 THE GOVERNMENT OF INDIA AND EDUCATION

1.01 The nature and content of the National Educational Policy as well as the manner and success of its implementation obviously depends on the role of the Government of India in education. In this introductory chapter, therefore, we shall briefly discuss the role of the Government of India in education as it has evolved over the years, its present status and future prospects.

The Role of the Government of India in Education (1833-1870)

1.02 The East India Company was made to accept responsibility for the education of the Indian people in 1813.1 But a Government of India did not then exist ; the authority of the Governors of the three Presidencies of Bengal, Bombay and Madras was supreme and subject only to the control of the Court of Directors of the Company in England. Between 1813 and 1833, therefore, education was an exclusive responsibility of the Provincial Governments. This situation however changed completely in 1833 when the Charter Act of that year created the office of the Governor-General of India and vested in him the sole authority to govern all the Company's possessions in India. This was basically a political decision taken with the object of creating a powerful and supreme agency within the country itself to strengthen the administration of the existing territories as well as to facilitate the conquest of new ones. But it made education, like every other subject, an exclusive responsibility, of the Government of India in which all revenues were vested and which alone could authorize appropriations therefrom.2 At one stroke, the Provincial Governments thus lost all their authority over education and became merely the agents of the Government of India to administer it on its behalf. They could not create a single post, however low, nor sanction a rupee of expenditure, nor make any change in policies, however small,

1. Charter Act of 1813, Section 43.

2. In the modern parlance, this is equivalent to saying that 'education' ceased to be an exclusively State subject and became an exclusively Central subject.

without the approval of the Government of India. This system of a total centralization of authority continued till 1870. It would have been almost unworkable but for the fact that, In actual practice, the Government of India allowed a good deal of freedom to the Provincial Governments to adjust educational policies to their local needs and respected their proposals and advice.

1.03 During this period, there were two main occasions when the Government of India issued orders which, in substance, were tantamount to the enunciation of a National Policy on Education although this expression was not then used. The first refers to the orders issued by Lord William Bentinck, on the basis of a Minute recorded by Macau- lay, that the objective of modern education in India ought to be the promotion of European literature and science among the people of India and that English should be the medium of education.' The second was the Educational Despatch dated 19th July 1854 issued by the Court of Directors. it is a long document of 100 paragraphs which laid down the broad principles and programmes for educational development in India. It confirmed the orders issued earlier by Lord Bentinck and, among other things, authorized (1) the establishments of universities at Bombay, Calcutta and Madras, (2) the creation of Education Departments in the Provinces, (3) the establishment of a graded network of schools and colleges in all parts of the country, (4) the provision of grants- in.aid to private schools, (both missionary and Indian), (5) training of teachers, (6) encouragement to the education of women and (7) employment of educated Indians in government service. This policy statement continued to govern all educational developments in India till 1882.

The Role of the Government of India in Education (1870-1921)

1.04 In 1870, Lord Mayo initiated a system of decentralization and delegation of authority. The centralized administration introduced in 1833 had served its purpose,: the whole of India had been conquered, the so-called Sepoy Mutiny quelled, and the British rule fully consolidated in all parts of the country. On the other hand, the weaknesses of the system which led to delays and wastefulness in expenditure and created an irresponsible attitude in the Provincial Governments came to the surface and began to gall. A move for decentralization was, therefore, inevitable, and it came none too soon.

1. Resolution of the Government of India, dated 7th March, 1835.

1.05 Under the orders issued by Lord Mayo, the Provincial Governments were made responsible for all expenditure on certain services (including education) and were given, for that purpose, a fixed grant-in-aid and certain sources of revenue. This system continued to be in force up to 1876-77 when a system of 'shared revenues' was introduced. Under this system, certain revenues were designated as exclusively 'Central', certain others were designated as exclusively 'Provincial' and the remaining were designated as 'Divided' and their receipts were shared between the Central and Provincial Governments according to an agreed contract which remained in force for a period of five years at a time. Thus the quinquennial contracts were revised in 1882-8 3, 1886 87, 1891-92 and 1896-97. In 1904, they were declared to be quasi-permanent i e. not to be changed except in a grave emergency, and in 19) 2, they were declared to be permanent. It will thus be seen that, under these financial arrangements, the entire expenditure on education was to be borne by the Provincial Governments within the resources allocated to them. A delegation of administrative powers naturally followed this transfer of financial responsibility., It may be said, therefore, that between 1870 and 1921, most of the administrative and financial authority over education was gradually transferred to the Provincial Governments ; and the Government of India merely retained a theoretical right of the control and general supervision as a sequel to its ultimate responsibility to the British Parliament.

