Indian Anthropological Association

Education in India
Author(s): RAHUL SEN and D.K. BHATTACHARYA
Source: Indian Anthropologist, Vol. 21, No. 2 (December 1991), pp. 67-74
Published by: Indian Anthropological Association
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/41919656
Accessed: 05-09-2017 10:11 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide
range of content in a trusted digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and
facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Indian Anthropological Association is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and

extend access to Indian Anthropologist

This content downloaded from 14.139.53.34 on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:11:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
Indian Anthropologist (1991) 21 : 2 , 67-74

Seminar

We introduced this new column from vol.21, No 1, with a view to highlight the
role of anthropologists in important National issues. Our disinterest in these areas can
not only cause harm to Indian society in retrospect but also create a hegemony of the
planners in almost every aspect of social planning. We seek active participation of
professional anthropologists in this venture.
Editor

Education in India

RAHUL SEN. AND D.K. BHATTACHARYA

Department of Anthropology, University of Delhi, Delhi- 110007.

Education Policy and the Sociology of Education in India

Primary education in India has not received adequate attention from our
so far, consequently we have not been able to have a balance of educit
kind of society we planned for India. There are many instances wher
to have worked in cross purposes without really meaning to do s
analysis of our educational policies/planning can help to demon
discordance. One of the earliest education policy in India was worked out b
during the British period and this was entirely aimed at colonial British r
The policy was directed towards producing native administrators and b
lower order to aid in the local administration- This was governed by
downward Alteration from the elites to the masses.
The first major criticism of this policy leading to an alternate one cam
almost two decades after India's Independence. In other words we kept
colonial and bureaucratic education to a population with whom we planned
a welfare state which promises social liberty for all. The Kothari Comm
laid down the objectives of education for free India in clear terms :
"The most important and urgent reform needed in education is to tran
endeavour to relate it to the life, needs and aspirations of the people a
make it a powerful instrument of social, economic and cultural tra
necessary for the realization of the national goals. For this purpos
should be developed so as to increase productivity, achieve social a
integration, accelerate the process of modernisation and cultivate soçia
spiritual values" (ibid : 613),

This content downloaded from 14.139.53.34 on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:11:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
68 Indian Anthropologist [21 : 1991

The Kothari Commission report was implement

emphasis on modernization in this report is eas
could be combined with social, moral and sp
national integration was more of the usual rhet
We had singularly failed in understanding cultu
such diversities forming a complex unity. Needl
which were both artificial as also exogenous t
this educational blue print continued to be in e
plan allocations were also geared towards creatin
In 1986 a new exercise on education was comp
Policy on Education (1986). The role of educatio
and we might examine some of these :
1. In our national perception education is ess
our all-round development, material and spirit
2. Education has an acculturating role. It ref
contribute to national cohesion, a scientific t
spirit- thus furthering the goals of socialism
in our Constitution.

3. Education develops manpower for differen

substratum on which research and develo
guarantee of national self-reliance.
4. In sum, Education is a unique investment
cardinal principle is the key to the National P
Any anthropologist/sociologist can easily see
prescriptions. If education is meant to deve
community, it can not emphasize spiritual devel
the latter is centripetal in character. Once ag
temper, self reliance and the role of provid
economy.
With the change of Government in 1989 a nee
policy was felt. Thus, in 1990 Ramamurti Co
commission was submitted barely 6 months
the recommendations of this report.
I. Education must provide a techno-infor
empowering the person through knowledge an
2 Education must also provide opportunities t
student in a variety of processes and situat
skills such as foundational skills in communic
manual skills, which would enable the studen
latex4,

This content downloaded from 14.139.53.34 on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:11:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SEN ET. AL.] Education in India 69

3. Education must further provide a climat

personalised set of values forming one's cha
cultural national values, so as to have a c
divisions, and in order to enable the p
commitment.

4. Education must play an interventionist

national cohesion and unity by empower
social change (Ibid : 19-20).
In 1991 June the Government changed ag
report was shelved before it could be implem
study the report. Meanwhile, the National
be effective without change. Yet on 18th Se
promised another new education policy for wh
Plan is ready (Hindusthan Times, 19th Septem
If we compare the objective of education
find that they are more or less the same. A c
are all prepared along a single theoretical pre
national planning. This is the modernization t
and functionalism. Parsons views society as a
are in equilibrium and facilitate the perpetuat
1971). Further, according to him social chan
subjected to either internal strain or force fr
created within the system to incorporate new
transition from one equilibrium to another,
roles and in the cultural legitimation of thes
Since the period of transition between equ
features as disjunction between the old and n
and a need for new specialized roles the reinte
Modernization theory (Smelser 1963; Hoseli
rests on this. Thus, to convert the traditio
society all that is needed is to introduce the
and then allow it to reintegrate at the co
sub-system of the developed society being defi
western societies.
If we analyse the development programm
being followed all along. Traditional system i
through forced internal borrowing. The in
lacking and even inhibited. Interestingly, the
suffer from the same effects. The 1986 policy says, "

