Entrusting 20 institutions under the ‘Institutions of Eminence’ category alone will not do any good in reforming the education sector in India. Intellectual leadership and professional autonomy are the only way out
It is now widely recognised that India must have a presence in the international ranking of higher education institutions. In pursuance of its decision, the Union Government identified six institutions that got this tag initially. It would be increased to 20 in the due course. One of those named, the Jio University, ran into a rough weather. It had led to certain accusations that were, in the routine, countered by the Government. This could have become an occasion to reflect upon how India could enhance its higher education institutions, in credibility and quality of products.
It is a very serious issue that has several complexities to be comprehended and resolved. Academics, with no ideological baggage and political aspirations, insist that the issue is not about creating to the 20 top institutions of eminence but about checking the downward slide on practically every professional aspect in most of the universities funded by the State and Central Governments.
One must add that India certainly has more than 20 institutions that are of global standards but may not find a place in rankings that are based upon specific cultural context and a scale of origin which could be traced to the impact of globalisation, privatisation and commercialisation. There is a strong school of thought that suggests that India with its commitment to provide ‘inclusive education’ to everyone, including 50 per cent of those who need reservations, would do better in concentrateing on quality upgradation across the board than joining the race for a place in the global ranking list.
It is an encouraging that in spite of all the deficiencies in the education systems, our young graduates brought recognition and reputation through their presence in NASA and a practical ‘takeover’ of the Silicon Valley. But how could one ignore the stark reality of the reports claiming that over 80-90 per cent of professional graduates are not found fit for the job market even in India, leaving aside global openings emerging out of ageing societies. The education system cannot be improved upon by merely concentrating on 20 lucky institutions, ignoring the ocean of poor ones. This gives rise to the question of how and why have we landed into this situation.
To understand the downward slide of quality in Indian education, one must recall the conditions that prevailed in schools, colleges and universities just five-six decades ago. Several universities, like those of Kolkata, Bombay, Madras, Patna, Allahabad and a couple of others; were known for their professional contributions. Government schools and colleges in every district enjoyed maximum credibility and were most sought after for admissions from children of every strata of society.
While there were instances of school teachers taking tuition classes, initially, it was impossible to think of a college teacher or university professor taking tuition or associating himself /herself with a coaching institution. Teachers were poorly paid and the fate of university teachers was no better. Infrastructure facilities were highly deficient. These, however, never dampened the enthusiasm, commitment of performance of the teachers associated with any school or college.
Known for its maximum contributions in civil services and excellence in scientific research at international level, the science faculty of the University of Allahabad located at the Muir Central College had only one telephone connection in the office of the Dean of the faculty. Any professor missing the class was unthinkable. Every faculty member considered it his moral and divine obligation to ensure that the desired extent and level of learning has been imparted to every learner.
Conducting high-level research was accepted as one of the major pursuit by the academics, without any ‘circular’ or compulsion. Everyone successfully aspired to publish his/her contribution in the best of the reputed journals. Exceptions, of course, exist all the time but these could never impact the work culture or the professional commitment and the quality of products and research output.
In several laboratories, one would find the presence of researchers round the clock. Further, one could safely state that in the faculty of science, the average presence of staff members was not less than 10-12 hours everyday. The area of activity has shifted to coaching institutions, committee membership of regulatory bodies, foreign trips and much more. Great institutions create a work culture of their own. It just cannot be achieved by making bio-metric records or issuing circulars and GOs. A bureaucrat may comfortably prepare a four-page policy note within few hours of the receipt of instructions from the bosses; an academic may take days to do the same. It is domain knowledge that would force him/her to ‘think’ and that takes time. Sadly, it is the bureaucracy in India that takes decisions on recommendations of the academics. To them domain knowledge is not of much importance. In the process, the very essence of autonomy is lost.
IITs have gained stature and have managed autonomy to a great extent in the recent past. The present Government has assured that it will gradually extend it not only to 20 institutions of eminence but also to other universities and colleges. Is it not intriguing to learn that the Delhi University colleges are not willing to accept autonomy. It does indicate the complexity of the Indian academic world.
Autonomy obviously means greater responsibility, accountability and greater effort to remain afloat in the world of creating new ideas and disseminating it to generations ahead. Only alert, conscious and morally strong can manage to remain in the lead and not the casual, reticent and unconcerned.
The vice-chancellors, directors, chairpersons of universities, institutions and organisations were considered to be the embodiments of leading a life that had internalised moral, ethical and humanistic values. They were perceived as creators of new ideologies and disseminators of knowledge, with the highest levels of integrity, devotion and commitment to their profession. In earlier days, one rarely heard of an instance where professors were found lobbying to become vice-chancellors.
Things have changed drastically; from around 20 universities, India could record a sense of achievement in hitting the 800 mark in seven decades. We needed expansion, and still need more institutions of higher and professional learning. But it is the basic principle of planning and management that when systems expand rapidly, special attention is needed to prevent the dilution of quality of the output and work culture. This just did not happen in India.
State Governments as well as the Central Government pressurised the universities to generate their own resources. This led to the opening of B.Ed correspondence courses in many universities with due approval of the University Grants Commission. Everyone knew that these were meant to generate resources for the universities to augment their infrastructure, open other courses and launch new programmes. It was the beginning of open exploitation of students and it made a lasting impact on the work culture of the universities.
Wherever there are chances of ‘extra resources’, politicians would smell a chance. At that stage began political interference in the appointments of ‘pliable’ vice-chancellors. Slowly, people became accustomed to ‘welcome’ most of the vice-chancellors and heads of institutions reaching the coveted positions only because of qualities and personality traits ‘other than that of merit and academic excellence’.
Again, exceptions apart, it is tough to visualise a large-scale enhancement in the institutions of credibility and acceptability if the leadership is weak, autonomy stands compromised and academics are made subservient to the hegemony of the bureaucrats. One has personally known vice-chancellors running to under-secretaries in the State Sachivalaya for getting financial sanctions of 50 lakhs, or getting permission to appoint a D-category employee.
The creation of Banaras Hindu University could offer great learning experience to educational planners and educational innovators and entrepreneurs. Mahamana Malviya had a vision and he could persuade the best amongst professors from all over India to come to the new university ‘for a cause’. He could invite Dr Radhakrishnan to become the vice-chancellor. He inspired the young and old alike, exhorted them to move ahead on the path of creating new knowledge, disseminating new ideas and utilise it for the welfare of the weak, the deprived and the downtrodden. It is such effort and spirit that could transform any institution to newer heights. Intellectual leadership and professional autonomy have the capability to transform the entire higher education scenario.
(The writer is the Indian Representative on the Executive Board of UNESCO)
