The REVISED draft Bill for NCHER

Towards Complete Control over Higher Education

 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 Foreign Educational Institutions Bill, 2010

An instrument to kill higher education

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).

Demonstration outside parliament protesting against the introduction of FEI Bill, 2010

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

Video: A panel discussion on Foreign Educational Institutions Bill, 2010

Video: Come on in Harvard

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

Commercialisation Galore: Looting students, exploiting teachers

Vijender Sharma

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.

UPA’s Neoliberal Agenda In Education: Kapil Sibal’s glitter is not gold

Vijender Sharma

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

Vijender Sharma

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.

Yash Pal Committee Report: Prescriptions not for Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education

Vijender Sharma

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.

UPA and Higher Education: Unfulfilled Programme

Vijender Sharma

IN 2004, the Congress-led United Progressive Alliance (UPA) while assuming power at the centre promised to the people of India through its National Common Minimum Programme that it would “raise public spending in education to at least 6 per cent of GDP” in a “phased manner”. It further pledged that nobody would be “denied professional education because he or she is poor”. It committed itself to the cause of social justice. Expansion of access to education, equity, quality of education and regulation of private professional educational institutions were among other promises it made to the people.

It is the time for all stakeholders to take stock of the record of the Congress led UPA government and see whether the programme that UPA promised to the nation about higher education has been fulfilled or not.

Read Full Article

 

GATS and Higher Education in India: Implications and Concerns

Vijender Sharma

ABSTRACT

 Education at all levels will continue to grow. Predatory and powerful transnational corporations are targeting public education, particularly higher education, for profit making. Though pre-dominantly government supported service, most governments are, as a consequence of trade liberalization, withdrawing from it. Education is sought to be traded as a service through General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS) covered in the World Trade Organisation (WTO). Several countries are exporting higher education and making huge profits. The United States has shown largest trade surplus in education. The trend of treating education, particularly higher education, as a tradable commodity has affected the economy and education system of many developing countries including India. Policy planners in developing countries are also succumbing to the pressures of developed countries, particularly that of the United States. In this paper, the general states of affairs obtaining internationally in the field of education have been discussed. The basic rule of GATS, forms of trades and the kinds of trade barriers have been described. The kinds of pressures to remove trade barriers, the Government of India has been facing and its response to them, have been analysed. Growth of transnational trade in education and huge profits made by several countries has been pointed out. The state of Indian higher education has been summarized. Recent initiatives and policy papers of the Government of India treating higher education as a tradable private good have been critically examined. The concerns and implications, for the people and our education system, of commercialization of higher education in India have been expressed. The necessity for the whole society to rise to defend the system of higher education in India has been emphasized.

Higher Education in India:

Need for Equitable Balance Between Equity, Quality and Quantity

 Vijender Sharma

The globalising economy poses new challenges, economic, social, political and cultural, at a time when more and more private institutions of higher education are being established. Such challenges not only address issues of access, equity, funding and quality but also those of national sovereignty, cultural diversity, poverty and sustainable development. Recent policy decisions taken by the Central government in view of the recommendations of the CABE Committees and National Knowledge Commission will also severely affect access and equity and put the issue of social justice in higher education in jeopardy.

Twenty-first century witnessed unprecedented demand for higher education: 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. Higher education in Indiais being de facto commercialised. There are several reasons¹ 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 interest of the business houses.

Indian Higher Education: Commodification and Foreign Direct Investment

 Vijender Sharma

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

Read Full Article                                                                                                     

FEI Bill: Crass Commercialisation Of Higher Education

Vijender Sharma

 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. The moment it was learnt, the CPI(M) told the central government that the Party would oppose it right at its introduction stage because of its position on the issue of Foreign Universities and Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) in education in India. The Party further said that such a Bill could not be introduced in the parliament without discussion and the government agreed to that. Though the Bill has not been introduced in the parliament, it is necessary to know the provisions of the Bill and understand its consequences.

According to the Statement of Objects and Reasons of the Bill, a number of Foreign Educational Institutions (FEIs) have been operating in the country. Some of them may be “resorting to various mal-practices to allure and attract students, particularly in smaller cities and towns.” It further points out that there was as yet neither centralised policy, nor regulatory regime for FEIs in the country. It has given rise to “chances of fraud and cheating of gullible students and its crass commercialisation. In the absence of appropriate regulatory framework, or even a registering arrangement, no authentic statistics are available in respect of the number of FEIs in India.” Therefore, the Bill is meant to “maintain the standards of higher education within the country as well as to protect the interests of the students’ community” and to check and control “sub-standard or ‘fly by night’ operators.”

