Free education is mere jugglery of words. A hangover of anti-rational pre-Partition days
Thank God, ten years' experience in Free India has taught them that we cannot get 'something out of nothing.' There are no shortcuts in the scheme of nature. We can deceive ourselves into the belief that in a free country, we can get amenities without having to pay anything in return, but we cannot deceive nature. Most people have been disillusioned by now, and no longer labour under the myth that they can freely help themselves with a rosagulla at the confectioner's shop, and nobody would bother them about the price.
Ours is a land, where people seem to believe in all seriousness that Aladin's Lamp is still preserved in the Moghal Fort at Delhi and Herculean tasks like the manufacture of penicillin, construction of moon-rockets and installation of thermo-nuclear plants can be accomplished without entailing any cost to ourselves. When, for our defence, we can confidently depend upon the arrival of the Lord Himself with His Sudarshana Chakra, and consider all military preparations unnecessary, is there any wonder if we also genuinely believe that some superman race of teachers will some day descend on earth—in this part of it—and convert, by a magic touch, all students into engineers, doctors and lawyers, without demanding a penny by way of remuneration?
There used to be a wide-spread belief among the illiterate masses before Partition that in Free India, milk and ghee would be supplied free to every child; all sorts of medicines would be available in the hospitals without any cost; customers would get provisions and sweet-meats in the market without having to pay any price. And in the same train of ideas came the fanciful notion that education up to the highest degree would be free.
Provisions, medicines and other necessaries have to be paid for even in Free India; and if someone is getting them free, rest assured, someone else, not always in sight, is paying the price. Whenever we get comfort and have not paid for it, we must realise clearly that we are enjoying it at somebody else's cost.
Free education—a mere jugglery of words
The day-dream of a free-education scheme is a hangover of the anti-rational mental attitudes of pre-Partition days. The talk of 'free-education' appears very fashionable at the first sight, and, as the fallacy involved in it is not so easy to detect, it proves a handy tool in the hands of crafty political demagogues at the time of elections. Educational procedure involves labour—of the teacher—which must be paid for. The question is: who should pay for it? If education is not 'free' the scholars pay for it in the form of tuition fees.
And if it is imparted 'free', the teaching staff has still to be remunerated, but now the money comes in the form of taxes, or special levies from those, who may not be directly concerned in the matter. The description 'free education' thus burns out, in the ultimate analysis, to be a clever device for confusing the public mind and to keep them well-fed on glittering slogans. There is nothing 'free' about it, for what is rejected as tuition fee, is accepted in another form-as 'educational cess' or as a 'special levy'.
This jugglery with words can effectively hoodwink masses in lands of befogged intelligence only, where people are unable to detect, by analysis, the subtle fallacies inherent in the arguments of state bureaucrats and professional politicians. Any decision by a government to make education 'free' or even 'cheap', must be taken by the people as a warning to be prepared for increased taxation; and the step would not be in any way different from a decision to abolish postal charges and quietly to double railway freights!
In a rational financial system, the expenditure on a public utility department, should, at least in part, be met by revenue accruing from the same. And when viewed against this background, the realisation of reasonable tuition fees from the scholars, especially from those in the higher classes, does not seem to be as baneful a practice as it is made out to be and need not be done away with. This, in fact, appears to be the only sound method to finance the education department. Extra taxes should only supplement income from tuition fees.
Also read: Slide in govt school enrolments continued in 2024-25; UP alone witnessed drop of 21.82 lakh
Death warrant against private institutions
The point we have developed brings out the unnatural nature of the decision of the Punjab Government to impart free education in state-controlled junior schools. From where will the money come for the salary bills of the teachers? No matter, how cleverly they put it, it has to come from the public; and the procedure they have adopted means only one thing, if it means anything. It means that money spent on Tom should not come from Tom—that is a cruelty. Money spent on the education of Tom should come from the pocket of Dick!
Let us look at the scheme from another angle. The number of scholars actually studying in government institutions is much smaller than of those attending private ones. In the very nature of things, these privately-managed institutions cannot give education gratis, unless the salary bill of the staff is paid from the state exchequer.
All other philanthropic sources—capitalists, landlords, Rajas and religious endowments—whence money could go to finance private enterprise in education—in the past have virtually dried up thanks to the much advertised Socialist and Secular pattern of society. If the state bureaucrats were really interested in popularising education, they should have concurrently accepted the moral responsibility of meeting the annual budget of private institutions from the state revenues.
