1

Higher Education in India and UPAs Reform Agenda

Speaking at the annual congregation of NRIs earlier this month, Prime Minister Dr
Manmohan Singh said that during UPAs regime the education sector has been radically
reformed with Central Universities having gone from 17 to 44 and the IITs and IIMs
doubling in number.

Indeed, as far as the numbers are concerned Dr Singh is not off the mark. In the 11
th

Plan period, the number of higher educational institutions in the country has grown
significantly if not sufficiently. The number of central higher education institutions in
the country increased from 87 in 2006-07 to 152 in 2011-12. This included 21 new
Central Universities, eight new IITs and seven new IIMs apart from other institutions
like IIITs.

Earlier during his first term, the PM had hailed the 11
th
Five-Year Plan as national
education plan for its special focus on education and in that especially on higher
education. There was marked increase in allocation for education and the Ministry of
Human Resource Development (MHRD) was allocated Rs.2,69,873 crore in the eleventh
plan period. Replying to a question in the Rajya Sabha, the Minister for State in MHRD
informed that this constitutes 4.6 fold increase over the expenditure of about Rs.58,820
crore incurred during X Five-Year Plan and 19.4 per cent of the overall Central Plan
allocation.

The increase in allocation for education in the 11
th
Plan was matched by a related
increase in the budgetary expenditure on education (as percentage of GDP) in this
period which went from 2.59 per cent in 2007-08 to 3.31 per cent in 2012-13. The share
of higher education expenditure (as percentage of GDP) has also increased, albeit at a
slower pace, from 1.14 per cent in 2006-07 to 1.25 per cent in 2009-10. However, it is
still behind the commitment expressed in the Common Minimum Programme of UPA
and more than that, the allocations have become increasingly differentiated across the
higher education sector. Thus, despite this apparent increase in expenditure, there is an
increasing trend towards self-financing courses, contractualisation of faculty, rising
fees etc. The situation is a deliberate outcome of recent financing trends of higher
education. The fact remains that UPA has hardly been able to contain the gap in public
expenditure on higher education. In fact, one may ask whether the increased financial
allocation under UPA ever meant to address this gap at all as higher education policy
moves rapidly in direction of favouring increased private investment.

In the same period under UPAs regime, higher education has also witnessed expansion
in terms of gross enrolment ratio (GER). Although data in this regard is varied (even
from government sources), as per Planning Commissions estimates the GER increased
from 11 per cent in 2004-05 to 17.9 per cent in 2011-12.

The above quantitative expansion in higher education sector under the UPA regime
should not withhold from our view the fact that it forms a part of a trend that can be
traced at least to a decade back. This includes a perceptible rise in GER and increase in
2

the number of higher education institutions. The most important part of this trend is
increasing role of private sector. In terms of GER, private sector accounting for 58.9 per
cent of the GER has now left behind the public sector. The period of 2006-07 to 2011-12
also saw institutional expansion of private sector with 98 private state universities, 17
deemed private universities and 7,818 private colleges established in this period.

What actually UPA has done in higher education, both it terms taken together, is to
continue and consolidate the broad policy trends that were already at work and have
been consolidated into a long-term strategy now. Even the increase in number of central
institutions (like Central Universities, IITs and IIMs) is integral to this strategy.


Privatisation of Higher Education: Method in the madness

Presenting the Country Paper at UNESCO World Conference on Higher Education in
1998, the then Human Resource Development Minister Murli Manohar Joshi said,
Major efforts have been mounted for mobilisation of resources and it has been
recommended that while the government should make a firm commitment to higher
education, institutions of higher education should make efforts to raise their own
resources by raising the fee levels, encouraging private donations and by generating
revenues through consultancy and other activities. Taking the pitch at a higher level
the Ambani-Birla Report on policy framework for reforms in education, submitted to
the NDA government in April 2000, recommended that the government must leave
higher and professional education to the private sector.

The policy of promoting private investment in higher education had gained
considerable momentum in NDAs regime. This is noted by the 11
th
Plan document
which states that during the Tenth Plan the share of private unaided higher education
institutions increased from 42.6% in 2001 to 63.21% in 2006. Their share of
enrolments also increased from 32.89% to 51.53% in the same period.

