FOREWORD
 

The Education Commission was appointed by the Government of India by a Resolution, dated 14 July 1964, to advise the 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 aspects.*

We began our task twenty-one months ago, on October 2, 1964, Mahatma Gandhi's birthday. From the very beginning we have been conscious of the immensity and inherent difficulties of the task assigned to us. No task in our view could be more challenging, more vital and relevant to India's progress and development-economic, cultural and spiritual. In facing a task of such colossal magnitude and complexity, there is always a danger that the approach and recommendations may not be sufficiently radical. There is also the other possibility that the recommendations may go beyond the capacity and resources of the nation. The difficulties are greatly accentuated because educational plans are long-term plans, and long-term projec- tions of needs and resources are beset with serious uncertainties. We hope our assumptions about the total resources of the nation over the next 20 years and the proportion to be invested in education are reasonable.

It cannot be gainsaid that the recommendations are inevitably circumscribed by the limits of our knowledge and experience, and by our capacity for bold, constructive and imaginative thinking. We would not claim that the recommendations made by us in the Report are necessarily the best, nor can we be completely certain about the validity of every recommendation that we have made. Again, many of the proposals we make would require investigation and revision in the light of experience. We. therefore, lay considerable emphasis on a built-in flexibility in the system of education to facilitate adjust- ment to changing situations and requirements. There is, of course, one thing about which we feel no doubt or hesitation: education, science-based and in coherence with Indian culture and values, can alone provide the foundation-as also the instrument-for the nation's progress, security and welfare.

Indian education needs a drastic reconstruction, almost a revolution. We need to bring, about major improvement in the effectiveness of

*Legal and medical education were excluded from the purview of the Commission, but it was authorized to look into "such aspects of these problems as are necessary for its comprehensive enquiries".

x

primary education; to introduce work experience as an integral element of general education; to vocationalize secondary education; to improve the quality of teachers at all levels and to provide teachers in sufficient strength; to liquidate illiteracy; to strengthen centres of advanced study and strive to attain, in some of our universities at least, higher international standards; to lay special emphasis on the combination of teaching and research; and to pay particular attention to education and research in agriculture and allied sciences. All this calls for a determined and large-scale action. Tinkering with the existing situation and moving forward with faltering steps and lack of faith can make things worse than before.

In view of the urgency of the situation, we felt impelled to keep the time-table originally set for the submission of the Report, even if it meant some limitations on the scope of our studies and on the depth and perspicacity of our presentation. If we had more time, the Report could have been shorter and more readable.

The Commission set up twelve Task Forces on (1) School Education; (2) Higher Education; (3) Technical Education; (4) Agricultural Educa- tion; (5) Adult Education; (6) Science Education and Research; (7) Teacher Training and Teacher Status; (8) Student Welfare; (9) New Techniques and Methods; (10) Manpower; (11) Educational Adminis- tration; and (12) Educational Finance. In addition, it set up seven Working Groups on (1) Women's Education; (2) Education of Backward Classes; (3) School Buildings; (4) School-Community Relations; (5) Statistics; (6) Pre-Primary Education; and (7) School Curriculum. The Task Forces and the Working Groups made a detailed study of many specific problems. Some of these studies will be published separately. The Reports of the Task Forces and the Working Groups have been of great help to us in our work and have enabled us to examine some of the important issues in a depth and detail which would not have been possible otherwise.

We spent about one hundred days in going round all the States and some Union Territories. We visited universities, Colleges and schools and held discussions with teachers, educationists, administrators and students. We convened two conferences of university students' repre- sentatives to have the advantage of personal discussion with them about student welfare and discipline. We found these conferences of real value.

We interviewed men and women distinguished in public life, scien- tists, industrialists and scholars in different fields and others interested in education. Altogether we interviewed about 9,000 persons. We invited written evidence, memoranda and replies to our questionnaires, organized seminars and conferences, commissioned a number of special

xi

studies and also conducted a few special enquiries such as the socio- economic background of students admitted to educational institutions, and working days in schools and colleges. The total number of memo- randa and notes sent to the Commission was over 2,400.

We had the benefit of valuable consultations with a number of internationally well-known educationists and scientists. We are particularly grateful to Prof P. M. S. Blackett, President of the Royal Society, UK; Lord Robbins, Chairman of the Committee on Higher Education (1961-63), UK; Sir Christopher Cox, Educational Adviser, Ministry of Overseas Development, UK; Sir Willis Jackson, Professor of Electrical Engineering, Imperial College of Science and Technology, University of London; Professor C. A. Moser, London School of Economics; Professor Frederick Spitz, President, National Academy of Sciences, USA; Dr. James E. Allen Jr., Commissioner, State Education Department and President, University of the State of New York, USA; Professor Edward Shils, University of Chicago, USA; Professor S. Dedijer, University of Lund, Sweden; Recteur J. Capelle, formerly Director-General of Education in France; Professor C. E. Beeby, Harvard University; and Academician A. D. Alexandrov, Rector, Univer- sity of Leningrad; and Academician O. A. Reutov, Academy of Sciences, USSR.