The decision to remit fees in government schools, without any substantial aim to the privately-managed ones, is in effect a death warrant against them. And if some of them manage to survive, they will survive, not because of the 'benign' government, but in spite of it. If out of chagrin, the managements of private institutions decide to withdraw from this unpleasant competition with the all-powerful government and suspend their activities, the education of over seventy per cent of the children, now at school, will come to a stop.
It is a strange way of promoting child-welfare to provide free educational facilities to a privileged few, and leave the vast majority to rot by the roadside! And that will be the result if some privately-managed institutions are forced to close down, being unable to compete with those financed by government from out of the state funds.
Also read: Govt school enrolments dipped by 87 lakh in 2023-24. Bihar saw sharpest decline, followed by UP
Concrete suggestions
To sum up, we must recognise that:
a) There is no such thing as 'free-education'. Money paid to the teachers comes ultimately from the people, as taxes if not as tuition fees. b) The talk of 'free-education' is tendencious. It is a clever device by which political leaders are trying to confuse the public. c) If the Government seeks to collect funds for purposes of education, not by raising tuition fees, but by enhanced taxes, the benefit of 'free' studentship must accrue to all pupils, who belong to the school-going age, and not to a favoured few only. The Government must forthwith ban imposition of tuition fees on pupils in all the schools and remunerate the teachers, engaged in approved institutions, from the government treasury. d) If the Government cannot bear the burden of imparting 'free-education' to all the scholars, it should desist from creating difficulties in the way of those private agencies, which are sharing this burden with it. This means, that while all persons deriving the benefit of educational facilities must be required to pay the prescribed fees, whether in a government school or in a private one, the grant-in-aid rules should be so liberalised that the private institutions do not have to look to philanthropic people for help, but their deficit should be wholly met by the government.
In the end, I should like to submit that, in my opinion, the educational institutions should be maintained neither exclusively on special taxes, nor exclusively on tuition fees, but on both. The fees should be rated low enough to locate a deficit of about 25% at the school stage and about 50% at the College and University stages.
The deficit should be paid from the state treasury to the private institutions as well as to those under the direct control of the government. After all, the private agencies are promoting the same cause, for which the government stands, and are drawing money from the public—money in the form of fees—by using their own influence on people, where the government may have to resort to more coercive methods—taxation and compulsory levy—for achieving the same end.
All talk of 'free-education' must end once for all, because it is deceptive.
This essay is part of a series from the Indian Liberals archive, a project of the Centre for Civil Society. This essay first appeared in the Indian Libertarian magazine on 1 January 1959. The original version can be accessed on this link.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
7 hours ago
- Indian Express
K B Hedgewar and the roots of the RSS: A progressive movement that is misunderstood
The Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh has been an important component of India since the 1930s. In March 1934, there was a two-day discussion on the RSS's ideology, leadership and activities in the Legislative Council of the Central Provinces & Berar. Again, in February 1947, the Central Assembly debated these issues. The change in the power dynamic in national politics since the 1990s is largely attributed to its organisational and ideological impact. Isn't it ironic, then, that the founder of RSS, K B Hedgewar's vision and action got little space in these conversations? There is, however, an exception. In the pre-Independent period, after his death on June 21, 1940, newspapers and journals across the country, from Modern Review, edited by Ramananda Chatterjee and published from Calcutta, to the Marathi daily Kesari, founded by Gangadhar Tilak in Pune, debated his idea of India for months. At the age of 36, he visualised a movement whose sole objective would be to regain India's civilisational characteristics. He did not initiate a new stream of Hindutva. Rather, for him, the consolidation of Hindus was a means to achieve all-around development of the nation. During his time, the efforts to unite Hindus were based on philanthropy and preaching the ideas of social reformers on the one hand and the politics of the Hindu Mahasabha on the other. Both approaches proved, by and large, to be inadequate to address the basic causes of injustice and discrimination against marginalised castes. In A Dying Race (1908), U N Mukherji vehemently criticised upper-caste and -class Hindus for being insensitive to their own people. This was among the first works that put forth the idea that the reasons for the decline of