The Impact of Western Educational
Styles on India's Struggle for Development and Justice: Some Reflections
Influence of Liberal Humanism and Marxist
Visions of Gandhi, Nehru, and Tagore
Developing a plan for India today
Influence of Liberal
Humanism and Marxist Socialism
Throughout her long history, India has
been open to other cultures and styles of education. This paper has to
limit itself to the two major influences that have come to us from
nineteenth century Europe, and possibly make a comment on the necessity
to learn from other Asian educational styles.
Apart from the various
colonial thrusts from the West (Portuguese, Dutch, French and British), two
main currents have hit us in this century with great force--Western liberal
humanism, and Western Marxist socialism. The former has definitely shaped
the pattern of our institutional education; the latter has made its impact
both on the educated elite, and on a vast number of workers and peasants; especially
in Bengal, Andhra and Kerala.
India has not, however, simply adapted these ideas wholesale. The
impact has made most of our educated people neither liberal humanists
nor Marxist socialists. This is largely due to our peculiarly Indian
attitude towards ideas as such.
Indians have an exceptional ability to assimilate foreign ideas,
though not always at a sufficiently profound level or in an adequately
nuance manner; they can also express these ideas with eloquence of
language though not always with elegance of style. In the
urban-technological societies of the West, ideas are at a premium,
eagerly sought after, generously paid for, and promptly acted upon. In
Indian society, on the contrary, ideas are mainly for the purpose of
making speeches or writing articles, but not necessarily to be paid for
or actually to be implemented. Ours is a talkative society, not a
The enormity of our problems and the awareness of our long history
conspire to make us prefer an easy-going approach to the task before us.
Unlike the Westerner we are adept at focusing on the reasons why
something will not work, rather than on the need to find new ways of
dealing with our difficulties. We feel tired, powerless and frustrated;
all we want to do is to make self-deceiving excuses for not making the
effort, or for not sustaining the effort beyond the initial failure.
Because the problems are so enormous, we seem to trust more in the
cosmic forces than in our own effort to work things out. This seems to
apply both to the Indian liberal humanist and to the Indian Marxist
socialist, though perhaps not to the same degree.
The highest compliment
that can be paid to the Western liberal educational style is to recognize
its direct role in initiating and advancing India's struggle for development
and justice. Western education hit little more than the apex of the pyramid
of Indian society in the 19th century. But it immediately led to the quest
by an Indian elite for social reform. Raja Ram Mohan Roy, Dayananda Saraswati
and Debendranath Tagore were ardent social reformers. Not only were their
consciences quickened; their will to reform found expression in Western style
societies and movements—Arya Samaj, Brahma Samaj, Servants of India Society,
Indian National Congress and so on. Tilak and Gokhale, Vivekanand and Gandhi
were all more than talkers; they were organizers of social reform movements
the like of which were not seen in India before the Western impact.
This early movement for social reform in India
had two essential characteristics--it was religiously motivated, and though
led by an elite, was essentially universal in horizon. In this sense it was
an attempt to integrate western ethics into an Indian religious framework
and at the same time to universalize Indian religion. Ram Mohan Roy stood
for an "upanishadic universalism" not only for Indians, but for all humanity
--witness his impressive and effective participation in the anti-slavery
movement in Britain. The early elitist social reform movement could not accept
a Western "secular" basis. Only with Jawaharlal Nehru, secular, socialist
ideas, unrelated to the Hindu religious framework become pervasive in Indian
elitist thought. For Nehru, the springs of motivation lay, not in the religious
and cultural heritage of India, but in the European struggle for emancipation
from ecclesiastical control of thought, and from feudalist, capitalist oppression
of the masses. It is in Nehru that we see clearly the merging of the liberal-humanist
and the Marxist-socialist streams of thought in an un-Indian secular framework.
At the Lucknow Congress (1936), Nehru's presidential
address spoke about the direct relation between "the intensification of the
struggle for social freedom in Europe, and a new aggressive nationalism in
the countries of Asia1. Both forces were anti-imperialist
and anti-fascist; imperialism and fascism were reactionary forces allied
to a decadent capitalism. The Congress had to opt to be on the side of the
progressive forces of secular socialism.
