WHEN we say that we should orient the educational system to the needs of an industrial society, two conditions are implied. First, we should have a clear and detailed knowledge of the needs of our changing society and should formulate specific educational measures necessary to satisfy those needs. Secondly, we should always bear in mind the main purpose of education, which is: (i) the imparting of existing knowledge and (ii) the furtherance of this knowledge by adding to it through research and investigation.

In India, the educational system functions at three stages – the primary, the secondary and the university stage. Each stage, besides being complete in itself, also prepares the student for the next. Thus, though each stage is separate, none is independent of the other.

The courses of study, the syllabi, methods of work and the organization of each stage depend on its specific aims. Our main concern here is with the university stage and we shall not discuss the other two stages or their relationship with the university stage, though in India today this relationship still needs to be properly established. In fact, many of the present problems can be traced back to the two earlier stages.

The distinctive characteristic of university education is that while imparting existing knowledge, it simultaneously prepares the candidate for adding to it. No other stage of the educational system performs this double task.

The degree and nature of the knowledge imparted differs from society to society, depending on the state of development of each. It follows, therefore, that the educational policy in India must orient itself to the requirements of our own state of social development.

No one can give us a blueprint of future society but when we think of it we do have some conception of the social change which may occur. In this case, since we believe that we are industrializing, our concept of future Indian society is that of ‘an industrial society’. This is, no doubt, based on the experience of the West.

There is, however, another concept of the future, one based on an attempt to revive our past glory. But it is a vague concept – more vague than that of an industrial society. It does not have the effective support of government though occasional official directives give emphasis to the study of Indian culture. This does not mean, however, that the concept of a past society is equally ineffective in other areas of social action.

The two concepts of our future society are evidenced in the personality types that our experts hope to produce through our educational system. These ideals range from the grahastha of our scriptures to the Victorian gentleman and to the modern ‘well-informed’ person, all of which are irrelevant to our present – or future – society.

The fact that western industrial societies set a model for our educational policy cannot be easily disputed. How often have our experts and study teams gone abroad to examine various educational systems and how often have foreign experts been invited to advise us during the years after independence! There is an underlying belief that the solutions arrived at in those societies are perfect solutions and are applicable to our own situation.

Our criticism is neither that our educational policy is not sufficiently Indian nor that it is western oriented. There is nothing wrong in borrowing from other societies. But we tend to borrow wholesale, without discrimination, ignoring aspects of British and American educational policies which have been accepted failures.

 

We neglect the lesson of anthropology – that an institution cannot be transferred from one society to another. Though this is often admitted, it is seldom practised. The few examples have resulted in institutions which are neither western nor integral to our own conditions. The reason probably is that we are in too great a hurry to do too many things in too short a time. We are too often busy with ‘doing’ and ‘changing’ in an ad hoc manner, without any specific and concrete study of problems. In spite of all our reports and enquiries, we are not guided sufficiently by our own empirical experience.

When we say that India is becoming an industrial society, we are generalizing on the basis of the fact that the number, size and variety of industrial units and the employment they give is increasing. But quantitatively we are still far behind western societies. It is also not certain that qualitatively our society will assume the same form as in the West even when quantitative disparities have been eliminated. The more important point to note, however, is that ours is an emerging society. It is this emerging society that should be the centre of our attention and our concept of future Indian society should be based on it, here and now.

 

To say that we should change the educational system to suit the needs of an emerging society is not posing the problem; it is merely a statement of the general aim of policy. The problems arise when we ask ourselves what precisely should be done to achieve this aim. There is too much careless talk about our system being outmoded and needing an overhaul. We condemn it on the basis of a comparison of our teachers, students, our courses of study and the organization of teaching with those in England, America or the USSR. Amidst all this we lose sight of the chief aims which universities are intended to serve, namely, the imparting and advancement of knowledge in a society which is on the threshold of development but has a considerable economic and social leeway to make up. We tend to look at our system through the blinkers of another society. Consequently, the image we get is far removed from reality and we are not able to establish a fruitful relationship between what is and what ought to be.

Viewed objectively, it should be possible to highlight various aspects of the problem and, through discussion, arrive at certain priorities with regard to what ought to be done to improve the system of our university education.

