Prime Minister Gilani has blamed the nationalistation of the educational sector by Zulfikar Ali Bhutto for the ills that the education system suffers today in Pakistan. What is implied in the statement is that education being a function of the private sector, the government should not be blamed if it is in a bad shape or under-financed.
There is a tendency on the part of the free market enthusiasts to relegate education completely to the private sector since this, according to them, is like any other business which must remain a preserve of the private sector. There are however many who maintain that education being an investment in a countrys future, is the domain of the government and the government will be ignoring its responsibility if it was not to play a major role in spreading literacy, providing good and affordable secondary and higher education to those who cannot bear the expenses that the students have to incur in private institutions.
Education is a public good without which it is difficult to conceive of a stable and democratic society. The gains from the education of a child accrue not only to the child or to his parents but to other members of society as well. This was widely understood by the world community irrespective of different economic systems that prevailed in 1972 when Bhutto nationalised education. Education at the time was largely paid for and almost entirely administered by governmental bodies or non-profit institutions. Despite an increasing emphasis on the private sector after 1990, government financed education continues to play a pivotal role in the emerging economies that include India, China and Brazil.
Bhuttos nationalisation came at a time when the private sector in education was playing a highly controversial role. There can be two opinions about how the ills, which were being widely criticised by the teachers forums, should have been treated but things could not have gone on for long as they were at the time.
After the creation of Pakistan, the population of Karachi multiplied at a phenomenal speed with the result that the existing government schools and colleges were simply insufficient to cater to the needs of the fast growing students community. This forced the government to encourage private enterprise through generous financial grants amounting to almost half the running expenses. Taking advantage of the situation, many unscrupulous elements entered the field with the sole aim to mint money. Soon they invented ways to circumvent the conditions prescribed for the recognition of educational institutions.
It was required, for instance, that colleges have a library and a science laboratory. Within no time, there were libraries and laboratories in the market that could be acquired on rent for a few days. These would be displayed before the inspection team appointed by the education department and then promptly taken way from the college after it was recognised and grants started pouring in. Many private colleges, thus, did not care to develop libraries or science laboratories of their own. The practice subsequently spread to other urban centers of Sindh.
The attitude of the management bodies and private owners towards the teachers was the same all over the country. They were treated as personal servants and could be turned out at will. Many teachers in private colleges in West Pakistan were highly educated but they had to follow policies formulated by those who had little knowledge of education.
The state of affairs in private sector education led the teachers organisations to highlight the issue during the Ayub era. The matter was taken up by the prestigious West Pakistan College Teachers Association (WPCTA) and several organisations of school teachers all over the West Wing. By the time Yahya Khan left in 1972, teachers organisations had done all they could to persuade those running private schools and colleges and the government to bring about changes that were needed to remove the anomalies in the educational system.
Bhuttos policy of nationalisation had two weaknesses. First, it was pursued universally rather than selectively. Thus many outstanding private institutions, particularly those run by missionaries were also nationalised which led to the degradation of these institutions. Secondly, no thinking was done prior to the nationalisation about how these institutions were to be run after they were taken over. They were simply handed over to the bureaucracy, which was now increasingly becoming corrupt and inefficient.
We are reminded by the supporters of free enterprise that educational institutions run by the government are in a mess and their standards have gone down. While this may be true, this is the result of a general decline in governance in the country. The best way to counter the malaise is to improve the overall governance rather than go for an all out privatisation of education. What is also needed is to improve the facilities made available to government controlled institutions and to raise the salaries of the teachers. It is unfair to compare the performance of a government school without a roof, lacking toilet facilities, crowded classes and unqualified teachers with that of a private school which has all the amenities and a well-paid staff. It is all the more unfair due to the fact that the monitoring system is highly defective with the result that many teachers that are recruited on political bases or through influence wielded by the local elite are permanently absent from the government run schools.
There is a need for a state controlled educational system side by side with private schools and colleges. Let there be a fair competition which is possible only if the government diverts more funds towards the improvement of the physical condition of the government institutions, improves the pay of the teachers and introduces a strict monitoring system.
The writer is a former academic and a political analyst.
