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. 46, November 14, 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

Vijender Sharma

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.

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 2010,” 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.

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 degree. 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 norms. But no action has been taken so far except issuance of warning to the students that their programmes are unrecognised. 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, (s)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 field. 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 education.

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. 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 the coming December 2, in order to make the rally called by the national forum in defence of education a grand success. 

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 45, November 07, 2010

Vijender Sharma

THE union ministry of human resource development has circulated a draft of the Universities for Innovation Bill 2010 in the middle of this year. Under the provisions of this bill, universities for innovation will be established with full public funding, private funding or in public-private partnership. These universities are 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.

These universities will be set up not through acts of Parliament, but through signing of memoranda of agreement (MoA) between the central government and the private promoters, companies, trusts or foreign universities established outside India for at least fifty years and recognised as amongst the ‘foremost’ universities of the world. Specific norms about the credibility of these promoters or even for the scrutiny of their MoAs have not been provided. Thus the bill provides tremendous freedom to private promoters or predators in higher education.

UNFETTERED FREEDOM

The memorandum of agreement of each university for innovation will include its name and location, the areas of studies, the capital investment plan for its establishment, the sources of financing the capital investment and the financial contribution of the central government, and the constitution of the board of governors. The central government will publish every memorandum of agreement in the official gazette to take effect. The MoA will be laid before each house of parliament.

The universities for innovation will have all-India jurisdictions with freedom to establish campuses anywhere in India and foreign countries. It is expected that they will provide teaching and research facilities of standards comparable or superior to the best universities in the world. These universities will enjoy unfettered freedom.

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 UGC Act, decide their own fee structure and other charges, appoint teachers, and determine their salary and service conditions. They will also be free to appoint faculty by invitation and give them differential salary 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 UGC will not be applicable to these universities.

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. This provision gives indication that these universities will actually be profit-making entities.

EXEMTED FROM ACCOUNTABILITY

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 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. The board of governors will have freedom to appoint academic board, schools of studies, etc.

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 of 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.

AUTONOMY OVER APPOINTMENTS

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 who could even be a foreign academician.

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. However, such assistant professors cannot be more than 20 per cent of the total sanctioned posts of assistant professors.

PRIVATE VARSITIES FINANCED BY CENTRE

These universities will be exempt from reservation. However, the central government will give grants to each university for funding research, fellowships and scholarships for the socially and economically disadvantaged 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.

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 draft bill under which the central government can inspect the affairs and functioning of these universities.

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 draft bill.

Before it is presented before both houses of the parliament, the central government will publish the MoA of a university of innovation in the official gazette to take effect. There are no provisions in the bill for regulation of its admission with regard to reservation, 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 has 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 only will be referred 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. Thus while funding these universities, the central government will have no control over them.

The ministry of human resource 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.

It appears that this draft 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.

With the 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 the trade in and all-round privatisation and commercialisation of higher education. We have to force the government of India to protect education from these predators. 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 to make the rally called by the national forum in defence of education a grand success.

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 44, October 31, 2010

THE UPA-2 government is out to change the entire framework of higher education system in the country with tremendous haste, without required consultation and debate, without any regard to opposition of academia and states. With its ever growing strategic relationship with the USA in several fields, this government is under the pressure of the US and of other developed countries including the UK. These countries are looking for alternative destinations for export of their higher education and for 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 the US and UK in this regard.

SERIES OF TALKS

The union minister for human resource development, Kapil Sibal, met the US under secretary of state for political affairs, William Burns, on October 15, 2009 in New Delhi. India and the US are proposing to set up an India-US Education Council which will include representatives of industry and education. The council will coordinate the moving forward of bilateral relations in education between the two countries.

In November 2009, India’s prime minister, Manmohan Singh, saw enormous opportunities for the university systems of India and the US to work together and launched an Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative between the US and Indian universities.

Kapil Sibal met the US secretary of state, Hillary Clinton, on June 2, 2010 in Washington and discussed a wide range of issues related to bilateral cooperation in the field of education. Welcoming the Singh-Obama knowledge initiative and India-US Education Council, Sibal mentioned about the 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, US secretary of state, wrote in The Times of India on June 4, 2010 that a delegation from India’s government had arrived in Washington in that week for the first-ever strategic dialogue between India and the United States. 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, US State Department, hosted a higher education roundtable on September 16, 2010 to identify successful and sustainable models for collaboration and partnerships in all types of higher educational institutions in India including research institutions, professional schools, undergraduate liberal arts schools and community colleges.

In July 2010, UK prime minister, David Cameron, who visited India along with 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.”

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. The 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.

SEVERE CRISIS IN HIGHER EDUCATION

These high level talks are taking place in the backdrop of an unprecedented crisis in higher education that these two countries are facing. Huge budget cuts, skyrocketing fees and other charges, closure of departments and courses, and large scale retrenchment of teachers and workers have led to students, teachers, workers, parents and people at large to organise massive protest actions across the two countries and mobilise support for their forthcoming actions.

After the March 4, 2010 protest demonstrations across the United States, the second national day of action to defend public education was observed on October 7 with militant programmes, and now they are preparing for their January 2011 actions. In United Kingdom, after May 5 — the day of action and strike — the National Union of Students (NUS) and University and College Union of Teachers (UCU) have given a clarion call to make history on November 10. There would be a national demonstration on the day in the streets of central London to fight against the looming, savage education cuts, demanding “Fund Our Future: Stop Education Cuts.”

EDUCATION BUDGET CUTS IN THE USA

In the United States, the higher education system is in a 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. According to the Centre on Budget and Policy Priorities, at least 43 states have implemented cuts to public colleges and universities and/or made large increases in college tuition fees 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, have declined due to the recession.

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

Georgia cut state funding for public higher education for 2011 by 151 million dollars, or 7 per cent. As a result, undergraduate tuition fees for the fall 2010 semester at Georgia’s four public research universities will increase by 500 dollars per semester, or 16 per cent. Michigan reduced student financial aid by 135 million dollars (over 61 per cent), including decreases of 50 per cent in competitive scholarships and 44 per cent in tuition grants. New York’s state university system increased resident undergraduate tuition by 14 per cent beginning with the spring 2009 semester. University of North Carolina has raised tuition by 750 dollars in the 2010-11. Funding for the University of Washington has been reduced by 26 per cent for the current biennium. Washington State University increased tuition by almost 30 per cent over two years. The budget for public colleges and universities in Washington has also been reduced by 26 per cent. Over the next two years, the University of Virginia will see a cut of 27 million dollars; Virginia Tech, 32 million dollars; and James Madison University, 14.5 million dollars. The state’s Community College system will lose a total of 66 million dollars.

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

PROTEST IN THE USA

Therefore, these institutions have been forced to take measures such as academic reorganisation, 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 cuts and other cuts. The students have been worst hit; they faced decreased number of seats and large scale rise in fees. 

These measures angered the students, teachers and parents, and resulted in widespread unrest among them. Protests have been going on across the colleges and universities in the United States for over two years now. Tuition fee for students at the 23 California State University campuses, including San Francisco state, was increased by 30 per cent in 2009. After months of actions against the steep decline in state financing for public universities, the students occupied a building of the San Francisco State University. They locked themselves inside that building by chaining the doors from inside for about 24 hours, to protest the budget cuts and tuition fee increases across the state’s public university system. The police broke through a window to get in and arrested 26 students on December 10, 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 the budget cuts of one billion dollars to the state’s university system grew into a nationwide movement. Students and teachers in many states organised demonstrations against the budget cuts and tuition fee hikes on March 4, 2010. Thousands of students, parents and faculty members protested at colleges and universities across California. 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 national day of action to defend public education” by organisers, 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 and bullhorns to try to get their message across.

A call was given to observe October 7, 2010 as the “National Day of Action to Defend Public Education.” At Louisiana State University at Baton Rouge, several hundred people gathered on the campus’s parade grounds for a jazz-inspired “funeral” for higher education. Some participants, dressed in black carried a coffin labelled “education,” while others carried flags representing language programs that the university has cut to cope with shrinking state appropriations. More programme cuts and job cuts are likely, as the state’s higher education funds could be cut by as much as 35 per cent next year.

On several campuses of the University of California, which lost 637 million dollars in state appropriations last year, groups also held events to mark October 7 as the National Day of Action. 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 till late afternoon.

The militant protests that emanated from the University of California, Berkeley, have become 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.”

The press release of the organising committee on its website, defendeducation.org stated, “As public funds that once made the US the best education system in the world disappear, private investors seek to deform public education for their purposes, adjusting education to meet the market,”  The students, teachers and all the stakeholders are now preparing for further actions in January 2011.

EDUCATION BUDGET CUTS IN THE UK

In the United Kingdom, a similar situation is obtaining with large scale cuts, tuition fee hikes and rising protests by students and teachers. Struggling to reduce a large budget deficit, the government in recent months has announced cuts amounting to some 1.1 billion pounds sterling (1.59 billion dollars) to the UK universities. Some university leaders fear future cuts could be even more severe and undermine one of the UK’s most important industries — higher education. Anger sparked protests at many places, including Middlesex. Proposals to cut more than 100 jobs at the 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 organised 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 398 million pounds for 2010-11. 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 (LSE), Manchester, Newcastle, Sheffield and Southampton.

Biggest cuts were made to the London Business School, where budgets were slashed by almost 12 per cent to 5.8 million pounds, and Reading, which saw spending cut by almost eight per cent to 50.7 million pounds. The LSE 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 pounds, according to a study. The study found that almost a third of students had considered dropping out of university at some point. Almost half of them cited “financial difficulties.” There is clearly a large financial strain on students who had to reduce spend on food and are eating less healthily.

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 money. 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 pounds 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 pounds. 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 institutions. 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 the 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 per cent funding cuts.

PROTEST IN THE UK

On May 5, 2010, the day of action and strike, hundreds of UCU members and students gathered at the King’s College, London, before marching to the Westminster to rally at the Church House. University College, London, Westminster and Sussex universities and London colleges also witnessed protest actions, with the strike at the 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 one billion pounds, while further education must cut its budget by 340 million pounds in the next academic year. After May 5 action, the UCU prepared for further actions and mobilized opinion across colleges and universities. On June 21, 2010, students and staff at 100 UK colleges and universities protested against funding cuts in higher education. The protests included a demonstration at Parliament.

