IMPLEMENTATION
 

5.01 In the course of the earlier sections, we have put forward several major proposals. It is obvious that none of them is totally new and all that we can claim is to have made a selection of well- known recommendations built round the theme of the education of the common people and put them together in a coherent way, with some shifts in emphasis and a few modifications. The question to be answered, therefore, is this: Why is it that these recommendations were not implemented in the past and what strategy can we adopt to ensure a better implementation in the future? We should also admit that even these diagnostic and prescriptive questions are not new: they have been often asked in the past and also answered with equal frequency. We can, however, claim some novelty in the diagnosis we have offered and consequently in the remedial action we have proposed. In other words, our principal contribution is that we are suggesting a different and a new strategy of implementation.

5.02 Some Wrong or Inadequate Answers. Strategies of implementation obviously depend upon our diagnosis of the failure to implement educational reforms in the past. It is, therefore, necessary to draw attention to some wrong diagnoses and wrong or inadequate answers that have been commonly given so far.

(1) It has been said that we are a nation of `good planners and bad implementers'. It is true that we do specialize in talking about our good intensions and noble objectives. But our plans are certainly not flawless or even always good; and to say that we are bad implementers does not explain anything. We must still ask the further question: why and in what way are we bad implementers? Those who put forward the bad implementation theory generally assume that the bureaucracy is mainly, if not solely, responsible for implementation and blame it almost exclusively for the failure. This is neither fair nor correct. While no one denies that the bureaucracy has to bear considerable responsibility for our failure to implement educational plans, it is not the sole culprit. The responsibility to implement

68 Education For Our People

educational plans rests on the society as a whole and not on any one of its sub-systems.

(2) This game of trying to find a scapegoat for our failure to implement radical plans of educational reform does not end with the bureaucracy. Every agency concerned with educational development indulges in the game. For instance, the public at large very often blames the teachers who are supposed to have lost their commitment to learning and to the welfare of their students. Teachers do not take it lying down and blame the intelligent public for their indifference and the ignorant public for not appreciating the value(?) of the goods they sell, the politicians for all their unwarranted interference, the students for their indiscipline and lack of motivation, and the society itself for not giving them a better status and still better emoluments. The students, in turn, blame the teachers who are said to be often incompetent, dishonest, and liable to show caste prejudices, nepotism and favouritism, and the bureaucrats for their selfishness and corruption. The politicians themselves blame all others - the teachers, the students, the public, and the civil service. The Centre blames these States who blame the Centre; and so on. So the merry game goes round and round, each group or authority blaming every one except itself. In this drama full of dust and din, the only silent actor is the common man (the talisman suggested by Mahatma Gandhi) who bears the huge burden of educational costs without getting any education whatsoever. The fact of the matter is that each one of these agencies - the Central Government, States, public, teachers, students, administrators - has failed education and stands indicted unequivocally for not playing its due role. Every agency must, therefore, accept its share of the blame and make amends. This alone will help us to solve the problem for which the search for scapegoats will not provide the answer.

(3) Equally unsatisfactory are the pedagogic or technological solutions which, in our opinion, are only partial and at best, inadequate, answers. These include: better teachers (i.e., better general education, better professional training, better selection, and better emoluments); better curricular reform; better supervision; better administration; a greater use of the modern mass media; and for all these, more money. These are important issues and they have their own place in a total programme of educational reconstruction. But education cannot be equated with mere pedagogy. Its basic problems are rooted, not so much in pedagogy as in the interface between

Implementation 69

education and society, and not infrequently, in the society itself. There are no mere pedagogic solutions to these complex problems.

(4) Yet another argument often put forward is that education does not receive adequate priority, that it is generally ranked below agriculture, power, industry, irrigation and family planning in most of our plan documents and that it is still regarded as `social service' and not as `investment'. These charges are only partially correct. Although plan outlays on education have been comparatively small and decreasing proportionately over the years, the total expenditure on education (Plan and non-Plan) is very high and, as pointed out earlier, second only to that on defence. It has also been increasing at about twice the rate of growth in GNP. In fact, it is possible to argue that we have given education a high priority as indicated by the very high level of total educational expenditures already reached, that the possibilities of further growth in educational expenditures is limited and that such increases will have to face a serious competition from other developmental sectors and will have to be seriously weighed against alternative uses. Similarly, while we agree that educational expenditures should be looked upon as investment in man, we cannot really support larger expenditures on a mere linear expansion of the formal system of education which is so wasteful and inefficient and so skewed in favour of the haves. It is only a radical transformation of the system that can convert these expenditures into investment in the people of the country. Consequently, additional investments in education are justified only after such transformation has taken place or only to bring about such transformation.

