urge upon the State Governments to examine this matter in detail and devise a programme of action to suit their own local conditions and traditions.

The National Integration Council has also recommended that no domicile certificate should be required from any student seeking admission to an educational institution in any part of the country. This is of special significance in regard to admissions to engineering and medical colleges. I consider this to be a very important-reform and request all State Governments to give immediate effect to it. As simultaneous action on the part of all State Governments is needed, I would like to suggest that we should bring this recommendation into effect with effect from the next academic year which will begin in June 1969.

The Council has emphasized the need to reduce regional im- balances. In so far as imbalances of educational development at the State level are concerned the Government of India has decided to give a special grant-in-aid to all backward States. This will mean, in practice, that 10 per cent of the available Central assistance will be distributed, on some equitable basis, only among those States whose income per head of population is below the national average. This will not meet all the needs of the situation, but it can certainly be described as a good beginning. The State Governments, on their part, will have to reduce the imbalances at the district level, the imbalances between urban and rural areas, and the imbalances between different social groups. Appropriate programmes to this end will have to be included in their Fourth Five Year Plans.

Finally, the Council has suggested that we should take steps to promote the exchange of teachers and students and devise schemes under which students in one part of the country can spend their vacations on some useful programme in other parts. Some suggestions to this end have already been included in your Agenda and others are quite welcome.

I propose to prepare, on the basis of our discussions, a few concrete schemes for promoting national integration and include them in the Fourth Plan. I am happy to announce that the Chief Ministers have already agreed to include these schemes in the Centrally- sponsored sector so that all expenditure on them will be borne by the Government of India, although they will be implemented largely through the State Governments and universities.

Friends, I do not want to take any more of your time. I think that Shri Chandiramani made a very important point when he said that we must make every effort to see that, in the

Fourth Five Year Plan, we make some bold decisions and turn over a new chapter in the development of our education. I am sure this is the feeling uppermost in your minds also. That is why I greatly welcome the presence, in our midst today, of Dr. D. R. Gadgil, the Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission. He is an eminent educationist who has been, connected with all sectors of education over long periods and I know that he is most anxious to do everything possible to further the cause of education. I am quite sure that his advice will be of great use to us n our deliberations and in deciding our approach to the Fourth Five Year Plan and its major programmes' I will, therefore, request him now, on behalf of you all and myself, to address the session.

Address by the Deputy Chairman, Planning Commission

Dr. D. R. Gadgil, Deputy Chairman of the Planning Commission, then addressed the session. He, said:

I have to thank the Union Education Minister, Dr. Triguna Sen, for inviting me to address the Central Advisory Board of Education at this inaugural session. It was kind of him to refer to my being "an educationist connected with all sectors of education over long periods." The reference emboldens me to inject in the brief remarks I propose to make, the point of view (or prejudices) acquired over more than four decades in the teaching profession.

In thinking of future educational developments in the country we have to identify the spheres and limitations of State action carefully. This exercise is needed to distinguish between activities that should be directly undertaken by the State and the areas in which State action has to be indirect. Over, recent years the lines of this division of spheres appear to have emerged fairly clearly. Primary education, obviously and through a directive of the Constitution, is a responsibility of the State. The fulfilment of the primary obligation indicated by directives of policy in the Constitution has to be given the highest priority. At the other end, postgraduate education and research are essential activities which are likely to be neglected to the national detriment if the State does not sponsor them. This consideration applies in part also to many areas of technical and vocational education. The high cost involved in them makes it unlikely that effort on an adequate basis will be forthcoming in the field unless the State enters it. Moreover, this is an area

where the possibility of effective planning and the need for it are both present to a considerable extent. The rate and pace of economic development require adequate supplies of skilled personnel at various levels. It is a necessary part of educational planning to see that training of personnel is arranged for correspondingly.

There are other considerations which throw some light on this division of spheres. These relate to financing of education. In our society, distribution of incomes and wealth is highly unequal, and the ability of parents to invest in the education of their children is disparate. This fact together with paucity of resources available with the State makes it obvious that the area over which the State provides a service which is free for all would be relatively small. It has been a world experience that this area gets gradually extended as each society gets richer. It is expected that similar developments will occur in our country. However, at present the area will necessarily be small. Over the rest of the field covered, either by official or non-official institutions, some charge for the service will necessarily be made. The operation of this system of making appropriate charges has at the same time to be tempered in relation to poorer sections of the community by an adequate system of freeships, scholarships and other help and by services such as part-time education.