Hinduism, besides the threats from Semitic religions, were its internal weaknesses. Three years later, B R Ambedkar questioned the claims of the Congress, Hindu saints, socialists and communists in What Congress and Gandhi have done to the Untouchables. Hedgewar believed that symbolism and social Fabianism cannot lead to a sense of equality and social cohesion – what the RSS calls samrasta. This was a visible departure from the elitist approach based on high-minded speeches and symbolic programmes like co-dining and co-option of social groups to address socio-cultural problems. Hedgewar realised feudalism was the mother of status-quoism, and the social and political elites had a stake in it. Even the revolutionary claims of socialists and communists against it were confined to speeches and resolutions. Hedgewar turned the table. He did not solicit support or patronage from any major political personality or massive funds during his 15-year leadership of the RSS. He relied on school and college teachers, clerks, graduates and common men, including orphans, to build up a movement. Others considered them just part of a crowd. Hedgewar groomed them as leaders of social and cultural movements. RSS workers actively spread the idea of undoing caste hierarchies. The 'untouchability' question has been dealt with systematically by the Sangh. For this, it silently bore the brunt of conservatives. A conglomeration of saints of all streams and sects, along with the Shankaracharyas in Udupi in 1969, dealt the death blow to the abiding, false perception among a powerful section of religious leaders and upper castes that untouchability had religious sanction. RSS Chief M S Golwalkar was the architect of this great leap forward. The battle against social conservatism — across countries and epochs — has been the most difficult of tasks. Despite Washington, Lincoln, Jefferson and Obama, the acrimony between Black and White people persists in the US. Apartheid's legacy of inequality continues in some ways today, despite decades-long campaigns against it. The dynamism of an organisation and ideology is rooted in its openness, ability to accept its limitations and introduce corrective measures. The RSS possesses these features. Early on, it carried out surveys in hundreds of villages in Maharashtra to compare the Sangh's intent to foster social change with its actual effect. In 1974, the third Sarsanghachalak Balasaheb Deoras said, 'Untouchability should go lock, stock and barrel.' Mohan Bhagwat gave this principle a practical formulation as a task for the organisation – to ensure 'common wells, common temples and common mortuaries.' In 1910, the Census Commissioner E A Gait issued a questionnaire to determine who was a Hindu. It included questions about those who were deprived of using common wells, ponds, mortuaries and temples. Known as the Gait Circular, it was eventually withdrawn before the 1911 census after protests by Hindu leaders, including Lajpat Rai. Hedgewar was aware of the pitfalls of electoral politics. The RSS remained at a distance from the political activities of the Hindu Mahasabha, which wanted trained swayamsevaks to work for its agenda. Hedgewar's position upset the Mahasabha and the leaders of other Hindu organisations. Critics of the RSS ignore these internal challenges when they view Hindutva as a singular entity. Nathuram Godse was one such disillusioned worker who, along with four Hindutva activists, wrote to Savarkar, blaming the RSS for wasting the energies of Hindu youth. The files of the Mahasabha in the Prime Minister's Museum and Library, Teen Murti (Delhi) have umpteen such examples of clashes between the Sangh and Mahasabha. This is reflected today, too. Many feel the RSS is too liberal on the minority question. Hedgewar avoided binaries both in principle and practice. This is a reason that RSS cadres do not hesitate while helping and serving non-Hindus — from food camps in 1950 and during the India-China war in 1962 to earthquake relief in Latur in 1993 and the plane crash in Ahmedabad in 2025. Stray statements and local incidents must not be seen as emanating from the RSS's philosophy. Using them as such only obstructs healthy dialogue and harms national interest. RSS had a modest beginning. It worked without an office or sign signboard for years. Office bearers were created after three years. Till then, it functioned like a commune. 100 years of the RSS is an occasion for both its critics and admirers to understand the message of Hedgewar: Selflessness and keeping the common person at the centre will keep an ideology and movement alive. The writer is a former Rajya Sabha MP (BJP)
The Print
10 hours ago
- The Print
Free education is mere jugglery of words. A hangover of anti-rational pre-Partition days
