Higher Education in India

The term, university is said to have been derived from the old French word, ‘universite’ or from Latin ‘universitas’. Both, the French and the Latin words mean ‘the whole’ which is more or less a translation of the Arabic word, Jam-e- or Jamia used for a high level institution of education, learning and research. The Arabic Jam-e-, interestingly also means ‘inclusive’. That Jam-e- or Jamia is the place where all disciplines and subjects as well as views and ideas are taught. The term, university also contains the same meaning. In a sense it can be taken as a compound word consisting of ‘universe’ and ‘city’ and thus it may mean a place which includes the entire universe in itself. Understood either way, a university stands for a place of higher learning and academic research. It is a place where broad-minded qualified teachers, described as heirs to the prophets in Islamic tradition, impart quality education to equally eager and enthusiastic students. A university, by its definition and nature, has to be open, inclusive and accommodative, tolerant of diverse views, a house of varied cultures, colours, ethnicities and nationalities, all bound together by the common desire for knowledge. Here the teacher and the taught are to be highly motivated to excel both in acquisition and promotion of knowledge.

The founding fathers of India had a grand vision about the universities of free India. They were highly conscious of the great role that universities and centres of higher education were to play in ensuring all round development of the country. Guided by urgency in some areas, they also set up specialized institutes and councils. It makes a sad commentary, however, that over the years they became India’s most pampered institutions overshadowing the universities. It was the victory of the small over the big, and understandably the consequences have been disastrous. There has been no financial - academic auditing of the pampered institutes and councils but there is a growing impression that many of them have largely been India’s feeder institutions for foreign universities, a reality normally described as brain drain.

How to redeem the situation is a million dollar question. We have very few critical and creative thinkers who carry influence with the policy-makers. The political class has just begun to realize the gravity of the matter but some of its initial steps such as conferring ‘deemed university’ status on private institutions have backfired. It sounds good that there should be co-operation between the government and the private sector to overcome the deficit in higher education. But, as the saying goes, everything that shines is not necessarily a gold coin.

The matter needs further clarification. Some private universities have no doubt excelled in USA and elsewhere. But the economic situation and higher education realities, as they obtain in India, are very different. There is no gap between the standards of the feeder schools and universities in advanced countries whereas in India it is a big problem. As a result the universities do not get the high quality stuff which is so essential for achieving excellence. Another big problem is that private money is available for market-oriented courses only, for the wealthy parents want their wards to get an education that gives them financial rewards quickly.

In India, therefore, the government intervention in higher education is essential. For, a country of grave economic inequalities that India happens to be, cannot afford to increase the cost of higher education by making it private. The private sector must be welcome to open universities of excellence which we all need and desire for. But what we saw recently was that many private universities were eager to make money than redeem or promote higher education in the country. This trend is rightly being checked and curbed by the government now.

The private sector interested in higher education must be first impressed upon that there is a sea difference between a university and an education shop. They must also be told clearly that education must remain education and should not be converted into a profit-making industry. The government is duty bound to regulate higher education with a view to ensuring equality in opportunities of higher education. The government also must ensure that both state and private universities follow the rules which the UGC and HRD Ministry lay down from time to time.

Another big problem afflicting higher education in the country is its administration. We often see that college/university administrations are at loggerheads with their teaching or non-teaching employees. The problem is that many university administrations attempt to curb internal democracy and impose things which are whimsical, even illegal. Such tendencies, as can be imagined, are not good for India’s higher education sector. Such a situation would only discourage merit and promote sycophancy and mediocrity. The condition worsens more when the UGC breaks its own rule and thus encourages absolutism in colleges and universities.

Internal democracy is the panacea which every university therefore must promote if it has to excel in higher education. Democracy’s role is to promote interaction and healthy debate among various sections of a university fraternity. Democratic discussions, when conducted with sincerity, never lead to impasse: instead they open windows of opportunities, promote understanding and co-operation and, above all, ensure the supremacy of the rule of law.

Absolutism and breaking rules can never take a university to greatness.

