Policy-Paralysis in Higher Education in India: Why Words Alone are Not Enough

Abstract

This paper had been initially planned with the objective of examining academic governance of ‘New Generation Universities’ in India, which comprise Private State Universities and Deemed Universities in the private domain; but then realized, in the course of its journey, that it was better to address a more pressing issue, due to the involvements of respective states (29), center (namely Ministry of Human Resources Department - MHRD), statutory and autonomous bodies with UGC and AICTE, MCI, BCI to 15 similar bodies to finally judicial interventions to determine what and who qualify as a university, or a Higher Educational Institute (HEI); and furthermore, how to regulate the different academic programs offered by these HEIs. A vast majority of students enrolled in Higher Education (HE) in India presently studies in private unaided HEIs, unlike that in 1980s of India, or unlike that of present day China. India has been in a flux of educational changes, following broader economic reforms launched in 1991, although many would desist calling the educational shift as ‘structured-and-planned reform’, which probably applies to economic reforms in India too. As per Constitutional provisions in India, education is a concurrent item of both the state and the center, where the role of the state is much higher in terms of initiation to operational levels, whereas aid for categories public universities and others are given by center, with a final recognition and quality check lying with the UGC, for the recognition of universities of different categories. With an ever increasing age-group from primary to Higher Education (HE) in India, and an existing Gross Enrollment Ratio (GER) in HE being much lower than that of the developed to developing nations, than that of China, BRICS and world averages, India faces immense dual challenges in terms of improving its GER as well as quality of HE. Compared to earlier decades, India did witness a moderately higher rate of GER improvement in the last decade by 6.3% to around 15% as recorded during 2011-12 . It has been achieved through a massive expansion in number of universities as well as HEIs, majority of the new additions now in private-unaided forms called Self-Finance Institutes (SFIs). This quantitative expansion of HE in India, although unprecedented in local standards, still looks pale in comparison with China, most of which comes under Government domain too. Other than GER, maintaining the quality of the faculties, and thereby the quality of the students graduating from these HEIs in India have also been a big challenge. The paper, as it progressed, shifted its focus from academic governance in universities to an understanding of present status of HE in India, particularly in comparison to China. The findings show that although India wanted HE to have strong multiple bodies to regulate and supervise it which kept on increasing over the years, effectively it is crumbling under the expansion drive from market forces and over-regulation from Government, coupled with under-management from a vast majority of these HEIs, be under the category of SFIs or otherwise. The problem with the government is neither its ability to control or guide it effectively, with its multiple outdated regulating bodies from centre and states, on recognition to fees, nor its willingness to let HE go from these multifarious regulations and be governed by ‘left to its own devices’ academic standards with strong governance at respective HEI levels. Even having policies like China with single centralized body, as suggested by National Knowledge Commission (NKC) of India, has been completely wasted as of now. With reshuffle in the MHRD in the month of November 2012, when the new education minister publicly stated ‘our national education policy in the past has remained out of step with the time’, question remains is on actions on how to rectify same as the problem is well-known. The sooner this period of policy-stagnation and uncertainty passes over; the better it is for India, more so for India’s youth, due to the unique ‘demographic dividend’ characteristics of India.