The
Marxist
Volume:
3,
No:
3-4
July
–
December
1985
THE
ONGOING
DEBATE
ON
THE
GOVERMENTS
proposed
changes
in
the
filed
of
education-
the
so-called
New
Education
Policy-has
brought
to
the
fore
one
important
question.
What
are
the
factors
that
determine
the
extent
and
type
of
education
that
is
provided
at
any
point
of
time
in
history;
and
under
different
social
system?
The
history
of
human
civilisation
shows
that
at
all
points
of
time
and
under
different
forms
of
social
organisation,
the
determining
factor
has
been
the
requirements
of
the
ruling
classes.
Marx
and
Engels
observed:
“The
ideas
of
the
ruling
class
are
in
every
epoch,
the
ruling
ideas:
i.e.,
the
class
which
is
the
ruling
material
force
of
society
is
at
the
same
time
its
ruling
intellectual
force.
The
class
which
has
the
means
of
material
production
at
its
disposal,
consequently
also
controls
the
means
of
mental
production
so
that
the
ideas
of
those
who
lack
the
means
of
mental
production
are
on
the
whole
subject
to
it.
The
ruling
ideas
are
nothing
more
than
the
idea
the
ideal
expression
of
the
dominant
material
relations;
dominant
material
relations,
grasped
as
ideas:
hence
of
the
relations
which
made
the
one
class
the
ruling
one,
therefore,
the
ideas
of
its
dominance.
The
individuals
composing
the
ruling
class
posses
among
other
things,
consciousness,
and
therefore
think.
In
so
far
therefore,
as
they
rule
as
a
class
and
determine
the
extent
and
compass
of
an
historical
epoch
it
is
self-evident
that
they
do
this
in
its
whole
range,
hence
among
other
things
rule
also
as
thinkers,
as
producers
of
ideas,
and
regulate
the
production
and
distribution
of
the
ideas
of
their
age;
thus
their
ideas
are
the
ruling
ideas
of
the
epoch.”
(German
Ideology,
Moscow
1976,
p.
67
emphasis
added)
In
class
societies,
therefore,
the
ruling
classes
consciously
seek
to
regulate
the
production
and
distribution
of
ideas.
Education
as
a
method
of
transmitting
these
ideas
develops
only
within
the
confines
of
the
interests
of
the
ruling
classes.
However,
as
class
antagonisms
develop,
sharpen
and
express
themselves
in
the
struggle
of
contending
classes,
these
also
find
expression
in
the
realm
of
ideas
and
consciousness.
Engels
observed,
“And
as
society
has
hitherto
moved
in
class
antagonisms,
morality
was
always
a
class
morality:
it
has
either
justified
the
domination
and
interests
of
the
ruling
class,
or,
as
soon
as
the
expressed
class
has
become
powerful
enough,
it
has
represented
the
revolt
against
this
domination
and
the
future
interests
of
the
oppressed.”
(Anti
Duhring,
1977,
p.117)
In
all
societies
prior
to
capitalism,
the
process
of
education
is
essentially
confined
to
those
sections
belonging
to
the
ruling
classes,
i.e.,
to
those
who,
consequent
to
the
division
of
material
and
mental
labour,
have
leisure
at
their
disposal
to
conduct
the
affairs
of
the
society
and
plan
productive
activities.
The
examples
of
Greek
institutions
and
more
specifically
the
Indian
system
of
‘Gurukuls’
illustrate
this
fact.
The
story
of
“Ekalavya’
illustrates
the
fact
that
not
only
was
education
confined
to
the
ruling
classes
but
that
the
laboring
classes
were
disallowed
from
the
learning.
It
is
only
with
the
emergence
and
development
of
capitalism
that
these
confines
are
broken.
With
the
development
of
productive
forces
it
becomes
necessary
for
the
bourgeoisie
to
impart
literacy,
technical
skills
and
knowledge
to
the
proletariat.
While
the
spread
of
education
beyond
the
confines
of
the
ruling
class
is
necessitated
by
the
development
of
capitalism,
this
does
not
mean
that
the
class
purpose
in
education
is
eliminated.
It
continues
as
long
as
the
society
is
divided
into
classes.
Studies
in
the
development
of
education
in
the
industrialised
countries
confirms
the
pattern
that
the
mass
of
working
people
are
to
be
educated
to
the
necessary
extent,
determined
by
the
development
of
the
productive
forces
along.
In
Britain,
“The
key
issue
in
education
at
the
turn
of
the
century
was
related
to
the
spread
of
education
for
the
lower
orders’.
In
this,
the
influence
of
religion
was
dominant.
The
aim
was
to
produce
a
god-fearing,
law-abiding
and
industrious
workforce:
sober,
honest,
literate
citizens
imbued
with
a
with
a
sense
of
duty…
Training
of
the
mind
and
formation
of
character
were
paramount
objectives
of
the
private
schools
and
grammar
schools,
largely
the
preserve
of
the
upper
classes…”
(Education
and
industry
in
the
19th
Century-
G
W
Roderick
and
M
D
Stephens
Longman,
1948)
Education
was
also
seen
as
an
element
of
capitalist
social
control.
The
following
quotation
of
one,
the
Reverend
George
Washington
Hosmer
who
led
a
struggle
for
public
education
in
the
1840s,
sums
up
the
role
of
education
as
envisaged
in
that
period.
He
said,
“Thousands
among
us
have
not
dreamed
of
the
effect
of
popular
education:
they
have
complained
of
its
expensivenesses,
not
foreseen
that
it
will
diminish
vagrancy
and
pauperism
and
crime,
that
it
will
be
an
antidote
to
mobs;
and
prevent
the
necessity
of
a
standing
army
to
keep
our
own
people
in
order.
Every
people
may
make
their
own
choice,
‘to
pay
teachers
or
recruiting
sergeants’,
to
support
schools
or
constable
and
watchmen.”
With
the
emergence
of
monopoly
the
education
system
develops
in
such
a
manner
that
science
and
knowledge
are
regulated
and
placed
more
decisively
at
the
disposal
and
service
of
capital.
Marx’s
analysis
in
Capital
reveals
that
in
a
capitalist
society
science
becomes
“a
productive
force
distinct
from
labour
and
pressed
into
the
service
of
capital”.
(Capital,
Vol.
I,
p.
361).
In
the
era
of
monopoly
capitalism,
scientific
research
is
more
highly
organized
than
ever
before,
but
always
with
the
overriding
aim
of
private
profit,
and
devoted
increasingly
to
war.
The
training
of
natural
scientists
is
so
departmentalised
as
to
make
it
difficult
to
acquire
a
theoretical
grasp
of
natural
science
as
a
whole,
and
they
receive
no
training
at
all
in
the
study
of
human
society.
Conversely,
social
and
historical
studies
are
cut
off
from
the
natural
sciences
and
from
each
other.
Economics
is
separated
from
history
and
both
from
policies.
History
is
taught
it
was
not
a
branch
of
science
at
all.
In
the
natural
sciences,
a
student
may
know
nothing
of
Marxism,
yet
at
least
he
recognize
the
dialectical
processes
in
nature,
even
thought
many
may
not
know
them
by
that
time.
