GENERAL DISCUSSION
Item No. 1 To record appreciation of the Services rendered by them who have ceased to be members of the Board since the last meeting and to welcome new members.
The Board recorded its appreciation of the services of the following who ceased to members of the Board after the last session :
1. Shri U. N. Dhebar
2. Shrimati Sarojini Mahishi
3. Shri Frank Anthony
4. Dr. S. H. Zaheer
5. Shrimati Indira Gandhi
6. Shrimati Mafida Ahmed
7. Dr. K. L. Shrimali
8. Dr. A. C. Joshi
9. Shri G. Ramachandran
10. Major Gen. Ranbir Bakshi
11. Shri C. L. Narasimha Reddi, MP
12. Shri P. Muthiah, MP
13. Shrimati Renuka Ray, MP
14. Dr. G.S. Melkote, MP
15. Late Shri Radhalal Vyas
16 Late Shri E. W. Aryanayakam
17. Shri Banka Behary Das, MP
18. Shri V. G. Garde
19. Dr. V. K. R. V. Rao
20. Shrimati Ranu Mukerji
21. Shri S. K. Mukherjee
22. Shri M. Satyanarayana, MP
23. Dr. C. O. Karunakaran
The Board extended a warm welcome to the following new members
1. Dr. D. S. Reddi
2. Dr. Durgabai Deshmukh
16
3. Prof. Samuel Mathai
4. Dr. D. M. Sen
5. Shri Radha Krishna
6. Prof V. K. Gokak
7. Shri A. R. Dawood
8. Prof. M. V. Mathur
9. Shrimati Raksha Saran
10. Shri A. E. T. Barrow, MP
11. Dr. Romila Thapar
12. Air-Vice-Marshal S. N. Goyal
13. Shri Samar Guha, MP
14. Shri Ram Krishan Gupta, MP
15. Shri J. M. Lobo Prabhu, MP
16. Shri Biswanarayan Shastri, MP
17. Shri S. K. Vaishampayen, MP
18. Shri Anil Mohan Gupta
19. Shri G. V. Sapre
20. Dr. O. P. Gautam.
21. Miss Sitimon Sawian
Item No. 2 To report that proceedings of the thirty. second meeting of the Central Advisory Board of Education held at Chandigarh in October 1965 were sent to the State Governments and the Union Territories.
The Board noted the action taken. The Board then agreed to the proposal made by the Chairman that the following items may be considered together:
Item No. 3 To consider the reports of the Education Commission and of the Committee of Members of Parliament on Education and to suggest a draft statement on the National Policy on Education for consideration by Government of India.
17
Item Nos. 4. 5 & 6. To consider reports of Standing Committees on School and Social Education, Higher Education. (including Science Education and Education for Agricul- ture and Industry) Educational Administration, Finance and Implementation. (These have been reproduced in Anne- xures IV, V and VI)
On a request by the Chairman, the Education Ministers. of Maharashtra, Bihar and Madras introduced the reports of their Standing Committees and a general discussion followed.
Prof. Samuel Mathai: This statement speak of the, need to emphasize science and technology and a secular outlook and the cultivation of moral and social and spiritual values. A statement like this involves a profound begging, of the question. What are the spiritual values that we encourage in our schools and colleges when, as a matter of official policy, we are told that it is perfectly right to "gherrao" somebody ? What do we mean by spiritual values in that context ? In the early days we thought that it was a value in our national life to respect our elders, something that we called gurutva. But how do we tie this up with the new notions of students' or parents' rights ? I am myself a believer in spiritual values. But what I am referring to is the great uncertainty in my mind as to how science; secularism and spirituality going to be tied up.
Shri Dawood : Mine is a very small point. I was a little upset to find that a proposal that had been more or less rejected by the Education Commission after a battle royal, had been brought in into the Report of the Parliamentary Committee with the same emphasis, the same force and probably the same conviction which was shown in the Education Commission in rejecting it. I am talking now about the neighbourhood school. I am glad that the Standing Committee was wiser than the Parliamentary Committee and that it has reversed the whole thing and its report, as it is presented here, reflects the thinking of the Education Commission better than what has been reported in the Report of the Members of Parliament. But if they have gone with the Commission thus far, I do not see why they stop and hesitate on a minor issue and insist on calling the
18
system proposed by them as the `neighbourhood school'. in the Standing Committee paragraph which is an amendment to the Report of the Parliamentary Committee, there is no reference to the neighbourhood school except in the title. My point is that this title is misleading and that it has created a great deal of misunderstanding in areas with which I am familiar and it has roused a great deal of hostility and opposition. We should, therefore, avoid the term `neighbourhood school' and keep the term `common school, as used by the Commission.