The protests were organised by a coalition of seven unions — the UCU, 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 October 12 on the review of university funding. He recommended a massive cut in direct state funding for university degrees and passed the burden onto students. He called for abolition of the existing cap of 3,290 pounds a year on tuition fees, allowing universities to charge as much as 14,000 pounds, 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 per cent cut in teaching budgets of universities in the UK. They are likely to face a cut of 3.2 billion pounds in teaching and a reduction of one billion pounds 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 its students, members and for the 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 will take part in a national demonstration in London on November 10 to protest against funding cuts to higher education. The march will also raise 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 manifold rise in tuition fees, many more students will be left out in future.

PRESSURE ON INDIA

The introduction of four bills in parliament on May 3, 2010, 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; and circulation of draft bills on national commission for higher education and research and universities for innovation should also be seen in the light of the above scenario and pressures coming on the Indian government. The prime minister and HRD minister are already having talks with their counterparts, as mentioned above.

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 private local and foreign educational institutions.

The new framework, with no social control over higher education institutions, with the denial of constitutional right to teachers and other employees to take recourse to high courts, with no remedial mechanism for the solution of problems of students and with mandatory accreditation, will facilitate trade in higher education in the country.

The all-powerful national commission will provide single-window clearance to foreign institutions to start their shops. The Universities for Innovation Bill will provide them an alternative route for establishing their campuses with greater power, freedom and prestige, with the removal of most of the restrictions proposed in the foreign educational institutions bill.

We have to force the government of India to protect education from these predators. For that purpose, let all stakeholders, viz students, teachers, non-teaching employees and officers of schools, colleges and universities, youth, parents, people’s science movement, etc converge to Delhi on December 2, 2010 to make the rally called by the national forum in defence of education a grand success.

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 43, October 24, 2010

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 Rs 48,00,000 crore. 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 bidder [1].

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 1998 [2].  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 [3] 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 [4].

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 2002 [5]. 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 education [6].

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.

The Model Act for All Universites

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 Paper [7] 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 document [8] 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].

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.

Initiative under GATS

The UPA government gave initial offers in August 2005 to WTO under GATS which was protested by all stakeholders [10]. However, the commerce ministry circulated in 2006 a consultation paper on trade in education services [11]. 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 recommendd “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 [12]. 

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 [13] 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. Another draft bill for starting innovation universities 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 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

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 funding [14]. 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 recession [15]. 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.

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 system [16]. 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 schools [17]. 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 education [18]. 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, but there were no reports of arrests, according to the university’s News Center. Such actions took place all over the United States and students, teachers and all the stakeholders are now preparing for further actions in January 2011.

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 education [19]. 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 2010-11 [20]. 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 Southampton [21].

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 study [22]. 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 money [23]. 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 institutions [24]. 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.

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 year [25]. 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 education [26]. 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 students [27]. 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 will take part in a national demonstration in London on 10 November to protest against funding cuts to higher education [28]. The march will also raise 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.

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.

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 Delhi [29]. 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 US [30] to work together and launched a Obama-Singh 21st Century Knowledge Initiative between the US and Indian universities.

Union Minister for Human Resource Development 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 education [31]. 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, U.S. Secretary of State, 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 States [32]. 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 partnerships [33] in all types of higher educational institutions 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 century [34]. 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.

5.     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.

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.

On the Foreign Educational Institutions Bill, 2010

According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the FEI Bill, 2010 [35], 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.”

Foreign Educational Institution (FEI) has been defined as “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 will admit any student, or collect any fee from such 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).

A FEI can be recognised as FEP by the central government, if established for 20 years in the country of its origin and deposits a sum of Rs 50 crore as corpus fund. 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.

Under ‘twinning programme’, students enrolled with a FEP complete their study partly in India and partly “in any other educational institution situated outside India.” Given this definition, any predatory FEP might offer part of its programme in a country which is more profitable.

No part of surplus in revenue generated in India by such FEP after meeting all expenditure in regard to its operations in India, will 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 education [36]. The FEPs will find many ways to reinvest the surplus in profit making ventures including real estate business.

A FEP 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.

If a FEP violates any provisions of this Act or the UGC Act, 1956 or any other law, 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. It will also be liable to refund fees collected and a penalty of ten to 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.

Any person, associated with an educational institution or a FEI not being a FEP or a FEP whose recognition has been withdrawn releases misleading advertisements or gives wrongful information in the print, electronic or any other media will be liable to refund the fees collected, confiscation of any gains made and a penalty of ten to fifty lakh rupees. However, in case a FEP releases misleading advertisements or gives wrongful information in the media, no penalty has been prescribed.

Having regard to the reputation and international standing of foreign educational institution and “such other criteria as may be prescribed”, the central government, on the recommendation of the Advisory Board, may “exempt” such institution from any provisions of this Act except the provision in relation to surplus and corpus fund. 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.

A FEI which is imparting education leading to award of certificate or any other qualification not being a degree or diploma can continue doing business and making profits and repatriating them. No provision of this Act shall apply to them.

The FEPs are not required to submit reports to the UGC or the central government. Then 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. There is no provision for the reservations for SC, ST, OBC and other deprived sections in the Bill.

In this context, note some of the comments [37] of American educational tycoons: “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.

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.

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

There has been a long pending demand of all stakeholders in the institutions of higher education 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 with reservations, course contents, examination, service conditions of teaching and other employees, and infrastructural facilities.

The draft of the Private Professional Educational Institutions (Regulation of Admission and Fixation of Fee) Bill, 2005 was put on the website by the ministry of HRD was very weak and did not fulfill the objective of social control. The UGC also came out with a draft regulation in 2007 regarding Admission and Fee Structure in Private Aided and Unaided Professional Educational institutions. Both the documents were allowed to lapse. The AICTE also notified several regulations about technical institutions including the one in February 2010. The issue of social control still remained.

According to the statement of objects and reasons of the present bill [38] states, there is public concern that technical and medical educational institutions, and universities should not resort to unfair practices, such as charging of capitation fee and demanding donations for admitting students, not issuing receipts in respect of payments made by or on behalf of 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 are not included in the body of the Bill. No institutions will charge admission or other fees more than that published in the prospectus and issue receipt in writing for such charges. They will also admit students through a transparent process through competitive test or interse merit as the case may be. 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.

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. In private institutions, it is well known that 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. Under the bill, it is enough for the institutions to declare their infrastructure, etc., even if that is of low quality. If any institution does anything contrary to the information published in its prospectus, it will be liable to a penalty which may extend to fifty lakh rupees. If the institution has all kinds of facilities and faculty even far inferior to statutory requirements and has declared so, then there is no penalty.

The “capitation fee” has been defined as the amount demanded or charged or paid which is in excess of the fee and other fees payable (on which there is no control) as declared by any institution in its prospectus. No institution can demand or charge, and no person can offer or pay capitation fee for admission. If the institution contravenes this provision, then a penalty may extend to fifty lakh rupees and if it is offered by a person then the bill is silent. The institutions may exorbitantly raise their fees taking into account the extra money they used to charge under the table and publish in the prospectus. If they have not done so then under the table transactions are known to be even more than twenty lakh ruppes. In that case, this amount of fifty lakh rupees as penalty is insignificant. It will promote low quality education at exorbitantly high cost to the students. This bill will promote commercialization of education.

Institutions have been barred to refuse to return degree, certificate or document which they kept at the time of admission, to students with a view to induce or compel them to pay any fees for any course they do not intend to pursue in those institutions. If a student withdraws from the institution, then no institution can refuse to refund such percentage of fee deposited by such student which has been mentioned in the prospectus of such institution. Any institution violating this norm will be liable to a penalty which may extend to one lakh rupees.

Institutions have also been barred to publish misleading advertisement about their recognition or in respect of their infrastructure or academic facilities, etc. If this provision is violated then penalty can be up to fifty lakh rupees. There is no provision for any penalty for unrecognized institutions misleading the students. Recently, the UGC issued an advertisement in all major newspapers about Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) warning students that it was not a recognized University and does not have the right of conferring or granting degrees is neither entitled to award MBA/BBA/BCA degree [39]. The website of AICTE has a list of more than hundred institutions which are unrecognized and action against them could be taken as per UGC and AICTE norms [40]. But no action has been taken so far except the warning to the students about their unrecognized programmes [41]. Therefore all these penalties are there to show to the people some seriousness of the government against unfair practices by the institutions of higher education. They are actually not for implementation.

The demanding or accepting capitation fees is cognizable offence, section 19, and all others offences are non-cognizable under the code of criminal procedure, 1973. However, a person or every person responsible for an institution can go scot free if it can be proved that the offence was committed “without his knowledge” or that he exercised all due diligence to prevent the commission of that offence.

Most undemocratic, rather most atrocious, is section 18 of the bill. It says, “no court shall take cognizance 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.” A student or a parent who is victim of the unfair practices of the institution cannot go to the lower court, High Court or Supreme Court. Such a student or parent can take recourse to these courts only through such authorized persons and only when these persons are convinced to do so.

Thus the provisions of this bill do not regulate admission, fees, content of courses, examination, service conditions of teachers and other employees. Larger issues of social justice and academic accountability of educational institutions and excellence in education are totally ignored. It takes away the rights of students and parents to take recourse of courts to seek justice. The operation of admission and fee regulatory committees set up by various State governments, including Kerala, in accordance with the judgment of the Supreme Court could possibly be challenged, once the Central law comes to occupy the field [42]. 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 education [43].

On the Educational Tribunal Bill, 2010

The Educational Tribunal Bill, 2010  [44] was introduced for establishment of educational tribunals at the national and state levels for “effective and expeditious adjudication of disputes” in the higher education sector. All kinds of disputes are covered under the Bill involving teachers and other employees of higher educational institutions and other stakeholders (including students, universities and statutory regulatory authorities). It will also provide penalties for indulging in unfair practices.

State level tribunals will have three members including its chairperson, a judge of the High Court, a Vice Chancellor and a person of the rank of a Chief Secretary of the State Government. At least one of them will be a woman. They should have at least twenty five years of experience and should be of age not less than fifty five years. They will hold office for a period of five years and can be reappointed, but cannot hold office after attaining the age of seventy years.

