PROCEEDINGS OF THE TWENTY-THIRD MEETING
The Central Advisory Board of Education held its 23rd meeting at New Delhi on l4th and 15 th January, 1956. The following were present:-
Ex-officio Members: 1. Maulana Abul Kalam Azad. Minister for Education, Government of India. (Chairman)
2. Prof. Humayun Kabir, Educational Adviser to the Government of India.
Nominated Members: 1. Smt. Leila Majumdar, Suit No. 8., 30 Chowringhee, Calcutta-16.
2. Shri J. A. K. Martyn, Headmaster, Doon School, Dehra Dun.
3. Smt. Hannah Sen, Sunder Nagar, New Delhi.
4. Shri T. S. Avinashilingam Chettiar, M. P., Sri Ramakrishna. Mission Vidyalaya P.O., Perianaicken- Palyam R. S., Dist. Coimbatore, Madras.
5. Smt. Zarina Currimbhoy, Patel Manzil, Napean Sea Road, Bombay.
6. Dr. K. L. Shrimali, Dy. Education Minister, New Delhi.
7. Major General E. Habibullah, Commandant, National Defence Academy, Kharakvasla, Poona.
8. Shri A. A. A. Fyzee, Member, U. P. S. C., New Delhi.
9. Shri. Meghned Saha, M.P.,
12/1 Keyatola Lane, Southern Avenue, P. O. Rashbehari Avenue Calcutta.
Nominated by Inter-University Board 1. Shri Shyamnandan Sahay, Vice-Chancellor, Bihar University, Patna.
2. Dr. A. L. Mudaliar, Vice-Chancellor, Madras University, Madras.
2
Elected by Parliament Rajya Sabha
Smt. Mona Hensman, M. P.
Lok Sabha
1. Shri C. R. Basappa, M.P.
2. Shri H. V. Tripathi, M.P.
3. Shri Frank Anthony, M.P.
Nominated by All India Council for Technical Education
Dr. S. R. Sen Gupta,
Director, Indian Institute of Technology, Kharagpur, West Bengal.
Representatives of States: Andhra
1. Shri B. Gopala Reddi, Chief Minister incharge of Education.
2. Shri D. S. Reddi, Director of Public Instruction.
Assam
1. Shri Omeo Kumar Das, Education Minister.
2. Dr. H. C. Bhuyan, Director of Public Instruction.
Bihar
1. Shri Badri Nath Verman, Education Minister.
2. Shri S. J. Mazumdar, Education Secretary.
3. Shri N. D. J. Rao, Dy. Secretary.
4. Shri K. P. Sinha, Director of Public Instruction.
Bombay
1. Shri S. S. Bhandarkar, Director of Education.
Madhya Pradesh.
1. Shri B. L. Mandloi, Education Minister.
2. Shri V. M. Dokras, Dy. Director of Public Instruction
3. Shri G. K. Shingwekar, Officer on Special Duty.
Madras
1. Shri R. A. Gopalaswamy, Education Secretary.
Orissa
1. Shri B. Prasad, Director of PubliInstruction.
3
Punjab
1. Shri Jagat Narain, Education Minister.
2. Shri A.C.Joshi,Director of Public Instruction and Education Secretary.
U.P.
1. Shri Hargovind Singh, Education Minister.
2. Shri B. P. Bagchi, I. C. S. Education Secretary.
3. Shri B. D. Bhatt, Dy. Secretary, Education.
4. Shri C. N. Chak, Director of Public Instruction.
West Bengal
1. Dr. D. M. Sen, Education Secretary.
2. Shri P. Roy, Director of Public Instruction. Hyderabad.
1. Shri Gopal Rao Ekbote, Education Minister.
2. Dr. D. D. Shandarkar, Director of Public Instruction.
Madhya Bharat
1. Shri Y. Bhargava, I. A. S., Education Secretary.
2. Shri D. B. Sinha, Director of Education.
3. Shri M. S. Mehta.
Mysore
1. Shri A. G. Ramachandra Rao, Education Minister.
2. Shri B. M. Krishnan, Education Secretary.
3. Shri N. S. Hirannaya, Director of Public Instruction.
4. Shri D. Viswgwaraiya, Special Officer for Development & Statistics.
Pepsu
1 . General S. Shivdev Singh, Education Minister.
