the Consequent Policy and Legislative Issues

Vijender Sharma

The higher education sector in India has undergone major changes since the adoption of neo-liberal economic policies in the beginning of the 1990s. This decade is also known as the start of era of LPG – liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation. Under neo-liberal reforms, one witnesses economic liberalisation, free trade and markets, privatisation and deregulation. Size of the public sector is decreased and we witness continued disinvestment of the public sector and greater role of private and corporate sector.

Often the terms ‘globalisation’ and ‘neo-liberalism’ are used as if they were interchangeable. Neo-liberal economics promotes exploitation, produces inequality, changes economic and government policies to increase the power of corporations, and a shift to benefit the upper classes, and deregulates the labour market producing casualisation of labour and greater informal employment. It increases the disparities between the rich and poor.

Rich countries and corporate sector have been preaching that globalisation was meant to benefit all members of the global community and it brought new potentials for development and wealth creation. However, overall globalisation has had a devastating effect on developing countries as the problems of unemployment, inequality and poverty have tremendously increased.  It has also adversely affected the life and work of people, their families, and their societies, working conditions, income and social protection, security, culture and identity, and the cohesiveness of families and communities. It is estimated that about 40 percent of families in the world survive on less than one dollar per day. In India, according to Arjun Sengupta report, more than 75 percent people live on just Rs. 26 per day.

Globalisation is a multifaceted process with economic, social, political and cultural implications for higher education. It poses new challenges at a time when more and more private institutions of higher education are being established and the academic community is generally not consulted in decision-making. Such challenges not only address issues of access, equity, funding and quality but also those of national sovereignty, cultural diversity, poverty and sustainable development.

Predatory and powerful transnational corporations have been targeting public education, particularly higher education, for profit-making. Though predominantly a government supported service, most governments are, as a consequence of neo-liberal economic reforms, withdrawing from it. The government of India through extensive privatisation, commercialisation and deregulation has been encouraging this process.

The first decade of the twenty-first century witnessed world over large-scale and bitter protests from the students, teachers and people at large against the privatisation and commercialisation of higher education and bringing higher education sector under General Agreements on Trade in Services (GATS) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) by their governments. The idea behind WTO-GATS has been the creation of an open, global marketplace where services, like education, can be traded to the highest bidder.

Twenty-first century witnessed unprecedented demand for higher education: general as well as professional. Instead of meeting the demand for higher education and ensuring further growth of the country, higher education in India is being de facto commercialised. There are several reasons responsible for it which includes socio-economic policies adopted by the successive union governments, particularly since mid-eighties, the ideological commitments of the ruling classes, proactive role of the judiciary, and vested interest of the business houses. It got legitimacy because of the failure of the State funded education system due to gradual withdrawal of the State in responding to the needs and requirements of the people. It got further boost due to growing choice of the elite, neo-rich and affluent sections for the private sector institutions both local and foreign.

1. Beginning of the Onslaught                      

According to the National Policy on Education – 1986 (NPE-86), education is essentially for all and fundamental to our all round development. Education develops manpower for different levels of the economy. It is also the substrate on which research and development flourish, being the ultimate guarantee of national self-reliance. In sum, education is a unique investment in the present and the future. Higher education contributes to national development through dissemination of specialized knowledge and skills. It is therefore crucial factor for survival.  Being at the apex of the educational pyramid, it has also a key role in producing teachers for the education system.  Therefore, it proposed, “in the near future, the main emphasis will be on consolidation of, and expansion of facilities in the existing institutions. Urgent steps will be taken to protect the system from degradation.”

The resources were proposed to be raised by “mobilizing donations”, “raising fees”, “effecting some savings by efficient use of facilities”, “levying a cess or charge on the user agencies”.  The policy document clearly stated that all these measures will “reduce the burden on State resources” and create “a greater sense of responsibility within the educational system.” However, it added that the level of expenditure on education would be ensured from the Eighth Five Year Plan onwards to “uniformly exceed to 6 percent of the National Income.”

To fulfill the task expected of and the role to be played by higher education, the education was to be free or heavily state subsidized not only at the school level but also at the college and the university levels.  Till date “6 percent of the National Income” has never been allocated to education. This is why also ‘private schools’ flourish while the government schools lack funds and facilities, and elite colleges coexist amidst poorly equipped and housed colleges.  Nevertheless, government responsibility for education was the basic principle.  Essentially it is this responsibility that was sought to be abdicated as is clear from the prescriptions given by the NPE-86 which have not been in real terms for the “consolidation of, and expansion of facilities in the existing institutions.”

Punnayya Committee Report

First report after the start of neo-liberal reforms is that the Punnayya Committee (1992-1993) constituted by the UGC which unequivocally stated that State funding must continue to be an essential and mandatory requirement to support higher education. Further, the advancement of quality primary and secondary education itself depends upon the quality of higher education.

Despite these assertions and concern for higher education, the Punnayya Committee recommended that the universities should raise their own resources, which should constitute at least 15% of the total recurring expenditure (Plan and Non-Plan) at the end of the first five years and at least 25% at the end of ten years. It further recommended that the universities may initiate measures to rent out their facilities such as auditoria, class rooms, computer services, playgrounds, guest houses, hostels, lawns, messes, etc. The other mechanism of raising resources suggested by the Committee was, in addition to starting short-term courses, raising the tuition fees and other fees, to be paid by the students, keeping in view the rate of inflation. It recommended that these fees should be regularly and periodically adjusted to the rise in costs and “the revision of fees must be related in a meaningful manner to the recurring cost of the course of study and employment opportunities offered by the course, that is, that the tuition fees will be different within an university for different courses of study.”

Private Universities Bill

The Private Universities (Establishment and Regulation) Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha in August 1995. The statement of objects and reasons of the Bill clearly pointed out that the private universities were to be “self-financing universities not requiring any financial support from the Government.” These self-financing private universities were to provide courses of studies in “emerging areas of science and technology” by “making available additional finances.” The Bill remained pending in the Parliament. It did not mean that the Government did not want the Bill to be passed because it would have led to the commercialization of higher education. It remained pending, because some of the clauses like the requirement of permanent endowment of Rs.10 crores, 30 percent full freeships, and government control and monitoring were not liked by the private sector. However, several states established private universities through State Acts in past few years

The Pressure of the World Bank

The National Policy on Education, 1986, was drafted and adopted during the period when the World Bank had been advocating the elimination of subsidies for social services. The World Bank’s ‘Report on Financing Higher Education in Developing Countries (1986), put the point across sharply that in view of the general shortage of funds, the only way out is for students (parents) to bear a large part of the burden of education costs. It was argued that only the relatively better off students were able to enter higher education; subsidizing those makes for inequality and not egalitarianism; if the same subsidy were shifted instead to primary education, the effect would be towards equality.  This had been the old tactic to counterpose one sector against the other. The World Bank had suggested cost recovery from students (parents), educational loans to students desirous of higher education, and pure private educational institutions, which would charge fees sufficient to meet costs and make a profit.

The pressure of the World Bank continued and its document ‘Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience’ (1994) stated that higher education should not have the highest priority claim on incremental public resources available for education because the social rates of return on investments in primary and secondary education usually exceed the returns on higher education. The World Bank (1995), stated that the benefits of higher education were frequently received by young students from high income families. Therefore, the World Bank put forward a reform package which included, inter alia,

1. Controlling access to state funded institutions of higher education,
2. Creating a favourable environment for private institutions,
3. Recovering costs of education from students, (i.e. several fold increase in fees to be paid by students)
4. Establishment of  loans to students who want to continue higher education,
5. Giving institutions enough autonomy, and
6. Establishment of monitoring, accreditation and evaluation mechanisms to verify their performance.

The World Bank has a powerful influence on the political will of governments of those countries, which want cheap international loans. These governments succumb to the World Bank pressure putting at stake the future progress of their countries.

Higher Education: A non-Merit good

It is unfortunate that the policy planners in our country have been surrendering to the World Bank prescriptions in the area of higher education. During United Front Government at the Centre, the Department of Economic Affairs, Ministry of Finance, issued in May 1997 a Discussion Paper on ‘Government Subsidies in India’. Taking the same position as that of the World Bank, the Paper stated, a significant portion of subsidies in higher education was being appropriated by the middle to high income groups, because shortages of seats in this sector were being cleared by a quality-based screening in the shape of entrance examination, interview, group discussions, etc., where the poorer sections of society were easily competed out”. The Paper characterized that higher education including secondary education was a “non-merit good” for which the government subsidies needed to be drastically cut, from 90 percent to 50 percent in three years, with a further goal of reducing it to 25 percent in another two years. This Paper was rejected due to strong protests by left parties and academia.

But the UPA-1 Government led by Congress has described the education (other than elementary) as a “Merit-II good” in the Finance Ministry report submitted in December 2004 “Central Government Subsidies in India”. This report points out, “While the merit goods deserve subsidization in varying degrees, Merit-I dominate Merit-II in terms of desirability of subsidization.” That is Merit-II goods will not be subsidized by the state at the same level as even Merit-I goods.

2. Privatisation of Higher Education by NDA Regime

Instead of meeting the demand for higher education and ensuring further growth of the country, the then BJP led NDA government at the centre and the UGC resorted to several measures with ever-faster speed under the dictates of the World Bank and as a part of ongoing negotiations with the WTO on trade in services. Raising of fees, autonomy to institutions with practically no control over managements, relaxation in norms for granting deemed to be university status and funding linked to mandatory assessment and accreditation, were some of their decisions taken in order to usher in massive privatisation and commercialisation of higher education.

“Major efforts have been mounted for mobilisation of resources and it has been recommended that while the government should make a firm commitment to higher education, institutions of higher education should make efforts to raise their own resources by raising the fee levels, encouraging private donations and by generating revenues through consultancy and other activities,” said the then HRD minister, Murali Manohar Joshi in the Country Paper presented in the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education held at Paris, in 1998.  Justifying privatisation of higher education, he added, “It is not only justifiable but desirable to raise money from private sources in order to ease pressure on public spending.”

Ambani-Birla Report

Mukesh Ambani and Kumarmangalam Birla, in their Report on “A Policy Framework for Reforms in Education” submitted to the prime minister’s Council on Trade and Industry in April 2000 considered education as a very profitable market. These two industrialists made a case for full cost recovery from students and immediate privatisation of several segments of higher education. The Ambani-Birla Report sought to convert the entire system of higher education in the country into a market where profit making would be the only consideration. If this Report was implemented, only those who could pay exorbitant amount of fees could have enrolled in higher education. For Ambani and Birla, education was a very profitable market which the corporate sector must control. In view of this, they wanted a legislation “banning any form of political activity on campuses of universities and educational institutions”. Even the normal trade union activities were not to be allowed. The Report was criticized by students, teachers, parents and people at large.

Direction of the World Bank

In the wake of strong resistance to WTO-GATS and bitter struggles against privatization and commercialization of higher education, the World Bank came out with its Report ‘Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education’ published in 2002. It pointed out that the developing and transition countries were faced with new trends in the global environment that affected not only the shape and mode of operation but also the very purpose of tertiary education systems.

The World Bank noted that reform proposals have been met with “fierce resistance and opposition.” In the formulation of a long-term vision for the country’s tertiary education system as a whole, it will “play a catalytic role by encouraging and facilitating the policy dialogue on tertiary education reforms. This can often be accomplished through preemptive information sharing and analytical work in support of national dialogue and goal-setting efforts, as well as through project preparation activities aimed at building stakeholder consensus during the project concept and appraisal phases. The Bank can bring to the same table stakeholders who would not normally converse and work together.”

With the diminishing State funding of tertiary education, a coherent policy framework, an enabling regulatory environment, and appropriate financial incentives, student mobility can be encouraged by developing open systems that offer recognition of relevant prior experience, degree equivalencies, credit transfer, tuition exchange schemes, access to national scholarships and student loans, and a comprehensive qualifications and lifelong-learning framework. The regulatory environment should be one, the World Bank suggested, that encouraged the private sector to expand access to good-quality tertiary education. Rules for the establishment of new institutions, including private and virtual ones, should be restricted to outlining minimum quality requirements and should not constitute barriers to entry. In the public sector, revenue may be generated from institutional assets, students and their families, and donations from third party contributors.

Therefore, the World Bank directed the governments of these countries to “put in place an enabling framework that encourages tertiary education institutions to be more innovative and more responsive to the needs of a globally competitive knowledge economy and to the changing labor market requirements for advanced human capital.”

The Model Act for All Universities

In view of this direction, the University Grants Commission (UGC) issued a Concept Paper in October 2003 titled “Towards Formulation of Model Act for Universities of the 21^st Century in India” with a view “to prepare the Indian University system for the future.” This Paper advocated “commercial culture and corporate culture” for the governance of universities. In addition to already existing traditional functions, the Model Act, applicable to all the types of Universities in the country, was to include “the mobilization of financial resources to become self sufficient” as one of its objects and would have statutory provisions for raising resources through sponsored research and consultancy for Government, industries and companies, competitive examinations, etc. The concept of the Model Act was to actually implement the plan of commercialization of higher education as proposed by the Birla-Ambani report.

The rules of granting ‘deemed to be university’ status were modified by the UGC under the NDA government in order to help self financing colleges to come out of the control of the affiliating universities. The conditions regarding fixed endowment, number of years of the functioning and requirement of land were relaxed in case of De Novo institutions in the frontier areas of science and technology. As a result over a hundred new deemed to be universities have come up in past several years. A few universities, like Guru Gobindsingh Indraprastha University in Delhi, have been started which affiliate only self financing private colleges.

3. Proactive Role of the Judiciary  

The Courts have played a proactive role in shaping the private higher education in the country. Since early nineties till date, the Supreme Court has been giving conflicting and confusing judgments shifting its position from suspecting private sector to the acceptance of the present reality. The historic judgment of the Supreme Court in St. Stephens College v. University of Delhi in 1992 ruled that “the educational institutions are not business houses and they do not generate wealth.” In another historic judgment in Mohini Jain v. State of Karnataka in 1992, the Supreme Court ruled the exorbitant fee demanded was in reality a capitation fee with a different tag.

These judgments were followed by another landmark judgment in 1993, in J. P. Unnikrishnan v. State of Andhra Pradesh, which revisited the right of the State to interfere in the admission policy and fee structure of private professional institutions. The Court ruled that the capitation fee is patently unreasonable, unfair and unjust, and unconstitutional and thus it practically banned high fee charging private colleges, popularly known as capitation fee colleges. It held, among others, reservation of at least 50 per cent of the seats in private colleges to be filled by the nominees of the government or the university as “free seats” on the basis of merit with a fee structure prescribed for government institutions. It called for a common entrance test and the appointment of a committee to fix the fee structure for the rest of the 50 percent that could meet all the expenditure, including that of the free seats, plus leave some surplus to the management and the like. The scheme appeared attractive without any problem until it was put into practice. This judgment enabled the growth of capitation fee colleges in the name of self-financing colleges. Thereafter, several other judgments came.

The loot of the students continued unabated. There were bitter struggles in several states on admissions and fee structure. Most notable struggle, bitterly fought and won, was the struggle of students of Maharashtra in the beginning of this decade, led by the Students Federation of India. A number of petitions were filed in the courts and a large litigation process started.

In 2002, a majority of an eleven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, in TMA Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka, while upholding the principle that there should not be capitation fee or profiteering, argued that “reasonable surplus to meet the cost of expansion and augmentation of facilities, does not however, amount to profiteering.” Further, the restrictions on fees and admission proposed in Unnikrishnan case prevented the accumulation of “reasonable” surplus. Different people interpreted this judgment in different ways. The Supreme Court judgment in 2003 in Islamic Academy of Education v. State of Karnataka tried to interpret several questions emanated from TMA Pai judgment. Its order was described by the private colleges as re-incarnation of the dead Unnikrishnan scheme.

The seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court delivered its verdict in P A Inamdar & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra case on 12 August 2005. It held that states have no power to carve out for themselves seats in the unaided private professional educational institutions; nor can they compel them to implement the state’s policy on reservation. It further held that every institution is free to devise its own fee structure; but profiteering and capitation fee are prohibited. A committee headed by a retired judge was proposed to act as a regulatory measure aimed at protecting the interests of the students. However, the Court allowed up to a maximum of 15 per cent of the seats for NRIs. This was a virtual endorsement of giving a legal license for converting education into a commodity that can be sold in the market to those who can afford it. In a situation where the State is increasingly withdrawing itself from the field of expanding the existing facilities in higher education it is only natural that commercialisation of higher education would follow.

Therefore, it is worth mentioning here once again, as pointed out above, that over 20,000 new colleges were started in first decade of 21^st century from 2000-01 to 2010-11. A vast majority of these included self-financing colleges offering various types of courses.  The private professional colleges outnumber public institutions several times over. For example, Andhra Pradesh has 240 engineering colleges of which 230 are private self-financing colleges²³ and merely 10 are public institutions. Likewise Karnataka has 122 engineering colleges of which 102 are private self-financing colleges, one is a deemed to be university and 19 are either government or aided colleges. Both the quality and equity are the victims of this growth. Of these very few colleges have adequate infrastructure to impart quality education. It is known to everyone that these colleges have been opened for making quick money.

4. The UPA Agenda: ‘Reform’ or ‘Deform’

The congress led UPA government came into power in 2004. It had the outside support of the left parties. This government continued the drive of privatization and commercialization of higher education launched by the previous NDA government. A large number of private institutions were given deemed university status. It had to withdraw Foreign Educational Institutions Bill in May 2007 due to the strong opposition of CPI(M). The Model Act was also not pursued by it and was abandoned. The enabling framework common to the entire education system could not be made.

Initiative under GATS

The UPA government gave initial offers in August 2005 to WTO under GATS which was protested by all stakeholders. However, the commerce ministry circulated in 2006 a consultation paper on trade in education services. Titled “Higher Education in India and GATS: An Opportunity,” it was in preparation for the then ongoing services negotiations at the WTO.

The commerce ministry recommended “services negotiations (in WTO) could be used as an opportunity to invite foreign universities to set up campuses in India, thereby saving billions of dollars for the students travelling abroad.” Therefore, the consultation paper recommended striking “a balance” between “domestic regulation and providing adequate flexibility to such Universities in setting syllabus, hiring teachers, screening students and setting fee levels”.

The WTO had identified certain barriers to trade. These barriers/obstacles include the restrictions on free movement and nationality requirements of students and teachers, immigration regulations, types of courses, movement of teachers, modalities of payments or repatriation of money, conditions concerning use of resources, direct investment and equity ceilings, existence of public monopolies, subsidies to local institutions, economic need tests, exchange controls, non-recognition of equivalent qualifications, etc. The goal of ‘free trade’ regime under the WTO was to get these barriers removed in order to further liberalise the world economy. Therefore, the commerce ministry’s recommendations about ‘adequate flexibility’, ‘balance’ between domestic regulations and ‘removal of barriers’ could prove disastrous for the Indian higher education system.

The trade in education has adopted an alternative route outside the ambit of WTO-GATS. The developed countries and education providers now directly negotiate with sovereign states wanting to import higher education. Quite often they put pressure on developing and transition countries to open up their education sector to the foreign educational players. Such pressures were mounting on UPA government. It could not do much due to strong resistance of the left parties on whose support it depended.

Alternative Framework: 100-Day Agenda

The UPA-2 government came into power in May 2009. It knew that a Model Act like enabling framework, as directed by WTO, was not possible due to the resistance of all stakeholders. Therefore, its 100-day agenda announced by the minister of human resource development included introduction of several bills in parliament and so called academic reforms. Accordingly, six bills regarding entry and operation of foreign educational providers, mandatory assessment and accreditation, prevention and prohibition of malpractices, establishment of a tribunal to fast-track adjudication, national commission on higher education and Universities for innovation have been introduced in the parliament. Academic reforms agenda included introduction of semester system and choice based credit system in all institutions of higher education as recommended by WTO.

PM’s Initiative for Privatisation

The Prime Minister had asked the Planning Commission in September 2007 to “seriously examine the role of private initiative in supplementing public funding for higher education” and stressed the “role for private initiative in this area.” He further asked it to “seriously look at the proposal for fee increases to reasonable levels in a graduated manner accompanied by a scheme of extensive scholarships and loans which would ensure that no student is denied education because of his or her financial constraints.”

The prime minister himself set the agenda that private investment should be welcome and the fees may be increased. And there could be scholarships and loans for those who could not pay the fees. The adequate number of scholarships are never available but are mentioned in policy documents and speeches to thwart the resistance to fee hike.

With the increase in the difficulty in finding jobs in the current economy, students have been struggling hard to pay back their loans that they had taken. Even if they get the job, the package offered is so low that the payment of loan seems to be difficult. Now they want the government to take steps so that their loans could be ‘forgiven’.

The Recent Actions

The union ministry for human resource development had informed the Supreme Court about three years ago that of the 126 deemed universities 44 did not deserve their deemed university status because of their abysmal infrastructural facilities. Many of these deemed universities were created in violation of all norms by the UPA government itself favouring private managements. One of the derecognised deemed university was even allowed to open its offshore campus in Thailand.

While pacifying the panicky students that not a single student would be adversely affected, the then HRD minister had indicated that the provision of granting deemed university status might be done away with. He said that it was a “policy decision that all the deemed universities will finally go”. The PN Tandon Review Committee had stated that these institutions could be re-designated as affiliated colleges of the concerned state universities.

The UPA-2 government is changing the entire framework of higher education system in the country without required consultation and debate. The minister is pushing this so called “reform agenda” with tremendous haste without any regard to opinion and opposition of academia and states. It is being questioned whether this agenda will ‘reform’ higher education system in India or ‘deform’ it. The compulsion of the minister and central government for pushing these “reforms” can be understood if we know the situation obtaining abroad in higher education sector after the recent economic meltdown particularly in USA and UK. We should also know the initiatives and pressures built by these countries on Indian government in order to bail out the higher education sector of their own countries.

Recent Pressures and Government’s Response

The corporate organizations have been making clear demands of deregulated FDI in higher education. FICCI made its choice clear that it wanted to make closer trade ties in the field of higher education with the United States. The ASSOCHAM is aggressively demanding favourable FDI regime with commercial orientation making India destination for FEPs for a “Marketing Brand India Education Mission”. It has demanded SEZ for universities to get huge facilities at cheaper rates and no tax regime so that profits could be maximized, delinking pay from UGC scales so that differential pay structure could be introduced and a suitable legislation for easy setting up of private universities. Only for profits and more profits.

However, the National Seminar organized by NIEPA on Privatization and Commercialization of Higher Education held on May, 2, 2006, re-iterated that the “State is primarily responsible for ensuring quality education at all levels and in all regions. This would entail strengthening of public institutions as also their quantitative expansion. It is evidently the obligation of the state to find ways and means of raising public resources for higher education.”

Commercialization of higher education can have adverse implications, both in terms of access and equity. Commodification of education, research and knowledge will not serve the long range interests of the nation. It could lead to truncated growth and lop sided development of higher education. Therefore, the NIEPA seminar recommended that “commercialization needs to be controlled.”

5. Pressures of USA and UK

In the United States the higher education system is in deep crisis since the last recession and meltdown. The universities and colleges across the country are facing tremendous problems due to large scale budgetary cuts. At least 43 states have implemented cuts to public colleges and universities and/or made large increases in college tuition to make up for insufficient state funding. States made these cuts because revenues from income taxes, sales taxes, and other revenue sources used to pay for these services declined due to the recession. At the same time, the need for education services did not decline and, in fact, rose as the number of families facing economic difficulties increased.

Therefore, these institutions have been forced to take measures such as academic reorganization, layoffs, furloughs (leave without pay), position eliminations, hiring fewer tenure-eligible faculty, and higher teaching workloads, larger number of students in a class, higher employee contributions to health and retirement benefits, elimination of scholarships, cut in need-based aid, administrative cuts, salary cut and other cuts. The students have been worst hit who faced decreased number of seats and large scale rise in fees about 30 percent.

These measures angered the students, teachers and parents and resulted in widespread unrest amongst them. Protests have been going on ever since across the colleges and universities in the United States.

In the United Kingdom, similar situation has been obtaining with large scale cuts and tuition fee hikes and rising protests of students and teachers. According to an estimate about twenty thousand job cuts have taken place. Record numbers of students are expected to graduate with debts of more than £20,000, according to a study.

The governments of USA and UK are forcing their already crisis-ridden higher education systems to fend for themselves and reduce dependency on public funds. In the wake of rising protests of students, teachers and parents, these countries are looking for alternative destinations for export of their higher education at exorbitant costs so that their higher education systems could be bailed out. They have been pressurizing developing countries including India even before meltdown to open up their higher education system to predatory global players for making profits. Now they have mounted tremendous pressure on the Indian government to remove barriers for foreign direct investment in its world’s third largest system (after USA and China) of higher education.

It is in this background that the UPA-2 agenda of academic “reforms” was planned. In view of the fact that the BJP led NDA government could not make an enabling framework for the entire higher education system in the country despite the Ambani-Birla report and a concept paper on the Model Act, and UPA-1 could not do so due to the resistance of the left parties, the UPA-2 decided to make an enabling framework not through a comprehensive legislation but through several legislations on different issues necessary for the benefit of the private local and foreign educational providers.

This framework will enable these and other developed countries to set up their shops in India and deform its higher education system to respond to global trade in higher education for profit. The Prime Minister and HRD Minister are already engaged in high level talks with their counterparts in USA and UK.

Negotiations

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh saw enormous opportunities, in November 2009, for the university systems of India and the USto work together and launched a Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative between the US and Indian universities.

Welcoming the Singh-Obama knowledge initiative, the then HRD minister Kapil Sibal said in June 2010 in Washington that we need to establish a bi-national India-US Education Council having academics, entrepreneurs and government representatives as members. Sibal also mentioned about the 14 Innovation Universities that are being set up in India and said, “The two nations could partner in setting up some of these Innovation Universities, one of which could be announced during the proposed visit of President Obama to India later this year.”

US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton responded that the new Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative will build partnerships between Indian and American universities. And India is now poised to undertake a significant educational reform: allowing foreign universities to open campuses in India.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron who visited India in July 2010 alongwith a big trade delegation said: “Education is not just vital for national success, it is one of the best growth businesses of the 21st century. I want us in Britain and India to pool some of our advantages for our mutual benefit.”

Joint Education Summit under the third US-India Strategic Dialogue, was held on June 13, 2012 in Washington, D.C. In his opening statement, HRD Minister Kapil Sibal said that a mechanism for formal collaboration in offering educational programmes between our institutions through the University Grants Commission has been activated. The minister also stated that about 100 community colleges will be established by 2013 in collaboration with those of U.S. He also announced the early emergence of a meta-university with the University of Delhi and Jamia Millia Islamia taking the lead. Thus Indian system of education is being transformed in accordance with that of the U.S. In fact the MHRD had tried “backdoor” entry to foreign institutions through UGC Regulations before this summit. But the UGC’s June 2 meeting could not do so. However, it approved the UGC (Promotion and Maintenance of Standards of Academic Collaboration between Indian and Foreign educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 to ensure academic collaboration between Indian and foreign educational institutes.

6. Higher Education in India – An Overview

Even after 66 years of independence higher education is not accessible to the poorest groups of the population. Hardly 18 percent of the population in the age group of 17-23 years is enrolled in the institutions of higher education. While technical education produces technical manpower, it is humanities, social sciences, languages and natural and physical sciences that help in producing all-round citizenry. Higher education thus needs sustained funding from public exchequer.

The first college to impart western education was founded by British in 1818 at Serampore near Calcutta. Over the next forty years, many such colleges were established in different parts of the country. In 1857, three federal examining universities on the pattern of London University were set up at Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. The existing 27 colleges were affiliated to these three universities. Later, more universities were established. At the time of independence in 1947, there were 19 universities and several hundred affiliated colleges.

In 1950-51, there were 30 universities and 695 colleges. The increase in the number of universities and colleges since then has been given in Table-1. It is obvious from the Table that while 6,651 new colleges were started in forty years from 1950-51 to 1990-91, in just one decade 5,460 new colleges were started 1990-91 to 2000-01. A phenomenal number of new colleges – 20,217 i.e. more than 157 percent were started in the next decade from 2000-01 to 2010-11. Table-2 gives alarming figures that there are 140 private universities and 130 deemed universities as on 17 September 2012.

Table-1: Growth of Higher Education Institutions

Table-2: Distribution of Universities and University Level Institutions in India

Table-3: Growth of Students Enrolment and Teachers in Higher Education

Figures, in Table-3, of students enrolment & teachers (1970-71 onwards) pertain to regular courses in Universities & Colleges (excluding Polytechnics, other Diploma awarding Institutions & Non-formal System of Higher Education). In 2010-11, 86.1 percent students were enrolled in graduate courses, 12.07 percent in post-graduate courses, 1.01 percent in diploma/certificate courses and 0.8 percent in research.

As against the total enrolment of 3,97,000 students in 1950-51, the present enrolment has risen to 1,69,75,000 out of which about 87 percent are enrolled in colleges for UG, PG, research and diploma courses and the rest 13 percent are enrolled in universities. While about 90 percent of the graduate students and 66 percent of postgraduate students are enrolled in colleges, only 11 percent of research students are enrolled in colleges. Of the total enrolment, 36.39 percent of the students are pursuing their degrees in Arts, 18.42 percent in Science, 17.11 percent in commerce and management. About 17 percent students are doing professional courses in engineering, technology, 3.85 percent in medicine, 1.93 percent in law, 3.36 percent in education, etc. Approximately 22 percent of the students are covered under distance education programmes. About less than one-third of all students are enrolled in unaided institutions.

General enrolment ratio (GER) in 2007 for India was 15 percent. Compared to this, the GER for USA was 83, Russia 77, Sweden 71, Argentina 68, Canada 62, UK 57, Brazil 34, China 25, and South Africa: 15. GER in Higher Education Institutions in India in government institutions is 46 percent, local body 1.6 percent, private aided 25.5 percent and private unaided 25.6 percent.

While women students constitute about 40 percent of all students, enrolment of Scheduled Caste students is only 11.3 percent and that of Scheduled Tribe students is 3.6 percent. These ratios are far less than their corresponding ratios in total population. The women belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes living in rural areas are most disadvantaged and on the whole, both in rural and urban areas, scheduled populations are much behind the others.

Expenditure on Higher Education

At the inception of planning in the country, India was spending barely Rs. 17 crores on higher education, while the government expenditure alone was of the order of above Rs. 9,000 crores in early years of the present decade. However, this growth was more than offset by increase in prices, and increase in population, more particularly student numbers in higher education.

The Union Government share in the total government expenditure on higher education in India fell from 20.57 percent in 1990-91 to 16.71 percent in 1996-97. It rose to over 26 percent in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and again fell down to 19 percent in 2003-04. In real terms, the Union Government’s expenditure on higher education (in 1993-94 prices), declined from Rs. 646 crores in 1990-91 to Rs. 559 crores in 1996-97. It rose to over Rs. 1400 crores in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and again fell down to Rs. 1006 crores in 2003-04. As a percentage of the GDP, the government expenditure on higher education was 0.46 in 1990-91 which decreased to 0.37 in 2003-04.

Public expenditure on technical education does not seem to have suffered major fluctuations during the 1990s. It increased steadily from Rs. 753 crores in 1990-91 to Rs. 3182 crores in 2003-04 in current prices. The Union Government shares almost half of this expenditure. A substantial proportion, 42 percent of the Union Government’s expenditure is only on IITs. As a percentage of the GDP, the government expenditure on technical education was 0.15 in 1990-91 which decreased to 0.13 in 2003-04.

It is shocking to note that expenditure per student has declined from Rs. 7,676 (in 1993-94 prices) in 1990-91 to Rs. 5,522 in 2002-03. This amounted to a decline by about 28 percent in just twelve years.

Public expenditure on scholarships in higher education decreased from Rs.15.35 crores (in 1993-94 prices) in 1990-91 to Rs.13.49 crores in 2003-04. This expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure on higher education was just 0.49 in 1990-91 and 0.32 in 2003-04. Similarly, public expenditure on scholarships in technical education decreased from Rs.2.72 crores (in 1993-94 prices) in 1990-91 to Rs.2.13 crores in 2003-04. This expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure on technical education was just 0.45 in 1990-91 and 0.23 in 2003-04.

Increased Central Government education budget for 2007-08 was to mainly cater to the expansion of seats by 54 percent in centrally funded institutions of higher education that has been necessitated by reservation of 27 percent seats to Other Backward Classes without reducing the existing seats for general category.

The current figures of expenditure on higher education are given in Table-4. Sector-wise estimated public expenditure on education in the year 2009-10 has been 41.8 percent on elementary education, 25.6 percent on secondary education, 32.3 percent on higher and technical education, and 0.3 percent on adult education.

Table4: Expenditure on Higher Education in India (As % of GDP)

7. Spate of New Bills

In the scenario described above, the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) has introduced six Bills in parliament on 3 May 2010 – i) The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry & Operations) Bill, 2010, ii) The Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical Educational Institutions, Medical Educational Institutional Institutions and Universities Bill, 2010, iii) The Educational Tribunals Bill, 2010, and iv) The National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Education Institutions Bill, 2010. Other two Bills, v) The Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011 was introduced on 28 December 2011 and vi) The Universities for Innovation Bill, 2012 on May 21, 2012.

Through these bills, the UPA-2 government is creating a framework that would enable the implementation of its agenda of neo-liberal reforms in higher education system and for meeting the requirements of foreign educational institutions.

Centralisation of Higher Education

Through THER Bill, 2011, an all powerful commission is sought to be created for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education including starting of a university negating the role of state governments and academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas, states and country. With this single-window system, the foreign educational institutions will find it easy to start their shops in the country.

This Bill is not to “promote” but undermine “the autonomy of higher educational institutions”. It will restructure higher education system for “competitive global environment”. It will not help state governments to strengthen higher education but snatch away from them even whatever their powers were left after education was included in the concurrent list of the constitution. It will undermine the powers of the parliament, state legislatures and representatives of the people to decide the education policy and administration of institutions of higher education in India.

The NCHER will control the appointments of vice chancellors. Once the NCHER comes into being, the powers of the state legislatures to start new universities will be seriously eroded. New universities will have to get permission from the commission to award any degree or diploma.

The proposal to establish an all powerful NCHER reflects the tendency of the central government towards centralisation of higher education. The understanding of the members of the commission will decide what should happen in the field of higher education in India. If it decides to direct the universities to look towards market for its requirements including funds, then what would happen to our higher education system? It will prove to be retrograde for the development of higher education in India and result in its crass commercialisation.

FDI in Education

The central government, while proposing FDI in education and FEI bill, has been saying that a large number of Indian students go abroad for higher education and spend billions of US dollars. Further, if the foreign universities are allowed to come to India, these students could get cheaper foreign education within the country and our money could remain in the country to strengthen indigenous higher education. Most of such students in any case will go abroad despite whatever policy changes take place in the country.

According to the official statistics of the USA, 100,270 Indian students went to USA in 2011-12 which amounted to less than 0.6 percent of present students’ enrolment in higher education institutions in India. About 65 percent of these students went to USA on the basis of personal and family funds. About 23 percent went on US College and university scholarships. Rest went there on the basis of home government funding or current employment in USA, etc. These people in any case will go to USA or elsewhere for higher education and one cannot stop them. More than two-third of such students belong to the elite families in India.

The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operations) Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha in May 2010 amidst opposition by some members. The proponents of foreign direct investment (FDI) in higher education argued that it would solve the problem of access, enable Indian students to access quality higher education in the country itself at relatively much lower cost, not allow the outflow of our foreign exchange reserves, create competition with the local institutions enabling them to become internationally competitive, and create new institutions and infrastructure and generate employment.

The FDI in any field, in fact, does not have an attached objective of fulfilling the social agenda of a welfare state. It is guided by profit and market alone and if these are not fulfilled, the investors look for other destinations for FDI. Foreign investors aim to increase their profits. In the field of higher education, foreign educational institutions would launch courses which the market needs, create false impression about their courses through advertisements, charge exorbitantly high fees for courses which have immediate employment potential.

It would lead to unhealthy competition among unequals. Since competition entails reduction in costs, infrastructure, laboratories and libraries would find least investment and the teachers and non-teaching staff would be appointed without necessary qualifications on such terms which would be exploitative as is in existence in most private institutions today.

FDI would impede the development of indigenous and critical research within our university education system, aggravate the tendency towards commercialisation and strengthen the stranglehold of neo-liberal ideas in our academia. The foreign educational institutions would be concerned about their profits and not about our culture and society. Therefore the courses which would appreciate and strengthen our ethos would not only be not started by the foreign educational institutions, but such courses would get marginalised in public funded higher education institutions also due to competition.

The Bill does not take care of any of the concerns expressed above. This Bill is an instrument to kill our system of higher education and promote crass commercialisation of higher education.

No Social Control over Private Institutions

Students and their parents and the Left parties have been demanding that self-financing or private unaided institutions should be subjected to strict social control in matters relating to admission, fee structure, content of courses, and salary and service conditions of teaching and non-teaching employees. For this purpose, a central legislation is required empowering the UGC/AICTE/ MCI/ state governments to regulate universities and colleges set up through UGC Act/ Acts of state legislatures. The objective should be to promote inclusive higher education by ensuring fair, transparent and non-exploitative administration of educational institutions.

The Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical, Medical Educational Institutions and Universities Bill does not fulfil the objective of social control over self-financing or private unaided institutions. The fees and salaries to teachers will not be regulated as the minister assured private school principals.

The bill has prescribed imprisonment up to three years for guilty administrators or fine up to Rs 50 lakh for the institute for charging capitation fee or failure of educational institutions to keep promises mentioned in their bulletins. This provision is only to show and not to implement. Such provisions are still there in AICTE regulations. So many institutes are running their professional degree programmes without permission of the AICTE which is punishable offence. But so far no action has been taken against even one such institute. The loot of students and exploitation of teaching and non-teaching employees continues in such institutes. Despite this bill, the private or self-financing higher educational institutions will continue to make profits.

The Educational Tribunals Bill 2010 seeks to set up an alternative dispute redressal mechanism at the state and national levels by depriving all the concerned people of their right to move a court of law. One of the statements of objects of this bill says that the expansion of higher education to effectively “compete with other countries” can be achieved only if the “regulatory regime and dispute-settlement process engender credibility and assurance.” That is why the bill proposes a two-tier “system through a fast track, speedy recourse to justice delivery.” However, the provisions of the bill do not match its objectives. This bill, in fact, has been designed to keep the teachers, other employees and students away from courts of law. This is probably designed to provide the foreign educational institutions and private players an environment in which they do not have to bother much about litigation. This bill is thus to create a judicial system to suited the private sector.

Mandatory Accreditation

The MHRD has proposed mandatory accreditation of all educational institutions and for setting up National Authority for Registration in Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions (NARAHEI). At present National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and National Board of Accreditation (NBA) undertake the accreditation work. These bodies do not have transparency and good track record.

The MHRD proposal points out that it would not be possible for the above two bodies to undertake accreditation of all higher education institutions. Therefore, in the draft NARAHEI Bill, 2009, a provision has been made to register accreditation agencies for this purpose.

There have been examples when public accrediting agencies raised the ratings of higher education institutions not on the basis of objective criteria but on some other considerations. The record of private assessing and accrediting agencies, particularly in financial market, are known to have changed the ratings of companies at their whims and fancies. If private accrediting agencies, which are bound to bring in business norms and practices into the accreditation process, are allowed to assess and accredit educational institutions, the ratings of institutions will remain doubtful. After getting higher ratings through whatever means, private institutions charge higher fees. This will help profit making in private educational institutions.

There should be ameliorative assessment of all educational institutions by public agencies, but it should not be linked up with accreditation or funding. Assessment should be transparent, democratic and participative. There should be no private agency for assessment. In fact, the educational institutions should be made self regulatory.

Private Varsities Financed by Centre

Under the Universities for Innovation and Research Bill, the universities will be started through a memorandum of agreement (MoA) between central government and the promoter of the university. The wide-ranging freedom available to these universities, like differential salaries to teachers and fee and other charges etc, will set an example for all other institutions of higher education in the country to demand such freedom. Such freedom will only help private promoters, companies and foreign universities seeking to take advantage of the provisions of this bill.

The central government will give grants to each university for funding research and the promotion and development of higher education. It will also give grants to support fellowships or scholarships instituted by it, including fellowships or scholarships for the socially and educationally backward students. The central government’s public funding will be in the form of land, contributions to capital investment, grants for supporting research, and the promotion and development of higher education. The funding of universities of innovation by the central government will be the part of the MoA. The central government will have neither general nor social control over them. All profits made through intellectual property, created by using public funds, will go to the coffers of the private university of innovation.

There are no provisions in the bill for regulation of its admission process, courses, fees, examinations, service conditions and appointments of the teaching and non-teaching staffs. There is no provision under which the central government or any regulatory authority can inspect the affairs of these universities. Thus the central government will have neither general nor social control over these universities.

These universities will be outside the jurisdiction of the CAG. There will be no member of the central government on the board of governors. Any dispute between the statutory regulatory authority and the university of innovation in relation to standards will be referred only to a committee, not even to the proposed tribunals, the decision of which will be final and binding. There is no remedy proposed in the bill in relation to the disputes between students, teachers and other staff on the one hand and the universities of innovation on the other. This bill is most suited to private players in education and will give a fillip to commercialisation of higher education in the country. This bill will gravely affect our public funded system of higher education.

The ministry of human resources development (MHRD) has forgotten that great universities are not established; they grow to greatness. All universities are institutions for innovation. The government could only make some norms for world-class universities which could not be established overnight but evolve over time.

With the aforesaid unfettered freedom, complete autonomy to the board of governors and no control of the central government over universities for innovation, this bill provides an alternative route of the FEI Bill 2010 to foreign universities and private players for establishing their campuses in India. They will not be required to acquire the (discredited) deemed universities status. This alternative route is going to give them greater power, freedom and prestige, with the removal of most of the restrictions that are proposed in the foreign educational institutions bill. Only the predatory elements will benefit from this bill, not the people of India.

8. Higher Education in Twelfth Five Year Plan

The planning commission’s approach paper to the twelfth five year plan “Faster, Sustainable and More inclusive Growth”, submitted in August 2011 pointed out that private higher education “accounts for about four‐fifths of enrolment in professional higher education and one‐third overall. This growth trend is likely to continue in the Twelfth Plan.” For encouraging private investment, it called for “re-examination” of “not-for-profit” tag in higher education sector. It proposed that higher education institutions (HEIs) should be encouraged to raise their own funds, have reasonable tuition fees, differential salaries to staff, etc. Given the “wide spread use of English language and low cost (of) living”, it aimed to make India a “global hub for higher education”. The UGC came out with its XII Plan document around the same time almost on the same lines.

It expressed concern over the fact that “less than one-fifth of the estimated 12 crore potential students are enrolled in HEIs in India, well below the world average of 26 per cent.” At the same time, significant problems exist in the quality of education provided. “The sector is plagued by a shortage of well-trained faculty, poor infrastructure and outdated and irrelevant curricula. The use of technology in higher education remains limited and standards of research and teaching at Indian universities are far below international standards with no Indian university featuring in any of the rankings of the top 200 institutions globally.” (Vol. 3, page 90).

The draft plan document further says that while expanding capacity, “costs have to be kept low while maintaining high quality.” It suggested that it could be achieved by increasing the capacity of existing institutions through multiple shifts and year-round operations. To keep the costs low, it further suggested the appointment of faculty on contract basis. It said, “high-cost full-time faculty can be engaged in high-value teaching while specially trained teaching assistants or adjunct faculty could be used for tutorials and online courses that are blended with face-to-face instruction.” (page 98).

For-Profit Growth with Public Funds

Major policy shift in the draft plan document is re-examination of “not-for-profit” tag in higher education for “pragmatic considerations so as to allow the entry of for-profit institutions.” (page 100). This sector has already become for-profit though it is making huge profits illegally. Since the major responsibility for expansion would be on private sector, therefore to attract large private funds it would only be “pragmatic” to allow the private sector in higher education for earning profits legally. For profit private investment would also mean that higher education would be sold as commodity which could be purchased by those who could bear its cost. It must be noted here that in several judgments of the Supreme Court, education has been held as a not-for-profit activity but allowing the private institutions to generate some surplus, and not profit, required for the development of the institution.

Special emphasis will be placed on expansion of skill-based programmes in higher education during the twelfth plan by establishing community colleges in accordance with North American Model (page 101). These colleges will provide modular credit-based courses with entry and exit flexibility. They will offer programmes leading to certificates (after one year), diplomas, advanced diplomas or associate degrees (after two years) with options to transfer to regular degree programmes. Their faculty will typically consist of a permanent core, who will teach fundamentals (language, mathematics, science) and a large pool of adjunct or part-time faculty who will focus on specialisations. Since the emphasis is on the efficient use of the facilities of existing institutions, the existing colleges will be forced to run like community colleges for first two years working with huge contract faculty.

