NATIONAL POLICY ON EDUCATION (1968)
 : FORMULATION
 

3.01 In the preceding chapter, we discussed the main educational developments in India between 1947 and 1965 when there was no formal enunciation of a National Policy on Education. During the next period of our study (1966-78), whose main educational developments will be discussed in the following Chapter, there was a formal and official statement on the National Policy on Education which was expected to guide educational planning, and implementation. We must therefore address ourselves to three specific issues in this context.

- How and why was the statement on the National Policy on Education issued ?

- How did the existence of this statement on influence the planning and development of education during 1966- 78 ? and

- What lessons for future can we draw from this experience both for the formulation of such statements and for their implementation ?

We shall, in the course of this chapter, discuss the first of these issues. The second and third will be discussed in the next two chapters.

The National Policy on Education (1968)

The educational planners of 1966-78 could look up to the report of the Education Commission (1964-66) which the Government of India had broadly accepted and also to the National Policy on Education (1968) which had been issued after due consideration of its proposals.

79

80

3.02 The Chinese aggression of 1962 and the poor show made by India on the occasion came as an unpleasant shock to every one and created a mood of introspection in which the validity of all our developmental efforts was seriously questioned. Education was no exception and people began to ask why we had lagged behind China in education although, in 1949, the educational situation in the two countries was almost similar with some edge in favour of India. Very naturally the old demand for the appointment of an Education Commission which will examine comprehensively all aspects of education and make concrete and detailed proposals for the development of a national system of education was also revived with some force. Shri M. C. Chagla, then Minister of Education at the Centre was really responding to this mood and to this demand when he appointed the Education Commission in 1964. This was the sixth Education Commission to be appointed in our educational history and the third in the post- independence period. It was requested to advise government on "the national pattern of education and on the general principles and policies for the development of education at all stages and in all its aspects". It submitted its Report in 1966.

3.03 It is not necessary to discuss here the recommendations of the Education Commission in detail. This has already, been attempted elsewhere' and adequate reference to the relevant recommendations of the Commission will be made in the appropriate context as this discussion proceeds. it is however essential to refer, at the very outset, to one crucial recommendation. The Commission was of the view that one of the main reasons for the unsatisfactory progress of education between 1947 and 1965 was that the country did not have a comprehensive and rational policy of education so that basic educational issues were being decided in an ad hoc manner anti on considerations of expediency and class interests. It therefore recommended that a national system of education should be created in the country in a period of 20 years (1966-86) and that, for this purpose, "the Government of India should issue a Statement on the national policy in education which should provide guidance to the State Governments and the local authorities in preparing and implementing education plans in their areas. The possibility of passing a National Education Act may also be examined" (para 18-58). At this time,

1. Please refer to J.P. Naik Education Commission and After, chapter 11, Allied Publishers, New Delhi. 1979.

81

education was not in the concurrent list and there was little possibility of passing a National Education Act in Parliament. However, the Government of India accepted the remaining part of this recommendation and decided to issue a statement on the National Policy on Education.

3.04 Why is a Statement on National Policy on Education needed and what does one expect from it ? It may be stated that a National Policy on Education has four special aspects.

(1) It takes a national view of education as different from regional and local views which may often be in conflict with one another or even antagonistic to the larger interests of the country.

(2) It takes a unified view of the diversity and richness of Indian culture, tradition and society in the sense that it high-lights the fundamental characteristics of the educational system which will create, in every Indian citizen, a sense of a national identity which transcends all considerations of region, language, caste, colour or race, and promotes emotional national integration which is so essential not only for development, but even for our survival as a nation.

(3) It takes a long-term view of education which has a long gestation period and whose results can be seen only after years or even generations. Consequently, it tries to prevent the distortion of sound educational policies by considerations of expediency or the pressures of the moment which tend to overinfluence those who are in immediate control of education.

(4) it takes a coordinated view in the sense that it relates education to national development, integrates aspirations and plans of educational development of all the different regions of the country and its diverse social groups and enables each region or social group to march ahead in such a way that the creation of a democratic, secular and egalitarian society as visualized in the Preamble of the Constitution is facilitated.