Did Nehru succeed in converting the Congress
to his point of view in 1936? No, at least not totally. Already in 1930 he
had observed the conflict between upanishadic universalism and secular humanism
threaten to split the Congress. And in the famous 1930 pledge for Purna Swaraj
(complete independence) drafted by Nehru and accepted by the Congress, it
had been recognized that the emancipation of India was more than a political
and economic affair. The Purna Swaraj pledge was meant as a policy platform
for the liberation of India from the colonial yoke, in four parallel movements.
The first and the most important was economic emancipation to which Nehru
devoted three paragraphs, and the second, political liberation which merited
a long paragraph. The pledge then went on to speak about the two other aspects
of freedom --cultural and spiritual:
"Culturally, the system of education has torn us from our
moorings, and our training has made us hug the very chains that bind us.
Spiritually, compulsory disarmament has made us unmanly, and the presence
of an alien army of occupation, employed with deadly effect to crush in us
the spirit of resistance, has made us think that we cannot look after ourselves
or put up a defense against foreign aggression, or even defend our homes
and families from the attacks of thieves, robbers and miscreants"2.
Nehru obviously was making a concession to the older elements in the
Congress who put more emphasis on a cultural and spiritual renaissance
as the most essential aspect of decolonization, but he gave his own
"secular" interpretation to these cultural and spiritual elements.
Gandhi, Nehru, and Tagore
In this way, the merging
of the Western liberal humanist and Marxist socialist ideologies inside the
head of Jawaharlal led to two different streams again in the quest for a
reawakened India. For the sake of convenience, we will label one "Nehru's
vision" and the other "the Gandhian vision" of India's future. There was
so much in common between the two visions, that they found it not much of
a problem to co-exist in the bosom of the Indian National Congress.
There were radicals on both sides. The secular-Marxist
radicals later separated to form the Communist Party of India. Some
fanatic religious extremists separated to form conservative religious groups
like the Rashtriya Svayam Sevak Samiti. But the vast majority remained with
the Indian National Congress. Within the Congress itself, however, the Gandhian
vision and Nehru's vision uneasily co-existed, the latter predominating.
The Gandhian vision, inheriting the
original upanishadic universalism, consisted in a Ramarajya of limited aspirations
as far as consumer goods were concerned. It was anti-industrialist, anti-urbun,
but not anti-capitalist. Capitalists like Birla and Tata were regarded as
allies who would hold properly in trust for the people, providing funds for
Simplicity of life, an agrarian-rural setting
with a minimum of factories and cities, primacy of the spiritual, uplift
of the downtrodden an omni-religious, theistic basis, work-based basic education--these
were some of the planks of the Gandhian platform. Coming in the tradition
of Ruskin and Tolstoy, Rousseau and Thoreau in the West, the Gandhian vision
had much in common with the counter-culture syndrome now gaining ascendancy
in America and other Western countries.
Nehru's vision of a socialistic pattern of
society, in contrast, based on the secular humanism of the industrial West,
was openly committed to the urban industrial culture based on Western science
and technology. Ideologically anti-capitalist, though unable to extricate
itself from dependence on capitalist wealth and power, the India of the five-year
plans had as her objective the raising of the GNP, catching up with the West,
ever expanding production and consumption, increasing educational and
health services, and better distributive justice through graded taxation.
It is this Nehru vision, with the primacy of the economic factor, that has
dominated India. Her educational system has also been idea-based (the 'banking'
concept of education, to borrow a Paulo Freie term) rather than work-based.
While giving encouragement to art and music, dance and drama, literature
and sports, the Nehru vision had but limited interest in either the spiritual
heritage of India or in a coherent vision of man and the meaning of his life.
In agriculture, as in industry, in education as in research, our inspiration
as well as ideas came from the West, whether socialist or capitalist.
is the key to our vision, and the index of our orientation. This is something
we took over bodily from the Soviet Union. But we have integrated our planning
into our own "soft" system of liberal humanism. Centralized economic planning,
government-controlled, does not work very well in our society, precisely
because the other key element necessary for the success of a Soviet five-year
plan seems to be totally lacking in our society--viz., party cadres locally
organized, trained and disciplined by ideological formation, to carry through
the transformation of attitudes and patterns necessary at the primary level
of production and distribution, whether industrial or agricultural.