Re-Crafting Undergraduate Education and Faculty

Expressing its serious concern, the draft plan document focuses on improving the quality of general higher education. Graduates should be able to acquire skills beyond the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic (the ‘3Rs’). Critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity (the ‘4Cs’) are increasingly important now. Special emphasis on verbal and written communication skills, especially, but not limited to, “English would go a long way in improving the employability of the large and growing mass of disempowered youth.”

The ‘4Cs’ as skills are taken care of by community colleges. However, these are in-built in general higher education within ‘3Rs’. Therefore, what is required is more infrastructural development in general higher education and not to convert them forcibly in to community colleges as is being currently done in Delhi University. This also puts an emphasis on English language for improving employability and undermines the role of Indian languages.

Undergraduate programmes should provide, according to draft plan document, a holistic education and give students opportunities for intellectual exploration, hands-on research, job skilling, experiential learning, creative thinking, leadership, ethics education, community service and more. “In place of three year programs, several institutions have introduced four-year undergraduate programs to achieve these multiple objectives. During the twelfth plan, four year undergraduate programmes would be promoted. UGC currently provides financial support for starting specialised programmes in interdisciplinary and emerging areas, which could be strengthened and could include support for four-year undergraduate programmes.”

There has not been any debate on the desirability of the four year undergraduate programmes instead of three years. No convincing argument is provided in the draft document. The structure which has recently been passed in Delhi University with eleven compulsory foundation courses common to all student will instead of fulfilling these objectives will actually devalue its existing undergraduate programmes and the university is slated to lose its ‘premier’ tag in the future.

The draft plan document proposes an enabling policy framework to attract Indians teaching in universities abroad. Senior and tenured overseas faculty could be invited as international visiting professors by offering them attractive remuneration. This could be supplemented by “tapping the growing pool of retired experts.”  It further proposes that “new faculty may be kept under probation for a period of five years and confirmation could then be done on the basis of rigorous performance evaluation including peer review and student feedback.” (page 109)

The draft plan document proposes to promote a “meta-university framework as a network of universities” in order to expand student choice and increasing the design of innovative interdisciplinary programmes. This would enable several universities to come together and offer courses across disciplines, treat faculty and students from all institutions alike and always mobile, and provide all network members access to content, teaching, and the research support they need. Accreditation will be mandatory with clear incentives and consequences.

These proposals will create differential pay structure for faculty and a big army of exploited contract teachers working at the mercy of the managements. This will instead of raising quality lead to the degeneration of higher education sysem.

High Fee Structure

The plan document notes, “Central universities, particularly that are Delhi-based, have not raised the fees for decades, while several State universities have raised the fees to reasonable levels.” (page 120). It asserts that maintaining low levels of fees is regressive since it often benefits the “better-off students.” The draft plan document has once again opened the debate started by the World Bank in eighties and nineties. The World Bank had advocated that the higher education was not a merit good and subsidizing higher education meant subsidizing the rich.

It said that the process of raising fees, which started with the elite Central institutions like the IIMs and IITs raising their fees in recent years, should be continued and brought to reasonable levels. This should eventually cover all Central institutions. Similarly, State Governments should also be encouraged to raise fees to reasonable and sustainable levels in State universities and colleges. Instead of social control, it seeks to extend some flexibility to private institutions in matters related to fee fixation.

9. In Conclusion

The UPA-2 government is changing the entire framework of higher education system in the country without required consultation and debate and with tremendous haste without any regard to opposition of academia and states. With ever growing strategic relationship with the USA in several fields, this government is also under its pressure and also of other developed countries including UK. These countries are looking for alternative destinations for export of their higher education and do business so that their crisis-ridden higher education systems could be bailed out. The Prime Minister and HRD Minister are already engaged in high level talks with their counterparts in USA and UK in this regard.

In the new framework which will facilitate trade in higher education, there will be no social control over higher education institutions and no regulation of admission, fees, content of courses, examination, service conditions of teachers and other employees ignoring larger issues of social justice and academic accountability. For adjudication of disputes, teachers or other employees will be stopped at the tribunal level and they will be denied their constitutional right to take recourse to high courts. There will be no remedial mechanism for the solution of problems of students. Instead of giving higher education institutions freedom to regulate themselves on the basis of some guidelines, they will be mandatorily accredited. However, the central government can exempt the institutions from this mandatory provision which will help the foreign educational institutions interested in coming to India and set up their shops.

The foreign educational institutions will launch courses which the market needs, create false impression about their courses through advertisements, charge exorbitantly high fees for courses which have immediate employment potential. Since competition entails reduction in costs, infrastructure, laboratories and libraries will find least investment and the teachers and non-teaching staff will be appointed without necessary qualifications on such terms which will be exploitative as is in existence in most private institutions in the country today. The Universities for Innovation Bill will provide an alternative route to foreign universities for establishing their campuses in India. This route will give them greater power, freedom and prestige with the removal of most of the restrictions, proposed in the foreign educational institutions bill.

An all powerful commission is sought to be created for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education including starting of a university negating the role of state governments and academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas, states and country. With this single-window system, the foreign educational institutions will find it easy to start their shops in the country.

Under the neo-liberal agenda of the UPA-2 government, the cherished function of higher education, for the search, creation and dissemination of knowledge and for instilling sensitivity or social awareness in its students in India is under fire today. With new agenda of the government in the name of expanding higher education and a series of bills, our higher education system is being thrown in to the hands of private players both local and foreign for its trade and all round privatization and commercialization. This will lead to the dismantling of the state funded higher education system.

The XII plan document proposes low costs for expansion of enrolment, contractual faculty, allowing private investors to make profits, making courses suited to the market, restructuring undergraduate courses in accordance with North American model, and charging of high fees from students. All these proposals are for the commercialization of higher education leading to private profits with public funding.

]]> http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2013/06/15/impact-of-neo-liberal-policies-on-education-and-the-consequent-policy-and-legislative-issues/feed/ 0 vijendersharma http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/reforms-bare-their-ugly-face/ http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/reforms-bare-their-ugly-face/#comments Sat, 08 Jun 2013 08:48:00 +0000 Vijender Sharma http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/?p=525 ]]> Scrap FYUP, Save Delhi University!

Vijender Sharma

THE University of Delhi (DU) is currently on ventilator and, going by what see as students, researchers, teachers, parents and as citizens of this country, it is going to die quite soon. It is not likely to be the way Nalanda or Takshila died. It is dying because of the supporters of American imperialism like the prime minister, HRD ministers, leaders of the Planning Commission and their lackeys, bureaucrats and, no less because of Delhi University administration with its most authoritarian vice chancellor. But associated with its death would be a brazen loot of the Indian students, parents and people in future by the predatory elements of American educational imperialism.

This university can be saved even now. It can be saved only if the president, the prime Minister, the Congress president and HRD minister start caring for the indigenous higher education system and stop converting it to suit the needs of American universities as has been proposed in twelfth plan. They cannot take refuge in the garb of autonomy of the university and refuse to intervene. The autonomy cannot be without accountability. If the autonomy is being used to kill an institution, they with their given positions have no option but to intervene — immediately. If they do not act now, the people would not forgive them and their names would go down in history as those who presided over the dismantling of a premier educational institution, viz the University of Delhi.

LABORATORY OF NEO-LIBERAL REFORMS

In the last few years, the University of Delhi has been converted into a laboratory of neo-liberal ‘reforms’ in higher education. These ‘reforms’ are in accordance with the requirements of American educational imperialism, its universities and education mafia. First, the semester system was imposed without discussions and despite opposition by the stakeholders. Many courses were passed under emergency powers of the then vice chancellor who created a reign of terror in the university. The students admitted under semester system are yet to reach their third year of the programme. The experience of the semester system has not been reviewed so far.

With the new vice chancellor taking over the charge of the university, the reign of terror was further strengthened by cutting the salaries of teachers for protesting even on Sundays or gazetted holidays like Dussehra, Diwali and Id. These two vice chancellors did not allow permanent appointments of teachers and non-teaching staff. They created an army of adhoc teachers, about half the teaching community, and about the same number of non-teaching staff as contract employees. This army of teachers and employees is quite vulnerable and insecure, and therefore do not respond to their organisations’ call in most cases.

In this scenario, the present administration of the University of Delhi, with the support of those elected representatives of teachers who owe allegiance to the Congress party ruling at the centre and in the state, roped in those who belong to the principal opposition at both levels (BJP) and the like who favour the same pro-American education policy. With this strength, the present vice chancellor came up with a four-year undergraduate programme (FYUP) in the Academic Council on December 24, 2012. On March 5, 2013, the departments were asked to frame the new courses and given 15 days’ time. However, within two months, all the courses in new system were drafted and passed by the authoritative bodies. In the Academic Council meetings, including that held on May 27, 2013, those who had differing opinions were humiliated and threatened.

The FYUP, which is sought to be implemented in place of the three-year degree programmes from the coming academic session, i.e. July 2013, is at variance with the national policy which lays down a 10+2+3 system from school to higher education. Thus while students elsewhere will get an Honours degree in three years, the students of Delhi University will have to do an extra year. This will not only put them one year behind other students but also significantly raise the cost of education for most students from the middle class and poorer backgrounds. It is estimated that students coming from outside Delhi will have to bear an additional expense Rs one to one and a half lakh for one additional year. The extra year is also likely to put students from other universities at a disadvantage while applying for postgraduate programmes at Delhi University.

NEW SYSTEM SUITED TO USA

No reasons for such a major change have been given except that the students would be more employable. The HRD minister of state, Shashi Throor, while appreciating the FYUP, has said that it was in line with the system that exists in the USA and that after doing this course the students could easily get enrolled in American universities.

According to the official statistics of the USA, 100,270 Indian students (including NRIs living in other countries) went to the USA in 2011-12 which amounted to less than 0.6 per cent of the present student enrolment in higher education institutions in India (1,69,75,000). About 65 per cent of these students went to the USA on the strength of their personal and family funds. That is, they belong to the elite families in India. About 23 per cent students went on US college and university scholarships and the rest went there on the basis of home government funding or current employment in USA, etc. These people, in any case, will go to the USA or elsewhere for higher education and one cannot stop them.

According to the twelfth plan proposal, four year undergraduate programmes would be promoted during the plan period. After the FYUP is implemented in Delhi University, other universities will be forced to follow suit, as it happened in the case of semester system. The minister has to explain why his government wants to force 99.4 per cent of our students to spend one more year for an Honours degree which is hitherto available in three years. The UPA government is clearly out to make our education system suitable for predatory American educational institutions.

However, for the so called ‘employability,’ every student, irrespective of what discipline one chooses, will have to do eleven compulsory foundation courses. These are language, literature, and creativity–I (Hindi/MIL); language, literature, and creativity–II (English); information technology; business, entrepreneurship and management; governance and citizenship; philosophy, psychology, communication and life skills; geographic and socio-economic diversity; science and life; Indian history and culture; building mathematical ability; and environment and public health. Apart from these, all students have to do two semester courses on integrating the mind, body and heart. No one has explained as to how such general school level courses are going to increase employability.

Any change at the undergraduate level has to be in harmony with school education. After class X, all students have to choose one out of the three streams — science, arts and commerce. Thus the students of one stream do not study the courses of other streams. It is completely irrational to force all students to study even those courses which they had left after their class X. This provision will become a barrier for students and affect them severely. These courses amount to more than one-fourth of the total number of courses in four years that a student has to study. It s for these unnecessary courses that one more year is being added.

INEQUITIOUS EXIT POINTS

Students and teachers have expressed concerns about the multiple exit points leading to three different diplomas or degrees, the rigid structure and the syllabi that have been hurriedly prepared to fit into it. Even at the existing rate, one extra year in an alien expensive city will mean cutting the access to higher education for many. The rate of dropouts will increase as we will be legitimising it. The multiple exit points (at two, three and four years) will ensure that only the privileged (not only socially but economically also) would reach the last stage of getting an Honours degree while students from marginalised and underprivileged backgrounds will be forced to exit with a lower degree. Women students from economically backward backgrounds, SC, ST, and OBC students and those from rural backgrounds will be most affected. This will create more inequalities, instead of addressing the issues of social justice.

No provision has been made for additional infrastructure or teaching posts for the extra year. More than 4000 teaching posts are already lying vacant and are not being filled up despite strong protests by teachers. The shift to the four-year programme without ensuring these essential requirements will be an irresponsible move.

Serious concerns have been expressed about the harmful consequences of rushing through such a far-reaching structural change without wider debate and consultation and without taking on board the teachers who are legitimately concerned about the dilution of quality. All appeals to the vice chancellor have evidently had no effect. Instead, statutory bodies of the university have been deprived of the possibilities of discharging their responsibilities in any reasonable manner.

The Democratic Teachers’ Front (DTF) and the Students’ Federation of India (SFI), along with other Left and democratic groups as well as sections of teachers and students, carried the campaign against the FYUP. A “Save DU Campaign” was launched. Under its banner, several action programmes like dharnas, demonstrations and meetings with the students and parents were organised. Leaders and MPs of various political parties, including the CPI(M), CPI, AIFB, RSP, AIDMK, TDP, RJD, NCP and LJP, and also the Congress and the BJP, were approached and apprised of the serious consequences of FYUP. Their intervention was sought to approach the appropriate authorities so that its implementation was stopped till such time its consequences and necessity was properly debated and considered.

The “Save DU Campaign” reached out to people at large in the city. Teachers and students went to several metro stations and local residential areas and distributed leaflets explaining as to how the FYUP was against the interests of students and parents. They collected signatures on a memorandum addressed to the prime minister, seeking his intervention. Print and electronic media also covered the views of the “Save DU Campaign.” Many authors, columnists, jurists and civil society activists – left, right and centre – wrote against the FYUP and against the hurry with which it was being pushed.

GOVERNMENT UNMOVED

It was in this background that several delegations of teachers and senior academics met the HRD minister and wrote to the prime minister. Several MPs wrote to the prime minister, seeking his intervention. Sitaram Yechury, MP and a member of the CPI(M) Polit Bureau, raised the matter in Rajya Sabha. He led a delegation of MPs to the prime minister with a memorandum, signed by 37 MPs, seeking his intervention in the matter. Sitaram Yechury also met the president of India in his capacity as the visitor of the university and submitted a memorandum. Both the president and prime minister wondered why the FYUP should be pushed so hurriedly.

A Joint Action Front for Democratic Education (SC/ST/OBC/Left) was also formed which, while opposing the FYUP, explained as to how students belonging to the SC, ST, OBC and other weaker sections would suffer. It organised a protest action in front of the residence of UPA chairperson and submitted a memorandum. It organised a convention, and a candle light programme at India Gate that ended in the detention of all protesters by the police for some time.

The ministry of HRD took the position that Delhi University was an autonomous institution and that the ministry would not intervene. But autonomy cannot be without accountability. The prime minister, as usual, maintained his silence. The president, in his capacity as the visitor, has the authority to intervene in order to stop the university from being pushed towards chaos and academic disaster which will affect the lives of thousands of students. He has the right to annul any proceeding of the university which is not in conformity with this act, the statutes or the ordinances. He can disallow any ordinance or order the suspension of operation of any ordinance. But he too did not act.

Pushing the FYUP in Delhi University will make easier the implementation of the twelfth plan which proposes low costs for expansion of enrolment, contractual faculty, permission to private investors to make profits, making the courses suited to the market, restructuring the undergraduate courses in accordance with the American model, and charging high fees from students. All these proposals are for the commercialisation of higher education, leading to private profits with public funding. Thus the FYUP is patently anti-student and anti-people. The “Save DU Campaign” and others are doing their best to get the FYUP scrapped even now.

We are likely to witness Delhi University, quite soon, not like what we have been seeing it for more than four decades — catering to the needs of people at large from all over the country. What we are now going to witness will be a Delhi University in the new role as the leader of commercialisation of higher education. This would mean the virtual death of this premier university of the country.

First Published in:  People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXVII, No. 23, June 09, 2013

]]> http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2013/06/08/reforms-bare-their-ugly-face/feed/ 0 vijendersharma http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/higher-education-in-twelfth-five-year-plan/ http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/higher-education-in-twelfth-five-year-plan/#comments Fri, 22 Feb 2013 16:09:32 +0000 Vijender Sharma http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/?p=518 ]]> For-Profit Private Investment with High Fees and Contract Faculty

Vijender Sharma

THE Planning Commission’s approach paper to the twelfth five year plan, titled “Faster, Sustainable and More inclusive Growth” and submitted in August 2011, pointed out that private higher education “accounts for about four‐fifths of enrolment in professional higher education and one‐third overall. This growth trend is likely to continue in the twelfth plan.” For encouraging private investment, it called for “re-examination” of “not-for-profit” tag in the higher education sector. It proposed that higher education institutions (HEIs) should be encouraged to raise their own funds, have reasonable tuition fees and differential salaries to staff, etc. Given the “widespread use of English language and low cost (of) living,” it aimed to make India a “global hub for higher education.” The UGC came out with its 12th plan document around the same time — almost on the same lines.

THREE NEW PRINCIPLES

The Planning Commission later presented its draft 12th five year plan (2012-17) on December 27, 2012 to the National Development Council which has now adopted it. The draft plan document estimated that “developed economies and even China will face a shortage of about four crore (40 million) highly skilled workers by 2020, while, based on current projections of higher education, India is likely to see some surplus of graduates in 2020. Thus, India could capture a higher share of global knowledge based work, for example by increasing its exports of knowledge-intensive goods and services, if there is focus on higher education and its quality is globally benchmarked.”

It expressed concern over the fact that “less than one-fifth of the estimated 12 crore potential students are enrolled in HEIs in India, well below the world average of 26 per cent.” At the same time, significant problems exist in the quality of education provided. “The sector is plagued by a shortage of well-trained faculty, poor infrastructure and outdated and irrelevant curricula. The use of technology in higher education remains limited and standards of research and teaching at Indian universities are far below international standards with no Indian university featuring in any of the rankings of the top 200 institutions globally” (Vol 3, p 90).

The document called for careful planning of future expansion so as to correct regional and social imbalances, improve standards and improve employability. The strategic aims of the twelfth plan centre around ‘three Es’ — expansion, equity and excellence. However, the draft plan document proposes “a paradigm change” for achieving these goals — through three new principles. First, emphasis will be on expansion with quality. Second, higher education opportunities will be diversified; world class research universities and sophisticated teaching institutions will be developed to impart key vocational and generic skills as per the needs of the labour market. Third, this excellence in diversity will be implemented through governance reforms.

STATUS OF HIGHER EDUCATION

There was a special thrust on enrolment in private institutions of higher education during the eleventh plan. During this period, the enrolment in private institutions increased more than double than in public institutions. It increased in private institutions by 53.11 lakh, state institutions by 23.72 lakh and central institutions by 2.53 lakh. It amounted to 58.9 per cent of total enrolment in the private institutions, while it was 38.5 per cent in state institutions and 2.6 per cent in central institutions. Incidentally, these figures do not match with those given in the approach paper as mentioned above in the first paragraph.

During the eleventh plan, the total number of institutions grew by 58 per cent from 29,384 to 46,430. This growth was 63.47 per cent in case of private institutions, 49.15 per cent in state institutions and 52.41 per cent in central institutions. By the end of the Plan, the country had 645 degree awarding institutions, 33,023 colleges affiliated to 174 universities and over 12,748 diploma granting institutions. Of the 46,430 institutions, 29,662, i.e. 63.88 per cent of the total, were private institutions. Growth in private institutions was significant with 98 private state universities, 17 private deemed universities, 7,818 private colleges, and 3,581 private diploma institutions. A majority of them offer professional or vocational programmes almost exclusively.

According to the draft plan document, additional enrolment capacity of “one crore students including 10 lakh in open and distance learning would be created. This would enable roughly 30 lakh more students in each age cohort to enter higher education and raise the country’s GER from 17.9 per cent (estimated for 2011-12) to 25.2 per cent by 2017-18 and reach the target of 30 per cent GER by 2020-21 which would be broadly in line with world average.”

By the end of the twelfth plan period, the enrolment capacity of central institutions would be doubled from six lakh to 12 lakh. In the state institutions, it would increase from 84 lakh to one crore 10 lakh. “The bulk of growth would be in the private institutions.” In private institutions, the enrolment capacity would increase from one crore 27 lakh now to one crore 85 lakh (p 96). Thus the thrust would continue to be on private investments.

The draft plan document asserts that during the eleventh plan, Indian higher education moved from ‘elite’ to ‘mass’ higher education by crossing 15 per cent GER and is now moving towards universal higher education and will cross 50 per cent GER. With about 85 per cent children in the relevant age group of 17–23 years remaining outside the ambit of higher education, how can one call it ‘mass’ higher education?

The draft plan document further says that while expanding capacity, “costs have to be kept low while maintaining high quality.” It suggested that it could be achieved by increasing the capacity of existing institutions through multiple shifts and year-round operations. This takes care of a long-time demand of students to start evening shifts in colleges in order to increase enrolment. To keep the costs low, it further suggested the appointment of faculty on contract basis. It said, “high-cost full-time faculty can be engaged in high-value teaching while specially trained teaching assistants or adjunct faculty could be used for tutorials and online courses that are blended with face-to-face instruction” (p 98).

FOR-PROFIT GROWTH WITH PUBLIC FUNDS

A major policy shift in the draft plan document is for a re-examination of “not-for-profit” tag in higher education for “pragmatic considerations so as to allow the entry of for-profit institutions” (p 100). It points out that the private sector in higher education accounts for 58.5 per cent enrolment. However, the philanthropic investment in higher education has decreased tremendously over the years. This sector has already become for-profit; in fact it is making huge profits illegally. Since the major responsibility for expansion would be on private sector, therefore to attract large private funds it would only be “pragmatic” to allow the private sector in higher education for earning profits legally. For-profit private investment would also mean that higher education would be sold as a commodity which could be purchased by those who could bear its cost. It must be noted here that several judgements of the Supreme Court held education as a not-for-profit activity but allowed the private institutions to generate some surplus, and not profit, required for their development.

Innovative proposals have been suggested in the draft plan document to encourage the infusion of more private capital in the traditional not-for-profit higher education. These include: (i) enabling liberal financing options for the sector, like allowing private institutions to raise funds through public offerings of bonds or shares; (ii) changing the legal status of the sector to attract more investors, like allowing all types of institutions to be established under section 25 of the Companies Act and allowing existing trusts and societies to convert to institutions under the same section; (iii) giving priority recognition to the sector, like providing it ‘infrastructure’ status with similar, financial and tax treatment. The government would give to non-profit private institutions “on an equal footing with public institutions,” student financial aid, research funds and technology and faculty development support.

NO SOCIAL CONTROL

Section 25 of the Companies Act applies only to non-for-profit organisations and prohibits fundraising through bonds and shares. It means that the nature of this section would also be changed. While private institutions would be getting public funds, the draft plan document makes no proposal to have social control over these institutions in relation to fees, admission, service conditions, examination, etc. Rather, the public institutions not meeting standards would be handed over to the private sector.

Special emphasis will be placed on expansion of skill-based programmes in higher education during the twelfth plan by establishing community colleges in accordance with the North American Model (p 101). These colleges will provide modular credit-based courses with entry and exit flexibility. They will offer programmes leading to certificates (after one year), diplomas, advanced diplomas or associate degrees (after two years) with options to transfer to regular degree programmes. Their faculty will typically consist of a permanent core, who will teach fundamentals (language, mathematics, science) and a large pool of adjunct or part-time faculty who will focus on specialisations. Since the emphasis is on the efficient use of the facilities of existing institutions, the existing colleges will be forced to run like community colleges for first two years working with huge contract faculty.

MISCONCEPTION ABOUT QUALITY

Expressing serious concern, the draft plan document lays emphasis on improving the overall quality of higher education institutions in the country. It points out that general higher education could be an excellent foundation for successful knowledge-based careers; therefore focus should be primarily on improving the quality of general higher education. Graduates should be able to acquire skills beyond the basics of reading, writing and arithmetic (the ‘3Rs’). Critical thinking, communication, collaboration and creativity (the ‘4Cs’) are increasingly important now. Special emphasis on verbal and written communication skills, especially, but not limited to, “English would go a long way in improving the employability of the large and growing mass of disempowered youth.”

The ‘4Cs’ as skills are taken care of by community colleges. However, these are inbuilt in general higher education within ‘3Rs’. Therefore, what is required is more infrastructural development in general higher education and not their forcible conversion into community colleges as is being currently done in Delhi University. This also puts an emphasis on English language for improving employability and undermines the role of Indian languages.

The draft plan document mentions certain steps taken during eleventh plan for improving the quality of general higher education, including financial assistance given to 417 departments of universities and colleges. One of the steps taken was introduction of semester system in a few states and in University of Delhi. With the implementation of semester system in Delhi University, however, the quality of education has in fact gone down tremendously.

The document calls for reforming the affiliating college system through a five-pronged strategy during the twelfth plan. First, large and reputed colleges will be converted into full-fledged universities. Second, college-cluster universities will be created with each college working as a campus. Third, some of the large and unwieldy affiliating universities will be split into manageable units. Fourth, colleges would be allowed to consolidate through merger under an autonomous framework. Finally, affiliating universities will have to revamp their college development councils and give greater autonomy to their colleges in all academic, administrative and financial matters. However, it has not been explained as to how these reforms are going to improve quality.

RE-CRAFTING UNDERGRADUATE EDUCATION AND FACULTY

Undergraduate programmes should provide, according to the draft plan document, a holistic education and give students opportunities for intellectual exploration, hands-on research, job skilling, experiential learning, creative thinking, leadership, ethics education, community service and more. “In place of three year programs, several institutions have introduced four-year undergraduate programs to achieve these multiple objectives. During the twelfth plan, four year undergraduate programmes would be promoted. UGC currently provides financial support for starting specialised programmes in interdisciplinary and emerging areas, which could be strengthened and could include support for four-year undergraduate programmes.”

There has not been any debate on the desirability of the four year undergraduate programmes instead of three years. No convincing argument is provided in the draft document. The structure which has recently been passed in Delhi University, with eleven compulsory foundation courses common to all students, will, instead of fulfilling these objectives, actually devalue its existing undergraduate programmes and the university is slated to lose its ‘premier’ tag in future.

The draft plan document proposes an enabling policy framework to attract Indians teaching in universities abroad. Senior and tenured overseas faculty could be invited as international visiting professors by offering them attractive remuneration. This could be supplemented by “tapping the growing pool of retired experts.”  It further proposes that “new faculty may be kept under probation for a period of five years and confirmation could then be done on the basis of rigorous performance evaluation including peer review and student feedback” (p 109)

The draft plan document proposes to promote a “meta-university framework as a network of universities” in order to expand student choice and increasing the design of innovative interdisciplinary programmes. This would enable several universities to come together and offer courses across disciplines, treat faculty and students from all institutions alike and always mobile, and provide all network members access to content, teaching, and the research support they need. Accreditation will be mandatory with clear incentives and consequences.

These proposals will create differential pay structure for faculty and a big army of exploited contract teachers working at the mercy of the managements. This will instead of raising quality lead to the degeneration of higher education system.

HIGH FEE STRUCTURE

The plan document notes: “….while, about 60 per cent students are enrolled in private unaided institutions and pay full fees, the remaining 40 per cent are enrolled in public-funded institutions and usually pay very low fees. Central universities, particularly that are Delhi-based, have not raised the fees for decades, while several State universities have raised the fees to reasonable levels” (p 120). It asserts that maintaining low levels of fees is regressive since it often benefits the “better-off students.” The draft plan document has once again opened the debate started by the World Bank in the eighties and nineties. The World Bank had advocated that higher education was not a merit good and subsidising higher education meant subsidising the rich. It said that the process of raising fees, which started with the elite central institutions like the IIMs and IITs raising their fees in recent years, should be continued and brought to reasonable levels. This should eventually cover all central institutions. Similarly, state governments should also be encouraged to raise fees to reasonable and sustainable levels in state universities and colleges. Instead of social control, it seeks to extend some flexibility to private institutions in matters related to fee fixation.

The plan document proposes low costs for expansion of enrolment, contractual faculty, allowing private investors to make profits, making courses suited to the market, restructuring undergraduate courses in accordance with North American model, and charging of high fees from students. All these proposals are for commercialisation of higher education leading to private profits with public funding. The students’ and teachers’ movements have been fighting against these attempts, and have to fight against these draft plan objectives which are anti-student, anti-teacher and anti-people.

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXVII, No. 13 March 31, 2013

]]> http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2013/02/22/higher-education-in-twelfth-five-year-plan/feed/ 0 vijendersharma http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/ac-and-ec-elections-in-delhi-university/ http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/ac-and-ec-elections-in-delhi-university/#comments Tue, 12 Feb 2013 12:00:57 +0000 Vijender Sharma http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/?p=511 ]]> DTF Wins with Massive Mandate

Vijender Sharma

THE election for two members of the Executive Council and 26 members of the Academic Council in the University of Delhi (DU) concluded on January 31 and the counting concluded on February 3. All candidates of the Democratic Teachers’ Front (DTF), a Left wing organisation of DU teachers, have won with massive mandates.

SITUATION IN DU TODAY

These elections were held in the wake of a 53 days long relay hunger strike, organised by the Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA); it was withdrawn before the start of semester exams. These were followed by vacations, continued disruption in DUTA activities and meetings by both the factions of Congress —  Indian National Teachers’ Congress (INTEC) and Academics for Action and Development (AAD) — and by the BJP sponsored National Democratic Teachers’ Front (NDTF), and declaration by the vice chancellor that he would not meet DUTA leadership as it was an illegal association of Delhi University teachers.

The DTF contested these elections in a situation when the DUTA could not show any achievement on the teachers’ demands. However, that DTF was the only group which carried out the DUTA’s action programmes while the AAD, INTEC, NDTF and some others were seen colluding with the vice chancellor and weakening the DUTA. This was the situation despite the fact that the DTF’s candidate had won DUTA presidentship for a two year term with unprecedented 46 per cent of votes in August 2011.

The teachers in general understood, by their own experience, that such a situation was created by the teachers’ groups like AAD, INTEC, NDTF and others. These groups undid the mandate given for the presidentship of DUTA in 2011 by aligning with the vice chancellor and not letting the DUTA executive function. In doing so, these groups did tremendous harm to the interests of teachers and weakened the DUTA.

These groups became subservient to the vice chancellor in his pursuit to impose the neo-liberal agenda of the UPA government of commercialising higher education and so converting this university as it would suit to the universities of the USA. The structure of a four-year degree programme was passed in the Academic Council of the university with only six members dissenting, including the four belonging to the DTF. The members belonging to the AAD, INTEC, NDTF and others not only voted for the programme; they also humiliated the DUTA as an organisation of teachers as such. They behaved not as representatives of the teachers who had elected them but as members nominated by the vice chancellor. The structure of four-year programme clearly demonstrates that in future teachers will be appointed only on contract for a short while and that permanent appointments would not be coming.

‘REFORMERS’ BITE DUST IN DU

Teachers of the university well understood this nexus between the vice chancellor and the aforesaid groups and this deliberately weakening of the DUTA by them. The young ad hoc teachers, who constitute about half the total number of teachers in Delhi University and have been working for several years, clearly understood the game-plan of the AAD, INTEC, NDTF and others. The university administration had also made it clear that they wanted the landslide victory of the common candidate of both the factions of Congress — AAD and INTEC — announced by the president of Delhi Pradesh Congress Committee (DPCC). For this purpose, officers of the university used the principals and OSDs of several colleges and some heads of the university departments to pressurise the ad hoc teachers not to vote for DTF candidates in this election, but for the AAD and INTEC candidates.

An impression was also sought to be created that the AAD, INTEC and VC’s candidate for the EC — who has been a president of the DUTA for three terms, all-India president of Federation of Central Universities’ Teachers’ Association (FEDCUTA) and a member of the Academic Council and DUTA Executive earlier — would win with over 4,000 votes. It was also propagated that the DTF’s candidate — a much younger teacher who has been a member of the AC and is now a DUTA Executive member — would trail heavily and would have to wait for surplus votes of the AAD, INTEC and VC’s candidate. Thus they thought that they would be able to finish the DTF that has been fighting against the anti-teacher, anti-student ‘reforms’ in the university, by demobilising the DUTA under its president belonging to the DTF and now by slapping it with a tremendously humiliating defeat in the EC elections. But eventually the AAD, INTEC and university administration had to bite dust when the results came.

As the campaign hotted up, however, teachers in general and ad hoc teachers in particular understood that the AAD, INTEC and VC’s candidate for the EC was the candidate of the Congress party which is working hard for commercialising the higher education and that of the vice chancellor who has been using Delhi University as a laboratory of the neo-liberal ‘reforms’ (in fact ‘deforms’) in higher education. Therefore, the teachers responded positively to the campaign by the DTF that every vote for its EC candidate, Abha Dev Habib, would be a vote against the four-year programme, against the anti-student and anti-teacher ‘reforms’ in Delhi University and against its autocratic vice chancellor.

The general and ad hoc teachers refused to bow down before the pressure created by the university administration, including the bullying of ad hoc teachers by activists of the AAD, INTEC, NDTF and others. They used their right to vote through secret ballot to reject the actions of the vice chancellor, the designs of the AAD, INTEC, NDTF and others to weaken the DUTA, and the drive of commercialisation of higher education by the Congress with the support of the BJP.

TEACHERS’ MORALE GOES UP WITH DTF’S WIN

As it happened, these general and ad hoc teachers rebuffed the hoax that the AAD, INTEC and VC’s candidate for the EC would cross the 4,000 mark. (This was the candidate given to them by the Congress president, Mrs Sonia Gandhi, who had reportedly promised him solution of all problems as mentioned in his election leaflets.) The result was that such a stalwart activist — one who had been three time president of the DUTA and president of the FEDCUTA, and one who was known to one and all in the university — somehow scraped through and got just 2,680 votes, a mere 388 more than the DTF’s much younger candidate, Abha Dev Habib, who got 2,292 votes. Both crossed the quota of 2,206.34 votes to win in the first round and first count in the preferential system of voting. The DTF has been winning one of the two seats for the last 25 years, except once in 2006. The BJP-led NDTF’s candidate got just 1,181 votes and suffered a humiliating defeat.

These two candidates were slated to win in any case. The issue was of the margin between the two and of who would come first. The AAD, INTEC and VC’s candidate for the EC won the first position without getting the expected lead of one thousand and five hundred votes while the DTF’s candidate won the second position without depending on anybody else’s second preferences and got just 388 votes less then the former. With such handsome victory of the DTF, the morale of the general teachers has gone high. The impression now gaining ground is that the DUTA is alive and strong despite it being stabbed in the back by the AAD, INTEC, NDTF and others.

A reign of terror today prevails in Delhi University, with students, non-teaching staff and teachers being denied their right to protest. The university today has the most authoritarian regime in its 90 years history, one that threatens teachers and others with dire consequences and wage cuts if they seek justice and resolution of their demands by holding dharnas, demonstrations or a day’s strike. With these results of the AC and EC elections, however, the university administration will have to note that all authoritarian regimes have been decimated by the people — in the more distant past as well as in recent times. The university administration will also have to realise that their recently started ‘durbars’ remind one of the feudal lords of medieval India, and that today we are no longer in the medieval period but in a period of democracy and debate. The attempt of the university administration — with the help of the AAD, INTEC, NDTF and others — to convert this university into a fiefdom or to terrorise the students, teachers and non-teaching staff into submission cannot be allowed to continue.

On December 24, 2012, when he was getting the structure of four-year degree programme passed in the Academic Council, the vice chancellor sought to humiliate the DTF members of the Academic Council by taunting that the DTF had met so many authorities but nothing could be done against him. (By that time, the DUTA office bearers, led by its president belonging to the DTF, had met the education minister and chief minister of Delhi, several members of parliament belonging to different political parties, and department related Standing Committee in the Human Resource Development Ministry. The DUTA office bearers had also met the president of India in his capacity as the visitor of the university and the new HRD minister with the help of the CPI(M)’s Polit Bureau member Sitaram Yechury, MP.) Now the vice chancellor would better throw his arrogance on a garbage heap and learn that he has to come to the negotiating table and to debate and discuss the issues.

THE FIGHT IS ABOUT OUR VERY FUTURE

Not only that the DTF has won the EC membership so decisively with the support of the general and ad hoc teachers; all its four candidates fielded for the membership of the Academic Council have also won. Rudrashish Chakaravorty got the highest number of votes followed by Renu Bala. The two crossed the quota of 240 votes to win in the first round and first count. The other two — Amitava Chakravorty and Sujeet Kumar — won with handsome votes by crossing this quota in the following round. For the DTF, such results have come after a long time and are very encouraging for the democratic struggle of teachers in the University of Delhi and elsewhere.

Significantly, the teachers of Delhi University refused to be misled by the name of ‘Soniaji,’ the Congress president, who was represented in the election campaign material as one who would solve every problem facing the DU teachers. The teachers well knew that ‘Soniaji’ was there as the Congress president during the four years when the AAD, INTEC and VC’s candidate for the EC was the DUTA president from 2007 to 2011. It was precisely during this period when the Delhi University was converted into a laboratory for the neo-liberal ‘reforms’ in higher education. Moreover, the government of the day continues to treat the university in the same way with the help of these worthies. This must stop — the teachers cried.

The results of the recent AC-EC elections in Delhi University represent a call to the teachers (and also the non-teaching staff and students) to stand up and be counted against the authoritarian regime of this premier university and wage struggles, without any fear, to stall the dismantling of this university in favour of American universities. The teachers of this university must be saluted for slapping a humiliating defeat on the university administration, on both the factions of the Congress — AAD and INTEC — and on the BJP supported NDTF who have been helping this feudal administration in dismantling the Delhi University as a premier university of the country so that the American universities could come here and loot our students and parents, exploit our teachers and non-teaching staff, and convert our country into a colony of the US’s educational imperialism.

Now that the elections are over, it is the duty of everyone to save this premier university of Delhi through strong and united actions under the banner of the DUTA.

Published in  People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXVII, No. 07, February 17, 2013

]]> http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2013/02/12/ac-and-ec-elections-in-delhi-university/feed/ 0 vijendersharma http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/2012-in-review/ http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/2012/12/31/2012-in-review/#comments Mon, 31 Dec 2012 11:33:28 +0000 Vijender Sharma http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com/?p=508 ]]> The WordPress.com stats helper monkeys prepared a 2012 annual report for this blog.

Here’s an excerpt:

600 people reached the top of Mt. Everest in 2012. This blog got about 5,800 views in 2012. If every person who reached the top of Mt. Everest viewed this blog, it would have taken 10 years to get that many views.

Click here to see the complete report.

Promoting FDI and Private Sector in Higher Education

Vijender Sharma

 The corporate sector discovered a huge and ever growing service industry in education. Global public spending on education in the beginning of this century was estimated to exceed one trillion US dollars, that is about fifty five lakh crore rupees. In this industry with huge global market students, teachers, and non-teaching employees constitute resources for profit-making. Here, the students are consumers, teachers are service providers and expert speakers, and the institutions or companies catering to education services are organisers, and the teaching-learning process is no longer for the building of a nation but a business for profit-making.

Predatory and powerful transnational corporations have been targeting public education, particularly higher education, for profit-making. Though predominantly a government supported service, most governments are, as a consequence of neo-liberal economic reforms, withdrawing from it. The government of India through extensive privatisation, commercialisation and deregulation has been encouraging this process.

PM’S INITIATIVE FOR PRIVATISATION

The Prime Minister had asked the Planning Commission in September 2007 to “seriously examine the role of private initiative in supplementing public funding for higher education” and stressed the “role for private initiative in this area.” He further asked it to “seriously look at the proposal for fee increases to reasonable levels in a graduated manner accompanied by a scheme of extensive scholarships and loans which would ensure that no student is denied education because of his or her financial constraints.”

The prime minister himself set the agenda that private investment should be welcome and the fees may be increased. And there could be scholarships and loans for those who could not pay the fees. The adequate number of scholarships are never available but are mentioned in policy documents and speeches to thwart the resistance to fee hike.

With the increase in the difficulty in finding jobs in the current economy, students have been struggling hard to pay back their loans that they had taken. Even if they get the job, the package offered is so low that the payment of loan seems to be difficult. Now they want the government to take steps so that their loans could be ‘forgiven’.

THE RECENT ACTIONS

The union ministry for human resource development had informed the Supreme Court about three years ago that of the 126 deemed universities 44 did not deserve their deemed university status because of their abysmal infrastructural facilities. Many of these deemed universities were created in violation of all norms by the UPA government itself favouring private managements. One of the derecognised deemed university was even allowed to open its offshore campus in Thailand.

While pacifying the panicky students that not a single student would be adversely affected, the then HRD minister had indicated that the provision of granting deemed university status might be done away with. He said that it was a “policy decision that all the deemed universities will finally go”. The PN Tandon Review Committee had stated that these institutions could be re-designated as affiliated colleges of the concerned state universities.

A month later, while addressing a programme organised by FICCI Ladies Organisation, the then HRD minister said that government will never allow profiteering in education that would go as dividends to the share holders. “Let us be clear that Indian businessmen, who probably because of meltdown do not get profit anywhere, want to get profit out of education. I, as a minister, will stand as a rock to ensure it does not happen,” he said.

It appeared that for a change the minister spoke sense. But just a few days later, he told private school principals in New Delhi that they were free to decide fees and teachers’ salaries. This statement clarified that what the minister told FICCI Ladies Organisation about a week earlier was false. The real agenda of his ministry, as briefed below, is to make education as a profit-making business.

100-DAY AGENDA

The UPA-2 government, which came into power in May 2009 knew that a Model Act like enabling framework, as directed by WTO, was not possible due to the resistance of all stakeholders. Therefore, its 100-day agenda announced by the minister of human resource development included introduction of several bills in parliament and so called academic reforms. Accordingly, four bills regarding entry and operation of foreign educational providers, mandatory assessment and accreditation, prevention and prohibition of malpractices, and establishment of a tribunal to fast-track adjudication have been introduced in the budget session of parliament in May 2010. Academic reforms agenda included introduction of semester system and choice based credit system in all institutions of higher education as recommended by WTO.

In addition a draft bill was issued for the constitution of an overarching authority National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) based on the recommendations of Yashpai Committee and National Knowledge Commission. In the wake of strong criticism, this draft was revised and selectively circulated. It was re-modified as The Higher Education and Research (THER) Bill 2011 and was introduced in the Rajya Sabha in December 2011. It has been referred to department related standing committee on human resource development. Another draft bill for starting innovation universities was also circulated. It also re-modified as Universities for Research and Innovation Bill, 2012 and was introduced in the Lok Sabha in May 2012.

The UPA-2 government is changing the entire framework of higher education system in the country without required consultation and debate. The HRD ministry is pushing this so called “reform agenda” with tremendous haste without any regard to opposition of academia and states. It is being questioned whether this agenda will ‘reform’ higher education system in India or ‘deform’ it. The compulsion of the minister and central government for pushing these “reforms” can be understood if we know the situation obtaining abroad in higher education sector after the recent economic meltdown particularly in USA and UK. These countries have built pressures on Indian government for bailing out their own higher education sector.

CENTRALISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Through THER Bill, 2011, an all powerful commission is sought to be created for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education including starting of a university negating the role of state governments and academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas, states and country. With this single-window system, the foreign educational institutions will find it easy to start their shops in the country.

This Bill is not to “promote” but undermine “the autonomy of higher educational institutions”. It will restructure higher education system for “competitive global environment”. It will not help state governments to strengthen higher education but snatch away from them even whatever their powers were left after education was included in the concurrent list of the constitution. It will undermine the powers of the parliament, state legislatures and representatives of the people to decide the education policy and administration of institutions of higher education in India.

The NCHER will control the appointments of vice chancellors. Once the NCHER comes into being, the powers of the state legislatures to start new universities will be seriously eroded. New universities will have to get permission from the commission to award any degree or diploma.

The proposal to establish an all powerful NCHER reflects the tendency of the central government towards centralisation of higher education. The understanding of the members of the commission will decide what should happen in the field of higher education in India. If it decides to direct the universities to look towards market for its requirements including funds, then what would happen to our higher education system? It will prove to be retrograde for the development of higher education in India and result in its crass commercialisation.

FDI IN EDUCATION

The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operations) Bill, 2010 was introduced in the Lok Sabha in May 2010 amidst opposition by some members. The proponents of foreign direct investment (FDI) in higher education argued that it would solve the problem of access, enable Indian students to access quality higher education in the country itself at relatively much lower cost, not allow the outflow of our foreign exchange reserves, create competition with the local institutions enabling them to become internationally competitive, and create new institutions and infrastructure and generate employment.