On National Knowledge Commission Report, 2006: Privatisation Of Higher Education Is The Main Aim

 Vijender Sharma

 NATIONAL Knowledge Commission (NKC) has recently submitted its annual report to the prime minister. The NKC’s ‘Report to the Nation 2006’ states that “destiny of India is in the hands of 550 million people below the age of 25 who will benefit the most from the new knowledge initiatives. The proportion of our population, in the age group 18-24, that enters the world of higher education is around 7 per cent, which is only one-half the average for Asia.” The NKC therefore recommends creation of “1500 universities nationwide, that would enable India to attain a gross enrolment ratio of at least 15 per cent by 2015.”

The NKC has given recommendations 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 in its report are contrary to the purpose. These prescriptions are no different than those provided by the infamous Birla-Ambani report or the concept paper for the Model Act for all the universities in India. Therefore, it is necessary to analyse and discuss each block of recommendations of the NKC Report.

CONSULTATION PAPER ON TRADE IN EDUCATION SERVICES: Higher Education in India and GATS: A Disastrous Proposal

Vijender Sharma

THE Trade Policy Division of the Department of Commerce, Government of India, has recently circulated a consultation paper on trade in education services. Titled “Higher Education in India and GATS: An Opportunity,” it is in preparation for the ongoing services negotiations at the WTO. While pointing out the problems of higher education in India, the consultation paper has argued that with a multi-billion dollar industry involving foreign education providers, distance learning and franchisees, “GATS could provide an opportunity to put together a mechanism whereby private and foreign investment in higher education can be encouraged.”

Read Full Article

ON THE APPROACH PAPER TO ELEVENTH FIVE YEAR PLAN: Towards ‘Slower’ And More ‘Exclusive’ Growth In Education – II

Vijender Sharma

 Click here for Part-I

TECHNICAL AND VOCATIONAL EDUCATION

ACCORDING to the data collected in 60th round of NSS, only 3 per cent of the rural youth (15-29 years) and 6 per cent of the urban youth have gone through a formal course of vocational training of any kind. It is good that a concern has been expressed in the Approach Paper about the expansion of vocational training “from the present capacity of a mere 2 to 3 million to 15 million new entrants to the labour force. The Eleventh Plan must pay special attention to devising innovative ways of modernising the Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs).” 

Privatisation of ITIs on Cards

According to the Paper, “vocational training for both men and women shall be accorded top priority in the Eleventh Plan.” But what is of concern is that vocational training will be “treated as an industry to attract investment into it.” A new initiative at “Public Private Partnership” will be launched “that will give a choice to the industry in design of courses and to the youth in selecting courses.” Whatever the phrase – public private partnership, public private participation, public private initiative or any other phrase – it is a synonym for privatisation and commercialisation. If the Industrial Training Institutes (ITIs) are brought under the “new initiative at public private partnership”, then lakhs of students who wish to take training in these institutions will suffer because they have to pay high fees for the same. These institutions need to be strengthened in terms of number and infrastructure. But their privatisation and commercialisation would be disastrous for the children of low income groups who enroll in ITIs for vocational training.

CABE Committe Report on Autonomy of Higher Education Institutions:

UGC Seeks to Implement Infamous Model Act

Vijender Sharma

 The University Grants Commission in a meeting held on 18th November 2005 approved in principle the implementations of the recommendations of the sub-committee of CABE on “Autonomy of Higher Education Institutions” (AHEI). The Commission has sought the “inputs and suggestions of institutions/academics/stakeholders in higher education for the effective implementation of the entire recommendations, which would be placed before appropriate expert committees”. Based on these inputs, the expert committees will finalise the guidelines for implementing the recommendations of the Report. The guidelines will then be placed before the Commission for necessary approval. (Emphasis added)

The Report has dealt with several contentious issues and given such recommendations which have been opposed by the students and teachers. Therefore, an attempt has been made in this response paper to give “inputs and suggestions” to the UGC and all stakeholders so that higher education institutions remain open, not only for affluent, but for all.