It was the co-ordination of party cadres
and Government machinery, the former disciplining and controlling the latter,
that assumed responsibility for the implementation of the plans in the Soviet
Union. In our soft Indian society, there was little ideological formation
of the Government personnel, and the party cadres were both undisciplined
and inactive in terms of primary production. The recent Kumaramangalam Thesis
is supposed to have changed all that in India, but only on paper. The persistent
fact remains that no five-year plan can be implemented by a bureaucracy,
unless undergirded and supported by ideological education of the masses,
carried out by a corps of non-governmental but strictly disciplined party
The fundamental defect of our educational system is directly linked
with the defect of the national planning system. No radical reform of
education can be carried out in a nation by the production of a good
report and the allotment of a fat sum for its implementation. Classroom
education cannot be reformed adequately without parallel effort
affecting the masses throughout the nation. Mass social education is the
necessary matrix for any substantially effective institutional change in
The secondary defect of our educational
system is its alienation from the basic primary economic relations of the
people i.e., of production and distribution. The 'banking concept' of education
remains untransformed, despite all statements about a work-based education.
The success of the Soviet Union, especially of its great educational pioneer
with a large vision, A.S. Makarenko3, depended
on the concepts of work-based education and social responsibility ("proletarian
duty", he called it), but the Soviet Union practically rejected Makarenko's
philosophy during the Stalin days, and went in for competition with the West.
The Communist system was expected to produce bigger and better steel factories
and space rockets than the capitalist system was able to. Stalin's Russia
forgot the basic orientation of Marxism-- the remoulding of Man, and became
preoccupied with outdoing the West at any cost.
And Stalin's Russia, therefore, decided
to abandon Makarenko's social-rehabilitation-oriented education in favour
of Germany's industrial-production-oriented Gymnasia. But even in this adopted
Western capitalist educational system utilized by a socialist society, care
was taken to see that education in the schools was not divorced from education
in the factories and communes. This is where the Indian system seems a total
failure, and the Chinese system appears to have started off much more on
the right foot than the Soviets.
tried to show a third way to which India paid but scant attention. He was
willing to use Western insights, but he wanted a radical reorientation of
our educational system; in this he was opposed to the scientific-technological
approach of Nehru.
One expression of his views can be
seen in the series of addresses4 he delivered in
his younger days at Harvard University and at the Shantiniketan. His basic
thesis is a distinction he makes "between the scientific attitude to life,
which he describes as an attitude of objectifying everything and bringing
it under control, and the unitive approach, which seeks a vital, non-objectifying
relation to reality:
"India intuitively felt that the essential fact of this
world has a vital meaning for us; we have to be fully alive to it and establish
a conscious relation with it not merely impelled by Scientific curiosity
or greed of material advantage, but realizing it in the spirit of sympathy,
with a large feeling of joy and peace"5
Tagore argued that joy was more important than
power. And joy comes from union, not from knowledge or control. Tagore accuses
the Christian West of not really coming to terms with Christ's teaching
on fundamental unity.
Ivan Illich, if he had lived then and had
his present ideas, would have loudly cheered the opening words of Tagore
in his 1924 address to students in China!
"When I was very young I gave up learning and ran away
from my lessons. That saved me, and I owe all that I possess today to that
But did every child that left school for one reason or another
at the age of 12 or 13 develop into a Tagore? What the poet meant was perhaps
simply that the Western style school stifles creativity and dessicates the
spirit of man. The Western style school, according to both Illich and Tagore,
alienates from reality and creates ghettoes of the mind, full of parochial
prejudices, national chauvinism, and acquisitive greed.
I do not know what the Chinese response
was to Tagore in 1924. I doubt whether his warning against the Western style
of education was heeded at all at that time.
The Chinese Experiment
But today the
Chinese seems to be succeeding in the creation of an educational system which
is certainly not a pale copy of the Western. Mao Tse Tung, one of the greatest
educators of all time, saw in the very early stages of the Liberation War
that ideological education should be the core of the fighting power of the
army. It was a simple system of conscientization, i.e.,
allow every soldier to 'pour out his grievances' against
the oppressor class, by citing actual experiences of the peasants and workers.
carry out the three-fold check-up of each soldier for class
origin, performance of duty, and will do fight7.
The Chinese educational system, starting from that very modest
and rudimentary ideology in 1940 has in the past quarter century dared more
radically than any other national educational system that I know of to introduce
sweeping changes into the pattern of education based on a clear ideological
vision. To put the present theory in short-hand, it goes something like this8:
each economic plan can be carried out only by first effecting
the ideological mobilization of the people.
Ideological incentives should replace material incentives,
but should generate equal or greater material results.
