In the words of Prakash Javadekar, the Union Minister of Human Resource Development, the government is “striving to introduce a liberalised regime in the education sector” and that the emphasis was on “linking autonomy with quality.” Essentially and critically what he means by that is that the government is striving to introduce foreign stakeholders in education sector via FDI and through 20% reservation made for foreign faculty and students, but slicing the funds is linking autonomy to discrimination and inequality in access to education.
A liberalised regime is cognizable, and a long-awaited policy move but a move towards privatisation of already existing government universities is beyond fathomable. With Universities given financial and administrative autonomy but no funding, the easiest way for them to generate funds is through a hike in fees. The Delhi University Teachers’ Association (DUTA) has been protesting against government’s unprecedented move on the autonomy of universities and colleges as well as against its new guidelines on funding. Everyone fears that the implication of self-financing would inevitably disrupt “disbursement of salaries” and an introduction of “self-financing courses” along with a hike in fees paid by students.
The Federation of Central Universities Teacher’s Association (FEDCUTA) went on to say that the government is forcing Universities to “the task of doing trade in higher education”. The newly proposed policies of the UGC have disrupted learning for the students and teaching for the professors. Both stand in solidarity with each other in this fight against the move towards privatisation of education. The word autonomy can be very misleading here. The grants have become loans and 100% funding has become 70%, in fact, autonomy, which promises liberation and freedom to Universities, would very likely hinder the dissemination of education.
Hitherto, talented students from financially weaker sections of society were availing admissions in subsidised course structure in central and state-funded colleges. But now they will be at crossroads deciding on their higher education. The origins of the present debacle can be linked to the government’s attempts of aligning our education sector with the World Trade Organisation’s (WTO) General Agreement on Trade and Services (GATS), to which India is a signatory.
GATS was a part of the trinity of Agreements agreed upon in the Uruguay Round and which also led to the establishment of the WTO. In 1996, GATS Agreement extended its coverage to educational services. Many connoisseurs of education world dissent with GATS. They argue that as per GATS’ perspective, education is a ‘tradable commodity’. It also contradicts the domestic policy of free access and equity. In India, priority has been to ensure the social motive behind education, and hence emphasis has been on Public institutions.
There have been many pragmatic approaches adopted by different countries to provide education to people, with Germany and Sweden following 100% subsidised model and on the flip side USA’s competitive private education system. The system in India presents a paradox. India currently has close to 800 universities of which, just 260 universities are private. The rest of them being Central, State or deemed Universities. Institutes such as IITs, IIMs and AIIMS are autonomous in nature, i.e. just like deemed universities, they enjoy full autonomy in deciding courses, course structure, admission criteria and fees. Central universities are governed by Department of Higher education (DHE) under Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) and are centrally funded, while the State universities as the name suggest are state funded and managed.
The gist is, our highest quality, merit-focused, and most economical institutions are usually state-owned. Private setups have a varied quality and are unanimously expensive. And they have never created the backbone of our system. As a remedy, aside from increasing state spending, India can definitely open its ‘market’ to private and foreign universities, granting them the real freedom to be run as for-profit organisations. Shaking the funding model of government universities in a bout to privatise is not a solution. To draw an analogy with healthcare sector, just like how the government and private hospitals both co-exist, government hospitals catering to the vast majority of our population and private ones tending to those who can afford costly treatment, and there are too many of them, the education sector can also see such coalescing.
The commercialisation of education is not an option in India, not yet, and not when the gross enrolment ratio in higher education is mere 25%. The same ratio is 85% in USA. But it isn’t like the government is too concerned. As per the CAG reports brought to notice in parliament between 2016 and 2017, the total tax collection of INR83,497 crore under the secondary and higher education cess (levied since 2006-07) lies unspent. What is more appalling is that the budgetary allocation for education has been reduced from 3.69% of GDP (2017-18 revised estimates) to 3.48% (2018-19) of GDP!
Long-term problems require long-term solutions. The government can consider encouraging Corporates and Private Firms to contribute to the fund through Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR) or through an investment for a certain tenure. Tax breaks, subsidised land and infrastructure, along with viability gap funding should act as possible sweeteners. Contributions can also be channelled through an industry-regulated and managed education-oriented fund, from which universities of national importance can seek grants and in turn build research and employment partnerships with the investee companies. The government in India has no option but to continue the funding, enabling students from all financial backgrounds to access quality education. The gist being, Education is a moral responsibility and should never get accepted as a profitable business.
Featured Photo: Pranjal Asha