The FDI in any field, in fact, does not have an attached objective of fulfilling the social agenda of a welfare state. It is guided by profit and market alone and if these are not fulfilled, the investors look for other destinations for FDI. Foreign investors aim to increase their profits. In the field of higher education, foreign educational institutions would launch courses which the market needs, create false impression about their courses through advertisements, charge exorbitantly high fees for courses which have immediate employment potential.

It would lead to unhealthy competition among unequals. Since competition entails reduction in costs, infrastructure, laboratories and libraries would find least investment and the teachers and non-teaching staff would be appointed without necessary qualifications on such terms which would be exploitative as is in existence in most private institutions today.

FDI would impede the development of indigenous and critical research within our university education system, aggravate the tendency towards commercialisation and strengthen the stranglehold of neo-liberal ideas in our academia. The foreign educational institutions would be concerned about their profits and not about our culture and society. Therefore the courses which would appreciate and strengthen our ethos would not only be not started by the foreign educational institutions, but such courses would get marginalised in public funded higher education institutions also due to competition.

The Bill does not take care of any of the concerns expressed above. This Bill is an instrument to kill our system of higher education and promote crass commercialisation of higher education.

NO SOCIAL CONTROL OVER PRIVATE INSTITUTIONS

Students and their parents and the Left parties have been demanding that self-financing or private unaided institutions should be subjected to strict social control in matters relating to admission, fee structure, content of courses, and salary and service conditions of teaching and non-teaching employees. For this purpose, a central legislation is required empowering the UGC/AICTE/ MCI/ state governments to regulate universities and colleges set up through UGC Act/ Acts of state legislatures. The objective should be to promote inclusive higher education by ensuring fair, transparent and non-exploitative administration of educational institutions.

The Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical, Medical Educational Institutions and Universities Bill does not fulfil the objective of social control over self-financing or private unaided institutions. The fees and salaries to teachers will not be regulated as the minister assured private school principals.

The bill has prescribed imprisonment up to three years for guilty administrators or fine up to Rs 50 lakh for the institute for charging capitation fee or failure of educational institutions to keep promises mentioned in their bulletins. This provision is only to show and not to implement. Such provisions are still there in AICTE regulations. So many institutes are running their professional degree programmes without permission of the AICTE which is punishable offence. But so far no action has been taken against even one such institute. The loot of students and exploitation of teaching and non-teaching employees continues in such institutes. Despite this bill, the private or self-financing higher educational institutions will continue to make profits.

The Educational Tribunals Bill 2010 seeks to set up an alternative dispute redressal mechanism at the state and national levels by depriving all the concerned people of their right to move a court of law. One of the statements of objects of this bill says that the expansion of higher education to effectively “compete with other countries” can be achieved only if the “regulatory regime and dispute-settlement process engender credibility and assurance.” That is why the bill proposes a two-tier “system through a fast track, speedy recourse to justice delivery.” However, the provisions of the bill do not match its objectives. This bill, in fact, has been designed to keep the teachers, other employees and students away from courts of law. This is probably designed to provide the foreign educational institutions and private players an environment in which they do not have to bother much about litigation. This bill is thus to create a judicial system to suited the private sector.

MANDATORY ACCREDITATION

The MHRD has proposed mandatory accreditation of all educational institutions and for setting up National Authority for Registration in Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions (NARAHEI). At present National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) and National Board of Accreditation (NBA) undertake the accreditation work. These bodies do not have transparency and good track record.

The MHRD proposal points out that it would not be possible for the above two bodies to undertake accreditation of all higher education institutions. Therefore, in the draft NARAHEI Bill, 2009, a provision has been made to register accreditation agencies for this purpose.

There have been examples when public accrediting agencies raised the ratings of higher education institutions not on the basis of objective criteria but on some other considerations. The record of private assessing and accrediting agencies, particularly in financial market, are known to have changed the ratings of companies at their whims and fancies. If private accrediting agencies, which are bound to bring in business norms and practices into the accreditation process, are allowed to assess and accredit educational institutions, the ratings of institutions will remain doubtful. After getting higher ratings through whatever means, private institutions charge higher fees. This will help profit making in private educational institutions.

There should be ameliorative assessment of all educational institutions by public agencies, but it should not be linked up with accreditation or funding. Assessment should be transparent, democratic and participative. There should be no private agency for assessment. In fact, the educational institutions should be made self regulatory.

PRIVATE VARSITIES FINANCED BY CENTRE

Under the Universities for Innovation and Research Bill, the universities will be started through a memorandum of agreement (MoA) between central government and the promoter of the university. The wide-ranging freedom available to these universities, like differential salaries to teachers and fee and other charges etc, will set an example for all other institutions of higher education in the country to demand such freedom. Such freedom will only help private promoters, companies and foreign universities seeking to take advantage of the provisions of this bill.

The central government will give grants to each university for funding research and the promotion and development of higher education. It will also give grants to support fellowships or scholarships instituted by it, including fellowships or scholarships for the socially and educationally backward students. The central government’s public funding will be in the form of land, contributions to capital investment, grants for supporting research, and the promotion and development of higher education. The funding of universities of innovation by the central government will be the part of the MoA. The central government will have neither general nor social control over them. All profits made through intellectual property, created by using public funds, will go to the coffers of the private university of innovation.

There are no provisions in the bill for regulation of its admission process, courses, fees, examinations, service conditions and appointments of the teaching and non-teaching staffs. There is no provision under which the central government or any regulatory authority can inspect the affairs of these universities. Thus the central government will have neither general nor social control over these universities.

These universities will be outside the jurisdiction of the CAG. There will be no member of the central government on the board of governors. Any dispute between the statutory regulatory authority and the university of innovation in relation to standards will be referred only to a committee, not even to the proposed tribunals, the decision of which will be final and binding. There is no remedy proposed in the bill in relation to the disputes between students, teachers and other staff on the one hand and the universities of innovation on the other. This bill is most suited to private players in education and will give a fillip to commercialisation of higher education in the country. This bill will gravely affect our public funded system of higher education.

The ministry of human resources development (MHRD) has forgotten that great universities are not established; they grow to greatness. All universities are institutions for innovation. The government could only make some norms for world-class universities which could not be established overnight but evolve over time.

With the aforesaid unfettered freedom, complete autonomy to the board of governors and no control of the central government over universities for innovation, this bill provides an alternative route of the FEI Bill 2010 to foreign universities and private players for establishing their campuses in India. They will not be required to acquire the (discredited) deemed universities status. This alternative route is going to give them greater power, freedom and prestige, with the removal of most of the restrictions that are proposed in the foreign educational institutions bill. Only the predatory elements will benefit from this bill, not the people of India.

CONCLUSION

The UPA-2 government is changing the entire framework of higher education system in the country without required consultation and debate and with tremendous haste without any regard to opposition of academia and states. With ever growing strategic relationship with the USA in several fields, this government is also under its pressure and also of other developed countries including UK. These countries are looking for alternative destinations for export of their higher education and do business so that their crisis-ridden higher education systems could be bailed out. The Prime Minister and HRD Minister are already engaged in high level talks with their counterparts in USA and UK in this regard.

In the new framework which will facilitate trade in higher education, there will be no social control over higher education institutions and no regulation of admission, fees, content of courses, examination, service conditions of teachers and other employees ignoring larger issues of social justice and academic accountability. For adjudication of disputes, teachers or other employees will be stopped at the state tribunal level and they will be denied their right to take recourse to courts of law. There will be no remedial mechanism for the solution of problems of students. Instead of giving higher education institutions freedom to regulate themselves on the basis of some guidelines, they will be mandatorily accredited. However, the central government can exempt the institutions from this mandatory provision which will help the foreign educational institutions interested in coming to India and set up their shops.

The foreign educational institutions will launch courses which the market needs, create false impression about their courses through advertisements, charge exorbitantly high fees for courses which have immediate employment potential. Since competition entails reduction in costs, infrastructure, laboratories and libraries will find least investment and the teachers and non-teaching staff will be appointed without necessary qualifications on such terms which will be exploitative as is in existence in most private institutions in the country today. The Universities for Innovation Bill will provide an alternative route to foreign universities for establishing their campuses in India. This route will give them greater power, freedom and prestige with the removal of most of the restrictions, proposed in the foreign educational institutions bill.

An all powerful commission is sought to be created for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education including starting of a university negating the role of state governments and academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas, states and country. With this single-window system, the foreign educational institutions will find it easy to start their shops in the country.

Under the neo-liberal agenda of the UPA-2 government, the cherished function of higher education, for the search, creation and dissemination of knowledge and for instilling sensitivity or social awareness in its students in India is under fire today. With new agenda of the government in the name of expanding higher education and a series of bills, our higher education system is being thrown in to the hands of private players both local and foreign for its trade and all round privatization and commercialization. This will lead to the dismantling of the state funded higher education system. Citizens of India have to ensure that the Government takes care of public interests and act to protect higher education from the predatory elements that preach the ideology of the marketplace as the solution to every issue.

_____________________

To be presented in International Symposium (Sponsored by UGC and ICSSR) on “Higher Education in South Asia – Crisis and Challenges” being organised by Bombay University and College Teachers’ Union (BUCTU) at University of Mumbai on 11th and 12th December 2012.

A case study of systematic destruction

by

Vijender Sharma

(Convener)

Nandita Narain,  Vijaya Venkataraman, Rajeev Kunwar,                     Saikat Ghosh,  Shaswati Mazumdar, Sanjaya Bohidar, and               Abha Dev Habib

Study Team:

Vijender Sharma,

Associate Professor of Physics, ARSD College, University of Delhi, New Delhi-110021,

Formerly: President, Delhi University Teachers’ Association, President, Federation of Central Universities Teachers’ Associations, Member, Executive Council, University of Delhi, Member, Academic Council, University of Delhi.

Email: vijensharma@yahoo.co.in  Phone: 9868185505

Nandita Narain,

Associate Professor of Mathematics, St. Stephen’s College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007.

Formerly: Member, Executive Council, University of Delhi, Member, Academic Council, University of Delhi, Member, Executive Committee, Delhi University Teachers’ Association.

Email: nanditanarain@gmail.com  Phone: 9810261909

Vijaya Venkataraman,

Associate Professor of Spanish Studies, Department of GRS, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007.

Formerly: Member, Academic Council, University of Delhi.

Email: vijaya.venkataraman@gmail.com  Phone: 9810030563

Rajeev Kunwar,

Assistant Professor of Hindi, Dyal Singh College, University of Delhi, New Delhi-110003.

Formerly: Member, Executive Committee, Delhi University Teachers’ Association.

Email: kunwar..rajeev@gmail.com  Phone: 9953686198

Saikat Ghosh,

Assistant Professor of English, SGTB Khalsa College, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007.

Member, Executive Committee, Delhi University Teachers’ Association.

Email: saikatghosh78@gmail.com  Phone: 9910091754

Shaswati Mazumdar,

Professor of German Studies, Department of GRS, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007.

Formerly: Head, Department of GRS, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007, President, Delhi University Teachers’ Association, Secretary, Delhi University Teachers’ Association, Joint Secretary, Delhi University Teachers’ Association.

Email: smazumdar@gmx.net  Phone: 9971784144

Sanjaya Bohidar,

Associate Professor of Economics, Sri Ram College of Commerce, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007.

Formerly:  Member, Academic Council, University of Delhi, Treasurer, Delhi University Teachers’ Association.

Email:  skbohidar@gmail.com  Phone: 9968286135

Abha Dev Habib,

Assistant Professor of Physics, Miranda House, University of Delhi, Delhi-110007.

Member, Executive Committee, Delhi University Teachers’ Association.

Formerly: Member, Academic Council, University of Delhi,

Email:  abha_dev@yahoo.com  Phone: 9818383074

The Central Universities were established with the goal of providing quality education to the masses of India. Delhi University is the largest Central University in India, catering to about 2 lakhs students of regular stream, and about 2 lakhs belonging to correspondence stream. It has a unique federal structure with about 80 colleges in which undergraduate instruction is imparted, and over 90 postgraduate departments. Over almost 90 years DU has evolved organically to cater to the needs of Indian society.

Ever since its inception in 1922, this unique structure has fostered a dynamic academic relationship between colleges and postgraduate faculty. Common syllabi, examinations, and selection processes of teachers, ensures a minimum academic standard across the colleges spread over a large geographical region including some in rural areas such as Bawana and Kair. This enables a large number of students coming from diverse socio-economic and educational backgrounds to gain access to quality higher education at a reasonable fee.

With the recent implementation of reservation of 27% of seats for OBC category, in addition to the existing 22.5% for SC/ST category and 3% for physically challenged category, this access became a powerful tool for social and educational empowerment, as envisaged by the educational commissions under Dr. S. Radhakrishnan (1948-49) and Dr. D.S. Kothari (1964-66).

An outline of the federal character and programmes at Delhi University

Delhi University has largely been well known for its undergraduate programmes. Amongst various courses offered at DU, the unique undergraduate Honours courses were designed to be intensive and rigorous. The undergraduate programmes have produced students of the finest intellectual caliber, who have gone on to give an excellent account of themselves at the national and international level.

Also for all the courses at DU before the semester system was imposed in 2010-11 and 2011-12, there was a common, centralized annual examination along with continuous internal assessment with a weightage of 25% of the final result, a provision which was introduced on the demand of the DUTA in 2003. This continuous assessment is done by each college internally, and gives students an opportunity to improve themselves through continuous evaluation by their own teachers in a variety of ways, such as tests, term papers, seminars, projects and a house exam in January.

Given the federal structure of Delhi University, any academic reforms, especially major policy changes, are expected to be undertaken only after wide consultation with colleges and departments. In particular, curricular changes are made by the Academic Council after a three-tier process of consultation, namely,

a)      The Head of the Department calls a general body meeting of all teachers of the subject across colleges. Subcommittees are set up to formulate specific recommendations. This practice had been in place for many decades and had the advantage of using the large pool of expertise to strengthen the mechanism of consultation, debate and academic scrutiny laid out in the Act, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations.

b)      These recommendations are concretised by the Committee of Courses (for that subject), a Statutory body, which has some representatives from colleges.

c)      The proposals from the Committee of Courses are considered by the Faculty, a Statutory body, whose members include University Professors as well as one teacher from each college belonging to a relevant discipline. If approved, the Faculty forwards these proposals to the Academic Council. The courses so made / restructured are proposed as draft Ordinances by the Academic Council for the approval of the Executive Council and the syllabi and curricula are framed as Regulations which can be amended/annulled by the Executive Council.

d)     In case of major restructuring of the common framework of academic programmes applicable across departments / subjects and Faculties, Committees are constituted, the membership of which is publicly announced. These Committees after consultations with all teachers through workshops / seminars / written and oral representations over draft proposals at various stages submit a report to the Academic Council, addressing various viewpoints / concerns presented to them along with their proposals. The Academic Council is required to peruse the arguments and proposals and justify the objectives for specific restructuring and how the proposals it adopts meet those objectives.

The federal character has resulted in exchange of ideas amongst students and teachers across colleges leading to the holistic growth of DU.

Imposition of semester system at undergraduate level by subverting the statutory bodies, academic practices and misusing Court Orders

In the recent past several major reforms had been carried out in the University such as continuous Internal Assessment scheme in 2003; restructuring B.A. programme in 2004, restructuring B.A. (Hons) and B.Sc. programmes in 2005 and introduction of semester system in PG courses in 2009. All these were initiated through committees, consultations, report and reasoned detailed resolution by the Academic Council and were concretized through the due process. There were differences of opinion in the academia over these reforms and decisions were taken only after considering the differences and responding to them.

Even before the consequences of these reforms were evaluated, a fresh round of reforms starting with the semester system at undergraduate level, and more recently a four-year graduation along with a Meta College and Meta University system are being pushed through in undue haste and without consultations and scrutiny. Statutory procedures and established democratic academic practices have been subverted leading to questionable decisions taken in the Academic Council which have disastrous consequences. While on the one hand extensive use of emergency powers by the VC to make policy decisions has undermined statutory bodies, the statutory bodies have been increasingly intimidated into rubber stamping decisions to please the Vice Chancellor. Reform proposals have been accepted for implementation without stating what the objectives are and how they were to be met. The Vice-Chancellor has been authorised to take decisions which ought to be taken by the statutory bodies, thus flouting the Act of Parliament. The kind of decisions which have been taken without application of mind since 2009 are of the following kinds: (a) decisions without consultation and debate and without offering justification (b) major policy decisions taken in emergent meetings which did not allow enough time for members to read through the agenda items let alone reflect on them and (c) authorising the Vice-Chancellor to take policy decisions. This subversion has been accomplished by creating an atmosphere of fear where dissent is threatened with punishment / harassment.

The UGC informed the University of proposals under its considerations which included semester system, credit transfer and others and sought its opinion on the same in January 2008. It was reported to the Academic Council after a long delay in October 2008 when a proposal for the switch from the annual examination system to a biannual system called “the semester system” was placed before the AC. This delay meant that valuable inputs that the academia of such a large university had to offer to the UGC were not provided.

On 7.10.2008, the Academic Council felt the need for wider opinion on the issue of semesterisation of undergraduate courses. The VC sought and received feedback from several quarters including Staff Councils of many colleges by the second week of November 2008. Many of the responses of the Staff Councils were detailed arguments questioning on academic grounds the desirability as well as the feasibilty of semesterisation in the existing structure of undergraduate education in the university. Detailed arguments were made how unlike in a unitary institution with small number of students where framing of papers, teaching and examination are done by the same teachers, in the context of large universities like the University of Delhi with added restrictions on teaching posts and infrastructure, the system may turn out to be worse than the annual system in respect of standards of teaching-learning and wholesome development of young minds.

Without making the feedback sought by the AC available to it, the VC tried to force a decision by convening AC meetings on two occasions. One meeting was adjourned in the face of protests against the vitiation of the functioning of the Academic Council because of the VC’s action of not making the feedback available and the other cancelled when the DUTA said it would resort to protest if any decision were taken without wider debate. On 12 May 2009, finally the VC was forced to circulate the received feedback. Since he circulated the feedback in digitised form as a CD and a note which claimed to represent a summary of the feedback in printed form, some members of the AC and EC made a detailed critique of his summary and questioned the faithfulness in representing the feedback. A meeting of the AC was scheduled for 5 May 2009. The critique presented to the VC was neither circulated with the agenda papers nor placed on the table. Though many AC members demanded that the same be placed to facilitate an informed debate, the VC refused to do so. He further vitiated the working of the Academic Council by disallowing discussion on the feedback and on the desirability and feasibility of the semester system. He insisted on a decision leading to protests by several members. He walked out of the meeting and announced that a decision to introduce semester system in all undergraduate courses from the year 2010-11 had been taken. The minutes of the meeting of that day does not show why the decision had been taken and what the proposed system entailed. The time frame of just one year to work out modalities, redesign courses, prepare for teaching, and provide the required infrastrucure shows a complete lack of concern for quality and for the fate of students to be enrolled in the University.

After this announcement, a persistent undermining of statutory procedures and academic conventions has been continuing. Having forced a one year deadline, the VC sat over the proclaimed decision for 5 months when he announced a committee called the Empowered Committee and nominated individuals to be members of this committee in early October 2009. As soon as the Committee had one meeting towards the end of October, the VC directed the Heads of Departments to each constitute a small handpicked body called the Subject Committee and frame courses in line with the course design proposed by the Empowered Committee. The report of the Empowered Committee was never placed before the Academic Council for a decision on its proposals. The job of restructuring courses and framing syllabi is that of the Committees of Courses which are committees constituted in a defined way under relevant regulations by the Faculties. They were bypassed / undermined and the course making continued through interaction between non-statutory and nominated bodies such as the Empowered Committee and the Subject Committees. Many departments refused to produce courses to fit the course design recommended by the Empowered Committee and imposed by the VC. They offered detailed critiques instead. The VC managed to procure the cooperation of Heads of Departments in the Science Faculties to produce courses more or less tailor-made to the suggested design and also got some Heads of Departments to falsely aver that their proposals had been approved by the respective Committees of Courses. He placed 12 undergraduate semesterised science courses in a meeting of the AC on 13 May 2009. Faced with several points of order regarding substantial procedural irregularities in the way the courses had reached the AC and elaborate criticism of the academic infirmities by several Heads of Departments, the VC closed discussion abruptly and declared the courses as passed. This unfortunate event was captured by a public statement by several Deans and Heads to the effect that nothing was passed in the meeting.

Instead of reconsidering and finding time to rectify decisions, the VC flouted the provisions of the Act to use Emergency powers to introduce these courses. He further used Emergency powers to amend several Ordinances so that he could introduce the semester system. The VC also used emergency powers to make modifications to courses allegedly approved by the AC as some of the problems caused by haste came to notice. The VC in doing so flouted the provisions of the Act and the Office Memorandum issued by the MHRD with the approval of the Visitor disallowing any VC from use of emergency powers on policy as well as routine matters.

On 1 October 2010, he started putting pressures on the remaining departments to semesterise all courses. He went to the extent of misinforming them. He wrote a letter to Heads of departments wherein he falsely stated that 24 papers divided in a specified way were a requirement for an undergraduate degree. This was only a recommendation of the Empowered Committee. By keeping the proposals from the Academic Council the VC had created a situation where no academically acceptable statutory decision on a common framework for semesterisation existed. Many departments refused to be browbeaten by the claim of the VC. No progress was made.

In December 2010, Prof. Dinesh Singh, who had been a member of the earlier VC’s team as the Director of South Campus, took over as Vice-Chancellor.

Meanwhile a PIL was filed about teachers not teaching the semesterised science courses and continuing to teach in annual mode, since the DUTA had appealed to them not to teach courses that were not provided in the Ordinances. The Hon’ble High Court of Delhi invoking locus parentis directed teachers to teach in the semester mode in the interest of students. A petition was filed by the DUTA challenging the legal validity of the introduction of the semester system. In February 2011, while admitting the DUTA petition and disposing of the earlier PIL, the court asked teachers to cooperate in the teaching of the semester system. The VC used the court order to intimidate departments to semesterise all courses within some variant of the 24 papers that had been proposed by the Empowered Committee. The wrongful use of court order was combined with threats and intimidation to prevent teachers from expressing their opposition in statutory bodies. Letters were written to Heads demanding names of dissenting teachers, show cause notices were issued to those who raised questions, phone calls threatening charges of dereliction of duty were made.

Some departments complied, some bargained with the Pro-Vice-Chancellor for a larger number of papers in the main subject in Honours courses and some refused. While this unacademic exercise of haggling and falling in line over an academic matter continued without convening the Academic Council since 13 May 2010, some departments refused to comply with the arbitrary orders.

In March 2011, the Faculty of Social Sciences in its meeting protested against intimidation and exposed the lie that there was a common framework. It demanded such a framework without which the departments under it could not begin the task of restructuring their courses. It pointed out that an Honours programme consisted of papers from several disciplines. It was obvious that without a common semester-wise sequencing of the concurrent papers, i.e papers from subjects other than the Honours subjects, neither the number of main papers nor their semester-wise sequencing nor the depth of the contents could be academically decided. The VC did not respond.

On 19th April, 2011, the VC issued a Notification directing colleges to print in their prospectus that all undergraduate courses offered in July would be in semester mode, thus bypassing the AC, EC, the Faculties and even preempting the High Court (that was going to hear the case against semesterisation on 28th April). He then procured 54 semesterised courses through the process of intimidation and bargaining described above, without resolving the issue of the much needed common framework, and organised a requisition for emergent meetings of the AC and EC through the officers of the University. This was unprecedented in the history of Delhi University that the officers of the University who were responsible for holding the meetings of AC and EC were requisitioning their meetings. There is no provision for requisitioned meetings to be emergent meetings. On 25.4.2011 he held emergent meetings of the AC and the EC back to back and took approval for these courses. It was a disturbing development that the AC had been reduced to a timid rubber stamping body willing to succumb to the wishes of the Vice-Chancellor and willing to give up its academic responsibility to the University and to its students. The proposed revised courses consisted of over thousand pages and it was not humanly possible for any member to have perused all of them before the emergent meetings. Yet all were accepted in less than a day.

The VC further got some bizarre decisions through as a common framework to force the departments under the Faculty of Social Sciences to fall in line. Among them was a decision to say that all concurrent discipline papers carrying 50 marks each would remain unchanged in content but would become semester papers carrying 100 marks each. In haste and since the AC had been reduced to merely saying yes without applying its mind, he forgot to stipulate semesterised sequencing of these papers to replace the existing year-wise sequencing in the annual system. He also forced a decision that if any department failed to submit semester courses he would have the authority to bifurcate the existing annual courses notwithstanding his academic competence.

Unprecedentedly, a meeting of the Executive Council was held on the same day i.e. 25th April, to approve these decisions.

The arguments in the High Court on the petition filed by the DUTA, a second petition filed by nine teachers of the University and a subsequent intervention on behalf of some students were concluded in December 2011. However, this is astonishing that the judgment in this case continues to be reserved till date for the past 11 months.

Arguments against Semesterization of the UG programmes at Delhi University

World-wide studies have shown that a semester system can work only in small cohesive institutions where course-design, paper-setting and evaluation is done internally and not in a large affiliating/ federal University with centralized examinations and evaluation. At the international level, Delhi University is closest in structure to the affiliating universities of Oxford and Cambridge, which continue to have very successful annual examination systems. Several other Universities in the UK have stoutly refused to be semesterised, and others such as Portsmouth are favouring a return to the annual system, after a survey has proved that six years of semesterisation has been academically counter-productive.

It is well-known that students just out of school take a long time to develop a conceptual understanding of the subject, and are not at all in a position to face a University exam in November. Insisting on this leads to large scale rote-learning and impoverished student-teacher interaction. The paucity of time to reflect, absorb and explore, and the sole emphasis on examinations kills creativity and independent thinking, fostered diligently by teachers over the course of the year. This compromises the intellectual ability of our graduates, who would then not be able to compete with the best in the world.

Teachers had pointed out in their criticism of the semester system that holding University exams within three odd months of joining would result in a huge number of failures and drop-outs, especially from among students coming from weaker socio-economic and educational backgrounds such as government schools, Hindi medium, non-Collegiate women and reserved categories. This also happened in the semesterised MA courses, especially in History, Political Science and Mathematics, where 90% of non-collegiate women, Hindi medium and specially-abled students are failed or dropped out after the very first semester. This effect of semesterisation is even more catastrophic for the raw first year undergraduate students, leading to a human tragedy of an unprecedented dimension. In particular, the inclusion policies of the Government of India stand completely sabotaged.

Frequent examinations and hurried completion of courses leave no time for co-curricular activities and sports, which are essential for holistic growth and personality development.

The thirteen science undergraduate courses, where semester system was imposed by the then Vice Chancellor by using ‘emergency powers’, demonstrated these problems vividly. The experience of first year Science students in the semesterised courses left them traumatized, psychological and nervous wrecks. The same amount of course content was sought to be taught in less than two-thirds of the time, since 180-working days in the year were reduced to 120 because of holding the marathon exercise of University exams twice. First year science students of St. Stephen’s College and Miranda House addressed a Press conference on 16th May 2011 in which they described how they had begun to hate Science. Instead of ascertaining and reviewing the impact of semesterisation on the Science students, the University administration forcibly imposed it on all the other courses. In doing so, it has played havoc with the lives of lakhs of students.

About 3,000 students submitted a petition to the VC against implementation of the semester system. The academic objections raised by them in a Press Conference on 19th April 2011 as well as in a Doordarshan programme on the issue, were not answered by the VC. Moreover, students have been denied a voice in the Academic Council during deliberations on the crucial matter, since the Vice Chancellor has not held election of five student representatives to the Academic Council, as stipulated in Statute 7, for more than ten years.

Disastrous consequences of semester system have now become fully apparent

The semester system, hurriedly introduced without following due procedure and against the better judgment of teachers, has now manifested itself as a severe disruption of the teaching-learning process. There is a near breakdown in teaching-learning processes whereby courses are not completed despite a frenzied pace of teaching and extra classes. In science courses particularly, the class size has doubled which cannot be accommodated in the existing laboratories with a group of 4 to 6 students (instead of a group of 2 which used to be the case) performing the experiments. The quality of education in Delhi University has thus gone down drastically. Students, now subjected to its regime, are complaining bitterly that there is no time to really understand anything as both teachers and students hurry to finish the syllabus and prepare, without adequate time for preparation, for exams. The marks scam at the end of the first semester made a mockery of results through an artificial inflation of marks by the administration during moderation to cover up the abysmally poor performance by students. This has exposed the examination system and the University to disparaging ridicule, not least from students who most clearly see through it.

The examination system, now faced with two examinations in a year, has evidently gone out of control. The inability of the exam branch to cope with the increased number of exams is demonstrated by delay in sending question papers to colleges, wrong papers being sent, results not being declared, scripts being ‘lost’ etc. Faced with this crisis, the University authorities are resorting to desperate but totally improper measures, once again without any process of consultation and decision-making by the statutory bodies. These measures include:

1. Move to withdraw the right to revaluation:In 2009, the empowered committee set up by the VC to work out modalities for semesterisation proposed withdrawal of the provision for revaluation, a provision instituted as a right to protect students against arbitrariness in evaluation. The proposal has not been approved by the AC. It is being pushed through now without discussion. Such regressive measures confirm the falsity of the claim of the VC that the University was in a position to conduct two examinations in a year.
2. Withdrawal of Special Chance for completing graduation:The provision of a Special Chance for students in special circumstances to clear left-over papers beyond the span period for a course has similarly been summarily abolished, though this Special Chance was instituted precisely keeping in mind the specific social pressures in this country that often become an obstacle to the ability of students to complete their graduation within the span period. The withdrawal of this provision has left thousands of such students in the lurch and threatens to destroy their lives and careers (the AC has a special subcommittee called the Standing Committee for Students that has always dealt with the cases of such students).
3. Violation of anonymity of exams:Unable to manage the secrecy essential to the examination system now that this has to be done twice a year, the University issued a notification violating the idea of secrecy itself. Students are required under this notification to fill in their own, their father’s and their college name in exam scripts. This would betray the identity of examinees and expose the exam system to the danger of favouritism, victimisation, prejudice, exploitation and corruption. It would simultaneously expose evaluators to pressures which anonymity protected them from. After the notification invited widespread protest, the University has announced though the media an amended version of the earlier notification which tries to cover up the continuing violation of secrecy in codes that can be easily decoded.
4. Inordinate delay in declaring exam results, particularly of School of Open Learning:Declaration of results has been generally delayed. In the case of the School of Open Learning, all results have been delayed, they are also incomplete, and the results of the BA Programme courses for all three years are still not declared. The delay has had adverse consequences for students seeking admission in or migration to another institution. These students, whose lives have been so severely disrupted, find themselves faced with an utterly uncaring administration.
5. Other academic decisions announced by the VC without taking them to the Academic Council: These include (i) frequency of submission of attendance (ii) notification that three examiners will evaluate each exam script, a completely irrational idea (each script is supposed to be divided into three parts with each part to be evaluated by a different examiner) that will lead to chaos and delay.

Arbitrary imposition of further, even more far-reaching “academic reforms”

Already embattled with the disruption of semesterised teaching-learning processes and semesterised exams, the University is now being subjected to a further round of more sweeping changes that will lead to even greater chaos. Once again decisions are being taken without any process of consultation, in flagrant violation of due procedure and with an even greater haste that threatens a complete breakdown of the Delhi University and its ability to cater to the learning needs of the lakhs of its current and prospective students. The speed with which the semester system was introduced is sought to be further accelerated by clamping down on all possible dissent right from the start. An extremely repressive regime has been established that functions on one hand through directives issued by the Registrar to Heads of Departments and Principals to control dissenting teachers and simultaneously by refusing to engage with the collective bodies of teachers, students and non-teaching staff and declaring all protest actions illegal.

The VC announced in the media the introduction from 2013 of a four-year graduation with multiple exit points after the 2^nd and 3^rd year along with a system of Meta College and Meta University. Till date there is a total absence of any detailed vision paper on the proposed major overhauling of the existing system of undergraduate and postgraduate teaching at Delhi University and on the new academic programmes. No concept papers have been discussed in the Academic Council, nor have any been circulated to the Departments and Colleges, nor are they available on the DU website.

These “reforms” were introduced by the VC through emergency meetings of the AC and EC convened at 24 hrs notice, without discussion with Staff Councils, general body meetings of teachers in each subject, Committees of Courses or Faculties, i.e. by bypassing the normal consultative processes. Under these “reforms” undergraduate students will be forced to shift from one college to another after two semesters and postgraduate students will have to shuttle between universities even within a semester. The multiple exit points in the four-year graduation will function as expulsion points for the majority, leading to a mere diploma or a lesser degree. An honours degree would be given only to those who survive the expulsions after the first and second years and manage to successfully complete the fourth year. For this degree the students have to spend one extra year in the college which is atrocious. This will adversely affect particularly students from educationally and economically disadvantaged backgrounds, though the University has only recently opened its doors to a larger student intake from such backgrounds under the OBC reservation.

The introduction of the new “reforms” package is being steered from the so-called “Cluster Innovation Centre (CIC)”, a new institution hurriedly established in 2011, once again in violation of all statutory procedures. The CIC is now being used to override all processes of consultation with colleges and departments and statutory decision-making to launch new courses. One new four-year undergraduate courses [B.Tech (Humanities)], under the Meta College Concept, has already been launched by the CIC. Admissions to a new Master’s course, Master of Mathematics Education, under the Meta University Concept have also been announced.

For the university-wide implementation of the four-year graduation, the VC has set up a task force of handpicked individuals to prepare the courses, without even getting an “in principle” approval of the Academic Council, leave alone having a discussion in Staff Councils, Committees of Courses, Departments, Faculties etc.

Large-scale contractualisation of teachers and non-teaching staff accompanying the “reforms”

Along with the sweeping changes in academic programmes, the appointment of teachers and non-teaching staff against the increasing number of vacant posts has been frozen with adverse consequences for all facets of work of the University, particularly its ability to cater to the learning needs of its lakhs of current students, to say nothing about its prospective ones.

1. No regular appointments being made to 4000 teaching posts:  No regular appointments are being made to around 4000 teaching posts lying vacant in Delhi University. These constitute around 50% of the total posts in the University. In some colleges and subjects within colleges, the percentage of such posts is much higher, over 90% in some cases. All advertised vacancies have been allowed to lapse. Since the University authorities are actively refusing to fill the posts, the number of such posts is constantly rising. Teachers are appointed against these posts on ad hoc basis or as guest lecturers. With the uneven distribution of workload following the implementation of the semester system, such teachers often have an appointment for one semester and find themselves unemployed the next. This is not conducive to attracting and retaining talent in the profession, the lack of continuity has adverse consequences for teaching, co-curricular and extracurricular activities and such teachers are also unable to participate fully in institutional development.
2. 5000 non-teaching posts lying vacant: The lack of regular appointments of non-teaching staff started even earlier. Many posts are being systematically phased out or outsourced (see point 4 below) and contract staff appointed against regular posts are expected to carry out their work at scandalously low levels of pay.
3. Contractualisation of teaching and non-teaching posts: The freezing of regular appointments has resulted in more than 50% of posts being filled with ad-hoc teachers. This is also in violation of Ordinance XVIII which lays down that not more than 1/3rd of teaching posts will be ad-hoc or temporary at any given time. Non-filling of teaching and non-teaching posts on a regular basis has meant an increasing contractualisation of both these aspects of work with adverse consequences for teaching-learning, research and the essential administrative support for these activities. Uncertainty of employment together with low levels of remuneration are eroding the quality of work and this erosion is growing at a rapid pace today with the percentage of contractualised posts having reached dangerous levels.
4. Outsourcing of non-teaching jobs to private companies: Non-teaching jobs are being systematically outsourced to private companies. There is complete lack of transparency in this regard and such measures are being implemented without consultation with and decisions by the statutory bodies. Delays, often of several months, and non-payment of full wages to the contracted staff is a frequent/regular occurrence. There are plans to even outsource the work of the examination branch to a private company.

Apart from the academic and administrative disruption caused by this large-scale contractualisation, there are other fallouts that aggravate its destructive impact: (a) it is being used to muzzle the dissent by teachers and non-teaching staff against illegal and unacademic decisions, since contractualised employees are vulnerable and cannot protest/resist illegal orders, and (b) defeat the reservation policy for recruitment of teachers from SC/ST/OBC categories.

Reservation policy being disregarded in appointments and admissions

Several aspects of the policy have not been implemented by the VC despite there being a clear regulation of the UGC in this regard. It is to be underlined that reservation for SC/ST in teaching posts started only very recently (1996) in Delhi University, and has been sought to be subverted in all sorts of ways by successive VC’s. The guidelines for implementation of Reservation in teaching posts, including the posts at Associate Professors and Professors levels for SC/ST, are also being flagrantly disregarded, despite repeated reminders and punitive action in the form of grant cuts by the UGC. The University of Delhi thus continues to deny reservations at the entry-level of Associate Professor and Professor. The proper implementation of reservations for SC/ST and OBC categories in admissions is also not being monitored.

Implementing “reforms” through gimmicks and publicity stunts

Instead of focusing on strengthening the teaching-learning and examination processes, the VC is resorting to gimmicks such as a Gyanoday express (a train excursion for 1000 students), during one trip of which hundreds of students fell seriously ill, heritage walks, sound and light show at the Vice Regal Lodge, and a so-called Academic Congress, all of which are just publicity stunts in which students and teachers are forced to participate, and are completely devoid of any meaningful content.

The biggest of these gimmicks was the “Academic Congress”, which was so named to create a false impression that it is like the Academic Council which is the statutory ‘academic body’ of the University or/and like the annual convocation which is a statutory event. The said event as held on 6-7 September 2012 was neither official nor academic. No Authority of the University such as the Academic Council or the Executive Council had authorized any officer of the University to hold the event. In fact these were not even consulted and had no role in determining the structure and modalities of the event and in the selection of the participants. It was only an event organised by the Vice-Chancellor. The questionable use of the seal as well as the funds of the University for the event does not make it official. In fact, the manner in which it was held was not in keeping with official events of the University of Delhi. Even the members of the Academic Council were not participants by right. Most were selected by the Vice-Chancellor or by persons acting on his behalf.

Further, the event was not academic in so far as it was not open. The exclusion of members critical of the policies espoused by the Vice-Chancellor or actions taken by him goes to show that it was not an academic exercise where ideas can be freely and fearlessly exchanged, debated and scrutinized. Free and fearless exchange of ideas and opinions is what makes universities, without which academic deliberations as well as decision-making remain impoverished. The office of the Vice-Chancellor should not be permitted to hold such events which are geared more toward manufacturing consent for policies / measures which please incumbent Vice-Chancellors. Filling convention halls with chosen persons, who moreover are under pressure not to express any criticism, does not make for an academic exercise.

Decisions being taken without proper consultation and due procedures; and Disbanding of all democratic traditions and practices

All the changes mentioned above are being arbitrarily imposed without any process of debate and consultation with teachers, students, non-teaching staff and without following statutory procedures. The Vice-Chancellor has made tall claims that these changes are being made in the interest of students. Yet he does not wish to hear what students are saying. As regards teachers and non-teaching staff, his efforts are directed towards demonising them and their collective bodies. All democratic practices have been thrown overboard and replaced with a regime of directions issued from the Registrar’s office against which even Heads of Departments and Principals dare not raise any questions for fear of being victimised.

There is an unprecedented breakdown in the dialogue between the administration and university community by refusal to meet the elected representatives of teachers, students and karamcharis. Dialogue has been replaced with the use of illegal notifications such as those denying casual leave, imposing wage cut for a one-day token strike, even imposing wage cut for taking leave or the benefit of RH/ Gazetted holidays like Dussehra/ Sunday for participating in DUTA protest actions, and threatening break in service, all aimed at brutally suppressing any kind of protest or dissent. A telling example is the show cause notice served to eleven postgraduate teachers of the Department of English in March 2011 for daring to express their dissent to the semesterisation of undergraduate courses. Ironically, this is the department that has been ranked among the top 50 institutions in the world! This only serves to underline that the objectives of this VC, and the Government backing him, in implementing these shock and awe “reforms” are far from academic.

The DUTA, the collective body of teachers, has been constrained to start an Indefinite Relay Hunger Strike after all efforts have failed to persuade the Vice-Chancellor to meet and discuss the issues that have been agitating teachers. Over the course of the last year, the DUTA has sent innumerable letters seeking an appointment and on failing to get any response it has been forced to carry out protest actions – a dharna, a hunger strike and one-day token strike – to highlight pressing issues threatening academic work in general and the teaching-learning process in particular. The response from the University authorities has been a complete refusal to either meet the DUTA or reply to its letters and to simultaneously declare all protest actions as illegal and impose punitive measure as mentioned above. The Vice-Chancellor has even gone so far as to declare the DUTA an illegal body.

Teachers have been sitting on the relay hunger strike since 10 October. They have been subsequently joined by students and non-teaching staff. It has become evident to all that the changes being introduced are affecting all sections of the University community. The Vice-Chancellor has made no effort to take note of, let alone engage with the grievances that have been repeatedly expressed at the site of the hunger strike.

Misrepresenting EC decisions to the Court in order to browbeat teachers

The manner in which the University is being governed is at variance with the provisions of the Act, arbitrary and whimsical. The VC who is only an Officer of the University has become the University and the Authorities of the University whose decisions he is supposed to carry out have become rubber stamps. This is exemplified in the following case. A PIL had been filed in August 2012 praying for introduction of a system requiring teachers to mark their attendance. It claimed that the University had tried to do so but failed because of opposition by the DUTA. It claimed that there was no verifiable mechanism to ensure that classes are met and no system of teachers recording their entry and exit into the institutions. The Registrar’s reply on behalf of the University of Delhi to this petition supported the misplaced concern of the petitioner that there is no mechanism to check aberrations so far as meeting classes is concerned. The Registrar’s reply did not report that a decision had been taken in 2003 on the basis of DUTA’s proposal to display room-wise timetables outside each room along with a system of continuous assessment and subject-wise Students Faculty Committees, all aimed at putting in place a system of accountability.

What is worse, the Registrar further stated that the University was keen on introducing the system which was prayed for, but had failed to do so. The fact is that the Executive Council, which is the relevant Authority in this regard had considered a proposal requiring teachers to mark their attendance and not accepted the same after a thorough discussion on 23.12.2009. The Executive Council had unanimously decided instead on setting up a Committee to examine the issue of accountability based on the DUTA document of 2000 titled “Academic Reforms and Curbing Absenteeism” and authorised the VC to constitute the Committee. The VC failed to constitute this Committee. Instead of mentioning this decision in the affidavit, the Registrar’s reply misinformed the Court by stating that the University was keen to introduce a system for marking attendance and a proposal for the same had been presented to the Executive Council in 2009. The minutes of the EC meeting were only provided as an annexure. The Registrar thereby represented the views of the Vice-Chancellor, and not those of the EC, as the University’s position.

The VC raised the matter in a meeting of the Executive Council held on 3 November 2012, though it was not on the agenda. Instead of explaining why he had not constituted the Committee as per the EC decision of 23.12.2009 or why this decision was not presented in the Court, he got himself authorized to take whatever measures he deemed fit. This amounts to a complete capitulation of an Authority to an officer of the University and a simultaneous abdication of the responsibility assigned to it by the Act. If the VC was expected to take policy decisions using his judgment, then the Act would have provided him with the necessary powers and not the EC.

The reason for such an arbitrary action is not far to see. The EC decision of 23.12.2009 was based  on a fundamental academic objection that a system of marking attendance expresses bad faith in teachers’ integrity and as a consequence strikes at the very culture and ethos necessary for sustaining the required level of motivation. Further, that such a system does not obviate the need to check aberrations in meeting classes and hence is superfluous. When a superfluous system is antithetical to a system required to ensure and enrich the teaching-learning process, it is unacceptable. Prof. Dinesh Singh was quoted in the print media making the utterly thoughtless statement that just because the system does not ensure teaching-learning cannot be a ground for its non-introduction. It is clear that he believes that it is a stick to intimidate and humiliate teachers so that they stop opposing arbitrary functioning and questionable changes imposed in the name of academic reforms.

“Academic Reforms” at the behest of MHRD

The Delhi University has, in its reply to the writ petition by DUTA, given the justification for the imposition of the semester system as the recommendations of the National Knowledge Commission and the HRD Ministry. It must be noted that the NKC offers no academic logic for this recommendation other than “credit transfer”. It must also be noted that semesterisation is part of a package recommended by the NKC. The other parts of that package are:

a)      Fragmentation of Central affiliating/Federal Universities by creating autonomous colleges and clusters of colleges.

b)      Raising fees of students to meet at least 20% of institutional expenditure, which would make higher education inaccessible for most Indians.

c)      Entry of private players and foreign institutions, and a “public-private” partnership.