1.06 It must be made clear however that, when necessary, the Government of India did not hesitate to intervene, to review educational progress, and to issue such directives to Provincial Governments as it felt to be necessary. The first such occasion to intervene arose when there was an insistent demand that the progress of education in India since the Educational Despatch of 1854 should be reviewed. The Government of India, therefore, appointed the first Commission on Education in India, viz. the Indian Education Commission (1882) and on the submission of its report, issued orders laying down a new National Policy on Education. Its main features were : (1) emphasis on the spread of primary education and education among girls, scheduled castes and scheduled tribes ; (2) full encouragement to Indian private enterprise in secondary and higher education ; and (3) creation of local bodies at the District and Tahsil levels (with considerable participation of the Indian people) and their association with the administration of primary education. These policies continued to be in force till the end of the nineteenth century.

1.07 The second occasion for a strong and sustained intervention arose when Lord Curzon became the Governor General of India. He was of the view that Indian education had grown too fast at the secondary and university stages, that its administration had become flabby because of undue freedom given to Indian private enterprise, that standards had deteriorated and that the uncontrolled expansion of secondary and higher education was leading to indiscipline and disaffection against Government. He was, therefore, of the view that the Government of India should no longer be a 'king log' and that a policy of intensive central interest in education must be enunciated and sustained. He created the office of the Director-General of Public Instruction in India under the Central Government (1897). He also convened a Conference of the Directors of Public Instruction in the Provinces at Simla (1900), appointed the Indian Universities Commission (1902), passed the Indian Universities Act (1904) in the Central Legislature, and issued the Government Resolution on Educational Policy in 1904. He also initiated a system of large Central grants to the Provinces for educational development and these continued to be in vogue for several years afterwards.1 An Indian Education Service (IES) was also created in 1897 and its officers held all key posts in the Education Departments. A second Government of India Resolution on Educational Policy was also passed in 1913. The two Resolutions of 1904 and 1913 may also be described as National Policies on Education and form a continuing sequence with the orders of Lord Bentinck, the Educational Despatch of 1854, and the Resolution of the Government [of India on the Recommendations of the Indian Education Commission (1884).

1.08 It may be incidentally mentioned that the Government of India started a practice of compiling and publishing quinquennial reviews to the progress of education in India from 1882. Such reviews were published for 1886 87, 1891-92, 1996-97, 1901.02, 1902-07, 1907- 12, 1912-17, and 1921-22.

1. The period between 1902-1921 was one of boom in world finance and India shared in the general prosperity. There were surpluses, and often large ones, in the Central Budget in many years and the Government of India allocated a part of these to the provincial Governments for expenditure on education. The earliest of these grants was sanctioned by Lord Curzon and the policy was kept up by his successors. Between 1902 and 1918-19, the grants amounted to about Rs. 500 lakhs non-recurring and about Rs, 300 lakhs recurring. These grants, more than any other single factor, were responsible for the expansion and improvement of education that was brought about during this period.

The Role of the Government of India in Education (1921 47)

1.09 This period of active Central control and financial support of education came to an end in 1921 when, under the Government of India Act, 1919, education in the Provinces was transferred to the control of Indian Ministers responsible to legislatures with an elected majority. As a corollary to this basic decision, the role of the Government of India (which continued to be responsible to the British Parliament) in education had to be limited to the minimum. Under the Government of India Act, 1919, therefore, the responsibilities of Government were divided into Central and Provincial lists in the first instance and then the latter were divided into reserved and transferred. Because of various conflicting proposals made on the subject, education was treated as partly all- India, partly reserved, partly transferred with limitations and partly transferred without limitations. The following powers were reserved to the Government of India.

