APPENDIX A (d) : REPORT OF THE RURAL HIGHER EDUCATION COMMITTEE
The Rural Higher Education Committee appointed by the Government of India, Ministry of Education, in October, 1954, has submitted its report
95
which was printed in May, 1955. The Copies of the Report were sent to 36 Rural institutes visited by the Committee as also to the State Governments and Universities in India to elicit their comments and suggestions.
2. A Conference of representatives of Rural Institutes which had submitted their proposals and of the State Governments concerned was called on 26th August, 1955 for a general review of the proposals and to consider setting up of a National Council for Higher Education in Rural Areas. A copy of the proceedings of the Conference is placed below.
3. Steps are being taken for gazette notification of resolution determining the constitution and composition of the National Council for Higher Education in Rural Areas.
4. The Report of the Rural Higher Education Committee is placed before the Central Advisory Board of Education for consideration.
MINISTRY OF EDUCATION
PROCEEDINGS OF THE CONFERENCE ON RURAL HIGHER
EDUCATION HELD ON 26th AUGUST, 1955. A conference of the Representatives for Rural Higher Education and their State Governments was held on 26th August 1955 under the Chairmanship of Dr. K. L. Shrimali, Deputy Education Minister.
Present
Name of representative. Name of institution.
1. Shri C. P. Sinha Sarvodaya Mahavidyalaya, Turki,
Bihar.
2. Shri Bhailal Bhai Patel Vallabh Vidyanagar, Anand, Bombay.
3. Prof. M. Mujeeb. Jamia Millia, Delhi.
4. Shri Jwala Prashad Shri Shivaji Lok Vidyapith, Amravati,
Madhya Pradesh.
5. Shri T. S. Avinatshalingam. Shri Ramakrishna Mission Vidyalya,
Coimbatore, Madras.
6. Shr G. Ramachandran Ghandigrarm, Madras.
7. Shri S. N. Tamhane Social Education organisers' Training
Centre, Nilokheri, Punjab.
8. Shri K. L. Bordia Vidya Bhawan, Rajasthan.
9. Shri Manubhai Pancholi Lok Bharati, Sanasora, Saurashtra.
10. Dr. R. K. Singh. B. R. College, Agra, U. P.
11. Shri Dhirendra Datta Sriniketan, Visva Bharati, West Bengal.
Name of representative. Name of State Government.
1. Shri B. B. Misra Bihar.
2. Shri B. M. Meemasi Bombay.
3. Shri A. N. Banerjee Delhi.
4. Shri R. C. Khanna Punjab.
5. Shri B. K. Rawat Rajasthan.
6. Shri D. L. Sharma Saurashtra.
7. Shri Permanand Uttar Pradesh.
8. Dr. D. M. Sen West Bengal.
96
Name of the Observer. Name of the Institution.
1. Shri B. K. Patel Vallabh Vidyanagar Anand. (Bombay)
2. Shri J. P. Naik Mouni Vidvapith (Bombay).
3. Shri S. R. Londhe Shri Shivaji Education Society, Amra-
vati. (M. P.)
4. Mrs.Soundram Ramachandran Gandhigram. (Madras).
5. Shri R. C. Rawl C. P. A. Nilokheri. (Punjab).
6. Shri R. M. Andhoria Lok Bharati. (Saurashtra).
7. Shri Dhinanda Roy Visva Bharati. (West Bengal).
Names of the representative. Name of the Ministry and other organisations.
