 INAUGURAL ADDRESS BY PROF.
 S.NURUL HASAN, UNION MINISTER FOR
 EDUCATION, SOCIAL WELFARE AND
 CULTURE

I join my friend and colleague Shri I.D.N. Sahi, in welcoming you to this rather belated but significant meeting of the Central Advisory Board of Education. I say `belated' because we are meeting after a lapse of more than two years. A meeting ought to have been convened in September last. But this could not be done on account of the emergency arising from the freedom struggle of the people of Bangla Desh. I also said `significant' because we shall be formulating, at this meeting, a blue-print for the development of education and culture in the Fifth Five-Year Plan and present it to the Planning Commission, the concerned Ministries at the Centre, the State Governments and Union Territory Administrations. The large attendance at this session and the interest our deliberations seem to have aroused in the country are further evidence of the significance of these deliberations.

Before I turn to the main theme of our discussions, I would like to make one or two points. As you know, the term of the last Board came to an end on 31st March, 1972; and this is the first meeting of the Board reconstituted for the triennium beginning with April 1972. I therefore, take this opportunity to place on record the valuable services rendered by the out-going members of the Board. In particular, I would like to make a grateful reference to the services rendered by my predecessors in office, Dr. V.K.R.V. Rao and Shri Siddhartha Shankar Ray. I also take this opportunity to welcome you, the new members, to the Board. I look forward to a period of fruitful collaboration. with you all in the service of education.

I also take this opportunity to place on record our gratitude to those members of the Board and others who have laboured

hard for the success of this meeting. We have before us excellent reports prepared by three committees or working groups of the last Board, namely, (1) Report of the Committee on Examinations under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh; (2) Report of the Committee on School Buildings under the Chairmanship of Prof. A.K.Kisku; and (3) Report of the Working Group on Development of pre- school Programmes under the Chairmanship of Shrimati mina Swaminathan We also have reports prepared by four committees of this Board, namely, (1) Report of the Committee on Model Schools and Improvement of Standards of which I happened to be Chairman but where the lead in the discussions was taken by my friend, Thiru Nedunchizian, the Education Minister of Tamil Nadu and whom I am requesting to present the report; (2) Report of the Committee on Educational Structure and Vocationalisation under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh; (3) Report of the Committee on Educational Administration under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister of Andhra Pradesh; and (4) Report of the Committee on Pre-School Development and Primary and Middle School Education under the Chairmanship of the Chief Minister of Orissa. But this is not all. Several State Governments and Members of than Board have Suggested important items for discussion. The Education Secretaries have made a very valuable contribution. They first met at New Delhi on 4th-5th May, 1972 and initiated a series of deliberations. They have met again on 15th and 16th instant and their useful recommendations are now before us. All the Education Ministers have Shown an enthusiasm and interest in this programme which has almost overwhelmed me. They have been kind enough to discuss all the major problems with me and to respond uncomplainingly to the manifold demands I have made on their time. They were all good enough to meet me, in an informal meeting at New Delhi, on the 22nd of August and to apprise me of their views on the development of education in the Fifth Plan. I take this opportunity to thank all these persons for their unstinted and valuable cooperation. But for this labour of love, it would not have been, possible for us to place before you the working paper on educational development which has been largely-welcomed and appreciated.

III

The main document for our consideration is the working paper on Education in the Fifth Five-Year Plan (1974-79).

There are also a number of other items on the agenda, but these can be conveniently considered along with the relevant portions of the working paper. I hope you have had occasion to examine these documents in depth. I will not therefore, take your time in trying to summarise them. However, I shall deal only with three main issues relating to them, viz., their basic approach, the major programmes they emphasize or highlight and their significance.

Let me begin with the first issue : the basic approach adopted in the formulation of these proposals. Here, I would like to confess straightaway that we have made no. attempt to search for new ideas. During the last 25 years, the problem of educational development has been examined by several Commissions and Committees, and in particular, by the Radhakrishnan Commission (1948) and the Mudaliar Commission (1952). We also have the valuable and comprehensive report of the Kothari Commission (1964-66) which was examined at all levels in the country and which finally culminated in the adoption of the National Policy on Education (1968). All these documents, and especially the last two, give us a wealth of ideas beyond which it is hardly necessary to look at this stage. We have, therefore, selected some priority programmes from their recommendations, with a shift of emphasis or modifications necessitated by the changed circumstances and new trends of thought that have since crystalized among the people and propose to concentrate on building up a vigorous programme of implementation. I am sure the Board will appreciate this stand.