(5) Finally, the most common reason advanced for our failures is the lack of adequate resources. This of course is an argument that can be advanced for the failure of almost every development plan in a poor country; and we often indulge in the game of preparing costly plans of educational development and justifying or rationalizing our failure or inaction on the ground that the needed funds are not available. In all such arguments based on the power of money, the usual assumption is that there are no problems which `mere money' cannot solve. This is a fallacy. Some programmes in education (e.g., character-building) do not need money and we often fail because we use money to get what money can never buy. We also forget that the more relevant question in the present situation is, not what we can do if more resources are made available, but what we can do even within the existing resources. We also have little moral right to ask for more money when we waste

70 Education For Our People

such large resources inspite of our poverty. We should also remember that, in poor nations, money will always be in short supply and that these nations will have to spend `thought' and put in greater human effort to make up for inadequacies of monetary investment rather than the other way round. But we conveniently ignore this principle because it is always easier to spend money than thought (or to put in greater effort), especially if it is somebody else's money.

5.03 The Basic Issues. What then is the alternative diagnosis of We our failure to bring about a radical transformation in education? We have indicated our views on the basic causes of our failure, in their appropriate contexts, in the preceding discussion. But even at the risk of some repetition, it is essential to sum them up briefly. These include,

the failure to transform the existing structure of formal education so as to make it elastic, dynamic, and supportive of the maximum possible freedom to schools, teachers and students to experiment and innovate;

the failure to develop large-scale and effective programmes of nonformal education at all stages; neglect of micro-level living cells of education (i.e., the millions of learning groups where action and the reaction continually takes place between the teachers and learners or between the learners themselves), many of which have become diseased or even dead; failure to orient the educational system to the needs and interests of the common man and neglect of elementary and adult education; over-emphasis on secondary and higher education and on the educational needs and demands of the upper and middle classes; failure to take the hard decisions, both political and academic, without which a radical reform of secondary and higher education is not possible;

failure to generate a strong and nation-wide movement for educational reform and to sustain it over the years, both within and without the educational system; and failure to develop the social and political forces that can help the people to come into their own; and failure to launch a programme of simultaneous and complementary social and educational transformation.

It is obvious that these are the basic issues involved; and unless adequate attention is given to them, it will not be possible to bring

Implementation 71

about the radical educational changes we need.

5.04 A New Approach. The new strategy of development based on an awareness of these fundamental causes of our failures in the past has several important aspects.

(1) Adequate and Large-Scale Action. To begin with, it is necessary to abandon our traditional approach to educational reform which is bureaucratic, selective and limited and to adopt a new approach based on the involvement of the people and a massive effort to meet the challenges facing us. In particular, we should not waste our time any longer in toying with essential and overdue reforms in the form of experimental or pilot projects. Instead, we should immediately launch carefully planned programmes on a scale proportional to the size and complexity of the problems that we desire to solve. For shaking up the system as a whole, we may have to mount a big national campaign or even adopt some drastic and unorthodox measures.

(2) Organization of a Popular Movement. Another important aspect of the strategy is, not to depend upon the State alone, but to organize a nation-wide intensive and popular movement to bring about the needed educational and social transformation. In the post- independence period, we have depended, almost exclusively, upon the State to bring about this transformation and the results have been far from happy. The experience of the past thirty years has shown that the State in India still represents, by and large, the haves and the upper and middle classes and that the representatives of the weaker sections play only a minor role therein. This has naturally led to several distortions such as,

emphasis on high-level trained manpower and bureaucracy rather than on the people themselves as the principal agents of change; catering to the needs and demands of the top 30 per cent of the people (which means giving more and better education to those who already have had some or a good deal) rather than to those of the bottom 30 per cent of the people (which means giving at least some education to those who have had none); stress on secondary and higher education rather than on adult and elementary education;

resistance to all changes which would affect the privileged position of the upper and middle classes (e.g., the introduction of the common school) or reduction in the subsidies they now enjoy (such as increase in fees); and

72 Education For Our People

opposition to all reforms that would have affected the middle class value system on which the present system of education is based.*