Prof. M. V. Mathur: I am only trying to refer to a few general points.
This country with its vast population and long history of colonial rule is now trying to come to its own and be an honourable member of the comity of nations. This requires that we should not detach ourselves from our moorings. Indian culture has, therefore, to, be preserved in the proper fashion. At the same time we have to modernise ourselves through the injection of the right kind of science and technology. At the same time we have to remember that our resources are limited. Wisdom, therefore, lies in making these limited resources go, the longest distance. This requires detaching ourselves from some of the beaten tracks which might have been followed in the developed countries and by us earlier. This is the revolution in education that we need. How to bring about that kind of a change ?
To me, the most important thing is the country's freedom and we have to ensure that nothing is done which could, in any way, weaken it. In order that the country's freedom is properly preserved, we should be in a position to throw up the right kind of persons to man the various kinds of jobs which are needed for the country. We want distinguished scientists, soldiers, politicians, teachers and so on. How to bring about the right kind of persons ? The old laissez faire theory is now exploded and it is now agreed that if we want the right kind of persons in future, we have to think right now as to how to get them 20 years hence. This is the thinking which is needed.
There is nothing which is more precious in this nation than the talented people that we possess. It is these talented people who, when they become the leaders in society in various walks of life, will preserve the freedom of the
19
country and will bring about economic. growth. Therefore, we have to inject in the system something by which, at various stages, we might be able to pick out those persons who show talent. Therefore, when I hear about a sort of common school system and, all. that, all these are good things and you can have them. But I certainly want some very good schools. in the public sector. Personally speaking, I am not at all opposed to the good public schools. My opposition comes because good public schools to day are only in the, private sector. I would very much like to see good public schools in the public sector and the students who are admitted to them should be the nation's responsi- bility. I think the State of Bihar has already indicated the way. They have a State public school at Netrahat with Hindi medium, but teaching English. We should try to have that kind of a school elsewhere also so that it might be possible for us to identify our brilliant young people and to prepare them properly. The same process can be repeated at higher stages also.
The language of science is international. Even if science is in various languages, more than half of its terminology will be the same. Therefore, so far as education for science and technology is connerned, the language problem is marginal. But as an educationist. I believe, the people will be able to understand things better in one's own language.
When we come to the field of higher education, several things have been mentioned in the Report. I Would only point out that the Central Government has constitutional responsibility for higher education and also the necessary powers. What is needed is an exercise of the existing authority and a proper discharge of the existing responsibilities.
In the Report, it has been mentioned that we should have M.A. in 17 years. Most of the persons are taking their first degree at a level where you require a three-year M.A. course. If we want this kind of a thing, why should it not be possible for the Centre itself. which has the constitutional authority, to promote these programmes ? If there is a particular State which does not want these graduate schools, let them not have them. But the Centre can promote them wherever, needed. In this fashion it should be possible to develop, excellent graduate schools and undergraduate colleges which will provide the nation with the much-needed leadership in all walks of life.
20
I do not want to discuss the language controversy. But let us not forget the consumer of this system, the student. What is it that he needs ? First and foremost, a good job. At present, it is English alone that gives good jobs. Until that situation is remedied, the, policy of educating through the regional languages will never succeed. I have seen this for the past 18 years in my University where, Hindi is an optional medium. There are good students passing M.A. examination through Hindi medium, but they feel disappointed because, even in the Hindi speaking States, proficiency in Hindi alone does not give them jobs and proficiency in English is insisted upon. We must, therefore,. link the language policy with the employment policy.
The existing system of education, if I may use a strong term, appears to be anti-socialistic. The haves can receive the best of education, but the have-nots are not able to receive it. Therefore, I plead that we should set up a system where the poor but talented children are able to receive the best of education and provide this to, all the sections of the society in the country to, get an effective leadership.
Dr. Vikram A. Sarabhai: When the Education Commission was appointed, I was asked to give a memorandum. I gave a very short sheet in which I suggested to the Commission that it would be worthwhile to, ponder as to why is it that the reports like the Mudaliar Report, Radhakrishnan Commission's Report and the Sargeant Commission's Report which are very eminent reports, had not produced the desired effect, why there was such discontent in the country and I suggested that it would be most worthwhile if the Kothari Commission would try to understand at least this aspect and bring this out in addition to its other recommendations. I find the Kothari Commission's Report very impressive, but I also find this serious omission there. I would suggest that this body here spends a little time in examining what happens, and why it is that these important recommendations do. not get translated into action.
It would seem to me that the Members of Parliament who met and spent time considering the Report were not really put a fair proposition by the Government. The Education Commission's Report does not bring out the implications, in economic and other hard terms, of what is desired.