The first question that naturally arises relates to the branches of knowledge that should be attended to by our universities. If ours is a society in the process of industrialization, should the accent in our universities be on technology and natural and social sciences or on the fine arts, music and domestic science, even if we assume that the latter are suitable for inclusion in the curriculum. The question of priorities is relevant and important.

This brings us to the courses of study. It is pertinent to ask in this connection how far the emphasis that is sometimes placed on ‘liberal’ as opposed to ‘specialized’ education is justified in the context of our current needs and the growing division of labour in our society. Is it not too early in the process of our development to bother about the ‘evil of specialization’ if indeed it is an evil? Some of the Indian universities have lately introduced courses in ‘general education’ modelled on American experiments in liberalizing the educational system. In fact, the entire post-matriculation year is earmarked for general education, and in the following two years of the ‘integrated’ degree course, some instruction in general education continues to be given. Is this a move in the right direction?

 

Then there is the emphasis currently being placed on ‘extra-curricular’ activities which needs to be evaluated in the context of our requirements. Is it true that most of the time, energy and funds which disappear in extra-curricular activities are spent on a small group of students and teachers who make such activities their sole aim and occupation while the majority of students remain mere spectators? Is the strain of such activities on teachers and students within or beyond the capacities of both? And how far do they disrupt the normal functioning of the educational system in our universities? Further, it is also pertinent to ask how far should these activities be the concern of universities.

This is similar to the question raised above in connection with music, the arts and domestic science. If our society is working on the principle of the division of labour, should these ‘lines’ not be looked after by voluntary associations? Should the universities not confine their attention to subjects whereby their chief aim of furthering knowledge is fulfilled? It is worthwhile enquiring how far the inclusion of these other subjects can be explained by the way of life of the social class that dominates our universities.

 

Because the objective is to impart and add to the knowledge that society needs in its current state of development, the next question which naturally arises pertains to the standards of university education. That our present standards are very low compared to those elsewhere is generally recognized. It is not for nothing that foreign qualifications are prized so high in this country even after more than a decade of independence, although it must immediately be conceded that not all the premium now being placed on persons holding foreign degrees is justified by their genuine superiority over those holding corresponding Indian degrees.

But what precisely do we mean when we say that our standards are falling? This question is closely connected with the question of what we expect from our students. Are we to go according to the ‘standards’ laid down by employment bodies in government and the industries? In other words should the accent on a ‘well-informed, cultured, gentleman’ with a good knowledge of English, as required by the Public Service Commission, guide us in the organization of teaching in our universities? Or should we see that the university graduate is able to perform efficiently the task for which he is trained? And how are we to measure this equipment?

If it is by performance at examinations, it seems that the present number of students with a first class degree is proportionately larger than in the past. How then do we say that present standards are low? The question needs closer examination. Leaving aside the relation of university standards with factors outside the educational system, the maintenance of standards within the system depends on the courses of study, the content of syllabi and the entire organization of teaching.

Even though Indian universities can claim a favourable comparison of their courses with those elsewhere, much depends on how these courses are transmitted to the students. This brings us to the quality of teachers and the system of teaching and guidance. It cannot be overlooked that at present a very large proportion of students undergoing university education are studying in affiliated colleges. To speak, therefore, only of teachers directly working in universities would amount to a partial treatment of the problem.

 

What is lacking in the quality of our teachers and in the teaching system? Can everything be really explained in terms of the cash nexus? Is it not a fact that even in countries like the U.K. and the U.S.A. university teachers are monetarily at a disadvantage compared to those similarly qualified in other professions? Can we honestly say that the well-paid among our teachers really justify the belief that more payment means better quality and better work? Are they not more conscious of their status than of their duties? As for the lower-paid teachers, which constitute the class that is generally condemned as inefficient and incompetent, what precisely are our universities doing to provide facilities for their further development? Why has teaching in our country not established itself as a profession with its own consciousness and way of life?

It is often conceded that even the best of teachers cannot do justice to their task because of the large number of students in each class, the poor quality of work and the defective system of teaching. All these are inter-related. It is said that those studying for university degrees are far too many in relation to the strength of the teaching staff. On this basis it is suggested that admission to our universities should be restricted. This seems to contradict our overall policy.

 

In an expanding society like ours the need is for a greater number of educated individuals. We are increasing the facilities for primary and secondary education. How then can we reasonably refuse to take into our universities a larger and larger number of students unless we confess that we are not creating enough opportunity for our graduates. This brings us face to face with the quantitative and qualitative nature of our industrialization.

