<p>The University Grants Commission (UGC) was established in 1956 based on the recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Commission Report (1950) through an Act of Parliament. The major mandate assigned to the UGC was to monitor the higher education landscape and to ensure minimum standards. In 1976, the subject of education, including higher education, was transferred from the state list to the concurrent list. Since then, the central and state governments have been administering both school and higher education.</p>.<p>In exercise of the powers vested in it, the UGC has been providing guidelines and promulgating regulations encompassing various aspects such as syllabi, pedagogy, evaluation, autonomy, the appointment of vice-chancellors (VCs) and faculty, new courses, and pay scales of teachers. Different state governments have incorporated some (not all) of the UGC recommendations for implementation through their Acts and Statutes. Many of these suggestions remained unexecuted, apparently, due to constraints of state universities in putting up good infrastructure apart from human, financial, and material resources. However, until recently, there has been fairly good synergy by way of cooperation and compliance between the UGC and state universities, operating in a federal setup.</p>.<p>The introduction of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its hasty implementation triggered a great deal of confusion, controversy, and contradiction as states such as Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Punjab (with non-BJP governments) are opposed to many prescriptions conceptualised by the policy. This is largely because the states insist that it is their prerogative and privilege to have educational policies of their own and hence, have bluntly rejected the imposition by the UGC. The impasse turned worse recently when the UGC circulated the draft regulations on the appointment of VCs wherein the state governments are stripped of their authority to nominate one member (who acts as chairman) of the search-cum-selection committee. Exclusion of state governments is held as a direct onslaught by the UGC on the autonomy of state governments. The controversial issues have legal implications as they relate to centre-state relations in a federal setup on a subject falling in the concurrent list.</p>.<p>The following steps towards a functional rapport between the UGC and state universities might pave the way for a harmonious partnership resulting in better quality of higher education not necessarily imparted only by a few islands of excellence like IIMs, IITs, NITs, and the IISc.</p>.<p>The UGC should assume the role of a facilitator, advisor-mentor and watchdog, leaving to state universities the implementation of their guidelines/regulations. Universities have diverse characters in terms of governance, infrastructure, finances, faculty, and other requisites. Any tangible set of regulations should have an adequate timeline for higher education institutions (HEIs) – especially the ill-equipped ones – to explore the feasibility of the implementation. The roles of UGC and state universities should be complementary and not contradictory.</p>.<p><strong>Support beyond guidelines</strong></p>.<p>Mutual coordination, cooperation, and consensus should prevail instead of dictatorial approaches and consequential revolts. UGC recommendations should necessarily accompany a package of financial assistance to empower the state universities. The apex body cannot merely be ritually suggestive but needs to be effectively supportive as well.</p>.<p>The UGC should encourage state universities to have their agenda of development superimposed with the quality benchmarks set by the NAAC. Grants from the UGC could be commensurate with the academic status of HEIs. It is time the UGC adopted a new paradigm of grant distribution to ensure that well-performing state universities obtain substantial support.</p>.<p>All state universities shall endeavour to comply with the feasible suggestions of the UGC. It should be borne in mind that there is no substitute for quality, and in the present competitive scenario, no HEI <br>can offer poor education in a substandard setup – an exercise that will nurture intellectual bankruptcy.</p>.<p>The UGC should adopt a level-playing field for the expansion of higher education as the present policy discriminates between a state university and a deemed-to-be university in provisions such as opening off-campus centres.</p>.<p>The NEP is a good document by vision and design with novel concepts of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary course delivery. But the stark reality is that colleges affiliated with the universities (barring a few in metropolitan areas) are unprepared for offering a four-year honours programme with multiple exits and entries.</p>.<p>The need of the hour is constructive interaction between the two principal stakeholders to ensure quality higher education coupled with productive knowledge and employable skills.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a former vice-chancellor of the University of Mysore)</em></p>
