantee_sch/edu_guarantee_back.asp
District Primary Education Programme. (1999). National workshop on the integrated education of the
disabled. New Delhi, India: Education Consultant of India Limited.
District Primary Education Programme. (2000). Empowerment through education: Identification and
enrolment of children with special needs in DPEP. Noida, India: Education Consultant of India
Limited.
District Primary Education Programme. (2001). A report on national level workshop: Towards inclusive
schools in DPEP. Noida, India: Education Consultant of India Limited.
Dreze, J., & Sen, A. (1995). Basic education as a political issue, Journal of Educational Planning and
Administration, 11(1), 1–26.
Education Commission. (1966). Education and national development. New Delhi, India: Ministry of
Education.
Erb, S., & Harris-White, B. (2001). Disability and incapacity. In B. Harris-White & S. Janakarajan
(Eds.), Reforms and development: Essays on long term village change and recent development policy
in South India (pp. 103–106). London: Department for International Development.
Ghai, A. (2002). Disability in the Indian context: Post-colonial perspectives In M. Corker & T.
Shakespeare (Eds.), Disability/postmodernity: Embodying disability theory (pp. 88–100). London:
Continuum.
Government of India. (1995). Directory of voluntary organisations. New Delhi, India: Government
of India.
Guha, A. (1999, February). Pre-integration skills for children with special needs. Paper presented at
the National Level Workshop on Integrated Education of the Disabled, Noida, India.
Holdsworth, J. C. (2002). Seeking a fine balance: Lessons from inclusive education in Lao PDR.
London: Save the Children.
Jha, M. M. (2005). The inclusion of children with ‘special’ educational needs in India: A case study of
three schools in Delhi. Unpublished D.Phil. thesis, University of Oxford, UK.
Kaul, V. (2002). Early childhood care and education. In R. Govinda (Ed.), India education report.
A profile of basic education (pp. 23–34). Oxford, England: Oxford University Press.
Lipsky, P. K., & Gartner, A. (1996). Equity requires inclusion: The future for all students with
disabilities. In C. Christensen & F. Rizvi (Eds.), Disability and the dilemmas of education and
justice (pp. 145–155). Buckingham, England: Open University Press.
Lok Jumbish. (1992). The first report. Jaipur, India: Lok Lok Jumbish Parishad.
Lynch, J. (2001). Inclusion in education: The participation of disabled learners. Paris: UNESCO.
Mani, M. N. G. (1994). Project integrated education for the disabled: An evaluation study report. New
Delhi, India: UNICEF.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (1986). Ministry of Human Resource Development:
National policy of education 1986. New Delhi, India: Government of India.
 368 N. Singal

Ministry of Human Resource Development. (1987). The scheme of operation blackboard. New Delhi,
India: Government of India.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (1992a). NPE 1986: Programme of action 1992. New
Delhi, India: Government of India.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (1992b). Integrated education for disabled children
scheme. New Delhi, India: Government of India.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (1993). District primary education programme. New
Delhi, India: Government of India.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2000a). An overview of education. New Delhi, India:
Government of India.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2000b). Education for all: The year 2000 assessment.
New Delhi, India: Government of India.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2001). Education for all: Developments since Dakar.
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

