Debate on education in the constituent assembly

Debate on education in the constituent assembly

We celebrate Constitution Day on 26th November every year. We learn from the constituent assembly debate how our ancestors crafted a constitution that reflects our country's multicultural identity. It’s fascinating to go through the volumes of constituent assembly debate. However, it may not be possible for all of us to find time for this voluminous task. We can certainly find some time to watch 10 episodes of the documentary– Samvidhan on Youtube. This was prepared by Rajyasabha TV. In this blog post, I bring you a glimpse of the educational debate that took place on 7th December 1948. And the speaker was professor K.T Shah( One of the most eloquent speakers of the constituent assembly).

Have we go…

CONSTITUENT ASSEMBLY OF INDIA - VOLUME VII Tuesday, the 7th December, 1948 Mr. Vice-President: Amendment No. 664. Professor K. T.Shah.

Prof. K. T. Shah: Mr. Vice-President, Sir, I beg to move:

"That in clause (3) of article 22, for the words"outside its working hours" the following be substituted:

`maintained by that community from its own funds provided that no educational institutions, nor any education or training imparted therein shall be recognised unless it provides instruction or training in courses laid down for public instruction in the regular system of education for the country and complies in all other respects with methods,standards, equipment and other requirements of the national system of education.'"

Sir, the whole group of clauses lays down a principle of "no religious instruction in public educational institutions" and then seeks, as it seems to be the case,throughout this Chapter to find holes and crevices by which it can creep in like a thief in the dark, and undo the very basis and foundation of the structure we are seeking to erect.

I am free to confess that, apart from the variety of exceptions, exemptions or limitations, all sought to be imposed by this article upon its basic principle,--there is the difficulty of ambiguity of expression, the lack of clarity or insufficiency in the terms used, which makes it very difficult to devise an amendment, which might be effective in substance as well as in form, and bring out the idea more clearly and expressly than the draftsman seems to have done.

I mention one instance of ambiguity in terms, which,unfortunately, occurs also in the amendment which I am proposing, though there is, I think, no ambiguity in the term used in my amendment containing the expression `Statefunds'. The term fund, as I have understood it, means in common parlance, and I venture to submit, even in legal technical terminology, not revenue or recurring income. Thatterm means something static, something accumulated and existing, something that is what the lawyers would call`corpus', even if they understand the Latin term in theLatin sense, `Revenue' is something different.

Now take the clause about Institutions maintained fromState funds. I for one find it very difficult to understand what `funds' are meant here as intended by the draftsman for the maintenance of institutions. I am, of course, not anxious to read Bhagvat before buffaloes. But I must say that in trying to understand the meaning of this article, I Feel it necessary to at least expose my own difficulties and handicaps in understanding precisely the terminology used, and seek clarification from those who have the handling, the making, and drafting of this Constitution in their hands.

I make no secret of the fact that I am against public educational institutions being used for providing Religious Instruction in this country, or any country, but in this country particularly, because of the variety of sects and denominations. They are, of course, called each a religion; but they very often forget the basic truth of all religion, and exalt each its own particular brand or variety of it, as any advertizer in the market lauds his own wares. But even assuming that that is permissible, outside office hours so to say, outside the normal school hours, care must at least be taken that that is not done at the expense of the normal education, and all the requirements of that education and training, in the shape of building, staff, equipment, standards, methods etc. Now, it is by no means clear, at least in this clause(3), as it stands, that even if instruction is permitted or suffered to be provided outside the normal hours, whether that may be done at the expense of the ordinary curriculum. That will have to be, I take it, enforced in every school, whether maintained by public funds, or not. I insist, therefore, in this Amendment, that whoever wishes to provide such instruction, whatever community desires to provide such instruction, may do so, if you so agree, by its own funds. But they must be sufficient to meet the full cost; and in the full sense of the term, it must be after the school hours, in such a manner that there is no prejudice whatsoever of the ordinary curriculum prescribed standards of attainment, methods of instruction, equipment, etc. This, in my opinion, is liable very seriously to be sacrificed and endangered if you do not introduce some such safeguard as I am seeking to make by my amendment. Our only weapon is that, if any community so desires to insist upon the pre-eminence if not exclusive importance being given to religious instruction, and is prepared to spend money thereafter, let it do so. But the State should certainly not recognise any education given in such an institution, and in training equipment provided by that institution, unless it conforms to the public standards, and public requirements of such education and training being given up to a prescribed degree.

I have some experience of educational institutions trying to ignore, in one respect or another, one or all of these requirements. Those who have had experience of inspecting these institutions and reporting upon them to the appropriate authorities will realize what I mean when I say that the greatest difficulty lies in keeping these institutions up to a given mark, and to see from time to time that these standards are maintained.

In countries where a common standard prevails, this difficulty also exists. But in countries where there are conflicting ideals, namely secular education, material considerations in professional training and technical training, and at the same time there is, so to say, the demand of specialized religious instruction, I am afraid one or the other of these may suffer in order that the former or the latter may succeed. I feel it is imperative to require that not only shall all the funds for the provision of such instruction be supplied by the community which desired to provide it, but in addition, on pain of its education being not recognized, on pain of its degrees, diplomas and certificates not being accepted as sufficient qualification for its alumni when they seek any post or office, they shall see to it that the standards, equipment, buildings, staff and other requirements of the national system of education, and its code of regulations are fully complied with. If that is done, then probably the great evil which I find in the provision of religious instruction in a country like this would be mitigated, if not eliminated altogether.

Note- The content has been taken from the website—https://indiankanoon.org/doc/1745468/

Samvidhan series can be seen on— https://youtu.be/0U9KDQnIsNk