The question of restricting admission relates the problem not to the number of teachers, but to the number of opportunities available in society. If we can be reasonably certain that opportunity is expanding, should it not be our task to increase the facilities for education instead of restricting them? If the number of teachers in universities is low, should we not appoint more teachers? And it they are not available, should we not train more persons for the job of teaching in universities? While employment bodies, including government, require candidates to hold certificates from formal educational institutions for even clerical jobs, how can we possibly deny opportunities to our youth to enter higher centres of education? All these questions need competent examination.

Turning to the organization of teaching, it consists of the lecturing and examination systems. It has now become fashionable to find fault with our lecturing system and to remedy it by what is described as the tutorial system. We have never detailed and analyzed the precise defects of our lecturing system, nor have we defined exactly what we mean by a tutorial system. Can it be that behind all this talk of improvements and experimentation the sole aim is to prepare students for examinations?

 

The same is true of our attitude to examinations. The ‘evils’ of the examination system are the subject of frequent comment in all ‘enlightened’ circles. It is common to attribute most of the drawbacks of the present system, right from bookishness to indiscipline, to the examination system. It is very often forgotten that in some other countries with a similar system of examinations, the ills that infect us are virtually unknown. The cause of our ills must, therefore, lie somewhere else, and must be peculiar to ourselves. The matter needs closer investigation.

The medium of instruction and of expression in our universities also merits independent attention. Even if the quality of teachers leaves nothing to be desired, would communication of ideas through English have any adverse effect on the development of our students? It is common knowledge that even a good student takes more than a month to read a book in English. Granting that the knowledge of English is necessary for research work, would not a working knowledge of the language gained at the pre-research stage be sufficient? It is of course not advisable to dispense with English altogether, but is it necessary to continue with it as the medium of education? Further, if it is agreed that English need not be the medium, should the regional language or the national language replace it? And how do we propose to make up for deficiencies in proper text and reference books in the language concerned?

 

The questions posed so far will give an idea of how much ground has to be covered in order to raise the standards of our university education so that it can fulfil its main objectives. But there are no ready answers. They have to be found through experimentation. And, here lies the danger. The awareness of the problems and the natural urge to overcome them (which should be stronger in our society which, in other fields, especially economic, intends to make short work of the existing obstacles to progress) may make some of us hurry to half-baked solutions which later become vested interests. Those of us who can influence policies would, if taken in by such solutions, try to enforce them all over. It is in this context that the role of the University Grants Commission vis-à-vis the universities and of the university administrations vis-à-vis teachers and teaching departments needs to be appraised.

It has to be seen that the University Grants Commission does not, through its financial sanctions, try to ‘persuade’ all universities uniformly and equally to its views on important matters. How much of this has already begun to happen is a question worth examining. As for university administration, it is an unfortunate fact that most of our universities are increasingly dependent for funds on state governments who also have wide powers to nominate individuals to the governing bodies of universities. Even without a state government’s active interference in university affairs, it is not always certain that those nominated to higher bodies have a correct attitude to the problems posed. Constant vigilance in the interests of academic freedom is necessary. How far is this maintained?

Within the universities, a bureaucratic class has arisen which is not confined to the administration alone. It includes those teachers who specialize in university administration and accordingly assume the characteristics of professional bureaucrats. They have a say in the executive bodies of the university, the degree of their influence depending upon the personality and the constitutional position of the vice-chancellor concerned. Some among these ‘academic bureaucrats’ get appointed as vice-chancellors.

 

An informal development taking place is the attempt by this section of teachers to build up influential contacts in government and the University Grants Commission. The result is that policy-makers at different levels hold together as a cohesive group and work as an axis on which the whole university system revolves. What is worse, those outside the axis aspire either to ‘rise’ and become part of it or to receive the favours of those within it. In brief, what results is the emergence of a managerial class within the educational system whose main concern is to ‘run the show’.

The criteria of a well-run show is not the realization of the aims of education but the publicity that can be gained thereby. It may be said that the motivation behind our educational policy seems to be that of self-advertisement and propaganda and not of efficiency. It is worthwhile asking ourselves if this trend is conducive to the growth of a rational system of university education which adequately meets the requirements of our emerging society.

 

* Originally titled ‘The Problem’, Seminar 7, ‘Our Universities’, March 1960, pp. 10-13.