It is clear that even as within the few fields indicated above, the scope of action by the State is very large and that because of the existence of the constraint of resources most of them will continue not to be cultivated to an adequate extent. In these circumstances, in areas in which State action is not equally urgently called for and in areas in which non-official effort is possible, direct action by the States becomes necessarily restricted.

Planning on a long-term basis has to match appropriately the resources available to the State with the requirements of the various obligations of the State, namely, those in relation to the area in which it has to render free service, the area in which it has to conduct and sponsor activity for which even then a charge is made there is no liability which is considerable, the area in which non- official activity is dominant but for whose proper development and regulation grants and other help have to be administered, and finally the system of individual assistance and other help needed to give adequate opportunities for children of the poorer sections, to make progress through a system of education which is not free. When the problem of planning of educational activity and of financing that planning is defined -- become clear that the constraint of

resources is very severe and that constant efforts have to be made to economise and to raise resources from individuals and communities to the highest extent possible to support educational activity.

Planning is a two-way process. It involves building up an aggregative frame related to basic objectives and to future lines of progress and maintaining a proper balance between the various sectors and activities; on the other hand, it also involves taking fully into cognisance the detailed situation on the ground and making due allowance for its potentialities and limitations. To a large extent our present procedures do neither. Each State or Ministry, department or division is in the main anxious to inflate its own claims. The result is that little discrimination is shown in including schemes; economy is not insisted upon and almost no attention is paid to careful balancing and coordination. When the inevitable cut is imposed, there is neither time nor inclination to re-examine the entire structure, and arbitrary adjustments are made. Waste and inefficiency are the obvious results. On the other hand, as most people operate with standard schemes, little allowance or adjustment is made for variations in conditions and circumstances. Moreover, there is no periodic evaluation or re-examination and once a scheme has been admitted it continues from Plan to Plan usually at higher and higher levels of expenditure. Expenditure orientation of the whole process makes it difficult to discover mistakes of planning or of performance.

The only way to get over these defects is to build a proper frame-work of objectives and priorities and to pay adequate attention to varying conditions and requirements from area to area. I am very glad to observe that beginnings have already been made in some States with taking stock of the existing situation and defining directions and pace of effort over future Plan-periods. It is also heartening to find that emphasis is placed on the district as the base of educational planning. I fully realise the difficulties encountered in changing established procedures and do not expect an immediate transformation. However, I feel sure that once the new approach is accepted, there will be continuous improvement, over the years, in coordination and in elaboration of detail, and planning will be seen to become more realistic, economical and effective.

It is relevant to notice in this context the continuing shift of emphasis in the field of educational planning to activities of governments of States. Recent decisions regarding the distribution of Central assistance to States and the nature of centrally sponsored schemes have placed the responsibility for most as-

pects of educational development squarely on State Governments. The Governments of States, and in particular the Ministers of Education, will now have to pay special attention to two aspects. First, that the short-term attraction of economic programmes does not result in cutting down outlays to such an extent that continuing development on lines already established is hampered. Second, that qualitative aspects which do not require Considerable finance but mainly premeditated thought and concerted action-which are often even more scarce-are properly attended to.

Future problems of educational planning have to be looked at both from the point of view of quantitative and qualitative developments. Our population is constantly increasing. The present coverage of educational facilities in most areas and for the more numerous classes is still very inadequate. The percentage of illiterates in our population merely brings out the most extreme aspect of the situation. There is, thus great and continuous need to expand educational facilities and opportunties in relation to most areas and most classes at all levels.

The qualitative aspect is at least equally important. The rapid expansion in educational activity during the last 20 years has imposed great strain on the system and it is reported that as a result quality has suffered in many directions. Any lowering of educational standards is highly undesirable and wasteful. Maintenance and improvement of quality thus becomes an essential part of planned educational development. One aspect of this relates to material supplies such as of buildings and equipment and of trained persons.

The other aspect which is at least equally important depends on the main instrument of educational activity-the teacher, and the rapport between the teacher and the main supposed beneficiaries of the activity-the students. The teacher cannot be divorced, in this context, from the institution and the frame-work of the system in which the institution operates. The material aspect of the situation of the teacher, namely emoluments received by him, is often considered. Equal attention is not paid to the administration and the academic arrangements which condition the activities of teachers. There has been considerable discussion recently regarding the need to enthuse the body of teachers but relatively little analysis of what are the factors responsible for the current apathy among large bodies of educationists in the country.