1. The Banares Hindu University and such other new universities as may be declared to be all-India by the Governor-General-in Council.

2. College for Indian chiefs and educational institutions maintained by the Governor-General-in- Council for the benefit of members of His Majesty's Forces or other public servants, or their children.

3. The authority to legislate on the following subjects was reserved for the central legislature, mainly with a view to enabling the Government of India to take suitable action on the report of the Calcutta University Commission.

(a) Questions regarding the establishment, constitution and functions of new universities;

(b) Questions affecting the jurisdiction of- any university outside its province ; and

(c) Questions regarding the Calcutta University and the reorganisation of secondary education in Bengal (for a period of five Nears only after the introduction of the Reforms).

(None of these powers were ever exercised in practice).

Except for the above matters reserved for the Government of India the whole of the education wag transferred to the control of Indian Ministers with one exception, viz. education of Anglo-Indians find Europeans was reserved.1 There were also some restrictions on the control which the Ministers could exercise in certain matters (e. g. the IES).

1.10 It was also decided to stop all further recruitment to the IES so that the 'service would fade out within a few years. Needless to say the system of Central grants which had made such a useful contribution to educational development also disappeared.

1.11 The Hartog Committee (1928) examined this situation with concern and said : "we are of the opinion that the divorce of the Government of India from education has been unfortunate : and holding as we do, that education is essentially a national service, we are of opinion that steps should be taken to consider a new relation of the Central Government with this subject. We have suggested that the Government of India should serve as a Centre of educational information for the whole of India and as a means of coordinating the educational experience of the different provinces. But we regard the duties of the Central Government as going beyond that. We cannot accept the view that it should be entirely relieved of all responsibility for the attainment of universal primary education. It may be that some of the provinces, inspite of all efforts, will be unable to provide the funds necessary for that purpose, and the Government of India should, therefore, be constitutionally enabled to make good such financial deficiencies in the interests of India as a whole" (Report p. 346). This view was carefully examined when the Government of India Act, 1935, was passed. But as the basic condition, viz., the transfer of education to popular control in the Provinces side by side with the Government of India continuing to be responsible to Parliament remained unchanged, the

1. This decision to transfer education to the Indian Ministers was fundamentally sound. But what one does not like is the argument on which it was based. For instance, the Montague-Chelmsford Report laid down four criteria to determine whether a subject should be transferred to Indian control, viz , (1) it should be one in which there are large opportunities for social service ; (2) it should be one in which Indians have shown considerable interest ; (3) It should be such that mistakes are not likely to be committed ; (4) and even if committed they are not likely to be irretrievable. it is a pity that education was selected for transfer on the basis of these criteria; and it is an even greater pity that this attitude to education still dominates our thinking.

policy underlying the Act of 1919, was continued with some modifications which reduced the authority of the Government of India over education and correspondingly increased that of Indian Ministers over it at the provincial level. The actual provisions made in the Government of India Act, 1935, abolished the old distinction between reserved and transferred subjects and the limitations placed on the powers of the education ministers. The whole of education thus became a transferred subject, except the following matters which were reserved for the Government of India-

(i) The Imperial Library, Calcutta : the Indian Museum, Calcutta the Imperial War Museum : the Victoria Memorial, Calcutta and any similar institution controlled or financed by the Central Government;

(ii) Education of the Defence Forces;

(iii) The Banaras Hindu University and the Aligarh Muslim University ;

(iv) Preservation of ancient and historical monuments;

1.12 With these radical changes in the constitutional position, the question of the Government of India issuing any Resolutions on the National Policy on Education did not even arise ; and in fact, no Government of India Resolution on National Educational Policy was issued for 55 years between 1913 and 1968. However, attempts were made to strengthen the advisory and coordinating role of the Govern- ment of India. The quinquennial reviews of education in India continued to be published and were actually brought out in 196-27, 1931-32, 1936-37, and 1946-47 (Decennial Review). A Central Advisory Board of Education consisting of all Education Ministers in the Provinces was first constituted for this purpose in 1921. It was however abolished in 1924 as a measure of economy. It was revived again in 1935 ; and its one great achievement was to prepare the Post- War Plan of Educational Development (1944). It proposed to create, in a period of 40 years, an educational system in India which would be like that in England in 1939. The plan however was never accepted by Indian public opinion.

