 ROLE OF THE UNION GOVERNMENT

1. The fact is, as is well known, that before 1947,the part played by the Central Government in the expansion and development of university education was not such as it could be proud of. In 1857, the Universities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras wore established on the pattern of the University of London. From 1870, Provincial Governments began to play a greater part educational matters, though of course, they remained subject to the control of the Government of India and the Secretary of State. By about 1900, only two more Universities, namely, the Punjab University in 1882 and the Allahabad University in 1887 were added to the three mentioned above by us. Both of them owed their creation to the Acts of the Central Legis- lature. The appointment of the Education Commission of 1882 and the Universities Commission of 1902, the Resolution of the Government of India of 1904 on educational policy, the Indian Universities Act, 1904 empowering, inter alia, the Governor-General in Council to determine the territorial limits of the Universities, the Resolution of the Government of India of 1913, the establishment in 1915 of the Bureau of Education, under the Educational Commissioner with the Government of India, with a view to collect and collate educational information in India and abroad and to arrange for the publication of educational reports and a quinquennial review on the progress of education in India, and the appointment of the Calcutta University Commission, 1917-1919 were about the only contributions that the Government of India made to the advancement of higher education in this country. The Governor-General in Council was, as Lord Morley described him, the agent of the Secretary of State who was responsible to the British Parliament for the good government of this country. Control of education, therefore, remained completely under British hands until the year 1919 when the Montague Chelmsford Act introduced a system of diarchy in Provincial Administrations and transferred education to the control of Ministers responsible to largely elected provincial legislatures. The education imparted in our universities was generally of a literary type. Scientific and technical education was neglected. The Sadler Commission, that is to say, the Calcutta University Commission emphasised the need for an Organisation to keep local governments in touch with one another and- their observations on this point are quoted below : -

"The Government of India can perform an invaluable function by defining the general aims of educational policy by giving advice and assistance to local governments and to universities, by acting as an impartial arbiter in cases of dispute, by protecting disregarded interests, by supplying organized information as to the development of educational ideas in the various provinces,

23

and also elsewhere than in India, by helping to obtain the service of scholars from other countries, by coordinating the work of various universities, and by guarding against needless duplication and overlapping in the provision of the more costly forms of education".

This recommendation was accepted by the Government of India and in August 1920, a Central Advisory Board of Education was established. The main function of the Board was to offer expert advice on important educational matters referred to it and to conduct educational, surveys, whenever required. The Board, however, was abolished on grounds of economy in 1923 but it was revived again in 1935. It was this Board which was responsible for the drawing up in 1944 a Plan of Post-War Educational Development in India generally known as the Sargeant Scheme.

2. Indian universities started meeting in conferences in 1924. Their first conference was held in Simla in May 1924. The conference recommended that a central agency in India should be created (a) to act as inter-university organisation and bureau of implementation, (b) to facilitate the exchange of professors and students, (c) to assist in the coordination of university work and the promotion of speciali- sation of functions, (d) to assist Indian universities in obtaining recognition for their degrees, diplomas and examinations in other countries. As a result of this recommendation, the Inter-University Board of India was set up. The Board has, since then, acted as a forum for discussion of University problems.

3. In 1935, the Government of India Act gave a new Constitution of a quasi-federal character to this country. One of its dis- tinguishing features was that it divided the subjects of legislation into three lists, List I which was to be the Union List, List II the State List and List III the Concurrent List. In List I, two noticeable entries were (i) Entry 12 and (ii) Entry 13.

(i) Entry 12 : Federal agencies, and institutions for the following purposes, that is to say, for research, for professional or technical training, or for the promotion of special studies.

(ii) Entry 13 : The Banaras Hindu University and the Aligarh Muslim University.

With the exception of these two Entries, education remained an entirely Provincial subject in terms of Item 17 of List II of the Seventh Schedule to the Government of India Act. It may be noted that the functions of the Government of India in the field of education were of an extremely limited character under the Government of India Act, 1935. Indian opinion too did not want the interference of the Central Government as education was a transferred subject and there was a natural reluctance on the part of Ministers and Provincial legislators to allow the Central Government to influence their policies.