I would venture to make the statement that the attitude of the average teacher and his standard of performance are related to the potential that the total situation allows to the best among

the teachers. It is, in this context, that the importance of efforts at adjustment, experimentation and innovation have to be highlighted. The greater the extent to which the teacher's activities fall into a dull routine the less is the chance of maintaining standards adequately. The adjustments or the experimentation that an individual teacher may make or want to make may be very small. He may desire no more than a slight change in the routine to enable him to handle in a better way a particular situation in relation to institutional arrangements and facilities or in relation to the students or the subject-matter. However, the possibility of making the adjustment and that some teachers are making it is the one factor that keeps or can keep educational activities and the best among teachers alive.

In our existing situation there are a large number of obstacles in achieving-this. Firstly, there are the hierarchical arrangements within the institutions and within the system which discourage efforts at adjustments or experimentation. Secondly, in relation to individual institutions, official and non-official, there is the dominance of the official system and its operation which are highly discouraging. Unfortunately, the tradition of our colonial administration has bred in all of us an authoritarian outlook so that everybody-official or non-official, who has any inspectorial or supervisory, position instinctively adopts a superior, hypercritical and illiberal attitude in relation to the activities of institutions and individuals that he is supposed to inspect or supervise. The result is the need felt by everybody to conform and to change being associated chiefly with external initiative and outside imposition. At the same time, in the field of education, in particular, the official and the higher level authorities and institutions are in the least favourable position to innovate and experiment.

The result is unfortunate in both ways. The large body of institutions and teachers exhibit passivity and after the first few years seem to lose active interest. On the other hand, such change as comes from above is based either on the experience; and example of other countries or on theoretical formulations of those in authority or in the remote national and State institutions. To the extent that the experience, of other countries, is relevant the results are not harmful and may in instances, be beneficial. Where, on the other hand, the effort is related to theoretical formulations of academicians or non-academicians in authority the results are likely to be unfortunate.

The Central Ministry should find itself today in a position of considerable difficulty. While the resources of most States are utterly inadequate to shoulder the burden of development that

is being placed on them, the resources, available at the Centre are ample as related to the functions to be discharged. The results flowing out of such a situation have in the past been usually unfortunate. I refer to the general experience of all Ministries. Where relative amplitude of authority and finance are associated with little direct contact with conditions in the field or opportunities or incentives for experimentation, temptation to sponsor grandiose schemes becomes overwhelming. Even in the agenda papers of this meeting I notice proposals which I would classify as such.

A large number of ideas which have been talked about in recent years have yet not been sufficiently concretised to be transformed into national programmes. I may refer to work experience, functional literacy and national service or to more recent concepts such as linking education with productivity. I have nothing to say about the validity of the concepts themselves. My emphasis is that unless considerable amount of experimentation is done in individual institutions by a body of innivating teachers in a variety of circumstances in relation to these or other ideas we shall not have enough basis for framing programmes of general action in relation to them. Also, that such experimentation takes place not by direction of superior authority but through creating widespread conditions in which the institutions and teachers will adjust, innovate and experiment chiefly because they feel that they have the opportunity of doing so and because they feel that such effort on their part continuously to improve quality and to relate their activity to the life and needs of the community is what their vocation calls for.

I am aware that this theoretic formulation may appear somewhat remote at present and that not all problems relating to the proper response of the teaching community are created outside the community. The adherence to the hierarchical principle by teachers themselves and the failure of seniors to encourage the younger and the more active elements are undoubtably important aspects of the situation. Also, when I refer to independence and autonomy this is only in relative terms. The goals, values and interests of the community, the restraints imposed by the attempt at planned economic development are external factors which must be accepted by them. What I emphasise is that the originating impulse to development and the source of the fund of experience on which future programmes have to be based have to be formed in the natural flowering of activity among the best of teachers and institutions.

As I visualise it, it is the responsibility of the State and of the administrative hierarchy, in relation to the fields directly

financed by the State or others to create the optimum conditions for relatively autonomous operation of institutions and the body of teachers and to encourage activity in directions which are thought to be most desirable. It then becomes the function of the Centre not only to create conditions and to give incentives but also to observe, to coordinate and to generalise on the basis of activities at various levels in all areas of the country. The central authority in such a position may easily find itself in an advantageous position from having an over-all view and will, in the circumstances, be accepted as a guide and counsellor by all concerned. And when this happens it will also have enough material at hand on which to build national programmes.

I realise that a great deal of what I have said regarding the Centre's situation and responsibility was superfluous, superfluous because we have fortunately in Dr. Triguna Sen an experienced educationist who combines in a rare measure enthusiasm for advancement with proper appreciation of the practical requirements of the immediate situation. I have no doubt that under his able guidance plans for educational development will be placed on a firm basis' in spite of the difficulties and uncertainties of the existing situation.