But
the
laws
of
dialectics
mean
nothing
to
the
bourgeois
historian,
who
may
not
recognize,
or
deliberately
conceals,
class
struggle.
The
development
of
the
education
system
in
India
under
the
British
was
directly
determined
by
the
needs
of
the
colonial
powers.
Following
the
transfer
of
power,
the
Central
Advisory
Board
of
Education
(CABE)
decided,
in
January
1947,
to
set
up-two
Commissions-
one
to
deal
with
university
education
and
the
other
to
deal
with
secondary
education,
recognizing
the
fact
that
the
requirements
of
independent
India
would
be
different,
and
hence
a
restructuring
of
the
system
was
imminent.
This
decision
came
at
a
time,
when
the
promises
made
to
the
people
in
the
field
of
education
during
the
Freedom
Struggle,
were
to
be
implemented.
Free
and
compulsory
education
up
to
the
age
of
14
was
being
debated
in
the
Constituent
Assembly,
which
ultimately
found
expression
in
the
in
the
Directive
Principles
of
State
policy.
The
scheme
that
seems
to
have
been
worked
out
was
that
universal
elementary
education
would
be
achieved
by
1960,
and
necessary
changes
in
the
secondary
as
well
as
higher
education
would
have
to
be
made
in
accordance
with
the
needs
of
an
independent
India.
The
first
of
the
Commissions
to
be
appointed
was
the
University
Education
Commission
in
1984,
under
the
chairmanship
of
Dr
S
Radhakrishnan,
“To
report
on
Indian
university
education
and
suggest
improvements
and
extensions
of
the
country.”
This
commission,
which
produced
a
comprehensive
and
voluminous
report,
set
for
itself
the
task
of
re-orienting
the
education
system
to
face
the
“great
problem,
national
and
social,
the
acquisition
of
economic
independence,
the
increase
of
general
prosperity,
the
attainment
of
an
effective
democracy,
overriding
the
distinctions
of
casts
and
creed,
rich
and
poor,
and
a
rise
in
the
level
of
culture.
For
a
quick
and
effective
realization
of
these
aims,
education
is
a
powerful
weapon
if
it
is
organized
efficiently
and
in
public
interest.
As
we
claim
to
be
a
civilized
people,
we
must
regard
the
higher
education
of
the
rising
generation
as
one
of
our
principle
concerns.”
(p.411)
Implicit
in
this
was
the
task
that
was
also
repeatedly
stated
by
Nehru,
that
the
achievement
of
political
independence
must
be
transformed
into
economic
independence.
Towards
this
end,
there
was
a
need
to
increase
the
trained
and
skilled
personnel
who
would
undertake
this
task.
The
transformation
of
political
independence
into
economic
independence,
in
class
terms,
meant
that
the
progress
of
capitalist
development
adopted
by
the
Indian
ruling
classes
was
to
be
rapidly
ensured.
Economic
independence,
in
terms
of
propaganda,
was
equated
to
the
increase
of
general
prosperity.
The
essential
task
of
the
Commission
corresponding
to
these
class
needs
therefore,
were
to
reorient
the
educational
system
towards
achieving
economic
independence
and
attainment
of
value
to
ensure
an
effective
democracy.
Towards
this
end,
the
report
of
the
Commission
discussed
the
re-orientation
of
higher
education
in
relation
to
the
five
basic
tenets
of
our
Constitution-Democracy,
Justice,
Liberty,
Equality
and
fraternity.
The
idea
of
the
report
was
to
remould
the
education
system
as
an
ideological
support
to
parliamentary
democracy.
“We
know
what
Hitler
did
in
six
years
with
the
German
youth.
The
Russians
are
clear
in
their
minds
about
the
kind
of
society
for
which
they
are
educating
and
the
qualities
required
in
their
citizens….
Our
education
system
must
find
its
guiding
principles
in
the
aims
of
the
social
order
for
which
it
prepares.”
(P.19)
On
the
question
of
economic
independence,
the
report
noted
the
“urgent
need
of
technicians”
–
“there
is
an
urgent
need
for
such
occupations
and
skills
all
over
the
country,
which
“will
train
a
large
and
growing
body
of
ambitious
youth
for
employment
as
technician,
and
various
existing
industries.
They
will
ensure
a
continuous
flow
of
skilled
workers
for
several
modern
industries
which
are
being
started...
we
are
strongly
of
the
opinion
that
each
province
should
have
a
large
number
of
occupational
institutes,
preferably
one
in
each
district,
giving
training
in
an
many
occupations
as
possible.”
(p.
59-60)
This
was
reinforced
by
the
Secondary
Education
Commission
appointed
in
September
1952,
with
Dr
Lakshmanaswami
Mudaliar
as
the
Chairman.
The
report
was
submitted
to
the
first
Parliament
in
1953.
Reflecting
the
needs
of
the
ruling
classes,
the
report
in
the
Chapter,
Reorientation
of
Aims
and
Objectives,
notes
“one
of
its
(India’s)
most
urgent
problems-if
not
the
most
urgent
problem
–
is
to
improve
productive
efficiency
to
increase
the
national
wealth,
and
thereby
to
raise
appreciably
the
standard
of
living
of
the
people.”
(p.
23)
Further
it
outlines
the
“dominant
needs”
–
“training
of
character
of
fit
students
to
participate
creatively
as
citizens
in
the
emerging
democratic
social
order;
the
improvement
of
their
practical
and
vocational
efficiency
so
that
they
may
play
their
part
in
building
up
the
economic
prosperity
of
their
country;
and
the
development
of
their
literary,
artistic
and
cultural
interests.”
(p.23)
Needless
to
add
the
thrust
of
the
recommendations
that
follow
refer
only
to
the
first
two
needs.
And
of
these
it
clearly
emphasizes
the
second:
“Side
by
side
with
the
development
of
this
attitude,
(new
attitude
to
work-dignity
of
labour
however
‘lowly’),
there
is
a
need
to
promote
technical
skill
and
efficiency
at
all
stages
of
education
to
as
to
provide
trained
and
efficient
personnel
to
work
out
schemes
of
industrial
and
technological
advancement.
In
the
past,
our
education
has
been
so
academic
and
theoretical
and
so
divorced
from
practical
work,
that
the
educated
classes
have,
generally
speaking,
failed
to
make
any
enormous
contribution
to
the
development
of
this
country’s
national
resources
and
to
add
to
national
wealth.
This
must
now
change….”
(p.
27)
An
eloquent
expression
of
the
needs
of
the
ruling
classes
of
an
independent
country.
The
report
went
on
to
recommend
the
setting
up
of
technical
schools,
polytechnics,
strengthening
multipurpose
education,
central
technical
institutions,
etc.
---
in
fact
the
infrastructure
that
would
produce
the
large
technical
manpower.
In
conformity
with
the
aspirations
for
rapid
capitalist
development,
the
ruling
classes
required
to
draw
in
the
maximum
number
of
young
people
into
this
process.
This
necessitated,
in
addition
to
the
demands
of
the
national
movement,
that
education
should
be
imparted
in
the
mother
tongue.
Accordingly
the
commission
recommended
that,
“the
mother
tongue
i.e.,
the
regional
language,
should
generally
be
the
medium
of
instruction
throughout
the
secondary
school
stage.”