1. Prof. Humayun Kabir Ministry of Education.
2. Prof. K. G, Saiyidain -do-
3. Shri John Guy Fowlkes Additional Educational Adviser.
4. Shri G. K. Chandiramani Ministry of Education.
5. Dr. R. K. Bhan -do-
6. Miss S. J. Narsian -do-
7. Dr. Carl C. Taylor Ford Foundation.
8. Dr. F. C.Ward -do-
9. Shri V. L Goswami Community Project Administration.
10. Shri B. P. Pal Indian Agricultural Research Institute.
11. Shri B. N. Uppal Ministry of Food and Agriculture.
12. Shri A. V. Venkateshbhan Ministry of Health.
13. Shri S. S. Puri Ministry of Finance.
Welcoming the representatives, Prof. Humayun Kabir remarked that this was indeed a unique conference inasmuch as it was the first occasion when the representatives of the Rural Educational Institutions had gathered together to consider the. question of development of Rural Higher Education in the country. He thanked the members of the Rural Higher Education Committee- for its valuable contribution in this field. The recommendations it made in the Report showed that the Committee had departed from the old beaten track and taken bold steps forward for the advancement of education in rural areas. He informed those present that the Government had generally accepted the recommendations of the Committee. One point was clear- that the proposed rural institutes were not to be mere replicas of the educational institutions of urban areas but that they should have sound educational programme of their own, arising out of the understanding of rural conditions. That the Committee had proposed the establishment of rural institutes rather than rural universities was significant. He referred to the views of the Committee in this matter which had felt that at the present stage of development no single rural institute had attained such a standard as to justify being termed a rural university; and had recommended that out of the existing educational institutions, five or 'Six should be picked up for conversion into Rural Institutes. These would, it was hoped, develop into Rural Institutes. He, however, assured all present that it was not the intention of the Government to turn down, reasonable demands for grants of any institution which was doing good work in the field of rural education. It was however necessary that special attention should be paid to the selected Institutions so that they might soon start functioning as full-fledged Rural Institutes in the near future. He stated that the Report of the Committee should not be considered as a blueprint but rather as a model and that the programme of Rural Institutes should take shape according to the actual requirements of the rural areas which they proposed to serve This would need modification in the courses of studies as laid down in the report. He requested the representatives of the rural institutions to chalk out their programme of work in order of priorities for a period covering five to ten years so that their institutions, may be fully
97
transformed into Rural Institutes. He further stated that since the out-turn of these institutions would need absorption in the various fields of, activities in rural areas and since Community Project Administration and other agencies had worked out schemes for development in Community Project Areas and National Extension Service. This Ministry had invited the representatives of these other departments of the Government of India so that they might inform the members present of their needs that are likely to arise out of their work. The Ministry had also extended invitations to the State Governments in which Rural Institutes were located because it was felt that they should be closely associated with this task and that they should take initative in sponsoring some of these schemes.
2. Dwelling on the financial aspect of the report, Prof.Humayun Kabir indicated that the estimates proposed by the Committee appeared to be on the high side. These estimates were based on the expenditure which would be incurred if the constitution of Rural Institutes started from the scratch. But as the policy was to develop the existing institutions from their present state into Rural Institutes, it was obvious that the actual expenditure would be much less. Regarding the contribution of the Government of India it may be assured that 50% of the capital, and 50% of the recurring expenditure would be granted during the first five years.
3. The Chairman, Dr. K. L. Shrimali, referred to the sincerity and devotion with which some of the institutions in rural areas were functioning inspite of many handicaps, a fact which greatly impressed him when he with other members of the Committee visited the institutions. He, however, laid great stress on the need for improvement of equipment, library, laboratory and staff in Rural Institutes so that they would, in no way, be considered as inferior to urban institutions. He requested the Conference to let the Government know of the manner in which they proposed to implement the recommen- dations of the Committee.
4. Shri K. G. Saiyidain, Additional Secretary maintained that it would not be possible at this juncture to undertake anything like a detailed scrutiny of the individual schemes sent by the various institutions. He desired that the Conference should broadly indicate the major priorities, the courses of studies proposed to be introduced in rural institutions immediately and the resources to be tapped in order to make the scheme practicable.
5. Since it was essential that the Conference should have a fall picture of development programme of the different Departments of the Government of India in rural areas, the representatives of Community Project Administration and Ministry of Agriculture, Ministry of Health were requested to give a brief account of their schemes.
6. Mr. U. D. Gowsami, Secretary Community Project Administration, visualized orderliness with the establishment of Rural Institutes in place of chaotic conditions prevailing in rural areas where different agencies were setting up different institutions sporadically, unsystematically and in an isolated fashion. Rural Institutes would form an agency for the integration of work. In his opinion clustering various institutions in Block Development Areas would prove beneficial and useful for service in rural areas. Similarly, the representative of the Ministry of Agriculture enlightened the conference by describing their schemes for the establishment of an 'agricultural school in each district for the training of farmers and rural workers. The representative of the Ministry of Health apprised the members with their programme of setting up Rural Health Centres in National Extension Service of 'the order of 1,000 in the next Plan period.
7. The Technical Adviser, Shri G. K. Ghandiramani, pointed out that there was need for overseers, specially, in rural areas where there was a real
98
dearth of technical personnel. In rural areas it was necessary for an overseer to be better informed as in villages the had to be something of an electrician, a mechanical engineer and a civil engineer all put together. It was, therefore, imperative that the rural overseer should undergo at least a three-year training course rather than the two-year course which had been prescribed by the Rural Higher Education Committee.
8. The Chairman called upon the members to indicate the schemes, they proposed to undertake in their respective areas of work. The members unanimously agreed that the real test of a Rural Institute was that it should revitalise rural life by bringing about an awakening among the people living in rural areas. From the deliberations that followed, the members accorded general approval on the following points:-
(i) Education to be provided in Rural Institutes should be comparable to that in urban areas.
(ii) The development of Rural Institute should be a natural organic growth related to the conditions of rural life.
(iii) Rural education should evolve a harmonious balance between a theoretical and practical courses of studies relating to rural needs.
(iv) For each course of study there should be complete integration between Research, Training and Extension.
(v) Aims and objectives of a Rural Institute should be to raise the inretellectual, economic, social and cultural standards and not be a mere training ground for specific services and professions.
(vi) That the National Council of Higher Education for rural areas should be set up, with corresponding State Councils wherever necessary, and should function as a coordinating agency, guiding and giving directives to Rural Institutes in all aspects of rural educational development.
(vii) That the existing rural educational institutions should work out a programme of progressive development for five to ten years order of priorities.
(viii) That there should be close liaison between the Universities and Rural Institutes.
9. Regarding the second and third items of the agenda, it was decided that the matter should be left to the Ministry of Education for further action.
The meeting adjourned with a vote of thanks to the Chair.