3.05 Obviously, a formal enunciation of such a policy has two major advantages. It helps to educate public opinion on important educational issues, and it provides specific and clear cut guidelines on nationally preferred educational developments to Central, State and local governments, voluntary agencies, teachers, students, educational administrators and others concerned so that they can collaborate and cooperate better in planning and implementing programmes of educational

82

reconstruction. The decision of the Government of India to issue a Statement on National Policy on Education was therefore widely welcomed. As was pointed out in Chapter I, a statement on the national policy on education was last issued as far back as 1913 and that this Statement was now being issued after a lapse of 55 years.

3.06 The Government of India also laid down a detailed and elaborate procedure for the issue of this Statement on the national policy on education. it included the following steps.

(1) The Report should be widely publicized and comments and suggestions should be invited from all concerned;

(2) The Report should also be circulated to all Ministries of the Government of India, to the State Governments and Union Territories and to the Universities for their comments and suggestions;

(3) The Report should be considered in details by a Committee of Members of Parliament representing both Houses and all political parties. All comments received under (1) and (2) should also-be made available to this Committee which should be requested to prepare a draft of the Statement on the national policy on education for the consideration of Parliament;

(4) The Report of the Education Commission (1964-66) along with the report of the Committee of Members of Parliament, should be discussed in both the Houses of Parliament; and

(5) On the basis of these discussions, a Government Resolution on National Policy on Education should be issued as the basis of educational development in the country over the next decade or two.

3.07 It took nearly two years to go through all these steps. The report of the Commission was received in June 1966. By the time it was printed and circulated and comments and suggestions on it began to come in elections to the Parliament became due and it was felt that the third step of appointing a Committee of Members of Parliament could best be taken after the elections. The Committee of Members of Parliament therefore could only be appointed in 1967. Thereafter, it took considerable time for discussions to be held in both Houses of Parliament and for the whole matter to be considered and decided by the Cabinet. The Government Resolution on National Policy on Education could therefore be issued only in 1968.

83

The Hope and the Reality

3.08 One broad observation needs to be made about the National Policy on Education (1968), viz., that it was a disappointing document especially in view of the high hopes raised earlier. Inspite of the many radical suggestions it put forward, the report of the Education Commission was criticized in several quarters as a compromise Statement which did not go far enough. For instance, it did not stress adequately the need to bring about social and economic reforms through direct action in order to facilitate the implementation of the desired radical reforms in education (e.g. the need to eliminate mass poverty if universal elementary education is to succeed). It did speak more emphatically about a radical transformation of the educational system, but did not lay adequate emphasis on changes needed in the educational structure (e.g. multiple-entry or part-time education) which joined bands with the social structure to create inequalities of educational opportunity. It was also not very forthright on some issues (e.g. the common school or the pattern of school and college classes) and made compromise recommendations ; and so on. One expected that these weaknesses in its Report would be remedied in the national debate that followed and that the final decisions on the Report would present a more radical and more consistent document. But all these hopes were dashed to the ground and what we actually bad was a very tame document which made little difference to the status quo. Specific illustrations of this would be given when we shall discuss, in the latter sections of this Chapter, the individual proposals and programmes included in the Statement. But here it is necessary to draw attention to three main factors which were responsible for this sad development.

(1) It is a matter for deep regret that the Report of the Education Commission came in for discussion and decision at a very inopportune time. In fact, the ideal time for this purpose would have been 1947-48 or very soon thereafter. At that time, a certain exhilaration was in the air because we had won freedom. The public mood also was one of great hope and optimism. A strong national leadership was available. The Congress was powerful and at the zenith of its authority and held the reins of government in the Centre and in all the States. Funds were available more plentifully and our stock of good teachers was proportionately larger. Moreover, the over-all size of the educational system was then small so that the

84

energy and cost required to transform it were also comparatively limited. This was, from. every point of view, an ideal time to attempt a radical reconstruction and to create a national system of education. Unfortunately, this golden opportunity was thrown away and a drastic overhaul of the system was attempted in 1967-68 when the situation was extremely different and unfavourable. The country was now passing through a very difficult financial crisis so that, as events turned out, there was practically a plan holiday from 1966-67 to 1968 69. The public morale was low because of the successive problems faced since the end of the Second Plan. Even the morale within the education system was low because of indiscriminate expansion, consequent lowering of standards, increasing unemployment and almost continuous stresses created by incidents of unrest and violence on the University campuses. In the elections of 1967, the Congress party had received its first severe battering in history, its majority in Parliament was smaller and it had lost power in some States. This could, by no means, be described as the ideal time to attempt the formulation, of the first national policy on education in the post- independence period. It was a tragedy that the most ambitious proposals for reform in education submitted by the Education Commission (1964-66) should have come at a time when the general economic and political situation in the country was unsatisfactory and the Centre was too weak to provide the needed leadership and support. Of course, it was a good thing that the attempt was being made at all. But it was clear from the outset that the dice were loaded against its success.