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 any higher educational institution which has been prohibited by any law. While appeal can be preferred to National Educational Tribunal against the order of the state tribunals in relation to (b) and (c), but in case of (a) the decision of the state tribunal will be final and no appeal can be made.

A nine-member National level tribunal will consist of chairperson and two other judicial members, judges of the Supreme Court. It will have three academic members (vice chancellors) and three administrative members (secretary to government of India or equivalent rank). At least one-third of its total members will be women. A bench may be constituted by the chairperson consisting of three members with one member each from three categories. Bench members can be transferred from one bench to another. Their term, experience, reappointment and minimum and maximum age will be same as in case of members of state tribunal.

National Educational Tribunal will exercise powers in relation to disputes between a) higher educational institutions and any appropriate regulatory authority, b) affiliated institution and affiliating Central University having affiliating jurisdiction over two or more states, and c) constituents units of 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 (c) above. An appeal against the decision of the National level tribunal can be made only to the Supreme Court.

Thus, the Educational Tribunals Bill, 2010 seeks to set up an alternate dispute redressal mechanism at the state and national level by denying the right of all concerned to go to the High Courts.

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

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 a term up to three years or with fine up to ten lakh rupees or with both. The collector of the concerned area will execute the order. If the institution or the person against whom the 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 cognizance of any offence punishable under the chapter on penalties unless a complaint is made by an officer authorized 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, that is centralizing the whole mechanism.

The kinds of problems and disputes the students face on which either of the tribunals should adjudicate have not been spelt out in the bill. The word ‘student’ appears only on first page after the title of the bill and in first para of statement of objects and reasons. In the main body and provisions of the bill ‘student’ is missing. There is no section in the bill in which the disputes between students and their institutions are mentioned. In its absence tribunals might refuse to entertain their disputes. This means an aggrieved student can neither go to either of the tribunals and nor go to the courts of law. This bill is most authoritarian as far as students are concerned.

This bill was presented in Lok Sabha overlooking the series of objections by the Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development and passed. In Rajya Sabha, where the UPA-2 does not have majority, the minister had to withdraw this bill in view of protests not only from the opposition but from his own party.

The Parliamentary Standing Committee on Human Resource Development [45] had rightly said that the bill was introduced without a wider consultation process involving all the State Governments and Union Territories. Central higher educational institutions have also not been consulted. The whole exercise seems to be a hurried affair. Three-member tribunal cannot take up all conceivable aspects of higher educational institutions. Only one tribunal per state is allowed whether the state is small or big. The majority of the membership of the tribunals is non-judicial contrary to a ruling of the Supreme Court. This is a legislation meant to accommodate retired vice chancellors and top bureaucrats leading to bureaucratization of the tribunal. Prescribing the minimum age limit to fifty five years could lead to ineligibility of otherwise competent and younger people. The term ‘unfair practice’ has not been defined in the Bill. Without defining the term, ‘unfair practices’, it will be open to interpretation by the tribunals and courts. The students are the soul of an institution and their interests should be protected and taken care of. This could only be made possible by including the word ‘students’ in the substantive clause.

This bill in the name of “effective and expeditious adjudication of disputes” presents an alternative system in which the disputes between teachers or other employees and institutions of higher education are stopped at the tribunal level and teachers and other employees are denied their constitutional right to take recourse to high courts. This is atrocious.

One of the objects of this bill is that the expansion of higher education to efectively “compete with other countries” can be achieved only if the “regulatory regime and dispute-settlement process engender credibility and assurance.” Therefore, 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 and high courts and provide the foreign educational institutions an environment in which they do not have to bother much of the litigations.

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

Statement of objects and reasons of this Bill [46] states that assessment and accreditation in the higher education, through 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. Presently, 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 the higher education would enable the higher education system in the country to become a part of the global quality assurance system.

Mandatory accreditation in the higher education 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 a 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 educational 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 institution.

Therefore, the bill has been proposed 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 educational institutions including universities, colleges, institutes, institutions of national importance and programmes conducted therein. Institutions imparting higher education beyond twelve years of schooling would be mandatorily accredited. Higher educational institutions engaged mainly in agricultural education and research have been kept out of the purview of the proposed legislation.

Accreditation has been defined as the process of quality control in higher education, whereby a higher educational institution or any programme conducted therein is recognised as conforming to parameters of academic quality determined by the appropriate statutory regulatory authority.

Every higher educational institution and every programme conducted therein has to be accredited.  Every higher educational 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 have been given 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 with fine up to ten lakh rupees or with both.

The Central Government will establish “the National Accreditation Regulatory Authority for Higher Educational Institutions”. The Authority shall consist of a Chairperson and four other Members, of whom at least one shall be 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 twenty five years of experience and should be of age not less than fifty five years. They will hold office for a period of five years and cannot be reappointed, but cannot hold office after attaining the age of seventy years.

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

The accreditation agencies have to be non-profit organizations 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 any central or state university can also float an accreditation agency.

Only registered accreditation agencies can undertake accreditation of higher educational 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 ten 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 any accreditation agency has been revoked, the Authority will conduct an audit of all the higher educational institutions accredited by such agency within a period of one year before the date of such revocation. Any person, aggrieved by the accreditation decided by any 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, obligation and code of ethics, such as application of uniform standards, etc., it will be liable to pay such compensation to the higher educational institution, which will be determined by the State Educational Tribunal.

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

The Central Government has power in the name of “advancement of knowledge” or “in the interests of the general public” to exempt any class or classes of higher educational 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 central government. The Central Government has power to also supersede the Authority for a period up to six months.

An example how the accreditation system works in the USA is worth quoting [47]. In recent months, the Higher Learning Commission of the North Central Association of Colleges and Schools, one of the nation’s major regional accrediting organizations, 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. The institutions explain that the main reason for the unusual plans to move to a different accreditor was geography.

The Higher Learning Commission itself has been in the spotlight recently as lawmakers and Education Department officials consider how to hold colleges accountable for the quality of the education they provide, and the role of accreditors in that effort. In a report, the department’s inspector general faulted the commission’s standards in giving its approval to American InterContinental University, despite a review that found the institution was awarding inflated credit hours to students for some courses.

Thus a regime is being created for the accreditation by multiple recognized agencies as exists in the USA. 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 and set up their shops.

On the Draft Higher Education and Research Bill, 2010

The draft of National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) Bill, 2010 was uploaded by the ministry of human resource development in February on its website [48] and received strong criticism and opposition from students, academia, people’s representatives and several states including West Bengal and Kerala. This draft bill, therefore, was revised and certain vital changes were made. This revised bill, re-titled as Higher Education and Research (HER), Bill, 2010, was circulated selectively for seeking opinion while the original draft bill continued to be on its website. This draft bill has been presented before CABE meeting on 19 June 2010 [49]. The preamble of HER bill includes all education except agricultural education. 

Two main issues, apart from several others, (1) over centralisation of higher education and (2) attack on the federal structure affecting centre-state relations remain crucial. The HER bill includes cleverly drafted formulations but creating confusion by the choice of alternative words (with similar meaning as in the first draft) and creation of new bodies, the general council, inferior in its mandate compared to collegium of scholars, as well as Higher Education Financial Services Corporation.

The states will continue to be marginalised. They cannot start a university unless permitted to do so by the proposed National Commission. The states may appoint their own vice chancellors but subject to the Regulations to be made under the proposed law. The corporate culture will decide which institution, university (both central and state) and college, etc., should be funded and on what basis.

The commission will be of seven members who will be appointed by a selection committee consisting of the prime minister, speaker of Lok Sabha, the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and two ministers in charge of higher education and medical education. The chairperson, three whole-time members and three other members of the commission will hold office for a term of five years. The status of chairperson and whole-time members of the commission will be that of the chief election commissioner or election commissioners respectively. The non-whole-time members will not have the status of election commissioners.

In HER bill, the distinction between members is on three counts: (1) Qualification: While the chairperson and the whole-time members were to be persons “possessing leadership abilities and proven capacity for institution building”, other members were to be with “proven contribution to economic and social development and experience of engagement with institutions of higher learning and research”. (2) The chairperson and whole-time members were to be salaried employees and other members only allowance holders. (3) Chairperson and three members will have status of election commissioners and other three will be without that status. With these three distinctions, the commission itself will not be a cohesive body and will be composed of unequals. Thus, practically four members will control the commission.

Centralising all powers in the field of higher education, a provision for the establishment of general council, as an advisory body, has been made. It appears that the general council has been created to take care of the criticism by state governments. However, the HER bill is also, by and large, against the federal structure. The general council will consist of 79 members including one representative of each state and union territory such as vice chairman 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 IIT director, one IIM director (in rotation) and ten academics from such fields like agriculture, medicine, environment, economics, Indian languages, etc. The general council will meet once in six months.

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. It can amend every measure or regulation proposed by the commission by two-thirds majority of its members present and voting. Such amendments will be binding on the commission.

In HER bill, the ‘collegium’ has been defined as ‘collegium of scholars’ with 30-fellows which will be constituted by the central government with persons 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, a selection committee headed by the prime minister will nominate ten persons of integrity and eminence in higher education and research 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 aid and advise the commission for the determination, co-ordination, maintenance of standards in higher education and research and recommend 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 assess the performance of the commission and also make recommendations in respect of the statements and reports of the commission. It will also propose a set of names to the President of India for constituting a committee to review the performance of the commission.

From the functions of general council and collegium, it is seen that some of the powers of the two bodies are overlapping. But the functions of collegium are wider than those of general council.

There will be directory of academics for leadership positions. The collegium will recommend names for inclusion in the directory. The central government, state governments, universities, professional bodies and research councils and state higher education councils can also recommend the names for inclusion in the directory. However, such names will be forwarded to collegiums and will be included only if they satisfy the standards to be set out.

The commission will recommend a panel of five names to the central government for the appointment of vice chancellor for a central university. State governments can appoint their vice chancellors without reference to this directory of academics. But such vice chancellors must satisfy the standards which will be set out in regulations about which at present nothing is known. Thus the freedom of the states to appoint their vice chancellors has been restricted to this extent.

The commission will “take measures to spearhead transformative change in higher education.” For this purpose, it will promote autonomy for the free pursuit of knowledge and innovation, facilitate access, inclusion and opportunities for all, and promote culture of quality, rational inquiry and reform. It will also promote accountability and curriculum frameworks, and code of good practices in leadership, governance and management. It will also develop norms for financing higher education institutions.