India country paper. E-9 Ministerial Review Meeting in Beijing, China. New Delhi, India:
National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2002, September). EGS and alternative and innova-
tive education. UNESCO Conference Paper on Higher Education in India—Country paper.
Retrieved July 25, 2002, from http:www.education.nic.in/htmlweb/edu_guarantee_back.htm
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2003a). Education for all: National plan of action,
India. New Delhi, India: Government of India.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2003b). A manual for planning and implementation of
inclusive education in SSA. Retrieved January 2, 2005, from http://ssa.nic.in/manual.asp
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2004). Education for all: India marches ahead. New
Delhi, India: Government of India.
Ministry of Human Resource Development. (2005). Annual Report for 2004–2005. Retrieved
March 2, 2005, from http://education.nic.in/Annualreport2004-05/ar_en_05_cont.asp
Ministry of Law and Justice. (1996). The Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities, Protection of
Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995. New Delhi, India: Government of India.
Ministry of Law and Justice. (2004). The Constitution of India (2nd pocket ed.). Retrieved April 31,
2005, from http://lawmin.nic.in/legislative/Art1-242%20(1-88).doc
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2001). Annual report 2000–2001. New Delhi, India:
Government of India.
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2003). Notes on demands for grants, 2002–2003. New
Delhi, India: Government of India.
Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment. (2005). Draft national policy for persons with disabilities.
Retrieved May 15, 2005, from http://socialjustice.nic.in/disabled/welcome.htm
Mishra, R. C. (1999). Research on education in India. Prospects, XXIX(3), 335–347.
Mukhopadhyay, S., & Mani, M. N. G. (2002). Education of children with special needs. In R.
Govinda (Ed.), India education report: A profile of basic education (pp. 96–108). New Delhi,
India: Oxford University Press.
Nambissan, G. B. (2000). Dealing with deprivation. Seminar, 493, 50–55.
Nambissan, G. B., & Sedwal, M. (2002). Education for all: The situation of dalit children in India.
In R. Govinda (Ed.), India education report: A profile of basic education (pp. 72–86). New Delhi,
India: Oxford University Press.
National Council of Educational Research and Training. (2005). The national focus group on education
of children with special needs. Position paper. Retrieved September 30, 2005, from http://
www.ncert.nic.in/sites/publication/schoolcurriculum/Position_Papers/Special%20Needs%20
Education%20Final%20.pdf
National Institute of Open Schooling. (2005). National open school growth and trends. Retrieved
April 31, 2005, from http://www.nios.ac.in/obe.htm
Nayar, U. (2002). Education for girls in India. In R. Govinda (Ed.), India education report: A profile
of basic education (pp. 35–46). New Delhi, India: Oxford University Press.
 Inclusive Education in India 369

Office of the Chief Commissioner of Persons with Disabilities. (2003). Disability in India. Retrieved
September 30, 2003, from http://www.ccdisabilities.nic.in/Disability%20in%20india.htm
Office of the Registrar General. (2006). Census of India. Retrieved September 26, 2006, from
http://www.censusindia.net
OECD (2004). Equity in education: Students with disabilities, learning difficulties and disadvantages.
Paris: OECD, Centre for Educational Research and Innovation.
Planning Commission. (1956). Second five-year plan, 1956–1961. New Delhi, India: Planning
Commission, Education Division.
Planning Commission. (1997). Ninth five-year plan, 1997–2000. New Delhi, India: Planning
Commission, Education Division.
Planning Commission. (2002a). Tenth five-year plan, 2002–2007. New Delhi, India: Planning
Commission, Education Division.
Planning Commission. (2002b). A handbook for parents of children with disabilities. New Delhi,
Downloaded by [UOV University of Oviedo] at 01:22 24 October 2014

India: Planning Commission, Education Division.

PROBE. (1999). Public report on basic education in India. New Delhi, India: Oxford University
Press.
Raina, V. (1998). External funds, internal conflicts. Seminar, 464, 42–49.
Rehabilitation Council of India. (2000). Status of disability in India. New Delhi, India: Author.
Rehabilitation Council of India. (2001, August). Draft national policy on special education. Work-
shop on appropriate models of education for children with special needs, New Delhi, India.
Seetharamu, A. S. (2002). Status of elementary teachers in India: A review. In R. Govinda (Ed.),
India education report: A profile of basic education (pp. 190–201). New Delhi, India: Oxford
University Press.
Seshadri, A. S. (2000). Primary teacher training in the EFA decade. Year 2000. Assessment of education
for all. New Delhi, India: National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration.
Seshadri, C. (2001). Educating the educators: Review of primary teacher training. In R. Govinda
(Ed.), India education report: A profile of basic education (pp. 202–218). New Delhi, India:
Oxford University Press.
Singal, N. (2004). Exploring inclusive education in an Indian context. Doctoral dissertation, University
of Cambridge, UK.
Singal, N. (2005). Mapping the field of inclusive education: A review of the Indian literature.
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 9(4), 331–350.
Tilak, J. B. G. (2003). Financing education in India: Current issues and changing perspectives. New
Delhi, India: Ravi Books.
UNESCO. (1994). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education.
Salamanca, Spain: Author.
UNESCO. (2005). EFA global monitoring report. The quality imperative. Paris: Author.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. (2005). Children out of school: Measuring exclusion from primary
education. Montreal: Author.
World Bank. (2003). India: Country brief. South Asian region. Retrieved January 15, 2005, from
http://lnweb18.worldbank.org/SAR/sa.nsf/Countries/India/
4F3233D642E4BB3985256B4A00706AA7?OpenDocument
World Bank. (2005). India: Country profile. Retrieved January 10, 2005, from http://www.world-
bank.org.in/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/COUNTRIES/SOUTHASIAEXT/INDIAEXTN/