In
addition
it
suggested
the
teaching
of
English
and
Hindi
but
at
different
stage
of
education.
(p.
226)
These
two
reports
put
together
sum
up
the
necessary
reorientation
of
the
education
system
in
conformity
with
the
needs
of
the
ruling
classes
aspiring
for
the
speedy
development
of
capitalism.
Following
this
came
the
recommendations
of
increased
financial
allocations,
and
the
mother
tongue
as
the
medium
of
instruction,
with
a
view
to
creating
a
large
skilled
manpower
reserve
necessary
for
capitalist
development.
These
were
subsequently
abandoned
as
the
crisis
deepened.
Whilst
the
recommendations
of
these
Commissions
were
being
implemented
and
a
rapid
expansion
of
education
taking
place,
howsoever
distant
it
may
have
been
from
meeting
the
requirements
of
the
people,
the
objective
situation
was
calling
for
a
halt,
if
not
reversal,
in
this
expansion.
By
the
beginning
of
the
60s
signs
of
a
growing
educated-unemployed
were
being
noticed.
The
situation
now
necessitated
a
review
of
the
education
system
as
a
whole-previous
Commissions
had
dealt
with
separate
aspects-university,
secondary
education,
etc.
-and
the
Education
Commission
of
1964
was
appointed
with
Dr
D
S
Kothari
as
Chairman,
and
popularly
known
as
the
Kothari
Commission.
The
Commission
presented
an
extremely
comprehensive
report-to
date
still
the
most
comprehensive-
in
1966.
The
report,
entitled
Education
and
National
Development
noted
in
its
forward:
“Indian
education
needs
a
drastic
reconstitution,
almost
a
revolution.
Tinkering
with
the
existing
situation
and
moving
forward
with
faulty
steps
and
lack
of
faith
can
make
things
worse
than
before.”
The
report
in
fact
was
reflecting
the
social
and
political
expression
of
the
economic
crisis
of
the
period.
On
the
one
hand
it
made
recommendations
that
reflected
the
democratic
aspirations
of
the
Indian
people
regarding
free
and
compulsory
education,
increased
outlays
for
education,
etc.,
on
the
other,
recommendations
leading
to
the
restriction
of
higher
education.
The
policy
resolution
following
the
submission
of
the
report
was
adopted
in
1968,
at
a
time
when
the
economic
crisis
arising
out
of
the
capitalist
path
of
development
was
finding
sharp
political
expression.
Mass
discontent
against
the
Congress
policies,
the
rising
protest
of
the
student
community
against
the
deteriorating
situation
and
fall
in
employment
opportunities,
etc.,
had
culminated
in
the
rejection
of
the
Congress
in
several
States
of
the
country
in
the
1967
general
elections,
and
the
active
role
of
the
student
community
in
this
process
was
viewed
with
great
concern
by
the
ruling
class.
The
education
policy
resolution
of
1968
in
fact,
had
very
little
to
do
with
the
overall
recommendations
of
the
Kothari
Commission.
Only
those
aspects,
which
suited
the
ruling
classes,
the
three-
language
formula,
the
centers
of
excellence,
governance
of
universities,
etc.,
were
incorporated.
In
relation
to
governance,
the
government
found
the
Kothari
Commission
lacking
in
many
respects
and
appointed
the
Ganhendragadkar
Commission
in
1969
to
go
into
this
question.
The
recommendations
of
this
Commission
regarding
the
appointment
of
Vice-Chancellors,
structure
and
composition
of
University
Senates,
etc.,
which
gave
the
state
a
greater
control
over
the
administration
of
higher
education,
corresponded
to
the
ruling
class
interests,
and
hence
was
implemented.
The
increasing,
general
drive
towards
authoritarianism
in
the
country
by
the
ruling
class
and
its
Government
became
all
embracing
penetrating
also
into
the
field
of
education.
Recognising
the
need
to
effectively
control
education
and
educational
institutions,
one
of
the
major
developments
of
this
period
was
the
constitutional
amendment
during
the
Emergency
to
remove
education
from
the
state
List
and
place
it
in
the
Concurrent
List.
The
formation
of
the
Janta
Government
after
the
defeat
of
the
Congress
in
the
1977
elections
saw
another
attempt
at
tailoring
the
educational
system
with
the
draft
education
policy
of
1978.
This
emphasised,
amongst
other
things,
‘non-formal’
education,
giving
the
Gandhian
model
as
the
ideological
support
to
its
argument.
In
essence,
it
comprised
non-formal
education
for
the
poor,
and
formal
education
for
the
rich.
With
the
early
fall
of
the
Janta
Party;
this
education
policy
was
never
implemented.
In
the
face
of
the
deepening
international
crisis
of
capitalism,
the
ruling
classes
in
our
country
today,
find
it
increasingly
necessary
to
rely
on
capital-intensive
technology,
in
order
to
successfully
compete
in
the
international
market,
particularly
when
exports
are
increasingly
determining
their
level
of
economic
activity,
as
to
maintain
and
increase
their
profits
levels.
This
necessity
finds
expression
in
the
recent
shifts
in
the
economic
strategy-the
thrust
of
the
Seventh
Plan,
the
1985
budget,
the
heavy
concessions
given
to
the
private
sector,
liberalization
of
the
imports,
etc.
The
Seventh
Plan
document
expresses
this
eloquently.
“The
success
of
policy
adjustment
will
therefore
depend,
among
other
things,
on
the
responsiveness
of
large
firms,
and
on
their
willingness
to
equip
for,
and
invest
in,
a
substantial
expansion
of
export
operations
instead
of
continuing
to
rely
mainly
would
mobilize
finances,
organize
supplies
and
develop
commercial
contacts
to
establish
export
markets.”
(Seventh
Five-Year,
Vol.
I,
p.
77,
para
6.
54.)
Having
already
narrowed
the
domestic
market,
dependence
on
exports
becomes
necessary
for
the
ruling
classes
to
perpetuate
their
rule.
This
requires
the
induction
of
modern
foreign
technology,
leading
to
an
increase
in
foreign
collaborations
and
opening
the
doors
of
our
economy
wider
to
exploitation
by
multinationals.
As
the
Plan
Document
states,
“….
virtual
freeing
of
exports
from
the
adverse
impact
of
import
restrictions.”
(Ibid
Vol.
II
para
6.55)
There
is
an
important
consequence
here
of
relevance
to
the
field
of
education.
The
large-scale
induction
of
modern
technology
requires
a
manpower
capable
of
manning
it.
This
is
what
is
implied
when
the
Plan
Document
talks
of
“high
quality
and
excellence”
in
education,
and
‘removal
of
obsolescence,
and
modernization
of
technical
education”,
(Vol.
II,
p.
255
para
10.22)
meaning
that
a
small
volume
of
intellectual
manpower,
trained
in
modern
methods,
is
what
is
the
need
of
the
hour,
while
the
vast
masses
can
remain
illiterate.
The
education
system,
therefore,
must
be
reoriented
to
suit
the
contemporary
needs
of
the
ruling
classes.