In a society like that of ours, the state has to intervene in favour of the poor and give them that essential support and protection which might enable them to overcome their basic handicap of poverty, at least partially. This is what Mahatma Gandhi meant by his talisman or the doctrine of Antyodaya. The state has failed to do so and has, on the whole, helped in passing on the benefits of the educational development to the upper and middle classes and to the rich and the well-to-do. It is, therefore, necessary to realize that we cannot leave the problem of radical educational reconstruction entirely to the sweet will of the state and that we must build up a nationwide popular movement in favour of these changes in order to compel the state to bring about the needed educational transformation. This is what we did not do in the past and this is the one major programme we should now take up. In other words, if we desire education for our people, there is no escape from organizing the people to fight for it. This direct political mobilization is essential for development in its true sense and without it, no radical transformation is possible, either in education or in society. It was the existence of this political mobilization in the pre-independence period that created a climate in which both the educational and social systems functioned better; and it is the absence of a similar political mobilization in the post-independence period that has led to a deterioration, both in education and society.

(3) A Simultaneous Struggle Within and Without the System. Yet another major aspect of the new strategy of development is that we shall have to wage the war for the needed transformation, simultaneously within and without the educational system. There are some who argue that such a movement cannot be started within the educational system for a number of obvious reasons: the large size and inertia of the system; the class attitudes of the vast bulk of administrators, teachers and students who have concentrated their attention or marginal changes in their own immediate interests rather than in favour of the ultimate good of the people; the rigidity of the

*Basic education, for instance, was thrown out. When the Education Commission tried to introduce the concept of work- experience, Shri G. Ramachandra warned that those who threw out basic education were still in power and that they would throw out work- experience also; and they did.

Implementation 73

system which does not permit innovation; the small number of committed individuals within the system to launch an effective struggle; and so on. We do not agree with this viewpoint which writes off the entire formal system of education and provides it with an alibi for total inaction. We hold the view that there are several good and committed individuals and many good elements within the system that must be roused and organized to build up an intensive movement within the educational system. But this task cannot be carried out or succeed unless we simultaneously organize a similar movement outside the system as well. During the past thirty years, we have concentrated, almost exclusively, on the reform of the system from within. This attempt has failed for obvious reasons. We cannot, therefore, leave educational reform to educational institutions, teachers and students alone, although they too have their own legitimate responsibilities and roles. Mahatama Gandhi had emphasized the need to work outside the educational system even with the ultimate objective of reforming the system itself. We must, therefore, organize a massive educational campaign outside the educational system with the help of competent and dedicated persons who do not belong to the system. The programmes of non-formal education provide a good basis for these efforts; and as shown earlier, excellent opportunities for the purpose are available at all stages, and especially in adult and elementary education. To the extent these outside efforts grow and succeed, the conditions within the system will also begin to change and it is this simultaneous action both within and without the educational system that will help us to bring about the essential educational transformation and provide good education to all the people.

(4) Primacy of Work at the Grass-roots Level. In the new strategy of development, there should be great emphasis at the micro- level, on the creation of living educational cells in the local communities. Work at this level, and particularly in rural areas, is extremely important. Every encouragement should be given to young and dedicated persons who are committed to this and propose to take up the programme as their life-mission. It is only when this work develops adequately that new ideas may be generated therein and rise to the top to give new directions to policy. Let us not forget that the educational revolution we need cannot begin in Delhi and spread to the villages. The probability that it may begin in villages and ultimately reach Delhi is far greater.

74 Education For Our People

(5) Simultaneous Struggle for Social Transformation. The need to mount up a simultaneous programme of a complementary social transformation in support of this struggle for educational transformation has already been stressed. This is the most important aspect of the new strategy and the one basic condition for its success.

5.05 The Change Agents. If this new strategy is to grow and succeed, we cannot ignore the close relationship between education, social reform, and politics. We will have to mount up a major effort in three directions,

the workers within the system will have to be made aware of the basic political issues involved in social and educational transformation and assisted. through proper organization, to bring about the needed educational transformation; the social and constructive workers should be made aware of the political implications of their work and trained to use their programme for the ultimate objective of conscientizing the people, giving them self-confidence, and helping them to assert themselves; and

the political workers who do not realize the significance of the cultural and educational dimensions of political mobilization should be made aware of them and should be helped to give due weight to them in all political programmes.

It is only such a three-fold, simultaneous, and coordinated effort that will help us to build a movement of adequate size, force, and dynamism to put across the significant programme for educational and social transformation visualized here.

5.06 Conditions Essential for Success. Before we conclude, we would like to emphasize that there is already a great awakening among the masses, an awakening which cannot be stifled and which it is in our national interest to promote. The educational transformation proposed here can be of great assistance in promoting this mass mobilization; and this mass mobilization itself can be a powerful instrument for their education and liberation.