The technique is: "from the masses and back to the masses".
i.e., party cadres should go to the masses, gather their ideas, analyze and
correct them and refine them in discussion, and thus arouse the spontaneous
creativity of the masses. After this the movement of education and production
will be carried on by the masses themselves. There is no need of coercion.
The masses will exert their own pressure upon themselves.
All possible means should be used for the education of the
masses, but always starting with their own ideas. Use processions with drums
and flags, use all public media, use discussions, meetings, debates, demonstrations,
public trials, and every means for maximum public involvement. The mass movement
will generate its own heroes and leaders, and compose its own popular slogans
and marching songs.
This mass movement would sometimes mean a stinging criticism
of the ruling party; in such a case the party must stand ready to be rectified
by the public criticism. No bureaucracy, no party, no government, no individual
should be immune from public criticism.
Educate the anti-social culprits in order to transform them;
do not punish by coercion and force. Let the masses do this too. Physical
liquidations and purges create chain reactions of hate which are ultimately
destructive. Public criticism, ridicule and lampooning of those who offend
against the public interests are much more effective than concentration camps
and secret service-engineered purges.
Even the army should use ideas or education as its main
tool, rather than brute force. The army should be the leader in the national
reconstruction, by creating a nation-wide study movement which operates through
a mass movement for improved production and distribution, both rural and
urban, agricultural and industrial.
Intellectuals are not to be trusted either with education
or with political leadership. China has for millennia been a meritocracy,
ruled by the Mandarin literary elite. A political revolution without a literary
revolution is bound to fail. Classical literature emphasizes style and form
at the expense of spirit and content; it teaches certain individual moral
values of a feudal or capitalist society, rather than the values of social
justice and social wealth as they affect the common man. The principles of
the literary revolution had been laid down as early as 1917 by Chen Tu Hsiu,
and provided the primary intellectual thrust for the Chinese Revolution:
overthrow the painted, powdered, and obsequious literature
of the aristocratic few, and breathe the plain, simple and expressive literature
of the people;
overthrow the stereotyped and over-ornamental
literature of classicism, and create the fresh and sincere literature of
overthrow the pedantic, unintelligible, and obscurantist
literature of the hermit and recluse, and create the plain-speaking and popular
literature of society in general."9
The attempt in 1949-52 to create a new, socially responsible,
intellectual elite produced highly unsatisfactory results; the many
attempts to make the teachers and writers go back to the masses and
learn from them did not transform their ideas overnight. In January
1956, Chou En Lai had to call a special session of the Communist Party
to deal with the question of intellectuals. This was the "Year of the
Hundred Flowers", when intellectuals were given a temporary respite of
freedom, to see if the method of open debate and public criticism, so
successful among the masses, would succeed also among the intellectuals.
In the agonizing self-appraisal that followed
the Year of the Hundred Flowers, the Chinese discovered that the radicalization
of the elite was an uphill task. They decided on a program to transform the
educational system, both social and institutional. The line was more or less
More youth of peasant and worker origin should enter the
higher institutions, in order to break the clique of ‘meritocracy' that controlled
Chinese education must abandon all "foreign stereotypes",
and was to be based on bold, independent thinking coming out of the experience
of working class youth engaged in productive labour; manual labour was accepted
as a normal part of education, for teachers and students alike.
China must assume the leadership of the world struggle of
the oppressed, which the U.S.S.R. was abandoning. This sense of world mission
has a great deal to do with the educational dynamic in China today. She decided
to "go it alone" and to march in front.
The army should be used as the major instrument for the
socialist education of the countryside, through literacy campaigns, through
popular art, producer and consumer co-operatives, communized agriculture.
and a village-based light industry.
Activation or animation of local mass groups would be the
main task of the army as educator of the nation.
Education must combine socialist consciousness and attitudes
(including the dignity of productive labour), with scientific reasoning and
inventiveness, which includes emancipation from superstitious beliefs and
The mass organizations should have their base in the under-thirty
age group. Youth, both men and women, were to break out of the traditional
value system of individual virtues, and to cultivate the virtues of social
productivity, the spirit of collaboration and team-work, freedom from corruption,
bribery, violence and from arbitrary exercise of authority, the equality
of men and women, and national self-reliance.
