Sanskrit to be an elective subject in schools

[Srinivas Sunder]

Aditya Mishra says:

> As I understand their objection is based on economic ground. If they are 
> forced to provide education of Sanskrit even though optional they will 
> have to hire at least one more teacher. As CBSE schools are private and 
					  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> for profit organizations, they want to look at their bottom line. As they
  ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ 
> see it there is no great demand for teaching sanskrit and if anyone still 
> wants it he/she may go to non-CBSE school, as far as they are concerned.
>  > 

CBSE schools are NOT all private. There are Kendriya Vidyalayas all over the 
country - Madras has at least 4; almost every urban center in the South has at 
least one -  that are Central Govt.-owned, and use the CBSE curriculum. Further,
I do not know of even one privately-run CBSE school in Madras which is a 
for-profit institution. Thirdly, the CBSE is NOT a representative of the 
CBSE-affiliated schools. Even if the argument that it would cost too much to
hire extra teachers is a valid argument for a school to refuse to include it 
as an elective, that argument is NOT for the CBSE to make. Their (CBSE's)
views as represented in their brief to the Supreme Court are the views of
only the CBSE, and by extension, the Ministry of Education and the Govt. of 
India. 

Further, as I understand the way CBSE operates, no school can be compelled to
offer an elective. The compulsion is only on CBSE to offer it in the curriculum
as an elective that individual schools may decide to offer to their students.
That in turn is generally a function of student- and/or parent-demand for its
inclusion in private schools, or when the body that governs the school (say a
religious institution) feels it to be a part of its mission. If they can't 
afford it, they won't offer it. Period. CBSE's offering it or not has no 
economic impact on the schools. This is essentially a political/constitutional
issue with cultural implications, not an economic issue.

[I am puzzled by how economics got introduced into this debate, given that the
 article posted by Dominik W. had only mention of the Justices' opinion that 
 Skt.-learning or Govt. encouragement of the same at the expense of 
 Persian/Arabic would not militate against the tenets of secularism.]

Regards

Srinivas