The UPA continued with the focus on promoting private investment in higher education
sector. In fact, the increase in number of higher education institutions in public sector is
never seen by the government as a public initiative to set-off the burgeoning private
sector. Instead, establishing elite institutions with public funding forms a core part of
higher education reforms policy currently being pursued. Moreover, private investment
has been mobilized even in this expansion of public institutions as well. Thus, Not for
Profit Public-Private Partnership (NPPP) has been accepted as the favoured mode in
establishment for the proposed 20 new Indian Institutes of Information Technology
(IIIT) and polytechnic institutes in different states. PPP has also been favoured as major
resource generation mode for the newly established Central Universities. A Council of
Vice-Chancellors chaired by the then MHRD Minister Kapil Sibal was constituted in
2012 to consider different mechanisms for raising fund, including the PPP way to
create better hostels and residential facilities for the Central Universities. The most
recent of UPAs initiatives, RUSA (Rashtirya Uchch Shiksha Abhiyan) is also generous in
favouring private sector involvement in higher education. Out of the proposed Rs
25,000 crore allocations for RUSA under 12
th
Plan, the states have been asked to raise at
least 50 per cent of their share through private sector involvement. It also chalks out a
3

larger role of corporate sector in terms of direct ownership and management of
institutions as well as collaborations of various forms.

Promoting private investment includes promotion of foreign private capital as well. The
government has already introduced The Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of
Entry and Operation) Bill, 2010 to facilitate entry of foreign educational institutions in
the country. However, pending its approval, the MHRD has managed to notify the UGC
(Promotion and Maintenance of Standards of Academic Collaborations between Indian
and Foreign Educational Institutes) Regulations 2012 that would allow Indian
educational institutions to enter into collaboration with foreign universities. Besides,
another proposal to finalise UGC (Establishment and Operation of Campuses of Foreign
Educational Institutions) Rules is under consideration which allows for foreign
institutions to establish campus in India as a company registered under section 25 of
Companies Act, 1956. One may note here, that the NDA had already approved 100 per
cent FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in higher education services through automatic
route earlier.

In a major development, the 12th Plan document calls for re-examination of the not-
for-profit status of higher education on pragmatic considerations on the purported
ground that the non-profit or philanthropy driven institutions are unable to scale-up
enough to bridge the demandsupply gap in higher education.

What we see is that under UPAs regime the role of private capital in higher education
sector has expanded not only quantitatively but also qualitatively. Private sector is no
more there only to fill the gap left by public investment in education, but it is
increasingly assuming the larger role of driving the whole policy outlook and
expectations from higher education. The policy dogma which our governments
inherited from Macaulay that the government does not has sufficient resources for
education has now been crystallised into a well-thought strategy that aims at increasing
the role of private capital in education. This in turn has changed the expectations from
higher education and it is increasingly sought to develop skilled resources for
expanding global markets. Besides, in this new discourse, higher education is
considered a private good liable to a system of user-charges. It is not merely a
coincidence that our universities are increasingly being seen primarily in terms of
quality of human resources they produce for economy and industry instead of forum
for critical assessment of society sympathetic, objective, unafraid as envisioned by
the Kothari Commission long ago.


Restructuring Higher Education: Islands of excellence and pools of skill
development

About 15 years ago, India consciously moved to a differentiated academic system with a
three-tiered structure comprising highly selective elite research universities at the top,
comprehensive universities and specialized institutions in the middle, and an array of
highly-accessible and high-quality colleges at the bottom. While the first tier caters
exclusively to furthering Indias intellectual capital, the other two focus on delivering
economic and social value respectively.
[Higher Education in India: Vision 2030, FICCI Ernst & Young, 2013]
4



The above passage excerpted from FICCI-EY document is illustrative of corporate
expectations as to what Indias higher education should like 15 years from now, i.e. in
2030. It envisages a differentiated higher education system with elite
universities/research institutions at the top, industry aligned professional institutions
in the second tier and broad-based highly-accessible universities at the lowest rung.