Without this massive movement for the
socialist education of the countryside as well as of the cities, China would
never have reached its present status. But "education into a socialist society
will cover a long historical period" as Chou En Lai said in December 1965.
we have not had either the will or the organizing capacity for this mass
mobilization of the people. We have not set our educational thinking and
planning in the context of this mass social education and dynamization
of the people. We have no local cadres in the ruling party or any other party
which can undertake this work on a nation-wide basis. In India we are still
thinking of social justice as something achievable through central planning.
One can see how social justice can be advanced through large-scale public
sector investment and a graded system of taxation, but so long as power remains
in the hands of a capitalist-feudal bourgeoisie, it is hard to see how the
investments and the taxation will not be manipulated in their own favour
by those in power.
Social justice in India is
achievable, it seems to me, only through a massive shift in the power-base,
from the bourgeoisie who form perhaps five or six percent of the Indian population,
to the rest of the masses, whether urban-industrial, agricultural, or government
servants, labourers and peasants, including the millions of the unemployed.
But this power-shift has to be preceded by a massive socialist education
of the masses, to clarify their own long-range objectives and to formulate
the strategy for attaining those objectives. Such a socialist education of
the masses must focus on a shift from individual and group egoism, greed
and selfishness, to a new set of social values.
One would have thought of the
primary school as a starting point, or even of the secondary school,
the teacher training college, or perhaps the university. But such thinking
comes from the institutional hang-up of many of us educational thinkers.10
Without mass social education, institutional education cannot be radically
corrected. Unless the primary relations of production and distribution are
reorganized on the basis of social justice, until all cultural and communication
media are enlisted in the service of mass socialist education of the people,
without a concerted and disciplined effort on the part of the civil and military
forces of the multi-million member enterprise called the Government of India
to educate themselves and the people along socialist lines, the mere tinkering
with primary, secondary or tertiary educational institutions can in no wise
actually achieve a society with justice. The battle for the minds of the
young cannot be fought in the confines of the compound walls of institutions.
Book learning by itself will not usher in social justice.
China began her experiments
in 1958, with Marx's idea of a part-work, part-study education, not based
in the schools, but in the factories themselves. But these proved to be largely
a failure by 1962. In 1964 the scheme was reactivated with renewed vigour
and circumspection, but this time in integral relation to what was happening
in the society around, especially in communes. Teachers with the right attitudes
and skills were difficult to find.
In 1966, the Great Proletarian Cultural Revolution exploded with
earth-shaking force. The masses, led by the army and the young people,
took over their own education. All students were now required, beginning
with senior middle school, to spend a year or two among the workers,
peasants and soldiers, in the factories and communes. There they were to
be educated in the three primary principles of Chinese education: the
class struggle, the struggle for production and the promotion of
scientific research and inventiveness.
University entrance was no longer on the
basis of academic merit. That criterion led to the anomalous, monstrous and
shocking fact that even in the mid-sixties, the Shanghai Music Institute
had some ninety percent of its students with a bourgeois origin11.
1966 saw the abolition of the examination system both for entrance
and for graduation. The Cultural Revolution forced the university
students to return to the factories and communes for a year or two.
Readmission to university reduced enrolment to about a third of what it
was before the Cultural Revolution. Students were readmitted on the
basis of their social attitudes, their capacity for productive work, and
their scientific inventiveness and initiative as demonstrated in the
years in the communes and factories.
Chinese education is no pale imitation of
the West. It has its own vision, its own dynamic, its own cultural rootage
and particularity. Many of its basic ideas and patterns as well as the theory
seem at first sight strikingly Western. But the Chinese have made something
of it which is now fully their own.
plan for India today
Is the plea of this paper that we
should stop imitating the West and start imitating the Chinese? Far from
it. The Chinese system is in any case in its early pioneering and
experimental stage, and the whole Chinese revolution is a package deal
which cannot be exported piece-meal.
What we need is our own pioneering. There are some things which we
can well learn from the Chinese, not as models for copying, but as
principles of fairly universal relevance.
First, we should learn that reforms will not come from Governmental
planning, but only through nation-wide cadres, ideologically oriented,
strictly disciplined and coordinated, democratically organized, from a
mass-base. Only such cadres can set in motion movements for genuine
social and educational reform.
Second, reforms of educational institutions, without a radical
process of socio-economic reform, are bound to prove frustratingly
ineffective. Mass social education is the context in which a new
educational system and new types of educational institutions can take
shape. Such sweeping mass movements cannot be led by mercenary
personnel. It must generate its own unpaid, voluntary leadership.
