The need to push through a vitally important legislation of repealing the UGC and replacing it with a Higher Education Commission in the last lap of the Current Government, though greatly justifies the need, and actually long overdue, seems to be short on discussion, considered judgement, and resembles one of hastily assembled spokes of a wheel, in the hope that they will eventually demolish an imagined ghost in the cupboard. The need of the hour is not just to push through another hurriedly drafted legislation, but evolve a transformative process that considers the entire spectrum of ongoing national narrative and synthesizes an entire set of moorings into a seamless organic superstructure. The earlier Commission traversed a journey of more than 60 years and gathered moss, baggage and wisdom. Various Court judgements on its functioning should have provided valuable fodder for a brilliant treatise of an act, but is left wanting. A few pointers from the National Knowledge Commission (NKC), Report or even the Yashpal Committee Report would not have been out of place.
The “Repeal of University Grants Commission Act, 2018” could have been a grand opportunity to define the overall structure of India’s Higher Education in a seamless format, and set a proactive, visionary and innovative direction for eons to come. India’s demographic dividend is entirely dependent on this foundational step of fixing India’s Higher Education, which unfortunately in the current draft is neither encouraging nor inspiring.
University Grants Commission setup way back in 1956, was to take all such steps as it may think fit, for the promotion and co-ordination of university education and for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in universities. In order to execute this vital function, it estimates the financial needs of universities, allocates and disburses funds with due consideration to the spending of such grants for the purposes of development of the universities concerned.
A pragmatic view to repealing any such provision should have been preceded by a gap analysis of what was expected and what delivered. A mere perception cannot drive a colossal change. A critique never liked though, is an important peg in the evolution of a democratic change. The draft bill does not define Higher Education per se, nor is it descriptive, when it comes to the elaboration of the overall structure of the higher education in the country. The draft seems to be a generic endeavour, without appreciating its specialized character and the concerned treatment that it requires thereon.
When a 360-degree view of education is sought to be defined and consequently improved, why an exemption must be made to not include institutions so notified by an act of State Legislature and deemed to be universities so notified, is not clear. Who then would set standards for them? Does this exemption not pre-empt the larger goals set out for the Commission? It is intriguing as to why, even in the 68th year of the Republic, the apartheid in Higher Education Regulation continues, whereby there is no seamless view of educational themes besides not being able to provide level playing fields.
An attempt could have been made to seamlessly integrate the various councils of the IITs, NITs & IIITs so that the best practices could have been shared with the objectives of the Commission which could improve the standards of our technical and other institutions, affiliated to the various universities. It is another matter that these councils too, do not speak to each other in a seamless fashion promoting again, disaggregated data.
A great correlation exists between the skills and education that one acquires. The stigma that society attaches to skills that are terminal in nature and hence a lack of interest, is addressed only when skills are institutionalised. The Act could have easily fixed this problem, but has missed it completely.
There are several regulatory bodies in the country like AICTE for technical education. MCI for Medical education, NCTE for teacher education and so on. Absence of an architecture to seamlessly accommodate the specialized bodies for setting the standards across various disciplines could seriously jeopardise the quality and hinder progress of these disciplines. The entire draft is inconsistently selective or intriguingly silent over the prevalence of a dozen odd sectoral education councils and has in some way ended up subsuming the entire regulatory power to ensure maintenance of academic standards in Higher Education system in the country.
Can a single all-pervading body be entrusted with the onerous task of setting as well as maintaining of academic standards across super specialized disciplines without having the requisite architecture to accommodate the existing specialized bodies? At a time when 22 odd Sector Skill Councils are leading the way in the domain of Skills Training, why are the specialized Councils discarded in such a brazen manner except perhaps an architecture or a Bar council? I However, suspect inclusion of a bar council could have resulted in derailment of the Act itself.
In the engineering domain alone, there are over 3 dozen specialized industry bodies that set standards. Research, quality and innovation challenges here, impact the national economy. An active representation within the act for these bodies would have set the future course for employability skills and employment opportunities. A further representation of the research bodies like CSIR, ISRO, DRDO, DAE, and DBT would have raised the bar for the institutions. Similarly, the experts from the Commerce Ministry and the banking industry would have added value to commerce education. The list is endless for an innovative functional commission.
Online education and blended learning are the order of the day and probably also of the future. However, much one may wish, they are inextricably linked with the face to face education mode. But the act does not seem to recognise the synergy between the two. A provision is called for since the institutions that are sought to be regulated by the new Commission are also the ones who will run these modes of delivery.
Swami Vivekananda once said, education that one gets now, has some good points but it has tremendous disadvantage which is so great that the good things are all weighed down. He further said, if education was identical with information, the libraries would be the greatest sages in the World and encyclopaedias the Rishis, One would have expected the new Act to capture the spirit of this sagely wisdom.
Continued