DISCUSSION 39 competitions either at the admission or at the employment stage is less than justifiable, because competition is amongst equals, and in the present socio-economic conditions, the educational institutions run by private trusts cannot allow this equality; and the balance is tilted in favour of those who could afford to send their children to good schools/colleges. The result, obviously, is near monopolisation of good jobs by them. If social justice has to be an integral part of education,, the yawning quality gap between educational institutions has got to go. This is possible only if education is taken over by the State. Fifth, the teacher and the teaching cannot be separated; and since he is the focal point in the process of education, all that stands in the way of his effective functioning should be completely eradicated. Many teachers are not proud of their profession partly because of their poor service conditions and partly because it is not their first choice. If education has not to deteriorate into a retiring room, it has to increase its charm by ensuring economic and job security to the teachers. The nervous fear that grips the mind of teachers because of insecurity and the humiliating compromises that they have to make, more particularly in institutions run arbitrarily by the private trusts, leaves little scope for their enthusiastic participation in the affairs of the college or university, as also for the enjoyment of their democratic rights. Sixth, an imaginative educational set-up will fully exploit the resources, both human and material, put at its disposal. That the various constituents of a university, the teachers, the students and the karam-charis, put in their best can be ensured only when they too are involved intimately in decision-making at various levels. Therefore, their active participation and sharing of responsibility is absolutely essential if universities have to work at their full efficiency. The government's education policy, as envisaged in the blueprint for education in the Fifth Five Year Plan, betrays certain clear political motivation. On the one hand, it displays the present government's incompetence to transform education into an effective instrument of social justice, and on the other, it establishes its essential class character. The universities, in the new system, will educate at public cost primarily the sons and daughters of the rich. Since competition will be the pious yardstick for admission to the university, higher education will be more or less an exclusive monopoly of the rich students coming from model schools and Autonomous colleges. In other words, in the field of higher education, state resources will be utilised only for the benefit of the privileged classes in India. This is a peculiar way of separating 'quality' and 'privilege', and ensuring 'social justice'. The Government of India, by proposing a moratorium on opening of new colleges, and thus allowing education to pass into the private hands, has devised another instrument of accentuating the class differences and ensuring the hegemony of the ruling classes. In view of the vast economic differences in society, the unavoidable quality gap between colleges run