This
need
was
aptly
expressed
by
the
Prime
Minister
at
the
Conference
of
State
Education
Ministers
in
August
1985:
“We
cannot
cut
ourselves
off
from
rest
of
the
world
and
carry
on
in
a
bullock-cart
age.
Not
because
we
want
to
advance
and
we
want
to
have
fancy
gadgets
and
fancy
things,
but
because
it
is
just
too
expensive
to
do
so.
We
cannot
afford
old
technology
that
costs
us
very
much
more.
And
when
we
look
at
the
cost
of
our
technology,
it
is
not
just
a
matter
of
seeing
how
many
people
are
employed
and
how
many
are
not
employed,
but
what
is
the
productivity
for
a
given
investment.”
(empahasis
added)
The
document,
Challenge
of
Education
–
a
Policy
Perspective,
recently
released
by
the
Government
is
to
seen
in
this
background.
Notwithstanding
all
the
usual
rhetoric
the
document,
in
essence,
contains
recommendations
that
reflect
the
needs
of
the
ruling
classes
at
the
moment.
The
severe
indictment
the
document
makes
of
the
present
state
of
affairs
is
put
forward
as
a
plea
for
change.
The
Education
Minister’s
foreword
to
the
document
ingenuously
notes:
“If
resources
constraints
and
resistance
to
institutional
change
had
not
circumscribed
educational
orientation,
the
present
scenario
of
education
would
have
been
qualitatively
different.”
The
document
upholds
many
criticisms
made
up
the
democratic
movement
regarding
the
present
education
system.
But
such
an
indictment
only
reflects
the
fact
that
the
education
system
that
the
ruling
classes
themselves
had
built
in
the
past,
no
longer
suits
present
interests.
For
example
the
document
states;
“History
has
established
beyond
doubt,
the
crucial
role
played
by
human
resources
in
the
development
of
nations.
And
the
development
of
human
resources
is
the
main
function
of
education.”(Vol.
I
para
1.4)
An
undisputed
fact.
But,
development
in
which
direction?
This
is
clarified
by
stating;
“While
the
content
and
methodology
of
education
can
be
determined
on
a
priority
basis
for
the
development
of
the
individual
personality,
in
so
far
as
the
specific
tasks
in
respect
of
technological,
economic
and
social
goals
re
concerned,
education
must
respond
to
the
imperatives
flowing
from
the
native
and
direction
of
national
development.”
(Vol.
I
para
1.18)
The
document
in
fact
while
bemoaning
the
existing
state
of
affairs,
expresses
a
great
deal
of
concern
for
the
future.
The
foreword
again
notes;
“If
the
new
generation
entering
the
21st
century,
finds
itself
ill-equipped,
it
will
hold
the
present
generation
responsible
for
its
inadequacies.”
The
class
nature
of
this
concern
is
expressed
thus:
“Our
position
in
respect
of
elementary
education,
even
in
comparison
with
the
majority
of
developing
countries,
is
highly
unsatisfactory.
If
adequate
provisions
are
not
made
even
now
for
school
facilities,
the
requisite
number
of
teachers,
restructuring
of
the
syllabi
and
methods
of
teachings,
we
will
be
marching
into
the
21st
century
with
an
unacceptably
large
corpus
of
illiterate
people.
The
poor
will
thus
stand
doubly
deprived,
the
adults
will
be
living
at
a
low
level
of
subsistence,
while
their
children
will
be
condemned
to
a
life
of
ignorance
and
squalor.
Even
for
those,
who
are
more
happily
placed,
the
poor
and
the
ignorant
will
be
like
millstones
around
their
necks.
Moreover,
it
is
highly
improbable
that
the
country
will
go
on
tolerating
the
double
deprivation
depicted
above.
To
do
nothing
is
to
invite
tensions
beyond
the
control
of
the
law
and
order
machinery.
As
a
democratic
country
interested
in
socio-political
evolution
in
a
peaceful
and
orderly
fashion,
India
must
firmly
rule
out
the
default
option.”
(para
3.9,
emphasis
added)
On
the
one
hand,
therefore,
the
ruling
classes
see
the
need
to
reorient
the
education
system
to
make
it
capable
of
producing
the
intellectual
manpower
corresponding
to
the
needs
of
modern
technology
and,
on
the
other,
the
vast
millions
condemned
to
ignorance
and
squalor
must
be
controlled
so
that
they
may
not
create
problems,
“beyond
the
control
of
the
law
and
order
machinery”.
Populist
propaganda
to
mislead
and
enlist
the
support
of
these
sections,
and
repressive
measure
against
the
democratic
movement
of
students,
teachers
and
the
non-teaching
staff,
are
combined
to
ensure
the
implementation
of
these
changes.
On
the
position
with
regard
to
the
promise
of
universal
education,
the
document
admits
that
the
Constitutional
Directive
on
free
and
compulsory
education
to
all
children
in
the
age
group
of
6-14
years,
which
had
fulfilled
by
1960,
but
subsequently
extended
to
1990,
remains
a
distant
target
even
in
1985.
It
states:
“The
age
specific
population
in
the
age
group
of
6-14
in
the
year
1981
is
calculated
to
be
approximately
15
crores.
In
1981,
9.3
crore
pupils
were
enrolled
in
elementary
education,
0.95
crore
in
secondary,
and
0.31
crore
in
higher
education.
Assuming
that
the
growth
rate
of
the
population
would
be
1.5
per
cent,
then
the
age
specific
population
in
this
age
group
would
be
17.4
crores
in
1990.
if
the
past
pattern
of
educational
development
continues,
particularly
in
terms
of
the
growth
of
enrolment
and
the
retention
rate,
11.2
crore
children
will
be
enrolled
in
elementary
education
under
the
formal
system,
while
another
1.15
and
0.38
crore
will
be
in
the
secondary
and
higher
education
levels
respectively.”
(Vol.
1,
para
4.61)
In
other
words,
in
1990,
there
will
be
467
lakh
children
outside
the
schools.
These
calculations
are
based
on
an
estimated
population
growth
of
1.5
per
cent,
whereas
for
the
decade
1980-90,
the
growth
is
likely
to
be
around
2.5
per
cent.
In
reality
therefore
at
least
800
lakh
children
will
remain
outside
the
schooling
system
in
1990.
The
document
further
states:
“Assuming
that
universal
elementary
education
is
achieved
by
1990,
out
of
the
total
age-specific
population
of
17.4
crore,
11
crore
pupils
should
be
in
the
primary
stage
and
the
remaining
6.4
crore
in
the
middle
stage.
It
may
be
noted
that
this
achievement
implies
that
primary
education
will
be
1.5
times,
and
the
middle
3.2
times
of
its
present
size.
Such
an
expansion
will
have
a
significant
impact
on
the
education
expenditure
as
well.
It
is
estimated
that
in
terms
of
1980-81
prices,
and
assuming
the
per
unit
costs
of
1977-78
to
stay
put,
the
budgetary
requirements
for
the
year
1909-91
will
be
doubled
to
Rs
3200
croroe
(the
1980-81
expenditure
being
Rs
1537
crore).
On
the
basis
of
an
eight
per
cent
per
annum
rate
of
inflation,
the
budget
in
current
prices
would
be
more
than
four
times
the
1980-81
allocations.”
