ADDRESS BY PROF. S. CHAKRAVARTY,
MEMBER, PLANNING COMMISSION
 

PROF. S. CHAKRAVARTY

Member, Planning Commission

I am very grateful to you for giving me an opportunity of saying a few words on this occasion. You have already touched upon the most important problems in your Inaugural Address and the Prime Minister has also spoken about them. I would not like to repeat the suggestions which have already been made. I also hope you will not ask me to say anything specific on funds. Plan funds for 1974-75 were decided upon after a very lengthy discussion with the State Governments and the various Ministries of the Government of India. But, certainly, it should be on endeavour to do as much as we can in terms of finances even though we are faced with a very difficult economic situation.

On this particular occasion, I would like to mention a few points which are connected with priority in the area of educational planning. This I believe to be particularly important since the Annual Plan discussions for 1975-76 are coming up soon. First of all, it is quite clear that in education the distinction between Plan and non-Plan outlays does not now have the significance it had some time before. This has been made clear in the various meetings repreatedly. Therefore, the possibilities cannot now be viewed strictly by Plan only but we have also to look to non-Plan side. The adjustment on the non-Plan side is much more difficult. The purpose of such meetings should, however, be to indicate the methods by which some of the usual rigidities on the non-Plan side can be relaxed. I would be very grateful if this Board gives some thought to this problem. Un- fortunately not much work has been done so far.

27

I now come to this question about the priorities in the area of education. Here again some very valuable points have been made in the last few years. The co-existence of formal and nonformal education, multiple entry system, etc. are all very important points which have been made out and accepted in the Plan. But I am sorry that we are still going by enrolment in setting the target. We must take into consideration drop-outs. A very large amount of expenditure, which is investment expenditure, is going waste because of these drop-outs. This is borne out by data which are currently available. Methods of reducing wastage require utmost attention of the Board. This may require very detailed classification which is not yet available.

Another kind of problem which seems to me even more overwhelming is a persistent refusal to relate inputs and out puts. Usually units are used as a measure of output. This is quite, incorrect. So long as separate input and output measures are not introduced, you cannot be cost-effective. Here again, I would say that the Board should pay some attention. I would also add that while the problem of elementary education is being emphasised, we still do not have any state-wise strategies worked out in relation to the quantitative terms. We do have a picture on the All-India level but we do require the statewise picture inasmuch as detail as we can. These are matters which, in my humble opinion, require very careful consideration. The Annual Plan discussion is an exercise in terms of money and agreement is reached even where it is recognized that much of it will not be spent in the way it was agreed to in the discussion. I therefore suggest that specific strategies for different States should be identified and reflected in Plan discussion. Problems of implementation in regard to non-formal education, etc. should be highlighted and the Board may Eke to make certain recommendations in this regard. There are of course other problems, the solution of which does not lie in the sphere of education but outside. But they should not be slurred over on that score.

The expansion of secondary and university education has been highlighted. The kinds of problems that this has thrust upon us have not been taken note of properly. I think we repreatedly keep on talking about them. It is not because of lack of funds but because we are not willing to tackle them that the problems continue. It seems to me that discussion on the problems of education, isolated from those of the rest of the society is really an exercise of very limited significance. Therefore, I

28

think in this particular context, the relation between the Education Ministry and the Chief Ministers, between Education Ministry and the rest of the Government, all these relationships. need to be fully explored. Otherwise you will face, I am afraid, the repetition of the same mistakes.

The statistics for the States leave much to be desired. They are very good for descriptive purposes but for an analytical purpose, you will find them of very limited value. This is another area to which I would like to draw your attention.

I would like to place emphasis on the multi-level planning in the area of education', particularly with reference to the importance of district planning, when you are wanting to impart a new bias to general education. I am afraid very valuable ideas suggested in the lectures would not be of much help and we will be where we are unless we do detailed planning on the grass roots level.

I do not want to take more of your time. If tasks are identified in relations to the detailed programme, I think we can go a long way. At least in those areas where everybody is agreed that a much better thrust has to be made, much attention to details should be given, much more attention to administrative efficiency is required and if we do not do these things, very little is going to be achieved.

I would strongly urge that this financial stringency should be converted into an opportunity where a more careful analysis of specific objectives is made and the most effective methods of achieving them are evolved.