EQUITY
THE COUNTRIES of the third world are passing through a serious dilemma resulting from the inherent social contradictions between the principle of equality and the principle of equity. This calls for a distinction between equity and equality. Equality means that every person would receive same treatment irrespective of status, caste, creed, etc. Equity means fairness or "recourse to principle of justice", which implies that a policy of protective discrimination has to be adopted if this is deemed fair or just. While equality has a quantitative meaning, equity is a qualitative concept. It takes note of the principle of social justice. It is similar to the distinction made by Aristotle between arithmetic and proportional equality the former means that every one is treated the same way while the latter requires that people receive things in different proportions in different circumstances specific to their immediate context and situation.
Inequity, in its various forms is one of the most significant problems facing the contemporary world. It is generally accepted that inequities are unfair and that attempt should be made to ensure equity in all spheres of social life. However, whatever is done,the privileged will continue to benefit, and the disadvantaged will continue to suffer if extraordinary measures are not taken to ensure that the interests of the latter are preserved. The situation is expected to vary from region to region and the gap will be determined by the impact of the developmental process.
The situation today is one of inequity in different facets of life. However, this is not unique to India only. Most of the third world countries are far from attaining an egalitarian social order based on the principle of equity. Education represents only one of the facets of the prevailing order of inequities which are expressed in various forms, in different facets of life.
Viewed in this background it may be argued that equality is a stronger expression of equity and similarly equality of opportunity is more difficult than equitable distribution. With the prevailing social syndrome of inequality in various facets of life the distribution between "haves" and "have riots" is becoming more glaring.
In such a situation giving equal opportunity will imply giving more to those who already have it and giving less to those who do not have it and, therefore, equality to all is a concept which is not conceivable because the category of "all" itself is not a homogeneous one. It consists of heterogeneous groups having disparate levels of socio-economic development. Therefore,
Equity 397
equality is unjust when it is perceived to be distributed in the groups which themselves are unequal. It implies that equal distribution among unequals will lead to perpetuation of inequality. To put it in other words, soft justice cannot be administered by a soft state against the hard. Judged in this perspective it becomes clear that equality and equity cannot be administered together; it leads to further accentuation of inequities.
Now the question is whether the principle of equality of opportunity should be completely ruled out; and if not then to what extent it is permissible in an essentially disparate society. It has been argued that equalization of opportunity is almost impossible without greatly reducing the absolute levels of inequality and the same is true of eliminating deprivation.' This argument holds good particularly in the context of the third world countries. Disparate levels of socioeconomic development keep a vast section of population trapped in the vicious circle of poverty and lack of achievement, unable to respond even to opportunities which are so rarely available to them.
The point which is being argued here is that in a society like ours it is not possible to dream of equality. It is the principle of equity which with the passage of time will eventually lead to equality. The task today is to give a bigger piece of cake to those who do not have it and a smaller one to those who already have it.
The principle of equity is important not only in the context of our efforts to mitigate the consequences of underdevelopment and gross historical injustices but also in the context of the task of national reconstruction in which the country has been engaged since Independence. Education can become a "powerful instrument of social transformation and economic progress" ushering in "a new social order based on freedom, equality and justice,' "2 only when the principle of equity is ensured in educational planning from the national level to down below. It is rightly stated "that no investment is likely to yield greater returns than investment in human resources of which the most important is education".3
The phenomenal growth in educational facilities since Independence was expected to minimize inequities in this sector of social development. However, within a quarter century of independence it was realized that the expansion of educational facilities was not necessarily accompanied by equalization of opportunities for all. It was noted that initially they were utilized by the advantaged sections of the society, and, as a consequence, inter-group and intra group disparities tended to get accentuated in the first phase unless deliberate intervention in favour of the deprived was resorted to effectively.
"Growth with equity" is now considered to be one of the major objectives of planning, including educational planning. It may be noted that in the Indian context there is no contradiction between the demands for equity and growth. Equity without growth is a stagnant cesspool wherein only misery, ignorance, obscurantism and superstition can be equitably distributed. Growth without equity leads to the accentuation of the structural disequilibrium which constrains growth itself. The social concern for the two can be handled together, sustaining each other and sustained by each other.
There are gross distortions in the development of education in India today, the most glaring one being the disproportionate acquisition of educational benefits by a section of the society. The deprived many have received far less a share than the privileged few. This is partly because
398 School Education in India
the social structure acts as a deterrent in the universal spread of education and partly because the over-arching economic inequality prevents the relative capacities of the advantaged and the disadvantaged to profit from the opportunities that are available.
