Post-Independence, History of Indian Educational Policy - Audio

The question is: What happened to the formation of Educational policy and action in the field of Education in India.

Yes, and my other question is that at the time of independence, people were really aspiring for freedom, so there was something very noble and beautiful inside them, and so where did it all fritter away as soon as you got independence? What happened to all the dynamism in people? Why did it not translate into action in free India?

First answer is that not many people had expected that India would become free so soon. It is not sufficiently realised that in 1942, Quit India movement was started—it is not sufficiently realised that among all the leaders of India, Mahatma Gandhi was, first of all, not prepared to accept the ideal of complete freedom of India. Today people may not recognise what I’m saying, but this is a stark fact.

He was not prepared to accept that.

India should be completely free. He wrote a book called Hind Swaraj. It needs to be read again. He wrote it when he came from Africa to India, at that time that he wrote that book. In 1929, Nehru pressed for the ideal of freedom of India. In the Lahore session it was accepted when Gandhi was absent.

Oh, it was in his absence. Yes, because he had recalled the non-cooperation movement.

Not only that, he had gone at that time for a conference in England, there was a round table conference in England where he had gone with princes and Nawabs and many other people, and there was still a negotiation going on. He was not asking for complete freedom of India. That conference was not for that purpose. It was to arrive at some kind of a concession, some kind of compromise, that kind of conference, and he had gone to attend that conference. And Nehru was not at all filled about it. And during his absence, Nehru got this resolution passed, that we shall have complete freedom. Now that Purna Swaraj proposition was put forward in 1907 by Tilak and Sri Aurobindo in Surat Congress; it was not adopted at that time and only in 1930 it got adopted, so you can see the mood of our leaders even at that time, after Gandhi’s return, this idea was still not pressed. Only in 1942 he said, “Now I have to say, “Quit India''. Now this proposition is not understood by people; they said that Gandhi said ‘Quit India’, India became free.

They don't know that he was the last one to speak of it. It was already too late, and it happened at a very unfortunate moment. And even then they were not sure whether their call would be received by the Britishers at all. So, it was like any other call, they had not expected any result at all. They were not even expecting that the allies would win the war. So what is the question of expecting freedom of India to come? They knew Churchill was the Prime Minister of India, he was totally opposed to freedom of India. The people who were leading at that time, Gandhi and others, were all put into the prison after this Quit India movement, all the leaders went into the prison. Maulana Abdul Kalam Azad, at that time, was the President of the Congress, and up to 1945-46 they were all in prison. It was later on, there was a Simla Conference, they were released at that time. And Mountbatten was dispatched after the war was over. Fortunately, war was won by the allies. Churchill was defeated in the election. Labour (Party) came to power and Atlee became the Prime Minister and from 1910 Labour Party was pressing for India’s freedom.

So then, in 1946, Mountbatten was appointed Viceroy of India. He has made up his mind altogether. Nobody thought that he would come and immediately the whole thing would change! And the idea of Lord Mountbatten was to partition India. And on the partition of India, there was so much of controversy; people never thought that any time freedom would come. They did not know that supposing we become free, what will be our method of working for India’s betterment? They were all busy fighting, fighting, fighting, but not preparing as to what we shall do when we win. In the meantime, India had some brilliant experiments going on in the field of education. One was started by Dayananda, second by Vivekananda, the third by Tagore, fourth by Gandhi, and fifth by Sri Aurobindo and The Mother. These five great experiments were going on in our country. Tagore had a great influence at that time in India, and he was a great critic of the educational system of that time, which has been depicted very well in his article The Parrot’s Training. It is… even today that criticism is active, even today.