Third, both the mass educational movement
as well as the educational institutions should develop a pattern that is
related to primary relations of economic production and distribution, teaches
the dignity of labour promotes creativity and inventiveness in science and
technology, generates new altruistic social attitudes among the masses and
But if educational and social reform in India would merely stick to
these three principles, it would still hardly be Indian. We have certain
new factors to take into account in educational innovation in India:
the recognized perils of consumerism
the crisis of science and technology.
the planetary crisis produced by population growth, resource
depletion and environment pollution.
It is in this context of Western civilisation
gone sour that we in India need to reflect again on our own cultural heritage,
so that in the context of the disillusionment of the West with an urban-technological
culture's capacity to save man, we can see a new vision coming out of the
depths of our own rich past and still not totally hopeless future. In that
vision social justice can be only one, though a large and most significant
one, of the constitutive elements.
Ultimately, it seems to me, we have to take all these elements into
consideration, in order to do our own pioneering. We should learn from
the Chinese experiment all its valid lessons without being blinded by
inherited prejudices. We should continue to make use of Marxist social
analysis in so far as it has been confirmed by experience. We should
continue to learn from the patterns of implementation of national
plans in the Soviet Union and in Tanzania. We can still use our
Western-acquired secularist liberal humanism for an evaluation and
criticism of our value-system.
Three things, however, stand out as high priorities in India:
The relation between mass education and institutional education
should be further studied, and a new national scheme for both has to be envisaged
and implemented through a huge nation-wide network of disciplined and trained
We should, as a nation, take a fresh look at our theoretical
assumptions about what kind of a society we should plan for in India. Here
we should look at our own three options--the Nehru, Gandhi, and Tagore visions.
We should also look at the Chinese, Cuban and North Korean experiments at
social reconstruction. We should examine the experience of the bourgeois
West, which is raising new questions about the validity of science and technology
as a way of man's relating himself to nature in the context of problems like
resource depletion, urban agglomeration and environmental pollution. Only
on the basis of a more adequately clarified vision of what it means to be
human today in India can we proceed to a genuine program of educational reform.
This is the sort of area where the Thinking Cell of the A. I. A. C. H. E.
could do some pioneering.
There can be little doubt that we have to show much more
determination and discipline in making institutional education directly linked
to the primary relations of production and distribution. Here there is no
controversy. The industrial-capitalist, the Gandhian, and the Marxist can
agree on this--one of the few points on which they agree. Only the will for
implementation is lacking. This is another point at which there is scope
for independent planning on the part of colleges. The question is not that
students should leave their institutions in an occasional sortie to a neighboring
village. What is demanded is that the village's or factory's primary relations
of production and distribution become the milieu in which education takes
place. The village or the factory itself becomes the school rather than an
isolated school building. The students live in and participate fully in the
agricultural and industrial activities of society and get their training
there. This is the point at which Ivan Illich's demand for "de-schooling"
begins to make sense.
J. Nehru, Towards Freedom (Boston, 1958), p.392.
By this he must have meant the socialist revolutions in European nations
and the growth of the Communist parties.
J. Nehru, Towards Freedom, Pp. 388-389.
The Road to Life, (Fgn. Languages Publishing House, Moscow,
Later published as Sadhana, The Realisations of Life,
(New York, Macmillan, 1913).
Sadhana, p. 7.
"Talks in China-1925", reprinted in A. Chakravarthy, Ed.,
A Tagore Reader, (New York, 1961), p. 206.
Mao Tse Tung, Selected Works of Mao Tse Tung, (Peking,
1961), Vol. IV, pp. 211-215.
For the following summary, which is my own, I am indebted
largely to Han Suyin, China in the Year 2001, (Penguin, 1971), pp.
From Chow Tse Tsung, The May Fourth Movement, (Cambridge,
Mass, 1960), cited by Geoffrey Barraclough, An Introduction to Contemporary
History (Penguin, 1970), p. 263.
Including the Prime Minister of India and the Union Minister
of Education. See Mrs. Gandhi's address at the Punjab University, on the
occasion of conferring an honorary LL.D. on her, as also the address of the
Union Minister of Education, Professor Nurul Hassan, both in New Frontiers
in Education, Vol. III, No.1 (April. 1973), pp. 101-113.
Han Suyin, op. cit, p. 174.