In the throes of a financial crisis

HIGHER EDUCATION in India has always been `higher' only in name. Its standard has never been comparable to the standard of higher education, say, of England, of the mid-19th Century when we formally imported one of their university systems by starting three universities of Madras, Bombay and Calcutta in 1857. The model we chose then was that of the London University of those days. Therefore these three universities were affiliating-cum- examining universities. The universities set the syllabus which affiliated colleges taught and they presented their candidates for the examinations conducted by the university.

When the number of colleges were few and widely scattered in the old composite provinces of British India, the system worked but on an unsound educational principle and practice of one set of senior academics formulating the syllabi, another larger group teaching them in their respective colleges and yet another set of teachers evaluating their performance in the examinations conducted by the university. This trifurcation of educational process has become ridiculously meaningless with the phenomenal increase in the number of colleges and students who take examinations at hundreds of centres. Of the nearly 230 universities or similar institutions of higher learning in the country, now a large number of them, particularly state universities, are affiliating and examining ones.

The only significant change that has taken place during the years of their evolution was that they added the responsibility of teaching post-graduate students in the university departments started mainly at the head quarters of the university. But this has not, in any appreciable manner, contributed to the enhancement of the standard of post-graduate teaching. Perhaps with better qualified teachers and in an environment of research, some university departments where library and laboratory facilities are good, have grown into centres of excellence, and their post-graduate products are superior to the Masters degree holders churned out in large numbers by the affiliated colleges.

Indian higher education system was congenitally infirm and the proliferation of universities and colleges, particularly after Independence, some of which can rightly be called `academic slums' have contributed to further deterioration of standards. This is particularly true of the mainstream state universities. There are islands of excellent centres of higher learning in this generally dismal seascape, especially technical and professional educational institutions like the six Indian Institutes of Technology (IIT) and almost equal number of Indian Institutes of Management (IIM) that are comparable to the best of the kind in advanced countries of the world. For example, the IITs are modelled on the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT) in Cambridge of the U.S. and the best products of our IIMs are easily comparable to the alumni of the Harward School of Business Management in academic attainments.

One mistake that Independent India committed was that, instead of revamping the whole system to meet the needs of the development of a new nation, the country allowed the existing colonial pattern to grow in a wild and unplanned manner, responding to the newly awakened educational aspirations of the middle and lower middle class people who were generally deprived of the opportunities of higher learning under colonial regime.

This was done without spending proportionately more money in the sector. The limited available butter of financial resources was thinly spread on the rapidly increasing number of slices of bread. This led to further dilution of standard that was none too good at any time of its history for reasons mentioned above. The growth rate in the sphere of higher education can be understood from the simple fact that the 19 universities of 1947 grew into more than two hundred universities in about 50 years. This is to be compared to the slow growth rate in the colonial period when the three universities of 1857 grew into only 19 by 1947.

It is not the growth rate that matters here. In spite of this apparently fast growth of higher education in post-Independent period, enrolment ratio in this sector is only 8 per cent as against 11 per cent for all developing nations and 37 per cent for developed countries. The unplanned growth, without any reform of the system to make it vibrant and responsive to the needs of a newly independent nation, gave rise to many of the problems the higher education sector is now riddled with. The 50 years of under-investment in education according to Dr. Amartya Sen is at the root of all developmental ills of India today. Educational expense of India has never been more than 3.5 per cent of GDP.

While the Education Commission (1964-66) popularly known as the Kothari Commission had recommended that it should be a minimum of 6 per cent, India is still the only one country that spends the least for education, barring perhaps Bangladesh. Therefore, the education sector in general and higher education in particular is in the throes of a severe financial crisis in the country. The structural adjustment measures, as the inevitable part of the liberalisation process, which began in mid-1991 has further aggravated the crisis, pushing most of the State universities to chronic starvation for funds.

The Central Government with their changed priority of universalisation of primary education and eradication of illiteracy are now focussing their attention on the problems of primary education and total literacy campaigns in backward states like Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh (BIMARU). The approach of even the Eleventh Finance Commission (EFC) endorsed by the Central Government seems to be that states like Kerala and Tamil Nadu, that have already advanced in areas of education and health care, have to mark their time till the BIMARU states catch up with them at their leisurely pace.

Therefore the Central allocation for higher education through statutory funding agencies like the University Grants Commission (UGC) is going to be still meagre with no means left for the state universities to expand its academic programmes and improve their standards. Added to this growing problem of funding is the new economic policy of the Government with its main thrust on reducing fiscal deficit, as a result of which the axe inevitably falls on social expenditure, including education.

While this is the problem on the one hand, the policy of globalisation to which the Government is irrevocably committed, demands higher standards of education comparable to the world level for the survival of India in the highly competitive world, on the other. Though the standard of education cannot be improved only at one or a few select sectors neglecting other levels, there is a strong case for increased investment in higher education where the cost is escalating due to various factors. There was a time when the country spent nearly one quarter of its educational expenditure on higher education. That was during the Fourth Five Year plan period, and by the Eighth Five Year Plan this share witnessed a steep fall to 7 per cent. It is likely to decline still further.

How does one reconcile to these conflicting demands of structural adjustment and enhancement of higher education attainments to a world standard is a problem to be tackled by economists and educationists, putting their heads together. That social expenditure is to be necessarily reduced to shore up the economy in the present context of liberalisation, is a shortsighted approach. Economists and financial administrators would do well to reorient their thinking and attitudes to make India's development a sustainable one in the emerging economic scenario.

The fact that the world's market economies are spending a much higher percentage of their GDP on education is not to be lost sight of in the new-found enthusiasm for liberalisation, privatisation and globalisation (LPG). The educationists, on their part, should realise the fact that without greater efficiency of the system of higher education by radical systemic changes, prudent spending, plugging all kinds of waste and better targeting of subsidies, we cannot forge ahead in the sphere of education.

The two groups of economists and educationists have been talking often at cross purposes and this lack of co-operation and joint thinking had led to a situation in which universities are driven to resort to a few unimaginative solutions to tackle their problems. One such idea is that of self-financing institutions mostly in technical and professional courses, experimented particularly in Kerala. The experience has not at all been satisfying, both from the point of view of enhancing standard of education in these areas or ensuring access to deserving students.

There is a serious mismatch between demand and supply of seats in these areas of technical and professional education. The only consolation is that unscrupulous profit-seeking educational entrepreneurs are kept at bay to some extent. But this single track approach to the problem of funding of higher education does not take into consideration the complexity of the problem. Funds for education can be mobilised and put them to the maximum benefit of the nation only if both the Centre and the States do away with their financial profligacy and redefine developmental priorities in a well thought out manner.

Cosmetic solutions to the resource problem like the ten per cent cut of non-plan expenditure announced by the Finance Ministry recently, in the wake of spiralling oil price in the world market and consequent mounting of oil pool deficit, without doing anything to curb the increasing tendency of utterly profligate spending, to keep party men in good humour, will be of no avail. Jumbo size cabinets and sinecures to those who cannot be accommodated in the ministry have become part of the political culture in this country.

The recent decision of the Government of Uttar Pradesh to give free computers to all legislators is the latest example of the plunder of public exchequer by parties in power. They appropriate for themselves all imaginable things free by pressurising the government frequently. This penny-wise-pound-foolish policy has made the kind of austerity measures announced recently, really laughable. Though we can never have unlimited resources for education, it is possible to augment that to a satisfactory level with disciplined financial management and right priorities.

N. A. KARIM

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Features
Previous : World Three
Next     : Know your English