By Batskhem Myrboh
If Sohra and Mawsynram are known for rainfall, Meghalaya deserves to have the tagline, “Land of teachers’ agitation”. Teachers’ agitation in Meghalaya is nearly as old as the state itself. Looking at the history of the agitations, except for the agitation of the teachers serving under the Autonomous District Council-managed schools before their taking over by the state government; it is the teachers serving under the grant-in-aid educational institutions that are always on the agitational path. Broadly, teachers’ associations, irrespective of the nature of the grants, fight for timely release of salary, salary enhancement, payment of pay revision arrears, and pension. However, the government always tries to shift the responsibility to the employers which are private management.
Technically, the argument of the government is absolutely correct but it is philosophically flawed. Articles 38 and 39 of the Constitution of India direct the state to make India a welfare state. Specifically, Article 39 (1) (f) instructs the state to strive to establish a society in which children are extended with opportunities and facilities to have proper development. Article 45 of the Indian Constitution provides that the state by 1960 should provide free and compulsory education to all children below the age of 14 years. This directive became a Fundamental Right under Article 21 A in 2002 and eventually a legal right under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009. The UN Convention on the Rights of the Child besides stressing the need for the states to provide free and compulsory education at the primary level also lays an emphasis on the availability and accessibility of secondary education and even higher education as well. Similarly, quality education is part of the 2015 UN Agenda for Sustainable Development Goal.
Despite the criticality of education for development and the central position and role of the state towards the sector, it is a historical fact that the state of Meghalaya has done too little to establish government educational institutions. Except in the primary sector where the state government transferred the ownership from the Autonomous District Council in 1985, about 90 percent of secondary and collegiate educational institutions are established and managed by private school management. Till the early 1980s, liberal grants in aid were extended to institutions at different levels and there was only one grant in aid system, i.e., the deficit grant in aid which was inherited from the Government of Assam. In the late 1980s, the government came up with the Adhoc grant in aid system. Later, the government introduced the deficit pattern, the lump sum grant, and lately at the college level, the people’s college grant in aid system. The teachers serving in these different grants in aid systems have different service conditions of which the deficit system is relatively better. All these aid systems are based on executive orders with no clear-cut guidelines on eligibility. This leaves room for the absence of rule of law but arbitrariness of extreme form exercised by those who are in the government. For example, in the recent inclusion of colleges under the people’s college grant-in- aid system neither performance nor location was the basis for consideration. If performance was the criteria, Women’s College, Shillong would have been the best candidate for selection, and if the location was the basis, Sngap Syiem College, Mawkyrwat should not by any logic be excluded. Nonetheless, both these colleges were left out. In fact, this arbitrariness in making and executing public decisions merits judicial scrutiny if the matter is brought before the honourable High Court in the form of public interest litigation.
It is not wrong on the government to depend on the private sector for education, and there is nothing wrong likewise to provide aid only to the extent that the state is capable. But it is wrong to leave the private sector unregulated. In spite of the fact that the Meghalaya School Education Act, 1981 empowered the state government to regulate the private educational institutions, the government follows a laissez-faire state policy. For a long time, there was no rule to regulate the opening of schools and even today the service conditions of teachers and other employees in private schools remain unregulated and the same applies to colleges as well. This leads to the spiraling downgrading of the teaching profession to the point that it is considered to be the last resort as it is a lowly paid profession.
As mentioned earlier, the government’s defense is always that teachers in aided institutions are not government employees and therefore, it is the management’s duty to look after them Instead of making such meaningless and inconsequential statement, it is advisable and desirable on the part of the policymakers and administrators to come up with a law. However, I am afraid that the Government knows too well that if such a law is in place, most of the educational institutions at different levels would face the ultimate closure due to their fragile financial positions. The market model of education beyond a limit simply does not work. What is the percentage of the state population that has the capacity to pay a high amount of fees to bear the teachers’ salaries and pensions? In the event of the closure of such educational institutions especially in the rural areas, ‘is it not the duty of the state government to take them over or take some other measures not to deprive the right of children to education?’ At present, the state government provides education, albeit of low quality, by defrauding the teaching community. It is logical to mention that teachers are intentionally deprived of any legal right while executing their duties.
It is not out of context to point out that the state government has come up with measures incentivizing certain public services. The Members of the State Legislative Assembly even after serving for a brief duration are extended pension besides enjoying all the perks and privileges. Similarly, in recognition of the services they provide to the people of the state, land is made available to the members of the bureaucracy at a throwaway price and recently, the state government took a decision to even reimburse the income tax paid by them. If the state government has financial resources for these, why is it expressing the financial limitation when it comes to providing adequate and respectable service conditions for the teachers in aided educational institutions? Again, why is the state government lacking in thinking and sensibility to entitle the teachers in unaided private educational institutions with a legal right for acceptable service conditions? It should be noted that the Kothari Commission (1964), National Education Policies 1968 and 1986 spoke about the importance of good service conditions for teachers. The 1968 Policy stated, “Of all the factors which determine the quality of education and its contribution to national development, the teacher is undoubtedly the most important. It is on his[her] personal qualities and character, his[her] educational qualifications and professional competence that the success of all educational endeavours must entirely depend. Teachers must, therefore, be accorded an honored place in society. Their emoluments and other service conditions should be adequate and satisfactory having regard to their qualifications and responsibilities.”
During the agitations, the political executive is always the target of condemnation and should be rightly so but the role of the faceless bureaucracy is often ignored and forgotten. The fact remains that the bureaucracy, especially, when weak political executive occupy the office, plays a significant role not only in policy implementation but also in policy making. The fact that the state education department runs almost entirely on executive orders exhibits the significant role of the bureaucracy. In this chaotic educational scenario where governance deficit is evident, the bureaucracy has its own responsibility to share. The frequent agitation by teachers, the mind-blogging categorizations of teachers, and the unplanned extension of grants in aid to educational institutions reveal the inadequacy of rationalization and unimaginable advice given to the ministers. In this context, I would like to extend my unsolicited advice to the members of the bureaucracy to kindly guide the ministers to avoid the employment of the “private employee” and “management’s responsibility” narrative as it is unpersuasive and jaded. Rather, it is imperative on their part to help the ministers come up with innovative means to bring solutions.
In conclusion, the formation of the commission/committee to study the serious long pending issues of teachers may simply lead to wastage of time and valuable state’s resources, unless the government has a strong political will with clarity of thought and purpose, responsibility, and accountability backed up by efficient bureaucracy.
(The author is former General Secretary of the Meghalaya College Teachers’ Association. Email- [email protected])