To facilitate the transfer of public-funded higher education institutions in India to private and foreign players for profiteering, and to suppress dissent within Universities during this transition, six bills have been introduced in Parliament. This is already being done to the IITs and IIMs and the universities are next in line. The road map is clear. Reduce Government funding of higher education, and hike up fees of students, disaffiliate colleges from the university, give them “poor” accreditation, starve them of funds, so that they are forced to close down, paving the way for a smooth transfer of management to a private party with foreign collaboration. The entire college, building, students, teachers, workers are transferred to the new management, and the government fulfils its part of the “public-private” deal by giving them the land.

Semesterisation and credit-transfer will help further commercialisation as students can shift even mid-year, instead of having to wait till the end of the year. The four-year graduation with the Meta College and Meta University are further drastic steps in the same direction. Since there are no regulations concerning academic standards, fee-structure, salaries or service conditions, fees can be exorbitant, service conditions exploitative and academic standards poor. Students who cannot afford to pay will have to drop out (or rather be expelled) and seek admission in correspondence courses, and employees who dare to protest can be sacked since they would have been deprived of the right to approach a court of law under the educational tribunal bill. Large-scale contractualisation is another way to stifle protest or dissent by employees.

The desperate urgency with which the HRD Ministry is pursuing this agenda of “academic reforms” shows how keen it is to begin the process of dismantling public-funded higher education in order to promote the commercial interests of private and foreign players. This will deprive millions of Indians of access to quality higher education and push our country back into intellectual colonization.

Given the record of this government in the destruction of the premier university of India, its intention in the introduction of the HER Bill and other Bills is highly suspect. We, the teachers of Delhi University, firmly believe that premier public-funded institutions of higher learning are being systematically destroyed and dismantled to pave the way for the opening of shops to facilitate profit for domestic and foreign private players in the field of higher education. This will deny 99% of Indians access to quality higher education and will be the greatest betrayal of the Indian people in the history of this country.

ANNEXURES:

1. DUTA Report: Major Academic Reforms – Promises versus Reality, June 2012
2. DUTA Representation to the Delhi University Visitor, Shri Pranab Mukherjee, 21.9.2012 (along with all annexures)
3. Letter to VC on Semester System, 25.5.09
4. Statement by Deans and HoDs regarding AC meeting of 13.5.2010
5. Press Statement issued by elected AC Member, Abha Dev Habib, 14.5.2010
6. Representation made by elected AC Member, Abha Dev Habib, to the Visitor, 13.5.2010
7. Minutes of meeting of Faculty of Social Sciences, 23.3.2011
8. Registrar’s letter for pay cut for Gazetted holidays like Dussehra and Sundays
9. Letters of Registrar against DUTA actions and Principals denying permission to DUTA for its general body meetings.

 Vijender Sharma

 A REIGN of terror prevails in Delhi University, with students, non-teaching staff and teachers being denied their right to protest. The university today has the most authoritarian regime in its 90 years history that threatens teachers and others with dire consequences and wage-cuts if they seek justice and resolution of their demands by holding dharnas, demonstrations or a day’s strike. College principals are being forced not to let their halls to teachers or non-teaching employees’ unions to even hold their general bodies. This never happened in the past. This regime humiliates, browbeats, rebukes and threatens even the college principals, departments’ heads and professors who question it. The regime is in no mood to learn from history and the recent international events about the dictators’ fates.

SOURCES OF VC’S AUTOCRATIC STRENGTH

It has become very difficult to enter the science faculty of the university, which houses the vice chancellor’s office, even for teachers who studied there and taught in the university for more than 40 years. The Vice Regal Lodge, the symbol of imperialism and of India’s slavery, once the residence and office of the British Viceroy, houses the vice chancellor and his team’s offices. It has been renovated to give it the look of the British days when only the servants and lackeys of British imperialism or the people of its liking could enter the Lodge. Others had to struggle hard to get even an appointment. It is something like the Arthor Road Jail of Mumbai, housing Kasab, where it is impossible for even a pigeon to enter. Before the present vice chancellor came, there was free access to the Vice Regal Lodge for all stakeholders — students, teachers, employees and others — to meet an authority.

The incumbent VC is the first to call the Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) as “an illegal association made up by teachers” and has not given it even a second’s time for talks on any issue since its elections in August 2011. DUTA is not only heard by all other authorities including High Court and Supreme Court as an organisation but also by the president of India. But the vice chancellor does not have time for a dialogue with it. Does he think he is above the president of India?

From three sources the VC derives strength to function in an arbitrary manner. First, the UPA government and the union minister of human resource development who announces in Indo-US higher education summits in Washington the creation of such conditions in India as may suit the American institutions to come and open their shops here. He tells them of the initiatives taken by Delhi University without any debate about consequences.

If the UPA government and HRD ministry are giving full support to the present DU administration, it is because it is implementing the so called “reforms” in higher education — semesterisation, credit transfer, community college, four-year degree programme, meta-college, meta-university, etc. The UPA government has converted DU into a laboratory of neo-liberal reforms in higher education, suited to the US, with the help of “trained laboratory assistants.” The government’s understanding is that if it succeeds in dismantling the DU and crushing the DUTA and other unions, and introduce all its pro-US “reforms,” it can do it all over the country. The UPA and MHRD have found a “team of trained laboratory assistants” to do all that in DU.

The second source is the failure of the judiciary to give justice and pronounce judgements on time. It is amusing that the university continues to misuse the judgements in the M R Gupta vs Union of India. The university masquerades the judgement of November 15, 2010, as an “standing order of the Hon’ble Delhi High Court” denying the teachers any right to protest. This is wrong. The said judgement does not deny the teachers of their right to protest. But in the absence of the final judgement by Delhi High Court in the DUTA vs DU case which remains in suspended animation for more than ten months now, the VC is out to create an environment in which teachers would stop free thinking, creating and disseminating knowledge but study, learn and teach what the master dictates. They have to stop questioning, otherwise “strict action” would follow for their “disruptive course of action.”

Third, more than 4,000 teaching positions are vacant for several years, amid an increasing number of guest lecturers. Adhoc appointments are being made Against permanent positions and renewed every four months. Many a time the authorities humiliate the adhoc teachers at renewal time. These teachers are used to weaken the action programmes of DUTA and threatened of dire consequences if they participate in them. Despite no ban on permanent appointments by the UGC or MHRD, the university is not letting colleges appoint permanent teachers. Teaching and non-teaching positions are being increasingly contractised.

STIFLING SITUATION

In the last one year, DUTA has organised various action programmes including dharnas and demonstrations at various levels. It has met and sought support from the members of parliament of various political parties. Accompanied by CPI(M) MP Sitaram Yechury, DUTA office bearers also met last month the president of India, in his capacity as the Visitor of the university, apprised him of the situation and sought his intervention. But, the VC remains unmoved. The situation within the university has become stifling and unbearable for the entire fraternity. The rule of law has been openly and shamelessly thrown to the winds. Emergency powers are being abused.

Over 4,000 young temporary, adhoc and guest teachers continue to be on contract without permanent appointment. Permanent teachers are stagnating in their careers. Promotions that have been due for the last two years or more have not been given as the VC has not allowed the selection committees to meet; even the advertised vacancies have been made to lapse. Moreover, by not allowing appointments, according to DUTA, the VC has also kept at bay the implementation of the 2006 UGC Guidelines on Reservations in all entry-level posts. This is not only retrogressive; it is also unconstitutional as it denies the SCs, STs, and OBCs their right to employment in the public sector, as mandated by the law of the land.

The anomalies and negative service conditions pertaining to the 2006 pay revision have not been removed. The VC is a prominent member of the Anandkrishnan committee appointed by the UGC to resolve these anomalies. The committee had assured the DUTA that its report will be out by June 2012. But nothing has happened. Six bills are pending before parliament which will destroy our education system, and the DUTA is opposing them.

Compelled by this kind of situation, DUTA called for a one-day token strike and a 24 hours hunger strike on August 28 of all the elected teacher members in DUTA Executive, Academic Council and Executive Council. But instead of a dialogue with the DUTA, the VC imposed “no work no pay,” misusing the “standing orders of the Delhi High Court.” One day salary of striking teachers was cut.

About the annual general body meeting of DUTA on September 22, the VC acted much below the dignity of his office and forced the college principals not to let the DUTA use their halls. In this situation, DUTA decided to hold its general body meeting in the lawns in front of VC’s office. However, when the news of the president of India giving appointment to DUTA office bearers accompanied by Sitaram Yechury for September 21 spread, the VC had to bite dust. The principal of the last college denying permission was communicated through its chairman to allow the DUTA hold its meeting. The DUTA general body gave a call to intensify struggle and decided to go on an indefinite relay hunger strike outside the VC’s office from October 10. A roster of colleges was made for the participation of their teachers in relay hunger strike.

SPIRIT OF PROTEST REMAINS UNDAMPENED

Opposing the VC’s repressive actions, DUTA insisted that the venue of the hunger strike would be the VC’s office as it has been for more than four decades. The VC tried his best, called police reinforcement and rapid action force to threaten the teachers and prevent DUTA from holding its action programmes on August 28 and from October 10. For the first time in the DU’s history, the VC got the university gates barricaded by the police. These had to be removed on the strength of peaceful students, teachers and non-teaching staff. The VC is spending huge sums on getting all action programmes videographed.

The DUTA’s indefinite relay hunger strike completed two weeks on Dussehra festival and continues. In the meantime, it involved various methods and organisations to strengthen its programmes. Jana Natya Manch and SGTB College theatre group Ankur staged plays. Parcham, a progressive song group, presented revolutionary songs during the hunger strike. A candle-light vigil was organised along with the hunger strike on October 12 evening. Four hundred candles symbolised the 4000-odd young teachers who have been condemned to continue teaching in adhoc capacity despite being eligible.

Having faced repression and braving odds, the DUTA movement goes on. It has also rediscovered the Vice Regal Lodge, housing the VC’s office, the seat of British imperialism and atrocities on the Indian people, with the teachers revisiting the Indian freedom struggle and inventing different ways of struggle. On October 18, the relay hunger strike was strengthened by a barefoot march. A large number of students, teachers and non-teaching employees gathered at the hunger strike venue and marched barefoot through the VC’s office, science faculty and arts faculty, and reached the Vivekananda statue. The gates of the faculties which used to be closed for these actions had to be opened by the authoritarian regime that is losing its sleep due to rising protest.

At the call of the DUTA in continuation with the hunger strike, a large number of students, teachers and non-teaching employees are to gather in front of VC office, near the hunger strike’s venue, on October 26. They would protest against contractisation of non-teaching jobs, 4,000 vacant teaching jobs, assault on right to protest, arbitrary academic reforms, lack of anonymity in answer scripts, removal of revaluation, semesterisation and introduction of the meta-college and meta-university system, impending fee hike due to reduction of government subsidies, etc.

The DUTA action programme is attracting other sections of the academia and society. This administration cannot destroy DUTA or the unions of non-teaching employees and students. This university cannot continue to be a laboratory of neo-liberal ‘reforms’ (read ‘deforms’). If the MHRD and the government think that through their lackeys they can convert our higher education system as per their US masters’ wishes, one can only say that they are living in a fool’s paradise. The “trained laboratory assistants” do need to learn something from history.

(October 24, 2012)

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXVI, No. 43, October 28, 2012

27 September 2012

Experts: B.B. Bhattacharya, Ex VC, JNU, P.V. Indresan, Ex Director, IIT Chennai, Vijender Sharma, Ex President DUTA and Anita Rampal, Dean, Education Faculty, DU, with Shyam Sundar as Anchor.

Vijender Sharma

(This paper  is updated as on 12 August 2012 and is a revised version of the paper published in the special issue on education of Social Scientist, Vol. 38, No. 9-12, Sept–Dec. 2010.)

The corporate sector discovered a huge and ever growing service industry in education. Global public spending on education in the beginning of this century was estimated to exceed one trillion US dollars, that is about fifty five lakh crore rupees. In this industry with huge global market students, teachers, and non-teaching employees constitute resources for profit-making. Here, the students are consumers, teachers are service providers and expert speakers, and the institutions or companies catering to education services are organisers, and the teaching-learning process is no longer for the building of a nation but a business for profit-making.

Predatory and powerful transnational corporations have been targeting public education, particularly higher education, for profit-making. Though predominantly a government supported service, most governments are, as a consequence of neo-liberal economic reforms, withdrawing from it. The government of India through extensive privatisation, commercialisation and deregulation has been encouraging this process.

The first decade of the twenty-first century witnessed world over large-scale and bitter protests from the students, teachers and people at large against the privatisation and commercialisation of higher education and bringing higher education sector under General Agreements on Trade in Services (GATS) and World Trade Organisation (WTO) by their governments. The idea behind WTO-GATS has been the creation of an open, global marketplace where services, like education, can be traded to the highest bidder¹.

1. Privatisation of Higher Education by NDA Regime

We entered the twenty-first century with unprecedented demand for higher education: general as well as professional. Instead of meeting this demand for higher education and ensuring further growth of the country, the then BJP led NDA government at the centre and the UGC resorted to several measures with ever-faster speed under the dictates of the World Bank and as a part of ongoing negotiations with the WTO on trade in services. Raising of fees, autonomy to institutions with practically no control over managements, relaxation in norms for granting deemed to be university status and funding linked to mandatory assessment and accreditation, were some of their decisions taken in order to usher in massive privatisation and commercialisation of higher education.

“Major efforts have been mounted for mobilisation of resources and it has been recommended that while the government should make a firm commitment to higher education, institutions of higher education should make efforts to raise their own resources by raising the fee levels, encouraging private donations and by generating revenues through consultancy and other activities,” said the then HRD minister, Murali Manohar Joshi in the Country Paper presented in the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education held at Paris, in 1998².  Justifying privatisation of higher education, he added, “It is not only justifiable but desirable to raise money from private sources in order to ease pressure on public spending.”

1.1 Ambani-Birla Report

Mukesh Ambani and Kumarmangalam Birla, in their Report³ on “A Policy Framework for Reforms in Education” submitted to the prime minister’s Council on Trade and Industry in April 2000 considered education as a very profitable market. These two industrialists made a case for full cost recovery from students and immediate privatisation of several segments of higher education. The Ambani-Birla Report sought to convert the entire system of higher education in the country into a market where profit making would be the only consideration. If this Report was implemented, only those who could pay exorbitant amount of fees could have enrolled in higher education. For Ambani and Birla, education was a very profitable market which the corporate sector must control. In view of this, they wanted a legislation “banning any form of political activity on campuses of universities and educational institutions”. Even the normal trade union activities were not to be allowed. The Report was criticized by students, teachers, parents and people at large⁴.

1.2 Directions of the World Bank

In the wake of strong resistance to WTO-GATS and bitter struggles against privatization and commercialization of higher education, the World Bank came out with its Report ‘Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education’ published in 2002⁵. It pointed out that the developing and transition countries were faced with new trends in the global environment that affected not only the shape and mode of operation but also the very purpose of tertiary education systems.

The World Bank noted that reform proposals have been met with “fierce resistance and opposition.” In the formulation of a long-term vision for the country’s tertiary education system as a whole, it will “play a catalytic role by encouraging and facilitating the policy dialogue on tertiary education reforms. This can often be accomplished through preemptive information sharing and analytical work in support of national dialogue and goal-setting efforts, as well as through project preparation activities aimed at building stakeholder consensus during the project concept and appraisal phases. The Bank can bring to the same table stakeholders who would not normally converse and work together.”

With the diminishing State funding of tertiary education, a coherent policy framework, an enabling regulatory environment, and appropriate financial incentives, student mobility can be encouraged by developing open systems that offer recognition of relevant prior experience, degree equivalencies, credit transfer, tuition exchange schemes, access to national scholarships and student loans, and a comprehensive qualifications and lifelong-learning framework. The regulatory environment should be one, the World Bank suggested, that encouraged the private sector to expand access to good-quality tertiary education. Rules for the establishment of new institutions, including private and virtual ones, should be restricted to outlining minimum quality requirements and should not constitute barriers to entry. In the public sector, revenue may be generated from institutional assets, students and their families, and donations from third party contributors.

Therefore, the World Bank directed the governments of these countries to “put in place an enabling framework that encourages tertiary education institutions to be more innovative and more responsive to the needs of a globally competitive knowledge economy and to the changing labor market requirements for advanced human capital.”

The World Bank proposed to play a central role by facilitating policy dialogue and knowledge sharing, supporting reforms through programme and project lending, and promoting an enabling framework for the production of the global public goods crucial to the development of tertiary education⁶.

Having crippled the higher education system in India and other developing and transition countries, the World Bank evolved a ‘new role’ for itself in the higher education sector. But the prescriptions for the reforms in the higher education system were the same that the World Bank has been giving since 1986.

1.3 The Model Act for All Universities

The World Bank basically directed the governments of developing and transition countries to respond to the necessities of the globalisation, emerging new trends in the higher education sector mentioned above, and make an enabling framework common to the entire education system. In return, it promised to bring about consensus among the stakeholders so that new market-oriented policies are implemented and not opposed by anyone.

It is actually this background in which the then BJP led NDA Government responded to World Bank pressure through the University Grants Commission (UGC) which issued a Concept Paper⁷in October 2003 entitled “Towards Formulation of Model Act for Universities of the 21^st Century in India” with a view “to prepare the Indian University system for the future.”

The Concept Paper noted, “Indian Universities, like their counterparts elsewhere in the world, have been performing many additional functions now a days, e.g., undertaking sponsored R&D and continuing education, providing knowledge-based advice and consultancy, preparation / publication of educational material like books / study reports / research papers and extending services to society. Of late, the worldwide   advances, particularly in new Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), are greatly influencing the University system in the country. However, major issues like size, access, equity, relevance, quality and resource constraints continue to dominate the working of Indian Universities.” Since the “Universities are becoming complex institutions”, an appropriate strategy needs to be adopted “for their governance, organization and management.”

Therefore, the Acts of Indian Universities should be changed “to bring in some uniformity in the working of Universities” through a Model Act framework, so that the Universities accept “the challenges of globalization to offer high quality education and other services in a competitive manner”. The new Acts of Universities would be “flexible and responsive to rapid changes taking place in the society (Read: market).” According to the Paper, the new common Act for all the universities would help the universities to benefit from ICT revolution and to “become competitive nationally and internationally” and help “India to become a Knowledge Super Power by the year 2020.”

The UGC expected that “early adoption of this Model Act by Universities in the country will enable them to meet the X-Plan Vision and Strategy of UGC and to keep pace with the worldwide changes taking place so rapidly in higher education and research.” This Vision and Strategy of the UGC was to prepare the Universities and institutions of higher education for privatization and commercialization, and to make them financially self-sufficient and respond to the market. This X-Plan document⁸ clearly stated, “In a way, India has partially privatized the higher education by initiating non-grantable teaching programmes and dual fees structure for professional subjects.”

By the exercise of formulating the Model Act, common for all the universities, the Central Government wanted to completely withdraw from the funding of the universities, colleges and institutions of higher education, to prepare them to be part of globalisation and face the consequences in the event of India becoming part of GATS and throw open its higher education sector to the transnational providers of education for profit-making, and become part of the business. As a result, a vast majority of students who come from the disadvantaged and weaker sections and the lower middle class would have been excluded from the benefits of higher education because these sections cannot bear the exorbitant cost of education⁹.

In order to create an environment for these purposes, the then BJP led NDA Government and UGC were working overtime for several years by reducing state funding of and limiting access to higher education, heavy cost recovery, loans to students, terming higher education as a non-merit good, forcing assessment and accreditation of institutions, autonomous status to colleges, starting self-financing courses and by promoting self-financing institutions, increased workload of teachers and non-teaching employees, contractual appointments and privatization and commercialisation of higher education, etc. It was clearly understood by all stakeholders that if the Model Act was allowed to be adopted an orderly development of higher education in India in the 21^st century would not take place.

The attempt to introduce a Model Act was a desperate attempt of the BJP-led NDA government towards all round commercialization of higher education in the country. All stakeholders, students, teachers, parents and people at large fought all over the country against such a draconian proposal.

2. The UPA Agenda: ‘Reform’ or ‘Deform’

The congress led UPA government came into power in 2004. It had the outside support of the left parties. This government continued the drive of privatization and commercialization of higher education launched by the previous NDA government. A large number of private institutions were given deemed university status. It had to withdraw Foreign Educational Institutions Bill in May 2007 due to the strong opposition of CPI(M). The Model Act was also not pursued by it and was abandoned. The enabling framework common to the entire education system could not be made.

2.1 Initiative under GATS

The UPA government gave initial offers in August 2005 to WTO under GATS which was protested by all stakeholders¹⁰. However, the commerce ministry circulated in 2006 a consultation paper on trade in education services¹¹. Titled “Higher Education in India and GATS: An Opportunity,” it was in preparation for the then ongoing services negotiations at the WTO.

The commerce ministry recommended “services negotiations (in WTO) could be used as an opportunity to invite foreign universities to set up campuses in India, thereby saving billions of dollars for the students travelling abroad.” Therefore, the consultation paper recommended striking “a balance” between “domestic regulation and providing adequate flexibility to such Universities in setting syllabus, hiring teachers, screening students and setting fee levels”.

The WTO had identified certain barriers to trade. These barriers/obstacles include the restrictions on free movement and nationality requirements of students and teachers, immigration regulations, types of courses, movement of teachers, modalities of payments or repatriation of money, conditions concerning use of resources, direct investment and equity ceilings, existence of public monopolies, subsidies to local institutions, economic need tests, exchange controls, non-recognition of equivalent qualifications, etc. The goal of ‘free trade’ regime under the WTO was to get these barriers removed in order to further liberalise the world economy. Therefore, the commerce ministry’s recommendations about ‘adequate flexibility’, ‘balance’ between domestic regulations and ‘removal of barriers’ could prove disastrous for the Indian higher education system¹².

The trade in education has adopted an alternative route outside the ambit of WTO-GATS. The developed countries and education providers now directly negotiate with sovereign states wanting to import higher education. Quite often they put pressure on developing and transition countries to open up their education sector to the foreign educational players. Such pressures were mounting on UPA government. It could not do much due to strong resistance of the left parties on whose support it depended.

2.2 Alternative Framework: 100-Day Agenda

The UPA-2 government came into power in May 2009. It knew that a Model Act like enabling framework, as directed by WTO, was not possible due to the resistance of all stakeholders. Therefore, its 100-day agenda¹³ announced by the minister of human resource development included introduction of several bills in parliament and so called academic reforms. Accordingly, four bills regarding entry and operation of foreign educational providers, mandatory assessment and accreditation, prevention and prohibition of malpractices, and establishment of a tribunal to fast-track adjudication have been introduced in the budget session of parliament on 3 May 2010. Academic reforms agenda included introduction of semester system and choice based credit system in all institutions of higher education as recommended by WTO.

In addition a draft bill was issued for the constitution of an overarching authority National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) based on the recommendations of Yashpai Committee and National Knowledge Commission. In the wake of strong criticism, this draft was revised and selectively circulated. It was re-modified as The Higher Education and Research (THER) Bill 2011 and was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on December 28, 2011 by the minister of human resource development. It has been referred to department related standing committee on human resource development. Another draft bill for starting innovation universities was also circulated. It also re-modified as Universities for Research and Innovation Bill, 2012 and was introduced in the Lok Sabha on May 21, 2012 by the union minister of human resources development.

The UPA-2 government is changing the entire framework of higher education system in the country without required consultation and debate. The minister is pushing this so called “reform agenda” with tremendous haste without any regard to opposition of academia and states. It is being questioned whether this agenda will ‘reform’ higher education system in India or ‘deform’ it. The compulsion of the minister and central government for pushing these “reforms” can be understood if we know the situation obtaining abroad in higher education sector after the recent economic meltdown particularly in USA and UK. We should also know the initiatives and pressures built by these countries on Indian government in order to bail out the higher education sector of their own countries.

3. Crisis of Higher Education in USA and UK

3.1 Education Budget Cuts in USA

In the United States the higher education system is in deep crisis since the last recession and meltdown. The universities and colleges across the country are facing tremendous problems due to large scale budgetary cuts. At least 43 states have implemented cuts to public colleges and universities and/or made large increases in college tuition to make up for insufficient state funding¹⁴. States made these cuts because revenues from income taxes, sales taxes, and other revenue sources used to pay for these services declined due to the recession. At the same time, the need for education services did not decline and, in fact, rose as the number of families facing economic difficulties increased.

Due to budget cuts by states, in Alabama tuition hikes for 2010-11 range from 8 percent to 23 percent, depending on the institution. In Arizona’s three public universities this hike is between 9 to 20 percent alongwith salary cut by 2.75 percent. The University of California increased tuition by 32 percent and reduced enrollment by 2,300 students; the California State University system cut enrollment by 40,000 students. Colorado funding for higher education was reduced by $62 million from 2010. Florida’s 11 public universities raised tuition by 15 percent for the 2010-11 academic year. This tuition hike combined with a similar increase in 2009-10, results in a total two-year increase of 32 percent.

Georgia cut state funding for public higher education for 2011 by $151 million, or 7 percent. As a result, undergraduate tuition for the fall 2010 semester at Georgia’s four public research universities will increase by $500 per semester, or 16 percent. Michigan reduced student financial aid by $135 million (over 61 percent), including decreases of 50 percent in competitive scholarships and 44 percent in tuition grants. New York’s state university system increased resident undergraduate tuition by 14 percent beginning with the spring 2009 semester. University of North Carolina has raised tuition by $750 in the 2010-2011. Funding for the University of Washington has been reduced by 26 percent for the current biennium. Washington State University increased tuition by almost 30 percent over two years. The budget for public colleges and universities in Washington has also been reduced by 26 percent. Over the next two years, the University of Virginia will see a cut of $27 million; Virginia Tech, $32 million; and James Madison University, $14.5 million. The state’s Community College system will lose a total of $66 million.

Like many other prestigious American institutions, MIT was hard hit by the recession¹⁵. Its endowment, which funds about 20% of the university’s annual operating budget, decreased by about 25% during the crisis, falling from a pre-recession high of US$10.1 billion to just $7.6 billion. In Harvard and Yale’s endowments, the endowment reached top values of $37 billion and $23 billion prior to the recession fell by 23% and 30% respectively.

3.2 Protest Actions in USA

Therefore, these institutions have been forced to take measures such as academic reorganization, layoffs, furloughs (leave without pay), position eliminations, hiring fewer tenure-eligible faculty, and higher teaching workloads, larger number of students in a class, higher employee contributions to health and retirement benefits, elimination of scholarships, cut in need-based aid, administrative cuts, salary cut and other cuts. The students have been worst hit who faced decreased number of seats and large scale rise in fees.

These measures angered the students, teachers and parents and resulted in widespread unrest amongst them. Protests have been going on for over two years now across the colleges and universities in the United States. Tuition fee for students at the 23 California State University campuses, including San Francisco State, was increased by 30 percent in 2009. After months of actions against the steep decline in state financing for public universities, the students occupied a building of San Francisco State University canceling classes for 3,200 students. They locked themselves inside that building by chaining the doors from inside for about 24 hours to protest budget cuts and tuition fee increases across the state’s public university system¹⁶. The police broke through a window to get in and arrested twenty-six students on 10 December 2009. On this day students on at least three campuses, including Berkeley, took over buildings and many were arrested. They also raised the issues of layoffs, faculty furloughs and other cuts and demanded forgiveness of all student loans.

The protests in California against $1 billion in budget cuts to the state’s university system grew into a nationwide movement. Students and teachers in many states organized demonstration against budget cuts and tuition fee hikes on 4 March 2010. Thousands of students, parents and faculty members protested across California at colleges, universities and even elementary schools¹⁷. In Oakland, California, police arrested 160 protesters who blocked a major interstate highway. Protesters in Davis, outside Sacramento, also tried to block an interstate highway but were prevented by the authorities using pepper spray. Protests were held in other states, too, with at least 16 people arrested at the University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, when protesters tried to force their way into administration offices and threw ice chunks at campus officers.

Called a “strike and day of action to defend public education”   by organizers, campus and building entrances were blocked at several places. One of the largest demonstrations in California took place on the north steps of the Capital, where more than 1,000 people used drums, bullhorns, and scores of young voices to try to get their message across. Protesters said they would continue to press their case with more demonstrations.

A call was given to organise 7 October 2010 as the ‘national day of action to defend public education.’ At Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, for example, several hundred people gathered on the campus’s parade grounds for a jazz-inspired “funeral” for higher education¹⁸. Some participants, dressed in black carried a coffin labeled “education,” while others carried flags representing language programs that the university has cut to cope with shrinking state appropriations. More program and job cuts are likely, as the state is struggling to close a deficit in its current budget year, and Gov. Bobby Jindal, a Republican, has said that higher-education funds could be cut by as much as 35 percent in the budget that lawmakers will craft next year.

On several campuses of the University of California, which lost $637-million in state appropriations last year, groups also held events to mark 7 October as “National Day of Action to Defend Public Education.” At the University of California at Berkeley, demonstrators at a variety of events protested the cuts and their effects on public colleges and universities. One event, a sit-in in a library reading room, drew some 500 participants before the campus police blocked access. The demonstrators banged on desks and chanted “Whose university? Our university!” and several hundred remained in the room as of late afternoon.

The militant protests that emanated from the University of California, Berkeley, became a national affair across the United States. On this day, thousands of people, particularly college students and faculty members, marched, rallied and held panel discussions. They charged the federal government of spending trillions of dollars on the military abroad, while it was cutting public education and privatising it.

Massive protest actions were reported from the Portland State and Western Washington universities, Southern Illinois, Wayne state universities, University of Iowa, LSU, New England, Massachusetts and at the University of Albany and Brooklyn College in New York. In San Diego, students, parents, teachers and workers organised a funeral procession to the downtown to mourn the assassination of public education. Members of the American Association of University Professors (AAUP) also participated as part of its “Higher Education is a Public Good” week, which, according to AAUP, was “a week of action to demonstrate the importance of not-for-profit higher education.”

Such actions took place all over the United States and students, teachers and all the stakeholders and are still continuing. On 18 November 2011, police sprayed pepper at point-blank range at students, injuring many, who were protesting against tuition fee hikes and police atrocities at the University of California, Davis¹⁹. This police action fortified similar protests across the U.S. Teachers came out in support of the movement. Thousands of students and teachers organized a rally in protest on 21 November demanding resignations of chancellor and police chief.

Angry about tuition increases and cuts in courses and enrollment, students atCalifornia State University²⁰ went on weeklong hunger strike on 2 May 2012.  The fasting protest was the latest display of anger at the 23 California State University campuses. The system has lost roughly $970 million in state financing since 2008. Since the 2007-8, tuition at California State University has climbed to $5,472, from $2,772.

The union representing faculty members which has been supporting the student protests announced that they will organise a rolling strike at campuses statewide²⁰. The rolling two-day strike, which would most likely take place towards the end of this year, would be the largest in state history and would affect more than 400,000 students. Teachers are also protesting against the university’s reliance on part-time lecturers most of whom teach a full load of courses but do not have tenure. Those lecturers make roughly $50,000 a year, about half of what a tenured professor makes.

3.3 Education Budget Cuts in UK

In the United Kingdom, similar situation is obtaining with large scale cuts and tuition fee hikes and rising protests of students and teachers. Struggling to reduce a large budget deficit, the government in recent months has announced some £1.1 billion ($1.59 billion) in cuts to U.K. universities. Some university leaders fear future cuts could be even more severe and undermine one of the U.K.’s most important industries—higher education²¹. Anger sparked protests at many places including Middlesex. Proposals to cut more than 100 jobs at University of Sussex in southern England led students to occupy university buildings in March 2010, and break into the vice chancellor’s office. The police were called in.

Teachers at several universities, including King’s College London and Westminster University, have organized strikes in recent months to protest job cuts. According to an estimate a few thousand job cuts have been announced so far. The University of Leeds in northern England has said it may need to eliminate as many as 400 jobs if further funding cuts are announced, a warning that has provoked several student protests. Russell Group universities are lobbying for tuition fees to be gradually raised and then freed from state control, to allow the best universities to charge more.

The government announced cut in university funding in England by a total of £398m for 2010-11²². In all, the budgets of around half of universities were cut, including 10 members of the elite Russell Group – Birmingham, Bristol, Imperial College London, King’s College, Leeds, the London School of Economics, Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and Southampton²³.

Biggest cuts were made to the London Business School, where budgets were slashed by almost 12 per cent to £5.8 million, and Reading, which saw spending cut by almost eight per cent to £50.7 million. The LSE – ranked in the world’s top 50 – saw cuts of more than six per cent. Oxford and Cambridge universities are also hit by budget cuts.

Record numbers of students are expected to graduate with debts of more than £20,000, according to a study²⁴. The study found that almost a third of students had considered dropping out of university at some point. Almost half of those cited “financial difficulties”. “There is clearly a large financial strain on students if they are having to reduce spend on food and are eating less healthily, which is a concern for those providing for students, especially while they are away from home.”

Some universities were preparing to increase the number of international students, who can be charged as much as 10 times that of British undergraduates, to bring in more money²⁵. According to Policy Exchange, an organisation interested in free market and localist solutions to public policy questions, fees should rise to a minimum of £5,000 but long-term consideration should be given to removing the existing fees limit altogether. It said some vice-chancellors were pushing for a rise of £20,000. A many-fold increase!

Three-quarters of UK university heads who took part in a survey think public spending cuts will lead to the disappearance of some institutions²⁶. Some two-thirds of the 43 university bosses who responded said they planned to develop an international presence. Universities charge foreign students much higher tuition fees than domestic students. Therefore, developing campuses abroad could lead to more students coming to study at their UK bases.

Leaders of the UK’s most prestigious universities have warned that government plans to cut funding will lead to a higher education “meltdown”. There will be a loss of 22,584 university jobs in England alone, if the Government pushes ahead with plans for 25% funding cuts.

3.4 Protest Actions in UK

Hundreds of University and College Union (UCU) members and students on 5 May 2010, the day of action and strike, gathered at King’s College London before marching to Westminster to rally at Church House. University College London, Westminster and Sussex universities and London colleges were affected, with the strike at King’s College London continuing until next day.

Actions such as sit-ins, demonstrations and strikes took place in Richmond-upon-Thames College, Croydon College, Sussex University, Bradford College, Doncaster college, Loughborough College, Birmingham Metropolitan College, Bournville College, City College Birmingham and South Birmingham College.

Universities have been told to make savings of £1 billion, while further education must cut its budget by £340 million in the next academic year²⁷. After 5 May action, the UCU prepared for further actions and mobilized opinion across colleges and universities. On 21 June 2010, students and staff at 100 UK colleges and universities protested against funding cuts in higher education²⁸. The protests included a meeting at Parliament.

The protests were organised by a coalition of seven unions, the University and College Union (UCU), the National Union of Students (NUS) Unite, the Association of Teachers and Lecturers, the GMB (Workers’ trade union), the Education Institute of Scotland and Unison.

While the students, teachers and workers were preparing for the future course of action, they got further devastating news with the former CEO of British Petroleum Lord Browne releasing his report on 12 October on review of university funding. He recommended a massive cut in direct state funding for university degrees and passed the burden onto students²⁹. He called for the existing £3,290 a year cap on tuition fees to be abolished, allowing universities to charge as much as £14,000, and removal of public funding from all but “priority” subjects like medicine, science and engineering. The interest rate on student loans also will be increased. This will lead to 80% cut in teaching budgets of universities in UK.  They are likely to face £3.2 billion cut in teaching and £1 billion reduction in research budgets. In anticipation of further cuts, many institutions are beginning to lay off instructors, reduce the number of classes and shut down departments.

The UCU said that cuts on this scale would leave cities and towns without a local university and our students would pay the highest public fees in the world. It has described this as the most challenging time for their students, members and for movement and called upon them to act together.

On a joint call by the NUS and UCU, several tens of thousands of students, teachers, parents, workers and others took part in a national demonstration in London on 10 November 2010 to protest against funding cuts to higher education³⁰. The march also raised concerns about higher tuition fees and the increasing privatisation of the education sector. About 2,00,000 students could not get admission in universities this year. With multifold rise in tuition fees, many more students will be left out in future. Such protest continued all over U.K.

Exactly a year later³¹, on 9 November 2011 thousands of students marched through central London to protest against the government’s cuts to education, increase in tuition fees, and the introduction of private providers into the university sector.Students were determined to block the cuts and privatisation agenda, and build a sustainable movement to defeat the government. They were also supported by teachers and other workers.

4. Background of UPA-2 Agenda and Negotiations

The governments of USA and UK are forcing their already crisis-ridden higher education systems to fend for themselves and reduce dependency on public funds. In the wake of rising protests of students, teachers and parents, these countries are looking for alternative destinations for export of their higher education at exorbitant costs so that their higher education systems could be bailed out. They have been pressurizing developing countries including India even before meltdown to open up their higher education system to predatory global players for making profits. Now they have mounted tremendous pressure on the Indian government to remove barriers for foreign direct investment in its world’s third largest system (after USA and China) of higher education.

It is in this background that the UPA-2 agenda of academic “reforms” was planned. In view of the fact that the BJP led NDA government could not make an enabling framework for the entire higher education system in the country despite the Ambani-Birla report and a concept paper on the Model Act, and UPA-1 could not do so due to the resistance of the left parties, the UPA-2 decided to make an enabling framework not through a comprehensive legislation but through several legislations on different issues necessary for the benefit of the private local and foreign educational providers.

This framework will enable these and other developed countries to set up their shops in India and deform its higher education system to respond to global trade in higher education for profit. The Prime Minister and HRD Minister are already engaged in high level talks with their counterparts in USA and UK.

4.1 Negotiations

Union Minister for Human Resource Development Kapil Sibal met US Under Secretary Of State William Burns for Political Affairs on October 15, 2009 in New Delhi³². India and the US are proposing to set up an India-US Education Council. This Council is slated to include representatives of Industry and Education. The Council will coordinate the moving forward of bilateral relations in education between the two countries.

Prime Minister Manmohan Singh saw enormous opportunities, in November 2009, for the university systems of India and the US³³ to work together and launched a Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative between the US and Indian universities.

Kapil Sibal met US Secretary of State Hillary Clinton on 2 June 2010 in Washington and discussed a wide range of issues related to bilateral cooperation in the field of education³⁴. Welcoming the Singh-Obama knowledge initiative, Sibal said that we need to establish a bi-national India-US Education Council having academics, entrepreneurs and government representatives as members. Sibal also mentioned about the 14 Innovation Universities that are being set up in India and said, “The two nations could partner in setting up some of these Innovation Universities, one of which could be announced during the proposed visit of President Obama to India later this year.” They also discussed the interest shown by US universities in establishing institutions in India.

Hillary Clinton wrote in Times of India on June 4, 2010 that this week, a delegation from India’s government arrived in Washington for the first-ever strategic dialogue between India and the United States³⁵. The new Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative will build partnerships between Indian and American universities. And India is now poised to undertake a significant educational reform: allowing foreign universities to open campuses in India.

The Bureau of South and Central Asia Affairs, U.S. Department of State, hosted a higher education roundtable on 16 September 2010 to identify successful and sustainable models for collaboration and partnerships³⁶ in all types of higher educational institutions in India including research institutions, professional schools, undergraduate liberal arts schools and community colleges.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron who visited India in July 2010 alongwith a big trade delegation said: “Education is not just vital for national success, it is one of the best growth businesses of the 21st century³⁷. I want us in Britain and India to pool some of our advantages for our mutual benefit.”

Through the UK-India Education and Research Initiative (UKIERI) collaboration the two nations will join hands to set up new institutes, increase skills development programmes, hold leadership programmes and work on quality assurance of courses offered to students. UK has formally expressed interest in developing Innovation Universities and other institutions.

UK Higher Education and Science Minister David Willetts, who accompanied Cameron, said: “Oxford, Cambridge, Imperial, Essex, Birmingham, Newcastle, Exeter and the Open University are eager to forge links during the design and eventual creation of the new innovation universities.” He would be visiting India again in November 2010, accompanied by leading British vice chancellors, to establish a framework for collaboration between British institutions and the innovation universities.

First Indo-U.S. Higher Education Summit was held in Washington, D.C. on October 13, 2011³⁸. The Summit began with opening statements by the HRD Minister Kapil Sibal and the U.S. Secretary of State Hillary Clinton. The Summit was attended by higher education leaders and government officials from the U.S. and India, as well as private sector leaders. The objective of the summit was to further strengthen higher education collaboration and exchange between institutions in the United States and India through joint degrees, research partnerships, accreditation and quality assurance.

Joint Education Summit³⁹ under the third US-India Strategic Dialogue, was held on June 13, 2012 in Washington, D.C. In his opening statement, HRD Minister Kapil Sibal said that a mechanism for formal collaboration in offering educational programmes between our institutions through the University Grants Commission has been activated. The minister also stated that about 100 community colleges will be established by 2013 in collaboration with those of U.S. He also announced the early emergence of a meta-university with the University of Delhi and Jamia Millia Islamia taking the lead. Thus Indian system of education is being transformed in accordance with that of the U.S. In fact the MHRD had tried “backdoor” entry to foreign institutions through UGC Regulations before this summit⁴⁰. But the UGC’s June 2 meeting could not do so. However, it approved the UGC (Promotion and Maintenance of Standards of Academic Collaboration between Indian and Foreign educational Institutions) Regulations, 2012 to ensure academic collaboration between Indian and foreign educational institutes.

5. Spate of New Bills

In the scenario described above, the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) has introduced six Bills in parliament on 3 May 2010 – i) The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry & Operations) Bill, 2010, ii) The Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical Educational Institutions, Medical Educational Institutional Institutions and Universities Bill, 2010, iii) The Educational Tribunals Bill, 2010, and iv) The National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Education Institutions Bill, 2010. Other two Bills, v) The Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011 was introduced on 28 December 2011 and vi) The Universities for Innovation Bill, 2012 on May 21, 2012.

Through these bills, the UPA-2 government is creating a framework that would enable the implementation of its agenda of neo-liberal reforms in higher education system and for meeting the requirements of foreign educational institutions. The detailed analysis of these bills is given below.

5.1 On the Foreign Educational Institutions Bill, 2010

THE Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operations) Bill, 2010⁴¹ has been introduced in the Lok Sabha on May 3, 2010 amidst the opposition of the CPI(M) and others. Immediately afterwards, the Students Federation of India and Democratic Teachers’ Front of Delhi University burnt the copies of the bill outside parliament and demanded its immediate withdrawal. Hundreds of such protests were organised all over the country in the state capitals and districts headquarters.  A similar bill the “Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operation, Maintenance of Quality and Prevention of Commercialisation) Bill, 2007” was planned to be introduced in the parliament (Rajya Sabha), in the first week of May 2007. However, it was withdrawn before introduction due to the opposition of the CPI(M).

According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the FEI Bill, 2010, a number of Foreign Educational Institutions (FEIs) have been operating in the country and some of them may be resorting to various malpractices to allure and attract students. Further, there is no comprehensive and effective policy for regulation on the operations of all the FEIs in the country. It has given rise to chances of adoption of various unfair practices besides commercialisation. Therefore, the enactment of a legislation is to “maintain the standards of higher education within the country as well as to protect the interests of the students and in public interest.” It should be noted that the central government failed to implement the provisions of the AICTE Regulation, 2005 in this connection.

Foreign Educational Institution (FEI), section 2(e), means “an institution established or incorporated outside India which has been offering educational services for at least twenty years in the country” of its origin and “which offers educational services in India or proposes to offer courses leading to award of degree or diploma or certificate or any other award through conventional method including classroom teaching method not including distant mode in India independently or in collaboration, partnership or in a twinning arrangement with any educational institution situated in India.”

No FEI, section 3, shall admit any person as a student, or collect any fee from such person or its students in India for any course of study leading to the award of a degree or a diploma, by whatever named called, unless such institution has been notified by the central government as a foreign education provider (FEP) under section 4(8).

5.1.1 Scanty Requirements

For being recognised as a FEP, a FEI has to submit its application under section 4 to the Registrar (UGC Secretary) endorsed by the Embassy or High Commission in India of the country of its origin. Existing FEIs have to apply within six months of the commencement of this Act. The FEI will have to maintain a corpus fund of not less than Rs 50 crore (about US$11 million). The FEI will also have to submit at the time of application the documents to the effect that it has been established and offering educational services for at least twenty years under a law of the country in which it is established. It will also give the status of its accreditation, wherever applicable, from the accrediting agency of that country. After a process of eight   months, the central government may recognise, under section 4(8), a FEI as a FEP for the purpose of award of degree or diploma or both in India.

Thus a FEI can be recognised as FEP, if established for 20 years in the country of its origin and deposits a sum of Rs 50 crore. Given the profits involved in the business of education, this sum is a pittance. If accreditation is not applicable in a country, then no rating is required. However, in such cases which accrediting agency will assess, accredit or assure quality and standards has not been provided for in the Bill.