To be sure, such corporate expectations have been articulated within the public policy
discourse of UPA as well. The National Knowledge Commission (NKC), in its
recommendation on higher education had suggested that differentiation is inevitable if
not natural (Compilation of Recommendations on Education, NKC, 2007). Accordingly,
it recommended establishment of 50 National Universities unconstrained by the
current institutional and regulatory framework that can provide education of the
highest standards. Further, it recommends establishment of 1500 universities meant to
cater the increasing demand of higher education across the country.

This strategy of differentiation has now been well incorporated into higher education
policy by the UPA. The establishment of new Central Universities (touted as World Class
Universities in 11
th
Plan document) must be seen in this perspective. Echoing NKCs
view PM Dr Manmohan Singh hailed these universities as the launching pads for our
entry into the knowledge economy. Besides, the proposed Innovation Universities (to
be established under the Universities of Research and Innovation Bill, 2012 pending in
parliament) as well as the idea of Meta Universities mooted by the MHRD must be
essentially seen as part of this strategic perspective.

This strategy is more clearly formulated in the 12
th
Plan. It calls for creating a system of
institutional differentiation and distinctiveness to cater to a diverse body of students
and the varied needs of employers. Accordingly, it envisages establishment /
development of central universities and institutions as the top echelon of higher
education system acting as catalytic role models for other institutions in all aspects
including governance, infrastructure, faculty and curricula. At the second tier, there are
State Universities (public and private sector) absorbing the large mass of enrolments
and at the third tier are the institutions focussing on specialised skills (including
polytechnics and Community Colleges modelled after those in the US).

Thus, even as more young people aspire to access quality higher education as a means
of social mobility, these aspirations are in all probability likely to be defeated by an
elitist and exclusionary system where quality education will increasingly become
preserve of the privileged and selected handful of the under-privileged who manage to
get scholarships and loans. The masses will be left behind predominantly to be serviced
by downgraded structures and that too at a huge cost. Higher education in India was
already reflective of the structural inequalities rife in our society. Instead of remoulding
it to overcome and ultimately end these inequalities, now it is being championed as
inevitable differentiation. This will only perpetuate the inequalities with the most
privileged in the society predominantly occupying the most elite of higher education
institutions while the larger masses are relegated to the second and third tiers of
educational institutions learning marketable skills barely necessary to find a place in
markets.
5



UPAs Higher Education Reforms Policy: Who is calling the shots?

The state has a responsibility to put in place an enabling framework that encourages
tertiary education institutions to be more innovative and more responsive to the needs of a
globally competitive knowledge economy and to the changing labor market requirements
for advanced human capital.

First-generation reforms, which address core problems of tertiary education systems
(financing, efficiency, equity, and quality assurance), are the first steps in moving from one
way of doing things toward a more appropriate approach. These steps might include, for
instance, changing from open ended admissions to selective access; introducing cost
sharing through fees and reduced subsidies in institutions that had charged nothing;
establishing accreditation and evaluation in previously unregulated systems; transforming
scholarships into student loans; creating non-university institutions alongside traditional
universities; adopting an academic credit system; and starting to rely on formula funding.
[Constructing Knowledge Societies: New Challenges of Tertiary Education, World Bank, 2002]

The recommendations proposed in this report are three-fold:
1. Create enabling conditions to make the higher education system robust and useful
to attract investments.
2. Improve the quality of higher education by focusing on research and faculty
development, with corporate sector participation.
3. Engage the corporate sector to invest in existing institutions, set up new
institutions, and develop new knowledge clusters.
[Report of Narayana Murthy Committee, Planning Commission, 2012]


The Consultation Paper on the offer of higher education in WTO-GATS made by UPA
government in 2005 referred to existence of US $300 billion global offshore market in
higher education and also about Indias potential to capture 50 per cent of this global
market. With a view to tap this market and also to mobilize resources required for
expanding higher education in the country, the Consultation Paper called for
establishing a sound regulatory framework for higher education in the country.