Thank God, ten years' experience in Free India has taught them that we cannot get 'something out of nothing.' There are no shortcuts in the scheme of nature. We can deceive ourselves into the belief that in a free country, we can get amenities without having to pay anything in return, but we cannot deceive nature. Most people have been disillusioned by now, and no longer labour under the myth that they can freely help themselves with a rosagulla at the confectioner's shop, and nobody would bother them about the price. Ours is a land, where people seem to believe in all seriousness that Aladin's Lamp is still preserved in the Moghal Fort at Delhi and Herculean tasks like the manufacture of penicillin, construction of moon-rockets and installation of thermo-nuclear plants can be accomplished without entailing any cost to ourselves. When, for our defence, we can confidently depend upon the arrival of the Lord Himself with His Sudarshana Chakra, and consider all military preparations unnecessary, is there any wonder if we also genuinely believe that some superman race of teachers will some day descend on earth—in this part of it—and convert, by a magic touch, all students into engineers, doctors and lawyers, without demanding a penny by way of remuneration? There used to be a wide-spread belief among the illiterate masses before Partition that in Free India, milk and ghee would be supplied free to every child; all sorts of medicines would be available in the hospitals without any cost; customers would get provisions and sweet-meats in the market without having to pay any price. And in the same train of ideas came the fanciful notion that education up to the highest degree would be free. Provisions, medicines and other necessaries have to be paid for even in Free India; and if someone is getting them free, rest assured, someone else, not always in sight, is paying the price. Whenever we get comfort and have not paid for it, we must realise clearly that we are enjoying it at somebody else's cost. Free education—a mere jugglery of words The day-dream of a free-education scheme is a hangover of the anti-rational mental attitudes of pre-Partition days. The talk of 'free-education' appears very fashionable at the first sight, and, as the fallacy involved in it is not so easy to detect, it proves a handy tool in the hands of crafty political demagogues at the time of elections. Educational procedure involves labour—of the teacher—which must be paid for. The question is: who should pay for it? If education is not 'free' the scholars pay for it in the form of tuition fees. And if it is imparted 'free', the teaching staff has still to be remunerated, but now the money comes in the form of taxes, or special levies from those, who may not be directly concerned in the matter. The description 'free education' thus burns out, in the ultimate analysis, to be a clever device for confusing the public mind and to keep them well-fed on glittering slogans. There is nothing 'free' about it, for what is rejected as tuition fee, is accepted in another form-as 'educational cess' or as a 'special levy'. This jugglery with words can effectively hoodwink masses in lands of befogged intelligence only, where people are unable to detect, by analysis, the subtle fallacies inherent in the arguments of state bureaucrats and professional politicians. Any decision by a government to make education 'free' or even 'cheap', must be taken by the people as a warning to be prepared for increased taxation; and the step would not be in any way different from a decision to abolish postal charges and quietly to double railway freights! In a rational financial system, the expenditure on a public utility department, should, at least in part, be met by revenue accruing from the same. And when viewed against this background, the realisation of reasonable tuition fees from the scholars, especially from those in the higher classes, does not seem to be as baneful a practice as it is made out to be and need not be done away with. This, in fact, appears to be the only sound method to finance the education department. Extra taxes should only supplement income from tuition fees. Also read: Slide in govt school enrolments continued in 2024-25; UP alone witnessed drop of 21.82 lakh Death warrant against private institutions The point we have developed brings out the unnatural nature of the decision of the Punjab Government to impart free education in state-controlled junior schools. From where will the money come for the salary bills of the teachers? No matter, how cleverly they put it, it has to come from the public; and the procedure they have adopted means only one thing, if it means anything. It means that money spent on Tom should not come from Tom—that is a cruelty. Money spent on the education of Tom should come from the pocket of Dick! Let us look at the scheme from another angle. The number of scholars actually studying in government institutions is much smaller than of those attending private ones. In the very nature of things, these privately-managed institutions cannot give education gratis, unless the salary bill of the staff is paid from the state exchequer. All other philanthropic sources—capitalists, landlords, Rajas and religious endowments—whence money could go to finance private enterprise in education—in the past have virtually dried up thanks to the much advertised Socialist and Secular pattern of society. If the state bureaucrats were really interested in popularising education, they should have concurrently accepted the moral responsibility of meeting the annual budget of private institutions from the state revenues. The decision to remit fees in government schools, without any substantial aim to the privately-managed ones, is in effect a death warrant against them. And if some of them manage to survive, they will survive, not because of the 'benign' government, but