Interestingly, the measures taken by the commission, section 24(4), will not be obligatory for higher education institutions to adopt but will act as reference for them to advance quality, access and inclusion. 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 25. The commission will frame regulations, section 25(1), to determine, coordinate and maintain standards of higher education and research. It will have the power to regulate, section 25(2), almost everything related to higher education institution – requirements for the award of any degree, norms and standards of academic quality and accreditation, norms and process of a university to award any degree, standards of leadership positions for appointments as vice chancellors, the entry and operation of foreign educational institutions, norms for allocation of grants, etc. However, the commission will create, section 25(3) an “enabling environment for universities to emerge as autonomous and self-regulatory bodies.”

The provisions of section 24(4), 25(2) and 25(3) are self contradictory. Once the regulations are made under the section 25(2), the provision of section 24(4) 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 24(4) and 25(3), if they are really meant for implementation, the national commission of higher education and research is not required at all [50]. What is actually required is a set of guidelines for helping the universities in becoming autonomous and self regulatory.

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, thereon in respect of 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.

Every university empowered by or under any law intending to commence its operation 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 “shall not refuse commencement of academic operations in a university” established by law if it “fulfils the norms” provided in the regulations which have yet to be made. The commission will either ‘declare’ or ‘reject’. Thus, the university can start its operation only after getting “declaration” from the commission. The states cannot start universities unless permitted by the commission to do so.

The HER bill proposes for the creation of higher education financial services corporation under section 25(1) of the companies act. 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 two nominees of the central government, and two persons as expert in finance, banking and management and a managing director to be appointed as whole-time officers of the corporation.

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.

The draft HER bill does not respond to any of the concerns of the stakeholders. It undermines the autonomy of higher educational institutions and creates an all powerful commission for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education. It negates the role of state governments and academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas, states and country. It undermines 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.

The commission cannot be the best and only brain to shape the future of higher education in the country. If this all powerful commission or the corporation directs the universities to look towards market for its general funds, then what would happen to our higher education system?

On the Universities for Innovation Bill, 2010

The ministry of HRD has selectively circulated a draft bill in the middle of this year “The Universities for Innovation Bill, 2010”. Under the provisions of this bill, universities for innovation will be established with full public funding, private funding or public-private partnership. These universities will be set up not through Acts of Parliament, but through signing memoranda of association (MoA) between the central government and the private promoters/ companies/ trusts/ foreign universities.

Specific norms about the credibility of promoters, etc. have not been provided. There is no specific norm even for the scrutiny of the MoA which gives tremendous freedom to private promoters. Such MoA of each university will have to be just ratified by Parliament.

Each university for innovation will establish a university endowment fund with such initial corpus as may be provided in the MoA. Therefore, different universities will have different initial corpus fund. These so called not-for-profit legal entities will not be under the purview of the Comptroller and Auditor General of India. They will appoint their own auditors. They will have all financial powers for acquiring and disposing of properties. This provision gives indication that these universities will actually be profit making entities.

These universities, which could be based on different themes and perspectives, will enjoy unfettered freedom. 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 UGC Act, 1956, decide their own fee structure and other charges, appoint teachers, and determine their salary and service conditions. They will also be free to appoint faculty by invitation and give them differential salary and perks.

These universities will be exempt from reservation. However, the central government will give grants to each university for funding research, fellowships and scholarships for socially and economically disadvantaged students. The central government will provide public funds in the form of land, contribution to capital investment, grants for supporting research and the promotion and development of higher education. Despite that there is no government control over them.

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 as provided in the MoA. However, at least one-third of its members will be from teachers or officers of the University for Innovation. The Board of Governors will have freedom to appoint Academic Board, Schools of Studies, etc.

While enjoying full autonomy – academic, management and financial, these universities have no accountability. Giving all information about standards and fee, etc. on the website is enough of their accountability. Any dispute that arises between such university and the statutory regulatory authority in regard to standards, etc., such dispute will be referred to a committee of three persons and not even to much trumpeted educational tribunals.

These are to be institutions of national importance with full autonomy in all respects. These will be private universities financed by the central government. There is no nominee of the government on the Board of Governors despite the fact the central government will fund them. The central government will have no control, no social control and these universities will not be accountable. 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.

It appears that this draft bill is an alternative route to FEI Bill, 2010 for foreign universities and players that may not now need the discredited deemed universities status. However, this alternative route is going to be with greater power, freedom and prestige. The ministry of HRD has forgotten that great universities are not established but they grow into 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 evolved over time.

Wide ranging freedom 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 draft bill.

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^th Plan 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. 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

20. 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

21. 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

22. Graem Paton, Mar 18, 2010 “Students ‘graduating with £20,000 debts” The Telegraph. URL http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/7466233/Students-graduating-with-20000-debts.html

23. 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

24. BBC News, August 5, 2010 “Budget cuts ‘will lead to university closures”. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/education-10881360

25. 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

26. BBC News, June 21, 2010 “Protest at education funding cuts”. URL: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/10328013

27. 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

28. 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

29. 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

30. 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

31. 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/

32. Hillary Clinton, U.S. Secretary of State, June 4, 2010, “Partnership Of Democracies”, Times of India http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/opinion/edit-page/Partnership-Of-Democracies/articleshow/6008336.cms

33. 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

34. 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

35. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, May 3, 2010, “The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry & Operations) Bill, 2010”, Introduced in Loka Sabha. http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name=Sections&id=6&category=43

36. 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

37. 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

38. 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

39. 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

40. 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

41. 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

42. 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

43. 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/

44. Government of India, Ministry of HRD, May 3, 2010, “The Educational Tribunals, Bill, 2010”, Introduced in Loka Sabha. http://www.prsindia.org/index.php?name=Sections&id=6&category=43

45. 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

46. 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

47. Eric Kelderman, September 23, 2010, “2 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

48. 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

49. 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

50. 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

Published in the Special Issue on Education of

SOCIAL SCIENTIST, Vol.38, No. 9-12, Sept-Dec. 2010

 Vijender Sharma

I 

THE draft of National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) Bill, 2010 uploaded by the ministry of human resource development, in February, on its website (http://www.education.nic.in/) received strong criticism and opposition from students, academia, people’s representatives and several states including West Bengal and Kerala. This draft bill, therefore, has been revised and certain vital changes have been made. This revised bill, re-titled as Higher Education and Research (HER), Bill, 2010, is now being circulated selectively for seeking opinion while the original draft bill still continues to be on its website.

Two main issues, apart from several others, (1) over centralisation of higher education and (2) attack on the federal structure affecting centre-state relations remain crucial. The HER bill includes cleverly drafted formulations but creating confusion by the choice of alternative words (with similar meaning as in the first draft) and creation of new bodies, the general council, inferior in its mandate compared to collegium of scholars, as well as Higher Education Financial Services Corporation.

The states will continue to be marginalised. They cannot start a university unless permitted to do so by the commission (NCHER). The states may appoint their own vice chancellors but subject to the Regulations to be made under the proposed law. The corporate culture will decide which institution, university (both central and state) and college, etc., should be funded and on what basis.

In this article, the provisions of two draft bills, the NCHER bill and HER bill, are being compared section by section.

The preamble of NCHER bill included “university education, technical and professional education other than agricultural and medical education”. However, the preamble of HER bill includes all education except agricultural education. The definition of ‘higher education’ [Section 3] excludes agricultural education ‘in institutions other than universities’. This means that agricultural education being imparted in universities is within the scope of the NCHER.

All provisions of the NCHER bill were to be implemented simultaneously. But under HER bill, different provisions can be implemented from different dates [Section 1(3)]. Thus implementation of any of the provisions can be deferred by the central government at its will.

COMMISSION OF UNEQUALS

The commission continues to be of seven members who will be appointed by a selection committee consisting of the prime minister, speaker of Lok Sabha, the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and two ministers in charge of higher education and medical education [section 5(5)]. The chairperson, three whole-time members and three other members of the commission will hold office for a term of five years. The status of chairperson and all members of the commission, section 12(4) of NCHER bill, was to be same as that of the chief election commissioner or election commissioners respectively. This provision has been changed in HER bill [section 10(2)] and non-whole-time members will not have the status of election commissioners.

In NCHER bill, the distinction between members was on two counts: (1) Qualification: While the chairperson and the whole-time members were to be persons “possessing leadership abilities and proven capacity for institution building”, other members were to be with “proven contribution to economic and social development and experience of engagement with institutions of higher learning and research”. (2) The chairperson and whole-time members were to be salaried employees and other members only allowance holders.

In HER bill, another distinction has been added regarding status of the members: those having status of election commissioners and those without that status. With these three distinctions, the commission itself will not be a cohesive body and will be composed of unequals. Thus, practically four members will control the commission.

GENERAL COUNCIL

Under NCHER bill, there was a provision for establishing a “collegium” consisting of “core fellows and co-opted fellows, being persons of eminence and integrity in academia in higher education and research.” Core fellow was to be a national research professor, or a recipient of the Nobel Prize or field medal or Jnanpith award, or a member of an academy of international standing. The numbers of core fellows and their appointing authority was not provided in the bill. There was no provision under which states could recommend persons as core fellows. The co-opted fellows were to be chosen by core fellows to represent each state and union territory from a panel of five persons recommended by the respective governments. The representatives of states and UTs were given second class status as they were to depend on the support of core fellows. The states and UTs were treated with contempt. The term of core fellows and co-opted fellows was to be life time and five years respectively. Lifetime appointments generate vested interests and akin to breeding corruption.

The institution of collegiums was strongly criticized. It was an institution to undermine the role of states in higher education despite the fact the states spend more money on higher education than the central government. In order to deflect from this, but still centralising all powers in the field of higher education, a new chapter on the establishment of general council, as an advisory body, has been added in the HER bill [sections 15 and 16]. It appears that the general council has been created to take care of the criticism by state governments. These sections are deceptive, nothing concrete has been provided. The HER bill with creation of deliberate confusion is also, by and large, against the federal structure.

The general council will consist of 79 members including one representative of each state and union territory such as vice chairman 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 IIT director, one IIM director (in rotation) and ten academics from such fields like agriculture, medicine, environment, economics, Indian languages, etc. The general council will meet once in six months.