4. We shall now review the work done by the Ministry of Education since we became independent. The first act of the Ministry was to appoint a high-powered commission on university education under the chairmanship of Dr. S. Radhakrishnan to report on Indian uni- versity education. The Commission surveyed the entire field of university education in the country and submitted its Report in 1949. One of the recommendations of this Commission was that university education should be placed in the Concurrent List. While agreeing with the view that in a large country like India, good government is only possible if wide powers are conferred by the Constitution upon the Provincial Governments, the Commission went on to observe that the all India aspects of university education, the repercussions and interchanges necessary and desirable between universities and the need for a national guarantee of minimum standards of efficiency, make it impossible for university education to remain a purely Provincial subject. They went on to observe that the necessary safeguards can be achieved by Concurrency and they, therefore, recommended that education should be made a Concurrent subject. The Constituent Assembly had before it the Report of the Radhakrishnan Commission. It appears to have felt that the purposes that the Radhakrishnan Commission had in mind would be met by vesting the Union Government with powers such as are to be found in Entry 66 of List I of the Seventh Schedule. They also seemed to have been of the view that the further points made by the Radhakrishnan Commission would be met by authorising Parliament to declare certain institutions of higher education to be institutions of national importance. It was on this basis that the Constituent Assembly appears to have proceeded. The question, therefore, which we have to consider is whether "the interchanges necessary and desirable between universities and the need for a national guarantee of minimum standards of efficiency" can be said to have been met by the provisions of the Constitution now in force. The Radhakrishnan Commission was itself careful to observe that it was not in favour of superimposing on, or substituting central control for the existing measure of provincial control of universities. They recognized that many of the evils present in our universities arise from the fact that they have "no real autonomy whatever, and have proved incapable of resisting pressure from outside". They were of the opinion that while "universities should be sensitive to enlightened public opinion, they should never let themselves be bullied or bribed into actions that they know to be educationally unsound or worse still, motivated by nepotism, faction and corruption." Their view was that the right public policy is "to give a university the best possible constitution, securing among other things the inclusion, of wisely chosen external members of its governing body and then to leave it free from interference." They went on to elaborate the directions in which the constitution of the universities should be framed.

5. As we have stated before, the Constituent Assembly did not accept their recommendation that university education should be a Concurrent subject. The question is whether the Education Ministry

of the Government of India has taken the initiative that was intended to make our universities real centres of higher learning. For an answer to this question, we must examine the work that the University Grants Commission which has been established by an Act of Parliament in 1956 has done in the field of university education. We may mention that even prior to 1956, the Education Ministry had taken steps to establish a University Grants Commission. It consisted of nine members including five vice-chancellors of universities, two officers of the Central Government and two other educationists of repute. Its functions were to (i) to advise Government on the allocation of grants-in-aid from public funds to Central Universities, (ii) to advise Government on the allocation of grants-in-aid to other universities and institutions of higher learning whose case for such grants may be referred to the Commission by Government; and (iii) to advise the universities and other institutions of higher learning in respect of any question referred to the Commission by the Government.

6. The University Grants Commission Act has as many as 26 Sections. Its Preamble enacts that it is intended to make provision for the coordination and determination of standards in universities. The word "University" as defined in Section 2 of the Act has been given a wide meaning and includes any institution recognized by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made by it. According to the Act, the Commission is a body corporate having perpetual succession and a common seal. It consists of nine members selected as follows --

(a) Not more than three members from among the vice- chancellors of universities ;

(b) Two members from among the officers of the Central Government to represent that Government ; and

(c) The remaining number from among persons who are educationists of repute or who have obtained high academic distinctions..

The further proviso is that one-half of the total number so chosen shall be from among persons who are not officers of the Central Government or of any State Government. The appointing authority is the Central Government and members hold office for a period of six years. but one-third retire on the expiration of the third year in accordance with the procedure prescribed and their vacancies are filled up by fresh appointment. The office of the Chairman is a whole-time salaried one. The Commission has been empowered to associate with itself any person in such manner and for such purposes it may desire in carrying out any of the provisions of this Act.

7. We shall now come to the question of the vital provisions of the powers and functions of the Commission. They are to be found in Section 12. That Section empowers the Commission for the promotion and coordination of university education and for the determination and

maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities-

(a) to enquire into the financial needs of universities;

(b) to allocate and disburse, out of the Fund of the Commission, grants to universities established or incorporated by or under a Central Act;

(c) to allocate and disburse out of the Fund of the Commission such grants to other universities as it may deem necessary for the development of such universities or for any general or specified purpose subject, however, to the condition that the Commission shall give consideration to the development of the university concerned, its financial needs, the standard attained by it and the national purposes which it may serve.

8. It will be seen that whereas the Commission can grant funds for the maintenance and development of Central universities it can allocate and disburse grants to other universities only for the purpose of development. Their maintenance is not its concern. The Commission has been further empowered to recommend measures necessary for the improvement of university education and advise a university upon the action to be taken for the purposes of implementing such recommendation, advise the Central Government or any State Government on the allocation of any grants to universities for any general or specified purpose out of the Consolidated Fund of India or the Consolidated Fund of the State, as the case may be; advise any authority, if such advice is asked for, on the establishment of a new university or on proposals connected with the expansion of the activities of any university; advise the Central Government or any State Government or university on any question which may be referred to the Commission by the Central Government or the State Government or the university, as the case may be; collect information on all such matters relating to university education in India and other countries as it thinks fit and make the same available to any university; require a university to furnish it with such information as may be needed relating to the financial position of the university or the studies in the various branches of learning undertaken in that university together with all the rules and regulations relating to the standards of teaching and examination in that university respecting each of such branches of learning, and perform such other functions as may be prescribed or as may be deemed necessary by the Commission for advancing the cause of higher education in India or as may be incidental or conducive to the discharge of the above functions.