2. Shri Trilochan Singh, Director of Public Instruction.
Rajasthan
1. Shri Mohan Lal Sukhadia, Chief Minister.
2. Shri B. L. Sharma, Education Secretary.
3. Shri Gajraj Singh, Director of Education.
Saurashtra
1. Shri J. K. Modi, Education Minister.
2. Shri D. L. Sharma, Director of Education.
Travancore Cochin
1. Shri V. S. Naidu, Director of Public Instruction.
4
Jammu & Kashmir
1. Shri A. A. Kazmi, Director of Education.
Ajmer
1. Shri Brij Mohan Lal Sharma, Education Minister.
2. Shri P. N. Seth, Education Secretary.
3. Shri B. S. Sial, Director of Education.
Delhi
1. Shri Gurmukh Nihal Singh, Chief Minister.
2. Shri A. N. Banerji, Director of Education.
3. Shri J. N. Goyal, Chief Secretary.
Bhopal
1. Shri Shankar Dayal Sharma, Education Minister.
2. Shri A. Alim, Education Secretary.
3. Shri S. Chaturvedi, Director of Education.
Manipur
1. Shri L. Manihar Singh, Assistant Secretary (Education)
Kutch
1. Shri J. G. Vaidya, Adviser.
Himachal Pradesh
1. Shri Padam Dev, Education Minister.
2. Shri M. C. Saraswati, Deputy Director of Education.
Pondicherry
1. Shri E. Pouchpadass, Director of Public Instruction.
Shri G. Ramachandran & J. P. Naik attended (by special invitation).
Secretary-Shri K. G. Saiyidain,
Additional Secretary to Government of India, Ministry of Education, Delhi.
The following members were unable to attend:-
1. Shri N. K. Sidhanta.
2. Smt. Hansa Mehta.
3. Dr. Zakir Husain.
4. Shri E. W. Aryanakayam.
5. Mr. Justice Teja Singh.
6. Dr. H. J. Bhabha.
Welcoming the members to the 23rd meeting of the Board, the Chairman delivered the following address:-
5
Friends,
I am glad to welcome you to this twenty-third meeting of the Central Advisory Board of Education. The present meeting has, I think, a special importance as this is the last year of the first Five-Year Plan. Your advice and suggestions at this stage have a special value in judging the progress already made and indicating the lines which we should adopt during the next five years.
Before however I review our past progress or consider proposals for the future, I think it necessary to remove a serious misunderstanding in certain circles. They often ask why a special commission was not first appointed to consider the future of Elementary education before commissions on University education and Secondary education were appointed. Such comments surprise me. Those who ask these questions seem to have forgotten all that has happened in India in the last 20 years. You will remember that as early as 1937 Gandhiji had been reflecting over the reform of elementary education and measures for the provision of universal education for the country. He appointed the Zakir Hussain Committee to make specific proposals in this behalf which formulated the scheme of Basic education. This received the blessings of Gandhiji and was adopted as the educational pattern at the elementary stage by the Congress Governments in the provinces. Not only so, but the Central Advisory Board of Education also considered the scheme and, after careful examination by its own committees adopted it with some minor modifications. This was included in the post-war plan for educational development and accepted by the then Government of India.
On the formation of the National Government in 1947, the matter was further considered and the Kher Committee was appointed to suggest ways and means to give effect to the implementation of a programme of national Basic education. The report of this Committee was also accepted by Government of India on the recommendation of the Central Advisory Board. All State Governments also endorsed the decision. It is therefore surprising that any person should now say that the question of Elementary education was not adequately considered by the Government of India. It is of course true that the scheme of Basic education has not yet been fully implemented by State Governments, mainly on account of lack of personnel and finances. It will however be appreciated that any educational reform takes time and the more so in a country so vast as India. Reform of Secondary education affects much smaller numbers and is easier to carry out, but even in this field all our afforts for improving and upgrading secondary schools according to the new pattern are estimated to take at least ten years for fulfilment.
I
You will remember that even before the appointment of the Planning Commission, certain broad programmes of education had been framed. Almost immediately after I assumed charge as Minister for Education on January 15, 1947, I summoned an All-India Educational Conference where we drew up a blue-print of educational plan for the country. Under the scheme of post-war educational development plan, popularly known as the Sargent Scheme, universal compulsory education for all children of school-going age was to be provided within a period of forty years. I felt-and you all agreed with me that free and democratic India could not wait so long. The All-India Educa- tional Conference therefore drew up a programme which, if implemented, would have assured almost universal provision for education within a period of sixteen years. Experience since then has proved that this programme was not in any sense unduly optimistic. The three years after independence were a period of great stress and difficulty but in spite of this the provision for education at the elementary level increased enormously. Between 1947 and 1951 the percentage of children of school-going age, who actually attended
6
school, went up from thirty per cent to forty per cent and by 1955-56, it has reached a figure of almost fifty per cent. If in-spite of financial and other difficulties attendant on partition of the country and without any properly coordinated Plan in the initial years, the provision could be increased from thirty to fifty per cent, within eight years, surely the target of seventy-five percent by 1961 and universal education by 1966 was and still is within our capacity.
These years also saw the beginning of reconstruction of education. Soon after independence, it was agreed that the pattern of elementary education must be "Basic." The University Education Commission was appointed under the the presidentship of Dr. Radhakrishnan to advise on the future pattern of university education in the country. The Ministry also proposed the appointment of a Commission for the reconstruction of Secondary education, though its actual appointment did not on account of financial stringency, take place till 1952. In the same period, a great impetus was given to the development of technical education by implementing the recommendations of the All-India Council for Technical Education and appointing the Scientific Manpower Committee.