It is intended here to analyse inequity as perceived in school education in India. The study seeks to explore the nature and extent of inequity within the spatial framework. While the study is not expected to prescribe a viable solution of the continuing inequitous development, it is hoped that it will provide a basis for a better understanding of the nature of the problem and for laying down policy directions to resolve it.
Colonial Legacy The glaring inequity in the development of education in general is a matter of great social concern. The Radhakrishnan Commission emphasized that "education is a universal right, not a class' privilege".4 The concern for -equity in education was further highlighted by the Kothari Commission on education. While emphasizing attainment of equality as one of the major objectives of education, it stressed the role of education in bringing about social change: "If this change on a grand scale is to be achieved without violent revolution (and even for that it would be necessary) there is one instrument, and one instrument only that can be used: 'EDUCATION'.5
Keeping in view such an objective the Commission suggested a number of measures to remove the inequities. The nation made a multithronged effort to promote education and strengthen its mass base. Indeed, school education has expanded remarkably but its inequitous nature continues. The need for an equitous system of education cannot be overstressed.
The explanation for the prevailing syndrome is difficult to find. The developmental process in India, by and large, has not acted as a catalyst in bringing about rapid transformation in the educational scenario. Moreover, the contradiction between tradition and modernity has accentuated the process.
The modern does not generate in a vacuum: it grows in the womb of tradition. It does not replace it, it transforms it. The modern is modernized tradition, a new wave in the ocean of time. If the modem rejects the whole of tradition, it ceases to be modem,. it becomes rootless and anaemic, a spurious product glossy but ephemeral - destined for the dustbin of history. If tradition does not eschew the obsolete by modernizing itself, it ceases to be tradition; it becomes sterile--a stagnant pool of decay and degeneration.6
Herein -lies the basic contradiction in the developmental process in India and the third world. This is understandable in view of the fact that "the British Government in India has, from the very beginning, tried to shape and control the course of public education, and the motive has always been to strengthen the foundations of their political authority in the country".7 This necessity urged the British Government to establish colleges and schools to produce clerks in order to fulfil the administrative needs of the Government. Accordingly, they created a system of education which was urban-based and oriented towards :higher education. The opening of first three universities at the newly emerging port centres of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras illustrates this point. In consequence the organic unity between the lower and the higher stages
Equity 399
of schooling was not given due consideration. Thus it was inevitable that the rural areas which were supporting the majority of the population of the country were allowed to see their indigenous institutions dying.
The British justified this hollow system of education by arguing that although their efforts to introduce modern education were limited, it would spread automatically in the countryside over time. These arguments, although good for imperialistic designs, had no egalitarian character.' The emergent pattern was irk accordance with the nature of general developmental process in colonial India, which was characterized by the emergence of metropolitan nodes of development within the vast hinterland of underdevelopment.'
This was the system which India inherited at the time of Independence-a system which was inequitous, distorted, dysfunctional and enclavized. The contemporary syndrome of inequity is the outcome of such a gifted system.
Forms of Inequity Inequities in education in India as well as in the third world countries are a manifestation of disparate level of socioeconomic development. The spurious developmental process witnessed during the colonial period contributed significantly to the accentuation of these disparities. Since time immemorial, education and development have been considered mutually inter-linked processes. In order to prove the relationship between the socioeconomic background and the inequitous development of education, there is need to evaluate the following aspects of inequities in the attainment of education: (a) Inequity between males and females; (b) inequity between the rural and the urban segments of population; (c) inequity between the Scheduled Castes and the general population;, and (d) inequity between the Scheduled Tribes and the general population.
Inequity between Males and Females The seeds of stagnation in Indian society were sown by the rigid system of social stratification in which access to learning was determined by birth in a certain caste group and was restricted to the privileged section of men. With the advent of the British a large number of schools were established which were meant for both boys and girls. But in practice, the schools continued to impart education to boys only. The British were obviously incapable of breaking the deep- rooted tradition which disfavoured the idea of exposing girls to modern education. Yet they made serious efforts on this direction. The Christian missionaries brought enlightenment to the people in the areas in which they could make inroads and exert their influence and it gradually paved the way for the education of women. The idea was picked up by a section of Indians who realized the need for social reforms, in general, including the sphere of education.
As early as 1850, Lord Dalhousie directed that the government should establish separate schools for girls. He stressed the need to spread education among girls in all possible ways, The Indian Education Commission (1882) made several important recommendations for the attainment of this objective. This policy was reiterated in the Government Resolutions on Educational Policy issued in 1904 and 1913.