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. It can amend every measure or regulation proposed by the commission by two-thirds majority of its members present and voting. Such amendments will be binding on the commission.

COLLEGIUM OF SCHOLARS

In HER bill, the ‘collegium’ has been redefined as ‘collegium of scholars’ with 30-fellows which will be constituted by the central government with persons of integrity and eminence in higher education and research [sections 17(2)]. Distinction between core fellows and co-opted fellows of collegium provided in the NCHER bill has been done away with.

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 in higher education and research 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 distinction between first fellows, in the category of national research professors and recipients of Nobel prize and fields medal, and other fellows is similar to two types of membership as it existed earlier among core fellows and co-opted fellows.

The collegium will aid and advise the commission, [sections 19, HER bill], for the determination, co-ordination, maintenance of standards in higher education and research and recommend 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 assess the performance of the commission and also make recommendations in respect of the statements and reports of the commission. It will also propose a set of names to the President of India for constituting a committee to review the performance of the commission.

From the functions of general council and collegium, it is seen that some of the powers of the two bodies are overlapping. But the functions of collegium are wider than those of general council.

DECEPTIVE CHANGE

The NCHER bill had provided for the preparation, by the collegium, of national registry of persons eligible and qualified to be the vice chancellors of universities or the heads of the institutions of national importance. The names of suitable persons eligible and qualified for appointment as vice chancellors of universities for inclusion in the national registry proposed to the commission by the central government, state governments, or universities were to be referred to the collegium for assessing their suitability and competence [section 20(2)].

The power of the states to appoint vice chancellors of their state universities was taken away. They were to depend first on the recommendation of the collegium, heavily dominated by core fellows appointed for lifetime, for inclusion of persons in the national registry and then on the list of five persons provided by the commission. No person could be appointed as the vice chancellor if his/her name was not included in the national registry.

This provision has been changed and national registry has been renamed as directory of academics for leadership positions in the HER bill [section 20]. The collegium will recommend names for inclusion in the directory. The central government, state governments, universities, professional bodies and research councils and state higher education councils can also recommend the names for inclusion in the directory. However, such names will be forwarded to collegiums, as earlier, and will be included only if they satisfy the standards to be set out under its section 25.

The commission will recommend a panel of five names to the central government for the appointment of vice chancellor for a central university. State governments can appoint their vice chancellors without reference to this directory of academics [section 29(3), HER bill]. But such vice chancellors must satisfy the standards which will be set out in regulations [section 25] about which at present nothing is known. Thus the freedom of the states to appoint their vice chancellors has been restricted to this extent.

The 5-member executive council of the collegium has been dropped. But 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 [Section 22].

II 

SECTION 24 of the NCHER bill has been split into four sections in HER bill. Almost all powers and functions have been rearranged in these sections. The commission will “take measures to spearhead transformative change in higher education.” For this purpose [section 24, HER bill], the commission will promote autonomy for the free pursuit of knowledge and innovation, facilitate access, inclusion and opportunities for all, and promote culture of quality, rational inquiry and reform. It will also promote accountability and curriculum frameworks, and code of good practices in leadership, governance and management. It will also develop norms for financing higher education institutions.

Interestingly, the measures taken by the commission under section 24, HER bill, will not be obligatory for higher education institutions to adopt but will act as reference for them to advance quality, access and inclusion [section 24(4)]. 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 25 of HER bill. According to its section 25(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 25(2), the commission will have the power to regulate almost everything related to higher education institution – requirements for the award of any degree, norms and standards of academic quality and accreditation, norms and process of a university to award any degree, standards of leadership positions for appointments as vice chancellors,  the entry and operation of foreign educational institutions, norms for allocation of grants, etc. However, the commission, section 25(3), will create an “enabling environment for universities to emerge as autonomous and self-regulatory bodies.”

The provisions of section 24(4), 25(2) and 25(3) are self contradictory. Once the regulations are made under the section 25(2), the provision of section 24(4) 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 24(4) and 25(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.

MARGINALISATION OF STATES

Section 27 of the NCHER bill remains by and large same but renumbered as section 30 in HER bill. 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, thereon in respect of 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 [section 32]. 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.

ALL POWERFUL COMMISSION

Under Sections 32 to 36 of the NCHER bill, process of starting a new university was provided and no university could be started unless it got “authorisation” from the commission to do so. These sections have been drastically changed. In HER bill, sections 33 to 35 provide such process. Every university empowered by or under any law intending to commence its operation 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 [section 33]. As per section 33(3), “the commission shall not refuse commencement of academic operations in a university” established by law if it “fulfils the norms” provided in the regulations which have yet to be made. The commission will either ‘declare’ or ‘reject’ such request within 120 days. Thus, instead of “authorisation”, the university can start its operation only after getting “declaration” from the commission. The meaning is same: the states cannot start universities unless permitted by the commission to do so.

Thus, the word ‘authorisation’ from the commission to operate a degree/ diploma granting university has been changed to ‘declaration’ by the commission. Only language of the provisions has been changed. Condition still remains that a ‘declaration’ has to be obtained from the commission to start and operate a university. It has been further made clear in section 39 that no university or institution can start functioning unless it has been “declared” to do so by the commission. By making use of deceptive language, the central government is trying to present that it has given the state legislatures freedom to start new universities. The central government and ministry of human resource development think that people are gullible and can be misled!

The commission remains all powerful. 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 “declaration” from the commission to award any degree or diploma.

The powers of the civil court which were vested in the commission have been dropped in the HER bill.

CORPORATE CULTURE IN HIGHER EDUCATION

A new chapter VIII has been added in the HER bill for the creation of higher education financial services corporation under section 25(1) of the companies act. This corporation will have an 11-member board of directors [section 44]. 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 two nominees of the central government, and 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, and its authorised and paid-up capital. It will disburse grants to higher education institutions in accordance with the regulations yet to be made [section 45]. 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.

REJECT EVEN THE REVISED BILL

The draft HER bill, which is the revised version of the draft NCHER bill, does not respond to any of the concerns of the stakeholders. It undermines the autonomy of higher educational institutions and creates an all powerful commission for the centralisation of all aspects related to higher education. It negates the role of state governments and academia in strengthening the higher education system in their respective areas, states and country. It undermines 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.

The commission or NCHER cannot be most competent for “renovation and rejuvenation” of higher education and best and only brains to shape the future of higher education in the country. Corporate culture has been proposed for funding of institutions of higher education. If this all powerful commission or the corporation directs the universities to look towards market for its general funds, then what would happen to our higher education system?

The need is to make the bodies like the UGC, AICTE, MCI, etc., which are proposed to be subsumed in the NCHER, function democratically and efficiently, eradicate corruption prevalent in them, make them accountable to the people and serve the cause of education. The proposal to establish NCHER reflects the tendency of the central government towards centralisation of higher education and marginalisation of states. It will prove to be retrograde for the development of higher education and research in India. Therefore, even the revised higher education and research bill should be rejected.

Part-I has been published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 23, June 06, 2010

Part-II has been published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 24, June 13, 2010

Vijender Sharma

I

THE Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operations) Bill, 2010 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).

Pramath Sinha, founding dean of ISB, and Vijender Sharma, former President of the Delhi University Teacher’s Association, offer their views on the Foreign Educational Institutions Bill to Mint and The Wall Street Journal.

Anchor: Saabira Chaudhury

THE union ministry for human resource development informed the Supreme Court on 18 January this year that of the 126 deemed universities 44 do 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 HRD minister Kapil Sibal 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.

On 10 February, while addressing a programme organised by FICCI Ladies Organisation, Kapil Sibal 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 quite soon on 19 February, 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.

PM’S INITIATIVE FOR PRIVATISATION

Regarding private investment, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told the Planning Commission on 13 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’.

CENTRALISATION OF HIGHER EDUCATION

Recently, the ministry of human resource development has published the draft National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) Bill, 2010 based on the recommendations of Yashpal Committee and National Knowledge Commission in order to establish an autonomous overarching authority, the NCHER.

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 is to create an all powerful commission for the centralisation of all aspects of higher education. 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 and the power of the states to appoint vice chancellors of their state universities will be taken away. No person will be appointed as the vice chancellor if his/her name is not included in the national registry. 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 “authorisation” from the commission to award any degree or diploma.

The proposal to establish a seven-member all powerful NCHER, with life-time members in its collegium, reflects the tendency of the central government towards centralisation of higher education. The understanding of the seven 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.

NO SOCIAL CONTROL OVER PVT 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 MHRD has now proposed draft legislation, “The Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical, Medical Educational Institutions and Universities Bill, 2009”. It 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.

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.

FDI IN EDUCATION

Kapil Sibal, immediately after assuming office as minister for human resource development, declared that to bring in the pending Foreign Education Institutions (FEI) bill would be his top priority. 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. But due to the opposition of the CPI(M), it was withdrawn at the last moment.

In a market-model university like the Foreign Educational Institutions (FEI), departments that make money, study money or attract money are given priority. Heads of universities assume the role of travelling salesmen to promote their programmes. The thinking and attitudes of students, now called consumers, are manufactured and an education system is created that produces standardised people. As this standardisation is institutionalised through international equivalency, the uniqueness of each educational institution will vanish.

The UPA government is, due to its neo-liberal policies and refusal to learn lessons from the recent economic meltdown, throwing our higher education system to the predatory elements. People should recall that it was the opposition of the Left to raising the cap on FDI in banking and insurance sectors that saved their hard earned money.

In fact, the FDI in any field does not have to implement 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. The FEIs would tend to repatriate as much profit as possible back home. Therefore, the argument of those welcoming FDI in education that outflow of foreign exchange from the country could be reversed has no sound footing.

PRIVATE SCHOOLS FREE TO DECIDE FEES AND SALARIES

The Right to Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) is going to be effective from 1 April 2010. The HRD minister, while addressing principals of private unaided schools in New Delhi on 19 February, said that the fees of private schools cannot be regulated and that each school had the right to fix the salaries of its teachers. He said that there was no provision in RTE Act to regulate fees and salaries, but the qualification of teachers cannot be lower than that decided by the government.