21
This is a job which only the Government can undertake. If the Government had undertaken that and assigned competent staff to translate) the various choices which are implicit in the Education Commission's Report and presented these to the politicians, to the Members of Parliament, then it would have been possible to decide the sacrifice which the country should be willing to make in order to achieve certain objectives-short-range and long-range. In the absence of such quantitative assessment of the implications of the Education Commission's Report, a great deal of new confusion has been created a whole lot of new desiderata are injected. This does not lead us anywhere. I suggest that this meeting here today is really not put a fair proposition if we are asked to recommend anything like an endorsement of a, policy emanating from the Education Commission's Report. I think, we should today discuss the Education Commission's Report and broadly endorse the whole flavour of its recommendations. But this cannot lead us to give any suggestion as to what the Government should do, unless the Government in its turn comes back to us and really brings out the implications of the recommendations. I am afraid if we follow the path which we are following today, we are going to have a flight from the real situation and I am afraid that thereby more damage is likely to be done than any good in this process.
The second point that I would like to make is this. As an experimental scientist, I know that, supposing, I wish. to study the effect of various types of fertilisers of irrigation, of water treatment, on the growth of a banyan tree. I would not expect to try to, change all my conditions in a period which is short compared to the time taken for the banyan tree to come to a reasonable size. Education is a, process which, as every one knows here, is not something which occurs in two or three or even four or five years; it is a process which affects the whole generation and the, generation is the time constant in which the educational process can be seen to take the effect. Since Independence we have applied some of the best minds in the country. The most important bodies, including the National Development Council, have endorsed certain principles. Are we really doing the right thing by reopening the question of basic policy every three or four years in the hope of producing a change ? Are we, in fact, not really contribu-
22
ing to complete lack of control in this whole system ? It is a bow without its string. This must happen if, you do not understand the basic time constant of change in education. I would suggest that, rather than take a flight from the existing decisions, whenever we make decisions and policies, we have to make them work; if there are failures, we have to work for their solutions rather than change the basic premises and then start everything anew. It is the very quality of our decision making, our whole opproach, Which appears to the young as the most cynical. If we adopt this approach, I cannot expect anything except growing indiscipline in the whole educational system.
This leads me to the problem of education in a general sense. In education, do we really take the role of an agriculturalist ? An agriculturist's role is to plant the seed, to create the necessary environment. But it is the seed which ultimately grows; it is the quality of the seed which is going to flourish. It would seem to me that the role of the Government, the role of the State, is one in which we have to create a proper environment. When we talk of socialism or of egalitarian princiles. I think it is our job to see that all the environmental conditions are available to every one in this country. Given these environmental conditions, there may be certain seeds, certain plants, which may require a situation in Which they have to be stretched. I would suggest that education is a stretching process. If you want to stretch the people whoever they are, this is not an easy task. It is to stretch their fullest resources, so that any system which tries to generalise and tries to produce a common dominator in terms of this challenge of education is likely to be very frustrating to the good students wherever they come from. I would like to suggest that we view it from this point of view.
The language question has been much discussed. What I find difficult is the understanding of whether people are meaning a compulsive or a permissive clause in this regard. I know, for instance, that if any individual wishes to pursue the highest education in his mother tongue, he should be provided the necessary facilities. But we must recognise that the medium of instruction is after all a means to an end in education and that there are a thousand ways of getting to God. This is one of the basic aspects of Indian culture, one which cherish. There can be no dogmatism in this regard that there is only one correct method by
23
which all the individuals can get education. This applies not only to this situation but generally in India. While in India we may have and we do have a national problem in regard to education. there is no national solution applicable to all the concerned, to all localities. This is dependent individual factors.
This takes me to the next point as to What is appropriate for the State to undertake in regard to educational policies. Many times it is urged that the UGC and the Centre should ensure standards of education. How can they do that ? it is only the teacher who can do that, nobody else. It is the teacher, interacting with the students who can do it. What we have to do today is to create conditions in which the teacher will be provided with the wherewithal to perform his task. I would suggest that by and large, every man has the need for job satisfaction, and if you do not provide him with the conditions whereby he receives job satisfaction, he would not be able to perform that job properly.
I would suggest that it is in this context that the role of the teacher has to be viewed in terms of the various choices which we have before us. It is the financial implication of giving to the teacher the appropriate role in society which I would suggest must get the first priority. Unless the teacher is taken out from this tremendous hardship which he is going through, particularly teachers of the primary and secondary schools, where they have to do all types of extracurricular, legal and illegal work to augment their income, unless this situation is rectified. I do not see in my own experience any real hope of bringing about a change. If we give the teacher his correct place in society, if we adopt the principles which are so well laid down in the Education Commission where they speak of elasticity and dynamism which should be the very essence of our approach we shall have laid the ground for bringing about the much desired change.