Ans:
The constitution of India does not mandate educational qualifications for becoming a minister. The only eligibility criteria being age. The rationale of the founding fathers for this move is the immense trust they had on the people in choosing suitable representatives and the capability of Indians to hold any difficult position.
In recent times especially post liberalisation, governance has become complicated. It requires proficiency and specialisation for better governance. Ministries such as finance, HRD, defence and external affairs etc. require plethora of skills and experience. In this regard, the question of minimum educational qualification for certain ministries is raised.
Arguments for :
1) The utility of education is known. Educational qualification hence would make ministers more adept at dealing with intricacies of governance.
2) Knwoledge on the given field would be an added advantage. A doctor to head the health ministry would be more effective in understanding and designing policies.
3) High educational qualification of ministers could motivate people to pursue higher studies especially the poor who see politicians as inspiration.
4) Eduvation will make it easier for the bureaucrats to deal with the minister.
Arguments against :
1) It goes against the spirit of our founding fathers of keeping the doors of governance open to every citizen of India.
2) Mandating compulsory educational qualification has the potential to create a barrier between the educated and non educated.
3) Educational qualification may be the start of introducing more such restrictions such as religion, gender, caste etc. It is against the spirit of democracy.
4) Morover, to determine the level of educational qualification which would be sufficient is itself ambiguous. Additionally, treating certain ministries differently is another issue. If ministries itself require educational qualification, then what about prime ministership?
5) The permanent executive is there to assist the political executive in dealing with the ministry, hence public spiritedness is more important than education.
The balance of the arguments and the spirit of the constitution suggest that compulsory educational qualification should not be imposed. Education does not guarantee performance, it is public spiritedness and the checks and balances inherent in our institutions which shall and will.
The constitution of India does not mandate educational qualifications for becoming a minister. The only eligibility criteria being age. The rationale of the founding fathers for this move is the immense trust they had on the people in choosing suitable representatives and the capability of Indians to hold any difficult position.
In recent times especially post liberalisation, governance has become complicated. It requires proficiency and specialisation for better governance. Ministries such as finance, HRD, defence and external affairs etc. require plethora of skills and experience. In this regard, the question of minimum educational qualification for certain ministries is raised.
Arguments for :
1) The utility of education is known. Educational qualification hence would make ministers more adept at dealing with intricacies of governance.
2) Knwoledge on the given field would be an added advantage. A doctor to head the health ministry would be more effective in understanding and designing policies.
3) High educational qualification of ministers could motivate people to pursue higher studies especially the poor who see politicians as inspiration.
4) Eduvation will make it easier for the bureaucrats to deal with the minister.
Arguments against :
1) It goes against the spirit of our founding fathers of keeping the doors of governance open to every citizen of India.
2) Mandating compulsory educational qualification has the potential to create a barrier between the educated and non educated.
3) Educational qualification may be the start of introducing more such restrictions such as religion, gender, caste etc. It is against the spirit of democracy.
4) Morover, to determine the level of educational qualification which would be sufficient is itself ambiguous. Additionally, treating certain ministries differently is another issue. If ministries itself require educational qualification, then what about prime ministership?
5) The permanent executive is there to assist the political executive in dealing with the ministry, hence public spiritedness is more important than education.
The balance of the arguments and the spirit of the constitution suggest that compulsory educational qualification should not be imposed. Education does not guarantee performance, it is public spiritedness and the checks and balances inherent in our institutions which shall and will.
No comments:
Post a Comment