Sibal’s claims contradict provisions in various Acts of states according to which salaries and other facilities of teachers in private schools cannot be less than those of government schools teachers. He said that this conflict would go away once the Right to Education Act was implemented and central Act would override the state laws.

WHOM DOES THE MINISTER REPRESENT?

Kapil Sibal did not criticise Delhi’s private school principals who have not been admitting students belonging to economically weaker and deprived sections for having taken land and other facilities on concessional rates as ruled by Delhi High Court. He did not even tell them that they will have to admit in Class I children belonging to weaker section and disadvantaged group up to at least 25 per cent of the seats under RTE Act. He addressed the principals as if he was their spokesperson giving full freedom to loot students and exploit teachers.

The contradictory statements of Kapil Sibal that deemed universities will finally go, profiteering will not be allowed in educational institutions, fees charged from students and salaries to teachers cannot be regulated, and the RTE Act would override state laws, make it clear that the minister is befooling the people of the country. He wants them to believe that the UPA government is opposed to commercialisation of education and profit making by the educational institutions. But simultaneously he is assuring the private managements that they are free to generate as much profits as they can.

Obviously what the minister said for schools regarding fees and salaries will also apply to private institutions of higher education. Students and their parents at all levels will be looted and teachers exploited. Privatisation and commercialisation of education at all levels is now going to be the main agenda of the UPA government.

Citizens of India, concerned about the future of education of our children and youth, have to come together. We have to discuss all issues related to education and plight of the poor and people at large. We must build a powerful struggle so that the UPA government is forced to abandon its policy of commercialisation of education and ensure real right to education to the children of our country.

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 09, February 28, 2010

On 18 January this year, the Union Ministry for Human Resource Development filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court that of the 126 deemed universities 44 do not deserve their deemed university status because of their abysmal infrastructural facilities.  Therefore, their deemed university status was sought to be withdrawn. This spread panic among the students and violence erupted in one of these deemed universities near Chennai. While pacifying the students on 19 January that not a single student would be adversely affected, the HRD Minister Kapil Sibal indicated that the provision of granting deemed university status under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act may be done away with. Kapil Sibal has been reported to have said that it was a “policy decision that all the deemed universities will finally go”. The P.N. Tandon Review Committee had stated that these institutions could be re-designated as affiliated colleges of the concerned state universities.

On 10 February, FICCI Ladies Organisation organised an interactive session on ‘Changing face of Indian education’ in New Delhi. Kapil Sibal while addressing the session made it clear 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. In response to a question as to why education should not be a profit making business, the Minister is reported to have said, “But we cannot risk the career of students to the fortune of stock market. We cannot allow profit going back to the share holders as dividend.”

All those students, school, college and university teachers, youth and others concerned about education who met in January 2006 in New Delhi in an All India Convention on Education felt good that two of their demands appeared to be getting materialised. First, that deemed universities should be reverted back to their original status as affiliated colleges and second that there should not be commercialisation of education.

However, it is necessary to understand whether the HRD Minister really meant what he said and he and the UPA government are really opposed to education as a profit-making business. Therefore, it is prudent to revisit the 100 days’ agenda of human resource development ministry announced in June 2009 by Kapil Sibal which included many issues having far reaching consequences for the higher education system in the country.

As far as private investment in higher education is concerned, the Prime Minister Manmohan Singh while addressing the meeting of the Planning Commission on 13 September 2007 said, “We must also seriously examine the role of private initiative in supplementing public funding for higher education. We obviously cannot rely on the private response alone but we should welcome it as a supplement. I believe that there is a role for private initiative in this area.”

The Prime Minister went on saying, “We should also 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. As far as loans are concerned, by September 2007 about 10 lakh students had taken loans from the banks. This number amounted to just less than 1 per cent of all students in higher education institutions in India. 

With the increase in the difficulty in finding job in the current economy, students have been struggling hard to pay back loan 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. It may take full lifetime to pay back loan. Now they want the government to take steps so that their loans could be forgiven.

Recently, the Ministry of Human Resource Development has published the draft of National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) Bill, 2010 based on the recommendations of Yashpal Committee and National Knowledge Commission in order to establish an autonomous overarching authority, the NCHER.

As one reads this draft 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 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 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.

The NCHER will develop national curriculum framework, guide universities in revising course curricula, specify norms of academic quality for accreditation, affiliation of colleges, and governance in universities, and minimum eligibility conditions for appointment of Vice Chancellor of any university. It will develop policies for interaction between students and teachers. It will take necessary measures including schemes for gradually enabling colleges affiliated to universities to function in an autonomous manner independent of such affiliation.

It will also specify the norms for financing higher education institutions, principles of allocation of grants for their maintenance and development and will disburse grants. The principal of giving block grants, rather than financing higher education institutions on the basis of their requirements, will be introduced. Thus there will be a total centralized structure with no scope for the academic activity in accordance with requirements of the states and areas. Much trumpeted recommendation of the Yashpal Committee regarding academic freedom of teachers and institutions of higher education is being put underfoot. There would be no scope for different syllabi in different States based on their socio-cultural conditions.

The power of the states to appoint Vice Chancellors of their state universities will be taken away. They have to depend first on the recommendation of the Collegium, heavily dominated by core Fellows appointed for lifetime, for the inclusion of persons in the National Registry and then on the list of five persons provided by the Commission. No person will be appointed as the Vice Chancellor if his/her name is not included in the National Registry.

The NCHER will be all powerful. 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 specified by the Commission. And, in order to start functioning they have to get “authorization” from the Commission to award any degree or diploma.

The proposal to establish a 7-member NCHER reflects the tendency of the Central Government towards centralization of higher education. It negates the role of state governments and 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.

Students and their parents and the Left parties have been demanding that self-financing 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 MHRD has now proposed a draft legislation, “The Prohibition of Unfair Practices in Technical, Medical Educational Institutions and Universities Bill, 2009”. It does not fulfil this objective. It could even nullify the operation of admission and fee regulatory committees set up by various State governments in accordance with the judgments of the Supreme Court. The loot of students and exploitation of teaching and non-teaching employees will continue. And the private or self-financing higher educational institutions will continue to make profits.

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.

Given the vastness and diversity of higher education in the country, the MHRD proposal points out that it would not be possible for the above two bodies to undertake accreditation of all higher education institutions and programmes of study. Therefore, in the draft legislative proposal, NARAHEI Bill, 2009, a provision has been made to register Accreditation Agencies for undertaking accreditation of higher education institutions.

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 are not going to be above board. This will help profit making in self-financing or 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. The assessment mechanism should also ensure the accountability of teachers and students. In fact, the educational institutions should be made self regulatory.

Kapil Sibal, immediately after assuming office as Minister for Human Resource Development on 29 May 2009, declared that to bring in the pending Foreign Education Institutions (FEI) Bill would be his top priority. The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operation, Maintenance of Quality and Prevention of Commercialization) Bill, 2007 was planned to be introduced in the Parliament (Rajya Sabha), in the first week of May 2007. But due to the opposition of the CPI(M), it was withdrawn at the last moment.

Kapil Sibal, who was then (June 2007) Minister for Science and technology, had been pushing for this Bill. After the Bill was withdrawn, he had stated, “We are going to open up our educational sector to the foreign universities and it is going to be one of the largest FDI earners,”

No wonder that the Mint in association with the Wall Street Journal (USA) in its 11^th June 2009 issue wrote that the “most recent effort by Indian politicians to ease restrictions on foreign colleges was stalled by leftist parties, who said the poor would be left behind as the cost of education rises. But India’s new coalition government, which took power last month, doesn’t rely on the leftists, improving the chances Mr. Sibal’s effort will succeed.” (Emphasis added) The Journal quoted Sibal saying “I would hope that come 2010, universities around the world will be sprinting to come to India.” He said he wants to open the market because India, despite its 1.1 billion-plus population, has an acute shortage of educated workers that threatens to inhibit economic expansion.

In a market-model university like the Foreign Educational Institutions (FEI), departments that make money, study money or attract money are given priority. Heads of universities assume the role of travelling salesmen to promote their programmes. The thinking and attitudes of students, now called consumers, are manufactured and an education system is created that produces standardised people. Thus the whole idea of culture will be threatened as this standardisation eliminates cultural focuses, thoughts, language, and educational themes. No longer will truth be sought, except whatever suits the corporate interests. As this standardisation is institutionalised through international equivalency, the uniqueness of each educational institution will vanish.

The Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in education, including higher education, is allowed in India under the automatic route, without any sectoral cap, since February, 2000. Despite this, no foreign university or educational institution sprinted to India and established its offshore campus.

It is due to the neo-liberal policies of the UPA government and its refusal to learn lessons from the recent economic meltdown that the people of the like of Sibal are hell bent to throw our higher education system to the predatory elements. People should recall that it was the opposition of the Left to raising the cap on FDI in banking and insurance sectors that saved their hard earned money. Otherwise, their savings would have been wiped out as it happened in the USA and elsewhere.

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 alone and if these are not fulfilled, the investors look for other destinations for FDI. Foreign investors aim to increase their profits that lead to commercialisation. In the field of higher education, FEIs 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.

These tactics of the FEIs would also result in local private institutions raising their fee charges to establish competitiveness affecting adversely those students who are studying in local private institutions. The FEIs 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.

It is clear that what Sibal says about deemed universities and not permitting profit making by educational institutions is tremendously misleading. He and the UPA government have been saying something and proposing entirely opposite. Main proposals of the UPA government are leading towards commercialisation of higher education. Those who felt good by Sibal’s statements, as mentioned above, must be careful. All that glitters is not gold. So is true with the statements of Kapil Sibal.

This paper was presented in All India Convention on Education, organised by Students Federation of India (SFI), February 20-21, 2010, Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi.

THE central government constituted a task force on September 7, 2009, with joint secretary (higher Education) as its convener, to aid and advise the central government in the establishment of a commission for higher education and research as recommended by the Yashpal committee and National Knowledge Commission. On first of February, the ministry of human resource development uploaded on its website (http://www.education.nic.in/) 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”.

As one reads this draft 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 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 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.

