III. CENTRE-STATES RELATIONS IN EDUCATION--A PAPER READ BY PROF. V.K.R.V. RAO, UNION MINISTER FOR EDUCATION & YOUTH SERVICES
Union-State Relations FRIENDS,
I am grateful to the Institute of Constitutional and Parliamentary Studies for having given me this opportunity to express my personal views on the Centre-State Relations in Education. These, I must clarify, do not necessarily represent the views of the Gov- ernment of India.
Significance and Urgency The significance of a proper understanding of the Centre-State Relations in Education is obvious because it is on this understanding that the proper development of education in the country will depend to a large extent. The problem is also being widely discussed during the last three years. Even prior to independence and especially thereafter a demand has gradually grown in all parts of the country that there should be a national system of education and a national education policy with certain common objectives and major programmes. When this demand seemed to have reached its peak and gathered the largest strength, the fourth General Election created a political situation which revealed how limited was the real Central authority in educations fact which had hitherto been disguised by the accident of a single political party being in power at the Centre as well as in the States. This sudden contrast that. has developed between the deepening desire for a National Education policy on the one hand and the realisation of the lack of constitutional authority to formulate and implement it effectively on the other, adds a unique urgency and poignancy to the discussion. It is, therefore, no wonder that the problem continues to hold public attention in all major educational debates.
A Historical Perspective What should be the ideal Centre-State relations in education at present or in the years ahead this is the question to which we are all striving to find a satisfactory answer. It is not at all easy to do so, especially because the usual tools of educational analysis-histo- rical review, comparative evaluation or a consensus of the current opinions on the subject -all seems to fall to provide a clear answer that would find a substantial measure of support all round.
For instance, Centre-State relations in education over the last 170 years have presented an extremely varigated picture in our country. Prior to 1833, we had a period of total decentralization when all the three Presidencies of the British Empire followed their own educational policy, subject only to the distant and sporadic supervision of the Court of Directors in London. The Charter Act of 1833 went to the other extreme and created a highly centralized form of administration in the country under which education, like any other subject, became a responsibility of the Government of India. During this period, for instance, the Directors of Public Instruction in the Provinces used to complain that they could, not incur an expenditure of even one rupee without the sanction of the Imperial Government at Calcutta. This was thus a period of extreme centralization. In 1870, a period of decentralization of authority was initiated by Lord Mayo. This decentralization was gradually increased till 1918, by which time the Provincial Governments came to possess large authority over education, although the Government of India did continue to exercise considerable supervisory powers in essential matters. In addition, there was the Indian Education Service which was created, in 1897 and whose officers filled the important posts in all the Provincial Education Departments This period may, therefore, be regarded as a period of large decentralization combined with limited but essential, Central control,
The Government of India Act of 1919 made a still more radical change. It introduced diarchy in the provinces under the control of Indian Ministers responsibile to a legislature with a large elected majority. As a corollary to this, therefore, the Central control over education had to be reduced to the minimum if not eliminated altogether. Consequently, there came about what the Hartog Committee calls a `divorce' between education and the Government of India. This situa-
45
tion continued right till 1950 although, in view of its disastrous results, some attempts were made, from 1935 onwards, to bring the Government of India back into the picture through such measures as the revival of the Central Advisory Board of Education.
The adoption of the Constitution in 1950 changed the situation to some extent. The Government of India now obtained a larger authority over education than under the Government of India Act 1919 or 1935 and the coordination and maintenance of standards in higher education was made a Central responsibility. This trend towards centralization was incidentally supported by three extraneous factors, namely, (1) the adoption of Planning as the technique of development with the consequential creation of a Planning Commission and the formulation of five-year plans covering both Central and State developmental activities, (2) the institution of large Central grants earmarked for specific education schemes and (3) the political accident of the same party being in power at the Centre and in the States. Till 1967, therefore, it may be said that education, though constitutionally a `State' subject, could in essence be administered as a concurrent subject.
It will thus be seen that historically we have had experience of a variety of positions in Centre-State relations beginning with (1) extreme decentralization and passing on successively to (2) total centralization, (3) a large measure of decentralization combined with some form of direct and indirect supervisory control, (4) an almost complete `divorce' between the Centre and education, (5) a limited Constitutional authority converted into a "de facto concurrency" through accidental factors, and finally (6) a return back to a position of limited authority in higher education and a few other matters. It is not possible to draw any concrete guidelines for- the future from a series of such historical developments.
A Comparative Survey A comparative study of Centre-State relations in Education in other countries of the world with a federal form of Government shows a similar and bewildering variety of practices. At one extreme is a country like the USSR with its highly centralized educational system. At the other extreme is a country like Canada where the Federal Government has very little to do in education beyond a few clearing- house functions. West Germany also does not give any authority to the Federal Government in education, although the federal interest in education is growing in recent years. The same can be said of Australia. In USA, the word "Education" does not even figure in- the Constitution. But in practice, federal interest in education is more than a hundred years old and federal grants for educational purposes, which have played a very significant role in the overall educational development of the country, are continually increasing, both in volume and in diversity. It is obviously not possible to draw any precise conclusions from the practices of other lands which would either be fully applicatble to our conditions or would claim general support in our midst.