II
When therefore the Planning Commission was appointed and the first Five-Year Plan formulated, we had already before us a complete picture of the pattern of education at all stages. The Plan, however gave an impetus to the implementation of the schemes of the Ministry and also helped in coordination of the various measures in different States by treating them as parts of an integrated whole. The Ministry has published a brochure, Survey of the First Five-Year Plan, which gives a detailed account of the various schemes initiated or,expanded during the first plan period. I do not want to go into details, as these will be found in the brochure but I would like to draw your attention to a few broad features of what has been achieved.
In the field of Elementary education, a beginning has been made in converting the traditional pattern into Basic. We have selected in each State an intensive development area where all elementary schools have been converted into Basic schools. Basic training is provided at both the undergraduate and the postgraduate levels. We have also sought to establish or encourage the establishment of Janata Colleges. Provision of library services has also been made to meet the needs of the adults, Our effort has been to locate these intensive development areas as far as possible in community projects or national extension blocks. The various services provided under these programmes can thus be utilised in enriching the content of education in the schools. In addition, States have been encouraged to introduce crafts in ordinary elementary schools. Some training in craft is also included as an essential element in all teacher-training programmes.
At the Secondary level, the plans of the Ministry for reconstruction and reform received concrete shape in the report of the Secondary Education Commission. In accordance with the recommendation a number of schools have been converted into multipurpose schools. Steps have been taken for reorientation and re-training of Headmasters by organising a series of seminars for headmasters, inspectors and members of the directorate. Training colleges have been assisted in improving their libraries and equipment. Most important of all, a programme of extension services has been drawn up, by which each training college will look after the special needs of a number of selected schools. This is a truly revolutionary development. In the past, individual teachers used to come to training colleges but under this programme the training college will go out and reach all high schools within the orbit of its operation. Side by side with these measures Secondary schools have been helped to improve their libraries and laboratories with a view to improve teaching, specially in various scientific subjects. I would like to acknowledge in this context the
7
assistance we have received from the Technical Co-operation Mission and the Ford Foundation.
At the university level, the period has seen the establishment of the University Grants Commission. You are aware of some of the meas- ures already adopted. Of these perhaps the three most important are improvement in the salary scales of university teachers and extended provision for improving university libraries and laboratories. The Commission has also helped universities in improving facilities for teaching at the postgraduate level and made a beginning for the bet- terment of residential and other facilities for students. In order to provide facilities for higher education in rural areas and encourage the study of subjects specially suited to rural needs, we have also taken action to establish a Council of Rural Higher Education.
It is in the field of Technical education that perhaps the most striking progress has been made. The Indian Institute of Technology at Kharagpur has already achieved a high reputation for its standard and is beginning to draw students from outside India. The Indian Institute of Science at Bangalore has also been considerably strengthened and developed and is an institution of which we can rightly be proud. Facilities for engineering education have also been considerably expanded. As against less than 1,000 engineer graduates produced each year before 1950, we are now producing over 3,000 graduates a year. Many new departments in engineering and technology have been opened, and for the first time, facilities for postgraduate instruction at the highest level are available within the country..
Apart from these more traditional aspects of education, considerable progress has been made in improving welfare services and amenities for students. I have already mentioned that increasing attention is being paid to the provision of better hostels for students in colleges and universities. Students have also been encouraged to add to the physical amenities of their institutions. Under this Scheme, the Government of India pay for-the material, supervision and skilled labour. The students undertake the manual work in construction of swimming pools, open-air theatres, or other- common services. In order to encourage students in developing their talents in debate, music, painting and other forms of cultural activities, an All-India Inter-University Youth Festival was organised for the first time in 1954 and has been repeated with success a few months ago. It is proposed to organise this festival every year. Students from every part of India will thus have an opportunity of meeting together and developing a sense of comradeship and cooperation and realising the essential unity of India.
III
I need not go into further details but would, before I conclude this survey of the first Five-Year Plan, draw your attention to a fact which is often ignored. We speak of the first Plan as a Five-Year Plan but, in fact, it was only a Three Year Plan. You may remember that the plan was accepted by Parliament only towards the end of the year 1952-53. The operative years under the plan have therefore been only the three years since 1953-54. There was however no sense of sudden be-inning as the Ministry had already prepared its blue-prints. The Plan therefore only helped to fulfil and accelerate what we had already had in view. This is not surprising because you will readily appreciate that education is a field where planning has to be continuous like life itself.
One of the main difficulties which was felt during the first Five-Year Plan was a certain lack of coordination between the Central and the State plans. These were discussed separately without being integrated into one overall national Plan. The result was that when the Centre initiated certain proposals of development, the States were often unable to implement them fully because