The second feature of our approach is to put the priorities straight. Our educational system needs large-scale reconstruction, almost a revolution, having three broad aspects :

-transformation so as to relate the educational system to the life and needs of the nation and its aspirations to create a scientific temper, to build a truly secular, democratic and socialist society and to inculcate a sense of values which would lead, not only to a full development of the individual's personality but also change the quality of his life;

-qualitative improvement so that the standards achieved are adequate for social needs, keep continually rising and, at least in a few sectors become internationally comparable and help in increasing productivity and self- reliance; and

-fulfilment of the constitutional directive for primary education and the expansion of facilities at other stages, broadly on the basis of manpower needs and with an accent on equalisation of educational opportunities in consonance with Articles 41 and 46 of the Constitution.

During the last 25 years, our emphasis has been mostly on expansion of facilities and equalisation of educational opportunities. But even here, we have not been able to fulfil the directive contained in Article 45 and facilities of secondary and higher education have largely by-passed the deprived sections of the community. Expansion must therefore go on at an even faster pace. But simultaneously, we must now give due emphasis to a continuing improvement of standards and, more especially, to the transformation of the educational system so that it becomes a powerful instrument of social transformation, economic growth and national integration. The effort made in these proposals, therefore, is to put these objectives into focus. The transformation of the educational system receives the emphasis that has been denied it so far. So does the improvement of standards. And last, but not the least, still further expansion of facilities con- tinues with an accent on the provision of universal primary education for all children in the age-group 6-14 by 1980-81.

The third feature of these proposals is that they seek to evolve a uniformity of pattern and quality in education through a close, sustained and meaningful cooperation between the Central and State Governments. In this endeavour, there would be ample scope for innovation and experimentation. There would also be plenty of room for adjustment to local conditions and needs. And yet, there would be unity in diversity or a national focus and essential similarity which are evolved through the democratic process of arriving at a consensus through discussions and negotiations.

The fourth feature of these proposals is their comprehensiveness and integrated approach. They cover, to begin with, all stages from pre-school to university. They include, not only programmes of formal education, but those of informal education as well. They cover, not only students but also non-student youth and a fair proportion of adults. They bring in the use of mass media to a much greater extent than in the part and they also seek to build up, particularly in relation to programmes of vocational education, close working relationships with other Ministries and Departments with which we have hardly had anything but a nodding acquaintance in the past. They also seek to

abolish the gulf between the school and the community and to involve them in a joint enterprise of mutual service and support. This attempt at comprehensiveness and an integrated approach is deliberate. It seeks to economise on time, money and effort. A developing country like ours does not have the time to try these different programmes one after the other. Nor can it afford the luxury to develop separate agencies for each of them.

Life being what it is, even the fairest of persons do cast dark shadows. This very attempt of ours at comprehensiveness and an integrated approach is likely to lead to criticism and some may describe these proposals as unrealistic or over-ambitious. The charge of unrealism can be levelled at the financial implications of these proposals which run to Rs. 3,200 crores or about 10 per cent of the anticipated outlay in the Fifth Plan. In this context, I would humbly like to make two points. The first is that a detailed study of the Working paper will show that this is a minimum need of the programme if a significant dent is to be made on the present unsaticfactory educational situation. The second is that this is not an undue demand. We have always pleaded for a high priority to education in all the Plans on the ground that it is a basic investment in the development of human resources. Right from the First Plan, we have pleaded for an allocation of 10 per cent of the total outlay to Education. But this demand has never been granted. In the first three Plans, Education received about 7 per cent of the total outlay; and in the Fourth Plan, its share went down to 5.2 per cent. The disastrous results of this unjust treatment are too well-known to need recapitulation. AR that we have done, therefore, is to plead our case once more and to emphasise that Education does need and deserve an allocation of about 10 per cent of the total outlay.

A demand for additional resources is All the more justified when it can be accompanied by greater human effort. We believe that, at this juncture in our history when the nation has acquired a new spirit of independence and self-confidence, it is possible to motivate all concerned for an unprecedented effort for educational reconstruction. These proposals, therefore, lay special emphasis on the close and continuous involvement of teachers and students in planning and implementation, on strengthening educational administration, and on mobilising community support.

The charge of over-ambition too cannot be sustained, although I might plead guilty to some modest ambition. I do

not subscribe to the view that ambition is necessarily or always wrong. On the other hand, I do believe that ambition is both essential and healthy in certain sectors and, particularly in nation- building activities like Education. In fact, I would even go a step further and assert that in this field, we would be failing in our duty if we do not set our sights enough.

The fifth feature of these proposals to which I would invite your special attention is the emphasis that they place on implementation. Our main weakness has been, not the lack of ideas or any incapacity to formulate conceptually sound plans, but the failure to implement approved programmes in a vigorous and sustained manner. While formulating these proposals, therefore, due care has been taken to provide for effective implementation. I have already referred to the great emphasis placed on the active involvement of teachers, students and the community. In addition, we have made proposals to reorganise and streamline the Central Ministry of Education and Social Welfare and State Education Departments, to strengthen the district-level administration, to establish a National Staff College for Educational Planners and Administrators, to strengthen the State Institutes of Education, and to establish a National Council of Teacher Education and State Boards of Teacher Education. I would invite your special attention, in this regard, to Shri Sahi's Address to Conference of Education Secretaries and Directors of Education and to its re- commendations which have now been placed before you, and also to the recommendations of our Committee on Educational Administration. These, I trust, will lead to a satisfactory implementation of the approved policies and programmes.