The Role of the Government of India in Education (1947-79)

1.13 The subject came again for discussion in 1950 when the Constitution was being adopted on the basis of a Federal Government at the Centre. It could have been possible at this time to define a more

effective Central role in education. But the general public opinion was strongly in favour of vesting almost all authority over education in the Slates ; and the mere fact that the Congress was in power at the Centre and in all the States made it almost seem unnecessary to vest any constitutional authority over education in the Centre. Once again, therefore, the basic policy of the Government of India Act, 1919, was continued with one change, viz. certain additional powers were now vested in the Centre. In fact, the Constitution makes Education basically a State subject (Entry 11 of the State List), subject to certain powers reserved in the Central (Entries 63-66) and Concurrent Lists (Entry 25). These are quoted below for ready reference:

List I : List of Union Functions

63. The Institution known at the commencement of the Constitution as the Banaras Hindu University, the Aligarh Muslim University and the Delhi University and any other institution declared by Parliament by law to be an institution of national importance ;

64. Institutions for scientific or technical education financed by the Government of India wholly or in part and declared by Parliament by law to be institutions of national importance;

65. Union agencies and institutions for :-

(a) professional, vocational or technical training, including the training of police officers ; or

(b) the promotion of special studies or research ; or

66. Co-ordination and determination of standards in institutions for higher education or research and scientific and technical institutions.

List II : List of State Functions

11. Education including universities, subject to provision of entries 63, 64, 65 and 66 of List I and entry 25 of List III.

List III : List of Concurrent Functions

25. Vocational and technical training of labour.

1.14 The academic opinion in India has never been fully reconciled to this constitutional decision which makes education an almost total responsibility or the States and the Subject therefore has continued to be debated over the last 30 years. On the whole, three definite categories of views have emerged:

(1) The first view, held by a minority, and mostly among State level politicians is that the authority over education should be transferred to the State Governments to a still greater extent that the Ministry of Education should be abolished, and that almost all the funds meant for the development of education should be provided in the State sector, thus abolishing the Centrally sponsored sector and reducing the Central Sector to the minimum;

(2) The second view which prevailed throughout the period between 1947 and 1976, was that there need be no' change in the! constitutional role of the Government of India in education. But education should be regarded as a national concern, and steps should be taken to see that the advisory and coordinating roles of the Government of India are considerably strengthened. This has been the most dominating view in the post independence period.

(3) The third view, also held by a minority was that education should be brought into the concurrent list. This was supported by the Committee of Members of Parliament under the Chairmanship of Shri Sapru (1963) which recommended that higher education should be brought on the concurrent list. The proposal however did not get support among the State Governments and had to be dropped.

1.15 The problem was discussed by the Education Commission (1964- 66) Unfortunately, the members of the Commission could not reach a concensus on the subject. The majority of members were for the status quo and for the continuance of education in the State list. They recommended that "there is plenty of scope, within the present Constitutional arrangement, to evolve a workable Centre-State partnership in education and that this has not been exploited to the full. The case for amending the Constitution can only be,, made after this scope is fully utilized and found to be inadequate. All things considered we recommend that an intensive effort be made to exploit fully the existing provisions of the Constitution for the

development of education and evolution of a national educational policy. The problem may then be reviewed again say, after ten years (Para 18.30)" The debate on the subject would have gone on indefinitely bad not the emergency intervened. Smt. Indira Gandhi, who was then in need of some respectable ideas for inclusion in her omnibus proposals for amendment to the Constitution, suddenly picked upon the subject and brought education on the concurrent list. The Janata Government which came to power with a pledge to undo all the Constitutional amendments made in the emergency declared its intension to put education back in the State List. It did not succeed, mainly because or the opposition from the Congress. But Dr. P. C. Chunder has declared in Parliament that the policy of his government is to act as if education is in the State list.