So you can imagine that criticism was alive at that time. Unfortunately, Tagore had died by that time, when India became free. Vivekananda’s movement had not taken any roots, Ramakrishna Mission was doing something, it had not produced any new system. Dayananda Saraswati’s was not so liberal a system of education, Gandhi’s experiments were the only experiments which were known to people at that time, called ‘Nai Taleem’ . It was also known as ‘The Wardha scheme of Education’. He had a scheme of education which he called Basic Education, or ‘Nai Taleem’ or 'Wardha Scheme’. It was based upon experiments he had done first in South Africa and then when he came to India, in his ashrams and in Wardha, on a diminished scale. But he had developed a philosophy of Education for India. This was the only philosophy at that time which was known to people like Maulana Azad, Zakir Hussain, because he had conducted some experiments and in Gujarat, particularly, there was some experimental, practical work going on. Naturally, therefore, when India became free, the only model that was available for the new makers was the 'Wardha Scheme'. The question is — why was the 'Wardha Scheme' not implemented?

Yes, because he went in for Macaulay.

It was going on already, not that they went for Macaulay, Why did this happen? I’m now explaining to you this question. It was one experiment that was known to people, it was tom-tommed during the freedom struggle, supported by all the Congress people who came to power. What happened? There are several factors which worked. First of all, nobody was prepared as to what we should do in the field of Education if we became free, no plan. Secondly, our Constitution makers, they showed that Education is a State subject and not a Union subject. So the Central Government will not deal with Education. They took over from the Britishers what was going on in the Central Government and there was a small Education Ministry…

At the time of the British?

Yes. Now Education Ministry, at that time,

Meaning British India, under the centre that used to exist then?

Yes. So some kind of educational grant was being given to school systems that had come into existence from 1857 onward in India and the Government was, municipalities were running schools and some grants were being given to these schools. It is a small little thing. There was no idea of educating every child.

Education was being supported by municipalities, which had run some schools and some grants were being given by the state governments, provincial governments at that time, and that was all. The rest was— private schools were running also, but very low fee, for example, my school, my fee was four annas per month.

So that means during British India, uncle, the schools, private schools were being run by philanthropists, Indian philanthropists, who were Indian die-hards…?

Correct…

Or Gandhiji's schools, which obviously were not being given any grant?

Anyway they were very few… So it was in a very poor condition. Now imagine, Indian minister sitting in his chair. And he has before him the program of Education. Schools are running already, colleges are running and universities… There were 17 universities at that time. And he has no idea about the Educational Program or of Basic Education, how it can be incorporated in the present system—he is not thinking about it. A few schools can be supported, if at all there are schools, there are not many schools. So the Education Minister sitting in his chair says, “First of all, Education is a state subject, the Central government does not have anything to do with regard to schools, first of all.”

So actually uncle, if you look at the psychology of the Indian free man, it was that he was quite at sea…?

Exactly, I mean not only at sea, but he was under a yoke…

What yoke?

Of continuing what was going on and how it can be done, and he was in charge of running schools going on at that time. So he did not know what was to be done. So what happens is that the good Education Minister comes and says: “Oh, open more schools. Now you are free. What kind of school? What is going on! There was not even an idea, with many people, even Gandhi’s idea, nobody had tried. It was tried in a few schools, but there was no idea that this can be applied to the whole country.

I’m only trying to say that our ministers who came, maybe they had a very good will to do something, and instead of their budget of X amount, they said make it 5X.

So goodwill was there, but vision was absent.

They did not know what was to be done. Education means what? School, more teachers, more buildings, more facilities, that’s all. That psychology runs even today.

Now let us see the second point. That education was run by education secretaries. They were all ICS officers at that time. Now they had no idea, no idea of Education at all! Maybe Ministers had some idea, but Secretaries in charge—they had no idea.

They didn't think that their Education should be changed at all! Even today how many people think that education has to be different. Education means running schools, and that is all! So run the schools, make them better, if at all, more money they need, all right, give more money, open more schools,

That question of quality does not arise! So, and to change the system and a new kind of system. Now, this is only about ICS officers, but now take, for example, at the lower level, right up to the clerks. Do you think any one of them had an idea of the educational system…

He is running the schools as they were running before, maybe with more money available to give grants, that is all. Secondly, when India became free, one idea of education was greatly tom-tommed.English language should be abolished from India. That was a big idea at that time, English people, now we don’t want English anymore. Introduce regional languages. So there came a period when all ministers were all the time prepared — mother tongue, mother tongue, mother tongue, mother tongue, and how much money and (energy?) has gone in our country — to stop the preponderance of English and to make mother tongue the medium of education at the lower levels of education, so make school educational books written in the mother tongue. It’s a big effort, you have all falls on your head and you don't think that a new system is necessary. Only the change is that you change the medium of instruction and write new books in your own language. That is all so.