(Vol.
1.
para
4.62,
emphasis
added).
The
assumption
of
constant
per
unit
cost
is
not
tenable.
The
document
itself
notes
in
Table
13
of
Volume
II,
that
the
average
cost
per
pupil
increased
by
seven
per
cent
between
1950-1975.
For
primary
schools,
the
cost
rose
from
Rs
20
per
pupil
in
1950,
to
Rs
95.5
in
1975,
i.e.,
a
five-fold
increase.
Taking
this
into
account
the
budget
for
1990-91
would
have
to
be
at
least
eight
times
the
1980-81
allocation.
This
in
turn
means,
as
the
document
states,
additional
expenditure
on
teachers
who
will
be
twice
as
many
in
1990.
Considering
that
the
document
itself
notes
that
expenditure
on
teachers’
salaries
is
95
per
cent
of
total
expenditure,
(Vol.
II
p.
1-18,
para
3.73),
this
will
mean
that
the
budget
would
have
to
be
sixteen
times
that
of
the
1980-81
allocations.
“In
addition,
the
universalisation
of
elementary
education
by
1990
will
also
imply
that
even
at
the
existing
transition
rates,
enrolment
in
the
secondary
and
higher
education
levels
will
increase
to
nearly
twice
their
1980-81
enrollments.
However,
keeping
in
view
the
fact
that
the
per
unit
cost
of
secondary
and
higher
education
is
several
times
higher
than
the
per
unit
cost
of
elementary
education,
the
overall
impact
on
the
educational
budget
would
be
tremendous.”
(Ibid
para
4.63)
In
other
words,
the
achievement
of
universal
elementary
education
means
that
at
the
minimum,
the
allocation
for
1990-91
will
have
to
be
Rs
25,000
crore
at
1980-81
prices.
This
may
appear
a
staggering
amount
in
comparison
to
the
existing
allocations.
But
in
reality,
it
works
out
to
only
around
six
per
cent
of
the
Seventh
Plan
outlay.
This
was
precisely
the
recommendation
of
the
Kothari
Commission.
The
democratic
movement
in
our
country
has
been
demanding
an
allocation
of
least
10
per
cent.
Such
an
allocation
would
not
only
allow
universalisation,
but
also
expansion
at
the
higher
levels.
However,
having
made
the
above
analysis
the
document
not
surprisingly,
fails
to
make
any
concrete
suggestions
in
this
regard.
An
increase
in
expenditure
on
education
is
not
in
tune
with
the
requirement
of
the
ruling
classes.
On
the
contrary,
the
need
is
to
reduce
this
‘unproductive’
expenditure
and
utilize
the
allocation
for
training
only
that
level
of
manpower
as
is
required.
Reflecting
this,
the
document
asserts:
“Policy
deliberations
vis-à-vis
universalisation
have
tobe
matched
by
hard
financial
decisions.”
(para
4.64).
And
the
Government
has
taken
such
decision.
The
Seventh
Plan
document
reveals
that
the
allocation
for
the
entire
period
of
five
years
ending
1990-91,
for
General
Education,
including
Adult
Education,
is
a
mere
Rs
4775.3
crore.
Elementary
education
receives
only
Rs
1830.45
crore.
And,
in
doing
so,
the
Government
is
announcing,
for
the
first
time
since
independence,
that
it
is
abandoning
its
social
responsibility
of
implementing
the
Constitutional
Directive.
It
is
abandoning
universal
elementary
education.
Notwithstanding
all
talk
of
according
priority
to
universalisation,
the
Seventh
Plan
document
clearly
states;
“Increasing
enrolment
in
full-time
schools
beyond
this
level
of
137
million
in
classes
I
to
VIII
might
not
be
feasible.”
(Vol.
II
p
255para
10.25)
This
is
with
reference
to
1990-91,
when
the
estimated
population
in
this
age
group
will
be
174
million,
on
the
unrealistic
assumption
of
a
1.5
per
cent
population
growth.
Taking
into
account
the
actual
rate
of
population
growth,
this
means
that,
assuming
the
fulfillment
of
targets,
which
itself
is
unlikely,
the
Plan
has
ruled
that
around
60
million
students
will
be
outside
of
the
schooling
system.
These
figures
moreover,
are
on
the
basis
of
what
is
known
as
the
Gross
Enrollment
Ratio
(GER).
What
is
thereby
concealed
is
the
fact
that
a
100
per
cent
GER
does
not
imply
universalisation.
Volume
II
of
the
draft,
whose
circulation
was
deliberately
restricted,
notes
that,
“GER
is
a
rough
indicator
for
measuring
our
efforts
to
achieve
the
growth
of
Universal
Elementary
Education
(UEE).
It
is
used
in
the
absence
of
actual
age-wise
break
up
of
enrollment.
The
ratio
can
go
up
above
100
per
cent
to
account
for
over-age
and
under-age
children
in
enrolment
at
particular
stage-class.
On
the
basis
of
the
Fourth
All
India
Education
Survey,
we
have
to
achieve
a
GER
of
127
per
cent
for
attaining
the
goal
of
UEE,
i.e.,
100
per
cent
net
enrolment
ratio.
(pp
1-9
emphasis
added)
This
means
that
many
more
than
60
million
will
be
outside
of
the
schooling
system.
It
is
for
this
reason
that
the
document
emphasizes
‘non-formal
methods’.
Having
abandoned
the
responsibility
of
universalisation,
the
document
states;
“Alternatively,
other
educational
approaches,
such
as
non-formal
distant
education
and
vocationalisation
have
to
be
worked
out
in
detail
for
a
large-scale
implementation,
and
replication.”
(para
4.65)
Non
–
formal
education
through
the
use
of
T
V
video
and
INSAT,
IB
cannot
be
a
replacement
for
formal
education,
particularly
at
the
elementary
school
level.
The
relationship
between
the
teacher
and
the
taught
is
an
essential
ingredient
of
the
schooling
system.
Non-formal
education
seeks
to
replace
the
teacher
and
thus
reduce
95
per
cent
of
costs,
as
we
noted
above.
This
is
the
real
intention
of
the
document
–
to
do
away
with
the
teacher,
on
the
one
hand,
and
pursue
the
chimera
of
achieving
universalisation
through
non-formal
methods
on
the
other.
Given
the
class
divisions
in
our
society
and
their
expression
in
the
system,
this
again
only
means
formal
education
for
the
rich
and
non-formal
for
the
poor.
But
even
here
the
Government
has
gone
one
step
further
by
stating
that
“the
number
of
children
to
be
covered
in
the
non-formal
programme
is
reckoned
to
be
of
the
order
25
million.”
(Seventh
Five-Year
Plan,
Vol.
II
256,
para
10.26),
meaning
that
even
through
the
non-formal
methods,
universalisation
will
not
be
achieved.
The
Directive
Principle
of
our
Constitution
is
thus
a
dead
letter,
only
waiting
to
be
buried.
While
universalisation
is
abandoned,
the
document
notes
with
approval
“the
decision
to
set
up
peace-setting
model
schools
in
the
Central
Sector
in
every
district
of
the
country…”
(para
4.24).
This
comes
in
the
background
of
the
fact
that
one-fifth
of
all
populated
areas
in
our
country
have
no
schools.