UNFOUNDED  PRESUMPTIONS

It is presumed that by abolishing University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) and National Council of Teacher Education (NCTE) and establishing a seven member NCHER will lead to “renovation and rejuvenation” of higher education. It is also presumed that the selection committee, consisting of the prime minister, speaker of Lok Sabha, the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and two ministers in charge of higher education and medical education [Section 5(5)], will chose seven members, most competent for “renovation and rejuvenation” of higher education and will be the best brains and only brains to shape the future of higher education in the country. It is further presumed that by according to the chairman and six other members of NCHER the status of chief election commissioner and Election Commissioners respectively [Section 12 (1) and (2)],  the ills of the UGC, AICTE and NCTE and prevalent corruption in these institutions can never induce the proposed NCHER.

In fact the concept of NCHER was ill thought out by the Yashpal committee itself while responding to the neo-liberal agenda of the central government. 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 central government has been privatising the work of permanent and perennial nature and appointing staff on contract basis through private manpower suppliers. The work related to security and sanitation has already been privatised. Now, its thrust is to privatise the entire ministerial work. The UGC has recently floated tender for the appointment of 130 employees for secretarial and administrative work through manpower service providers at low wages. The central government seeks to legalise contractual appointment of “academic, management, accounting, technical and scientific experts” in the NCHER [Section 14(3)]. The privatisation of such work cannot be accepted.

COLLEGIUM: AN UNDEMOCRATIC BODY

A “collegium” will be established consisting of “core Fellows and co-opted Fellows, being persons of eminence and integrity in academia in higher education and research” [Section 17(1)]. Core Fellow has to be a national research professor, or a recipient of the Nobel Prize or Field Medal or Jnanpith award, or a member of an Academy of international standing [Section 17(3)]. The numbers of core Fellows and their appointing authority have not been provided in the draft bill. There is no provision under which states can recommend persons as core Fellows.

The co-opted Fellows will be chosen by core Fellows, to represent each state and each union territory from a panel of five persons recommended by the government of each such state or union territory. The election of the co-opted Fellows is very complicated. The state/UT representative has to muster first preference vote from at least two-third of the core Fellows present and voting. The core Fellows while electing co-opted Fellows will also “ensure representation to persons with expertise in such field of knowledge which, in their opinion, is not adequately represented in the collegium” [Section 17(5)].

Thus the representatives of states and UTs will have second class status as they have to depend on the support of core Fellows. The states and UTs have been treated with contempt. They will be at the mercy of the ‘wisdom’ of core Fellows and may have to change their nominations to cover particular field of knowledge as desired by core Fellows. The term of core Fellows will be life time, while that of co-opted Fellows will be five years. Lifetime appointments generate vested interests and akin to breeding corruption.

This collegium will recommend to the selection committee, constituted as mentioned above, a panel of persons for appointments of members and chairperson of the commission [Section 19(1)]. It has not been provided in the draft as to whether NCHER will be created first and then collegium or collegium first then NCHER.

MARGINALISATION OF STATES

This collegium will also make recommendations to the commission for the determination, co-ordination, maintenance of standards in higher education and research, a vision on the emerging trends in different fields of knowledge and inclusion of persons eligible and qualified to be appointed as vice chancellor of a university in the national registry. The names of suitable persons eligible and qualified for appointment as vice chancellor of a university for inclusion in the national registry proposed to the commission by the central government, state governments, or universities will be referred to the collegium for assessing their suitability and competence [Section 20(2)].

The power of the states to appoint vice chancellors of their state universities will be taken away. They have to depend first on the recommendation of the collegium, heavily dominated by core Fellows appointed for lifetime, for the inclusion of persons in the national registry and then on the list of five persons provided by the commission. No person will be appointed as the vice chancellor if his/her name is not included in the National Registry.

The NCHER will be all powerful. 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 specified by the commission. And, in order to start functioning they have to get “authorisation” from the commission to award any degree or diploma.

CENTRALISED STRUCTURE

The NCHER will develop national curriculum framework, guide universities in revising course curricula, specify norms of academic quality for accreditation, affiliation of colleges, and governance in universities, and minimum eligibility conditions for appointment of vice chancellor of any university [Section 24]. It will develop policies for interaction between students and teachers. It will take necessary measures including schemes for gradually enabling colleges affiliated to universities to function in an autonomous manner independent of such affiliation. The coordination, determination and promotion of standards in distance education systems will also come under it [Section 56(3)].

It will also specify the norms for financing higher education institutions, principles of allocation of grants for their maintenance and development and will disburse grants. The principal of giving block grants, rather than financing higher education institutions on the basis of their requirements, will be introduced [Section 45]. Thus there will be a total centralized structure with no scope for the academic activity in accordance with requirements of the states and areas. Much trumpeted recommendation of the Yashpal committee regarding academic freedom of teachers and institutions of higher education is being put underfoot. There would be no scope for different syllabi in different states based on their socio-cultural conditions.

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, thereon in respect of each recommendation made by the commission [Section 27]. 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.

However, the central government has retained powers [Section 29] to frame in consultation with the state governments and the commission a national policy, for the development of higher education and research, which shall guide the commission.

RETROGRADE PROPOSAL

On what basis, the central government thinks that all the ailments of the UGC, AICTE and NCTE cannot affect the NCHER. After all, these bodies were also established with similar intentions for which NCHER is being proposed! The understanding of the seven 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 communalized. 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 commercialization of higher education taken up by the present Human Resource Development minister Kapil Sibal on priority basis were not the priority of the previous ministry.

The proposal to establish NCHER reflects the tendency of the central government towards centralisation of higher education. It negates the role of state governments and 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 should respond to the central government opposing establishment of such a commission.     

Published in People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIV, No. 07, February 14, 2010 

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

THE Yash Pal Committee was constituted as a Review Committee to review the functioning of UGC/AICTE in February 2008. Later on in October 2008, its name was changed as the Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education, but with no change in its terms of reference. The committee has submitted its report to the minister of human resource development, Kapil Sibal on June 24, 2009.

This report has gone much beyond its terms of its reference and is a self contradictory document. Some of its recommendations are no different from those of other committees which lead to high fees and privatisation and commercialisation of higher education.

ON STATE FINANCING

A university is perceived as a means to “overcome caste and class hierarchy, patriarchy and other cultural prejudices and also as a source of new knowledge and skills, a space for creativity and innovations.” Therefore, the committee stated in its report that higher education “was and continues to be considered a national responsibility and the State has to make necessary provisions to realize its potentials.”

However, recognising that the cost of providing quality education is increasing and the State cannot walk away from its responsibility of financing higher education, the committee recommended that “imaginative ways will have to be devised to find complementary sources of funds. Universities and other academic institutions should be able to hire professional fund raisers and professional investors to attract funding from non-government sources.” (emphasis mine)

The ‘imaginative ways’ of fund raising and the need to have fund raising officers have been suggested in detail by the infamous concept paper for the Model Act for all the universities issued by the UGC in October 2003. The ‘imaginative ways’ and other provisions contained therein actually meant privatisation and commercialisation of higher education (See People’s Democracy dated December 21 & 28, 2003, and July 25, 2004). Under strong opposition of the students and teachers, the proposed Model Act concept paper was withdrawn, but various government committees continued to recommend the same. Once this recommendation of the Yash Pal committee is implemented, the provisions of the Model Act would get revived.

No student should be turned away from an institution for want of funds for education. However, the committee noted, “Absence of differential fee has led to subsidisation of a segment of student body that can afford to pay for its education. There is no reason why both these two categories of students be placed on the same level when it comes to financing their education.” Differential fee structure has been opposed by students all along. Today a large majority of students cannot afford the present fee and 90 per cent of our youth (17-23 years age group) are outside the universities and institutions of higher education. Even out of those students who took admission at Class I, only 16.6 per cent (2005 figures) reach Class XII. If no student is to be “turned away from an institution for want of funds for education”, then the education has to be entirely funded by the State.

The committee further opined that “Guaranteed student loans at low interest rates for those who can take loans and free education for those who cannot afford it at all will be necessary to educate India.” If loan is to be taken, at howsoever low interest rate, for paying fees and other charges, then the structure of ‘fees and other charges’ will not be same as it exists today even in central universities like Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University. These will include many more types of expenses which are presently borne by the State, raising the actual charges to be taken from the students several times over. This recommendation of Yash Pal Committee is contrary to its intention.

PROFESSIONAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

At the undergraduate level students should be exposed to various disciplines like humanities, social sciences, aesthetics etc., in an integrated manner. This should be irrespective of the discipline they would like to specialise in, whether general or professional higher education like medicine, engineering, etc. Therefore, the committee recommended that professional institutions, including IITs and IIMs, should be returned to universities in a complete administrative and academic sense by abolishing intermediary licensing bodies. Such a measure will open the possibility of new kinds of course-designing for professional learning in all fields from management and architecture to medicine and engineering. Whether the IITs and IIMs should be returned to universities or not requires an intense, informed debate. The role played by them cannot be undermined.

The committee has made a very important recommendation about vocational education which has remained under-developed as it is perceived to be largely for the poor, who either cannot afford academic education or who pass out of poorly-equipped and uninspiring schools with low marks. Students who go for vocational and technical education after completing higher secondary education are deprived of any possibility of pursuing higher education after completing their vocational or technical training. Therefore, the committee recommended that this sector should be brought under the purview of universities and necessary accreditation to the courses available in polytechnics, industrial training institutions (ITIs), etc. should be provided. Additionally the barriers to entry into universities for students going through vocational training should be lowered to enable them to upgrade their knowledge base at any stage of their careers. This has been a longstanding aspiration and demand of the students studying in ITIs and polytechnics. This recommendation, if implemented, will certainly help these students wishing to return to universities and institutions of higher education for degree programmes without wasting the time they spent in these institutions.

ON STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES

“The development of all young people, be they in state-run institutions or central institutions, is a national responsibility and there cannot be any discrimination between the two. All the facilities given to central universities should be made available to the state universities. To achieve this, state governments would need to significantly enhance their support to the universities while the centre should make matching incentivising allocations available in a sense of a joint national enterprise.” Qualitative development of the colleges should be the priority. The committee stated that money needs to be made available for the qualitative development of colleges.

The state governments have been demanding increased funds for the development of their universities and colleges. The UPA government should make funds available to states for expansion, development and strengthening of higher education.

ON PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

The Yash Pal committee has noted all the ills of private higher education institutions which we have also been highlighting in these columns and demanding a comprehensive legislation to bring them under social control. The committee noted that there had been no guidelines to assess the competence of private investors to run technical institutions.