system of education to express and promote its uniqu

This content downloaded from 14.139.53.34 on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:11:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 70 Indian Anthropologist [21 : 1991

meet the challenges of the times

and technical development when a major effort must b

benefit from the assets already created and to ensure th
sectiöns. Education is the highway to that goal". (1
the other hand believes that, "One may admit that for
not resposible. During the last forty three years we ha
development that has led to the creation of two Indias
of the poor. A new privileged class has come into
political and economic power and sources of wealth"
add, "Of course, it is not for the committee to giv
policies concerning other major sectors. However, m
bring home the point that an educational order based o
social justice cannot autonomously come about without
(Ibid : 14). In both the reports all these sub-units a
sub-systems with a rider that they must be integ
emphasis that education is merely a sector which is int
and causative factors within a larger whole-society. Of
by raising the issue of class and exploitation attem
sociological acrobatism of walking simultaneously bo
No wonder the report, notwithstanding its volume, is a
in India and its recommendations rhetorical. That i
than a sociological criticism of education in India.
However, the Parsonian sociology suffers from
methodological flaws because of which it not only cons
also is inadequate for development planning. Review
that it suffers from teleology, functional logic and
1979 : 3-41). Further, the modernization theory by
dichotomy revives a form of linear evolutionism thoug
sophistication. No wonder Frank calls it the 'underd
than the 'sociology of development' (Frank 1969 : 21-94
Class Basis of Education in India

The debate on the character of the socio-economic formation in India has raged
for decades now without reaching any definite conclusions (Thorner, 1982).
controversy raises from the failure to decide whether capitalism exists in I
agriculture or not. To avoid this problem some scholars have argued that Indi
a colonial formation which is changing to peripheral capitalism (Alavi, 1975). B
predominantly an agrarian country India was essentially a raw material pro
(the forceful plantation of Indigo in Bihar and Bengal for example) for the Br
industry, For a smooth operation and successful harnessing of this raw material w
the English required was an alliance with the agrarian landlords which they

This content downloaded from 14.139.53.34 on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:11:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
SEN ET. AL.] Education in India 71

through land settlements. British Governm

and bureaucratic organization. To faciliatate
the colonial government adopted an educ
learning institutes were opened- mostly in
These institutions imparted westernized
language and some bit of natural scie
continued to be served by the old caste-b
consequence of this British policy a class w
of the colonial government. Yet, it is fro
leading our independence struggle rose. A
over the administration of the country and
state gave free India the same structure. Ed
industrialism, progression and modernizati
along the same idioms and concepts, Obviou
of the socio-cultural complexity of In
industrialize and hence modernize the countr

The effect of this was felt all over. Even

over the economic organization remained t
has not undergone much change since in
agrarian legislations and land reforms (C
subordinated to the industries and its impov
by high state subsidies in the form of a
programmes. The country, however, co
education with natural sciences now give
reach an infinitely small fraction of Indi
education with a hope to modernize India. A
for a few fortunate individuals. But the
western frame of reference, they fit bette
have majority of our scientist and technolo
socio-economic and cultural context of Indi
our formal education and it failed to giv
cultural basis remained dominant (e.g., in ru
from the society and where the education sy
the urban areas) there the educated became alie

The planners and administrators are m

themselves so much aliented from Indian so
India even if they desire to. While we have
system we keep constantly arguing for t
education plans. We seem to forget that a c

This content downloaded from 14.139.53.34 on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:11:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 72 Indian Anthropologist [21 : 1991