We had the honour and privilege of meetings with the President, the Vice-President and the Prime Minister. We had most useful dis- cussions with the Minister for Education and some of his Cabinet colleagues and with the Deputy Chairman, Member (Education) and some other members of the Planning Commission. During our visits to the States, the Chief Ministers and Education Ministers as also their colleagues, gave us their time generously. Discussions with them were of great value and benefit to us. We had useful discussions with the Secretaries to State Governments concerned with Education, Local Government, Agriculture and Finance. We also had most useful meetings with a large number of educationists, scientists, the President of the Indian National Congress, Members of Parliament and State Legislatures, industrialists and journalists. To all of them, we are deeply grateful.

In setting up the Commission, the Government of India decided to associate with it a number of distinguished educationists and scientists from other countries. Professors H. L. Elvin (UK), jean Thomas (France), Roger Revelle (USA), S. A. Shumovsky (USSR) and Sada- toshi Ihara (Japan) served as full members of the Commission. Mr. J. F. McDougall (UNESCO Secretariat) served as Associate Secretary throughout the work of the Commission. The Indian members of the Commission would like to record their deep gratitude to the foreign

xii

members and to the Associate Secretary. It has enabled us to add con- siderably to our expertise and insight. While the foreign members have been fully and wholeheartedly associated with the work of the Commission and with the general trend of its conclusions, the respon- sibility rests primarily with the Indian members in cases where we make recommendations pertaining specifically to Indian problems.

Our Report is divided into three parts.

The first part covers Chapters I-VI. It deals with general aspects of educational reconstruction common to all stages and sectors of education. These include reorientation of the educational system to national objectives, structural reorganization, improvement of teachers, enrolment policies and equalization of educational opportunity.

The second part covers Chapters VII-XVII. It deals with the different stages and sectors of education. Chapters VII-X deal with some aspects of school education such as problems of expansion, curriculum, teaching methods, textbooks, guidance, evaluation, administration and supervision. Chapters XI-XIII deal with problems of higher education which include, amongst others, the establishment of major universities, programmes of qualitative improvement, enrolment and university governance. Chapters XIV and XV deal respectively with education for agriculture and technical and vocational education. Chapter XVI discusses programmes of science education and research. Chapter XVII deals with problems of adult education.

The third part deals with problems of implementation. It covers two chapters-Chapter XVIII which deals with educational planning and administration and Chapter XIX which deals with educational finance. We realize that many of the things we say here have been said before, notably by the University Education Commission (1948-49). It is worth recalling, for instance, that the Commission laid great stress on education for agriculture and its improvement, yet nothing significant happened. The real need is action. The poignancy of the situation and the grim times we are passing through underscore this simple but vital fact.

We record our gratitude to the State Governments for their generous cooperation in our work through organizing our visits, making the time of busy senior officials fully available to us, readily answering all our questions, preparing memoranda on their educational progress and problems, opening their institutions to our visits and for their hospitality in making our stay in their States useful and pleasant in every way.

We thank the members of our Task Forces and Working Groups and the Secretary, UGC, for their most willing and devoted efforts to deal with complex problems in a realistic and professional manner. Theirs has been a contribution of inestimable value. We are equally grateful to all those who have given evidence, sent memoranda, replied to the

xiii

questionnaires, and discussion papers and participated in seminars and conferences and given us the privilege of visiting their institutions.

We thank the agencies which carried out special studies and enquiries for us and in particular the National Council of Educational Research and Training, the Institute of Applied Manpower Research, the Indian Law Institute, the State Institutes of Education, and the several Teachers' Associations. These added background to our enquiries which we otherwise would have lacked.

Many educational institutions collaborated in a number of special enquiries which the Secretariat of the Commission carried out. Many more opened their doors to our visits and provided the time and ex- perience of their staff to our discussions. We express our gratitude to all of them.

We owe a special debt to the UGC and the Indian Institute of Public Administration who, at considerable inconvenience to them- selves, provided us with the necessary accommodation.

It is a pleasure to record our thanks to the UNESCO, the British Council and the USAID for the services of members and consultants and to the Asia Foundation for a gift of books. We have to thank also the UNESCO International Institute of Educational Planning and the Governments of France, the Federal Republic of Germany and the USSR for financial and other assistance to our team which went abroad for comparative studies.

We thank our Secretariat for their selfless and devoted collaboration. A particular word of thanks goes here to the State Liaison Officers for their unstinted help.

We cannot conclude our acknowledgements without expressing our indebtedness to Shri J. P. Naik, Member-Secretary of the Commission. His unrivalled knowledge of educational problems and statistics and his indefatigable energy have been a source of unfailing strength and inspiration; and we owe more to him than to any one else that the work of the Commission could be brought to completion within the allotted time.

We are grateful to Mr. J. F. Mc Dougall, Associate Secretary of the Commission, for his assistance at all stages of our work.