Winds of change on the education front

Bharat H Desai

Jawaharlal Nehru Chair & Professor of International Law, JNU

The National Education Policy (NEP) announced last week has opened a small window for the long-awaited reforms in the university sector. The change in nomenclature from the outdated notion of ‘human resource’ to a robust Ministry of Education heralds the small new beginning. It could have also been clubbed with ‘culture’ to impart a holistic touch to promote our vast traditional knowledge systems. I had advocated the name change in an article in The Tribune (December 30, 2017).

The NEP is based on 22 fundamental principles and it envisions “an education system rooted in Indian ethos that contributes directly to transforming India, that is Bharat, sustainably into an equitable and vibrant knowledge society, by providing high-quality education to all, and thereby making India a global knowledge superpower.” This is indeed a lofty, dizzying and tall order.

However, that will necessarily require (i) restructuring of the entire educational architecture (ii) reaching out to outstanding scholars to seek their services to lead our beleaguered universities from the front and (iii) prioritising education as a bedrock on which the proclaimed goal of being a ‘global knowledge superpower’ will firmly rest.

It has been rightly said by the sages and wise people that missing the target is forgivable but aiming for a low target is unforgivable. It does not permit any procrastination, lip service or insincerity. It is especially so in view of the widespread scepticism that prevails in the entire university sector. To begin with, we need to bring about a vital attitudinal change towards ‘education’ as a mainstay of India. Gandhi always goaded us to learn the best from the West. The history of the rise of the West has coincided with the quest for knowledge and building up of the best universities as centres of learning.

Hence, in order to even remotely realise the proposed cherished quest of becoming a global knowledge superpower, we need to sacrifice our old habits, the proverbial neglect and fossilised attitudes within the society itself. If we wish to walk the talk, the society will need to place knowledge upfront rather than money, position or power. To usher into a knowledge-based society, we need genuine scholars to take the centre-stage. As a corollary, every genuine teacher/scholar needs to be valued, respected and entrusted with responsibilities to lead the way. Once we reposition our value-laden compass, the rush to anyhow grab positions will diminish. This will entail drastic changes both from the top and the bottom.

Any policy such as the NEP is as good as its implementation. It also cannot be cast in stone. There has to be an inbuilt mechanism for a periodic review. Many of the policies in the past have remained on paper, duly encased in glossy volumes. I was privy to the making of another NEP — National Environment Policy 2006 — that provides a case in point. Crafted after procrastination and high drama during the UPA-II era, an effective realisation of the NEP-2006 has remained elusive. After the third of the three yearly reviews, the NEP-2006 was expected to be newly done. Ignoring the inbuilt provision, no such reviews were carried out. Therefore, we need to derive lessons for implementation and a periodic review mechanism for the NEP-2020. Will it be taken seriously to walk the talk?

It is refreshing that the NEP document admits that the entire regulatory system has been “too heavy-handed for decades” as well as “too much has been attempted to be regulated with too little effect.” It underscores the ad hoc approach at work with disastrous consequences for the entire university system. It was knowledge that was to liberate us. However, the mediocre people who were placed at the helm of affairs grounded the whole system.

Now, the proposed ‘light but tight’ regulatory mechanism still needs to be fine-tuned. It cannot be an old drug in a new bottle. We need to genuinely ponder over the similar experiment with the NITI Aayog. The new regulator may come through the proposed Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Act. If it inherits the same old ways, it will soon be derailed and cannot usher us into the promised new era.

The proposed four-layered structure of regulation, accreditation, funding, and academic standard setting will need to have a clear demarcation of responsibilities and yet organically inter se not to work at cross-purposes. It remains to be seen how far the HEC reflects the “transparent public disclosure, and use technology extensively to reduce human interface to ensure efficiency and transparency”. As proposed by me, instead of using the abstract term of ‘higher education’, it needs to be graced with the futuristic nomenclature of University Excellence Commission (UEC) of India. The NEP has finally come to use the laudable phrase ‘culture of excellence’, repeatedly hammered by me in all confabulations.

It brings us to the most crucial component of the change without which the objectives of the NEP will remain on paper. Who will comprise not only the proposed four-layered structure but also lead the universities? It has been hitherto paid lip service due to myopic views, bureaucratic and political interference and other extraneous factors. It is akin to the tragedy wherein the cart is ready but the galloping horse is missing.

Our challenge remains: Can we provide the best and competent leaders through the “rigorous, impartial, merit-based, and competency-based process” to our beleaguered universities?

In many of the selection committee for heads of institution that we painfully witness today, the outcome is predetermined. The choice ends up with the mediocre and not the outstanding person. Sometimes, the committee members with a guilty conscience would applaud the outstanding presentation of a trailblazer and even suggest as to how and why he remained in this country. It is this pernicious trend that has become a curse as many universities remain saddled with incompetent vice-chancellors who only vandalise it.

The system remains a silent spectator. We need to have a provision to promptly jettison incompetent persons and prosecute them, if proved guilty. In a chance conversation with Sam Pitroda on board a flight in 2009, he candidly admitted that if you asked about competent leaders in the Indian universities, he would not be able to name more than two or three! Since then, we have reached the nadir.

Thus, it is high time we bring about respect and credibility to the university sector and reach out to the best talent that lies scattered in India. Such stalwarts would literally carry a plough on their shoulders and ensure salvation for our children by providing world-class education on the doorstep in a most conducive environment. We do not need the crutches of foreign universities, like the misplaced GIAN (Global Initiative of Academic Networks) programme.

If we aspire to be self-reliant (atmanirbhar), we need to reverse the trend where candidates chase and lobby for vice-chancellorships. We must reach out to the outstanding scholars and urge them to lead our universities. In order to ensure this noble task, the Prime Minister needs to give education his top priority by taking things in his own hands and handle the education portfolio himself or entrust it to an outstanding scholar as time is running out.

Join Whatsapp Channel of The Tribune for latest updates.