ఆంధ్ర గ్రంథాలయం/సంపుటము 1/సంచిక 1/Survey of Classification in Indian Libraries and a General Appeal

by కె.ఎం.శివరామన్

Survey of Classification in
Indian Libraries and a General Appeal

by

K. M. SIVARAMAN B. A.,

Classifier & Head of the Technical section, Madras University Library

The fact that more than half the number of libraries in India have yet to classify their collection is brought out by making a broad survey of classification in Indian libraries. Such a survey is made possible by the Directory of Indian libraries published last year by the Indian Library Association. This directory gives information about the state of classification in the 269 libraries included in it. These libraries may be taken as a trustworthy random sample.

AN ANALYSIS

The following table gives the results of an analysis relating to the state of classification. The first horizontal row gives the names of different types of libraries and the first vertical column gives the names of different schemes of classification used. Against the name of each scheme is given the number of libraries using it under different types of libraries.The last column gives the total number of libraries of all types using it.

Type of Libraries	University	College	School	Govt.	Public	Total No.of all Libraries
Decimal Classification	9	30	1	2	14	56
Decimal Classification(Modified)	6	9	1	1	4	21
Colon Classification	2	10	3	1	2	18
Baroda Scheme					14	14
Subject		2			1	3
British Museum					1	1
Not Specified		35	21	5	95	156
Total	17	86	26	9	131	269

Using round figures the above table shows that:

(a) 58% of the libraries have yet to classify their collection;

(b) 42% have some kind of classification;

(c) 28% are using the Decimal Classification; but nearly 30% of them have modified it;

(d) 7% use the Colon Classification

(e) 5% use the Baroda Scheme; and

(f) 2% use some other schemes.

HOW IT CAME ABOUT

FIRST PHASE

Till 1933, virtually there were only two live schemes of classification within the reach of Indian librarians-viz., The Decimal Classification and the Congress Classification. Of these the latter was incomplete but the former was complete with its useful relative index. Somehow the Congress Classification had not made itself felt in India. With the result the Decimal Classification was practically the only scheme for consideration. Hence in spite of its general defects and its utter neglect of Orientalia and Indology a few libraries adopted this; and at that time classification was almost synonymous with Dewey.

SECOND PHASE

The moment however the scheme was seriously applied to large Indian collections all its defects began to stand in the way. Hence a few daring classifiers began to modify it in spite of Dewey's warning against such unauthorised mutilation of the scheme. The result was that the libraries adopting it had to pay the penalty of having to face most of the difficulties of an unclassified collection in spite of semblance of classification.

THIRD PHASE

This situation was no doubt responsible for the subject of classification having been chosen as one to be tackled even from- the beginning by the Indian Library Association which was formed in 1933. One of its early circular letters said that the "classification of oriental subjects has all along been a problem with Indian librarians using the Dewey Decimal Classification system. To help them in the matter the Indian Library Association has taken upon itself the task of providing with suitable expansions of certain parts of Dewey and has appointed a committee to work out the plan".

That the Indian Library Association should have come forward with such a programme in spite of the known fact that it is easier perhaps to devise a new scheme than to meddle with a rigid obsolescent one, is perhaps due to the solicitude of the Association to help the 28% of the libraries which had unawares got into a mire as it were. All honour to the well intentioned attempt at rescue-work.

CURRENT PHASE

But what about the 58% of the libraries that have not yet adopted any scheme of classification? Are they not to learn from the discomfiture experienced by those that the Indian Library Association is now obliged to rescue? Are they to be kept ignorant of the trenchant criticisms'^[1] levelled against the Decimal Scheme even by the Western librarians, even in regard to its treatment of the (so-called) occidental subjects? To quote from the latest issue of the Library Association record (February 1939), it is envisaged that even in England "a change from Decimal Classification will ultimately come, although its precarious existence may be prolonged by the admirable provision which was made for its continuance".

Surely the library profession in India cannot proceed as if no progress has been made in classification since the days when Decimal classification was the only scheme available. Even text books in classification, current in countries most of whose libraries had long ago committed themselves to the Decimal Classification, are devoting chapters to the Bibliographical Classification of Bliss and the Colon Classification of Ranganathan as recent ventures which are free from the defects of the Decimal Classification.

Surely prudence requires that in a country where nearly 58% of the libraries are yet unclassified the profession should pay sufficient attention to these new schemes. Of these the Colon Classification was published earlier and already a small percentage of our libraries are using it; in fact it occupies the second rank in the list of schemes used in India. The Bibliographical Classification, being of American origin, has not got fully-worked-out schedules for oriental subjects nor is it in use in any Indian library. Hence I do not propose to discuss it further.

COLON CLASSIFICATION

The Colon Classification being of Indian origin is naturally strong in its treatment of Orientalia and Indology. To quote Sayers "It has an admirable scheme for arranging Indian literature, the fullest I know"¹^[2]. I understand that this scheme is translated into Chinese.²^[3] In our library, I have applied this scheme to nearly a hundred thousand volumes and I have had several occasions to witness its resilience and capacity to accommodate new and unthought of developments in many subjects. I can from experience heartily endorse the remarks of the Library Association record which says about it: "A new subject creates its own number in the notation... It is an extremely clever scheme and the result is almost perfect, books on the minute aspect of a subject being automatically grouped together in a chronological order"³.^[4] Such an arrangement is felt to be very helpful by the intelligent readers of our library.