1.16 if history is to be written in modern parlance, it is interesting to note that education has been in the exclusively Central list between 1833 and 1870, in the Concurrent list between 1870 and 1921, in the exclusive State list between 1921 and 1947, mostly in the State list with some special powers to the Centre between 1947 and 1976, and in the Concurrent list from 1976 onwards.

The Role of the Government of India in Education : A Comprehensive View

1.17 So far, we have discussed the Constitutional Role of the Government of India in education. It must be pointed out how. ever that the constitutional role of the Government of India in education is only one aspect of its actual role which must be examined in its totality. The other aspects of this role which modify the constitutional position very substantially are (1) public opinion, (2) financial relations, (3) political situation, and (4) administrative arrangements. It is only an integrated view of all. these aspects that can give real insights into the nature of the problem and enable us to devise practicable reforms.

1.18 Public Opinion : What is the public view of the Centre-State relations in education and how does the public except education to be administered ? It is obvious that, in a truly democratic set up, the administration of education which concerns every individual intimately must be highly decentralized. The general practice in this regard is that school education or at least elementary education which has to be provided for every child, should be controlled by the local community. This, for

instance, is the tradition in U.S.A. where the people are extremely alert on educational issues and where the principle of local control of school education is strongly rooted in the historical traditions of the country. In a situation of this type, the State itself has a minor role in school education and the Federal Government, even less. The position regarding secondary and higher education, however is rather different. Secondary education is usually under local control if it is provided on a universal basis. Otherwise, it is generally provided by a larger community or the State; and higher education, except in a few big cities, is generally managed by the State or by the State and the Federal Government in some kind of partnership. On the basis of this broad general practice, it should ordinarily be expected that in India elementary education should be administered at the local community level, secondary education at the district or State level, and higher education at the State level or at the State and national levels.

1.19 Unfortunately, the historical traditions in our country have been different so that local control of education at the community or district level has failed to develop adequately. It is true that we did have a tradition of some local control of education because, in the pre-British days, schools were established and controlled by the local communities rather than by the Princes who, at best, extended their patronage to a few learned scholars or schools of higher learning. But these schools, more often than not, were enterprises of individuals or of small interested groups within the community rather than of the community as a whole. Even this limited tradition also died out when Government accepted responsibility for providing education. In the old British Indian Provinces, an attempt was made to associate local bodies at the community and district level with the provision of elementary education. This tradition has survived but has neither become vital or dynamic. In the Princely States, on the other hand, no such effort was ever made. In the post-independence period also the local control of education was not encouraged except for the Panchayati Raj experiment which has been tried earnestly only in a few areas. Consequently, the present position is that the vast masses of the people who are mostly illiterate have no interest in education as now imparted in the formal system and the tradition of local control in education is also mostly non-existent.

1.20 Public interest in education in India is mainly confined to the educated and elite groups who are the principal beneficiaries of the formal educational system and who mostly belong to the top 30 per cent of the

income groups. Their main interest is in secondary and higher education where, apart from other things, their own private enterprise provides the bulk of the educational institutions. Moreover, it is the children of this elite which form about 70 per cent of the enrolment in secondary education and about go per cent of the enrolment in higher education. The basic issues that interest this elite are, therefore, the location and opening of new secondary schools, colleges and universities, their curricula and grants, in-aid and the expansion of elementary education (which provides them with a large number of fairly well-paid jobs). As these, issues are mostly decided at the State level, the concept of education as essentially a State responsibility gets the strongest- public support. The view, gets further strengthened from the fact that, the State is probably the most convenient level from which a basic social service like education can be administered. The sap e view also finds still further support in the State levy leadership whose image and power- base largely depends upon the control of educational institutions, teachers and students. It is these supports which made education a Stale subject under the Constitution and which also continue to legitimize the position. In fact, one may even assert that education as a State responsibility is at present so well entrenched in the public mind (or in the mind of the elites that rule the country) that it is extremely difficult, if not actually impassible, to alter this situation.

1.21 One need not necessarily quarrel with this view and may agree that education may basically remain a State responsibility. But one cannot also accept a State absolutism in education and an over- concentration of authority at the State level. The power of the state,in education has therefore to be limited to a considerable extent in the larger interests of education itself. This is generally attempted in three ways.