400 School Education in India
As a result to these initiatives the enrolment of girls in schools increased. However, the high rate of wastage among girls at the primary stage" did not help in bridging the male-female gap.The Hartog Committee (1929)pointed out the alarming results" of such a phenomenon. "Thus out of every 100 boys 27.7 reached Class IV. As against this, only 14.2 girls reached that level" .12 The problem was more serious in the rural areas and in the princely states. The prevailing feudal order, the overriding economic constraints and the strong social prejudices against women, particularly in the rural areas, acted as the main barriers in the spread of female education.
In fact, the educational policy of the British, although neutral to the two sexes, in practice discriminated against the girls. The doors of educational institutions were closed to women because of the backward-looking colonial policy of buttressing the obscurantist male chauvinistic tendencies in the polity.
Judged in this context, a move towards promoting education of girls is not going to be a simple exercise. Such a move is bound to strike at the very root of the prevalent system of social discrimination. But it is an exercise worth making. The education of women is an instrument of liberation, not only of women but of the Indian society as a whole. It is in this context that the following observations of the Education Commission (1964-66) acquires significance:
In the modem world, the role of the women goes much beyond the home, and the bringing up of children. She is now adopting a career of her own and sharing equally with man the responsibility for the development of society in all its aspects. This is the direction in which we shall have to move. In the struggle for freedom, Indian women fought side by side with men.This equal partnership will have to continue in the fight against hunger, poverty, ignorance and ill health.13
Although substantial progress has been made in the direction of educating women much remains to be done, particularly in the rural areas. The problem of educability of girls remains far more complex than is generally realized. The instruments of social policy evolved in this direction have not been able to fulfil the expectations for various reasons. First, the problems of educability of girls in the rural areas are contingent upon the extent to which the grip of the social institutions which hinders the spread of education, is loosened. Women social organizations may play a significant role in this direction by reaching the rural homes but they are too few to play their role satisfactorily. In the absence of social awareness the official efforts made in this field have not been able to achieve desired goals. Secondly, the liberation of rural women from the clutches of illiteracy will be possible only if the rural masses are lifted from the morass of poverty. Thirdly, the social attitude of men towards women continues to be determined by the rigid social values, which are detrimental to the interest of women. By and large, the spread of education among the female children cannot be delinked from the overall position of women in the society and in the home.
Rural-Urban Inequities Inequities between the rural and the urban components of population stemmed from the gap
Equity 401
between the levels of social and economic development in the two areas. The limitations and weaknesses of the contemporary developmental programmes may be understood only in the context of spatial organization of the Indian economy. This is important because education is directly linked with the productive processes. However, the capacity of education to become an asset in the production process was constrained by the nature of education itself as well as by the job opportunities that it opened up. These factors determined the demand for education. Since education during the British period was geared to producing "graduated flunkeys" to provide manpower to manage the British administration, the educational opportunities were concentrated in and around the newly emerging centres of administration. The social distance between the village and the city made education totally irrelevant to the rural masses. Even in extraordinary situations where the rural folks could have access to educational institutions situated in the cities, the educated never returned to the villages.
While a good deal of progress has been made in correcting these distortions, much remains to be done. The rural people have received the attention of both governmental and quasigovernmental agencies and have been brought within the fold of formal education to a large extent. The gap between the rural and the urban areas, however, continues because of the urban-bias of education, which makes it socially irrelevant to the rural folk and thus alienates them from the mainstream of educational development. There is the question of rural poverty. The education of the rural masses will be possible only if the rural economies are transformed and brought to a sound footing. Increase in productivity levels will generate the necessary income cushion to enable the peasant households to release their children from the ancillary farm work to avail themselves of education. The educability of the rural communities is not comparable to that of urban population. While a child in the urban world continues to step forward from the lower to the higher stage of schooling without much economic conflict, the rural child has to face an economic conflict with his growing age. His means of production force him to become an asset to the family. It may be mentioned here that the problems of the urban low-paid workers as well as those of the slum dwellers are no less significant than those of the rural communities. By and large, the spread of education among the rural communities will be contingent on the process of economic diversification, the nature of rural-urban interaction and the role of rural elites and of the voluntary agencies already in operation in the rural areas. This would imply that inequities between the rural and the urban segments would tend to decline with the increase in the levels of development in the rural areas. However,as against this Hoselitz maintains that the difference between the rural and the urban populations is the least in the two extreme situations of a primitive society and a fully developed society." 14 The relative value of these two contentions, however, is a matter of empirical probing.