In a recent survey of the best universities of the world, not one in India was ranked among the top two hundred. Even tiny Singapore made it, but not India. Should we not do something about it?

The Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD) at the Centre is, ideologically, socialistic and interested in social welfare, particularly in rectifying the past injustices of Indian society. Hence, it earnestly believes in direction and control.

Therefore, the basic issue is combining social justice with high quality education. The social welfare argument is, in India, thousands of years of social injustice have made a few disadvantaged communities weak. To rectify that injustice, it is necessary to give them preference. If that dilutes the quality of education, that is a price the society has to pay. The opposite side of the argument is capitalistic.

According to it, the tens of thousands of educational institutions should be allowed to compete freely. That competition can be so regulated that it will ensure both high quality of education and the variety needed to accommodate all classes.

Being socialistic, the HRD Ministry is not sympathetic to the rich; it will not admit the children from rich families, however high the fees they are willing to pay. However, the Finance Ministry is different; it offers whatever foreign exchange is needed to educate children abroad. Naturally, the families need to be rich to avail of its generosity. Hence, rich parents can get their children admitted in Harvard or Oxford, but not in the IITs, or in even the less prestigious institutions.

Social discrimination

In effect, the HRD Ministry is strongly in favour of backward classes and the Finance Ministry favours the very rich. Thus, the people in the middle — however meritorious — have no sponsors, no supporters. Whenever any of them point out that kind of inequity, backward-class representatives strongly object: They say you upper castes have been unfair for thousands of years and the injustice you have perpetrated cannot be resolved in a few generations. They argue that social discrimination still persists against them and, therefore, they are entitled to preferential treatment.

One of the drawbacks of this debate is lack of data. For instance, it is true that reservation has helped the backward-class families, but no one knows how far it ensures similar privileges to really poor families of the same castes. It is true that reservation has reduced the disparity between upper castes and backward ones, but it is not certain if it is not increasing the disparity within backward castes — between those families which have enjoyed that privilege and the first generation families who have not yet done so.

That is, there are two basic issues: One, how far are the opportunities given to the very rich justified? Two, does the existing reservation system help the really backward families, or is it creating a new circle of privilege? There is also the question of whether the government has the responsibility to provide quality education for all or not. The last question has been unequivocally answered both administratively and judicially: The government has no such responsibility!

Pay and prosper

If the privileges enjoyed by the rich are deemed unjustified, should their children be absolutely deprived of quality education, whatever be the amount of fees they are willing to pay? That is a classical socialistic-capitalistic debate. Since 1991, we have shed a lot of our socialism. Then, why should we not admit rich children, provided they subsidise the education of poor children? Why should they not be admitted to the IITs and to prestigious colleges if they pay enough? In fact, that is how Harvard and Oxford operate and prosper. Both are far more prestigious than any institution we have.

Then, consider the following proposition. Every college is free to admit, say, up to 20 per cent of its students, provided they pay very high fees — as much as half or even the whole cost of running the institution. Of the remaining 80 per cent, half will be admitted on the basis of merit — once again defined by the institution itself, and not by the State. The remaining 40 per cent are admitted in the manner the Government decides. Further, the performance of each institution is regularly checked by the State, according to the institution’s own objectives, and not by what the State dictates.

In that case, the government confines itself to two activities: One, decide and check how 40 per cent of the students are admitted from backward castes. Two, check how far each institution fulfils the objectives it has set for itself. There are several advantages to this kind of regulation: One, each institution enjoys appreciable operational freedom. Two, the government saves billions of dollars in foreign exchange as also much of the cost of running institutions. Three, the Government does check the performance of every institution.

Naturally, the institutions have to set higher standards for meritorious students. The best way is to leave it to the students themselves. For instance, southern universities used to do so: They ran “Honours” courses where a student got one, and only one chance, and had to pass without fail. Only those confident of passing without fail opted for this course. Why not that criterion for meritorious students? Let students themselves claim they are meritorious and the institutions select only from those who make that claim.

Will not such a system ensure (a) autonomy for the institutions, (b) better opportunities for meritorious students, and (c) for the State, greater economy as well as authority to ensure social welfare?

(Concluded)

(The author is a former Director, IIT, Madras. Responses to >indiresan@gmail.com and > blfeedback@thehindu.co.in )

This is 339th in the Vision 2020 series. The previous article appeared on September 22.

Read also : >Putting quality back into education

Related Topics