The Education Minister of Madras, Shri C. Subramaniam’s excellent presidential address at the All-India Educational Conference was marred by a bad beginning. There was no need for him to assume the role of a knight-errant and defend the Planning Commission, which had not thought it fit to accord the necessary priority to education, during the First and the Second Plan periods. Even the Higher allocation made in the Third Plan period cannot make up for the Commission’s indifference to education during the last ten years. The failure to achieve the target set by the Constitution is, if anything, an example of bad planning. Article 45 of the Constitution lays down that within a period of ten years of the Constitution going into stride free and compulsory primary education to children between the ages of six and eleven must be provided. The deadline is already behind us and it looks as though we will not be able to achieve the aims set down in the Constitution in the next ten years and more. True, the resources at the disposal of the Planning Commission are limited. Even so, within these limited resources we have not so much as attempted what could have been achieved with a little effort and proper planning. Indeed, as Shri Subramaniam pointed out, Madras has made some progress in the direction of spreading primary education. That is, the State Government has made it easier for the poorer children to go to schools by providing free midday meals and uniforms. Unquestionably, these measures have made primary education attractive to poor parents who once looked upon children as unpaid labour. But how many other states have emulated the Madras example? Worse, how many States have bothered to attempt the educational targets set by the Planning Commission? Besides boasting about the 43 universities and over a thousand colleges in the country has the Union Education Ministry taken the trouble to compile a report on progress (rather, the lack of it) in the various educational fields? To all these questions the answers are in the negative. The most important observation was in respect of the role of English in our educational system. Shri Subramaniam pulled no punches when he said that the low standard of technical educational in India was due largely to the relegation of English to second place. When a student enters a technical institution or takes up the study of a specialized subjects. And considering the deplorable quality of the available regional language text-books on such subjects, one dreads to think of the results of a switch-over from the English medium.
Professional protagonists of regional language, however hold a different view. Their contention is that the use of English as the medium of instruction at the university level restricts the spread of higher education and that it creates a new class. They also aver that proficiency in English does not contribute appreciably towards raising the standard of education in the universities. This is rank nonsense. Were it otherwise we would not have been hearing the constant complaints about falling standards. It is encouraging to note that Shri Subramaniam’s view on the subject were shared by Shri C.B. Gupta, the Chief Minister of Uttar Pradesh. Happily, these are in line with the views recently expressed by Professor N.K. Siddhanta Dr. Lakshmanaswami Mudaliar and the UGC Committee appointed to deal with the method
of teaching English in the universities.
Dec 31, 1960.