They are trying to preserve the culture through a language, not remembering that to preserve the country you need to do something beyond…

..much better, that idea did not exist. Second was to teach India.

Teach India?

India should be taught now; not what Britishers were teaching—England. In the British system of Education, the study of England was more important. So now you teach Indians, India… So Indian history, Indian geography, and so on, And not a change of system, and that too, third class people went on to writing books. So you can see the level at which Education drowned. We didn't have people who could write authoritative books. Even today, our books are very poor compared to what they ought to be. Alright, that’s the second problem. Third problem was that we wanted to shift education from only Arts and Science to some Technical Education. We wanted India to be technically developed—Science Education. So this is another fact which came up at one time. And also, in the school there was Science Education. Nehru tried to speak of scientific temper, so scientific temper became the watch-word all over the country. These were the great reforms of Education that occurred after we became free. I’m not finding fault with anybody, I’m only explaining that when we got freedom, we were not ready at that time to see what educational problems we have. Even Tagore’s writings were not studied by people…

Now let us go a little deeper. The Central Government, of course, considered education to be a serious matter. As Maulana Azad was the education minister, his idea of education was certainly Gandhian, but his main interest was to run schools, colleges, universities. Gandhian school education, for example, that concept had to be studied. What can be done, had to be studied, so they are going to study the problem, how Basic Education can be applied in our country? In the meantime, schools have to run!

At the bottom we have to see that there was a dichotomy between two visions of India, the Gandhian vision and the Nehruvian vision, and the two visions, even till today, have not been synthesised.

This is also a factor that Gandhi was assassinated in 1948. So actually, he saw Free India only for seven months — from August to January—six months. That time, the partition problem became very grave. During that time nobody had any priority for anything else. Why Sri Aurobindo says that partition was a great curse, it is because of that reason. That the entire effort of India was washed out the very day of becoming free, we were completely overwhelmed by the problem of partition. The energies of the people, all administrations have gone only in that direction. Who will think of education? Run, run the schools as they are running.

Nehru had only one idea. Education should be… mother tongue should be, of course, encouraged, Science should be encouraged and technical education should be encouraged. But the system of Education should be Oxford, Cambridge.

Because he was a great advocate of it, he was a product of it too, Uncle?

Absolutely, he was educated in Cambridge, he went to Eton school.

In fact there is a book of Satpremji in which he writes that there was a Britisher, a Viceroy or someone who asked him something to which he replied,“You are asking me for the perpetuation of something that…

..has ruined India.

No, that is my job to demolish! He was speaking about Indian Spirituality

So you can see among the leaders of India who were at that time in power, they were neither Gandhians nor Tagorians nor Vivekananda’s disciples, nor Aryasamajis nor disciples of Sri Aurobindo and the Mother. And these were the five people who had done tremendous experiments in education. So they were not in sight at all anywhere.

It was almost as if there was a great design by the lower forces to…

Overwhelm India…

Now let us concentrate upon the Central Ministry. First of all, he decided that since school education was not a part of the central ministry, they were looking only after a few universities, so they said that university education will be strengthened in our country. Science, technology, all that means university system. So, soon after that, in 1949, the Government of India established one commission to look into reforms of university education, and the chairman of that commission was Radhakrishnan. He himself was a professor of university. He had no experience of the Gandhian experiment or Tagore’s experiment.

He was a product himself of university education. He was a professor of education. He had only this concept that that education means university education, means vice chancellor and blah blah blah— the university system.

So that means that, as early as 1947, 99% of traditional education, which was all encompassing, had been washed away…

Much before, not only by 1947.