The committee forthrightly reports, “In many private educational institutions, the appointment of teachers is made at the lowest possible cost. They are treated with scant dignity, thereby turning away competent persons from opting for the teaching profession. A limited number of senior positions are filled at attractive salaries, especially from other reputed institutions, mainly for prestige. Otherwise, there are many terrible instances of faculty being asked to work in more than one institution belonging to the management; their salary being paid only for nine months; actual payments being much less than the amount signed for; impounding of their certificates and passports; compelling them to award pass marks in the internal examination to the “favorites” and fail marks for students who protest illegal collections and so on.”

The illegal capitation fees range from: Rs 1-10 lakh for the engineering courses; Rs 20-40 lakh for MBBS courses; Rs 5-12 lakh for dental courses; and about Rs 30,000-50,000 for courses in arts and science colleges, depending on the demand.”

It recommended “very tight regulations” but not encompassing all aspects.

The CPI(M) and other Left parties have been demanding a comprehensive central legislation to regulate these institutions in relation to admissions, fees, course content, infrastructure, academic standards, management, examinations, etc. The draft of such legislation, though very weak in its purpose, was issued in 2005. Despite repeated demands from the Left, the UPA refused to take it up. It is high time that the UPA government brings such a legislation.

ON DEEMED UNIVERSITIES

The committee expressed its concern on the spurt in the number of newly established educational institutes as deemed universities. “Between 2000 and 2005, 26 private-sponsored institutions got the deemed university status. Since 2005, the number of private deemed universities has increased to 108. By a notification of the UGC, it is no longer necessary for them to use the adjective “deemed” and they all call themselves simply universities. In Tamilnadu alone, the number of private deemed universities has increased from 18 in 2007 to 35 in 2008 and many are in the queue. Though, the deemed universities do not have affiliating powers, many of them have a number of campuses spread throughout the country.”

 “Between 1956 and 1990, in 35 years, only 29 institutions were granted the deemed university status. In the last 15 years, 63 institutions were declared deemed universities and particularly in the last 5 years, 36 institutions, excluding RECs, have been notified as deemed universities. …. the majority of these institutes are not established with any educational purpose, and they end up only deluding the students”. (emphasis mine)

The committee revealed that “some of the private universities were professional colleges that got approval from the regulatory bodies for university status. Immediately thereafter, they started admitting five to six times their intake capacity, without a corresponding increase in faculty strength or academic infrastructure. The classes and laboratories were conducted at strange hours like a factory production operation.” Some of these universities offered to “give ‘guaranteed’ degrees at any level, including PhD, for a price.”

In view of considerable misuse of the provision for Deemed University status, the committee recommended that “the granting of such status should be put on hold till unambiguous and rational guidelines are evolved. The institutions, which have somehow managed to secure such status should be given a period of three years to develop as a university and fulfill the prescribed accreditation norms failing which the status given to them would be withdrawn.”

This recommendation is not enough. The democratic movement, involving students, teachers, parents and intelligentsia, has been demanding scrapping of the deemed university status granted to private institutions and reverting them back as affiliated institutions.

Part-II

ON FOREIGN UNIVERSITIES

BEFORE taking any decision on allowing foreign universities to operate in India, the Yash Pal committee stated that we have to be very clear about the purpose it is going is achieve. Interaction with the best minds of the world would only enhance the quality of our universities. But giving an open license to all and sundry carrying a foreign ownership tag to function like universities in India — most of them not even known in their own countries — would only help them earn profit for their parent institutions located outside or accrue profit to their shareholders. However, the committee observed that “if the best of foreign universities, say amongst the top 200 in the world, want to come here and work, they should be welcomed. Any decision in this regard has to be taken with utmost care keeping in mind the features, which are essential for an institution to be called a university. Such institutions should give an Indian degree and be subject to all rules and regulations that would apply to any Indian university.”

It is fine to invite foreign scholars to our universities for delivering some lectures and share their knowledge. But welcoming foreign universities, even if amongst top 200 in the world, is problematic. The Yash Pal committee did not go into the merit of the issue at all. The foreign universities and education providers would be guided by profit and market alone. They would design and 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. By their money power foreign educational institutions would be able to attract best teachers and financially well off students from local institutions affecting them adversely.

Foreign Direct Investment in education 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, no foreign educational institutions should be invited to open up their shops in India and therefore no legislation is required.

ON UNIFORM ALL INDIA EXAMINATION, GRE

The committee interestingly recommended in its section on ‘financing’ that national tests like GRE (Graduate Record Examination), should be organised round the year, and students from all over India aspiring to enter universities should be allowed to take these tests as many times as they like. Their best test score can be used by the universities for admission. This requires, it said, a “rethinking on the need to continue with State Boards of Secondary Education and the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).”

The GRE type examination at all India level for admission to universities is no solution to the kind of ‘trauma’ that the students face. The only difference is that the board examinations are annual while GRE is offered more than once in a year. What is necessary is to reform the pattern of examination and increase the number of seats at higher level with adequate facilities and infrastructure.

The rethinking on state boards of secondary education encroaches upon the powers of the state governments. This recommendation is also in contradiction with its own observation that “all syllabi should require the teachers and students to apply what they have learnt in their courses, on studying a local situation, issue or problem. There should be sufficient room for the use of local data and resources to make the knowledge covered in the syllabus come alive as experience.” (emphasis mine) Thus there would be different syllabi and evaluation points in different states based on their socio-cultural conditions. A common all India test for entry into institutions of higher education would undermine this aspect and would be detrimental to the interests of our students.

NATIONAL AND STATE EDUCATION TRIBUNALS

The increasing involvement of higher education institutions and universities in long drawn out litigation in judicial courts has also been a matter of concern for the committee. For a fast-track statutory mechanism for the adjudication of disputes between teachers, employees and management of institutions and universities in respect of matters concerning service conditions, as well as in matters of disputes relating to fee, admissions etc., the committee recommended that a suitable law be enacted to establish a National Education Tribunal along with State Education Tribunals. The teacher movement has been opposing the idea of establishing tribunals. No provision which would take away the rights of the university community to take recourse to the courts of law can be accepted. This requires informed discussion amongst the university community.

ON REGULATION

The committee argues that all of higher education has to be treated as an integrated whole. Professional education cannot be detached from general education. It would be, therefore, imperative that all higher education, including engineering, medicine, agriculture, law and distance education, is brought within the purview of a single, all-encompassing higher education authority.

Presently, there are 13 professional councils, such as AICTE, MCI, NCTE, etc.,  created under various Acts of parliament. The committee saw the present functions of these councils as two-fold; first, the bench-marking of standards for professional practice and second, the pedagogy and academic inputs required for professional studies. The committee notes that there is very little co-ordination among the statutory bodies in respect of degree durations, approval mechanisms, accreditation processes, etc. “It sometimes leads to very embarrassing situations in which we find two regulatory agencies at loggerheads and fighting legal cases against each other.”

Therefore, the committee recommended, “a de novo regulatory body under which the various functions of existing regulatory agencies would be subsumed. The powers vested currently in these multiple agencies for regulating creation of academic institutions and their content would be also taken over by the proposed apex regulatory body.” This apex regulatory body would be called “The National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER). All the existing professional bodies should be divested of their academic functions. They may conduct regular qualifying tests for professionals in their respective fields – a Bar Council exam for practicing advocates for example. The professional councils may prescribe syllabi for such exams and leave it to the universities to design their curriculum including such syllabi. All academic decisions should necessarily be left to academics in universities. Similarly, any ‘vocational’ or technical education, which is post-secondary, should be the concern of the universities.”

The NCHER would be, according to the committee, an autonomous body created by making a suitable amendment to the Constitution, accountable only to the Indian parliament and drawing its budgetary resources from the ministry of finance. It would have a seven-member board with a full-time chairperson. The status of the chairperson should be analogous to that of the chief election commissioner and that of the members should be comparable to the election commissioners. Of the seven members, one would be an eminent professional from the world of industry and one with the background of a long and consistent social engagement. All other five members would be academic people of eminence, representing broad areas of knowledge.

The process of identifying the chairperson and members should be vested with a search committee comprising “the prime minister, the leader of the opposition in parliament and the chief justice of India in consultation with a collegium consisting of eminent academics, learned academies and prestigious institutions relating to the fields of knowledge in diverse fields.”

The commission would be, as recommended by the committee, independent of all ministries of the government of India. This commission would be for all matters relating to or incidental to the regulation of standards in all branches of higher education, including technical, medical and professional education in any field of knowledge. ‘All matters’ on which it would issue regulations include academic standards, norms and process for accreditation, establishing and winding up institutions, financing, governance and all matters relating to the standards of higher education of universities and other institutions of higher learning and research.

The Yash Pal committee having defined the universities to be autonomous spaces, diverse in their design and organisation, self assessing and governing, and responsible for its own curriculum framework, instructions and evaluation of students, has contradicting itself recommended a de novo model, the NCHER, which will issue regulations on all such matters and monitor the universities and other institutions of higher education.

There are several points worth considering here. The NCHER, selected by the prime minister, leader of the opposition and chief justice of India, would be independent of all ministries and ‘political interference’ of any government in place, and responsible only to the parliament. Is this a guarantee and assurance that it would necessarily come out as the most wise institution and would work in public interest? On what basis, the Yash Pal committee can say that all the ailments of the 13 councils seen by it cannot affect the NCHER. After all, these 13 professional councils were also established with similar intentions for which NCHER is being proposed! The understanding of the seven members of the commission, even if vetted by the parliament, 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, like ‘innovative ways’ suggested by this committee, then imagine what would happen to our higher education system. The need of the hour is to make all these councils function for the purpose for which they were constituted, eradicate corruption prevalent in them, make them work efficiently and serve the cause of education.

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

The recommendations of Yash Pal committee, barring a few, if implemented, are going to either centrally control the entire higher education system or lead to privatisation and commercialisation of higher education as discussed above. It is clear the prescriptions of this committee, by any stretch of imagination, are not for renovation and rejuvenation of higher education.

This article was published in two parts in People’s Democracy, VoXXXIII, No. 29, July 19, 2009 and People’s Democracy, Vol. XXXIII, No. 30, July 26, 2009