Current Opinion The expression of current opinion also fails to indicate any consensus on the subject. At one extreme, for instance, is the view or views which would like to have education as a Central or a concurrent subject. The All India Federation of Primary Teachers has always pleaded for primary education being made a Central subject. The All-India Federation of Secondary Teachers has also recommended the establishment of a Secondary Education Commission like the University Grants Commission. The Sapru Committee recommended that higher education should be made a concurrent subject. These, and similar views taken together make out a case for education being classified as a Central or at least as a concurrent subject. At the other extreme are views which challenge any authority given to the Centre in matters educational. Some even recommend the abolition of the Ministry of Education at the Centre; and even the Administrative Reforms Commission has recommended a combined Ministry of Education, Health and Social Welfare. In between these two, extremes, one also finds a variety of intermediate positions. The Education Commission, for instance, put forward the view that the present status given to education in the Constitution is as it should be and that an amendment of the Constitution in this regard is hardly called for on any grounds. With such bewildering variety of views held in different quarters, it is obivously far from easy to arrive at a consensus that would be acceptable to all.
A Pragmatic Approach What is the way out? Mere reiteration of national responsibility or far-fetched implications drawn from the constitutional provisions
46
in order to give more legal authority to the Centre or constant appeals to the public and to the States to recognize the need for central regulations of educational policy or even formulating a national policy statement on the subject are not likely to yield -any practical results. I would, therefore, like to make a pragmatic approach to the understanding and solution of this problem-an approach which is realistic and practical and which is most likely to find support in the relevant quarters and enable us to formulate and im- plement a National Education Policy which is the agreed objective of us all.
My first suggestion is that, at least for some years to come, there should be no talk of amending the Constitution to make education a Central or a concurrent subject. Even if it were a desirable proposition-and there are large sections of opinion, both political and academic, which do not consider it to be so, it is certainly not a practicable proposition. In reality, all that such talk achieves is to irritate the States and to put their back up. The Centre-State, relations, none too happy at present, may, therefore, get even more strained and the progress of education itself become the main casualty. Instead, I would suggest that every effort should be made to fully utilize the existing provisions of the Constitution and concentrate on the development of those urgent programmes of educational development in which the Centre and the States can readily and willingly cooperate and collaborate. There ate several such programmes. For instance, the Centre has an inherent responsibility, to discover and develop talent, a programme that is so essential for national progress and even for survival. The Government of India already operates a large programme of scholarships at the university stage, but it has only a few small programmes at the secondary stage. If the Centre were to expand these, I am sure the States would welcome the move and so would the academic community and the public. Another instance is that of the imbalances of educational development as between Statesthere is wide gap between the levels of development reached in a State like Kerala on the One hand and Orissa or Bihar on the other. Even in respect of universal primary education, which is a constitutional directive, some States can reach the goal in ten years while others may need more than thirty to do so. Anything that the Centre can do to reduce these imbalances-it can do quite a lot and there are some aspects of the problem which the Centre alone can deal with-will be welcome in all quarters and conducive to national progress. Yet another instance is that of the programmes which promote national integration. The Centre can promote intellectual contacts between different regions by bringing together teachers and students, by promoting "twin-ship" relations between educational institutions in one part with corresponding institutions in other parts of the country, by assisting exchanges of teachers and students, and by encouraging the study of an Indian language in other linguistic regions. I can easily multiply instances, but I do not think it necessary. What I have said is enough to show that, even under the Constitution as it stands, there is a tremendous scope for the Centre and the States to work together and for the Centre to develop supplemental pro. grammes in crucial educational sectors. if this opportunity is fully and immediately exp1loited, the cause of education would gain and the harmonious working relations between the Centre and the States so created will, in themselves, facilitate an increasing cooperation and collaboration over ever widening fields.
The second concrete suggestion I have is that the Centre, which is in the happy position of being less involved with day-to-day administrative details of education, better able to take the coordinated and long-term view of the problem, and more able to utilize all the best talent the country can offer, can and should play a stimulating, innovative, consultative, and promotional role in educational development. I am afraid that, even here, not enough is being done and there is an almost unlimited scope for useful activity. For instance, the Centre's efforts to improve the teaching of Science or to bring about examination reform at the school stage have been well received. We-are now striving to intensify them and to initiate reforms in the teach. ing of languages; and I am sure that both these efforts will find welcome and support. Similarly, we are now striving to promote research, to establish pilot projects in important fields like vocationalization of education, to evolve programmes of intensive educational development closely related to economic growth in a few selected districts, or to develop new tech.niques like programmed instruction. All these have been welcomed with great enthusiasm. Since the best stimulation to local effort comes from contact with other successful efforts developed elsewhere, we are trying to study the good work done by every State Government and bring it to the notice of all the others through coresspondence, through specially designed publications and where necessary, through the actual visits of select-
47
ed officers. This programme of identifying successful good programmes and confronting others with them is having a good effect and, if sustained over a period of time, is sure to achieve considerable results. I would, therefore, suggest concentration,in the immediate future, on the stimulating, innovative and promotional role of the Central Government in educational development. Needless to say, its chances of success will increase materially if it can be played with humility and in a spirit of service and if the best human talent available in the country is fully tapped for the purpose.