[January, 2010]

Delayed But Welcome

Whether bowing to the persistent demand of some opposition parties or owing to its own political calculations, the UPA government has tabled the Ranganath Misra Commission report in the Parliament. While submitting the report to the House, Minister of Minority Affairs, Salman Khurshid said that no ‘action taken’ report was required as it was not mandatory. Some secular opposition parties, however, suggested that an “action taken” report would have served the purpose in a more meaningful manner.

The tabling of the Misra report was long overdue. Well, many of its contents were leaked to the media long ago and, therefore, were well known. But tabling the report in the Parliament on 18^th December means that the government was serious about implementing its recommendations.

But perhaps it would not be an easy ride for the government. For, the Misra Commission report is not merely about giving reservations to the Muslims within the 27% OBC quota. In fact, any impression if the Misra report was pro-Muslim would not only be misplaced but also dangerous. The report contains many things some of which may disturb the champions of OBC reservation as well. The report, for example, has criticized the government’s failure to purge the list of OBCs of those castes that have moved forward in life and can not be considered as backward any longer. As a result the list of OBCs has not only become fat but has also been defeating the very purpose for which the reservation was originally sought: improving the conditions of the poor among the backward castes. The ‘forward among the backward’ make maximum utilization of the opportunities offered by the OBC reservation leaving little space for the poor of their class to strive for improving his lot. This purging should have taken place in 2003 but the government could not muster enough courage to fulfil its constitutional obligations; instead it added a few more relatively rich castes to the OBC list.

The present OBC leaders, such as Lalu and Mulayam, have ostensibly welcome the tabling of the report in the Parliament. But there may be others, or they may emerge, to oppose it because it has proposed 8% reservation for minorities within the 27% OBC quota. Of the 8% two per cent will be for non-Muslims and 6% for the Muslims because they constitute an overwhelming majority among the minorities. The Misra panel’s argument is that the Muslims have very poor representation in government jobs and therefore they need reservation.

It is obvious that the BJP and its patron, RSS as well as their numerous affiliates would oppose the Misra report condemning it as minoritism and Muslim appeasement. But the Sangh Privar’s allegation holds no water. In fact, the Misra panel, sensing the prospective opposition, has sought to explain the reasons for adopting this policy of reservation within reservation. The panel feels that although large numbers of Muslims are already included in the OBC list but they are unable to compete with their relatively more prosperous and educationally advanced Hindu counterparts. But more than this argument what would silence the OBC leadership from voicing opposition to the recommendations of the Misra panel is their fear of losing the Muslim vote bank. This is the beauty of democracy that various considerations, pulls and pressures bring about balance in people’s thinking and approaches and pave the way for reason to prevail over blind and raw passions.

Another reason for not opposing the ‘quota within quota’ policy is that it has already been implemented in Kerala, Karnataka and Andhra Pradesh. The Centre would surely adopt this Southern example or pattern to counter political as well as judicial challenges if any. The UPA leadership seems to have done its home work well; the result is that no one, barring the BJP, is opposing the Misra panel’s report tooth and nail.

The Sangh Parivar’s biggest problem is perhaps not the ‘quota within quota’ for Muslims but the Misra Commission’s recommendation to give the reservation benefits to Christian and Muslim Dalits. These are the Dalits who have become Christian or Muslim and thus forfeited their right to caste-based reservation, for there is no caste system in Christianity or in Islam. The Misra panel, while taking note of the theological reality, has advanced the argument that practically caste system operates both among Christians and Muslims. Moreover, conversion from one religion to another one does not necessarily results in economic or educational advancement of the convert. Thus the convert, by remaining backward educationally and economically, should continue to benefit from the reservation policy till he/she becomes forward or advanced on these counts.

Obviously the Sangh Parivar would not be impressed by such arguments. Their spacious argument is that extending the benefits of reservation to Christian and Muslim Dalits would encourage conversion. But why they do not realize that denying them the benefits of reservation on account of their having become Christian or Muslim would amount to state coercion to keep them within the Hindu fold.

Well, economic or any other material benefit, should not be the basis for leaving one religion for the other but, at the same time, it should not be used to make any one captive of a particular religion. Moreover, the Sangh Parivar must realize that many rich Dalits also embrace Islam and Christianity, hence material inducement can not be the reason for their conversion. It is probably their perpetual, unchangeable low status that compels them to change their religion.

[December, 2009]