By 1880, the British system had taken roots in India, and men like the father of Sri Aurobindo had decided that his children were to have no influence of India…

So in 1879 he had sent away his children to England. So, you can see the influence of Britishers was so powerful. So their idea of education was only to make Cambridge university education the ideal. That is all. There was no indigenous thought of Indian education, even Sanskrit pathshalas, they wanted to be recognized, and they wanted grants from the government so that they could have the same kind of education which was being given in the British schools. Anyway, Radhakrishnan came into the focus— he spoke of Indian culture, it is on record—He was a professor of Indian philosophy…

Oh, he was a professor of Indian Philosophy! Indian philosophy obviously talks about

Veda to the…

I will give only one example from his book on Indian Philosophy. What kind of Indian philosophy he had, what was his idea…. “Aurobindo Ghose”—he writes in his book on English philosophy, his two volumes on Indian Philosophy. “Aurobindo Ghose has given a psychological interpretation of the Vedas. And he describes a few lines. Then he says—I don’t quote but give the meaning of it. “But since Aurobindo’s ideas are not in harmony with what Britishers have thought, what western scholarship has thought of Veda, we hesitate to accept this thought.

“Mr. Aurobindo Ghosh, the great Indian scholar-mystic, is of opinion that the Vedas are replete with suggestions of secret doctrines and mystic philosophies. He looks upon the gods of the hymns as symbols of the psychological functions. Surya signifies intelligence, Agni will, and Soma feeling. The Veda to him is a mystery religion corresponding to the Orphic and Eleusinian creeds of ancient Greece. “The hypothesis I propose is that the Rig Veda is.... principles’ (Arya Vol. I. p. 60). When we find that this view is opposed not only to the modern views of European scholars but also to the traditional interpretations of Sayana and the systems of Purva-Mimamsa, the authority on Vedic interpretation, we must hesitate to follow the lead of Mr. Aurobindo Ghosh, however ingenious his point of view may be. It is not likely that the whole progress of Indian thought has been a steady falling away from the highest spiritual paths of the Vedic hymns. It is more in accordance with what is known of the general nature of human development, and easier to concede that later religions and philosophies arose out of the crude suggestions and elementary moral ideas and spiritual aspirations of the early mind, than that they were a degradation of an original perfection” (Indian Philosophy by S. Radhakrishnan, Vol. I, pp. 69-70).

Oh my, why did you ask for independence? Then you should have remained the servants of the British.

This is what he writes on Indian philosophy…

Shameful. But what happened to all the… Jawaharlal Nehru swallowed it?

All…

It's appalling, Uncle!

It is appalling when you read the story of how we have dealt with our freedom…All right, he, in his report, he speaks of … although it was to speak of university education, but a part of it also is about school education… he has verbatim—from Sri Aurobindo’s book—National System of Education, without acknowledging at any stage that Sri Aurobindo spoke of it.

My God! He plagiarised the whole thing! And he thought that everybody is a duffer that they will not realise …

Nobody knows! Who has read Sri Aurobindo! Since I have read I can say that I have taken from Sri Aurobindo… does not acknowledge at all…

Now comes an important recommendation of Radhakrishnan—“We should radically change the examination system, but that is impossible. Therefore, we continue with the present system.” I am summarising in a very ironical manner, somewhat satirical manner, so don't make other people read this… but basic is that Educational Systems should be changed… but change is impossible. Therefore, we continue this… but we should ensure that every graduate knows essentials of all religions of India…

Which never happened….

Now comes a final point, "but we should ensure that religion is practised and not thought. Therefore, every class will start with a few minutes of meditation. That was one concrete, practical suggestion that came out of this big commission; reform in education means that every class should start with five minutes of meditation…

because religion should not be..?

It's a practice… To think that meditation could be artificial, you can’t meditate just like that, five minutes of meditation!

