raises the issue of educational politics and policies of
Anglo-Indian associations. These associations are still
having problems accepting one another as Anglo-Indians.
Thus, their political voice was muted.
By 1990, the Anglo-Indian community did not possess a
strong collective organization which could champion their
cause politically. The limited vision of Anglo-Indian
leaders had reduced the Anglo-Indian educational system to
a capitalist enterprise of expansionism. Anglo-Indian
politicians had entered an increasingly open educational
market which catered only to wealthy Indians.
In 1954, after the successful Bombay Schools' Case, the
main impetus for educational change was not the elimination
of poverty or increasing occupational skills for Anglo-
Indians. Rather, the schools promoted the education of
wealthy Indians, who now flocked to the schools in ever
increasing numbers to be educated in the English language.
These Indian students dictated the curriculum outcomes for
AnglO-Indian student s.
Most significant, however were the new arrangements within
Anglo-Indian schools which hindered the productive process.
(75) Instead of Anglo-Indian students learning English as
language one because it was their mother tongue, they
learned English as Jlanguage two. During Indian language
classes, instead OfizIearning an Indian language as language
two, they were taught Indian languages as language one.
The Kothari Commission's Report (1964-1966) stressed
integration of the Anglo-Indian community with the majority
Indians. The three-language-formula of English, a state or
regional language and Hindi was introduced in Anglo-Indian
schools. The report was visionary, but it did not
generate a more equal distribution of educational
credentials between Anglo-Indians and Indians.
147