When was the Kothari Commission appointed by the Government of India to look into the education sector of India?
- (a)1967
- (b)1966
- (c)1965
- (d)1964
Correct — D, 1964. The Government of India constituted the Education Commission on 14 July 1964 under Daulat Singh Kothari, who was then chairman of the University Grants Commission. It is formally the National Education Commission (1964-66) and is remembered by its chairman's name. The commission worked for about twenty-one months and handed its report to the education minister, M. C. Chagla, on 29 June 1966 — which is where the wrong options come from.
- (a)1967 — Nothing in the commission's life falls in 1967; by then its report was already with the government and feeding into policy drafting.
- (b)1966 — The neatest trap — 1966 is when the 287-page report was submitted, not when the commission was appointed.
- (c)1965 — A middle year of the commission's working life, when its task forces were taking evidence.
The Kothari Commission is the widest-ranging review of Indian education ever undertaken: it looked at the whole system from primary school to research, with only medical and legal education left out of its terms of reference. Its report is the origin of the school structure Indians still describe as 10+2+3.
Commission questions almost always turn on the gap between appointment and report, and this one has a two-year gap that examiners use freely. Fix the pair — appointed 1964, reported 1966 — and both versions of the question are answered. The recommendations then flowed into the National Policy on Education of 1968, so the chain runs 1964, 1966, 1968.
- Constituted on 14 July 1964 and dissolved on 29 June 1966, when it submitted its report.
- Daulat Singh Kothari chaired it while serving as chairman of the University Grants Commission.
- The report opens with the line that the destiny of India is being shaped in her classrooms.
- It recommended the 10+2+3 pattern and raising educational investment to six per cent of national income.
- Medical and legal education were outside the commission's terms of reference.
- Answering with the year the report was submitted instead of the year of appointment.
- Attaching the 10+2+3 pattern to the 1968 policy rather than to the commission that proposed it.
A bare year, or a chairman-to-commission matching pair against Radhakrishnan and Mudaliar.
Match List I with List II and select the correct answer using the code given below the Lists: List I (Commission/Committee) A. Kothari Commission B. Satish Chandra Committee C. P. C. Hota Committee D. Prof. Y. K. Alagh Committee List II (Suggested Reform in Civil Services Examination) 1. Inclusion of Medical and Engineering subjects 2. Entrance Examination for Civil Service after Class XII 3. Objective methodology for personality assessment 4. Civil Services Mains examination (Written and Interview) Code:
- (a) 4 1 2 3
- (b) 4 2 1 3
- (c) 3 1 2 4
- (d) 3 2 1 4
Answer(a) 4 1 2 3
CAPF came back to the same commission two years later inside a matching list, pairing it against the Satish Chandra, Hota and Pai Panandikar committees.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The Kothari Commission submitted its report to the Government of India in
- (a)1964
- (b)1966
- (c)1968
- (d)1971
Answer(b) 1966 — the report went to education minister M. C. Chagla on 29 June 1966.
- practice — not a real PYQ
The 10+2+3 pattern of education in India was recommended by
- (a)the Radhakrishnan Commission
- (b)the Mudaliar Commission
- (c)the Kothari Commission
- (d)the Sargent Plan
Answer(c) the Kothari Commission — its report standardised the structure that the 1968 policy then adopted.