There I agree, I was completely confused about…

Then he says, “India should develop as in England, a University Grants Commission UGC, so that the university system should develop in our country under the guidance of UGC. So this is how India began with an Indian scholar recommending what should be done for Education at higher levels. We did not start with the school level, because the Central Government has nothing to do with school education, so why should we deal with school education? Only university education! Therefore, Radhakrishnan came into the picture. So the next year went only in implementing his recommendation. It was found that teaching of different religions in their colleges was not practicable. It was not practicable because every teacher will propagate his own religion…

According to Mahatma Gandhi, “religious education should be banned from the schools. Teaching of religion should not be a state responsibility, so anybody who receives taxpayer’s money for running a school or college should not indulge in religious education…

Finally, that was a final point, in the constitution also it was introduced …

That's why Radhakrishna wrote a very nice sentence. He said, “Religious education should not be taught, but religious education is different from education about religion. We should make a distinction between religious education and education about religion.

How does he qualify both the statements?

Religious education is to educate child, how to be religious. Education about religion is to be informed of the existence of many different forms of religion.

So we don't have the right to do religious education, but we must inform the child about various religions. I agree with him.

So he accepted, wonderful statement!

Why did it fail?

Because they found that Gandhi had said that religious education should not be allowed. So people were not sure if what Radhakrishnan had said was right or not. Can you really make a distinction between religious education and education about religions? Radhakrishnan said so, but is it really true?

So, Muslims opposed it very much. “How can my child learn Hinduism in college?”

No religious education at all. Therefore came the idea of Minority Schools.

Minorities said, “We want to teach our religion to our children. We should be free to establish our own schools.” So the Government said, “All right, do it, but we won’t give you a grant.” This is how Stephen’s College and all came into existence, there’s a long story about it, but anyway, minority schools came into existence…

So, the Government said we will give you the grant, provided religion is not compulsory.

So, this was a new reform… So you can see all hybrid systems coming in India. You can't teach Hinduism, Minority schools are not Hindu schools…

Religious education is not allowed.

Therefore you can see DAV schools running, they do something of this kind.

Something is going on, teachers go on telling what they want to tell, but when you come to the crunch, all woolly thoughts… up till today that problem has not been resolved.

Anyway, this is a subject which is woolly. Until today there is no clear answer to this question. why? Because Gandhi said religious education shouldn’t be allowed. It is the bottom line. Now, it is a great difficulty, among many people who believe in religions and spirituality and so on. So there was some agitation on that behalf. So a committee was set up by the Government, under Sampadananda, who was at that time the Chief Minister of UP. He was Chairman of the Committee, for Moral and Emotional education. Religion is not allowed, so let us speak of Moral Education, Emotional education, So he gave an interpretation of some kinds. So, they s aid that it is a good idea, but what should be done? Nobody knows, it’s all wooliness. Now in 1964—means about 14 years had already gone. In 1964, the Government of India thought that we have neglected school education. There should be One Commission that looks into the complete Educational System of India. What a good idea! It arose in 1964, this idea,…and then we should have a Commission to inquire as to what should be the pattern of Education in India, suitable for India. And Dr. Kothari was appointed the Chairman of the Commission, a great scientist of India, who believed in a high level of morality, he was a Jain, an absolute Jain thoroughly, he believed in ahimsa and Gandhian in that respect, scientist on the other side, great believer in System of Education that had come down from the Britishers. He was a very good friend of mine, we used to talk for hours together… But this, the psychology that the system of education of India should basically remain as it is. But something of ahimsa … his famous word was… "ahimsa and atom should go together”… Atom for science and ahimsa for all that is religion…

Good. So the one message which came out of the whole report. Second report, the second message was that the whole educational system should be looked at as one, and because our school system is not having the same standard as the western system of education, and therefore our children have difficulty in migration, and our education is not so greatly…

Therefore, we should now have a 12 year course, instead of 10 years, 11 years school…

This is an idea that was given to the country in 1966… Two years they took to decide…. Now it was not an easy solution because there were schools that were matriculate schools. There was the 11 year school system, then there were multipurpose schools at that time that had mushroomed in our country, liberal systems…, now they said we should have only one system. They said 10 plus 2 plus 3.