Under ‘twinning programme’, section 2(p), students enrolled with a FEP complete their study partly in India and partly “in any other educational institution situated outside India.” Given this definition, the FEP is not obliged to offer part of the programme in its country of origin. Using this provision any predatory FEP might offer part of its programme in a country which suits it better for making more profits.

A FEP, section 5(1), will have to ensure that the course or programme of study offered and imparted by it in India is in conformity with the standards laid down by the statutory authority, and is of quality comparable, as to the curriculum, methods of imparting education and the faculty employed or engaged to impart education, to those offered by it to students enrolled in its main campus in the country of its origin.

Therefore, a FEP ranked of low quality in its country of origin, will not be under any obligation to raise quality in India under this section. It will also not be under any obligation to raise the quality of its faculty. However, there is no mention whether a FEP can start or not the course or programme of study which does not take note of cultural and linguistic sensitivities of people of India and adversely affect the sovereignty and integrity of India.

5.1.2 Diverting Attention

A FEP, section 5(2), will not be allowed to utilise more than 75 per cent out of the income received from the corpus fund for the purposes of development of its institution in India and the remaining of such unutilised income will be deposited into the corpus fund itself. No part of surplus in revenue generated in India by such FEP, section 5(3), after meeting all expenditure in regard to its operations in India, shall be invested for any purpose other than for the growth and development of the educational institutions established by it in India.

This provision means that surplus in revenue generated in India cannot be repatriated outside India. This is actually not for implementation. This has been included by the central government deliberately to divert the attention of the people from the ills of foreign direct investment (FDI) in education and implement its neo-liberal agenda and commercialisation of education⁴². The FEPs will find many ways to reinvest the surplus in profit making ventures including real estate business.

A FEP, section 6(1), will have to declare fee and other charges payable by students, conditions of eligibility for admission as a student, process of admission, details of teaching faculty including their qualification and whether they are regular or visiting members, minimum pay and other emoluments payable to teachers and other employees.

Thus a FEP will be free to charge any fee, select any student, and have its own norms regarding pay of teachers and employees. A FEP cannot fix the price of its prospectus, under a frivolous section 6(2), more than the reasonable cost of its production and distribution and no profit to be made. This is yet another section to divert the attention of the people. The central government actually promotes raising of resources by other means including charging heavily for prospectus. Therefore, even the public universities in India, including central universities, make crores of rupees from the sale of their prospectuses and fleece the students.

5.1.3 Meagre Penalty

Under section 7, if a FEP violates any provisions of this Act or the UGC Act, 1956 or any other law for the time being in force or rules, regulations or orders made or notifications issued there under, then its FEP status can be withdrawn after due process. In such a situation, the central government will ensure alternative and appropriate educational facilities for the affected students. The central government may attach its corpus fund and such other property as it deems fit to make payments to any person employed in India by such FEP and for making appropriate educational facilities for concerned students..

Any person, associated with an educational institution or a FEI not being a FEP or a FEP whose recognition has been withdrawn violates section 3 of this Act or releases misleading advertisements or gives wrongful information in the print, electronic or any other media will be liable, under section 8, to refund the fees collected, confiscation of any gains made and a penalty of minimum of ten lakh rupees and a maximum of fifty lakh rupees.

However, in case a FEP releases misleading advertisements or gives wrongful information in the media, no penalty is prescribed.

In case a FEP violates section 5 related to the maintenance of standards or any other provision, its corpus fund can be forfeited. It will also be liable to refund fees collected and a penalty of minimum of ten lakh rupees and a maximum of fifty lakh rupees.

This is a meagre penalty given the scale of business such institutes do and dupe the students. There is no provision for any criminal action under IPC as is provided for in the AICTE Regulation 2005 or 2010.

Having regard to the reputation and international standing of foreign educational institution and “such other criteria as may be prescribed”, section 9(1), the central government, on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, may “exempt” such Institution from any provisions of this Act other than section 5(3) and section 8. This is nothing but giving overriding powers to the central government and Advisory Board. The 5-member Advisory Board will have three national research professors (one of whom will be chairman), UGC chairman and chairman of one of the statutory authority like AICTE, MCI, etc. by rotation. The rules for such exemption will be framed later.

It is already being argued by those who favour foreign universities that highly reputed universities in the world are starved of funds. Therefore, to attract them to India to open their campuses would require exemption from maintaining the corpus fund. In that situation, why should they come to India and open their campuses? Obviously, they would come to make money and finance themselves in their country of origin.

A FEI, as per section 13, which is imparting education leading to award of certificate or any other qualification not being a degree or diploma or equivalent qualification shall furnish a report to the UGC about its activities and publish on its website the details of courses offered, enrolment of students, infrastructure, place of functioning and whether operating on its own or in collaboration or partnership or twinning arrangement with any Indian educational institution and details thereof. They can continue doing business and making profits and repatriating them. No provision of this Act shall apply to them.

However, the FEPs are not required to submit reports to the UGC or the central government. In its absence, on what basis the UGC will satisfy itself as to whether a FEP has violated the provisions of this Act or not. In the circumstances, it will be almost impossible to withdraw the recognition given to a FEP.

5.1.4 Subsidies to FEPs?

There is no Financial Memorandum associated with the Bill. It was stated in the financial memoranda of FEI Bill, 2007 that there might be occasions, where “a Foreign Education Provider may have to be provided with development grant. In such event, the expenditure shall be met from the Consolidated Fund of India.” It meant that if a FEP had good political clout in the central government, it could get development grants and make profits with public funds.

The union commerce ministry had, in September 2006, circulated a consultation paper on trade in education services. It had recommended striking “a balance” between “domestic regulation and providing adequate flexibility to foreign universities in setting syllabus, hiring teachers, screening students and setting fee levels.”

Such provisions are likely to be provided in the rules which have to be made later in accordance with this Act. What kind of subsidy might be provided, such as cheap land, water, electricity and other resources is not known. Once an educational institution comes up then there is political pressure to provide such subsidies to that institution. Actually this is what is happening today.

5.1.4 No Reservation

There is no requirement for implementation of the policy of affirmative action by FEPs. There is no provision for the reservations for SC, ST, OBC and other deprived sections in the Bill. The implementation of reservation is poor in public universities and colleges, and practically the reservation has not been implemented in private institutions. Given this experience, it seems that FEPs are going to be exempt from the constitutional provision of reservation.

5.1.5 Unrecognised Institutions and Courses

It should be noted that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in education, including higher education, is allowed in India under the automatic route, without any sectoral cap, since February, 2000. There is no offshore campus of any foreign university in India. There are, however, many foreign universities and education service providers operating in India through twinning programmes. An advertisement number AICTE/Legal/03(01)/2006-07 cautions the students as follows:

“As per the information available till date, 169 institutions are found to be conducting courses in the field of technical education without obtaining AICTE approval. 104 institutions are conducting technical education programmes in collaboration with foreign universities without AICTE approval. Students are advised not to take admission in technical education courses run by any institution which has not been approved by AICTE. They are cautioned that joining unapproved programmes can have serious consequences in terms of eligibility for employment, higher studies etc.”

This advertisement also carries two lists of such unapproved institutions and their programmes. What is shocking is that the lists include institutions like ICFAI, IIPM, Ansal Institute of Technology and G D Geonka World Institute which regularly issue front page and full page advertisements in national dailies about their programmes and also their tie-ups with foreign universities. These advertisements cannot escape the attention of the AICTE, UGC or HRD ministry.

I visited the website of IIPM on June 12, 2009 and asked it using its online enquiry, “Are your degrees, particularly BBA, MBA and MBE, recognised by the AICTE and/or UGC?” Quickly came the online reply that “IIPM is not affiliated to any university; neither does it seek any kind of affiliation from any such institution in future. It is an autonomous institute and offers its own courses and hence does not come under the purview of any university system / UGC etc.”

The IIPM is publishing a new full page advertisement in major newspapers. It reads: “Study at IIPM and additionally become eligible for a UGC recognised MBA/BBA/BCA degree from a NAAC Accredited State Government University of India, recognised by UGC, Association of Indian Universities and Ministry of HRD, Govt. of India.” It is mentioned in fine prints that “IIPM is an approved on site academic partner institution” of that university.

Having read this advertisement, I enquired from IIPM Corporate Office at New Delhi over the phone no. 41799993. I was told that the State Government University referred to in the advertisement is M S University, Tamilnadu. Three year integrated dual degree BBA+MBA is given by IMI, Belgium for a cost of about Rs 14 lakh. About its recognition, he said after spending so much of money, you would like to go to corporate sector and not for government jobs. For higher studies, he said this degree is recognised by some “deemed to be university type institutions.” When enquired about the fees for M S University courses, he asked my name and phone number and told me that he would get back to me in three minutes. He did not call me back.

5.1.6 Central Govt Patronage

As per the provision of the AICTE notification, promulgated on May 16, 2005, on Regulations for Entry and Operation of Foreign Universities/ Institutions imparting technical education in India, every institution, foreign or Indian, has to get the approval from the AICTE. The existing institutions were obliged to take approval from the AICTE within six months from the date of promulgation of this notification.

As per the punitive provisions prescribed in the notification, “In case it comes to the notice of the Council, that a foreign university is running diploma or/and degree at undergraduate, postgraduate and research level in technical education in India directly or in collaboration with an Indian partner without obtaining a certificate of registration, Council shall take immediate steps to initiate action under the Indian Penal Code for Criminal breach of trust, misconduct, fraud and cheating and under other relevant Indian Laws.”

The AICTE has replaced its 2005 Regulation by the AICTE (Grant of Approvals for Technical Institutions) Regulation, 2010 published in the Gazette of India on February 6, 2010. Even this regulation prescribes several kinds of punitive actions including legal civil and criminal actions.

Despite these punitive provisions, these private institutions like IIPM continue their business and fleece students and give them unrecognised degrees with impunity. They know that the government will not take any action against them because they have patronage from within the government. No wonder that several parliamentarians are associated with such institutions and looting the people.

In this context, note some of the comments⁴³ of American educational tycoons in the Mint and the Wall Street Journal (USA) in its June 11, 2009 issues – “some for-profit schools are already bypassing the bureaucratic roadblocks”, “given the US economy and shrinking endowments, (US) colleges may need incentives from the government of India to be able to afford to open”. In the US, “college tuitions have risen faster than inflation.” The FEIs violating local laws is thus known to all. Given the eagerness of Sibal and UPA government, the aggressive FEIs will bargain hard to get more ‘incentives’ than even suggested by the commerce ministry and loot the students and their families.

5.1.7 No Social Control

The UPA government, due to its policy of privatisation and commercialisation of higher education, deliberately failed itself in regulating such institutions through a central legislation that could ensure quality. Most of the professional colleges in engineering, IT, medicine, dentistry, business administration, etc. are in private sector. The CPI(M) and other Left parties have been demanding a central legislation to bring these institutions under social control in relation to fees, course content, infrastructure, academic standards, examinations, etc. The draft of such legislation, though very weak in its purpose, was issued in 2005. Despite repeated demands of the Left, the UPA refused to take it up.

5.1.8 Reject the FEI Bill, 2010

The proponents of FDI in higher education argue that it would solve the problem of access, enable Indian students to access quality higher education in the country itself at relatively much lower cost, not allow the outflow of our foreign exchange reserves, create competition with the local institutions enabling them to become internationally competitive, and create new institutions and infrastructure and generate employment.

The FDI in any field, in fact, does not have an attached objective of fulfilling the social agenda of a welfare state. It is guided by profit and market alone and if these are not fulfilled, the investors look for other destinations for FDI. Foreign investors aim to increase their profits. In the field of higher education, FEPs would launch courses which the market needs, create false impression about their courses through advertisements, charge exorbitantly high fees for courses which have immediate employment potential.

It would lead to unhealthy competition among unequals. Since competition entails reduction in costs, infrastructure, laboratories and libraries would find least investment and the teachers and non-teaching staff would be appointed without necessary qualifications on such terms which would be exploitative as is in existence in most private institutions today.

FDI would impede the development of indigenous and critical research within our university education system, aggravate the tendency towards commercialisation and strengthen the stranglehold of neo-liberal ideas in our academia. The FEPs would be concerned about their profits and not about our culture and society. Therefore the courses which would appreciate and strengthen our ethos would not only be not started by the FEPs, but such courses would get marginalised in public funded higher education institutions also due to competition.

The Bill does not take care of any of the concerns expressed above. This Bill is an instrument to kill our system of higher education and promote crass commercialisation of higher education. Therefore, it should be fought against and rejected lock, stock and barrel.

5.2 On the Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical Educational Institutions, Medical Educational Institutional Institutions and Universities Bill, 2010

ALL stakeholders in the institutions of higher education have since long been demanding that a comprehensive enabling legislation should be enacted by the central government in order to bring private general and professional higher educational institutions under social control. This should include regulation of fees and charges levied from students, admissions of students, reservations, course contents, examination, service conditions of the teaching and other employees, and infrastructural facilities.

It is to be noted that the draft of the Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Bill 2005, which was put on the website by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD), was very weak and did not promise to fulfil the objective of social control. The University Grants Commission (UGC) too had come out with a draft regulation in 2007 regarding the “Admission and Fee Structure in Private Aided and Unaided Professional Educational Institutions.” Both these documents were allowed to lapse. The All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) also notified several regulations about technical institutions, including the one in February 2010. The issue of social control still remained.

5.2.1 New Bill Silent on Important Issues

According to the statement of objects and reasons of the “Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical Educational Institutions, Medical Educational Institutions and Universities Bill 2010⁴⁴,” there is public concern that technical and medical educational institutions, and universities, should not resort to unfair practices. Such practices include charging capitation fee and demanding donations for admitting students, not issuing receipts in respect of payments made by students, admission to professional programmes of study through non-transparent and questionable admission processes, low quality delivery of education services and false claims of quality of such services through misleading advertisements, engagement of unqualified or ineligible teaching faculty, forcible withholding of certificates and other documents of students.

However, all these issues are not included in the body of the bill. It only says no institution, to be covered by the provisions of this bill, will charge admission or other fees more than that published in the prospectus. Every institution will have to issue receipt in writing for all charges. It will also admit students through a transparent process of competitive test or inter se on the basis of merit. The institutions will give detailed information through their websites and printed prospectuses six months in advance in relation to fee and other charges, admission process, number of seats, eligibility criteria, teaching faculty, pay and emoluments payable to teachers and other employees, physical and academic infrastructural facilities, etc.

Thus the institutions have to just inform these details. They are not even required to have these in accordance with some statutory norms. Even the rationale of their fee and other charges structure is not required. It is enough to declare fee, howsoever exorbitant it may be compared to the actual cost. Only in case of prospectus, it is stated that its price should not be more than the reasonable cost. It is well known that in private institutions ineligible faculty is appointed and even if the faculty is qualified, the salary paid is far less than that stipulated by the statutory authority. It is known that teachers have to teach in several institutions. However, under the bill, it is enough for the institutions to declare their infrastructure, etc, even if that is of low quality.

However, if any institution does anything contrary to the information published in its prospectus, it will be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 50 lakh. There is no penalty, however, if an institution has facilities and faculty even far inferior to the statutory requirements but the institution has published them on its website and in its prospectus.

The “capitation fee” has been defined as the amount demanded or charged or paid in excess of the fee and other fees payable (on which there is no control) as declared by an institution in its prospectus. No institution can demand or charge, and no person must offer or pay, capitation fee for admission. If an institution contravenes this provision, then the penalty may extend to Rs 50 lakh, but the bill is silent if it is offered by a person. But in order to cover the loss of the extra money they earlier used to charge under the table, institutions may definitely raise their fees exorbitantly and they only need to publish the new fee in the prospectus. However, even if they do not do so, then the penalty amount of Rs 50 lakh would be quite insignificant because, as we all know, the under-the-table transaction in case of just one student may be even more than Rs 20 lakh. This is bound to promote low quality education at exorbitantly high costs to the students. The proposed bill thus threatens to promote commercialisation of education.

So far, at the time of admission, many institutions have been keeping the students’ degrees, certificates or documents and refusing to return the documents to the concerned students with a view to inducing or compelling them to pay the fees for the courses they do not intend to pursue in those institutions. According to the bill, however, if a student withdraws from an institution, then the latter cannot refuse to refund to the student a proportion of the deposited fee as has been mentioned in its prospectus. An institution violating this norm will be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs one lakh only.

5.2.2 No Action Against Unrecognised Institutions

Institutions have also been barred from publishing misleading advertisements about their recognition or in respect of their infrastructure or academic facilities, etc. If this provision is violated, the penalty can be up to Rs 50 lakh. But there is no provision of penalty if unrecognised institutions mislead the students. Recently, the UGC issued an advertisement in all major newspapers about the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), warning the aspiring students that it was not a recognised university, did not have the right to confer or grant degrees and therefore it could not award an MBA, BBA or BCA degree⁴⁵. The website of the AICTE has a list of more than a hundred institutions which are unrecognised and action against them could be taken as per the UGC and AICTE norms⁴⁶. But no action has been taken so far except issuance of warning to the students that their programmes are unrecognised⁴⁷. This being the case, all these proposals regarding penalties appear to aim only at showing to the people that the government is serious about unfair practices by the institutions of higher education. One can well surmise how far such provisions are actually meant for implementation.

Demanding or accepting capitation fee is under the bill a cognisable offence while all other offences are non-cognisable under the Criminal Procedure Code (CrPC). However, a person (or every person) responsible for the conduct of an institution can go scot-free if it is proved that the offence was committed “without his knowledge” or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of that offence.

The most undemocratic, and the most atrocious, part of the bill is Section 18 that says, “No court shall take cognisance of any offence under this act which is alleged to have been committed by any institution or director, manager, secretary or other officer thereof, except on the complaint in writing of such person authorised by the central government or the state government in that behalf or by such person authorised by the concerned appropriate statutory authority, as may be prescribed.” It means that if a student or a parent is the victim of an unfair practice on the part of an institution, he cannot directly move a lower court, High Court or Supreme Court to get relief. Such a student or parent can approach a court of law only through such “authorised” persons and only after these persons are convinced that an unfair practice has been committed.

Thus the provisions of the proposed bill do not promise to regulate the admissions, fees, course contents, examinations, service conditions of teachers and other employees, etc. Larger issues of social justice in and the academic accountability of educational institutions, or of excellence in education, have been totally ignored. It takes away the rights of students and parents to take recourse to a court of law to seek justice. The operation of admission and fee regulatory committees, set up by various state governments including Kerala in accordance with a judgement of the Supreme Court, may possibly be challenged once the central law comes to occupy the field⁴⁸. In short, the bill seems to be highly inadequate to tackle the host of corrupt and unfair practices being adopted by many of our institutions of higher education⁴⁹.

This bill is highly inadequate to tackle corrupt practices in educational institutions. This bill is clearly meant to help the predatory elements in higher education in making more and more profits. It is therefore for us to force the government of India to protect education from these predators.

5.3 On the Educational Tribunal Bill, 2010

THE Educational Tribunals Bill 2010⁵⁰ was introduced in parliament on May 3, 2010 to establish educational tribunals at the national and state levels for “effective and expeditious adjudication of disputes” in the higher education sector. The bill covers all kinds of disputes involving teachers, other employees of higher educational institutions and other stakeholders including students, universities and statutory regulatory authorities. It also provides penalties for indulging in unfair practices.

5.3.1. Details Of Tribunals

The state level educational tribunals will have three members each. While its chairperson will be a judge of some High Court, a vice chancellor and a person of the rank of a chief secretary of the state government will be the other members. At least one of them will be a woman. They should have at least 25 years of experience and should be of age not less than 55 years. They will hold office for a period of five years and can be reappointed, but cannot hold office after attaining the age of 70 years.

A state educational tribunal will exercise powers in relation to (a) service matters of teachers and other employees of higher educational institutions, (b) affiliation of an institution with the affiliating university, and (c) unfair practices by a higher educational institution, which have been prohibited by law. While an appeal can be made in the national level educational tribunal against some order of a state tribunal in relation to (b) and (c), the decision of the state level tribunal will be final in case of (a) and no appeal can be made against it.

The nine-member national educational tribunal will include a chairperson and two other judicial members who will be the judges of the Supreme Court. Further, it will have three academic members (vice chancellors) and three administrative members (secretary to the government of India or of equivalent rank). At least one-third of its total members will be women. The chairperson may constitute a bench consisting of three members, with one member each from the three said categories. Bench members can be transferred from one bench to another. Their term, experience, reappointment and minimum and maximum age will be the same as are in case of the members of a state tribunal.

The national educational tribunal will exercise powers in relation to disputes between (a) a higher educational institution and an appropriate regulatory authority, (b) an affiliated institution and the affiliating central university having affiliating jurisdiction over two or more states, and (c) constituent units of a deemed-to-be university or a central educational institution located in two different states. It can also take up issues of the similar nature pending before two or more state level tribunals. It will also take up the service matters of teachers and other employees only in case of the (c) above. An appeal against the decision of the national level tribunal can be made only to the Supreme Court.

5.3.2 Grave Injustice to Students

This bill thus seeks to accommodate the retiring or retired judges, vice chancellors and secretary level IAS officers up to the age of 70 years. It thus contravenes the judgements of the Supreme Court about the constitution of such tribunals in which majority of members should be judicial.

The state and national level tribunals will have the powers of a civil court and can punish anyone who fails to comply with any order made by them, with imprisonment for to three years or fine up to ten lakh rupees or both. The collector of the concerned area will execute the order. If the institution or the person against whom an order has been made fails to pay, then such amount will be recoverable from the institution or person as arrears of land revenue.

No court can take cognisance of any offence punishable under the chapter on penalties unless a complaint is made by an officer authorised by the either of the tribunals. No civil court will have jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of any matter falling under the purview of these tribunals.

The national educational tribunal will have administrative control over all the state level tribunals and will oversee their functioning. This amounts to centralising the whole mechanism.

The bill does not spell out the kinds of problems and disputes facing the students, on which either the national or a state level tribunal would adjudicate. The word ‘student’ appears only on the first page, after the title of the bill and in the first paragraph of the statement of objects and reasons. ‘Student’ is simply missing in the main body and provisions of the bill. There is no section in the bill in which the disputes between students and their institutions are mentioned. This being the case, a tribunal might well refuse to entertain such disputes.

This means an aggrieved student cannot go either of a tribunal or to a court of law. This bill is thus most authoritarian as far as students are concerned and does grave injustice to them.

5.3.3 No Wider Consultation

This bill was presented in Lok Sabha and passed without taking into account the series of objections made by the parliamentary standing committee on human resource development. In Rajya Sabha, where the UPA-2 does not have a majority, the minister had to withdraw this bill in view of the protests coming not only from the opposition but from his own party as well.

The parliamentary standing committee on human resource development⁵¹ (PSC-HRD) had rightly said that the bill was introduced without a wider consultation process involving all the state governments and union territories. The central institutions of higher education too were not consulted. The whole exercise thus seems to be a hurried affair. Also, the three-member state level tribunals would simply be unable to take up all the conceivable aspects of higher educational institutions. Further, there would be only one tribunal in a state, no matter whether it is a small or a big state.

That the majority of the membership of a tribunal is non-judicial, is totally contrary to a ruling of the Supreme Court. As the PSC-HRD said in its report, this is a legislation meant to accommodate the retired vice chancellors and top bureaucrats, which would lead to bureaucratisation of the adjudication process in the realm of higher education. Prescribing the minimum age limit to 55 years could lead to ineligibility of otherwise competent and younger people.

The term ‘unfair practice’ has nowhere been defined in the bill. The lack of a definition of the term ‘unfair practices’ will leave it open to interpretation by the tribunals and courts.

As students are the soul of an institution, their interests should be protected and taken care of. But this would be possible only by including the word ‘students’ in the substantive clauses.

5.3.4 No Appeal to a Higher Court

In the name of “effective and expeditious adjudication of disputes,” this bill presents an alternative system in which the disputes between teachers or other employees and institutions of higher education would get stopped at the tribunal level. The aggrieved teachers and other employees would be thus denied their constitutional right to take recourse to a higher court.

Thus, the bill seeks to set up an alternative dispute redressal mechanism at the state and national levels by depriving all the concerned people of their constitutional right to move a court of law.

One of the statements of objects of this bill says that the expansion of higher education to effectively “compete with other countries” can be achieved only if the “regulatory regime and dispute-settlement process engender credibility and assurance.” That is why the bill proposes a two-tier “system through a fast track, speedy recourse to justice delivery.” However, the provisions of the bill do not match the objects of the bill. This bill, in fact, has been designed to keep the teachers, other employees and students away from courts of law. This is probably designed to provide the foreign educational institutions and private players an environment in which they do not have to bother much about litigation. The Educational Tribunals Bill 2010 is thus to create a judicial system to suited the private sector

5.4 On the National Accreditation Regulatory Authority For Higher Educational Institutions Bill, 2010

The National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions Bill 2010⁵² was introduced in Lok Sabha on May 3. According to its statement of objects, assessment and accreditation in the higher education, through a transparent and informed external review process, are the effective means of quality assurance in higher education to provide a common frame of reference for students and others to obtain credible information on academic quality across institutions, thereby assisting student mobility across institutions, domestic as well as international. At present, accreditation is voluntary as a result of which less than one-fifth of the colleges and less than one-third of all universities have obtained accreditation. Mandatory accreditation in higher education would enable the higher education system in the country to become a part of the global quality assurance system.

5.4.1 Background Of The Bill

The UGC established the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in September 1994 at Bangalore. The theme paper on NAAC⁵³ clearly stated, while analysing the systems prevailing in the USA, UK, Australia, France, etc, that “….. assessments for teaching are now taking place, initially on a 3-point scale: excellent, satisfactory, unsatisfactory. Assessors will visit and sit in during lectures and seminars.” It went on to say that after assessment and accreditation in the UK, “government funding per student has declined in real terms, so that universities have been forced to seek other sources of funding….” In France, the document said “They (the ministry) control the appointment and promotion of teaching and administrative staff….” Notably, the NAAC document was prepared “after taking into consideration the existing methods of quality assessment and quality control and accreditation of higher education in USA, UK, Canada, Australia …”

The theme paper said the assessment and accreditation of institutions would take place “without interfering with their autonomy and funding.” It was voluntary and the NAAC could assess only those institutions that apply for assessment and pay the prescribed fees.

In 1999, five years after its establishment, NAAC made it clear⁵⁴ that it would “make the report available to UGC, government and other funding agencies,” promote a culture of “positive competition” among institutions, evaluate the institutions “for purpose of funding, developmental activities or introducing innovations” on the request of state governments, and that its reports would be useful to funding agencies in obtaining “dependable profiles of institutions, and possible patterns of assistance.” The UGC had already indicated that its plan-based developmental support to educational institutions would be related to the outcome of assessment and accreditation.

In December 1999, secretary of the ministry of human resource development (MHRD) had announced that universities and colleges have to get themselves mandatorily assessed and accredited by the NAAC⁵⁵. The deadline fixed for this purpose was December 31, 2000 for universities and December 31, 2003 for colleges. He stated that institutions getting rank 0 would be “disaffiliated and closed down” and those getting rank 2 or 1 would be under watch or special watch respectively. If they did not improve in due course of time, he added, they would face similar action. Institutions getting rank 5, 4 and 3 were to be rated outstanding, very good and good.

The whole concept was basically to reduce the state funding of institutions of higher education: first starve the institutions of funds and then star them with ranks! It could thus be easier for the government to close down some of the institutions on the basis of ranks. The institutions in towns, tehsils and villages catering to the needs of disadvantaged sections could be the worst victims. The teachers movement fought against the move and demanded self-assessment of higher education institutions for improvement, without linking it with funding⁵⁶.

5.4.2 Mandatory Accreditation

Mandatory accreditation in higher education, according to the bill, would require a large number of competent and reliable accrediting agencies to be recognised, monitored and audited for academic competence through an independent but accountable institutional mechanism. Such a mechanism would find acceptability among peer group of international accreditation bodies, necessary for student and teacher mobility and institutional collaborations, within and across borders. Consequently, there is the need for an autonomous institutional structure with statutory backing to recognise and regulate competent professional agencies charged with the task of accreditation.

Registered agencies would accredit higher education institutions through transparent processes. The assessment would include physical infrastructure, human resources (including faculty), administration, course curricula, admission and assessment procedures, infrastructure and governance structures of the institutions.

Now the bill proposes to establish a regulatory authority to register, monitor and audit the functioning of accreditation agencies which would be invested with the responsibility of accrediting higher education institutions including universities, colleges, institutes, institutions of national importance and programmes conducted therein. Institutions imparting higher education beyond 12 years of schooling will be mandatorily accredited. Higher education institutions engaged mainly in agricultural education and research have been kept out of the proposed legislation’s purview.

Every higher education institution, existing before the commencement of this act, will have to apply for accreditation, within a period of three years from the date of its commencement. However, medical educational institutions will have a time of five years. Any person responsible for an institution who fails to do so, will be punishable with imprisonment up to two years or fine up to Rs 10 lakh or both.

5.4.3 Accreditation Authority

The central government will establish “the National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions”. The authority will consist of a chairperson and four other members, at least one of them a woman, to be appointed by the central government. The chairperson will be a vice chancellor (whether in office or retired) and other four members will be professors in the fields of medical education, science or technology, social sciences and legal matters. They should have at least 25 years of experience and should be of age not less than 55 years. They will hold office for a period of five years and cannot be reappointed, but cannot hold office after attaining the age of 70.

The authority will register and regulate accreditation agencies; lay down norms and policies for assessment of academic quality in higher education institutions; recommend improvement of quality; undertake audit on matters related to conflict of interest, disclosure of information, transparency, levy of fees; advise central and state governments, and collect and disseminate information on accreditation of higher education institutions.

5.4.4 Accreditation Agencies

The accreditation agencies have to be non-profit organisations registered as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, a society or trust formed or controlled by the central or state government or any authority or board or institution established under any central or state act. They should be professionally competent and financially sound. This means that a central or state university can also float an accreditation agency.

Only registered accreditation agencies can undertake accreditation of higher education institutions. The bill lays down detailed eligibility criteria and the procedure of application for registration. The certificate of registration will be valid for a period of 10 years unless it is revoked in accordance with law. There are provisions for suspension or revocation of certificate of registration. In case the certification of an accreditation agency has been revoked, the authority will conduct an audit of all the higher education institutions accredited by it, within a period of one year before the date of such revocation. Any person, aggrieved by the accreditation decided by an accreditation agency, may apply to the authority for withdrawal of such accreditation or its modification.

According to the bill, if an accreditation agency fails to comply with its prescribed duties, obligations and code of ethics, such as application of uniform standards, etc, it will be liable to pay to the higher education institution such compensation as will be determined by the state educational tribunal.

Any accreditation agency that contravenes a provision of the act will be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 5 lakh. If a person, without reasonable cause, resists or obstructs any officer of the authority, he will be punishable with imprisonment up to three months or fine up to Rs 5 lakh or both. Whoever is running an accreditation agency without registration will be punishable with imprisonment up to five years or fine up to Rs 5 lakh or both.

5.4.5 Exemption to Institutions

In the name of “advancement of knowledge” or “in the interests of the general public,” the central government has power to exempt any class or classes of higher education institutions from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this act. This gives arbitrary powers to the central government which can be misused. In any case, this power makes the bill redundant if an institution is favoured by those who are part of the central government. The latter has also the power to supersede the authority for a period up to six months.

The example of how the accreditation system works in the US is worth quoting⁵⁷. In recent months, the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, one of the nation’s major regional accrediting organisations, has adopted more rigorous policies. Therefore, Argosy University and Bridgepoint Education are applying to be accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which oversees institutions in California and Hawaii. Now these institutions are moving their headquarters under the jurisdiction of the new accreditor. However, the Education Department has charged the commission itself that it has given approval to American Inter-Continental University, despite a review that found the institution was awarding inflated credit hours to students for some courses. Now a regime like one existing in the US is being created here for accreditation by multiple recognised agencies.

The central government can exempt institutions from the provisions of the bill including mandatory accreditation. This bill will help the foreign educational institutions interested in coming to India to set up their shops and get exemptions. Though the bill does not say the funding will be linked to accreditation, several regulations may be made under it at a later stage. As said, the NAAC said five years after its establishment that funding is linked to accreditation.

It is necessary, as stated by the Yash Pal committee, to allow the universities to be autonomous spaces, diverse in their design and organisation, self-assessing and self-governing, and responsible for their own curriculum framework, instructions and evaluation of students⁵⁸. Therefore, the necessity is of a self-regulatory, democratic and transparent mechanism for assessment on well defined parameters. It should be for improvement of institutions rather than linked to their funding.

5.5 On The Higher Education And Research Bill, 2011

The central government had constituted a task force on September 7, 2009 with joint secretary (higher education) as its convener to advise the central government for the establishment of a commission for higher education and research as recommended by the Yashpal committee and National Knowledge Commission. On the first of February 2010, the Ministry Of Human Resource Development (MHRD) uploaded on its website the draft of National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) Bill 2010⁵⁹, as approved by the task force and sought “feedback and suggestions from all stakeholders.”

5.5.1 Away From Autonomy, On To Centralisation

It received strong criticism and opposition from students, academia, people’s representatives and several states. It was further revised within three months and re-titled as Higher Education and Research (HER) Bill 2010⁶⁰, and this draft bill was circulated selectively for seeking opinion. The second revised draft bill also met with strong opposition because the main issues of concern remained in the new HER Bill as well⁶¹. It was re-modified as The Higher Education and Research (THER) Bill 2011⁶² and was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on December 28, 2011 by the minister of human resource development. It has been referred to department related standing committee on human resource development.

As one reads this bill, one finds that this is not to “promote” but undermine “the autonomy of higher educational institutions.” This is to restructure higher education system for competitive global environment and not for catering to the aspirations of our youth. This is not for helping state governments to strengthen higher education in their states, but to snatch away from them even whatever their powers were left after education was included in the concurrent list of the constitution of India during infamous Emergency. This is a bill to create an all-powerful commission — National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) — for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education. This is a bill to undermine the powers of the parliament, state legislatures and representatives of the people at large to opine and decide the education policy and administration of institutions of higher education in India.

When read along with five other higher education related bills introduced in parliament, which are basically to promote the entry of private players in higher education, both domestic and foreign, in a big way, this bill seems to provide them with a single window system for their easy entry in education business.

The provisions of this bill shall apply to all the higher educational institutions and universities other than those institutions engaged mainly in agricultural education and research. The provisions of this act shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, other than the Companies Act 1956. The central government can also supersede the commission and all bodies under it if it is not discharging its functions under this bill. The commission will also submit to the central government its regulations, policies or activities for reporting to parliament or for making the policy.

5.5.2 Unfounded Presumptions

It is presumed that abolishing the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) and National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE), and establishing an eight member commission, will lead to “renovation and rejuvenation” of higher education. It is also presumed that the selection committee, consisting of the prime minister, speaker of the Lok Sabha, the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and two ministers in charge of higher education and medical education, will chose seven members, most competent for “renovation and rejuvenation” of higher education, and these will be the best brains and the only brains to shape the future of higher education in India. It is further presumed that the ills of the UGC, AICTE and NCTE and prevalent corruption in these institutions would never infect the proposed NCHER.

In fact, the concept of an NCHER was ill-thought out by the Yashpal committee itself while responding to the neo-liberal agenda of the central government. A similar structure was proposed by the National Knowledge Commission led by Sam Pitroda, with market oriented motives. Both were strongly rejected by “all stakeholders.” The Yashpal committee had recommended that the proposed NCHER should be a constitutional body, like the Election Commission, the provision for which was there in the earlier two draft bills. But in the present bill, it has been withdrawn.

The central government will appoint a commission called “National Commission for Higher Education and Research” with its headquarters in the national capital region. It will be consisting of a chairperson, three whole-time members and three part-time members, to be appointed, by the president, on the recommendations of the selection committee as mentioned above.

The chairperson or a member of the national commission for human resources for health will be an ex officio member.

5.5.3 Commission Of Unequals

There are four distinctions between members of the commission:

(1) While the chairperson and the whole-time members have to be persons “possessing leadership abilities and proven capacity for institution building” with 25 years of experience, other part-time members have to be with “proven contribution to economic and social development” with 20 years of experience.

(2) The chairperson and whole-time members will be salaried employee, and other part-time and ex-officio members will be allowance holders only.

(3) The term of office for the chairperson and all other members except the ex-officio one will be five years. While the chairperson and whole-time members will cease to hold office after attaining the age of 70 years, there is no such restriction on part-time members.

(4) The chairperson and all other members will have to disclose their interests of whatever kind in any educational institution and will not sit in the meetings in which the matters of such institutions come for discussions, the chairperson and whole-time members will not be allowed to take employment for five years after their ceasing to hold office in any educational institution, whether public or private. But there are no such restrictions on part-time and ex-officio members. This also means that any part-time member may not be initially having interest in an educational institution but may later develop interest in one after having dealt with its case, and also can take up a job after ceasing to be a member of the commission.

With these distinctions, the commission itself will not be a cohesive body and will be composed of unequal members. Thus, practically, four members will control the commission and part-time members will be enjoying certain immunities.

5.5.4 Centralised Structure

The commission will take all steps (Section 16), in consultation with the General Council, for promotion and coordination of higher education and research. It will be responsible for promoting accountability framework in regulatory systems, development of a curriculum framework with specific reference to new or emerging or inter-disciplinary fields of knowledge, development of a flexible academic framework, the exercise of choice by students for self-development, joint and cross-disciplinary programmes between and amongst the universities like those in meta-universities and other higher educational institutions, code of good practices, coordination between universities and higher educational institutions, and industry, encourage universities for enabling colleges to evolve into universities or institutions with an authorisation to award degrees by itself, etc.

It will make regulations (Section 17) with the approval of the General Council regarding the norms and standards of academic quality for accreditation, norms and processes for establishment and winding up of a higher educational institutions and university, norms and processes for permitting a university or an higher educational institution to award any degree and to enrol students in any course or programme of study for the first time, norms of academic quality for a university to affiliate colleges, the entry and operation of foreign educational institutions, norms and mechanisms for transparent, efficient and accountable governance in universities and other higher educational institutions, standards for leadership positions for appointment as vice chancellor of a university or the head of a central educational institution not being a college, allocation of grants to higher educational institutions and universities, etc. It will also create an enabling environment for universities to emerge as autonomous, self-regulatory bodies.

The commission will also advise the central government, state governments and professional bodies on policies relating to higher education and research in any field of knowledge.

The commission will maintain a “directory of academics” prepared by the collegium for appointment as vice chancellor or head of a central educational institution. It will recommend a panel of three names from this directory for the post of vice chancellor of a central university or central educational institution.

All these are the functions and responsibilities of the academia and academic councils of the universities which are being taken away. The commission will issue directions to the universities and institutions of higher education to follow its norms. Thus it will be an all powerful body for the higher education in the country.

5.5.5 Contradictory Provisions

Interestingly, the measures taken by the commission under Section 16 will not be “obligatory for higher education institutions to adopt but will act as reference for them to advance quality, access and inclusion” [Section 16(3)]. This provision appears to have been made to thwart the criticism that the central government was trying to over centralise higher education and taking away the powers of the states.

This is clear from Section 17 of the bill. According to its Section 17(1), the commission will frame regulations to determine, coordinate and maintain standards of higher education and research. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions [Section 17(2)], the commission will have the power to regulate almost everything related to higher education institution as pointed out above. However, the commission, under Section 17(3), will create an “enabling environment for universities to emerge as autonomous and self-regulatory bodies.”

The provisions of Sections 16(3), 17(2) and 17(3) are self-contradictory. Once the regulations are made under the Section 17(2), the provision of Section 16(3) will not hold good. If the universities have to “emerge as autonomous and self regulatory bodies”, then there is no need to vest the commission with so much power. In fact, given the provisions in Sections 16(3) and 17(3), if they are really meant for implementation, the national commission of higher education and research is not required at all. What is actually required is a set of guidelines for helping the universities in becoming “autonomous and self-regulatory bodies.”

5.5.6 Marginalising The States

The commission will prepare, every five years, a report on the state of higher education and research in every state and its relation to national trends. The governor of every state will get such report laid before the legislative assembly along with an explanatory memorandum on the action taken or proposed to be taken on each recommendation made by the commission. Thus the state governments will be forced to implement the agenda set by the commission and the powers of the state legislatures will be restricted.

The central government will prepare, from time to time, in consultation with state governments and commission, a national policy for the development of higher education and research. This policy will guide the commission. The central government will also inform the commission of all decisions taken by it on matters of policy concerning higher education and research. However, the state governments have not been given any power under which it can inform the commission about its decision regarding higher education in their states. These provisions will continue to marginalise state governments in the field of higher education.

The powers of the state governments have also been limited as they can appoint vice chancellors of their universities only when they satisfy the standards set by the commission.

5.5.7 General Council

The General Council will consist of about 90 members including one representative of each state and union territory such as vice chairperson of state higher education council or vice chancellor of a state university, all heads of professional bodies and research councils, and one central university vice chancellor, one director or head each of IIT, IIM and institution of national importance in medical education (in rotation), one national law university vice chancellor, and ten academics from such fields like agriculture, medicine, environment, economics, Indian languages, etc, three persons from the associations of industry, trade and commerce, two persons from NGOs, directors of CBSE and NCERT and a principal of an autonomous college. The General Council will meet once in six months. It does not have any representative from the real stakeholders in higher education like students and teachers.

The General Council will advise the commission on enhancing access, inclusion and equity, connecting higher education and research to the practice of professions, measures to remove imbalances (including those relating to regions, academic disciplines, gender and other socio-economic factors), adequacy of funding of higher education, statement and report prepared by the commission, and on the course of reforms to rejuvenate higher education and research.

The General Council is just an advisory and recommendatory body. In the HER Bill 2010, the General Council could amend every measure or regulation proposed by the commission by two-thirds majority of its members present and voting. Such amendments were to be binding on the commission. This provision has been withdrawn.

5.5.8 Collegium Of Scholars

The central government will constitute a ‘collegium of scholars’ with 30 fellows who will be of “integrity and eminence” in higher education and research. The first fellows will be persons who are or have been national research professors or recipients of Nobel Prize and Fields medal. Their membership will be for life. If no such person is willing to be a fellow, the selection committee headed by the prime minister will nominate ten persons of “integrity and eminence” who will be the first fellows of the collegium. Their term will be for a period of ten years. These fellows will propose the rest of the fellows for a ten year term.

The collegium will advise the commission a vision on the emerging trends in different fields of knowledge. It will propose the names of three persons for the appointments of chairperson and other members of the commission. It will recommend persons having prescribed qualification and experience for inclusion in the directory of academics. It will assess the performance of the commission and also make recommendations in respect of the statements and reports of the commission. Its functions will be performed by the chair or co-chair selected by majority from amongst fellows of the collegium for a term of two years.

5.5.9 No New University Without NCHER’s Nod

Every university empowered by or under any law intending to enrol the students for the first time in any course or programme of study has to intimate such intention to the commission, in accordance with the regulations which have yet to be framed, along with an assessment report from a registered accreditation agency. The commission will either accept or reject such request within 120 days. Thus, a new university can start its operation only after getting acceptance from the commission. It means that the states cannot start universities unless permitted by the commission to do so.

It has been further made clear that no university or institution can start conferring or awarding a degree unless it has been “declared” to do so by the commission. Once it comes into being, the powers of the state legislatures to start new universities will be seriously eroded. They have to be established in accordance with the norms and processes to be specified by the commission later. And, in order to start functioning they have to get the permission from the commission to award any degree.

5.5.10 Research Board

The central government will also constitute a 13-member board for research promotion and innovation. The board shall recommend measures to the commission to promote and facilitate research in the fields of knowledge in higher educational institutions including research in recognised health educational institutions.

The board will also identify and recommend to the commission to grant funding for competitive, merit-based proposals by higher educational institutions and universities for research and related infrastructure in such institutions.

5.5.11 Corporate Culture In Higher Education

Under this bill, the central government will establish the higher education financial services corporation. This corporation will have an 11-member board of directors. The chairperson or a member of the commission will be the non-executive chairperson of the corporation. It will include only two representatives in rotation from amongst the representatives of the states in General Council. It will also include one nominee each from members of the General Council from professional bodies, research councils and vice chancellors, and two nominees of the central government. It will also include two persons as expert in finance, banking and management and a managing director to be appointed as whole-time officers of the corporation.

The corporation will notify its memorandum and articles of association. It will disburse grants to higher education institutions in accordance with the regulations yet to be made. It will also give proposals of grants to be allocated to each higher education institutions. It will be guided by the commission and the managing director will be responsible for the disbursal of grants. Thus corporate culture in funding of institutions of higher education is being developed.

