The post-independence era in India saw education being discussed seriously with more emphasis on mission than vision. Instead of accepting the responsibility collectively, the tendency of shifting the onus from one to another was quite evident between the centre and the states as education is in the concurrent list.

For a vast nation like ours, the greatest challenge was taking education to the doorsteps of the people. The neo liberal economic policies in the early 90’s strongly advocated for separating education from the state sector to private sector. The contention was that only primary and secondary education should be the priority areas as higher education is a non-merit good. It was sought to be justified by a one-sided view that the social return on investment in higher education is much less compared to primary education.

As globalisation gained momentum and simultaneously, higher education was gradually transferred to the private sector. Industrialists started showing keen interest in higher education in the name of excellence and employability. The Supreme Court judgment that a reasonable surplus can be generated in educational institutions came as a shot in the arm for the private lobby.

It is now clearly evident that education policies are being dictated by industrialists. We are already witnessing the alienation of masses from the mainstream of education as they simply cannot afford it. The need of the hour is to think of an “inclusive” society. It is in this background that we have to critically analyse the “report to the nation” by National Knowledge Commission (NKC)

NKC is a special task force created directly under the Prime Minister. Sam Pitroda, who became a celebrity under Rajiv Gandhi for almost revolutionising telecommunication technology in the country, is the chairman. The remaining members including Nandan Nilekani of Infosys are either industrialists or economists or scientists. The commission has already submitted its recommendations pertaining to a few terms of references.
The recommendation that IRAHE (Independent Regulatory Authority on Higher Education) be established by replacing the present University Grants Commission (UGC) and that UGC be reduced as a funding agency and also that AICTE be abolished, MCI, BAR Council of India etc, are to be structured only as professional organisations is somewhat amusing. NKC has gone by the premise that UGC has failed as it is performing too many functions and that there are too many barriers for educational institutions to enter. What is intriguing is the recommendation that IRAHE should be a license granting authority in the form of a single window clearing agency. It only paves the way for profiteering and unscrupulous elements making education a profitable commodity.

Free entry to foreign universities, private universities, private institutions, foreign institutional investors advocated by NKC may further marginalise the already marginalised section of the society. It only suggests that IRAHE is completely an autonomous body with enormous powers to grant licenses and decide the process of accreditation. This is dangerous as it undermines the social responsibility of the State. What is actually needed is the restructuring of UGC by changing its present bureaucratic set up with professional competence.
Similarly, NKC perceives quality enhancement from different parameters. Competition, restructuring of courses based on relevance and excellence, accountability, performance based incentives, transparency of governance, adequate funding to retain talent have been the main principles to ensure quality.

There is no dispute regarding some suggestions about constant review and updating of syllabus, experimenting credit based, skill developing courses, encouraging research etc. But whether the buzz word should be “competition” or “co-operation” in education is an issue to be pondered over.

NKC recognises differentiation in institutional set up. Consequently a few select institutions may become privileged to get special grants like potential centre of excellence. But what we need is “quality education for all” and not for a few.

Regarding restructuring of Universities and Colleges, NKC is not clear as to how 1500 smaller and more nimble universities are going to be created (as against the present 350). Fifty National Universities of high standards is not unwelcome. But setting up of these universities without any regulatory framework is not acceptable.
The suggestion of creating cluster of colleges, colleges affiliated to state or central board of education, etc. has a telling effect on bifurcating colleges from universities. NKC has lost sight of the fact that a large number of colleges have post graduate courses too. Research activities cannot be promoted unless post graduate courses are allowed to be started in eligible undergraduate colleges.

NKC speaks of public-private partnership but does not utter a word about grant-in-aid system. If education should be a philanthropic activity, then the grant-in-aid system of Karnataka is a wonderful example. Religious and social groups have established 300 colleges in liberal education under this system.
(The writer is President, Federation of University and College Teachers' Associations, Karnataka.)
 and teaches at St Aloysius College, Mangalore)