The problem

FOR a country aspiring to be a knowledge super power, it might be useful to not forget the cautionary words of the late Professor Raj Krishna. Best known for his memorable phrase, ‘the Hindu rate of growth’, he also continually bemoaned that our decision-makers remain stubbornly ‘knowledge proof’. And while such descriptions may appear a tad unfair in a country whose prime minister is a widely respected economist, and whose citizens occupy tenured chairs in some of the world’s best centres of knowledge, it is difficult to deny that no Indian university or institute, the IIMs and IITs included, ever makes it to the top ranks in any list. More troubling than the absence of top positions is the quality of the modal product from our higher education system. Little surprise that, exceptions apart, all employers – public or private – continue to carp about the unsatisfactory skill and knowledge base of our graduates, and at all levels.

We often like to believe that this was not always so, that in the golden years of the 1950s and 1960s, when Indian higher education was going through the first flush of post-independence expansion, India could pride itself for being at least a Third World leader in matters of higher education. We claimed to have the third largest scientific and technical workforce in the world, confident about piggybacking our growth path on our human resources. Few today would seriously make that claim. And while there is no dearth of committees advancing their favoured suggestions for reform – from the Radhakrishnan Commission in the ’50s to the reports of the National Knowledge Commission more recently – little seems to have changed.

Despite less than ten per cent of those who enter the school system even accessing higher education, most centres of learning seem woefully overstretched – inadequate resources, infrastructure, teachers – incapable of ensuring acceptable quality of learning. The few exceptions are thus hugely in demand and inordinately difficult to access, either because of limited capacity or because of pricing considerations. It’s sobering to remember that well over 100,000 Indian students are studying abroad and spending close to four billion dollars annually, and not just in the West or other English speaking nations, but of late even in China.

Analysts of our higher education, woefully few in number, have highlighted a multiplicity of causes – inadequate public funding, the sorry state of our school system, the relative decline of teaching/research as a career, a Byzantine system of controls best reflected in the desire to regulate both the inflow of students and the pricing of the service, in brief an endemic politicization of institutions – and the list is expandable. Overall, despite the success of a few professional schools, the vast majority of our institutions are incapable of producing students with skills and knowledge, the system neither serving a screening or signalling function, nor preparing students to be productive and responsible citizens. As one scholar points out, ‘The current system is highly centralized, politicized and militates against the production of general intellectual values. The fact that it nonetheless produces a noticeable number of high quality students owes more to Darwinian selection mechanisms and less to pedagogic achievements.’

Any meaningful discussion on reform must be based on sound empirical knowledge – the number/type/quality of institutions; who accesses higher education by class/caste/community/gender; the distribution between public and private provisioning; fees charged and actual expenditure; and, above all, some benchmarks of quality. All this, despite recent efforts by the National Sample Survey, remains inadequate. Our knowledge of the internal governance systems of various higher education providers so as to design appropriate policy instruments is even scantier.

Hardly surprising that so much of our public discourse on what ails Indian higher education remains essentially ideological – each tendency parroting favoured solutions. So while the Left continues to harp on an expansion of state funding and control as the solution for all ills, their opponents invoke the mantra of privatization. It is, for instance, rarely appreciated that the Indian higher education system is, in the main, privately run and controlled, not as a result of the changing preferences of key actors – the state, judiciary, or the propertied classes – but because of a breakdown of the state system, a privatization by default and one which remains hostage to ‘discretionary actions of the state.’

The next five year plan proposes a major increase in the public expenditure on higher education. Also proposed is a quantum increase in the number of central universities, IITs and IIMs. In addition bills have been prepared for governing the operation of both private universities and foreign education providers. As many as a dozen states have introduced (or have on the anvil) legislation on private universities. Alongside are plans to make the higher education system more inclusive, essentially by introducing quotas for the socially and educationally underprivileged communities as also ease access by offering scholarships and subsidized bank loans. But whether all this will propel the Indian higher education system into a globally competitive attractive site of learning and teaching remains uncertain.

In the wake of these proposed changes in the higher education sector, it is imperative that we seriously discuss what works, where and how – if only to not add to our proclivity of throwing more good money after bad. Towards this end we need to study not only our own experiences but also those elsewhere. Most importantly, we should not once again fall prey to errors of specification. For instance, rather than treat higher education as a right, we must appreciate the distinction between an enabling environment wherein every desiring learner can upgrade skills and knowledge, and the right to be taught. Entry to higher education institutions has to be earned and cannot, unlike elementary schooling, be treated as a right.

Similarly, rather than obsess about the few premier centres of learning and research, the greater attention has to be on steadily improving the quality of the average. It is worth remembering that the vitality of the US system of higher education comes not just from the Harvards or Yales but from the quality of the lesser-known state universities and colleges. The high-end researchers are crucial but we will only produce them in adequate numbers if the average graduate is properly tooled and empowered. A knowledge society cannot be produced only or even primarily by the state; it demands active involvement of all segments of society, both the private sector and civil society. Equally, unlike in the last century, higher education is no longer a national affair. Both students and teachers are today mobile and drawn from across national boundaries, thus both courses and pedagogy have to be internationally relevant. Finally, we need to be alive to the potentials of technology – be it the use of virtual classrooms or the production of multimedia educational material – as a route to creating a vibrant learning environment.

Learning societies are the product of long-term social and historical processes. We need to look at the current explosion of demand for learning and skills as an opportunity for reform by bringing in facilitative and enabling rules and regulations rather than rework our already elaborate systems of control. In short, our planners could do worse than work within their limitations and, for once, trust the people.