It was called the famous AISSCE,

Yes…

All India Senior School Certificate Examination…

Something like that… so now to equalise all the schools, it took such a long time to bring about a big revolution in education. It meant the dismantling of so many schools…

Our country is unequal…

Anyway… These are very important questions, but I’m not talking about those questions, but I’m just giving a rough, rough idea. Just a small graph as it were…

There was a great resistance to attempt this 10 plus 2 plus 3 in all the states, so lectures were organised, propaganda was made: “Kindly change our school system, make it 10, plus 2 plus 3.” It’s taken so many years… to make it so in all the schools of India; but even in Maharashtra, even today, it’s not yet been done…

So, its not school, college is downgraded. Also read about the college system… Nobody has seen the evil effects of the changes that have occurred. But imagine the effort & energy of India, the educational energy of India—was spent on what? Not on basic education, not on Tagore’s education. On what? Only on this reform! So where is the time available to ministers, you tell me? You become a minister, and then you say: 10 plus 2 plus 3 to be implemented. Why? Because the Education Commission has recommended it. Even if you differ from him, from the commission, what would you do? You can't change the policy of the whole country. So, personal initiative of some of the idealists had no place. In the meantime, the babus of education, they thought education consists of enrolment!

Yes, that is the sad part. I mean many things are the sad part, that the idealist of the country never got the voice. The idealists, soon after independence, were done with.

First of all, there were not many idealists. Secondly, idealists were never consulted, they all (the way?) and some of the people who survived, they went on saying, “Please give us the same equivalence as you are doing!” That is to say, the standard of education in the British system. Our system should be now measured in terms of your system, which is so horrible! So UGC came up with the idea of what is called Deemed Universities.

What are Deemed Universities—Universities which came into existence in the wake of the freedom struggle and wanted to establish a national system of education. They also should be given a place in our system. Therefore, if they are examined by our UGC, who will examine? —British people—they will examine. If they find that their value is high and they are doing well, they will be given the same standard as universities and therefore they will fall into the pattern of the universities of India; where there was no vice-chancellor, you will now have a vice-chancellor. Where they were all doing their service without distinction of lecturers, readers, professors, all were equal… No, now you must have a hierarchy…

So basically, all these deemed Universities, just to get a stamp of university, they had to undergo a face change…

And they accepted, very happily… plenty. Now we have universities, all people became very happy about it…

This is what happened. So anyway, this is what happened to what is called “National Education”. In 1962, I must say, an experiment was made to apply basic education to all the schools of India. There was one Shreemadhi who was the Education Minister in the Central Government. A very nice man and…

When he says basic education, what does he mean?

Gandhian. He wanted to apply Gandhian education all over the country.

Within the existing system of education…?

No, it was applied… It failed. Applied means what?

Exactly! What do you mean by applied?

You start doing what Gandhi has said—have basic education, have charkha, and some ploughing machine and start doing that system of education. There are no books prepared, no teachers prepared…

So how can one say it failed when you never started it correctly!

But who says! Then it was said that the basic education idea is very good, but it cannot be applied, it has failed. Now that chapter is over. In 1951, of course, they said… Nehru was very keen that Tagore’s vision should be maintained, Maulana Azad was very very keen,—Gurudeva! we should honour him. Vishwabharati should have no financial problem! Good. How can you then help the university, Vishwabharati. We have a scheme for helping Central Universities. Central govt says, “We have a scheme for helping Central Universities.”

But Vishwabharati does not fall under that?

Vishwabharati was not that university, it was established by Tagore.

So it was a Deemed University

No, not even Deemed University. So, Maulana Azad came up with an idea. "We shall pass an Act of Parliament and we shall take over the university and declare it to be a university set up by the Government of India and make it, give a further title to it— Institution of National Importance— great honour to be given to Tagore. In the preamble they said, “Having regards for all the achievements that have been made by Tagore, we now institute Vishwabharati as a university under the Central Government Parliament Act, so that it may become an institution of instruction and examination.

