It is notable that 175 years after Macaulay's minute on education, which led to monumental changes in pedagogy and learning here, things remain very much in a state of flux.
Now, in calling for changing the medium of public instruction from ‘Sanscrit and Arabic' to english, and its contents metamorphosed from ‘sacred books' to, generally speaking, ‘the poetry of Milton, the metaphysics of Locke, and the physics of Newton,' Macaulay was of course prejudiced, conceited and plain biased.
But it cannot be gainsaid that he was a public policy enthusiast with remarkable vision. As we contemplate path-breaking reform in the domain of higher education, holistic policy design needs to be the watchword.
For instance, it is welcome indeed that the mavens seek to integrate the various streams under a single, overall umbrella for proper oversight and genuine cross-fertilisation of ideas.
However in tandem, there is no reason why all first degrees, across streams, need not be the BA, as is very much the norm in the ancient universities.
Our educational institutes do need to aim at being world-class of course, and we cannot any longer afford to remain contend with a few holiest of the holy centres of learning which anyway contribute precious little to domain knowledge and thought.
The point is to improve standards across the board, with stress on inculcating new knowledge and practices. But in tandem, we surely need uniform nomenclature for the first degree.
It would bring about much-needed inclusiveness across disciplines. And with common degree certificates and honours grades, graduates can look forward to postgraduate education in law, business and medicine. The world's leading universities follow such a system.
It is also notable that Macaulay based his reasoning on facts and analysis, although the unabashedly superior tone in the minute certainly seems quite uncalled for.
After all, it is a no brainer that higher attainments in industry and commerce also tend to show up in parallel literary achievements.
In his note, he was, as chair of the Committee on Public Instruction, excised over what in today's parlance can be called the cost-benefit ratio of public education. There was a ‘lakh of rupees' at the committee's disposal, we gather. But the expenses were thoroughly questionable, it is averred.
The policy hitherto had been to provide stipends to students enrolled in ‘Arabic and Sanscrit' colleges. Macaulay cites the figure for December, 1833. ‘The whole amount paid to them is above Rs 500 a month’, it's surmised.
And what is the fruit of all this? A petition was presented last year to the committee by several ex-students of the Sanscrit College, it is revealed.
And the petitioners are said to have added, “we have but little prospect of bettering our condition without the kind assistance of your honourable committee...” They have wasted the best years of life in learning what procures for them neither bread nor respect, adds Macaulay.
We might with advantage have saved the cost of making these persons useless and miserable, he concludes.
And those who learn ‘English are willing to pay us,' the minute enunciates. The amount realised from the ‘out-students of English for the months of May, June, and July last — Rs 103', it is documented.
Fast-forward to the here and now, and it is indeed welcome that the proposed National Commission for Higher Education and Research is to replace the stodgy UGC and the corruption-ridden All India Council for Technical Education. It also makes perfect sense to include purview for medical and legal education in the commission.
In the ancient universities of Oxford and Cambridge, the first degree remains the BA, never mind if one reads history, land economy or engineering. There is certainly a case for professional bodies to retain accreditation functions.
But the idea of a uniformly termed first degree, with a common system of markings, grades and ‘classification,' cannot really be faulted. Besides, we do need to set up new institutes where students can read various subjects all under one roof.
In this day and age, when knowledge is a clear source of competitive advantage, compartmentalisation just makes no sense.