in spite of it. If out of chagrin, the managements of private institutions decide to withdraw from this unpleasant competition with the all-powerful government and suspend their activities, the education of over seventy per cent of the children, now at school, will come to a stop. It is a strange way of promoting child-welfare to provide free educational facilities to a privileged few, and leave the vast majority to rot by the roadside! And that will be the result if some privately-managed institutions are forced to close down, being unable to compete with those financed by government from out of the state funds. Also read: Govt school enrolments dipped by 87 lakh in 2023-24. Bihar saw sharpest decline, followed by UP Concrete suggestions To sum up, we must recognise that: a) There is no such thing as 'free-education'. Money paid to the teachers comes ultimately from the people, as taxes if not as tuition fees. b) The talk of 'free-education' is tendencious. It is a clever device by which political leaders are trying to confuse the public. c) If the Government seeks to collect funds for purposes of education, not by raising tuition fees, but by enhanced taxes, the benefit of 'free' studentship must accrue to all pupils, who belong to the school-going age, and not to a favoured few only. The Government must forthwith ban imposition of tuition fees on pupils in all the schools and remunerate the teachers, engaged in approved institutions, from the government treasury. d) If the Government cannot bear the burden of imparting 'free-education' to all the scholars, it should desist from creating difficulties in the way of those private agencies, which are sharing this burden with it. This means, that while all persons deriving the benefit of educational facilities must be required to pay the prescribed fees, whether in a government school or in a private one, the grant-in-aid rules should be so liberalised that the private institutions do not have to look to philanthropic people for help, but their deficit should be wholly met by the government. In the end, I should like to submit that, in my opinion, the educational institutions should be maintained neither exclusively on special taxes, nor exclusively on tuition fees, but on both. The fees should be rated low enough to locate a deficit of about 25% at the school stage and about 50% at the College and University stages. The deficit should be paid from the state treasury to the private institutions as well as to those under the direct control of the government. After all, the private agencies are promoting the same cause, for which the government stands, and are drawing money from the public—money in the form of fees—by using their own influence on people, where the government may have to resort to more coercive methods—taxation and compulsory levy—for achieving the same end. All talk of 'free-education' must end once for all, because it is deceptive. This essay is part of a series from the Indian Liberals archive, a project of the Centre for Civil Society. This essay first appeared in the Indian Libertarian magazine on 1 January 1959. The original version can be accessed on this link.
The Hindu
a day ago
- The Hindu
Ready for discussions with A.P. on Bankacherla, but Centre's step-motherly treatment towards Telangana not acceptable: Revanth
Chief Minister A. Revanth Reddy has expressed his readiness to hold talks with Andhra Pradesh Chief Minister N. Chandrababu Naidu on the inter-State water disputes, particularly over the controversial Banakacherla project. In an informal chat with reporters in New Delhi on Friday (June 20), Mr. Reddy said he preferred dialogue over confrontation and inter-State water disputes can only be resolved through mutual understanding and cooperation. Mr. Revanth Reddy attributed the dispute to the Centre's unilateral acceptance of Andhra Pradesh's Pre-Feasibility Report (PFR) without consulting Telangana. 'The urgency with which Centre responded after A.P. submitted the PFR is a concern,' he pointed out stressing for a balanced approach in dealing with such sensitive inter-State issues. Mr. Reddy opined that if Mr. Chandrababu Naidu wants to regain power, diverting Godavari water is a key aspect. If Mr. Modi wants his seat, he needs Mr. Chandrababu's support. But such strategic interests must not undermine Telangana's rights,' he said. The Chief Minister, who is in New Delhi for the last two days to represent to the Central government, said such matters should be addressed through legal and technical evaluation, not political blame game. These disputes were between States and not individuals, he said. The Chief Minister clarified that the Banakacherla project was an ancillary project to Polavaram, the only project specifically permitted under the Andhra Pradesh Reorganisation Act. The new project cannot go ahead without Telangana's consent given its direct connection to the Godavari-Penna linkage. 'A.P. issued two GOs in 2016 and 2018. Based on these, WAPCOS presented a 150-page report. The Banakacherla project proposes transferring 400 TMC in 86 days. Telangana has been allocated 968 TMCft from the Godavari as an upper riparian State, and Telangana must be allowed to fully utilise its share first,' he said. The issue would be taken up at the Cabinet meeting scheduled for June 23.