(a) The first is administrative decentralisation where authority over education, and especially over school education, is transferred to the local community at the municipal, village, Tahsil or District levels. As pointed out earlier, this trend is weak in the country, partly because the earlier tradition of local control or popular involvement in education has almost died out, partly because such decentralisation can be most effective in elementary and adult education which continue to be our neglected sectors, and partly because the local leadership at the village, Tahsil or District level is still weak in comparison with that at the Stale level and cannot assert itself. Consequently, the unfortunate public view that the State and Central levels are the only two that really matter in education, gains undue currency and strength. This trend also finds support in the

general attitudes of linguistic and other minorities and weaker sections like Scheduled Castes and Tribes who find that the local levels (whether village, block, Tahsil or District) are generally oppressive and that their oppresiveness increases as one goes down to lower levels so that their hopes of justice and fair treatment lie mainly at the State and national levels.

(b) The second is academic decentralisation, i. e. to free the educational process from bureaucratic control by respecting university autonomy which the universities should, in their turn, share with their departments and affiliated colleges), by enabling the schools to prepare their own curricula and to hold their own examinations, and in short by so delegating authority to educational institutions and their teachers that the teaching-learning process becomes free, joyful and independent of State control. Unfortunately these concepts have not gained strength either within the teaching profession or among the general public. On the other hand, the contrary trends have gained an upper hand and the academic control of the State over education, schools and teachers has increased, rather than decreased, since 1947.

(c) While we have thus been unable to check State absolutism in education either through decentralisation to local bodies or through academic decentralization, we have had a somewhat better success to control State authority in education through centralization, i. e. by giving a larger voice to the Central Government in educational matters. One powerful group that supports this demand is that of the national bureaucracy which can be transferred to any part of the country and the large trade and industrial interests that have also acquired a national character. These groups are generally in favour of a national system of education with common curricula and text books in all parts of the country-a situation which can be created only if the Central Government can have an over-riding voice in education. The university and research, system which can be best planned on a national basis also supports the same trend. Further support comes from another important group, viz., teachers, who would like to fight for uniform scales of pay and emoluments in all parts of the country and who realize that they can become a tremendous force if organized on a national basis. They are, therefore, in favour of an increasing role in education for the Centre and against any devolution of authority to the local bodies. A large section of the, intellectual elite also recognizes the need for a national policy in education from the point of view of national integration and takes the stand that

while the "diversity" implied in the State control of education is both necessary and desirable, it is equally important to provide the 'unity' in this diversity through a national educational policy. It, must also be pointed out that the national leadership that grew in the freedom struggle initiated a large and intensive debate on education at the national level and that this tradition still continues unabated. Consequently, education has become, throughout the last hundred years or so, a great national concern although it remains State subject in administration. The public support for the role of the Government of India in education arises essentially from these social and political groups and from these national concerns which cannot be ignored, although not all of them are healthy and desirable, To the extent they succeed, there will be a curb on the State authority in education and a legitimate basis for the formulation and implementation of a national policy on education.

It will thus be evident 'that, while education will continue to be essentially a State responsibility (irrespective of the fact whether it does or does not continue to be in the concurrent list in the Constitution), it is equally essential to curb the trend towards State absolutism, not only by giving a more significant role to the Centre, but also by strengthening local control in education and promoting academic decentralization. Steps will have to be taken to educate public opinion on these lines in the years ahead.

1.22 Financial Relations : The Centre-State relations in financial support of education are obviously very important. Where the Centre can give large grant-in aid for educational development, it always gets considerable control over it and is in a strong position to implement national policies on education, irrespective of any constitutional provisions on the subject. Prior to 1870, the Government of India did exercise almost complete control over education because it sanctioned all the funds needed for it. This authority decreased in actual practice between 1870 and 1902 when, under the system of financial devolution initiated in that year, the entire responsibility for financing education was gradually transferred to the Provincial

1. The nationalist view on this subject was probably best expressed by Shri Morarji Desai, Prime Minister of India, who said: "The Indian Union is like a garland or pearls where the Centre is the thread that keeps the States (or pearls) together. if the thread vanishes, the pearls also vanish; and if the pearls vanish, the thread has no value";