In
the
other
four-fifths,
40
per
cent
have
no
pucca
buildings,
39.72
per
cent
have
no
blackboards,
59.5
per
cent
have
no
drinking
water
and
35
per
cent
have
only
one
teacher
to
teach
three
or
four
different
sections.
(para
3.7)
The
already
inadequate
financial
allocation,
instead
of
at
least
ensuring
functional
schools,
is
to
devoted
to
the
establishment
of
these
model
schools.
This
is
the
clear
expression
of
the
contemporary
needs
of
the
ruling
classes.
“It
would
be
appreciated
that
one
of
the
perquisites
for
modernization
for
survival
is
the
establishment
of
institutions
of
excellence
at
the
level
of
the
school
as
well
as
higher
education.
For
this,
it
will
be
necessary
to
identify
young
people
of
merit.
Give
them
the
best
possible
education,
train
them
in
frontier
areas
of
knowledge
and
having
done
this
put
them
in
an
appropriate
work
environment
so
that
they
can
come
up
with
ideas
which
will
keep
India
at
par
with
other
countries.”
(para
4.39)
Apart
from
strengthening
the
already
elitist
character
of
the
education
system,
from
now
on
from
the
school
level,
two
separate
streams
are
to
be
created.
One
that
will
meet
the
requirement
of
modern
technology
and
the
other-the
dispensable
millions
–
consigned
to
ignorance
and
backwardness.
Concealing
this
reality,
populist
propaganda
is
playing
up
the
fact
that
every
district
will
get
a
good
quality
school.
But
then
why
only
one?
As
far
As
the
working
class
is
concerned
the
issue
is
not
quality
versus
quality,
it
is
quality
for
the
entire
quantity.
Every
school
in
our
country
must
be
a
model
school.
The
struggle
for
this
forms
an
integral
part
of
our
struggle
against
this
class
rule.
On
the
question
of
dropouts
from
school,
the
document
discloses
that
at
the
primary
stage
the
percentage
is
62.1,
and
at
the
middle
stage
it
is
77.1.
And
yet,
apart
from
vague
reference,
the
document
skirts
the
basis
issue.
In
a
country
where
a
child
is
necessary
to
augment
family
income
in
the
millions
of
families
living
at
the
barest
minimum
level
of
subsistence,
education
is
a
luxury.
Even
Volume
II
of
the
Education
document
quoting
from
a
survey
and
generalizing
it
for
the
country,
states
that:
“the
main
reason
for
not
attending
school
and
dropping
–
out
is
poverty:
96
per
cent
of
children
who
never
attended
schools
and
84
per
cent
of
the
drop
–
outs
come
from
families
whose
annual
income
from
all
sources
is
less
then
Rs
4,000.”
It
continues,
“80
per
cent
of
dropouts
and
88
per
cent
of
children
not
attending
schools
come
from
families
whose
occupations
are
agriculture
and
labour.”
(para
4.52)
Talking
of
universalisation
without
reference
to
these
conditions
and
the
necessity
of
radical
socio-economic
reforms,
especially
land
reforms,
vividly
expose
the
hollowness
of
the
government’s
commitment.
In
this
connection
must
be
noted
the
treating
of
the
Constitutional
Directive
on
free
and
compulsory
education
as
synonymous
with
universalisation.
This
is
wrong
and
deliberate.
The
former
implies
the
commitment
of
the
Government
that
children
in
the
age
group
of
6-14
remain
in
school,
whereas
the
later
means
only
enrolment.
The
former
means
that
the
Government
is
obliged
to
provide
support
services
like
free
mid-day
meals,
uniforms,
stationery,
text
books,
etc.
By
changing
definitions
the
Government
is
reliving
itself
of
this
responsibility.
Despite
the
assertion
of
the
Seventh
Plan
document,
“the
emphasis
will
shift
from
mere
enrolment
to
retention”
(Vol.
II
paras
10-24),
the
financial
allocations,
discussed
above,
will
bring
this
to
naught.
Neither
universal
enrolment
nor
retention
will
be
achieved.
Adult
Education:
Universal
elementary
education
and
adult
education
are
the
twin
elements
essential
for
eradication
of
illiteracy.
Illiterates
in
our
country
today
number
over
500
millions
or
66
per
cent
of
our
population.
This
constitutes
roughly
one
and
a
half
times
the
entire
population
of
India
at
the
time
of
independence.
While
expressing
‘concern’
the
is
what
the
document
has
to
state:
“That
removal
of
illiteracy
is
possible
has
been
demonstrated
by
many
countries
which
regarded
it
as
an
essential
pre-condition
for
the
meaningful
participation
of
the
masses
in
the
process
of
political
decision-making
and
national
reconstruction.
Whether
such
a
perception
would
be
valid
for
India
has
to
be
decided
after
careful
consideration,
once
and
for
all,
so
that
the
type
of
equivocation
which
has
characterize
Adult
Education
Programmes
comes
to
an
end,
and
decisive
action
gets
taken
in
this
regard.”
(para
318,
emphasis
added)
Thirty-eight
years
after
independence
it
has
still
to
be
decided
whether
removal
of
illiteracy
is
necessary!
Could
there
be
a
better
reflection
of
the
desires
of
the
desires
of
the
ruling
classes.
The
working
class
and
the
democratic
movement
in
our
country
have
since
long
been
demanding
that
removal
of
illiteracy
must
be
based
on
a
people’s
movement
drawing
in
the
army
of
educated
unemployed.
Necessary
programmes
and
adequate
financial
allocation
must
be
made
for
this.
Instead,
the
Seventh
Plan
has
allocation
a
mere
Rs
360
crore
for
the
entire
Plan
period.
Compared
to
the
First
Plan,
this
constitutes
a
reduction
of
3.2
per
cent,
from
the
then
low
3.5
per
cent
of
education
allocation,
to
the
present
0.3
per
cent.
Taking
into
account
the
rate
of
inflation,
even
in
absolute
terms,
this
allocation,
as
against
Rs
325
crore
in
the
Fifth
Plan,
represents
a
reduction.
Once
again
the
reliance
is
on
non-formal
methods.
The
concept
of
‘distant
learning
is
advanced,
meaning
that
TVs
will
be
installed
in
community
centers
in
villages,
educational
programmes
for
a
couple
of
hours
will
be
shown
(usually
during
working
hours)
and
a
year
later,
statistics
will
be
compiled
to
show
an
increase
in
literacy
based
on
the
numbers
that
watched
these
programmes!
Vacationalisation:
was
trumpeted
with
great
fanfare
all
over
the
country
at
the
time
of
the
introduction
of
the
10+2+3
system.
That
there
was
little
seriousness
about
this
is
proved
by
the
woeful
conditions
of
vocational
training
at
the
+2
stage
today.
The
democratic
student
movement
has
repeatedly
brought
to
the
notice
of
the
Government
the
totally
inadequate
facilities
at
this
level.
The
draft
approvingly
quotes
the
late
J
P
Naik,
Member
Secretary
of
the
Kothari
Commission,
as
stating
that
the
latter’s
proposals
were
not
at
all
connected
with
the
adoption
of
the
10+2+3
pattern.