5.5.12 Vocational Education

The central government will establish several “qualifications advisory councils” in vocational education. Each qualifications advisory council will be headed by a chairperson and eight other members. Of the eight other members, two shall be from amongst heads of state councils of vocational education, two shall be from amongst members of the General Council with exposure to vocational education, one shall represent trade unions and two shall represent associations of industry, trade or commerce.

Each Qualifications Advisory Council, constituted for specific skill areas, shall advise and make recommendations on qualifications framework in such skill areas, standards of academic quality and study leading to the award of any diploma, elements of curriculum and syllabus, etc.

5.5.13 Retrograde Proposal

On what basis, the central government thinks that the ailments of the UGC, AICTE and NCTE would not affect the NCHER. After all, these bodies were also established with similar intentions for which the NCHER is being proposed! The understanding of the eight members of the commission will decide what should happen in the field of higher education in India. If this all-powerful commission decides to direct the universities to look towards market for its requirements including general funds, then what would happen to our higher education system? The need is to make these bodies function democratically and efficiently, eradicate corruption prevalent in them, make them accountable to the people and serve the cause of education.

We have enough experience of how the education curriculum and structural framework of educational institutions have been communalised. We also have experience that policy thrust of these bodies and education ministry changes with the change in persons. Some of the issues which would fasten the process of commercialisation of higher education taken up by the present human resource development minister on priority basis were not the priorities of the previous ministry.

The proposal of the central government to establish the NCHER, which will have control over all functions of universities and higher education institutions including policy framing, their regulation and financing, reflects the tendency of the central government towards centralisation of higher education. The NCHER can certainly not be most competent for “renovation and rejuvenation” of higher education, and one having the best and the only brains to shape the future of higher education in the country. It negates the role of the state governments and the academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas and in the country as a whole. It will prove to be retrograde for the development of higher education in India⁶³.

5.6 On The Universities For Research And Innovation Bill 2012

THE union minister of human resources development introduced in the Lok Sabha the ‘Universities for Research and Innovation Bill, 2012’ on May 21, 2012⁶⁴. According to the statement of objects and reasons of the Bill, “if India has to achieve a leadership role in the future global knowledge economy, mere public expenditure on higher education is not going to be sufficient and a substantial part of the funding must flow into the education sector through not-for-profit private participation.” Therefore, these universities for research and innovation will be either fully public funded or fully private funded or in public-private partnership.

These universities are (supposedly) intended to make India the global knowledge hub and will set benchmarks for excellence for other central and state universities. These universities will be based on different themes, focussing on “one area or problem of significance to India and build an ecosystem of research and teaching around different related disciplines.”

5.6.1 Establishment By Notifications

These universities will be set up not through acts of parliament or state legislatures, but through notifications. The central government will issue notifications establishing universities for innovation, specifying their names and location of their headquarters. The universities for innovation will have all-India jurisdictions with freedom to establish campuses and study centres anywhere in India and foreign countries.

 These notifications will be based on memoranda of agreement (MoA) between the central government and the promoters of such universities. The definition of promoters includes companies, trusts and societies, registered under Indian laws, which are “organisations of repute” having “financial capability and expertise” and devoting themselves to “proven innovation in research.” It also includes foreign universities established outside India for at least fifty years and recognised as “universities of repute” through “internationally accepted standards.” It also includes Indian universities established for at least twenty five years and recognised as “universities of repute” through accreditation.

5.6.2 Memoranda Of Agreement

The promoters of these universities shall submit to the central government a vision plan, a memorandum of agreement and a project report. These shall include the objects of such proposed universities, their names and locations, capital investment plans, sources of financing the capital investment, infrastructure, standards of higher education, programmes of study, and constitution of the board of governors and their qualifications, etc. The promoter shall also include in the MoA, (i) the financial contribution, if any, expected from the central government, and (ii) the availability of land and the expected support from the central government in obtaining land for the establishment of such proposed university.

The government shall display the memorandum of agreement for 60 days for suggestions from the public. It shall constitute a committee of experts for advice on the competency and expertise of the promoter and vision plan. The application shall be either approved or rejected within six months, as far as practicable. If the government accepts the application, the memorandum of agreement shall need the approval of parliament. The central government will publish every memorandum of agreement in the official gazette to take effect.

5.6.3 Unfettered Freedom

It is expected that these universities will provide teaching, research facilities and innovation experience of standards comparable or “surpass the needs of global competitiveness of the education system in various fields of knowledge.” These universities will enjoy unfettered freedom in financial administration, academic and other matters.

They will be free to evolve their own admission criteria, determine the nomenclature of their degrees and other academic distinctions awarded by them irrespective of the provisions of the UGC Act, decide their own fee structure and other charges, appoint teachers, and determine their salaries and service conditions. They will also be free to appoint faculty by invitation and give them differential salaries and perks. At least half of the students admitted to these universities will have to be Indian citizens and the rest could be foreign. Thus the cap of additional 15 per cent of seats for foreign students set by the University Grants Commission (UGC) will not be applicable to these universities.

The universities for innovation shall be exempt from reservation policy. It will be applicable only to public funded universities for innovation and that too in accordance with the presence of only Indian students.

Each university for innovation will establish a university endowment fund with such initial corpus as provided in the MoA. Therefore, different universities will have different initial corpus funds. These so called not-for-profit legal entities will not be under the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). They will appoint their own auditors. They will have all financial powers for acquiring and disposing properties. The surplus in the revenue of these universities, after meeting all expenditures, can only be invested in their growth and development. Given the freedom to establish campuses and study centres in foreign countries which will function “in accordance with provisions of the laws of such foreign country,” the promoters will be able to appropriate the surplus in revenue. These provisions give indication that these universities will actually be profit-making entities.

5.6.4 All Powers To Board Of Governors

The universities for innovation would enjoy complete autonomy in the constitution of the board of governors, the members of which will be appointed or nominated or sponsored by the promoters as provided in the MoA. There will be no nominee of the government on the board of governors despite the fact that the central government will be funding them. However, at least one-third of its members will be from teachers or officers of the concerned university for innovation. Not less than half the members will be independent persons and innovators and industry leaders. One-half of such independent persons will be women.

Apart from other functions, the board of governors will decide the annual budget estimates, qualifications and other eligibility criteria and the processes for appointment to the posts of vice chancellor, professors emeritus, professors, associate professors, assistant professors and other officers. The chancellor of each university for innovation will be appointed by the promoter. The board of governors will choose the vice chancellor on the recommendation of search-cum-selection committee who could even be a foreign academician. The board of governors will have freedom to appoint academic boards, schools of studies, etc. The board of governors shall be responsible for all policies, management affairs and exercise all powers.

The board of governors of any university for innovation shall have the autonomy to enact, by statutes, its own policy to attract the highly qualified and talented academics having sufficient teaching or research experience from any part of the country or abroad, and to offer them emoluments and perks commensurate with their standing. This will include appointment by invitation of any person to accept the post of professor or associate professor and appointment by invitation of any graduating student with high academic distinction demonstrating exceptional talent for research as assistant professor on any terms and conditions.

5.6.5 Exempted From Accountability

While enjoying full autonomy — academic, management and financial — these universities will have no accountability. They will have full freedom to determine and receive payment of fees and other charges for instruction and other services provided by them. The standards of teaching and research are expected to be higher than the minimum standards determined by the statutory regulatory body in the relevant field. Where no standards have been determined, the standards have to be equivalent or higher than the standards of the best international universities, about which nothing is provided in the bill.

Giving all information about standards and fee etc on the website is enough for their accountability. If any dispute arises between such a university and the statutory regulatory authority with regard to the standards etc, it will be referred to a committee of three persons and not even to the much trumpeted educational tribunals. Such a committee will include one person each nominated by the concerned innovation university and statutory regulatory authority while the third person will be nominated by another innovation university. Thus the representatives from the innovation universities will be in a majority. The decision of the committee will be final and binding. However, if there is any violation of its declared standards, no punishment penalty has been prescribed in the bill as has been provided in other recently introduced education related bills like foreign educational institutions bill.

5.6.6 Private Varsities Financed By Centre

The central government will give grants to each university for funding research and the promotion and development of higher education. It will also give grants to support fellowships or scholarships instituted by it, including fellowships or scholarships for the socially and educationally backward students. The central government’s public funding will be in the form of land, contributions to capital investment, grants for supporting research, and the promotion and development of higher education. The funding of universities of innovation by the central government will be the part of the MoA, as pointed out above.

These universities will be known as the institutions of national importance with full autonomy in all respects. These will be private universities financed by the central government. The central government will have neither general nor social control over them. The promoters will have their own agenda and vision, without any importance to national concerns. These universities will be for the elite and middle class of the country squeezing the requirements of higher education system in general and students in particular.

Each university will disclose to the central government about the new research leading to an intellectual property and apply for its protection. The government will pass on all profits or royalty earned to the university from such intellectual property, and it will be shared with the creator of the property. However, the central government may acquire the title of such intellectual property and restrict its publication or communication, which is considered as prejudicial to the interests of the security of India. It includes the intellectual property for making a product which relates to fissionable material, arms, ammunition, implements of war, etc. Thus all profits made through intellectual property, created by using public funds, will go to the coffers of the private university of innovation.

These universities will give their annual reports to the board of governors only and not to the central government. There is no provision in the bill under which the central government can inspect the affairs and functioning of these universities.

However, each university for innovation shall constitute a committee of experts after fifteen years of its establishment, and thereafter every ten years, for evaluating the functioning of the university.

5.6.7 Promoting Commercialisation

The wide-ranging freedom available to these universities, like differential salaries to teachers and fee and other charges etc, will set an example for all other institutions of higher education in the country to demand such freedom. Such freedom will only help private promoters, companies and foreign universities seeking to take advantage of the provisions of this bill.

There are no provisions in the bill for regulation of its admission process, courses, fees, examinations, service conditions and appointments of the teaching and non-teaching staffs. There is no provision under which the central government or any regulatory authority can inspect the affairs of these universities. Thus the central government will have neither general nor social control over these universities.

These universities will be outside the jurisdiction of the CAG. There will be no member of the central government on the board of governors. Any dispute between the statutory regulatory authority and the university of innovation in relation to standards will be referred only to a committee, not even to the proposed tribunals, the decision of which will be final and binding. There is no remedy proposed in the bill in relation to the disputes between students, teachers and other staff on the one hand and the universities of innovation on the other. This bill is most suited to private players in education and will give a fillip to commercialisation of higher education in the country. This bill will gravely affect our public funded system of higher education.

The ministry of human resources development (MHRD) has forgotten that great universities are not established; they grow to greatness. All universities are institutions for innovation. The government could only make some norms for world-class universities which could not be established overnight but evolve over time.

With the aforesaid unfettered freedom, complete autonomy to the board of governors and no control of the central government over universities for innovation, this bill provides an alternative route of the Foreign Educational Institutions (FEI) Bill 2010 to foreign universities and private players for establishing their campuses in India⁶⁵. They will not be required to acquire the (discredited) deemed universities status. This alternative route is going to give them greater power, freedom and prestige, with the removal of most of the restrictions that are proposed in the foreign educational institutions bill. Only the predatory elements will benefit from this bill, not the people of India.

6. In Conclusion

The UPA-2 government is changing the entire framework of higher education system in the country without required consultation and debate and with tremendous haste without any regard to opposition of academia and states. With ever growing strategic relationship with the USA in several fields, this government is also under its pressure and also of other developed countries including UK. These countries are looking for alternative destinations for export of their higher education and do business so that their crisis-ridden higher education systems could be bailed out. The Prime Minister and HRD Minister are already engaged in high level talks with their counterparts in USA and UK in this regard.

In the new framework which will facilitate trade in higher education, there will be no social control over higher education institutions and no regulation of admission, fees, content of courses, examination, service conditions of teachers and other employees ignoring larger issues of social justice and academic accountability. For adjudication of disputes, teachers or other employees will be stopped at the tribunal level and they will be denied their constitutional right to take recourse to high courts. There will be no remedial mechanism for the solution of problems of students. Instead of giving higher education institutions freedom to regulate themselves on the basis of some guidelines, they will be mandatorily accredited. However, the central government can exempt the institutions from this mandatory provision which will help the foreign educational institutions interested in coming to India and set up their shops.

The foreign educational institutions will launch courses which the market needs, create false impression about their courses through advertisements, charge exorbitantly high fees for courses which have immediate employment potential. Since competition entails reduction in costs, infrastructure, laboratories and libraries will find least investment and the teachers and non-teaching staff will be appointed without necessary qualifications on such terms which will be exploitative as is in existence in most private institutions in the country today. The Universities for Innovation Bill will provide an alternative route to foreign universities for establishing their campuses in India. This route will give them greater power, freedom and prestige with the removal of most of the restrictions, proposed in the foreign educational institutions bill.

An all powerful commission is sought to be created for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education including starting of a university negating the role of state governments and academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas, states and country. With this single-window system, the foreign educational institutions will find it easy to start their shops in the country.

Under the neo-liberal agenda of the UPA-2 government, the cherished function of higher education, for the search, creation and dissemination of knowledge and for instilling sensitivity or social awareness in its students in India is under fire today. With new agenda of the government in the name of expanding higher education and a series of bills, our higher education system is being thrown in to the hands of private players both local and foreign for its trade and all round privatization and commercialization. This will lead to the dismantling of the state funded higher education system.

As citizens of India, we have to ensure that the Government takes care of public interests and act to protect higher education from the predatory elements that preach the ideology of the marketplace as the solution to every issue. Otherwise, the country would be dependent on developed countries for its requirements in qualified manpower essential for it’s all round development. It is the responsibility of the whole society to rise to the occasion and take measures so that the process of dismantling the higher education system in the country is reversed.

References:

1. Vijender Sharma, February 10, 2002, “WTO, GATS and Future of Higher Education in India” (Part-1) People’s Democracy, Vol. XXVI, No. 06,. URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2002/feb10/02102002_wto_edu.htm, And Part-2, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXVI, No. 07, February 17.   URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2002/feb17/02172002_wto_educ_2.htm
2. Joshi, M.M., October 5-9, 1998, “Higher Education in India: Vision and Action – Country Paper”, Presented at UNESCO World conference on Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century, Paris. URL: http://www.education.nic.in/unhighedu.asp
3. Government of India, April 2000, “A Policy Framework for Reforms in Education”, a report submitted by special subject group on ‘Policy Framework for Private Investment in Education, Health and Rural Development’ constituted by the Prime Minister’s Council on Trade and Industry with Mukesh Ambani (Convenor) and Kumarmangalam Birla (Member), New Delhi. URL: http://indiaimage.nic.in/pmcouncils/reports/education/
4. Vijender Sharma, March 25, 2001, “Reject Ambani-Birla Report on Education”, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXV, No. 12. URL:http://pd.cpim.org/2001/march25/march25_vijender.htm
5. The World Bank, January 01, 2002, “Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education” Washington, D.C.http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/ 0,,contentMDK:20283509~menuPK:617592~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~the Site PK:282386,00.html
6. Vijender Sharma, July 25, 2004, “Withdraw UGC’s Model Act For All Universities”, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXVIII, No. 30. URL:http://pd.cpim.org/2004/0725/07252004_vijendra%20sharma.htm
7. University Grants Commission, October 2003, “Towards Formulation of Model Act for Universities of the 21^st Century in India – A Concept Paper”.   URL:http://www.ugc.ac.in/policy/model_university.html
8. University Grants Commission, “UGC’s Vision & Strategy for X^thPlan Part-I”. http://www.ugc.ac.in/financialsupport/vision.html
9. Vijender Sharma, , December 21, 2003,  “UGC’s Model Act For 21st Century Universities In India:  Desperate ‘Act’ For  Commercialisation of Higher Education”, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXVII,No. 51, Part-1, http://pd.cpim.org/2003/1221/12212003_%20vijender%20sharma.htm, and People’s Democracy, Vol. XXVII, No. 52. December 28, Part-2, http://pd.cpim.org/2003/1228/12282003_vijender.htm
10. Government of India, Department of Commerce, August 24, 2005, “India’s Revised Offer on Trade in Services ”. URL:http://commerce.nic.in/trade/sub_tnsOIND_rev.1.pdf
11. Government of India, September 2006, “Higher Education in India and GATS: An Opportunity”, A Consultation Paper, Department of Commerce. URL:  http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/services/Consultation_paper_on_Education_GATS.pdf
12. Vijender Sharma, October 29, 2006, “Higher Education in India and GATS: A Disastrous Proposal” People’s Democracy, Vol. XXX, No. 44, 2006. URL:http://pd.cpim.org/2006/1029/10292006_vijendra%20sharma.htm
13. Government of India, June 26, 2009, “100 Days Programme of HRD Ministry”. http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=49413
14. Nicholas Johnson, Phil Oliff, and Erica Williams August 4, 2010, “An update on state budget cuts”, Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities, 820 First Street NE, Suite 510, Washington, DC 20002.                  URL: http://www.cbpp.org/cms/index.cfm?fa=view&id=1214
15. Lawrence J Speer, September 19, 2010, “US: Recession leads MIT to consider paywall”, , Issue: 140, University World News. URL: http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100918074309955&mode=print
16. Malia Wollan, , December 10, 2009, “26 Students Arrested in Protest Over Tuition Increases”, The New Yok Times. URL:http://www.nytimes.com/2009/12/11/education/11arrest.html_r=1&ref=education
17. Jessy McKinley, March 5, 2010 “California students protest education cuts”, The New York Times. URL:              http://www.nytimes.com/2010/03/05/education/05protests.html
18. Paige Chapman and Eric Kelderman, October 7, 2010, “At Rallies Across the Country, Students Turn Out in Defense of Public Education, The Chronicle of Higher Education. URL:http://chronicle.com/article/Students-Turn-Out-in-Defense/124853/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
19. Jens Erik Gould, Nov. 21, 2011, “A Sleepy Campus in Crisis: Pepper Spray at UC Davis Sparks Online Uproar, Calls for a Chancellor’s Resignation”. URL: http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2099919,00.html
20. Jennifer Medina, May 5, 2012, “At California State, Protesters Start a Fast”, The New York Times. URL: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/06/us/california-state-students-plan-to-fast-in-protest-over-cuts.html
21. Jeanne Whalen, June 7, 2010, “Budget Cuts Rankle U.K. Universities” the Wall Street Journal, URL:http://online.wsj.com/article/NA_WSJ_PUB:SB100014240527487039612045752 80572262014354.html#articleTabs%3Darticle
22. Gary Eason, December 23, 2009, “Universities’ annual funding reduced by £398m”, BBC News Wednesday. URL:http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/education/8427546.stm
23. Graem Paton, Mar 18, 2010 “Warning over university budget cuts” The Telegraph. URL:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7465922/Warning-over-university-budget-cuts.html
24. Graem Paton, Mar 18, 2010 “Students ‘graduating with £20,000 debts” The Telegraph. URLhttp://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7466233/Students-graduating-with-20000-debts.html
25. Graem Paton, Feb 11, 2010 “Student tuition fees ‘should rise above £5,000”, The Telegraph. URL:http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7205882/Student-tuition-fees-should-rise-above-5000.html
26. BBC News, August 5, 2010 “Budget cuts ‘will lead to university closures”. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10881360
27. Nicola Woolcock , May 5, 2010 “Universities and colleges go on strike over swingeing funding cuts”, The Times (The Sunday Times). URL:http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/education/article7116175.ece
28. BBC News, June 21, 2010 “Protest at education funding cuts”. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10328013
29. Graeme Paton, 15 October 2010, “Universities ‘face closure over £4.2bn cuts’” The Telegraph, UK.http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/8066406/Universities-face-closure-over-4.2bn-cuts.html
30. Sarah Purvis, 13 October 2010, “NUS to escalate opposition to education cuts”, The Journal, UK. http://www.journal-online.co.uk/article/6946-nus-to-escalate-opposition-to-education-cuts
31. The Guardian News Blog Live, “Student tuition fees protests – Wednesday 9 November 2011”. URL: http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/blog/2011/nov/09/student-tuition-fees-protests-live-blog
32. PIB, October 15, 2009, “India US Education Council Proposed to be set up, Shri Kapil Sibal Meets US Under Secretary Of State William Burns”, URL: http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=53216
33. IANS, November 25, 2009, “Manmohan Singh-Barack Obama joint statement, India and the US: partnership for a better world”. URL: http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/text-of-manmohan-singh-barack-obama-joint-statement_100280023.html
34. Indiaedunews, June 03, 2010, “Kapil Sibal meets Hillary Clinton, discuss Indo-US education council”,http://www.indiaedunews.net/International/Kapil_Sibal_meets_ Hillary_Clinton,_discuss_Indo-US_education_council_11782/
35. Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, June 4, 2010, “Partnership Of Democracies”, Times of Indiahttp://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Partnership-Of-Democracies/articleshow/6008336.cms
36. US Department of State, September 17, 2010, “The Higher Education Roundtable Hosted by the Bureau of South and Central Asia Affairs (SCA)”. URL: http://www.state.gov/r/pa/prs/ps/2010/09/147324.htm
37. Alya Mishra, August 8, 2010, “India-UK: Equal partners in education and research”. Issue: 134, University World News,http://www.universityworldnews.com/article.php?story=20100806175437252&mode=print
38. The Hindu news report, “U.S.-India Joint Statement on Higher Education Cooperation”, October 14, 2011. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/news/resources/article2537074.ece
39. “Opening Statement of Minister for Human Resource Development Mr. Kapil Sibal at the U.S.-India Higher Education Dialogue” June 12, 2012 http://www.indianembassy.org/prdetail1979/opening-statement-of-minister-for-human-resource-development-mr.-kapil-sibal-at-the-u.s.-india-higher-education-dialogue
40. Aarti Dhar, June 1, 2012 “Foreign Universities Bill: government trying ‘backdoor’ entry” New Delhi, The Hindu. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article3477233.ece
41. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, May 3, 2010, “The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry & Operations) Bill, 2010”, Introduced in Lok Sabha. URL: http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name=Sections&id=6&category=43
42. Vijender Sharma, May 23, 2010, “The FEI Bill, 2010: An instrument to kill higher education”, Part-I, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 21, , http://pd.cpim.org/2010/0523_pd/05232010_15.html, and Part-II, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 22, May 30, 2010,http://pd.cpim.org/2010/0530_pd/05302010_15.html
43. Geeta Anand and John Hechinger, June 11, 2009, “Indian Minister Seeks to Ease Limits on Foreign Schools”, The Wall Street Journal. URL:http://online.wsj.com/article/SB124465950779502993.html?mod=googlenews_wsj#printMode
44. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, May 3, 2010, “The Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical Educational Institutions, Medical Educational Institutional Institutions and Universities Bill, 2010” Introduced in Loka Sabha.http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name=Sections&id=6&category=43
45. University Grants Commission, ” Notice: No.F.2-19/2007 (MPC), IIPM is not a recognized University”, Retrieved: 13 October 2010, URL: http://www.ugc.ac.in/notices/notice.html
46. All India Council of Technical Education, 2007 “List of Institutions approved by AICTE under Foreign University Regulations”, as per its website accessed on 25 April. URL:http://www.aicte.ernet.in/aicte/document/list_forg.doc
47. Vijender Sharma, June 21, 2009, “FEI Bill Jeopardises Our Higher Education System”, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIII, No. 25. http://pd.cpim.org/2009/0621_pd/06212009_11.html
48. M.A. Baby, April 3, 2010, “The Bill on prohibition of unfair practices and inclusive higher education”, The Hindu.URL:http://www.thehindu.com/2010/04/03/stories/2010040355841300.htm
49. Jandhyala B G Tilak, September 18, 2010, “A Weak Attempt to Curb Unfair Practices in Higher Education”, Economic and Political weekly, Vol. XLV, No. 35, URL:http://beta.epw.in/newsItem/comment/188754/
50. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, May 3, 2010, “The Educational Tribunals, Bill, 2010”, Introduced in Lok Sabha.http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name=Sections&id=6&category=43
51. Govt of India, August 20, 2010, Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee On Human Resource Development, “225^th Report On The Educational Tribunals Bill, 2010”, presented to Rajya Sabha.http://164.100.47.5/newcommittee/reports/EnglishCommittees/Committee%20on%20HRD/225.pdf
52. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, 3 May 2010, “The National Accreditation Regulatory Authority For Higher Educational Institutions Bill, 2010”. Introduced in Loka Sabha. http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name=Sections&id=6&category=43
53. NAAC, 1994, The Theme Paper on ‘Accreditation and Assessment Council: System and Modus Operandi’ presented at the Vice Chancellors’ conference at Pune on November 13, 1994, Journal of Higher Education, Vol. 17, No. 4, pp.565-573.
54. NAAC, 1999, ‘Institutional Accreditation of Universities’ and ‘Institutional Accreditation of Affiliated/Constituent Colleges’, Bangalore.
55. Reports in The Times of India on 18.12.1999.
56. Eric Kelderman, September 23, 2010, “Two For-Profit Education Companies Seek to Move West for Accreditation”, The Chronicle of Higher Education.  URL: http://chronicle.com/article/2-For-Profit-Education/124590/?sid=at&utm_source=at&utm_medium=en
57. Govt. of India, MHRD, 2009, Yashpal Committee Report to Advise on ‘Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education. http://www.education.nic.in/HigherEdu/YPC-Report.pdf
58. Vijender Sharma, November 2000, ‘Assessment and Accreditation: Closure of Some olleges and Universities Inevitable’, Chapter 6, Book “Crisis of Higher Education In India”, A CPI(M) Publication, New Delhi. http://indiaeducrisis.wordpress.com/
59. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, February 2000, “The Draft National Commission for Higher Education and Research Bill, 2010”. URL: http:// www.education.nic.in/UHE/NCHERAct-2010.pdf
60. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, “The Draft Higher Education and Research Bill, 2010”, Agenda & Background Notes for the 57th Meeting of Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), 19th June 2010. URL: http://www.education.nic.in/CABE/57thCABEAgenda-Background.pdf
61. Vijender Sharma, June 06, 2010, “The Revised draft Bill for NCHER: Towards Complete Control over Higher Education”, Part-1, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 23, URL http://pd.cpim.org/2010/0606_pd/06062010_15.html, and Part-2, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 24, June 13, 2010, URL:http://pd.cpim.org/2010/0613_pd/06132010_8.html
62. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, December 28, 2011, “The Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011.” Introduced in Rajya Sabha. URL: http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Higher%20education/high%20edu.pdf
63. Vijender Sharma, July 22, 2012, “The Higher Education And Research Bill, 2011: Towards Complete Control over Higher Education,” People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXVI, No. 29, URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2012/0722_pd/07222012_8.html
64. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, May 21, 2012, “The Universities for Research and Innovation Bill, 2012”, Introduced in Lok Sabha. URL: http://www.prsindia.org/uploads/media/Universities%20for%20Research%20and%20Innovation/Universities%20for%20Research%20and%20Innovation%20Bill,%202012.pdf
65. Vijender Sharma, July 15, 2012, “The Universities for Research and Innovation Bill, 2012: Alternate Route to Foreign and Private Universities,” People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXVI, No. 28, URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2012/0715_pd/07152012_5.html

This paper  is updated as on 12 August 2012 and is a revised version of the paper published in the special issue on education of Social Scientist, Vol. 38, No. 9-12, Sept–Dec. 2010.

Author’s Email and Blog:

vijensharma@yahoo.co.in and vijendersharma@gmail.com

http://vijendersharma.wordpress.com

 Vijender Sharma

THE central government had constituted a task force on September 7, 2009 with joint secretary (higher education) as its convener to advise the central government for the establishment of a commission for higher education and research as recommended by the Yashpal committee and National Knowledge Commission. On the first of February 2010, the Ministry Of Human Resource Development (MHRD) uploaded on its website the draft of National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) Bill 2010, as approved by the task force and sought “feedback and suggestions from all stakeholders.”

AWAY FROM AUTONOMY, ON TO CENTRALISATION

It received strong criticism and opposition from students, academia, people’s representatives and several states. It was further revised within three months and re-titled as Higher Education and Research (HER) Bill 2010, and this draft bill was circulated selectively for seeking opinion. The second revised draft bill also met with strong opposition because the main issues of concern remained in the new HER Bill as well. It was re-modified as The Higher Education and Research (THER) Bill 2011 and was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on December 28, 2011 by the minister of human resource development. It has been referred to department related standing committee on human resource development.

As one reads this bill, one finds that this is not to “promote” but undermine “the autonomy of higher educational institutions.” This is to restructure higher education system for competitive global environment and not for catering to the aspirations of our youth. This is not for helping state governments to strengthen higher education in their states, but to snatch away from them even whatever their powers were left after education was included in the concurrent list of the constitution of India during infamous Emergency. This is a bill to create an all-powerful commission — National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) — for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education. This is a bill to undermine the powers of the parliament, state legislatures and representatives of the people at large to opine and decide the education policy and administration of institutions of higher education in India.

When read along with five other higher education related bills introduced in parliament, which are basically to promote the entry of private players in higher education, both domestic and foreign, in a big way, this bill seems to provide them with a single window system for their easy entry in education business.

The provisions of this bill shall apply to all the higher educational institutions and universities other than those institutions engaged mainly in agricultural education and research. The provisions of this act shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything inconsistent therewith contained in any other law, other than the Companies Act 1956. The central government can also supersede the commission and all bodies under it if it is not discharging its functions under this bill. The commission will also submit to the central government its regulations, policies or activities for reporting to parliament or for making the policy.

UNFOUNDED  PRESUMPTIONS

It is presumed that abolishing the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) and National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE), and establishing an eight member commission, will lead to “renovation and rejuvenation” of higher education. It is also presumed that the selection committee, consisting of the prime minister, speaker of the Lok Sabha, the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and two ministers in charge of higher education and medical education, will chose seven members, most competent for “renovation and rejuvenation” of higher education, and these will be the best brains and the only brains to shape the future of higher education in India. It is further presumed that the ills of the UGC, AICTE and NCTE and prevalent corruption in these institutions would never infect the proposed NCHER.

In fact, the concept of an NCHER was ill-thought out by the Yashpal committee itself while responding to the neo-liberal agenda of the central government. A similar structure was proposed by the National Knowledge Commission led by Sam Pitroda, with market oriented motives. Both were strongly rejected by “all stakeholders.” The Yashpal committee had recommended that the proposed NCHER should be a constitutional body, like the Election Commission, the provision for which was there in the earlier two draft bills. But in the present bill, it has been withdrawn.

The central government will appoint a commission called “National Commission for Higher Education and Research” with its headquarters in the national capital region. It will be consisting of a chairperson, three whole-time members and three part-time members, to be appointed, by the president, on the recommendations of the selection committee as mentioned above.

The chairperson or a member of the national commission for human resources for health will be an ex officio member.

COMMISSION OF UNEQUALS

There are four distinctions between members of the commission:

(1) While the chairperson and the whole-time members have to be persons “possessing leadership abilities and proven capacity for institution building” with 25 years of experience, other part-time members have to be with “proven contribution to economic and social development” with 20 years of experience.

(2) The chairperson and whole-time members will be salaried employee, and other part-time and ex-officio members will be allowance holders only.

(3) The term of office for the chairperson and all other members except the ex-officio one will be five years. While the chairperson and whole-time members will cease to hold office after attaining the age of 70 years, there is no such restriction on part-time members.

(4) The chairperson and all other members will have to disclose their interests of whatever kind in any educational institution and will not sit in the meetings in which the matters of such institutions come for discussions, the chairperson and whole-time members will not be allowed to take employment for five years after their ceasing to hold office in any educational institution, whether public or private. But there are no such restrictions on part-time and ex-officio members. This also means that any part-time member may not be initially having interest in an educational institution but may later develop interest in one after having dealt with its case, and also can take up a job after ceasing to be a member of the commission.

With these distinctions, the commission itself will not be a cohesive body and will be composed of unequal members. Thus, practically, four members will control the commission and part-time members will be enjoying certain immunities.

CENTRALISED STRUCTURE

The commission will take all steps (Section 16), in consultation with the General Council, for promotion and coordination of higher education and research. It will be responsible for promoting accountability framework in regulatory systems, development of a curriculum framework with specific reference to new or emerging or inter-disciplinary fields of knowledge, development of a flexible academic framework, the exercise of choice by students for self-development, joint and cross-disciplinary programmes between and amongst the universities like those in meta-universities and other higher educational institutions, code of good practices, coordination between universities and higher educational institutions, and industry, encourage universities for enabling colleges to evolve into universities or institutions with an authorisation to award degrees by itself, etc.

It will make regulations (Section 17) with the approval of the General Council regarding the norms and standards of academic quality for accreditation, norms and processes for establishment and winding up of a higher educational institutions and university, norms and processes for permitting a university or an higher educational institution to award any degree and to enrol students in any course or programme of study for the first time, norms of academic quality for a university to affiliate colleges, the entry and operation of foreign educational institutions, norms and mechanisms for transparent, efficient and accountable governance in universities and other higher educational institutions, standards for leadership positions for appointment as vice chancellor of a university or the head of a central educational institution not being a college, allocation of grants to higher educational institutions and universities, etc. It will also create an enabling environment for universities to emerge as autonomous, self-regulatory bodies.

The commission will also advise the central government, state governments and professional bodies on policies relating to higher education and research in any field of knowledge.

The commission will maintain a “directory of academics” prepared by the collegium for appointment as vice chancellor or head of a central educational institution. It will recommend a panel of three names from this directory for the post of vice chancellor of a central university or central educational institution.

All these are the functions and responsibilities of the academia and academic councils of the universities which are being taken away. The commission will issue directions to the universities and institutions of higher education to follow its norms. Thus it will be an all powerful body for the higher education in the country.

CONTRADICTORY PROVISIONS

Interestingly, the measures taken by the commission under Section 16 will not be “obligatory for higher education institutions to adopt but will act as reference for them to advance quality, access and inclusion” [Section 16(3)]. This provision appears to have been made to thwart the criticism that the central government was trying to over centralise higher education and taking away the powers of the states.

This is clear from Section 17 of the bill. According to its Section 17(1), the commission will frame regulations to determine, coordinate and maintain standards of higher education and research. Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing provisions [Section 17(2)], the commission will have the power to regulate almost everything related to higher education institution as pointed out above. However, the commission, under Section 17(3), will create an “enabling environment for universities to emerge as autonomous and self-regulatory bodies.”

The provisions of Sections 16(3), 17(2) and 17(3) are self-contradictory. Once the regulations are made under the Section 17(2), the provision of Section 16(3) will not hold good. If the universities have to “emerge as autonomous and self regulatory bodies”, then there is no need to vest the commission with so much power. In fact, given the provisions in Sections 16(3) and 17(3), if they are really meant for implementation, the national commission of higher education and research is not required at all. What is actually required is a set of guidelines for helping the universities in becoming “autonomous and self-regulatory bodies.”

MARGINALISING  THE STATES

The commission will prepare, every five years, a report on the state of higher education and research in every state and its relation to national trends. The governor of every state will get such report laid before the legislative assembly along with an explanatory memorandum on the action taken or proposed to be taken on each recommendation made by the commission. Thus the state governments will be forced to implement the agenda set by the commission and the powers of the state legislatures will be restricted.

The central government will prepare, from time to time, in consultation with state governments and commission, a national policy for the development of higher education and research. This policy will guide the commission. The central government will also inform the commission of all decisions taken by it on matters of policy concerning higher education and research. However, the state governments have not been given any power under which it can inform the commission about its decision regarding higher education in their states. These provisions will continue to marginalise state governments in the field of higher education.

The powers of the state governments have also been limited as they can appoint vice chancellors of their universities only when they satisfy the standards set by the commission.

GENERAL COUNCIL

The General Council will consist of about 90 members including one representative of each state and union territory such as vice chairperson of state higher education council or vice chancellor of a state university, all heads of professional bodies and research councils, and one central university vice chancellor, one director or head each of IIT, IIM and institution of national importance in medical education (in rotation), one national law university vice chancellor, and ten academics from such fields like agriculture, medicine, environment, economics, Indian languages, etc, three persons from the associations of industry, trade and commerce, two persons from NGOs, directors of CBSE and NCERT and a principal of an autonomous college. The General Council will meet once in six months. It does not have any representative from the real stakeholders in higher education like students and teachers.

The General Council will advise the commission on enhancing access, inclusion and equity, connecting higher education and research to the practice of professions, measures to remove imbalances (including those relating to regions, academic disciplines, gender and other socio-economic factors), adequacy of funding of higher education, statement and report prepared by the commission, and on the course of reforms to rejuvenate higher education and research.

The General Council is just an advisory and recommendatory body. In the HER Bill 2010, the General Council could amend every measure or regulation proposed by the commission by two-thirds majority of its members present and voting. Such amendments were to be binding on the commission. This provision has been withdrawn.

COLLEGIUM OF SCHOLARS

The central government will constitute a ‘collegium of scholars’ with 30 fellows who will be of “integrity and eminence” in higher education and research. The first fellows will be persons who are or have been national research professors or recipients of Nobel Prize and Fields medal. Their membership will be for life. If no such person is willing to be a fellow, the selection committee headed by the prime minister will nominate ten persons of “integrity and eminence” who will be the first fellows of the collegium. Their term will be for a period of ten years. These fellows will propose the rest of the fellows for a ten year term.

The collegium will advise the commission a vision on the emerging trends in different fields of knowledge. It will propose the names of three persons for the appointments of chairperson and other members of the commission. It will recommend persons having prescribed qualification and experience for inclusion in the directory of academics. It will assess the performance of the commission and also make recommendations in respect of the statements and reports of the commission. Its functions will be performed by the chair or co-chair selected by majority from amongst fellows of the collegium for a term of two years.

 NO NEW UNIVERSITY WITHOUT NCHER’S NOD

Every university empowered by or under any law intending to enrol the students for the first time in any course or programme of study has to intimate such intention to the commission, in accordance with the regulations which have yet to be framed, along with an assessment report from a registered accreditation agency. The commission will either accept or reject such request within 120 days. Thus, a new university can start its operation only after getting acceptance from the commission. It means that the states cannot start universities unless permitted by the commission to do so.

It has been further made clear that no university or institution can start conferring or awarding a degree unless it has been “declared” to do so by the commission. Once it comes into being, the powers of the state legislatures to start new universities will be seriously eroded. They have to be established in accordance with the norms and processes to be specified by the commission later. And, in order to start functioning they have to get the permission from the commission to award any degree.

RESEARCH BOARD

The central government will also constitute a 13-member board for research promotion and innovation. The board shall recommend measures to the commission to promote and facilitate research in the fields of knowledge in higher educational institutions including research in recognised health educational institutions.

The board will also identify and recommend to the commission to grant funding for competitive, merit-based proposals by higher educational institutions and universities for research and related infrastructure in such institutions.

CORPORATE CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

Under this bill, the central government will establish the higher education financial services corporation. This corporation will have an 11-member board of directors. The chairperson or a member of the commission will be the non-executive chairperson of the corporation. It will include only two representatives in rotation from amongst the representatives of the states in General Council. It will also include one nominee each from members of the General Council from professional bodies, research councils and vice chancellors, and two nominees of the central government. It will also include two persons as expert in finance, banking and management and a managing director to be appointed as whole-time officers of the corporation.

The corporation will notify its memorandum and articles of association. It will disburse grants to higher education institutions in accordance with the regulations yet to be made. It will also give proposals of grants to be allocated to each higher education institutions. It will be guided by the commission and the managing director will be responsible for the disbursal of grants. Thus corporate culture in funding of institutions of higher education is being developed.

VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

The central government will establish several “qualifications advisory councils” in vocational education. Each qualifications advisory council will be headed by a chairperson and eight other members. Of the eight other members, two shall be from amongst heads of state councils of vocational education, two shall be from amongst members of the General Council with exposure to vocational education, one shall represent trade unions and two shall represent associations of industry, trade or commerce.

Each Qualifications Advisory Council, constituted for specific skill areas, shall advise and make recommendations on qualifications framework in such skill areas, standards of academic quality and study leading to the award of any diploma, elements of curriculum and syllabus, etc.

RETROGRADE PROPOSAL

On what basis, the central government thinks that the ailments of the UGC, AICTE and NCTE would not affect the NCHER. After all, these bodies were also established with similar intentions for which the NCHER is being proposed! The understanding of the eight members of the commission will decide what should happen in the field of higher education in India. If this all-powerful commission decides to direct the universities to look towards market for its requirements including general funds, then what would happen to our higher education system? The need is to make these bodies function democratically and efficiently, eradicate corruption prevalent in them, make them accountable to the people and serve the cause of education.

We have enough experience of how the education curriculum and structural framework of educational institutions have been communalised. We also have experience that policy thrust of these bodies and education ministry changes with the change in persons. Some of the issues which would fasten the process of commercialisation of higher education taken up by the present human resource development minister on priority basis were not the priorities of the previous ministry.

The proposal of the central government to establish the NCHER, which will have control over all functions of universities and higher education institutions including policy framing, their regulation and financing, reflects the tendency of the central government towards centralisation of higher education. The NCHER can certainly not be most competent for “renovation and rejuvenation” of higher education, and one having the best and the only brains to shape the future of higher education in the country. It negates the role of the state governments and the academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas and in the country as a whole. It will prove to be retrograde for the development of higher education in India. Therefore, all stakeholders need to oppose the central government’s move of establishing such a commission.

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXVI, No. 29, July 22, 2012

Vijender Sharma

THE union minister of human resources development introduced in the Lok Sabha the ‘Universities for Research and Innovation Bill, 2012’ on May 21, 2012. According to the statement of objects and reasons of the Bill, “if India has to achieve a leadership role in the future global knowledge economy, mere public expenditure on higher education is not going to be sufficient and a substantial part of the funding must flow into the education sector through not-for-profit private participation.” Therefore, these universities for research and innovation will be either fully public funded or fully private funded or in public-private partnership.

These universities are (supposedly) intended to make India the global knowledge hub and will set benchmarks for excellence for other central and state universities. These universities will be based on different themes, focussing on “one area or problem of significance to India and build an ecosystem of research and teaching around different related disciplines.”

ESTABLISHMENT BY NOTIFICATIONS

These universities will be set up not through acts of parliament or state legislatures, but through notifications. The central government will issue notifications establishing universities for innovation, specifying their names and location of their headquarters. The universities for innovation will have all-India jurisdictions with freedom to establish campuses and study centres anywhere in Indiaand foreign countries.

These notifications will be based on memoranda of agreement (MoA) between the central government and the promoters of such universities. The definition of promoters includes companies, trusts and societies, registered under Indian laws, which are “organisations of repute” having “financial capability and expertise” and devoting themselves to “proven innovation in research.” It also includes foreign universities established outside India for at least fifty years and recognised as “universities of repute” through “internationally accepted standards.” It also includes Indian universities established for at least twenty five years and recognised as “universities of repute” through accreditation.

MEMORANDA OF AGREEMENT

The promoters of these universities shall submit to the central government a vision plan, a memorandum of agreement and a project report. These shall include the objects of such proposed universities, their names and locations, capital investment plans, sources of financing the capital investment, infrastructure, standards of higher education, programmes of study, and constitution of the board of governors and their qualifications, etc. The promoter shall also include in the MoA, (i) the financial contribution, if any, expected from the central government, and (ii) the availability of land and the expected support from the central government in obtaining land for the establishment of such proposed university.

The government shall display the memorandum of agreement for 60 days for suggestions from the public. It shall constitute a committee of experts for advice on the competency and expertise of the promoter and vision plan. The application shall be either approved or rejected within six months, as far as practicable. If the government accepts the application, the memorandum of agreement shall need the approval of parliament. The central government will publish every memorandum of agreement in the official gazette to take effect.

UNFETTERED FREEDOM

It is expected that these universities will provide teaching, research facilities and innovation experience of standards comparable or “surpass the needs of global competitiveness of the education system in various fields of knowledge.” These universities will enjoy unfettered freedom in financial administration, academic and other matters.

They will be free to evolve their own admission criteria, determine the nomenclature of their degrees and other academic distinctions awarded by them irrespective of the provisions of the UGC Act, decide their own fee structure and other charges, appoint teachers, and determine their salaries and service conditions. They will also be free to appoint faculty by invitation and give them differential salaries and perks. At least half of the students admitted to these universities will have to be Indian citizens and the rest could be foreign. Thus the cap of additional 15 per cent of seats for foreign students set by the University Grants Commission (UGC) will not be applicable to these universities.

The universities for innovation shall be exempt from reservation policy. It will be applicable only to public funded universities for innovation and that too in accordance with the presence of only Indian students.

Each university for innovation will establish a university endowment fund with such initial corpus as provided in the MoA. Therefore, different universities will have different initial corpus funds. These so called not-for-profit legal entities will not be under the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG). They will appoint their own auditors. They will have all financial powers for acquiring and disposing properties. The surplus in the revenue of these universities, after meeting all expenditures, can only be invested in their growth and development. Given the freedom to establish campuses and study centres in foreign countries which will function “in accordance with provisions of the laws of such foreign country,” the promoters will be able to appropriate the surplus in revenue. These provisions give indication that these universities will actually be profit-making entities.