Commercialisation of Higher Education in India

Vijender Sharma

Higher education in India is being de facto commercialised. But the commercialisation of higher education has been taking place due to several reasons. These reasons include socio-economic policies adopted by the successive union governments, particularly since mid-eighties, the ideological commitments of the ruling class, proactive role of the judiciary, vested interest of the business houses, the failure of the State funded education system due to gradual withdrawal of the State in responding to the needs and requirements of the people and growing choice of the elite, neo-rich and affluent sections for the private sector institutions both local and foreign.

The beginning of 1990s witnessed the start of the era of globalisation. Higher education system faced a massive cut in public expenditure. In the beginning of this decade, even the payment of salaries to the teaching and non-teaching employees became difficult. Punnaiyya Committee recommended 25 percent of the recurring expenditure to be recovered from the students and raising resources by renting out the facilities existing in the higher education institutions which contributed to direct commercialisation of higher education.

Withdraw UGC’s Model Act For All Universities

Vijender Sharma

Click here for Part I                                       Click here for Part II

HAVING crippled the higher education system in India and other developing and transition countries, the World Bank has evolved a ‘new role’ for itself in the higher education sector. But the prescriptions for the reforms in the higher education system are the same that the World Bank has been giving since 1986. The previous BJP led NDA government had responded promptly through the UGC which issued a concept paper for a Model Act for all universities in October 2003.

MHRD and UGC under BJP-led Govt

DEMOLISHING DELHI UNIVERSITY

 Vijender Sharma

 WHILE the BJP-led NDA government is working overtime to privatise and commercialise higher education in the country, the ministry of human resource development (MHRD) and university grants commission (UGC), have especially targeted Delhi University. By some of their actions taken in the last few years, they have been dismantling Delhi University brick by brick. But their recent circular, dated December 30, 2003 to Delhi Colleges abolishing ‘Extended College Scheme’, sought to demolish Delhi University.

TWENTY THOUSAND LESS ADMISSION

Under this Scheme, Delhi University’s Extended Colleges have been getting 95 per cent grants from the UGC and 5 per cent was to be borne by the Governing Bodies for students up to one thousand, and 100 per cent grants for admissions above one thousand. The consequence of this two-line circular which was applicable with effect from December 30, 2003 was that from the next academic session the colleges of Delhi University would admit about twenty thousand less students in the regular stream in all courses. In the regular stream, the University has only about forty five thousand seats and this number falls far short of the requirement. There has always been pressure on the University from the people to increase the number of seats. However in one stroke the UGC, unmindful of the requirement, had drastically decreased the students’ strength.

The decision to abolish the Extended College Scheme was taken by the UGC in October 2000 on the basis of the Anandakrishnan Committee Report submitted in late 1999. This decision, which was sought to be implemented last month, would have affected the number of teachers and non-teaching employees as they were appointed on the basis of the number of students. About 2,500 teachers and non-teaching employees would have been declared surplus in the first year of its implementation alone and this number would have increased in the second and third year with lesser number of students going to higher classes.

UGC’S MODEL ACT FOR 21ST CENTURY UNIVERSITIES IN INDIA: Desperate ‘Act’ For Commercialisation of Higher Education — II

Vijender Sharma

Click here for Part I                     Click here for Part III

 IN view of “the ongoing globalisation in the higher education sector, the steady reduction in government funding of the universities, and the increasing influence of ICT on education,” a generalised university of the 21st century in the country has to “perform multiple functions.” In addition to the already existing traditional functions, the Model Act, applicable to all the types of universities in the country, would include “the mobilisation of financial resources to become self-sufficient” as one of its objects and would have statutory provisions for raising resources through:

• Sponsored R&D projects funded, apart from government agencies, by industries and companies,
• Consultancy and testing services for “industries, companies and other institutions in India/abroad,
• Preparing the outgoing students for national/state level competitive   examinations, interviews, entrepreneurship, new careers and other opportunities, and
• Creation and preparation of educational/research material like text/reference books, audio/video tapes/cassettes, floppies/CDs.

Further, “for financial and physical resources generation/mobilisation from various sources, like central/state governments, non-governmental organisations, international funding agencies, philanthropists and other donors,” the universities would be allowed to set up a “company or registered society,” and associate and collaborate “with the private sector.” Thus the Vision and Strategy of the UGC, in times to come, is not only that the universities should respond to the market needs, but that the universities should become a part of the market and private sector by setting up companies and registered societies for revenue generation. The fundamental task of the universities to assimilate, create and disseminate knowledge is of least priority for the Vision and Strategy of the UGC.