(2) It was pointed out in the last Chapter that, since education is a sub-system of the wider society, the perspective of political, economic and social development of a country generally determines the perspective of its educational development as well. In 1947, we adopted a reformist and evolutionary perspective in over-all development, a perspective based mainly on maintaining a proper balance between stability and change; and quite naturally this perspective determined educational policies as well. Consequently, all that we actually did was a continuation and linear expansion of the earlier educational system with some

85

modifications. if this basic position was to be altered, it was necessary either (1) to modify the reformist and evolutionary perspective we had adopted in political, economic and social spheres or (2) at least to radicalize the educational policies to the best extent possible within the over-all evolutionary perspective. Unfortunately neither of these steps was taken. In 1967-68, the Central Government was too weak to think of changing the evolutionary and reformist perspective in development and in fact, all its developmental policies were tottering (as the virtual plan holiday between 1966 and 1968 ultimately showed). Within education also it was not prepared to come to grips with the difficult and complex problems of educational reconstruction and was concerned more with avoiding controversies than evolving clear-cut and practical solutions. The over-all situation in this regard therefore deteriorated rather than improved.

(3) At every stage of the decision-making process, the general experience was that an attempt was made to dilute the policy statement and to evade the hard decisions that had to be taken. The Report of the Education Commission (1964-66) was considerably diluted by the Committee of Members of Parliament. It was then diluted further in the discussions that followed at the Cabinet level so that the National Policy on Education (1968) is not even as strong as the report of the Committee of Members of Parliament.

It is therefore hardly a matter for surprise that the Statement on the National Policy on Education (1968) from which so much was expected because it was being issued after 55 years and because it was the first educational policy statement of the post-independence period, became in fact a tame and uninspiring document incapable of guiding the country to evolve a national system of education suited to the life, needs and aspirations of the people.

3.09 With these preliminary observations, we shall now examine the National Policy on Education (1968) in detail, paragraph by paragraph. The method adopted will be to state, on each issue, the position reached by 1965-66, the recommendation of the Education Committee thereon, the proposals of the Committee of Member of Parliament on Education, the discussions in the drafting Committee which prepared the document

86

for the consideration of the Cabinet, and the final decisions taken. This will provide an insight in to the various forces that are at work and which will have to be reckoned with seriously in all our plans of educational reconstruction in the future.

The Preamble

3.10 Of the seven paragraphs which constitute the National Policy on Education (1968), the first three form the Preamble. Its first paragraph refers to the contribution made by Mahatma Gandhi and other leaders to the development of the concept of national education in the pre-independence period. Its second paragraph deals with the development of education between 1947 and 1965 which has been reviewed in the last chapter; and the third expresses the conviction of the Government of India that a radical reconstruction of education on the broad lines recommended by the Education Commission is essential for economic and cultural development of the country, for national integration and for realizing the ideal of the socialist pattern of Societies. It is quoted below in extenso for ready, reference.

"1. Education has always been accorded an honoured place in Indian Society. The great leaders of the Indian freedom movement realised the fundamental role of education and throughout the nation's struggle for independence, stressed its unique significance for national development. Gandhiji formulated the scheme of basic education seeking to harmonize intellectual and manual work. This was a great step forward in making education directly relevant to the life of the people. Many other national leaders likewise made important contributions to national education before independence.

2. In the post-independence period, a major concern of the Government of India and of the States has been to give increasing attention to education as a factor vital to national progress and security. Problems of educational reconstruction were reviewed by several commission and committees, notably the University Education Commission (1948-49) and the Secondary Education Commission (1952-53). Some steps to implement the recommendations of these Commissions mere taken; and with the passing of the Resolution on Scientific Policy under the leadership of Jawaharlal Nehru, the develop-