ALL POWERS TO BOARD OF GOVERNORS

The universities for innovation would enjoy complete autonomy in the constitution of the board of governors, the members of which will be appointed or nominated or sponsored by the promoters as provided in the MoA. There will be no nominee of the government on the board of governors despite the fact that the central government will be funding them. However, at least one-third of its members will be from teachers or officers of the concerned university for innovation. Not less than half the members will be independent persons and innovators and industry leaders. One-half of such independent persons will be women.

Apart from other functions, the board of governors will decide the annual budget estimates, qualifications and other eligibility criteria and the processes for appointment to the posts of vice chancellor, professors emeritus, professors, associate professors, assistant professors and other officers. The chancellor of each university for innovation will be appointed by the promoter. The board of governors will choose the vice chancellor on the recommendation of search-cum-selection committee who could even be a foreign academician. The board of governors will have freedom to appoint academic boards, schools of studies, etc. The board of governors shall be responsible for all policies, management affairs and exercise all powers.

The board of governors of any university for innovation shall have the autonomy to enact, by statutes, its own policy to attract the highly qualified and talented academics having sufficient teaching or research experience from any part of the country or abroad, and to offer them emoluments and perks commensurate with their standing. This will include appointment by invitation of any person to accept the post of professor or associate professor and appointment by invitation of any graduating student with high academic distinction demonstrating exceptional talent for research as assistant professor on any terms and conditions.

EXEMPTED FROM ACCOUNTABILITY

While enjoying full autonomy — academic, management and financial — these universities will have no accountability. They will have full freedom to determine and receive payment of fees and other charges for instruction and other services provided by them. The standards of teaching and research are expected to be higher than the minimum standards determined by the statutory regulatory body in the relevant field. Where no standards have been determined, the standards have to be equivalent or higher than the standards of the best international universities, about which nothing is provided in the bill.

Giving all information about standards and fee etc on the website is enough for their accountability. If any dispute arises between such a university and the statutory regulatory authority with regard to the standards etc, it will be referred to a committee of three persons and not even to the much trumpeted educational tribunals. Such a committee will include one person each nominated by the concerned innovation university and statutory regulatory authority while the third person will be nominated by another innovation university. Thus the representatives from the innovation universities will be in a majority. The decision of the committee will be final and binding. However, if there is any violation of its declared standards, no punishment penalty has been prescribed in the bill as has been provided in other recently introduced education related bills like foreign educational institutions bill.

PRIVATE VARSITIES FINANCED BY CENTRE

The central government will give grants to each university for funding research and the promotion and development of higher education. It will also give grants to support fellowships or scholarships instituted by it, including fellowships or scholarships for the socially and educationally backward students. The central government’s public funding will be in the form of land, contributions to capital investment, grants for supporting research, and the promotion and development of higher education. The funding of universities of innovation by the central government will be the part of the MoA, as pointed out above.

These universities will be known as the institutions of national importance with full autonomy in all respects. These will be private universities financed by the central government. The central government will have neither general nor social control over them. The promoters will have their own agenda and vision, without any importance to national concerns. These universities will be for the elite and middle class of the country squeezing the requirements of higher education system in general and students in particular.

Each university will disclose to the central government about the new research leading to an intellectual property and apply for its protection. The government will pass on all profits or royalty earned to the university from such intellectual property, and it will be shared with the creator of the property. However, the central government may acquire the title of such intellectual property and restrict its publication or communication, which is considered as prejudicial to the interests of the security of India. It includes the intellectual property for making a product which relates to fissionable material, arms, ammunition, implements of war, etc. Thus all profits made through intellectual property, created by using public funds, will go to the coffers of the private university of innovation.

These universities will give their annual reports to the board of governors only and not to the central government. There is no provision in the bill under which the central government can inspect the affairs and functioning of these universities.

However, each university for innovation shall constitute a committee of experts after fifteen years of its establishment, and thereafter every ten years, for evaluating the functioning of the university.

PROMOTING COMMERCIALISATION

The wide-ranging freedom available to these universities, like differential salaries to teachers and fee and other charges etc, will set an example for all other institutions of higher education in the country to demand such freedom. Such freedom will only help private promoters, companies and foreign universities seeking to take advantage of the provisions of this bill.

There are no provisions in the bill for regulation of its admission process, courses, fees, examinations, service conditions and appointments of the teaching and non-teaching staffs. There is no provision under which the central government or any regulatory authority can inspect the affairs of these universities. Thus the central government will have neither general nor social control over these universities.

These universities will be outside the jurisdiction of the CAG. There will be no member of the central government on the board of governors. Any dispute between the statutory regulatory authority and the university of innovation in relation to standards will be referred only to a committee, not even to the proposed tribunals, the decision of which will be final and binding. There is no remedy proposed in the bill in relation to the disputes between students, teachers and other staff on the one hand and the universities of innovation on the other. This bill is most suited to private players in education and will give a fillip to commercialisation of higher education in the country. This bill will gravely affect our public funded system of higher education.

The ministry of human resources development (MHRD) has forgotten that great universities are not established; they grow to greatness. All universities are institutions for innovation. The government could only make some norms for world-class universities which could not be established overnight but evolve over time.

With the aforesaid unfettered freedom, complete autonomy to the board of governors and no control of the central government over universities for innovation, this bill provides an alternative route of the Foreign Educational Institutions (FEI) Bill 2010 to foreign universities and private players for establishing their campuses in India. They will not be required to acquire the (discredited) deemed universities status. This alternative route is going to give them greater power, freedom and prestige, with the removal of most of the restrictions that are proposed in the foreign educational institutions bill. Only the predatory elements will benefit from this bill, not the people of India.

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXVI, No. 28, July 15, 2012

Here’s an excerpt:

A New York City subway train holds 1,200 people. This blog was viewed about 4,000 times in 2011. If it were a NYC subway train, it would take about 3 trips to carry that many people.

Click here to see the complete report.

Vijender Sharma

Twenty-first century witnessed unprecedented demand for higher education in India: general as well as professional. Instead of meeting this demand and ensuring further growth of the country, the successive central governments, since 1990s – the beginning of the era of globalization, liberalization and privatization, started withdrawal from higher education. There are several reasons responsible for it which includes socio-economic policies adopted by the successive central governments, particularly since mid-eighties, the ideological commitments of the ruling classes, role of the judiciary, and vested interests of the business houses.

Since the beginning of this century, the country has witnessed three governments – led by NDA, UPA-1 and UPA-2. The neo-liberal policies adopted by these governments posed new challenges, economic, social, political and cultural, at a time when more and more private institutions of higher education are being established. Such challenges include issues of access, equity, funding, quality, cultural diversity, poverty and sustainable development. Recent policy decisions taken by the UPA-2 government in view of the recommendations of the CABE Committees, National Knowledge Commission and Yashpal Committee will also severely affect access and equity and put the issue of social justice in higher education in jeopardy. The policy decisions of these governments have led to aggressive commodification of higher education in the country.

Privatisation of Higher Education under NDA Regime

The BJP led NDA government at the centre (1998-2004) and the UGC resorted to several measures with ever-faster speed under the dictates of the World Bank and as a part of ongoing negotiations with the WTO on trade in services. Raising of fees, autonomy to institutions with practically no control over managements, relaxation in norms for granting deemed to be university status and funding linked to mandatory assessment and accreditation, were some of their decisions taken in order to usher in massive privatisation and commercialisation of higher education.

“Major efforts have been mounted for mobilisation of resources and it has been recommended that while the government should make a firm commitment to higher education, institutions of higher education should make efforts to raise their own resources by raising the fee levels, encouraging private donations and by generating revenues through consultancy and other activities,” said the then HRD minister, Murali Manohar Joshi in the Country Paper¹ presented in the UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education held at Paris, in 1998.  Justifying privatisation of higher education, he added, “It is not only justifiable but desirable to raise money from private sources in order to ease pressure on public spending.”

Ambani-Birla Report

Mukesh Ambani and Kumarmangalam Birla, in their Report² on “A Policy Framework for Reforms in Education” submitted to the prime minister’s Council on Trade and Industry in April 2000 considered education as a very profitable market. These two industrialists made a case for full cost recovery from students and immediate privatisation of several segments of higher education. The Ambani-Birla Report sought to convert the entire system of higher education in the country into a market where profit making would be the only consideration. If this Report was implemented, only those who could pay exorbitant amount of fees could have enrolled in higher education. For Ambani and Birla, education was a very profitable market which the corporate sector must control. In view of this, they wanted a legislation “banning any form of political activity on campuses of universities and educational institutions”. Even the normal trade union activities were not to be allowed. The Report was criticized by students, teachers, parents and people at large³.

Directions of the World Bank

In the wake of strong resistance to WTO-GATS and bitter struggles against privatization and commercialization of higher education, the World Bank came out with its Report ‘Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education’ published in 2002⁴.

The World Bank noted that reform proposals have been met with “fierce resistance and opposition.” In the formulation of a long-term vision for the country’s tertiary education system as a whole, it will “play a catalytic role by encouraging and facilitating the policy dialogue on tertiary education reforms. This can often be accomplished through preemptive information sharing and analytical work in support of national dialogue and goal-setting efforts, as well as through project preparation activities aimed at building stakeholder consensus during the project concept and appraisal phases. The Bank can bring to the same table stakeholders who would not normally converse and work together.”

With the diminishing State funding of tertiary education, a coherent policy framework, an enabling regulatory environment, and appropriate financial incentives, student mobility can be encouraged by developing open systems that offer recognition of relevant prior experience, degree equivalencies, credit transfer, tuition exchange schemes, access to national scholarships and student loans, and a comprehensive qualifications and lifelong-learning framework. The regulatory environment should be one, the World Bank suggested, that encouraged the private sector to expand access to good-quality tertiary education. Rules for the establishment of new institutions, including private and virtual ones, should be restricted to outlining minimum quality requirements and should not constitute barriers to entry. In the public sector, revenue may be generated from institutional assets, students and their families, and donations from third party contributors.

Therefore, the World Bank directed the governments of these countries to “put in place an enabling framework that encourages tertiary education institutions to be more innovative and more responsive to the needs of a globally competitive knowledge economy and to the changing labor market requirements for advanced human capital.”

The World Bank proposed to play a central role by facilitating policy dialogue and knowledge sharing, supporting reforms through programme and project lending, and promoting an enabling framework for the production of the global public goods crucial to the development of tertiary education⁵.

Having crippled the higher education system in India and other developing and transition countries, the World Bank evolved a ‘new role’ for itself in the higher education sector. But the prescriptions for the reforms in the higher education system were the same that the World Bank⁶ has been giving since 1986.

The Model Act for All Universities

The World Bank basically directed the governments of developing and transition countries to respond to the necessities of the globalisation, emerging new trends in the higher education sector mentioned above, and make an enabling framework common to the entire education system. In return, it promised to bring about consensus among the stakeholders so that new market-oriented policies are implemented and not opposed by anyone.

It is actually this background in which the then BJP led NDA Government responded to World Bank pressure through the University Grants Commission (UGC) which issued a Concept Paper⁷ in October 2003 entitled “Towards Formulation of Model Act for Universities of the 21^st Century in India” with a view “to prepare the Indian University system for the future.”

The Concept Paper noted, “Indian Universities, like their counterparts elsewhere in the world, have been performing many additional functions now a days, e.g., undertaking sponsored R&D and continuing education, providing knowledge-based advice and consultancy, preparation / publication of educational material like books / study reports / research papers and extending services to society. Of late, the worldwide   advances, particularly in new Information and Communication Technologies (ICT), are greatly influencing the University system in the country. However, major issues like size, access, equity, relevance, quality and resource constraints continue to dominate the working of Indian Universities.” Since the “Universities are becoming complex institutions”, an appropriate strategy needs to be adopted “for their governance, organization and management.”

Therefore, the Acts of Indian Universities should be changed “to bring in some uniformity in the working of Universities” through a Model Act framework, so that the Universities accept “the challenges of globalization to offer high quality education and other services in a competitive manner”. The new Acts of Universities would be “flexible and responsive to rapid changes taking place in the society (Read: market).” According to the Paper, the new common Act for all the universities would help the universities to benefit from ICT revolution and to “become competitive nationally and internationally” and help “India to become a Knowledge Super Power by the year 2020.”

The UGC expected that “early adoption of this Model Act by Universities in the country will enable them to meet the X-Plan Vision and Strategy of UGC and to keep pace with the worldwide changes taking place so rapidly in higher education and research.” This Vision and Strategy of the UGC was to prepare the Universities and institutions of higher education for privatization and commercialization, and to make them financially self-sufficient and respond to the market. This X-Plan document⁸ clearly stated, “In a way, India has partially privatized the higher education by initiating non-grantable teaching programmes and dual fees structure for professional subjects.”

By the exercise of formulating the Model Act, common for all the universities, the Central Government wanted to completely withdraw from the funding of the universities, colleges and institutions of higher education, to prepare them to be part of globalisation and face the consequences in the event of India becoming part of GATS and throw open its higher education sector to the transnational providers of education for profit-making, and become part of the business. As a result, a vast majority of students who come from the disadvantaged and weaker sections and the lower middle class would have been excluded from the benefits of higher education because these sections cannot bear the exorbitant cost of education^{9, 10}.

In order to create an environment for these purposes, the then BJP led NDA Government and UGC were working overtime for several years by reducing state funding of and limiting access to higher education, heavy cost recovery, loans to students, terming higher education as a non-merit good, forcing assessment and accreditation of institutions, autonomous status to colleges, starting self-financing courses and by promoting self-financing institutions, increased workload of teachers and non-teaching employees, contractual appointments and privatization and commercialisation of higher education, etc. It was clearly understood by all stakeholders that if the Model Act was allowed to be adopted an orderly development of higher education in India in the 21^st century would not take place.

The attempt to introduce a Model Act was a desperate attempt of the BJP-led NDA government towards all round commercialization of higher education in the country. All stakeholders, students, teachers, parents and people at large fought all over the country against such a draconian proposal.

The UPA Agenda: ‘Reform’ or ‘Deform’

The congress led UPA government came into power in 2004. It had the outside support of the left parties. This government continued the drive of privatization and commercialization of higher education launched by the previous NDA government. A large number of private institutions were given deemed university status. It had to withdraw Foreign Educational Institutions Bill in May 2007 due to the strong opposition of CPI(M)¹¹. The Model Act was also not pursued by it and was abandoned. The enabling framework common to the entire education system could not be made.

Initiative under GATS

The UPA government gave initial offers in August 2005 to WTO under GATS which was protested by all stakeholders¹². However, the commerce ministry circulated in 2006 a consultation paper on trade in education services¹³. Titled “Higher Education in India and GATS: An Opportunity,” it was in preparation for the then ongoing services negotiations at the WTO.

The commerce ministry recommended “services negotiations (in WTO) could be used as an opportunity to invite foreign universities to set up campuses in India, thereby saving billions of dollars for the students travelling abroad.” Therefore, the consultation paper recommended striking “a balance” between “domestic regulation and providing adequate flexibility to such Universities in setting syllabus, hiring teachers, screening students and setting fee levels”.

The WTO had identified certain barriers to trade. These barriers/obstacles include the restrictions on free movement and nationality requirements of students and teachers, immigration regulations, types of courses, movement of teachers, modalities of payments or repatriation of money, conditions concerning use of resources, direct investment and equity ceilings, existence of public monopolies, subsidies to local institutions, economic need tests, exchange controls, non-recognition of equivalent qualifications, etc. The goal of ‘free trade’ regime under the WTO was to get these barriers removed in order to further liberalise the world economy. Therefore, the commerce ministry’s recommendations about ‘adequate flexibility’, ‘balance’ between domestic regulations and ‘removal of barriers’ could prove disastrous for the Indian higher education system¹⁴.

The trade in education has adopted an alternative route outside the ambit of WTO-GATS. The developed countries and education providers now directly negotiate with sovereign states wanting to import higher education. Quite often they put pressure on developing and transition countries to open up their education sector to the foreign educational players. Such pressures were mounting on UPA government. It could not do much due to strong resistance of the left parties on whose support it depended.

Alternative Framework: 100-Day Agenda

The UPA-2 government came into power in May 2009. It knew that a Model Act like enabling framework, as directed by WTO, was not possible due to the resistance of all stakeholders. Therefore, its 100-day agenda¹⁵ announced by the minister of human resource development included introduction of several bills in parliament and so called academic reforms. Accordingly, four bills regarding entry and operation of foreign educational providers, mandatory assessment and accreditation, prevention and prohibition of malpractices, and establishment of a tribunal to fast-track adjudication have been introduced in the budget session of parliament on 3 May 2010. Academic reforms agenda included introduction of semester system and choice based credit system in all institutions of higher education as recommended by the World Bank.

In addition a draft bill was issued for the constitution of an overarching authority National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER)¹⁶ based on the recommendations of Yashpai Committee and National Knowledge Commission. In the wake of strong criticism, this draft was revised¹⁷ and selectively circulated. Another draft bill for starting innovation universities¹⁸ has been circulated.

The UPA-2 government is changing the entire framework of higher education system in the country without required consultation and debate. The minister is pushing this so called “reform agenda” with tremendous haste without any regard to opposition of academia and states. It is being questioned whether this agenda will ‘reform’ higher education system in India or ‘deform’ it. The compulsion of the minister and central government for pushing these “reforms” can be understood if we know the situation obtaining abroad in higher education sector after the recent economic meltdown particularly in USA and UK¹⁹. We should also know the initiatives and pressures built by these countries on Indian government in order to bail out the higher education sector of their own countries²⁰.

Through these bills, the UPA-2 government is creating a framework that would enable the implementation of its agenda of neo-liberal reforms in higher education system and for meeting the requirements of foreign educational institutions.

Status Higher Education in India

The increase in the number of universities since 1950-51 has been given in Table-1²¹. It is clear that the number of deemed to be universities shot up by 66 (228 percent rise) from 29 in 1990-91 to 95 in April 2005. Of the 66 new deemed to be universities, 57 came into being after 1999-00. This number rose to 101 with 38 aided deemed universities and 63 unaided deemed universities. As per UGC Annual Report²²,the number of private universities rose from 7 in 2005 to 21 as on 31.3.2009 and in one year alone (2009-10) 39 new private universities were started making its total to 60.

Table-1: Number of Universities

According to UGC²²

Table-2: Number of General and Professional colleges

According to UGC²²

The increase of number of general higher education and professional colleges from 568 in 1950-51 to 16,865 in 2003-04 has been given in Table-2²¹. It is obvious from the Table that while 5,180 new colleges were started in forty years from 1950-51 to 1990-91, more than this number, i.e. 5,398 new colleges were started in eleven years from 1990-91 to 2001-02. A phenomenal number of new colleges, i.e. 5,719 were started in just two years from 2001-02 to 2003-04. Thus in thirteen years 11,117 new colleges were started. As per the UGC figures²², in six years from 2003-04 to 2009-10 as many as 14,459 new colleges were started.

As against the total enrolment of 2 lakh students in 1950, the enrolment has risen to 146.25 lakh in 2010 including 60.80 lakh girl students constituting 41.6 percent of the total enrolment²². Provisionally 86.55 percent of all students are studying at under-graduate level, 11.49 percent study at the Master’s level, 0.89 percent are enrolled for research and 1.15 percent ae enrolled for diploma/certificate course in colleges and universities. While 90.24 percent of all the under-graduate students and 70.83 percent of all postgraduate students are enrolled in colleges, only 17.23 percent of research students are enrolled in the affiliated colleges while remaining had been in the universities and their constituent colleges. Of the total enrolment, 42.01 percent of the students are pursuing their degrees in Arts, 19.30 percent in Science, 17.83 percent in commerce and management. The remaining 20.86 percent students are doing professional courses in engineering and technology (10.33 percent), medicine (3.48 percent), law, education, etc. Approximately 22 percent of the students are covered under distance education programmes. About less than one-third of all students are enrolled in unaided institutions. Only 8,000 students are enrolled in 150 foreign education providers²³ with an average intake of little over 50 students.

The private professional colleges, opened for making quick money, outnumber public institutions several times over. For example, Andhra Pradesh has 240 engineering colleges of which 230 are private self-financing colleges²⁴ and merely 10 are public institutions. Likewise Karnataka has 122 engineering colleges of which 102 are private self-financing colleges, one is a deemed to be university and 19 are either government or aided colleges. Both the quality and equity are the victims of this growth. Of these very few colleges have adequate infrastructure to impart quality education. The new AICTE web portal does not show these figures and its old web addresses are not available (as on 6 October 2011).

According to the AICTE statistics for 2004, there are 1,346 engineering colleges in India²⁵ in the government and private sector with the annual intake of 4,39,689 students which rose to 4,52,000 in 2005-06. However, estimated turn out of graduates from these institutions was only 2,51,716 in 2006 with more than half of these students passing out from institutes in Tamilnadu, Andhra Pradesh, Maharashtra and Karnataka.

While women students constitute about 40 percent of all students, enrolment of Scheduled Caste students is only 11.3 percent and that of Scheduled Tribe students is 3.6 percent. These ratios are far less than their corresponding ratios in total population. The women belonging to Scheduled Castes and Tribes living in rural areas are most disadvantaged and on the whole, both in rural and urban areas, scheduled populations are much behind the others. The current figures related to the enrollment of SC, ST and OBC are not included in the Annual Report of the UGC for the year 2009-10.

There were 4,56,742 teachers in 2003-04, which meant the number of students per teacher has risen from 12.6 in 1965-66 to 21.8 in 2003-04. But according to the Annual Report of the UGC²² for the year 2009-10 the number of all teachers is 6.99 lakh out of which 86 percent are in colleges and 14 percent are in university departments and their constituent colleges.

Expenditure on Higher Education

At the inception of planning in the country, India was spending barely Rs. 17 crore on higher education, while the government expenditure alone was of the order of above Rs. 9,000 crore in early years of the present decade²⁶. However, this growth was more than offset by increase in prices, and increase in population, more particularly student numbers in higher education.

The Union Government share in the total government expenditure on higher education in India fell from 20.57 percent in 1990-91 to 16.71 percent in 1996-97. It rose to over 26 percent in 1998-99 and 1999-2000 and again fell down to 19 percent in 2003-04. As a percentage of the GDP, the government expenditure on higher education was 0.46 in 1990-91 which decreased to 0.37 in 2003-04.

Public expenditure on technical education does not seem to have suffered major fluctuations during the 1990s. As a percentage of the GDP, the government expenditure on technical education was 0.15 in 1990-91 which decreased to 0.13 in 2003-04.

It is shocking to note that expenditure per student has declined from Rs. 7,676 (in 1993-94 prices) in 1990-91 to Rs. 5,522 in 2002-03. This amounted to a decline by about 28 percent in just twelve years.

Public expenditure on scholarships in higher education decreased from Rs.15.35 crore (in 1993-94 prices) in 1990-91 to Rs.13.49 crore in 2003-04. This expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure on higher education was just 0.49 in 1990-91 and 0.32 in 2003-04. Similarly, public expenditure on scholarships in technical education decreased from Rs.2.72 crore (in 1993-94 prices) in 1990-91 to Rs.2.13 crore in 2003-04. This expenditure as a percentage of total expenditure on technical education was just 0.45 in 1990-91 and 0.23 in 2003-04.

However, after a long time, there was a substantial rise in the education budget of the Central Government for 2007-08. Increased budget was to mainly cater to the expansion of seats by 54 percent in centrally funded institutions of higher education that was necessitated by reservation of 27 percent seats to Other Backward Classes without reducing the existing seats for general category. A further rise in education budget was made for 2008-09 which mainly catered to the opening up of more central universities and higher education institutions. Out of the total Department of higher Education allocation of Rs. 9,000 crore for the annual plan 2009-10, UGC was provided a grant of Rs. 4,375 crore and the actual expenditure as on 31 March 2010 was Rs. 3,589.85 crore, that is 82 percent²⁷.

The Role of the Judiciary    

The Courts have played a proactive role in shaping the private higher education in the country. Since early nineties till date, the Supreme Court has been giving conflicting and confusing judgments shifting its position from suspecting private sector to the acceptance of the present reality. In Unnikrishnan case²⁸ in1993, the Supreme Court revisited the right of the State to interfere in the admission policy and fee structure of private professional institutions. The Court ruled that the capitation fee is patently unreasonable, unfair and unjust, and unconstitutional and thus it practically banned high fee charging private colleges, popularly known as capitation fee colleges. It held, among others, reservation of at least 50 percent of the seats in private colleges to be filled by the nominees of the government or the university as “free seats” on the basis of merit with a fee structure prescribed for government institutions. It called for a common entrance test and the appointment of a committee to fix the fee structure for the rest of the 50 percent that could meet all the expenditure, including that of the free seats, plus leave some profit to the management and the like. This judgment enabled the growth of capitation fee colleges in the name of ‘self-financing’ colleges²⁹. However, the loot of the students continued unabated.

In 2002, a majority of an eleven-judge Constitution bench of the Supreme Court, in Pai Foundation case³⁰ while upholding the principle that there should not be capitation fee or profiteering, argued that “reasonable surplus to meet the cost of expansion and augmentation of facilities, does not however, amount to profiteering.” It further said that the restrictions on fees and admission proposed in Unnikrishnan case prevented the accumulation of “reasonable” surplus.

In 2005, the seven-judge bench of the Supreme Court in Inamdar case³¹ held that States have no power to carve out for themselves seats in the unaided private professional educational institutions; nor can they compel them to implement the State’s policy on reservation. It further held that every institution is free to devise its own fee structure; but profiteering and capitation fee are prohibited. A committee headed by a retired judge was proposed to act as a regulatory measure aimed at protecting the interests of the students. However, the Court allowed up to a maximum of 15 percent of the seats for NRIs. This was a virtual endorsement of giving a legal license for converting education into a commodity that can be sold in the market to those who can afford it.

The Supreme Court in 2006 stayed the introduction of reservation for students belonging to other backward classes (OBC) in the centrally-funded educational institutions and asked the government to justify the criteria it uses for identifying particular categories as OBCs, as well as the quantum of 27 percent it has reserved for them³². The Central Government had made it clear that it would raise the number of seats by 54 percent so that the seats available for general category students were not affected. The expansion in the number of seats in centrally funded educational institutions was taking place after a long time. But the Supreme Court stayed it. Later, the apex court allowed it on 10 April 2008 with a maximum of 10 percent relaxation to OBC students excluding creamy layer students.

However, confusion prevailed in various institutions. Delhi University took the position that the gap in cut-off for OBC students and general category students should not be more than 10 percent and converted unfilled OBC seats in to general category. Therefore, many deserving OBC students could not get admission in Delhi University. But in Jwaharlal Nehru University (JNU), the practice of 10 percent relaxation in minimum eligibility criteria was followed³³.

The situation became clear when the Supreme Court upheld on 18 August 2011 that a Delhi High Court judgement which said the cut-off marks for OBC candidates should be 10 percent less than the minimum eligible marks for general category candidates. Following this, HRD Minister Kapil Sibal had to assure the Lok Sabha³⁴ on 19 August 2011 that the Supreme Court order on OBC reservation will be fully implemented in the Delhi University. As a result, Delhi University admitted OBC students till mid-September.

The State of Access, Equity and Quality

The miserable state of access, equity and quality has been presented in detail on the basis of 2003-04 data available from different sources by Thorat³⁵. Some of the findings of Thorat need to be mentioned here.

Equity in Access

There are significant disparities in enrolment ratio between rural and urban area. In 2003-04, the GER for rural and urban area was 7.76 percent and 27.20 percent respectively-GER in urban area being four times higher compared with rural area.

There are considerable inter-state variations in the level of higher education. While the GER at aggregate level is about 13 percent, it is more than national average in state like Nagaland (38.6 percent), Goa (27.3 percent), Kerala (24.2 percent), Manipur (24.7 percent), H.P.(20.0 percent) and J&K, T.N. and Pondicherry (with 18 percent).

By national comparison, the GER is lower than the national average in state like Tripura (3.2 percent), Assam (6.6 percent), Meghalaya (7.2 percent), Chhattisgarh (7.6 percent), Orissa (8. 2percent), Jharkhand (10.3 percent), West Bengal (9.7 percent), Bihar (10 percent), Sikkim (10.8 percent), and Rajasthan (11 percent).

In 2003-04, the GER was about 13.22 percent at over all level. However there are significant disparities across social groups. The GER is much lower for ST, SC, and OBC as compared with others (that is non-SC/ST/OBC), its being 5 percent, 7.51 percent, 11.34 percent and 24.89 percent respectively. Thus the GER for ST was five times, of SC about three times and of OBC about two times less compare with non-SC/ST/O BC population.

The SC/ST/OBC persons belonging to Hindu religion lack far behind the higher caste Hindu population in term of access to higher education, in so far as the enrolment ratio is generally lower for these three social groups compared to the general Hindu population. The SC/ST/OBC from other religious back ground namely Muslim, Christian and Sikh religion also suffered from lower access to higher education as compared with their higher caste counterpart from these religions.

For instance, in 2003-04, the GER of OBC Muslim was 7 percent as compared with 9 percent for other Muslim. Similar disparities prevail in the case SC Christians and non-SC/ST Christian. In the case of Sikh SC the GER was only 7 percent compared with 21 percent for non-SC Sikh population. Similarly the GER of tribal christen was 21.73 percent compared to 37.28 percent for non-tribal Christian.

Disparities are also evident in enrolment ratio between religious groups in 2003-04. In general the GER is higher for the persons belonging to Jainism followed by Christians, Sikh/Buddhist, Hindus and Muslims. The GER for Jains, Christians, Sikhs/Buddhists, Hindu and Islam is 57.43 percent, 27.29 percent, and 15.0 percent, 13.47 percent and 8.19 percent respectively. The GER was the lowest for the Muslim followed by Hindu.

The access to higher education is also low for girls as compared with boys. The GER for male was 15.25 percent and for female 11 percent. Gender disparity in enrolment ratio was mainly because of visible differences in rural areas.

For instance in 2000, as against the overall average of 9.4 percent for the female, the GER was 2.4 percent for ST female followed by 4.7 percent for SC female, 7.6 percent for OBC female and 17.2 percent for other female. Thus the GER for ST female was seven times less compare to the higher caste female. Similarly, the GER of the SC female was lower by about four times compared with higher caste female.

In the case of religious group, the Muslim women suffer the most. The GER of Muslim female was 6.3 percent compared to 10.8 percent for Hindu female, 12.7 percent for Sikh/Buddhist female, 20 percent for Christian and 48 percent for Jain female.

There are also significant differences in enrolment rate among the poor and non-poor. In 1999-2000 the GER for the poor was 2.4 percent as against 12.91 percent for non-poor, the average being 10.10 percent. Similar disparities are evident in rural and urban area. In rural and urban area the GER for poor was 1.30 percent and 5.51 percent, quite low compared with 7.12 percent and 27.15 percent for non –poor respectively for rural and urban area.

Within the poor however the GER was the lowest among the poor belonging to ST and SC, followed by OBC and others. The GER for poor belonging to ST, SC, OBC and others is 1.55 percent, 1.89 percent, 2.30 percent, and 3.58 percent respectively.

Quality of University and College Education System

As far as the quality is concerned, the UGC has laid down indicators under provisions of what it called, 2(f) and 12 (b). These two together assess the minimum quality requirement to provide the grants to the universities and colleges. The college is recognized under 2(f) if it is a registered body with a temporary affiliation and carrying under graduate program. The recognition under 12(b) is granted provided the college has a permanent affiliation with university. The university provides permanent affiliation after satisfying the required minimum conditions.

Thus 2(f) & 12(b) are the initial and presumably the minimum framework of regulation of quality for the colleges.

As on February 2006, there were about 17,625 colleges in the country. Out of these, about 14,000 came under purview of UGC’s system. This accounted for about 80 percent of the total colleges in the country.

Out of this, about 5,589 were included under Section 2(f) and of them 5,273 were recognized under Section 12(b) of the UGC Act – making them eligible for UGC assistance. Thus of about total of 14,000 colleges about 40 percent were recognized under 2(f) and about 38 percent under 12(b). Alternatively, it meant that about 60 percent of colleges (equivalent to 8,411) in the country were not assessed even with the minimum criterion of 2(f) and 12 (b) (equivalent to 8,727). Therefore, Thorat said, “we cannot comment on the quality of almost 60 percent of the colleges coming under the purview of UGC.”

Before giving grants, UGC assesses the quality of the universities by some measures of quality. About 164 were recognized under 12(b) and, therefore, were entitled to receive grants. This meant about 50 percent of the universities were assessed for some academic standard and quality under 12(b) rule. The remaining 50 percent of the universities were not assessed. Therefore, “we don’t have much idea about their quality” Thorat added.

Issue Related to increase in Enrolment rate

There has been huge increase in the demand for higher education since the independence. However the increase in demand has not been matched by corresponding increase in the education infrastructure in term of educational institutions and other facilities. Due to the demand outstripping the capacity, a large number of aspirants are also denied access to higher education. This has led to a situation where institutions are required to manage more students than they afford, leading pressure on the facilities particularly on the State Universities and colleges – aided as well as unaided. Therefore, in addition to creating new universities and colleges the strengthening and expansion of existing institutions is equally necessary.

But instead of responding to these disparities and creating an environment of an equitable balance between access, equity and quality, the UPA government responded to various pressures of the market and USA and UK.

Recent Pressures and Government’s Response

The corporate organizations have been making clear demands of deregulated FDI in higher education. FICCI³⁶ made its choice clear that it wanted to make closer trade ties in the field of higher education with the United States. The ASSOCHAM³⁷ is aggressively demanding favourable FDI regime with commercial orientation. It has demanded SEZ for universities to get huge facilities at cheaper rates and no tax regime so that profits could be maximized, de-linking pay from UGC scales so that differential pay structure could be introduced and a suitable legislation for easy setting up of private universities. All this is being demanded only for profits and more profits.

The Planning Commission’s Approach Paper³⁸ recommended to “work through WTO” and full exploitation of private sector initiatives in higher learning for expanding capacity towards human resource development. The entire concept towards education in the Approach Paper was centered on privatization. That the higher level of education, which ensures quality, quantity and equity, in a country leads to all round development of the country does not figure at all in the Approach Paper³⁹.

It is expressed all over the world that education policies under the GATS regime are decided by the commerce and trade ministries and not by the education ministry. It was also true in India. The Commerce Ministry’s Consultation Paper⁴⁰ had recommended that services negotiations (in WTO) could be used as an opportunity to invite foreign Universities to set up campuses in India. It further recommended for striking “a balance” between “domestic regulation and providing adequate flexibility to such Universities in setting syllabus, hiring teachers, screening students and setting fee levels.” It asserted, “there is a huge excess demand in India for quality higher education”, which was being met by “foreign campuses”. In comparison with 105 lakh students enrolled in higher education institutions in India then, a meager 1.4 lakh students enrolled abroad did not amount to a “huge excess” demand. It was only 1.3 percent! These students could be retained in the country, had the Government invested in the higher education as promised in its National Common Minimum Programme⁴¹.

National Knowledge Commission’s ‘Report to the Nation 2006’, which catered to the demands of the big business, had given recommendations⁴² regarding reforms in existing public universities, undergraduate colleges, regulatory structure, financing, quality, creation of National Universities as centres of academic excellence and access to marginalised and excluded groups. However, the ‘initiatives’ or prescriptions provided by the NKC were contrary to the purpose. These prescriptions were no different than those provided by the infamous Ambani-Birla Report, the Concept Paper for the Model Act for all the universities, ASSOCHAM – ICRIER, FICCI, NASSCOM, etc.

The entire structure on higher education in India presented in the NKC’s Report was elitist and would not benefit the vast majority of young people below the age of 25 years. It would decrease the enrolment instead of raising it to 15 percent by 2015. Raising the student fees to 20 percent of the recurring expenditure, financing pattern, private investment, salary differential, regulation of all types of institutions by a single authority with enormous powers, bias against the disadvantaged section of the society, autonomous colleges, elitist National Universities based on commercialization, etc. were retrograde recommendations which would lead to privatization and commercialization higher education in India⁴³.

Spate of New Bills

In the scenario described above, the Ministry of Human Resources Development (MHRD) has introduced four Bills in parliament on 3 May 2010 – i) The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry & Operations) Bill, 2010, ii) The Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical Educational Institutions, Medical Educational Institutional Institutions and Universities Bill, 2010, iii) The Educational Tribunals Bill, 2010, and iv) The National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Education Institutions Bill, 2010. Other two Bills which have been circulated are draft v) The Higher Education and Research Bill, 2010 and vi) The Universities for Innovation Bill, 2010.

It is not the purpose of this paper to give detailed analysis and critique of these bills which has been presented by this author elsewhere²⁰. However, it is emphasised that the UPA-2 government is changing the entire framework of higher education system in the country without required consultation and debate and with tremendous haste without any regard to opposition of academia and states. With ever growing strategic relationship with the USA in several fields, this government is also under its pressure and also of other developed countries including UK. These countries are looking for alternative destinations for export of their higher education and do business so that their crisis-ridden higher education systems could be bailed out. The Prime Minister and HRD Minister are already engaged in high level talks with their counterparts in USA and UK in this regard.

In the new framework which will facilitate trade in higher education, there will be no social control over higher education institutions and no regulation of admission, fees, content of courses, examination, service conditions of teachers and other employees ignoring larger issues of social justice and academic accountability. For adjudication of disputes, teachers or other employees will be stopped at the tribunal level and they will be denied their constitutional right to take recourse to high courts. There will be no remedial mechanism for the solution of problems of students. Instead of giving higher education institutions freedom to regulate themselves on the basis of some guidelines, they will be mandatorily accredited. However, the central government can exempt the institutions from this mandatory provision which will help the foreign educational institutions interested in coming to India and set up their shops.

The foreign educational institutions will launch courses which the market needs, create false impression about their courses through advertisements, charge exorbitantly high fees for courses which have immediate employment potential. Since competition entails reduction in costs, infrastructure, laboratories and libraries will find least investment and the teachers and non-teaching staff will be appointed without necessary qualifications on such terms which will be exploitative as is in existence in most private institutions in the country today. The Universities for Innovation Bill will provide an alternative route to foreign universities for establishing their campuses in India. This route will give them greater power, freedom and prestige with the removal of most of the restrictions, proposed in the foreign educational institutions bill.

An all powerful commission is sought to be created for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education including starting of a university negating the role of state governments and academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas, states and country. With this single-window system, the foreign educational institutions will find it easy to start their shops in the country.

Under the neo-liberal agenda of the UPA-2 government, the cherished function of higher education, for the search, creation and dissemination of knowledge and for instilling sensitivity or social awareness in its students in India is under fire today. With new agenda of the government in the name of expanding higher education and a series of bills, our higher education system is being thrown in to the hands of private players both local and foreign for its trade and all round privatization and commercialization. This will lead to the dismantling of the state funded higher education system.

Foreign Direct Investment

It should be noted that Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in education, including higher education, is allowed in India under the automatic route, without any sectoral cap, since February, 2000. There is no offshore campus of any foreign university in India. There are, however, many foreign universities and education service providers operating in India through twinning programmes. According to AICTE, in India there were 106 institutions running technical programmes in collaboration with foreign universities and institutions. Of the 106 institutions, only two were approved by AICTE⁴⁴. Neither of the 104 institutions nor the programmes offered by them were approved by AICTE under its Foreign University Regulation⁴⁵.

As per the AICTE Notification, 2005⁴⁶, every institution, foreign or Indian, has to get the approval from the AICTE. In the Regulation, there are punitive provisions if the courses in technical education are run without the permission of the AICTE. While the AICTE website has listed 104 unapproved institutions having collaborations with over 125 foreign universities and institutions, it has not made known as to whether any action under IPC or any other relevant Indian Laws has been initiated against any institution running illegally.

The Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development in its 237^th Report⁴⁷ on “The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operations) Bill, 2010” took note of the AIU Study which showd an increase in the number of Foreign Education Providers from 144 in 2000 to 631 in 2010. Findings of this study revealed very disturbing trends. “Out of the 440 Foreign Universities/Institutions reported to be operating from their home campuses, maximum number (158) were from United Kingdom, followed by 80 from Canada, 44 from USA, 43 from Australia, 32 from New Zealand and remaining from countries like China, Holland, Ireland, Japan, Lithuania, Grenada, Armenia, Czech Republic, Dubai, France, Germany, Switzerland, Thailand, Mauritius, Nepal, Russia, Scotland, South Korea, Sweden, Singapore, Malaysia and Ukraine. As many as 277 such Foreign Universities/Institutions did not indicate any website address in their advertisements. Out of the 60 Foreign Education Providers having programmatic collaboration with local institutions, only 25 local institutions were affiliated to Indian Universities/approved by regulatory bodies. Similarly, out of 49 Foreign Education Providers operating under twinning arrangements, only 32 were with Indian Institutions having required approval/affiliation. Lastly, only 25 out of 77 Foreign Education Providers were having arrangements other than twinning or programmatic collaboration with duly approved/affiliated Indian Institutions.”

This author had appeared before this Committee on 30 March 2011 and had presented written and oral submissions on the FEI Bill. The Committee took serious note of the “disturbing” fact that “AICTE Regulations for Entry and Operation of Foreign Universities/Institutions Imparting Technical Education in India notified on 16 May, 2005 have failed to regulate the activities of Foreign Education Providers dealing with technical education. Only 5-6 institutions running programmes with foreign university collaboration without AICTE approval have been issued show cause notice so far.”

It is argued that due to lack of funds, investments in public funded institutions is being reduced⁴⁸ and it is not possible to increase the number of state funded universities and colleges. Therefore FDI in higher education would solve this problem. Another argument is that since a large number of Indian students go abroad for higher education, by allowing foreign educational institutions opening their campuses in the country will arrest the outflow of Indian students. As a result, a relatively larger number of Indian students would be able to access quality higher education in the country itself which would be relatively much less expensive in terms of fees, travelling costs and living expenses abroad. This would also not allow the outflow of our foreign exchange reserves.

In fact, the FDI in any field does not have an attached objective of fulfilling the social agenda of a welfare state. It is guided by profit and market. If it is not so, the investors look for other destination for FDI. Foreign investors aim to increase their profits that lead to commercialisation. In the field of higher education, foreign education providers (FEPs) would launch courses in frontier areas of science and technology, design courses which the market needs, create false impression about their courses through advertisements, charge exorbitantly high fees for courses which have immediate employment potential.

The FEPs would be concerned about their profits and not about our culture and society. The FEPs would tend to repatriate as much profit as possible back home thus accelerating the outflow of foreign exchange from the country. Therefore, the argument put forward by those welcoming FDI in education that outflow of foreign exchange from the country could be reversed has no sound footing.

Conclusion:

There is no doubt that the system of higher education in the country has expanded since independence in absolute numbers. But even after more than 60 years of independence higher education is not accessible to the poorest groups of the population. Hardly 10 percent of the population in the age group of 17-23 years is enrolled in the institutions of higher education. This ratio is less than the average of lower middle income countries in the world. Various studies have pointed out that no country could become an economically advanced country, if the enrolment ratio in higher education is less than 20 percent. Various policy decisions have been taken in last decade as pointed out above. They have not been able to improve the quality, raise the percentage enrolment and ensure equity and social justice. They do not even tend to correct the situation that has been presented by Thorat³⁵.

It is evident from the fact that after implementation of 27 percent reservation for OBC students by increasing the seats by 54 percent in centrally funded higher educational institutions, the colleges of Delhi University are suffering due to lack of infrastructure. The problem has been compounded due to the imposition of semester system. The number of students in a class has increased and they do not find adequate space to sit. The colleges lack the required number of rooms. Libraries have not been expanded. The laboratories meant to accommodate 40 students are now flooded with double the number. For last forty years, a group of two science students used to perform experiments in the laboratories. In many science courses now, a group of four to six students perform the experiments. The required number of teaching and non-teaching staff has not been appointed. The issue of quality of higher education trumpeted by the minister of human resource development and Delhi University vice chancellor has been practically thrown on to dump heap. There seems to be no concern in the corridors of the Ministry of HRD and Delhi University’s Vice Regal Lodge (from where the top officers of the University function) about the quality of education going down in this premier university of the country.

An elitist attitude that merit and social justice are incompatible⁴⁹ has unfortunately dominated the discussions on Indian education. All civil societies have recognised the fact that education must be a right for every individual and cannot be reduced to the status of a commodity that can be bought and sold in accordance to the vagaries of the privileged sections. Instead of being caught in a needless casteist fratricide, India must move forward to greater heights by combining the objective of overall socio-economic development with social justice and equity. This, in turn, requires that we must work to achieve the equitable balance between equity, quality and quantity in the Indian education system.