My third suggestion is that the Centre should increase its investment in education and make larger grants available, not only for the Central sector, but also for the Centrally-sponsored sector. We need, not only more education, but good education as well; and if this is to be provided and greater equality in educational opportunity is to be created to promote social justice and the creation of a socialistic pattern of society, more funds will have to be found for education. This, of course, is a responsibility of all concerned-the public, the local governments, the State Governments and the Centre. The role of the Centre in this programme is comparatively limited but extremely significant. In short, what I recommend very strongly is "financial concurrency" in education so that the funds of the Central Government would be available for promoting fundamental programmes in education rather than "legal concurrency" which can, at best, enable the Central Government to pass a law on education. As you well know, laws have only a limited capacity to bring about basic changes, especially in a field like education.
I am deliberately putting forward a plea for the Centrally- sponsored sector which has now fallen in disfavour. Let us remember that, in the first three Five-Year Plans, this was a very favoured sector and used to receive comparatively larger allocations: It was through this Sector that the Central Ministry of Education got its opportunity to influence State educational policies and it was this that gave it a certain prestigeous image among the States. It is true that this splendid opportunity was not always used to the full and was sometimes even mis-used. Complaints, therefore, grew up of non- essential schemes being included in the Centrally-sponsored sector. of Central funds being utilized to ride hobby horses of doubtful significance, of over-domination by Central officials, of wasteful expenditure, of needless redtape and of insistence on conformity with standardized regulations. The pendulum has, therefore, now swung to the other extreme and there is a demand that the Centrally-sponsored sectors should be either totally abolished or reduced to the minimum. In the draft Outline of the Fourth Five-Year Plan, for instance, the Centrally-sponsored schemes received an allocation of Rs. 98 crores. In the new Fourth Five-Year Plan, this has been reduced to Rs. 28 crores. The number of Centrally-sponsored schemes in education in the Third Plan, and even in the draft Outline of the Fourth Plan, was about twenty. It has now been reduced to four. While I do not hold a brief for the manner in which the Centrally-sponsored schemes were operated in some cases in the past, I do feel that it would be wrong to go to the other extreme and to throw out the baby with the bath water. We must remember that the Centrally-sponsored sector, or earmarked Central grants for education, are in vogue on a large scale even in the United States. Experience has also shown -that they can help the Centre to develop a coordinated and concerted programme of educational development in a few crucial sectors in all parts of the country. It should, therefore, be our concern to see that the weaknesses of the old form of operating the Centrally-sponsored sector are eliminated. We should discover and develop-and this is by no means beyond the excellent administrative talents that we have-to provide Central support for selected educational programmes without bringing in unnecessary centralization or standardization and without unduly interfering with the initiative and authority of the States. I with that public opinion were more I educated to the significance of the development of the Centrally-sponsored sector and much greater administrative attention were paid to the manner in which such a sector could best be operated calloboratively by the Centre and the States.
My fourth suggestion refers to a very difficult area, namely, the area, of likely conflicts between the Centre and the States in certain programmes of educational development. What I have discussed so far are techniques which will be of value where the Centre and the States agree, in principle, on the programmes to be developed. But we cannot always assume such agreement; and in a subject like education, where controversies often form the core of progress, conflicts are bound to arise, sooner or later, over several issues. In fact, some of these have developed already. For instance, some years ago, the Government of India recommended, in the interest of national integration, that no . State should impose any restriction on admissions to medi-
48
cal and engineering institutions on grounds of domicile and that admissions to these institutions should be open, on equal terms, to all citizens of the country. But in spite of protracted negotiations, it has not been possible to make the States agree to this suggestion. Everyone recognizes the significance and importance of a vigorous implementation of the three-language formula at the school stage. But we have not been able to persuade all States to accept this. One State has refused to allow Hindi while. some others seem to be bent on eliminating English. In respect of textbooks, complaints have often been received that some books used in some subjects contain material prejudicial to national integration or offend some other State or a part of the country. The need for creating an All-India Educational Service has been largely recognized. But in spite of the efforts made by Centre. the proposal has not been become acceptable to the State Governments. Other examples of such conflicts which have arisen in actual practice can be easily multiplied. All that I want to emphasize is that conflict of views and policies are inevitable in the present situation where education is mostly a State responsibility and the Centre is required to evolve a long-term and coordinated view on the problem, although it has no adequate authority to enforce it.