<p>The University Grants Commission (UGC) was established in 1956 based on the recommendations of the Radhakrishnan Commission Report (1950) through an Act of Parliament. The major mandate assigned to the UGC was to monitor the higher education landscape and to ensure minimum standards. In 1976, the subject of education, including higher education, was transferred from the state list to the concurrent list. Since then, the central and state governments have been administering both school and higher education.</p>.<p>In exercise of the powers vested in it, the UGC has been providing guidelines and promulgating regulations encompassing various aspects such as syllabi, pedagogy, evaluation, autonomy, the appointment of vice-chancellors (VCs) and faculty, new courses, and pay scales of teachers. Different state governments have incorporated some (not all) of the UGC recommendations for implementation through their Acts and Statutes. Many of these suggestions remained unexecuted, apparently, due to constraints of state universities in putting up good infrastructure apart from human, financial, and material resources. However, until recently, there has been fairly good synergy by way of cooperation and compliance between the UGC and state universities, operating in a federal setup.</p>.<p>The introduction of the New Education Policy (NEP) 2020 and its hasty implementation triggered a great deal of confusion, controversy, and contradiction as states such as Karnataka, Kerala, Tamil Nadu, West Bengal and Punjab (with non-BJP governments) are opposed to many prescriptions conceptualised by the policy. This is largely because the states insist that it is their prerogative and privilege to have educational policies of their own and hence, have bluntly rejected the imposition by the UGC. The impasse turned worse recently when the UGC circulated the draft regulations on the appointment of VCs wherein the state governments are stripped of their authority to nominate one member (who acts as chairman) of the search-cum-selection committee. Exclusion of state governments is held as a direct onslaught by the UGC on the autonomy of state governments. The controversial issues have legal implications as they relate to centre-state relations in a federal setup on a subject falling in the concurrent list.</p>.<p>The following steps towards a functional rapport between the UGC and state universities might pave the way for a harmonious partnership resulting in better quality of higher education not necessarily imparted only by a few islands of excellence like IIMs, IITs, NITs, and the IISc.</p>.<p>The UGC should assume the role of a facilitator, advisor-mentor and watchdog, leaving to state universities the implementation of their guidelines/regulations. Universities have diverse characters in terms of governance, infrastructure, finances, faculty, and other requisites. Any tangible set of regulations should have an adequate timeline for higher education institutions (HEIs) – especially the ill-equipped ones – to explore the feasibility of the implementation. The roles of UGC and state universities should be complementary and not contradictory.</p>.<p><strong>Support beyond guidelines</strong></p>.<p>Mutual coordination, cooperation, and consensus should prevail instead of dictatorial approaches and consequential revolts. UGC recommendations should necessarily accompany a package of financial assistance to empower the state universities. The apex body cannot merely be ritually suggestive but needs to be effectively supportive as well.</p>.<p>The UGC should encourage state universities to have their agenda of development superimposed with the quality benchmarks set by the NAAC. Grants from the UGC could be commensurate with the academic status of HEIs. It is time the UGC adopted a new paradigm of grant distribution to ensure that well-performing state universities obtain substantial support.</p>.<p>All state universities shall endeavour to comply with the feasible suggestions of the UGC. It should be borne in mind that there is no substitute for quality, and in the present competitive scenario, no HEI <br>can offer poor education in a substandard setup – an exercise that will nurture intellectual bankruptcy.</p>.<p>The UGC should adopt a level-playing field for the expansion of higher education as the present policy discriminates between a state university and a deemed-to-be university in provisions such as opening off-campus centres.</p>.<p>The NEP is a good document by vision and design with novel concepts of multidisciplinary and interdisciplinary course delivery. But the stark reality is that colleges affiliated with the universities (barring a few in metropolitan areas) are unprepared for offering a four-year honours programme with multiple exits and entries.</p>.<p>The need of the hour is constructive interaction between the two principal stakeholders to ensure quality higher education coupled with productive knowledge and employable skills.</p>.<p><em>(The writer is a former vice-chancellor of the University of Mysore)</em></p>