9. The most important power which has been given to the Commission is that it can under Section 13 for the purpose of ascertaining the financial needs of a university or its standards of teaching, examination and research and after consultation with the university, order an inspection of any department or departments thereof to be made in such

manner as may be prescribed or by such person or persons as it may direct. It will be obligatory on the Commission to communicateto the university the data on which such inspection is made and the university shall be entitled to be associated with it. It will be open to the Commission to communicate to the university its views in regard to the results of any such inspection and it may after ascertaining the opinion of the university recommend to the university the action to be taken as a result of such inspection.

10. Section 14 of the Act authorizes the Commission to withhold grants after taking into consideration explanations offered by the university for failure on the part of the university to comply with its recommendations. The Central Government has, as required by the Act, to pay to the Commission such sums as may be considered necessary for the purpose of its functions and the Act makes it clear that the Commission shall have its own funds. It is not necessary to refer to the other provisions of the Act as they are Mostly of non- controversial character. It was pressed before us by some of the eminent men whom we interviewed that the powers of the University Grants Commission are analogous to those of the University Grants Committee of Britain which, however, is appointed by Exchequer and is responsible to it for its functioning. There is no doubt that the financial powers as also those of inspection which the Commission possesses vest it with great authority over the universities of this country. They can, if wisely utilized, help to ensure coordination and determination of standards such as no legislative enactment administered by a ministerial wing of the Government can do.

11. The question, however, which we have to consider is whether the University Grants Commission has served all the purposes for which it was intended. Its record of work is, in our opinion, impressive. It has appointed a number of review committees. There is no doubt in our opinion that the University Grants Commission has helped to main- tain standards and by far the most valuable service that it has done is to raise salary scales of university teachers and research scholars. But it has not been able to solve fully the problem of affiliated colleges, for it has no direct connection with them. Steps have to be taken to improve further the scales of the salaries of hundreds of teachers who are to be found in our aided colleges and institutions. The consolidated grant to the University Grants Commission for the period of the Third Five Year Plan was Rs. 37 crores. The number of universities has increased from 16 in 1947-48 to 55 at present. It cannot be said that the grant that the Commission is getting is at all adequate for the purposes of improving the needs of university education and higher research. It was pointed out to us by Dr. Kothari that in order that University Grants Commission might be able to discharge its functions efficiently it was necessary to raise the grant to ten-fold. This would be exclusive of the amount needed for the development of research facilities and the expenditure which the States must incur on secondary and higher secon- dary education, for education must be looked upon as one integrated

whole. What must be aimed at is that our educational standards should compare with the best standards in the international world. Nothing less than this can or should be our objective.

12. We are also of the opinion that the work demanded by the existence of 55 universities and enormous number of affiliated colleges is for too heavy for one whole-time chairman and eight part- time members. We, therefore, are clearly of the opinion that the number of whole-time members of the University Grants Commission must not be less than five educationists of the highest distinction in the country. Importance should be attached in appointing whole-time members, to the fact that they are recognized experts in various disciplines including the professions. Besides five whole-time members, we suggest an additional membership of 10 members to be selected on much the same basis as the present members are. Care should, however, be taken that the Commission is so constituted as to be a microcosm of educational and scientific India. A question upon which there was some divergence of opinion was whether serving Vice- Chancellors should be allowed to be members of the University Grants Commission. The British Grants Committee has no serving Vice- Chancellors among its members. It was stressed by Dr. C. P. Ramaswami Aiyar and some other educationists that serving Vice-Chancellors should not be appointed as members of the University Grants Commission. There is much to be said for this point of view but the difficulty is that the number of distinguished educationists in this country is limited. We are, however, of the view that serving Vice- Chancellors should not be appointed as members of the University Grants Commission. We think that the power of inspection which the Act vests in the Commission should be exercised more frequently than has been the case so far. Regular inspection of institutions should help both the process of coordination and maintenance of standards. With five full time members it should be possible to organize teams of inspections aided by coopted members who will not generally be members of the Commission. The salary of the Chairman of the University Grants Commission is Rs. 3000 per month. We record our appreciation of the fact that the present Chairman, Dr. Kothari, has on his own initiative been drawing only Rs. 1800 per month. He has subjected himself to a voluntary cut. We think that the salary of a member of the Commission should be adequate to ensure that they are men of status not lower than that of a Vice-Chancellor.