(para
4.108)
In
doing
so
the
document
is
virtually
endorsing
the
existing
state
of
affairs
at
the
+2
level.
Retaining
it
therefore,
as
an
additional
stage
results
in
eliminating
students
from
the
education
system
and
restricting
entry
to
higher
education.
The
curtailment
of
education
by
lengthening
the
process
is
an
old
formula
of
capitalism
under
crisis.
In
1959,
the
Carnege
Commission
Report
pf
the
USA
titled
The
American
High
School
Today
suggested
a
three-tier
system
introducing
the
concept
of
junior
colleges,
which
were
the
only
method
through
which
college
admissions
were
to
be
made.
By
mid
70s
this
process
became
the
biggest
eliminator
of
students
from
higher
education.
The
failure
of
vocationalisation
is
partly
traced
to
the
“cultural
prejudice
toward
skill-oriented
education”
(para
4.30).
Nothing
could
be
more
absurd.
Vacationalisation
has
not
made
headway
because
the
economy
has
shown
little
capacity
to
create
employment.
Every
Five
Year
Plan
sees
an
increase
in
the
backlog
unemployment,
i.e.,
those
waiting
to
be
employed.
Thus
the
economy
has
been
able
to
absorb
neither
this
backlog,
nor
the
new
entrants
into
the
labour
market,
not
even
the
minute
fraction
of
those
young
men
coming
with
vocationalised
training.
The
registered
educated
unemployed
in
this
country,
while
adding
up
to
an
appalling
112
lakh,
still
constitutes
only
a
fraction
of
the
total
educated
unemployed,
and
a
still
smaller
proportion
of
the
total
population.
Instead
of
dealing
with
this
issue
in
earnest
the
document
skirts
it
by
stating,
“It
is
still
to
decided
as
to
be
whether
one
of
the
streams
of
vocationalisation
would
be
an
integral
part
of
the
+2
stream
or
the
entire
system
of
vocational
education
would
constitute
an
entirely
independent
institutional
arrangement,
or
an
altogether
new
model
should
be
evolved…
(para
4.112)
The
issue
is
therefore
left
wide
open
only
compounding
the
existing
anarchy.
In
1953
the
Lakshmanswami
Mudaliar
Commission
on
Secondary
Education
had
made
a
passionate
plea
for
expansion
of
vocational
education
based
on
the
fact
that
it
would
be
impossible
to
transform
political
independence
into
economic
independence
without
technicians
and
skilled
personnel.
The
Government
had
then
accepted
these
recommendations
but
refused
implement
them
as
the
course
of
development
in
the
last
three
decades
shows.
The
deepening
economic
crisis,
the
need
for
only
a
limited
personnel,
given
the
shift
towards
capital
intensive
technology,
warrants
the
further
restriction
of
vocationalisation.
The
thrust
of
the
recommendations
of
the
document
is
directed
at
this.
Higher
Education:
Here
too,
brazenly
advocating
the
needs
of
the
ruling
classes,
the
document
states:
“The
problem
is
not
of
access
and
equity
but
of
preventing
waste
of
scarce
resources
in
producing
a
large
number
of
unemployables.”
(para
4.83)
Access
to
and
equality
of
opportunity,
rights
guaranteed
by
the
bourgeois
constitution,
are
not
applicable
to
higher
education.
Accordingly
the
document
suggests
the
curtailment
of
existing
facilities,
freezing
admissions
and
not
opening
any
new
colleges.
At
the
same
time
the
needs
of
the
ruling
classes
to
develop
the
manpower
corresponding
to
the
demands
of
modern
technology
is
reflected
in
the
recommendation
to
“strengthen
and
establish
new
centers
of
excellence”.
The
imperatives
arising
out
of
the
recent
shifts
in
economic
policy
us
reflected
in
the
Seventh
Plan
document
when
it
outlines
the
task
of
higher
education
as,
“consolidation,
improvement
in
standards,
and
reforms
in
the
system
to
make
higher
education
more
relevant
to
national
needs
and
to
forge
forward
and
backward
linkages
with
employment”.
(Vol.
II
p.
251
para
10.48)
While
‘quality
is
for
privileged
sections
who
will
enter
thee
‘centres
of
excellence’,
for
the
‘quantity’
who
are
destined
to
remain
unemployed,
the
document
suggest
the
open
universities.
“It
will
be
a
boon
for
those
who,
for
economic
or
other
reasons,
cannot
have
access
to
formal
higher
education.”
(para
4.21)
This
debate
of
‘quality
versus
quantity
is
noting
new;
the
ruling
classes
always
quantity
to
suit
their
interests.
Lord
Curzon,
alarmed
at
the
rise
of
Indian
nationalism
in
universities,
said
in
1902,
“It
is
quality,
not
quantity
that
we
should
have
in
mind.”
The
commission
he
appointment
states:
“In
all
matters
relating
to
higher
education
efficiency
must
be
the
first
and
paramount
consideration.
It
is
better
for
India
that
a
comparatively
small
number
of
young
men
should
receive
a
sound
liberal
education
than
that
a
large
number
should
be
passed
through
an
inadequate
course
of
instruction
leading
to
a
depreciated
degree”
(Raleigh
Commission
Report,
1902,
p.14)
Ironically,
the
present
document
talks
in
similar
language
of
the
system
of
higher
education
producing
‘unemployables.’
Thus,
the
model
schools
and
centers
of
excellence
on
the
one
hand,
and
non-formal
education
and
open
universities
on
the
other,
are
the
changes
in
the
education
policy.
The
meager
financial
outlay
is
to
be
earmarked
for
the
former.
This
is
the
requirement
of
the
ruling
classes.
Any
expansion
of
higher
education
that
may
take
place
has
been
left
to
the
initiative
of
private
business:
“Encouraging
private
entrepreneurs
to
contribute
to
educational
development,
particularly
in
respect
of
vocational
and
professional
streams
by
giving
suitable
rebates
on
taxes;
encouraging
them
for
setting
up
of
training
institutions…
“
(p.
87)
In
tune
with
the
overall
strategy,
this
recommendation
strengthens
the
hold
of
private
business
over
education
and
encourages
the
mercenary
attitude
of
reducing
education
to
a
business
racket.
Implicit
in
this
understanding
is
also
the
fact
that
the
research
facilities
in
universities
will
be
placed
at
the
disposal
of
private
business
for
their
research
and
development
work
to
be
conducted
at
state
expense.
While
tax
rebates
are
to
be
given
to
private
business,
the
document
justifies
capitation
fees
and
suggests
increases
in
the
fee
structure
to
recover
the
cost
of
education.
In
a
situation
where
unemployment,
and
educated
unemployment
in
particular,
is
increasing
rapidly,
the
method
suggested
to
tackle
the
problem
of
educate
unemployed
as
well
as
curtailing
higher
education
is
to
de-link
degrees
from
jobs.
“It
needs
to
be
emphasized
that
if
degrees
are
de-linked
from
jobs,
there
will
be
considerable
relief
from
the
pressure
degree
will
not
have
any
links
with
jobs,
it
is
hoped
that
the
concept
of
educated
unemployed
will
cease
to
exist.