A CRITICISM ANSWERED

However, we read in the Proceedings of the Third All India Library Conference the naive remark "that the complicated nature of the structure of classification adopted in the (Madras University) library was responsible for an unnecessarily large number of reference staff"4.^[5] But our experience of nearly twelve years shows that the fact is exactly the reverse. By way of substantiating this contradiction, I should say that the Madras University Library has four members on its reference staff. It works on all the 365 days in the year and is open for 13 hours each day. Due to weekly holidays and the compensation and casual leave of each individual on this staff, nearly 1½ 1of the men are absent throughout the year. This leaves a balance of only 2½ men per day. In addition to their normal reference work, they are saddled with certain additional duties such as the supervision of the building, preparation of bibliographies, book selection, checking of periodicals bills etc. This routine takes away nearly half-a-man leaving only 2 men for actual reference work throughout the day of thirteen hours. Assigning 6½ hours per head it can be seen that only one person is virtually available throughout to do reference work. With this staff we have to meet the demands of a large permanent search staff in addition to the usual demand of the general readers. Can this one man be called a large staff? Our own experience and feeling is that, but for the helpful analysis of the Colon Classification, this meagre staff would have proved quite inadequate to meet the heavy demand made on the resources of this library.

THE STRANGENESS OF THE SCHEME

No doubt the Colon Classification may appear to be difficult largely on account of its novel features. It may appear to be particularly so to those who have been accustomed to the use of ready made Class Numbers and are not given to examining whether the number exactly answers the intension of the Book. A distinctive feature of the current phase of classification in theory and practice is, I think, the recognition of the eventual futility of a scheme which does not individualise subjects. If we remember that the universe of knowledge is an infinite one, we must be prepared for surprises and new subjects at every turn. It is particularly so in our days. No scheme of ready-made Class Numbers can completely meet such a situation. It is the recognition of this fact that is behind the distinctive features of the Colon Classification. In the words of John L. Hobbs¹^[6]' "The trend in library classifications to-day seems to be towards constructive, adaptable systems rather than rigid schedules. The Colon Classification of S.R.Ranganathan is synthetic and relative in character". No doubt it demands a new outlook, and there is a great chance for anything new and unfamiliar to be looked upon as difficult.

But librarians should not succumb to such a feeling of defeatism. Proper technical training, familiarity with bibliographical sources and freedom from obsession and love of ease (almost amounting to inertia) will enable one to pierce through the illusion created by unfamiliarity and appreciate and utilise the extraordinary power of the scheme.

A CONCRETE HELP

The Madras University Library has been publishing its classified catalogue. It appears in a series of small volumes. Till now the volumes of Mathematics (Pp. 278. Price Re. 1-2-0), Physics (Pp. 139. Price 9 As.), Engineering (Pp. 123. Price Re.1) and Chemistry and Technology (Pp. 137. Price Re. 1) have appeared. Further volumes will come out regularly. Also a classified catalogue of all the accessions of 1938 (Rs. 2.) has come out. This covers all subjects. A reference to any of these volumes will give a concrete idea of the very helpful results that the Colon Scheme brings about in grouping books in a minutely classified order. These catalogues may go a long way in dissolving the mist of apparent difficulty due to unfamiliarity. For "the only means of forming a true judgment of a scheme is to apply it to a representative collection of books. In the absence of practical application both criticism and praise are at best in conclusive" ¹^[7].

I may also state here that the second edition of the Colon Classification has been provided with a supplement of 300 pages which gives nearly 3,000 examples. This will at once provide the practical application rightly insisted upon in the Library Association record. It will visualise in a concrete way the helpful result brought about by the scheme. It will also be of help to those who seek self-teaching of the scheme.

I appeal to the library profession in India to apply its mind to this indigenous scheme and bring about its adoption as the national scheme for our land. Let it not be understood that the 28% of our libraries, already classified by other schemes, should immediately change over. But, surely I cannot be accused of extravagance if I suggest that it would be beneficial to the profession if the libraries that still remain unclassified adopt the Colon Classification. This appeal is not merely on grounds of narrow patriotism. But my submission is that judged on its merits²^[8]the Colon Classification deserves wide-spread adoption.

1. 1 Cf. Library Association record. Third series V. 3. 1933. Pp. 243; 245-250; Fourth Series. V. 3. 1936. Pp. 383-386. Bliss (Henry Evelyn): Organisation of knowledge in libraries. 1933. Pp. 193-229
2. 1 Year's work in librarianship V. 6. 1933. P. 198.
3. Cf. Shaw (Marian). Ed. Library literature. 1936. P. 78.
4. 3 Library Association Record. Fourth series V. 1. 1934. Pp. 98-99,
5. 4 Indian Library Association Proceedings of the the third All India Library Conference, 1987. Pp. 13-14.
6. ¹ Library Association record, V. 41. 1939. P. 61.
7. 1 Library Association record. V- 41, 1939. P. 65
8. 2 Vide Modern librarian. V.8 & V.9. 1938, 1989 for a comparison of Colon Clasification with certain other schemes. Vide also RANGANATHAN (S.R.) Prolegomena to library classification.(Madras Library Association publication series 6) Part II. Comparative Study.