What the people of this country have been witnessing, particularly in the last ten years, is the aggressive commodification of higher education. All issues of access, equity and quality raised by our policy planners are just slogans to mislead the people and they have not presented any balance between these issues.

In order to strengthen national intelligence, to increase contacts with the scientific and intellectual community of the world, and to increase capabilities and upgrade knowledge for further development, India has no option but to strengthen its public higher education system⁵⁰. The Government must take care of public interests and act to protect public services like health and education from the predatory elements that preach the ideology of the marketplace as the solution to every issue.

References:

1. Joshi, M.M., October 5-9, 1998, “Higher Education in India: Vision and Action – Country Paper”, Presented at UNESCO World conference on Higher Education in the Twenty-First Century, Paris. URL: http://www.education.nic.in/unhighedu.asp
2. Government of India, April 2000, “A Policy Framework for Reforms in Education”, a report submitted by special subject group on ‘Policy Framework for Private Investment in Education, Health and Rural Development’ constituted by the Prime Minister’s Council on Trade and Industry with Mukesh Ambani (Convenor) and Kumarmangalam Birla (Member), New Delhi. URL:  http://indiaimage.nic.in/pmcouncils/reports/education/
3. Sharma, Vijender, March 25, 2001, “Reject Ambani-Birla Report on Education”, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXV, No. 12. URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2001/march25/march25_vijender.htm
4. The World Bank, January 01, 2002, “Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges for Tertiary Education” Washington, D.C. URL: http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/EXTEDUCATION/ 0,,contentMDK:20283509~menuPK:617592~pagePK:148956~piPK:216618~the Site PK:282386,00.html
5. Sharma, Vijender, July 25, 2004, “Withdraw UGC’s Model Act For All Universities”, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXVIII, No. 30. URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2004/0725/07252004_vijendrapercent20sharma.htm
6. The World Bank, 1986, “Financing Education in Developing Countries: An Exploration of Policy Options”, Washington, D.C. URL: http://www.eric.ed.gov/PDFS/ED281800.pdf
7. University Grants Commission, October 2003, “Towards Formulation of Model Act for Universities of the 21^st Century in India – A Concept Paper”.   URL: http://www.ugc.ac.in/policy/model_university.html
8. University Grants Commission, “UGC’s Vision & Strategy for X^th Plan Part-I”. URL: http://www.ugc.ac.in/financialsupport/vision.html
9. Sharma, Vijender, December 21, 2003,  “UGC’s Model Act For 21st Century Universities In India: Desperate ‘Act’ For  Commercialisation of Higher Education”, Part-1, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXVII, No. 51, URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2003/1221/12212003_percent20vijenderpercent20sharma.htm
10. Sharma, Vijender, December 28, 2003, “UGC’s Model Act For 21st Century Universities In India: Desperate ‘Act’ For Commercialisation of Higher Education”, Part-2, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXVII, No. 52. URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2003/1228/12282003_vijender.htm
11. Sharma, Vijender, May 27, 2007, “FEI Bill: Crass Commercialisation Of Higher Education”, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXI, No. 21, URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2007/0527/05272007_feipercent20bill.htm
12. Government of India, Department of Commerce, August 24, 2005, “India’s Revised Offer on Trade in Services ”. URL: http://commerce.nic.in/trade/sub_tnsOIND_rev.1.pdf
13. Government of India, September 2006, “Higher Education in India and GATS: An Opportunity”, A Consultation Paper, Department of Commerce. URL:  http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/services/Consultation_paper_on_Education_GATS.pdf
14. Sharma, Vijender October 29, 2006, “Higher Education in India and GATS: A Disastrous Proposal”,  People’s Democracy, Vol. XXX, No. 44, 2006. URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2006/1029/10292006_vijendrapercent20sharma.htm
15. Government of India, June 26, 2009, “100 Days Programme of HRD Ministry”.  URL: http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=49413
16. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, February 2000, “The Draft National Commission for Higher Education and Research Bill, 2010”. URL: http:// www.education.nic.in/UHE/NCHERAct-2010.pdf
17. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, June 19, 2010 “The Draft Higher Education and Research Bill, 2010”, Agenda & Background Notes for the 57^th Meeting of Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE),  URL: http://www.education.nic.in/CABE/57thCABEAgenda-Background.pdf
18. Ministry of Human Resources Development, Department of Higher Education, July 19, 2010, Letter No. D. O. No. – 4-40/2009-UI(A) written by Vibha Puri Das, Secretary, MHRD, annexing draft Bill on Innovation Universities, New Delhi.
19. Sharma, Vijender, October 24, 2010,  “Crisis of Higher Education in US and UK”, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 43, URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2010/1024_pd/10242010_22.html
20. Sharma, Vijender, Sept-Dec. 2010, “UPA’s Agenda of Academic ‘Reforms’, Facilitating Trade in Higher Education” Social Scientist, Vol.38, No. 9-12. URL:  http://indiaeducrisis.wordpress.com/2010/12/10/booklet/#more-181
21. Government of India, June 2005, CABE Committee Report on “Autonomy of Higher Education Institutions”, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi.  URL: http://www.education.nic.in/cabe/AutonomyHEI.pdf
22. University Grants Commission, Annual Report 2009-10, Bahadurshah Zafar marg, New Delhi.
23. Agarwal, Pawan,  June 2006, “Higher Education inIndia: Need for Change”, ICRIER Working Paper, No. 180, Indian Council for Research on International Economic Relations. URL: http://www.icrier.org/publication/working_papers_180.html
24. All India Council of Technical Education, as per its website accessed in February 2005.       URL: http://www.aicte.ernet.in
25. Radhakrishnan, P., November 27- December 3, 2006, “Education for Wealth Creation: A New Orientation to Technical Education”, University News, AIU, Vol. 44, N0. 48, New Delhi.
26. Government of India, June 2005, CABE Committee Report on “Financing of Higher and Technical Education”, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi. URL:http://www.education.nic.in/   cabe/Reportpercent20CABEpercent20Committeepercent20onpercent20Financingpercent20Higherpercent20andpercent20Technicalpercent20EducationL.pdf
27. Planning Commission, Government of India, 2011, “Mid Term Appraisal for Eleventh Five Year Plan 2007-2012”, New Delhi. URL:   http://planningcommission.gov.in/plans/mta/11th_mta/MTA.html
28. Supreme Court Judgment, 1993, Unnikrishnan, J.P. v. State of A.P., (1993) 1 SCC 645. URL: http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=12220
29. Tilak, Jandhyala B. G., Fall 2002, “Privatization of Higher Education in India” International Higher Education, No. 29.   URL: http://www.bc.edu/bc_org/avp/soe/cihe/newsletter/ News29/text007.htm
30. Supreme court Judgment, 2002, T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka (2002) 8 SCC 481. URL: http://www.judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=18737
31. Supreme court Judgment, 2005, P.A. Inamdar & Ors. Vs. State of Maharashtra & Ors.   URL:  http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/qrydisp.asp?tfnm=27111
32. Mahapatra, Dhananjay, May 30, 2006, “Why 27 percent OBC Quota? Asks Supreme Court”, Times of India.   URL: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/1592984.cms
33. The Hindu, August 18, 2011, “OBC admission: Supreme Court upholds HC order”, New Delhi. URL: http://www.thehindu.com/news/national/article2368636.ece
34. The Financial Express. August 19, 2011, “No OBC seat in DU to go to general category students: Sibal”, New Delhi. URL: http://www.financialexpress.com/news/No-OBC-seat-in-DU-to-go-to-general-category-students–Sibal/834312/
35. Thorat, Sukhadeo, November, 24. 2006, “Higher Education in India Emerging Issues Related to Access, Inclusiveness and Quality”, Nehru Memorial Lecture, University of Mumbai, Mumbai, published by University Grant Commission, New Delhi. URL: http://www.ugc.ac.in/more/chairman_nehru_lecture.pdf
36. FICCI, March 29, 2007, Seminar on “The United States & India: Partners in Education” in New Delhi. URL: http://www.ficci.com/media-room/speeches-presentations/2007/march/march29-us-drmitra.htm
37. ASSOCHAM – ICRIER, November 2, 2006, Joint Conference on Globalization and Higher Education in India1^st-New Delhi, Recommendations. URL: http://www.assocham.org/events/recent/event_107/ EducationConferenceRecommendations.doc
38. Government of India, June 2006, “Towards Faster and More Inclusive Growth”, An Approach to the 11^th Five Year Plan, Planning Commission. URL:http://planningcommission.nic.in/plans/planrel/app11_16jan.pdf
39. Sharma, Vijender, October 8, 2006, “On Approach Paper to 11^th Five Year: Towards ‘Slower’ And More ‘Exclusive’ Growth In Education” Part-I, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXX, No. 41, and Part-II in No. 42 October 15. URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2006/1008/10082006_vijender.htm  and http://pd.cpim.org/2006/1015/10152006_vijendrapercent20sharma.htm
40. Government of India, September 2006, “Higher Education in India and GATS: An Opportunity”, A Consultation Paper, Department of Commerce. URL: http://commerce.nic.in/wto_sub/services/Consultation_paper_ on_Education_GATS.pdf
41. Sharma, Vijender, October 29, 2006, “Higher Education in India and GATS: A Disastrous Proposal”, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXX, No. 44, 2006. URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2006/1029/10292006_vijendrapercent20sharma.htm
42. Government of India, National Knowledge Commission, 2007, Report to the Nation 2006. URL: http://knowledgecommission.gov.in/report2006/ default.asphttp://164.100.24.208/lsq14/quest.asp?qref=29453http://164.100.24.208/lsq14/quest.asp?qref=29453
43. Sharma, Vijender, February 18, 2007, “Privatisation of Higher Education is the Main Aim”, People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXI No. 07. URL: http://pd.cpim.org/2007/0218/02182007_vijenderpercent20sharma.htm
44. All India Council of Technical Education, 2007 “List of Institutions approved by AICTE under Foreign University Regulations”, as per its website accessed on 25 April.       URL:http://www.aicte.ernet.in/aicte/document/list_forg.doc
45. All India Council of Technical Education, 2007 “List of Unapproved Institutions Running Technical Programme With Foreign Collaboration without AICTE Approval”, as per its website accessed on 25 April. URL: http://www.aicte.ernet.in/aicte/document/
46. All India Council of Technical Education, May 16, 2005, Notification on “Regulations for Entry and operation of Foreign Universities/ Institutions Imparting Technical Education in India”. URL: http://www.aicte.ernet.in/ForeignUniversites/forgin_05.DOC
47. Government of India, 237^th Report of the Department-Related Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development on “The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operations) Bill, 2010” presented to the Rajya Sabha on 1st August, 2011 and to Lok Sabha on 2nd August, 2011. URL: http://www.prsindia.org/billtrack/the-foreign-educational-institutions-regulation-of-entry-and-operations-bill-2010-1139/
48. Qamar, Furqan, August 26 – 27, 2004, “Foreign Direct Investment in Higher Education: Issues, Implications and Strategies”, NIEPA Seminar on “Internationalisation of Higher Education: Issues and Concerns”. URL: http://www.niepa.org/libdoc/e-library/conference/2004sbhushan_ihecp.pdf
49. Yechury, Sitaram, “A Fine Balance”, The Little Magazine, Reservation, Vol. VI: Isuue 4 & 5.              URL: http://www.littlemag.com/reservation/sitaramyechury.html
50. Vijender Sharma, 2008, “Higher Education in India: Need for Equitable Balance Between Equity, Quality and Quantity”, presented at a National Seminar organised by the Kerala State Higher Education Council on 1-2 February at Thiruvanantpuram and later published in the book “Quality, Access and Social Justice in Higher education”, 2011, Editors K.N. Panikkar, Thomas Joseph, Geetha G. And M.A. Lal, Published by Pearson, New Delhi.

THE elections to the post of president and 15-member executive committee of the Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) were held on August 25, 2011 with 68 per cent polling. Amar Deo Sharma of Democratic Teachers’ Front (DTF) won as its president securing 2,415 votes with a record of 45.8 per cent votes which no one in the past ever got.

Amar Deo Sharma defeated by a margin of 524 votes his nearest rival belonging to Academics for Action and Development (AAD) – an organisation representing a section of the Congress. The AAD candidate got 1,891 or 35.8 per cent votes. The DTF secured 10 per cent more votes than the AAD. The BJP backed National Democratic Teachers’ Front (NDTF) candidate came third with just 872 votes or 16.5 per cent votes.

Three of the four candidates the DTF contested for the executive committee won with the fourth losing very narrowly. DTF’s Abha Dev Habib came first with highest number of votes followed by Saikat Ghosh and Giriraj Bairwa. One of the three candidates of NDTF for executive committee lost.

A day earlier, on August 24 there was an election to the membership of the executive council (EC), the highest decision making body of the University, from the University Court which is constituted by all principals of the colleges and all professors of the University, and some representatives of the alumni, legislatures, professions and commerce and business, etc. Ajay Kumar, general manager, Progressive Printers, got elected to the EC.

The DUTA election was contested in the backdrop of the sixth pay revision with a lot of negative service conditions for teachers, two terms of DUTA leadership led by AAD (2007-11) during which it did not fight against negative changes in service conditions, butchering of all democratic norms and institutions by the previous and current vice-chancellors to force the implementation of semester system as part of the 100-day agenda of the MHRD led by Kapil Sibal and several bills introduced in parliament after the UPA-2 government came to power in 2009.

The DUTA in its history of more than four decades fought and won big battles to improve service conditions of teachers and to democratise the functioning of the University and colleges. It won the right to promotion, staff councils, rotation of headship of the departments, elected representation in the academic council (AC) and executive council of the University and governing bodies of colleges. It fought against harassment of temporary/ ad hoc teachers and for the dignity of all teachers. And it firmly resisted many policy assaults by successive governments that threatened to erode our hard won rights and democratic academic environment.

The DTF during the election campaign approached the teachers saying, “Today such assaults are being intensified many times over. Several bills await approval of parliament that aim at drastic changes in the landscape of universities and colleges through aggressive marketisation of higher education and authoritarian measures to overcome resistance. Semesterisation and the points based system of denying promotion are part and parcel of this policy assault. Shall we be cowed down or shall we fight back? And with what kind of DUTA leadership can we fight back?”

The teachers responded to the DTF positively. They overwhelmingly voted for the DTF. They voted for the DTF because they saw over the past two years an unprecedented united struggle by teachers on the issue of semester system, but under an unwilling DUTA leadership. This leadership was forced by the DTF and the collective will of the teachers to fight the semester system as part of the neo-liberal agenda of the UPA government in higher education. The teachers noted that the DTF was always at the forefront.

The teachers at large whose opinion was bulldozed, who were humiliated and threatened by the previous and present administrations realised that the struggle against semester system, commercialisation of education through several bills pending before parliament was the struggle forced by the DTF on an unwilling leadership of the DUTA. They also noted that the AAD leadership of the DUTA withdrew into a shell using the Court order of November 2010 regarding semester system as a pretext. Its withdrawal was so complete that it watched in silence as the new University administration outdid even its predecessor in disregarding statutory provisions, throwing all norms and propriety to the winds, and vindictively targeting teachers who were seen as part of the movement of resistance. The AAD leadership of DUTA did not protest against it at all. The administration’s arrogance has been doubly fortified by the concurrent silence of the AAD and NDTF and their unwillingness to even express dissent in the AC/EC. The DUTA leadership had been similarly unwilling to confront the government on adverse changes in service conditions.

The campaign launched by the DTF against neo-liberal reforms in higher education through several policy changes by the UPA government, several bills introduced in parliament and others in the offing, was so effective that the teachers at large started raising slogans against FEI and commercialisation and privatisation of higher education. During the struggle against forcible imposition of semester system, the DTF had through Sitaram Yechury, Polit Bureau member of the CPI(M) and member of parliament, organised a DUTA delegation to the president in her capacity as the Visitor of the University of Delhi and another delegation of professors to the prime minister. With these delegations and other actions, the teachers realised that the fight against these reforms and university administration can only be launched by the DTF with seriousness. They came in large numbers and decisively voted in favour of the DTF rebuffing neo-liberal policies of the UPA government in higher education.

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXV, No. 36, September 04, 2011

[As informed by wordpress.com]

The stats helper monkeys at WordPress.com mulled over how this blog did in 2010, and here’s a high level summary of its overall blog health:

The Blog-Health-o-Meter™ reads This blog is doing awesome!.

Crunchy numbers

A Boeing 747-400 passenger jet can hold 416 passengers. This blog was viewed about 3,300 times in 2010. That’s about 8 full 747s.

In 2010, there were 14 new posts, growing the total archive of this blog to 35 posts. There were 13 pictures uploaded, taking up a total of 4mb. That’s about a picture per month.

The busiest day of the year was March 16th with 45 views. The most popular post that day was FEI Bill Jeopardises Our Higher Education System.

Where did they come from?

The top referring sites in 2010 were facebook.com, en.wordpress.com, mail.yahoo.com, mycrazyreader.info, and google.co.in.

Some visitors came searching, mostly for ncher bill 2010, vijender sharma, vijender sharma higher education, dr vijender sharma, and fei bill.

Attractions in 2010

These are the posts and pages that got the most views in 2010.

FEI Bill Jeopardises Our Higher Education System June 2009
1 comment

On Draft NCHER Bill, 2010: Academia, Legislatures Need Not Think but Follow New Commission’s Dictates February 2010
4 comments

Yash Pal Committee Report: Prescriptions not for Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education July 2009
1 comment

The Foreign Educational Institutions Bill, 2010 May 2010

Mandatory Accreditation of Higher Education Institutions November 2010

Thousands of people comprising of students, teachers, non-teaching employees and officers of schools, colleges & universities, youths, parents and activists of people’s science movements marched from Ramlila Maidan to Parliament Street in a rally raising issues related to education.

This rally was held after a national convention held on 13th August formed a National Forum in Defense of Education in Delhi.

The rally raised slogans criticizing the anti-people policies of UPA II Government and its neo-liberal ‘reform’ agenda in the field of education and resolved to force the Central Government to accept the demands.

The rally was addressed by a large number of leaders of the participating organizations and leaders and MPs of Left Parties. James Williams, the president of the AIFUCTO was the president of the Presidium. The rally was addressed by Ashok Burman; General Secretary AIFUCTO, Ritabrata Banerjee; general Secretary SFI; Basudev Acharya; MP CPI [M], Abani Roy; MP RSP; D Raja; MP CPI, Barun Mukherjee; MP FB, Rajendran; general Secretary STFI, Amresh Kumar; General Secretary AISB, Sunny Kutty; General Secretary RYF, Tapas Sinha; General Secretary DYFI, Sohan Das; BGVS, Mukesh Kumar; AIUEC, Vishnu; PSU and Vijender Sharma, DTF.

A number of MPs also attended the rally including P K Biju; President SFI, P Karunakaran’ M B Rajesh, K N Balagopal, Saidul Haq, Shakti Mohan Malik, and A. Pasha.

The speakers focused on the policies of the central government aimed at pushing centralisation, privatisation and commercialisation of the education sector in the country which would undermine the goal of expansion, excellence and equity in education. They said the goal of expansion, excellence and equity can only be achieved through increased public spending based on a democratic education policy.

The speakers also attacked the government over the issue of corruption and said the amount of money involved is much more than what was required to meet the needs of providing equitable and quality education in the country. They warned the government against ignoring the demands being made failing which the struggle would be intensified in the coming days.

Charter of Demands

• Allocate 6% of GDP for Education as committed in the CMP of the UPA-1 Government.
• Include pre-primary to senior Secondary education under the purview of the Right to Education. Central Government should bear all the expenditure for implementing the Right to Education. Increase the number of schools along with strong social monitoring mechanism involving local stake holders. Delete the provision, Section 35 of the Act, requiring prior permission for any prosecution. The 86th Constitution Amendment (2002) should be revisited to make the right to education inclusive of common school and neighborhood school.
• Recruit quality teachers on a permanent basis. Remove the freeze on appointments and cuts in teaching and non-teaching positions. The para-teachers/ contract teachers and employees should be absorbed on permanent basis.
• Oppose handing over of public educational institutions’ infrastructure and management to the private sector in the name of Public Private Partnerships.
• Reject fee hike. Fully subsidize students from economically backward and disadvantaged backgrounds.
• Enact a central legislation to bring all private self-financing institutions under strict social control.
• Implement constitutionally mandated SC/ST/OBC reservations in all educational institutions.
• Fight all attempts to undermine the democratic control of the Parliament, State Assemblies and statutory structures of Universities and colleges (including through instruments like NCHER). Fight against centralization of education.
• Oppose FDI in Education.
• Scrap the FEI Bill and amend the other recently introduced bills to make them democratic.
• Scrap private universities and deemed university status to private institutions.
• Stop bringing education under GATS (WTO).
• Use Information Technology for Distance Education to provide universal lifelong quality education. Do not commercialize distance education.
• Undertake Assessment for improvement not Accreditation or Funding. Evolve a democratic and transparent mechanism for Assessment.
• Uphold democratic rights in the sphere of education. Hold elections for Students’ Unions, Teaching and Non-Teaching Associations. Provide elected representation in all decision making bodies.

Vijender Sharma
For National Forum In Defence Of Education.

Vijender Sharma

THE Congress-led UPA government came into power in 2004 with outside support of the Left parties. It strived to continue the drive of centralisation, privatisation and commercialisation of higher education launched by the previous NDA government. A large number of private institutions were given deemed university status. It had to withdraw Foreign Educational Institutions Bill in May 2007 due to the strong opposition of CPI(M). Under the pressure of the Left parties, it had to abandon the Model Act for all universities. It also could not bring an enabling framework common to the entire system of education.

 INITIATIVE UNDER GATS

The UPA government gave initial offers in August 2005 to WTO under GATS which was protested by all stakeholders. However, the commerce ministry circulated in 2006 a consultation paper on trade in education services. Titled “Higher Education in India and GATS: An Opportunity,” it was in preparation for the then ongoing services negotiations at the WTO.

The commerce ministry recommended “services negotiations (in WTO) could be used as an opportunity to invite foreign universities to set up campuses in India, thereby saving billions of dollars for the students travelling abroad.” Therefore, the consultation paper recommended striking “a balance” between “domestic regulation and providing adequate flexibility to such universities in setting syllabus, hiring teachers, screening students and setting fee levels”.

The WTO had identified certain barriers to trade. These barriers/obstacles include the restrictions on free movement and nationality requirements of students and teachers, immigration regulations, types of courses, movement of teachers, modalities of payments or repatriation of money, conditions concerning use of resources, direct investment and equity ceilings, existence of public monopolies, subsidies to local institutions, economic need tests, exchange controls, non-recognition of equivalent qualifications, etc. The goal of ‘free trade’ regime under the WTO was to get these barriers removed in order to further liberalise the world economy. Therefore, the commerce ministry’s recommendations about ‘adequate flexibility’, ‘balance’ between domestic regulations and ‘removal of barriers’ could prove disastrous for the Indian higher education system.

The trade in education has adopted an alternative route outside the ambit of WTO-GATS. The developed countries and education providers now directly negotiate with sovereign States wanting to import higher education. Quite often they put pressure on developing and transition countries to open up their education sector to the foreign educational players. Such pressures were mounting on UPA government. It could not do much due to strong resistance of the Left parties on whose outside support it depended.

 ALTERNATIVE FRAMEWORK

The UPA-II government came into power in May 2009. It knew that a Model Act like enabling framework, as directed by the World Bank and WTO, was not possible due to the resistance of all stakeholders. Therefore, its 100-day agenda announced by the minister of human resource development included introduction of several bills in parliament and so called academic reforms. Accordingly, four bills regarding entry and operation of foreign educational providers, mandatory assessment and accreditation, prevention and prohibition of malpractices, and establishment of a tribunal to fast-track adjudication were introduced in the budget session of parliament on 3 May 2010.

In addition a draft bill was issued for the constitution of an overarching authority National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) based on the recommendations of Yashpal Committee and National Knowledge Commission. In the wake of strong criticism, this draft was revised and circulated as Higher Education and Research Bill. Another draft bill for starting ‘universities for innovation’ has been circulated.

Apart from these bills, the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Bill, 2009 was passed and it became an Act despite several shortcomings. Various problems remained in its implementation. An amendment bill was introduced this year for taking care of the problems of differently-abled children which is still pending.

PRESSURES OF USA AND UK

The UPA-II government is changing the entire framework of higher education system in the country without required consultation and debate. The minister is pushing this so called “reform agenda” with tremendous haste without any regard to the opposition of academia and states. It is being questioned whether this agenda will ‘reform’ higher education system in India or ‘deform’ it.

The compulsion of the minister and the central government for pushing these “reforms” can be understood by knowing the situation obtaining abroad in higher education sector after the recent economic meltdown particularly in USA and UK. With ever growing strategic relationship with the USA in several fields, this government is also under its pressure and also of other developed countries including UK. These countries are looking for alternative destinations for export of their higher education and do business so that their crisis-ridden higher education systems could be bailed out. The prime minister and HRD minister are already engaged in high level talks with their counterparts in USA and UK in this regard.

HELPING FEIs

In the new framework which will facilitate trade in higher education, there will be no social control over higher education institutions and no regulation of admission, fees, content of courses, examination, service conditions of teachers and other employees ignoring larger issues of social justice and academic accountability. For adjudication of disputes, teachers or other employees will be stopped at the tribunal level and they will be denied their constitutional right to take recourse to high courts. There will be no remedial mechanism for the solution of problems of students. Instead of giving higher education institutions freedom to regulate themselves on the basis of some guidelines, they will be mandatorily accredited. However, the central government can exempt the institutions from this mandatory provision which will help the foreign educational institutions interested in coming to India and set up their shops.

The foreign educational institutions will launch courses which the market needs, create false impression about their courses through advertisements, charge exorbitantly high fees for courses which have immediate employment potential. The Universities for Innovation Bill will provide an alternative route to foreign universities for establishing their campuses in India. This route will give them greater power, freedom and prestige with the removal of most of the restrictions, proposed in the foreign educational institutions bill. An all powerful commission is sought to be created for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education including starting of a university negating the role of state governments and academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas, states and country. With this single-window system, the foreign educational institutions will find it easy to start their shops in the country.

HIGHER EDUCATION UNDER FIRE

Under the neo-liberal agenda of the UPA-II government, the cherished function of higher education, for the search, creation and dissemination of knowledge and for instilling sensitivity or social awareness in its students in India is under fire today. With new agenda of the government in the name of expanding higher education and a series of bills, our higher education system is being thrown into the hands of private players, both local and foreign, for its trade and all round privatisation and commercialisation. This will lead to the dismantling of the State funded higher education system.

We have to force the government of India to protect education from these predators. It is the responsibility of the whole society to rise to the occasion and take measures so that the process of dismantling the higher education system in the country is reversed.

NATIONAL CONVENTION

In this background a national convention of fifteen organisations of students, teachers, non-teaching employees and officers of schools, colleges & universities, youth, parents, people’s science movement and concerned citizens was held on  August 13 at New Delhi. It is unprecedented that so many organisations came together and resolved to fight against the anti-people policies of UPA-II  government in the field of education which are aimed at pushing centralisation, privatisation and commercialisation of the education sector in the country. Such policies will undermine the goal of expansion, excellence and equity in education which can only be achieved through increased public spending based on a democratic education policy.

A ‘National Forum in Defence of Education’ was formed in this convention. It called to hold a massive rally on December 2, 2010 in Delhi in front of parliament involving all stakeholders in order to force the central government to accept our demands and related issues. It appealed to all to reach Delhi on this day and assemble at Ramlila ground in the morning from where they will march to parliament where a massive all India rally will be organised.

Let us all respond to the clarion call given by the national forum in defence of education in large numbers and make the December 2 rally in Delhi a grand success.

CHARTER OF DEMANDS

The goals of expansion, equity and excellence in education at all levels are mutually complementary and should be pursued harmoniously through greater public investment and public control over education. The needs of differently- abled children should be fully taken care of so that they complete their studies. Special schemes for promotion of education of the children belonging to disadvantaged, deprived and minorities should be launched. There is a strong need to make the entire system of education democratic, participative and transparent. Following charter of demands, in addition to demands at the local levels, has been popularised all over the country.

·   Allocate 6 per cent of GDP for Education as committed in the CMP of the UPA-I government.   

·   Include pre-primary to senior secondary education under the purview of the Right to Education. Central government should bear all the expenditure for implementing the Right to Education. Increase the number of schools along with strong social monitoring mechanism involving local stake holders. Allow parents-teachers associations in non-aided institutions. Delete the provision, Section 35 of the Act, requiring prior permission for any prosecution. The 86th Constitution Amendment (2002) should be amended to make the right to education inclusive of common school and neighborhood school.

·   Recruit quality teachers on a permanent basis. Remove the freeze on appointments and cuts in teaching and non-teaching positions. The para-teachers/ contract teachers should be absorbed on permanent basis.

·   Oppose handing over of public educational institutions’ infrastructure and management to the private sector in the name of Public Private Partnerships.

·    Reject fee hike. Fully subsidize students from economically backward and disadvantaged backgrounds.

·    Enact a central legislation to bring all private self-financing institutions under strict social control.     

·    Implement constitutionally mandated SC/ST/OBC reservations in all educational institutions.

·    Fight all attempts to undermine the democratic control of the parliament, state assemblies and statutory structures of Universities and colleges (including through instruments like NCHER). Fight against centralisation of education.

·     Oppose FDI in Education.

·     Scrap the FEI Bill.

·     Scrap private universities and deemed university status to private institutions.

·     Stop bringing education under GATS (WTO).

·     Use Information Technology for distance education to provide universal lifelong quality education. Do not commercialise distance education.

·     Undertake Assessment for improvement not Accreditation or Funding. Evolve a democratic and transparent mechanism for Assessment.

·     Uphold democratic rights in the sphere of education. Hold elections for Students’ Unions, Teaching and Non-Teaching Associations. Provide elected representation in all decision making bodies.

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 48, November 28, 2010 

 Vijender Sharma

The National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions Bill 2010 was introduced in Lok Sabha on May 3. According to its statement of objects, assessment and accreditation in the higher education, through a transparent and informed external review process, are the effective means of quality assurance in higher education to provide a common frame of reference for students and others to obtain credible information on academic quality across institutions, thereby assisting student mobility across institutions, domestic as well as international. At present, accreditation is voluntary as a result of which less than one-fifth of the colleges and less than one-third of all universities have obtained accreditation. Mandatory accreditation in higher education would enable the higher education system in the country to become a part of the global quality assurance system.

BACKGROUND OF THE BILL

The UGC established the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) in September 1994 at Bangalore. The theme paper on NAAC clearly stated, while analysing the systems prevailing in the USA, UK, Australia, France, etc, that “….. assessments for teaching are now taking place, initially on a 3-point scale: excellent, satisfactory, unsatisfactory. Assessors will visit and sit in during lectures and seminars.” It went on to say that after assessment and accreditation in the UK, “government funding per student has declined in real terms, so that universities have been forced to seek other sources of funding….” In France, the document said “They (the ministry) control the appointment and promotion of teaching and administrative staff….” Notably, the NAAC document was prepared “after taking into consideration the existing methods of quality assessment and quality control and accreditation of higher education in USA, UK, Canada, Australia …”

The theme paper said the assessment and accreditation of institutions would take place “without interfering with their autonomy and funding.” It was voluntary and the NAAC could assess only those institutions that apply for assessment and pay the prescribed fees.

In 1999, five years after its establishment, NAAC made it clear that it would “make the report available to UGC, government and other funding agencies,” promote a culture of “positive competition” among institutions, evaluate the institutions “for purpose of funding, developmental activities or introducing innovations” on the request of state governments, and that its reports would be useful to funding agencies in obtaining “dependable profiles of institutions, and possible patterns of assistance.” The UGC had already indicated that its plan-based developmental support to educational institutions would be related to the outcome of assessment and accreditation.

In December 1999, secretary of the ministry of human resource development (MHRD) had announced that universities and colleges have to get themselves mandatorily assessed and accredited by the NAAC. The deadline fixed for this purpose was December 31, 2000 for universities and December 31, 2003 for colleges. He stated that institutions getting rank 0 would be “disaffiliated and closed down” and those getting rank 2 or 1 would be under watch or special watch respectively. If they did not improve in due course of time, he added, they would face similar action. Institutions getting rank 5, 4 and 3 were to be rated outstanding, very good and good.

The whole concept was basically to reduce the state funding of institutions of higher education: first starve the institutions of funds and then star them with ranks! It could thus be easier for the government to close down some of the institutions on the basis of ranks. The institutions in towns, tehsils and villages catering to the needs of disadvantaged sections could be the worst victims. The teachers movement fought against the move and demanded self-assessment of higher education institutions for improvement, without linking it with funding.

MANDATORY ACCREDITATION

Mandatory accreditation in higher education, according to the bill, would require a large number of competent and reliable accrediting agencies to be recognised, monitored and audited for academic competence through an independent but accountable institutional mechanism. Such a mechanism would find acceptability among peer group of international accreditation bodies, necessary for student and teacher mobility and institutional collaborations, within and across borders. Consequently, there is the need for an autonomous institutional structure with statutory backing to recognise and regulate competent professional agencies charged with the task of accreditation.

Registered agencies would accredit higher education institutions through transparent processes. The assessment would include physical infrastructure, human resources (including faculty), administration, course curricula, admission and assessment procedures, infrastructure and governance structures of the institutions.

Now the bill proposes to establish a regulatory authority to register, monitor and audit the functioning of accreditation agencies which would be invested with the responsibility of accrediting higher education institutions including universities, colleges, institutes, institutions of national importance and programmes conducted therein. Institutions imparting higher education beyond 12 years of schooling will be mandatorily accredited. Higher education institutions engaged mainly in agricultural education and research have been kept out of the proposed legislation’s purview.

Every higher education institution, existing before the commencement of this act, will have to apply for accreditation, within a period of three years from the date of its commencement. However, medical educational institutions will have a time of five years. Any person responsible for an institution who fails to do so, will be punishable with imprisonment up to two years or fine up to Rs 10 lakh or both.

ACCREDITATION AUTHORITY

The central government will establish “the National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions”. The authority will consist of a chairperson and four other members, at least one of them a woman, to be appointed by the central government. The chairperson will be a vice chancellor (whether in office or retired) and other four members will be professors in the fields of medical education, science or technology, social sciences and legal matters. They should have at least 25 years of experience and should be of age not less than 55 years. They will hold office for a period of five years and cannot be reappointed, but cannot hold office after attaining the age of 70.

The authority will register and regulate accreditation agencies; lay down norms and policies for assessment of academic quality in higher education institutions; recommend improvement of quality; undertake audit on matters related to conflict of interest, disclosure of information, transparency, levy of fees; advise central and state governments, and collect and disseminate information on accreditation of higher education institutions.

ACCREDITATION AGENCIES

The accreditation agencies have to be non-profit organisations registered as a company under Section 25 of the Companies Act, a society or trust formed or controlled by the central or state government or any authority or board or institution established under any central or state act. They should be professionally competent and financially sound. This means that a central or state university can also float an accreditation agency.

Only registered accreditation agencies can undertake accreditation of higher education institutions. The bill lays down detailed eligibility criteria and the procedure of application for registration. The certificate of registration will be valid for a period of 10 years unless it is revoked in accordance with law. There are provisions for suspension or revocation of certificate of registration. In case the certification of an accreditation agency has been revoked, the authority will conduct an audit of all the higher education institutions accredited by it, within a period of one year before the date of such revocation. Any person, aggrieved by the accreditation decided by an accreditation agency, may apply to the authority for withdrawal of such accreditation or its modification.

According to the bill, if an accreditation agency fails to comply with its prescribed duties, obligations and code of ethics, such as application of uniform standards, etc, it will be liable to pay to the higher education institution such compensation as will be determined by the state educational tribunal.

Any accreditation agency that contravenes a provision of the act will be liable to a penalty which may extend to Rs 5 lakh. If a person, without reasonable cause, resists or obstructs any officer of the authority, he will be punishable with imprisonment up to three months or fine up to Rs 5 lakh or both. Whoever is running an accreditation agency without registration will be punishable with imprisonment up to five years or fine up to Rs 5 lakh or both.

EXEMPTION TO INSTITUTIONS

In the name of “advancement of knowledge” or “in the interests of the general public,” the central government has power to exempt any class or classes of higher education institutions from the operation of all or any of the provisions of this act. This gives arbitrary powers to the central government which can be misused. In any case, this power makes the bill redundant if an institution is favoured by those who are part of the central government. The latter has also the power to supersede the authority for a period up to six months.

The example of how the accreditation system works in the US is worth quoting. In recent months, the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, one of the nation’s major regional accrediting organisations, has adopted more rigorous policies. Therefore, Argosy University and Bridgepoint Education are applying to be accredited by the Western Association of Schools and Colleges, which oversees institutions in California and Hawaii. Now these institutions are moving their headquarters under the jurisdiction of the new accreditor. However, the Education Department has charged the commission itself that it has given approval to American Inter-Continental University, despite a review that found the institution was awarding inflated credit hours to students for some courses. Now a regime like one existing in the US is being created here for accreditation by multiple recognised agencies.

The central government can exempt institutions from the provisions of the bill including mandatory accreditation. This bill will help the foreign educational institutions interested in coming to India to set up their shops and get exemptions. Though the bill does not say the funding will be linked to accreditation, several regulations may be made under it at a later stage. As said, the NAAC said five years after its establishment that funding is linked to accreditation.

It is necessary, as stated by the Yash Pal committee, to allow the universities to be autonomous spaces, diverse in their design and organisation, self-assessing and self-governing, and responsible for their own curriculum framework, instructions and evaluation of students. Therefore, the necessity is of a self-regulatory, democratic and transparent mechanism for assessment on well defined parameters. It should be for improvement of institutions rather than linked to their funding.

Under the new agenda of the government in the name of expanding higher education, there have thus come up a series of bills whose aim is to throw our higher education system into the hands of private players — both local and foreign — for the trade in and all-round privatisation and commercialisation of higher education. In order to protect our education from these predators, therefore, we have to force the government of India to desist from its moves. For that purpose, let all the stakeholders, viz. students, teachers, non-teaching employees and officers of schools, colleges and universities, youth, parents, people’s science movement, etc converge in Delhi on December 2, 2010, and make the rally called by the national forum in defence of education a grand success.

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 47, November 21, 2010

Vijender Sharma

THE Educational Tribunals Bill 2010 was introduced in parliament on May 3, 2010 to establish educational tribunals at the national and state levels for “effective and expeditious adjudication of disputes” in the higher education sector. The bill covers all kinds of disputes involving teachers, other employees of higher educational institutions and other stakeholders including students, universities and statutory regulatory authorities. It also provides penalties for indulging in unfair practices.

DETAILS OF TRIBUNALS

The state level educational tribunals will have three members each. While its chairperson will be a judge of some High Court, a vice chancellor and a person of the rank of a chief secretary of the state government will be the other members. At least one of them will be a woman. They should have at least 25 years of experience and should be of age not less than 55 years. They will hold office for a period of five years and can be reappointed, but cannot hold office after attaining the age of 70 years.

A state educational tribunal will exercise powers in relation to (a) service matters of teachers and other employees of higher educational institutions, (b) affiliation of an institution with the affiliating university, and (c) unfair practices by a higher educational institution, which have been prohibited by law. While an appeal can be made in the national level educational tribunal against some order of a state tribunal in relation to (b) and (c), the decision of the state level tribunal will be final in case of (a) and no appeal can be made against it.

The nine-member national educational tribunal will include a chairperson and two other judicial members who will be the judges of the Supreme Court. Further, it will have three academic members (vice chancellors) and three administrative members (secretary to the government of India or of equivalent rank). At least one-third of its total members will be women. The chairperson may constitute a bench consisting of three members, with one member each from the three said categories. Bench members can be transferred from one bench to another. Their term, experience, reappointment and minimum and maximum age will be the same as are in case of the members of a state tribunal.

The national educational tribunal will exercise powers in relation to disputes between (a) a higher educational institution and an appropriate regulatory authority, (b) an affiliated institution and the affiliating central university having affiliating jurisdiction over two or more states, and (c) constituent units of a deemed-to-be university or a central educational institution located in two different states. It can also take up issues of the similar nature pending before two or more state level tribunals. It will also take up the service matters of teachers and other employees only in case of the (c) above. An appeal against the decision of the national level tribunal can be made only to the Supreme Court.

GRAVE INJUSTICE TO STUDENTS

This bill thus seeks to accommodate the retiring or retired judges, vice chancellors and secretary level IAS officers up to the age of 70 years. It thus contravenes the judgements of the Supreme Court about the constitution of such tribunals in which majority of members should be judicial.

The state and national level tribunals will have the powers of a civil court and can punish anyone who fails to comply with any order made by them, with imprisonment for to three years or fine up to ten lakh rupees or both. The collector of the concerned area will execute the order. If the institution or the person against whom an order has been made fails to pay, then such amount will be recoverable from the institution or person as arrears of land revenue.

No court can take cognisance of any offence punishable under the chapter on penalties unless a complaint is made by an officer authorised by the either of the tribunals. No civil court will have jurisdiction to entertain any suit in respect of any matter falling under the purview of these tribunals.

The national educational tribunal will have administrative control over all the state level tribunals and will oversee their functioning. This amounts to centralising the whole mechanism.

The bill does not spell out the kinds of problems and disputes facing the students, on which either the national or a state level tribunal would adjudicate. The word ‘student’ appears only on the first page, after the title of the bill and in the first paragraph of the statement of objects and reasons. ‘Student’ is simply missing in the main body and provisions of the bill. There is no section in the bill in which the disputes between students and their institutions are mentioned. This being the case, a tribunal might well refuse to entertain such disputes.

This means an aggrieved student cannot go either of a tribunal or to a court of law. This bill is thus most authoritarian as far as students are concerned and does grave injustice to them.

NO WIDER CONSULTATION

This bill was presented in Lok Sabha and passed without taking into account the series of objections made by the parliamentary standing committee on human resource development. In Rajya Sabha, where the UPA-2 does not have a majority, the minister had to withdraw this bill in view of the protests coming not only from the opposition but from his own party as well.

The parliamentary standing committee on human resource development (PSC-HRD) had rightly said that the bill was introduced without a wider consultation process involving all the state governments and union territories. The central institutions of higher education too were not consulted. The whole exercise thus seems to be a hurried affair. Also, the three-member state level tribunals would simply be unable to take up all the conceivable aspects of higher educational institutions. Further, there would be only one tribunal in a state, no matter whether it is a small or a big state.

That the majority of the membership of a tribunal is non-judicial, is totally contrary to a ruling of the Supreme Court. As the PSC-HRD said in its report, this is a legislation meant to accommodate the retired vice chancellors and top bureaucrats, which would lead to bureaucratisation of the adjudication process in the realm of higher education. Prescribing the minimum age limit to 55 years could lead to ineligibility of otherwise competent and younger people.

The term ‘unfair practice’ has nowhere been defined in the bill. The lack of a definition of the term ‘unfair practices’ will leave it open to interpretation by the tribunals and courts.

As students are the soul of an institution, their interests should be protected and taken care of. But this would be possible only by including the word ‘students’ in the substantive clauses.

NO APPEAL TO A HIGHER COURT

In the name of “effective and expeditious adjudication of disputes,” this bill presents an alternative system in which the disputes between teachers or other employees and institutions of higher education would get stopped at the tribunal level. The aggrieved teachers and other employees would be thus denied their constitutional right to take recourse to a higher court.

Thus, the bill seeks to set up an alternative dispute redressal mechanism at the state and national levels by depriving all the concerned people of their constitutional right to move a court of law.

One of the statements of objects of this bill says that the expansion of higher education to effectively “compete with other countries” can be achieved only if the “regulatory regime and dispute-settlement process engender credibility and assurance.” That is why the bill proposes a two-tier “system through a fast track, speedy recourse to justice delivery.” However, the provisions of the bill do not match the objects of the bill. This bill, in fact, has been designed to keep the teachers, other employees and students away from courts of law. This is probably designed to provide the foreign educational institutions and private players an environment in which they do not have to bother much about litigation.

Under the new agenda of the government in the name of expanding higher education, there have thus come up a series of bills whose aim is to throw our higher education system into the hands of private players — both local and foreign — for the trade in and all-round privatisation and commercialisation of higher education. In order to protect our education from these predators, therefore, we have to force the government of India to desist from its moves. For that purpose, let all the stakeholders, viz. students, teachers, non-teaching employees and officers of schools, colleges and universities, youth, parents, people’s science movement, etc converge in Delhi on December 2, 2010, and make the rally called by the national forum in defence of education a grand success.

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 46, November 14, 2010