Apart
from
legitimizing
the
corruption
and
nepotism
that
is
already
rampant,
this
decision
is
a
clear
expression
of
the
ruling
classes’
preference
for
unemployed
to
educated
unemployed.
Through
this
slogan
they
are
appealing
to
the
backward
elements
by
hoodwinking
them
that
employment
would
no
longer
be
confined
only
to
the
educated
sections
and
though
they
cannot
go
to
the
universities,
they
would
now
be
given
jobs.
A
lot
of
concern
has
also
been
expressed
of
late
by
leading
functionaries
of
the
Government
about
reorienting
the
syllabi
in
order
to
inculcate
a
sense
of
national
integration.
The
document
in
the
section
on
Goal
Orientation
From
Education
Planning,
these
do
not
mark
any
departure
from
the
past
and
the
document
remains
profoundly
vague
regard
to
suggestions.
In
this
regard
it
must
reiterated
that
obscurantism
has
already
played
havoc
with
our
social
fabric
as
well
as
educational
system.
Obscurantism
and
communal
values
masquerading
as
‘moral
science’
continue
to
plague
us
and
there
is
direct
patronage
to
religious
leaders
and
religious
interference
in
education,
while
the
need
is
to
separate
education
from
religion.
A
change
in
syllabus
requires
that
education
must
be
oriented
towards
and
based
upon
the
accepted
democratic
secular
values
that
generate
an
Indian
consciousness.
The
country
must
be
warned
that
unless
this
content
is
uniformly
adopted,
the
social
fabric
and
integrity
of
our
country
cannot
be
safeguarded.
This
is
particularly
true
when
we
have
to
face
the
onslaughts
of
imperialism
and
the
divisive
forces.
Simultaneously
the
document
calls
for
‘cleansing’
the
universities
and
the
depoliticisation
of
education
(para
4.
135).
It
continues
to
advocate
the
exercise
of
self-restraint
by
all
concerned.
However,
apart
from
suggesting
a
national
consensus
on
this
issue,
it
does
not
make
any
reference
to
the
serious
attacks
being
made
on
the
university
community.
While
arguing
for
self-restraint,
it
fails
to
take
notice
of
the
fact
that
many
legislative
measures
have
been
undertaken
that
the
directed
at
curbing
the
democratic
right
of
dissent
in
the
campuses.
The
Central
Government
has
enacted
the
Viswa
Bharati
Amendment
Bill,
which
sought
to
scrap
the
right
of
the
university
community
to
elect
its
representatives
to
their
unions
and
to
the
Senate
and
Syndicate.
Many
state
Governments
have
adopted
similar
legislative
measures,
e.g.,
Maharashtra
,
which
completely
abrogated
the
rights
of
the
university
community
and
converted
its
participation
in
decision-making
bodies
to
farce,
in
the
name
of
‘consultation’,
Many
State
Governments
appoint
IAS
officers
and
some
go
to
the
extent
of
appointing
IPS
officers
as
vice-chancellors.
Governance
of
universities
is
seen
more
as
a
law
and
order
problem.
The
Police
Commission’s
recommendation
for
setting
up
a
separate
force
and
police
posts
in
the
universities
is
being
implemented.
The
ruling
classes
are
clearly
stating
that
the
protests
against
the
their
class
rule,
specifically
against
these
retrograde
measures
will
be
met
with
an
iron
hand.
The
recommendations
of
the
document
in
fact
follow
the
suggestions
of
the
World
Bank
which
has
laid
down
that
for
the
developing
countries,
specifically
the
low
income
countries
in
which
category
it
places
India,
“the
development
of
upper
levels
of
formal
education
will
be
selective
and
carefully
planned,
taking
into
account
the
limited
absorptive
capacity
of
the
modern
sector
for
labour,
and
the
needs
of
both
the
public
and
private
sectors
for
managerial
and
technical
skills
to
meet
the
needs
of
increasingly
sophisticated
economies
will
have
priority.”
(Education
Sector
Policy
Paper
April
1980,
p.87)
Though
the
document
supposedly
still
under
discussion,
all
decisions
essential
for
the
desired
re-orientation
of
the
education
system,
namely
financial
allocations,
the
model
schools,
the
open
university,
the
centers
of
excellence,
have
already
been
taken.
The
country
can
continue
to
debate
on
the
niceties
and
“logical
inconsistencies”
while
the
ruling
classes
effect
the
desired
changes.
In
doing
so
they
are
acting
directly
against
the
interests
of
the
vast
masses
of
the
Indian
people.
Each
one
of
the
recommendations
runs
contrary
to
the
demands
raised
by
the
people
of
our
country.
Under
this
situation,
the
struggle
of
the
Indian
people
for
free
and
compulsory
education,
education
in
mother
tongue,
expansion
of
education
opportunities,
nationalization
of
educational
institutions,
etc.,
are
an
expression
of
the
struggle
in
our
country.
These
changes
are
being
brought
about
accompanied
by
an
ideological
offensive
and
populist
propaganda
of
leading
the
country
to
the
21st
century.
New
illusions
are
being
created
in
the
minds
of
the
people
and
their
support
is
drawn
for
implementing
these
changes.
The
pride
of
the
people
of
a
district
is
whipped
up
on
the
grounds
that
a
new
model
school
will
be
established.
That
this
will
be
done
at
the
expense
of
thousands
of
other
children
is
camouflaged.
Sections
of
youth
are
being
mobilised
on
the
grounds
that
they
will
be
provided
employment
irrespective
of
their
educational
training.
That
the
new
modernization
and
capital-intensive
technology
will
reduce
the
job
opportunities
is
being
camouflaged.
While
patriotism
and
defending
the
unity
of
the
country
are
propagated,
no
attempt
is
made
to
instill
these
values
and
fight
remnants
of
feudal
ideology
in
the
filed
of
education.
The
ruling
classes
in
fact
are
utilizing
these
divisions
in
society
to
consolidate
their
class
rule.
In
this
class
battle,
achievements
of
the
Left
Front
Government
of
West
Bengal
and
the
democratic
reforms
initiated
by
it
are
being
attacked
vehemently
by
the
ruling
classes.
The
conflict
between
the
contending
classes
in
society
is
once
again
finding
expression
in
the
field
of
education.
That
very
Congress
party
which
hailed
Sir
Ashutosh
Mukherjee
when
he
as
the
Vice-Chancellor
of
Calcutta
University
opposed
the
Curzon
Reforms
for
changing
the
composition
of
the
Senate,
today
withholds
the
Presidential
assent
for
a
Bill
seeking
to
democratise
the
administration
of
the
Calcutta
University.
The
changes
that
are
being
proposed
in
the
filed
of
education
today,
mean
a
greater
regimentation
of
the
university
administration,
subjecting
the
university
community
to
servile
conformism,
curtailing
education
opportunities,
in
fact
a
strategy
that
will
increase
illiteracy
to
suit
the
interests
of
the
ruling
classes.
The fight against this new policy calls for the unity of all democratic sections of the country. It is necessary to understand that these proposals are not mere changes but reflect significant shifts in the ruling class strategy for their continued rule. This clarity is essential in order to effectively combat the ruling classes’ designs and to carry forward the struggle against this class rule.