Recommendations on similar lines were made by National Knowledge Commission and also
by Committee to Advise on Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education chaired by
Prof. Yash Pal.

Responding favourably, the UPA has moved several Bills in the parliament to put in place
the legal structures required for the reforms in higher education sector (two of these, The
Foreign Educational Institutions (Regulation of Entry and Operation) Bill, 2010 and
Universities of Research and Innovation Bill, 2012 are already mentioned above).
Foremost amongst these is The Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011 to establish the
National Commission for Higher Education and Research. The Commission is supposed
to subsume all existing regulatory bodies (including UGC, AICTE and others) and act as a
the sole body with power to regulate all aspects of higher education. Then, there is The
Educational Tribunals Bill, 2010 for adjudication over disputes among the
stakeholders (i.e. students, teachers, administrators, management in higher education
6

sector) diminishing the role of courts of law. The National Accreditation Regulatory
Authority for Higher Educational Institutions Bill, 2010 seeks to promote new
accreditation agencies (public and private) apart from the existing National Assessment
and Accreditation Council (NAAC). The Prohibition of Unfair Practises in Technical
Educational Institutions, Medical Educational Institutions and Universities Bill, 2010 is
purported to curb unfair practices in higher education.

These institutional arrangements are necessary part of the WTO-GATS agenda of
facilitating trade in higher education and are, thus, integral to the higher education
reforms strategy. Independent regulatory authority and tribunals are the nuts and bolts
of this system to facilitate free trade in higher education, a logical culmination of more
than 20 years of reforms in higher education coinciding with the economic reforms.
Taken together, once enacted into a law these will provide the enabling framework for
private investment, trade and profiteering in higher education.


Neoliberalism Unbridled

The restructuring of the schooling and education systems across the world is part of the
ideological and policy offensive by neo-liberal Capital. The privatisation of public services, the
capitalisation and commodification of humanity and the global diktats of the agencies of
international Capital backed by destabilisation of non-conforming governments and,
ultimately, the armed cavalries of the USA and its allies and surrogates- have resulted in the
near-global (if not universal) establishment of competitive markets in public and welfare
services such as education. These education markets are marked by selection, exclusion and
are accompanied by and situated within the rampant- indeed, exponential- growth of national
and international inequalities.
[Dave Hill; Global Neoliberalism, the Deformation of Education and Resistance, 2003]

UPA governments higher education policy can be described, in short, as consolidation
of trends towards neoliberal changes in this sector that were initiated with the era of
economic liberalisation continued through successive regimes including its predecessor
NDA. In the grand neoliberal design the state is relegated as a mere facilitator of
market-determined interactions among consumers on one hand and the service-
providers on the other. Universities are increasingly being modelled as market
enterprises and courses are defined in terms of ability to serve needs of global economy
and industry. Higher education has been transformed into a costly commodity and it is
the profit attached to sale of this commodity that is drawing private investment
including global capital in this sector. UPA has made swift moves to create legal
structures necessary for this expansion of private and foreign capital in higher
education.

At the same time, well established and reputed public institutions are simultaneously
being undermined and put to irrational and hasty reforms that can erode their
credibility. The case of imposition of Four-year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP) in
Delhi University is a case in point. DU is not an isolated or exceptional case. It is also a
part of the strategy to cripple public sector institutions of long standing making way for
reforms i.e. increased role of private capital in these universities and also to
consolidate the market for private investment in higher education because somehow, in
7

higher education, public institutions still retain reputation far above the private ones.
The neoliberal game in higher education is in full play now.

Prime Minister Dr Manmohan Singh may choose to congratulate his government for
accomplishing large-scale reforms in higher education. However, such self-
congratulatory stance would also be self-defeating for a government that was brought
into power on a mandate against the delusional claims Shining India while the country
was actually reeling under the neoliberal offensive. After ten years of UPA that offensive
still continues intact as the government steadily buried the Kothari Commissions vision
of university as an entity whose principle object is to deepen mans understandingto
disseminate this understanding throughout society and to apply it in the service of
mankind.


- Lokesh Malti Prakash