Finally, I would like to invite your attention to one more fea- ture of these proposals, namely, their sectoral allocations as well as the allocation of funds between programmes of expansion and qua- litative improvement. In the first four Plans, comparatively larger allocations were made for secondary and higher education with the result that primary education received comparatively limited re- sources. Secondly, the bulk of the available funds were allocated to expansion so that programmes of qualitative improvement necessarily suffered in comparison. This picture has been deliberately changed in these proposals. Out of a total allocation of Rs. 3,200 crores, as much as half has been allocated to preschool, primary and middle school education. This naturally puts a squeeze on secondary and higher education. This is a feature which we must regretfully accept due to the limitations of our resources. Similarly, the programmes of qualitative im-

provement are emphasised at all stages, in an increasing order of importance and are given an allocation of Rs. 585 crores (against an allocation of Rs. 990 crores for expansion) at the primary stage, of Rs. 200 crores (out of a total of Rs. 400 crores) at the secondary stage and of Rs. 300 crores (against only Rs. 100 crores for expansion) at the university stage. This change of emphasis has several implications. It may create some problems which will have to be sorted out. But I am sure, the Board will agree that this change has been overdue and is in the right direction.

I shall now turn to the second issue, viz., the major programmes which these proposals emphasize or highlight. To save time, I will refer briefly to the most important ones only.

The first of these is the emphasis placed on change in the content of education and curricular reform, the adoption of new methods of teaching and evaluation and the production and supply of improved textbooks. The inculcation of values will be emphasised at all stages. The cultural content of education would be strengthened. There would be intensive effort for cultivation of physical education, games and sports. Education, for citizenship would include emphasis on the story of our struggle for freedom, the achievements of the post-independence period and national objectives and programmes of development. There would be a conscious effort to relate curricula closely to environment. The teaching of science and mathematics would be compulsory in classes I-X. Work-experience would be introduced in classes I-VIII and it would be obligatory on all students to study a craft or a trade in classes IX-X. There would be two streams at the higher secondary stage, one leading to the university and the other to the world of work through programmes of vocationalisation. Special attention will be given to the reltructuring of courses at the under- graduate stage; and at the post-gratuate stage, greater emphasis will be laid on promotion of research and on a symbiotic combination of teaching and research. Appropriate programmes of community or national service would also be introduced at all stages. In teaching, the focus of effort would be to replace existing methods of rote- memorisation or lectures and reproduction by new and dynamic techniques which awaken curiosity, encourage self-study habits and promote problems-solving skills. Evaluation will be made a

continuous process and largely internal, the ultimate objective being to retain only one public examination at the school stage (at the end of class XII). Initiative and experimentation, on the part of schools and teachers would be encouraged. Special, attention would be given to the improvement of the quality of - textbooks and supplementary reading materials and the establishment of adequate library facilities. Printing capacity will have to be increased by the establishment of a few up-to-date presses in different parts of the country with a view to better production at cheaper prices. The equipment in laboratories will be improved and an effort would be made to assist the students and teachers to fabricate as much of it as possible. The fullest use will be made of all mass media, including the Press, in all programmes of formal and informal education. I am very grateful to my colleague and friend, Shri Inder Gujral, for the enthusiastic support which his Ministry has offered. The main focus of. all these reforms is to make education a powerful instrument of social transformation, to strengthen our commitment to the values of humanism, democracy, secularism and socialism, to inculcate the love of the motherland and promote national integration, to accelerate the process of modernisation and the development of a scientific temper and outlook and to promote productivity. You will agree with me that without an effort of this type, education will not yield adequate returns for the investment we made therein.

The second major programme included in these proposals is that of qualitative improvement. There can be no doubt that we should improve every educational institution to the best level possible; and with this end in view, we have tended to plan our programmes on the principle that either everybody moves or none moves. The available resources in men, materials and money being limited, this approach has usually led to a situation of stagnation in which none can move. This, of course, does not apply to the affluent who can afford the luxury of remaining outside the system and retain the privilege of continuing as an elite and exploiting group. It is high time that we devised an alternative strategy to make a break-through in the present situation. What is, therefore, proposed there is a three-fold programme:

INAUGURAL ADDRESS BY PROF. S.NURUL HASAN, UNION MINISTER FOR EDUCATION, SOCIAL WELFARE AND CULTURE