Hence educätiön has to grow òut of culture

thought.
Öf course one may see in this the class-struggle fought out in the intellectual
domain. Desirous of ensuring their dominance and to establish its hegemony the
ruling elite is using the education system as a state apparatus to ideologically and
psychologically create a social consensus in its favour. It wants to use it to educate,
everyone to their way of thinking and or alienate the masses so much culturally through
education that they would never be ab*e to unite. Thus, the angle of class-struggle
apart our education policy will appear to be riddled with numerous problems. What
can be done to correct this ? How can we plan for a Indian who will accept the cultural
diversity as given and also form the strength of our unity ? How can we have an
educated population who is not alienated from their cultural roots ? The available
policies planned so far attempt only to root out the past and usher a total exogenous
model. Yet this has given us not a single desired result.
Education in Society and Social Transformation
We need to develop a plan for India's future from a humanistic social theory which
is both historical and dialectical. Society is a community of people sharing a culture.
Culture is a system of meaning categories created and shared through time. As a
historical system they are reproduced and interpreted by people through their creative
ability- the human consciousness. Meaning arc of course limited by the nature people
live in. Yet, as nature itself is known and interpreted through cultural categories,
culture facilitates the widening knowledge of nature as it itself grows (cf. Sahlins, 1976
and 1985).
Hence, this dialectical relation of culture and nature must be the foundation of
knowledge and education in a society. This is because the learning capacity first
acquired by individual members of society can gain entrance into the interpretive system
of the society through the learning process. And this collectively shared structure of
¿oňscíousness and store of knowledge represent the cognitive potential which alone can
be Used for social engineering. We may also speak of evolutionary learning processes
on the part of societies insofar as they solve problems that represent evolutionary
challenge. These are problems that overload the adaptive capacity available within
tfifc limits of a given social formation. Societies can learn evolutionarily by utilizing
the cognitive potential contained in worldviews by reorganizing. (Habermas,
1979 : 160).
It is this cognitive knowledge and learning mechanism that constitutes education in
a society. And since cultures are historically created, the from and content of education
is culture specific and cannot be globally generalized. Hence, while education forms
the basis of transmission and creation of culture through the rise of human consciousness,
to believe that it is universal is a theoretical fallacy derived from a hegemonic
löfic.

This content downloaded from 14.139.53.34 on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:11:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 SEN ET. AL.] Education in India 73

This, however, does not mean that tech

nature. What we are saying is relevant wh
for specialized education. The role of ed
modernize it. Its primary role is to coo ser
yet give rise to a national consciousness in
while it should not alienate the people fro
plural society governed by the ethics of mu
India transform itself from a territorial-ad
unit making possible the resolution of all th
Therefore the remedies to Indian educat
alone, they lie much deeper in the realm o
understanding of the diverse cultures of In
of education we are talking about. Yet,
modernization syndrome, has failed to pro
systems existing gap in the ethnograph
constructing the basic education for the
anthropologists to do this job. Hence, th
its old role as evaluators of government po
constructively towards their formulation.

REFERENCES

Alavi, H. 1975. India and the colonial mode of production. Economic and Political W
and 35); 1232-62.
Chattopadhyay, S. 1975. On the class nature of land reforms in India since independenc
examination in KM. Kurian ed. India - S tate a nd Society, A Marxian Approach
Orient Longman, pp. 182-99.
Frank, A.G. 1969. Sociology of development and underdevelpment of Sociology in
Lttin Ame.ica : Unverdeveiopment or Revolution. London : Monthly Review Press, pp
Government of India 19 66. Report of the Educational Commission (7964-66) : haucation ana National
Developmant. New Delhi, Ministry of Education.
Government of India, 1986. Ntional Policy on EducQtion-19$6 New Delhi : Ministry of Human
Resource Developmement.
Government of India, 1990. Report of the Committee for Review of National Policy on Education -
1986 New Delhi : Ministry of Human Resource Development.
Habermas, J. 1979 Towards a reconstuction of historical materialism in J. Habermas Communication
and the evolution of Society . v Lond, Heinemann pp. 130-77.
Hindustan Times 19th September, 1991. PMfor Radical Change in Education.
Hoselitz, B.F. I960, Sociological Aspecxs of Economic Growth. New York : Amerind Publishing
Co Pvt. Ltd.

This content downloaded from 14.139.53.34 on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:11:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 74 Indian Anthropologist [ 21 ; 1991

Parsons, T. 1961. Some consideration on the theory of so

Parsons, T. 1971. The Social System London : Routledge
Sahlins, M.D. 1976. Culture and Practical Reason Chicago
Sahlins, M.D. 19S5. Islands of History London : Tavistock
Smelser, N J. 1963. Mechanism of change and adjustm
Moore ed». Industrial iaz&tion and Society UNBSCO : M
Taylor, J G. 1979 From modernization to Mode of Pro
Development and Underdevelopment . London : Macmillan

Thorner, A. 1982. Semi-feudalism or capitalism? Contemporary debate on class and modes of

production in India, Economic and Political Weekly XV II (Oec. 4); 1961-68; (Dec. 11); 1993 1999;
(Dec. 18); 2061 66.

This content downloaded from 14.139.53.34 on Tue, 05 Sep 2017 10:11:13 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms