 ADDRESS BY PROF. S. CHAKRAVARTI,
 MEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION

After the very comprehensive and beautiful address delivered by Prof. Nurul Hasan, Minister of Education, I do not think I can really say very much because he has, in his address, covered almost all the problems that face education today. He has also tried to examine the various programmes against the background of social transformation that we are seeking to bring about. However, as one who is dealing with allocation of resources to different sectors such as, Education, Power, Fertilizers, etc., it is very necessary for me to say one word by way of caution.

It is true that Education deserves a very high priority. It is also true that the allocations to Education in the Fourth Five-Year Plan were sadly reduced and that we must make our best effort to provide larger allocations. The outlay of Rs. 3,200 crores now proposed is about four-times that in the Fourth Five-Year Plan. It may, therefore, be desirable to work out one or two alternative plans with different financial outlays so that the priorities within priorities emerge more clearly and the appropriate inter-sectoral and intra-sectoral allocations become more evident. I am not in a position to say whether this allocation of Rs. 3,200 crores will or will not become available. All the same, I do feel that it would be extremely worthwhile to work out the detailed implications of one or two alternative allocations. This will enable us to have a better view of the priorities involved and materially improve the quality of plannIng.

It is also necessary for us to look into the implementation aspect of the problem. Greater care will have to be taken on the implementation side partly because the investments will now

be much larger and partly because we should try to get full benefit out of such expanded programmes. In this context,

I believe that emphasis will have now to be laid on multiple-level planning.

I would also like to say that I fully endorse the position that has been put forward by the Ministry of Education that elementary education which has suffered a great deal has to be given its proper share and that we have to take on ourselves the responsibility of making free and compulsory education available to everybody by a certain dateline. This implies, not only a certain commitment of financial resources in advance, but also working out a plan of action within the given time limit. If the objective of universal primary education in the age group 11-14 is to be achieved by 1980-81, you have to put all children into schools in 1973-74 or 1974-75. The time phasing has, therefore, to be looked into very carefully. There are several other aspects of the problem that need careful examination. The first is the question of advance action needed. The second is the reduction of wastage and stagnation. It is a well-known fact that a great deal of our effort is being wasted because large number of children drop out prematurely and relapse into illiteracy. Unless something can be done to reduce the high rates of stagnation and drop- out, a good deal of even the expanded programme will continue to be wasteful. We have to adopt a different strategy when we are proposing to have universal elementary education in a country of such poverty where children are regarded as an asset to earn for their parents. This particluar aspect of overwhelming poverty will have to be fully taken into consideration in drawing up the scheme. This programme may not be as easy for children in the age-group 6-11 as for the higher age group of 11-14. This is again a matter of detail which we have to look into. In so far as incentive towards enrolment of girls is concerned, I am afraid it will have to be done on differential basis according to the requirements of different parts of the country. Finally, there is the question of quality improvement. The need for this is generally recognised and it is, therefore, unnecessary for me to comment on it.

If we are thinking of important social transformations on the scale that is visualised here, it is extremely important that the whole community should be mobilised in some way with a view to doing these things. In this reorientaion, we should think of all the District and block-levels in an integrated manner and the problem of multiple-level planning should receive due attention and emphasis.

Now the Scheme of model schools is one method by which an attempt can be made to improve standards. We have to look into this scheme more carefully and, as Prof. Hasan has pointed, into other schemes also. Let us look into them very carefully, Let us try to find what is the most effective method by which we can raise standards. While we allow quantitative expansion, quality and quantity should be combined in such a way that we can realise our basic objectives of social transformation and economic growth.

Regarding higher education, Prof. Kothari, who is here, is more knowledgeable than me and will be telling us how he feels. We know that quality is going down. We also know that we are not in a position to do anything very much about it. This is a very difficult situation and if I may say so, it is not merely a difficulty of the educational system. It is the difficulty of the social system of which the education system is a part. It is not possible to stop admission to higher education because then we are faced with the problem of what to do with those, who are not allowed admission. Nor is it desirable to allow them to go into higher education when there is hardly any likelihood of our being able to offer them any jobs. Given the private considerations which usually people have in mind, one does not lose very much if he goes in for higher education, especially if he belongs to the relatively well-to-do social groups and especially because university education in this country is very heavily subsidised. In this way, the pressure on the system is building up. Given the system of educational finance that we have adopted, particularly in respect of higher education which is subsidized in favour of the relatively more affluent sections of the society, I am afraid we are building up a degree of inequality in the process of income distribution itself. On the other hand, a proposal to stop enrolments to higher education is going to face immense social and political pressure and that is something which we are not prepared to face, although there is a strong case for it. Let us try to find a way out of the difficulty. What I am saying is that we have to think of an integrated method, wherein quality of higher education is preserved less a definite edge is given in favour of those who are relatively less well-to-do. In this context, the problem of expanded scheme of scholarships has been thought of. Let us look into the Scheme of Scholarships in depth. At the Moment, I have the impression that the Scholarships Programme is a very small experiment and has a small coverage. It is also not possible, on the basis of scholarships offered, for a person to mountain himself. If he is really poor and not in a position to get finance from anywhere

else, this is only a recognition of merit and he does not get over the financial difficulty. Let us look into the Scheme of Scholarships and make it broad-based and so constituted that this really works in terms of allowing the people, who are otherwise fit for university education, to complete it. The whole system of higher education is connected with everything in out national life. I would, therefore, very strongly request this group to tell us what could be a possible way out of these difficulties, especially because I feel that we are not likely to gain very much by postponing their resolution any further. However, any solution that we attempt has to take into account the constitutionl. directive regarding elementary education. It should be our goal to achieve the target in this respect as early as possible. The rate and pattern at which we decide to step up expenditure on higher education, should be determined after the first charge on elementary education is met by the community. Even otherwise we should not attempt too many things at the same time in the sphere of higher education. Let us identify the core programmes and work out effective modes of implementation for these programmes. After all, planning implies assignment of priorities.

I do plead that you give your utmost thought to the question of inter-sectoral priorities so that the total financial outlay and pattern of distribution can be decided upon in a rational manner.

ADDRESS BY PROF. S. CHAKRAVARTI, MEMBER PLANNING COMMISSION