So they have reduced it exactly to…

What Tagore was … all his life opposing instruction and examination!

So they have reduced it to exactly what they believe in!

Yes!

This was their great honour

…they made and they said… Maulana Azad, when he moved the bill in the Parliament, he said…

Uncle, tell me, when Maulana Azad had such great regard for Gurudev, had he not read any works of Gurudev, or his ideas and policies about education, that he could come up with such a plan?

Who will write the act, tell me, Maulana Azad will write the Act?

But he passed it.

But who will write the Act first of all?

I don’t know.

Babus sitting inside… He comes in the morning, only two days are left for going to Cabinet. What is the system of Education? That bill is to be passed, order is given to Secretaries, and the Law Ministry to be consulted. How to make a University? What is the object of the University?

People do not know what difficulties there are. Even if you want to do something, how the government runs, you… in the education ministry nobody can draft an Act. You are not allowed. Draft has to be done only by law ministers, you just tell them what you want. You want to make a university? Fine. Then how to make a university? This is left to their imagination. Who knows what Tagore wanted! Now that bill drafted by him goes down, comes back to the ministry, goes up to the secretary: two days are there for the cabinet meeting. Then it comes to the minister's table for approval — What will he do? Even if he wants to change, what can he do?

But this is, Uncle, the whole point, the red tape, the bottlenecks, all these…

Are realities..

Realities, but if … if we just move away from the very, very surface appearance of things, then how did it come around? Why all this? Is India sleeping?

It’s a very big problem. You asked me first of all, one question. Now you are asking some deeper questions.

Its Very, very frustrating

I’ll tell you that also slowly, but later on… later on … let me finish what I’m saying. I have told you the story of what happened right up to 1970… that the Education System is not running well, which was tom-tommed from 1947 till 1970. After a big revolution of 10 plus, 2 plus 3, all were tired of reforms.
In 1973-74, there was a big education conference where Karan Singh was at that time the Health Minister, and he started his lecture by saying, “My advice to you is: “No more, we have done enough of changes, now no changes, don’t speak of changes now. Let us now continue with what we have, what you've done. We only now strengthen whatever you've done.”
Finished. It gives the exact indication, barometer of the mood of the government.

Basically lethargic, lethargic?

No. First of all, no idea of what is the meaning of reform. And reforms, of course done now, 10 plus 2 plus 3 — reform has been done, reform is done and the education system is changed now, a new system has come now. What more do you want? Of course, there are some Gandhian institutions, Tagore institutions, Deemed Universities. Method is over. Now go ahead! Pitroda comes into the picture, this is the latest… make more universities… make modernised… knowledge society. But nobody asked the question: what are you doing at the real meat of Education? What is Education? multiply, big, magnify… that’s all… multiply and magnify. And they always say the quality of education is going down. What is it? Quality means more efficiency and more technicality. Man-Making education? Don't speak about it, what is man-making education? It’s all man-making education going on.

So this is the latest. I’m not talking about the middle period still, but doesn't matter—later on we shall talk about this. But this is where we are standing today.

Sam pitroda was early 80s.

Even now, he is now Chairman of the Knowledge Commission. He has established all these missions and all that. He is a very nice man. The point is niceness is not enough. What is a cry of the soul of India? Where is that question?

Well, the thing is that when we read The Life Divine and we see matter and spirit now, India has been forging ahead when it comes to matter, the material life and the dearth when it came to spirituality, the erosion that has taken place over maybe, the last 500 years or whatever, nobody’s thinking about that…

So we are… of matter also we are not thinking properly…

So that is a problem. We are not thinking of either of that, so that is our present plight, you might say. What we are thinking at 192, Sukhdev Vihar, is one little voice going out of this small place, where nobody will hear…

Uncle, this whole thing, obviously, you said this is between us. I agree, because we needed to thrash things out, but the history of educational planning, forced independence, maybe in a more trimmed down version should be prepared. because it is the right of every Indian to know…

But nobody will write the history in the vein in which I have told you…