Academic institutions are not factories that churn out standardised commodities. They are organic entities and have their own identity and personality. Winston Churchill once said that the empires of tomorrow will be the empires of mind. Well, that tomorrow is here and his assessment is exactly on the mark. Knowledge is wealth, knowledge is power. Google, a company that was founded by two Artificial Intelligence researchers and grew out of ideas contained in their dissertation submitted to Stanford, has market capitalisation of 400 billion dollars, and this is just a beginning. Rapid advances are being made in fields of quantum computing, artificial intelligence, molecular biology, genetics and material sciences. A country that harnesses those technologies will be the superpower of the 21st century. In a sense, higher education shapes the destiny of a country and a civilisation in ways that few other sectors do. A country that languishes in this critical sector will find it difficult to survive, let alone prosper. It is in this broader context the recent decision of UGC to scrap Four Year Undergraduate Programs in many universities including IISc must be examined. At first glance, it may seem a wild exaggeration. After all, how can adding or subtracting one year to/from an undergrad programme affect the future trajectory of whole country? Make no mistake, it is not about the FYUP alone, many issues are involved and its implication will be enormous. First and foremost, it is about the quality of regulation in higher education. Regulatory uncertainly kills investment. In any sector, regulation should be fair, consistent, and predictable and based on professional assessment. But it is particularly important in education where everyone is taking risk and is an investor of sorts. A philanthropist who funnels money and opens a university is an investor. A student who invests most formative years of her life is also an investor. A professor who leaves a tenured position at a foreign university and decides to take position in an Indian university is also taking a risk. Regulatory uncertainty affects all those decisions across the board. Moreover, modern regulators do not view their actions in isolation but have long-term view of things. They worry about what implication particular decisions will have on their reputation and credibility (indeed this is the defining feature of modern regulation). If a regulator is disbelieved, the sector will be in chaos. With this background, now observe what UGC has done. Its official position till a couple of months ago was that universities are autonomous enough to decide the duration of their programme. Now with the change at the Centre, it has taken an about-turn and is going after university after university with a zeal characteristic of the neo-convert. The Sword of Damocles hangs over the heads of those enrolled in the programme and may continue to do so for years should the matter end up in court. A perfectly normal academic environment has been vitiated for no apparent reason. But there is more to it. Actions speak louder than words and the message they have conveyed in this case is chilling: “In India, no academic institution, not even the respected IISc, that has made enormous contribution and is a world-class university, is immune to political interference. Indian regulatory regime is too fickle, changes with political regime and should not be taken on face value. It is a hostile and unpredictable environment. So keep off and maintain distance.” In sum, this episode has created perceptional problems that will be difficult to dislodge even if this particular issue is resolved and worsened the already acute shortage of funds and faculty. Second, it is about academic freedom and autonomy. Freedom and autonomy are big words, but in essence, they boil down to two simple propositions. Those having domain-knowledge and feel of the sector should be taking micro-decisions. Unfortunately Universal Grabbing Commission (a more accurate and descriptive name coined by Pratap Bhanu Mehta for the UGC) is very keen on grabbing power, not on acquiring knowledge of cutting-edge research practices. It is a Paleolithic entity totally out of depth in a world where talent is globally mobile and new players like China are working hard to attract talented researchers. There is no streak of independence, much less intellectual calibre at the helm in ways that say Raghuram Rajan and CB Bhave provided to RBI and SEBI respectively. They are simply unable to assess long-term consequences of their actions. Are they even aware of the fact that one of the monumental achievements of Indian academia in recent years – the AKS primality testing algorithm — was product of an undergrad research project, something they are out to ban in IISc? Next, it is about matching power with responsibility. Those entrusted with responsibility should also be given enough power to discharge it. All said and done, it is institutions like IISc that are responsible for actual research, minting PhDs and pedagogy. I have no issue with MoHRD/ UGC snatching away academic freedom, provided they also partake of their responsibilities. Ask every bureaucrat/Minister in MoHRD/UGC to mentor at least ten students and produce quality research in peer-reviewed journals if they are so sure of what works in research and wish to exercise total control. But this Manmohan/Sonia model of governance, where a bunch of people with no accountability and responsibility (when was the last time a politician/bureaucrat was punished for falling quality of education or their failure to create centers of excellence?) have all the power and those who are product of international peer review, are actually responsible for mentoring students and have long-term stake in building brand of their institution cannot make elementary pedagogic decisions. Power without responsibility and responsibilities without power is a recipe of disaster anywhere, higher education being no exception. Lastly it is about the justification offered for it, the mental model that generates ridiculous policies like this one. Actually, no formal justification has been offered so far (which also tells you something), but the idea seems to be to impose some sort of uniform standard across the country. But as I shall explain goal of uniformity is inconsistent with academic excellence, despite its bureaucratic allure. This is so for many reasons. First, academic institutions are not factories that churn out standardised commodities. They are organic entities and have their own identity and personality. Shanti Niketan is very different institution from IISc in terms of personality of founders, pedagogic mission and so on, and both should be allowed to explore their own potential without necessarily being clones of each other. Second, uniformity is the enemy of experimentation and experimentation is sine qua non of progress. Many have raised the question whether three-year programmes are actually better than four-year-programmes, objectively speaking. But how can we objectively assess which one is better unless institutions are actually allowed to explore four-year programs and we observe their performance ex-post? Third, let us accept hypothetically that uniformity is a good thing, and uniform standards should be imposed on every Indian institution. Now there is enormous variation in curricula, faculty qualification, exposure to research, facilities etc across institutions. Question is: Who should become the model? Should standards be taken from top institutions or from bottom ones? There are some clues here. Decisions of UGC are mostly political in nature (whether they are explicitly directed or try to second-guess their political masters is not relevant here). Political decisions always go by majority and majority institutions have dismal quality. Additionally, it is easy to impose mediocre standards on best institutions than the other way around and the temptation is to do things that are easy rather than right. So in the misguided quest of uniformity, the burden of adjustment has to be always borne by better institutions. Notice how no one seems to be saying that some of best colleges we have — IISc and IIT Kanpur — have four-year BS programs, so let us impose four-year programs on other universities. No it is always other way around. And this is inconsistent with academic excellence. As long as our regulatory regime remains obsessed with uniformity not only centers of excellence will not be created but even existing ones will be decimated one by one. I began my piece with Winston Churchill, the high priest of British imperialism. I wish to close it with spiritual father of Indian nationalism: Swami Vivekananda. Not only because IISc was Swamiji’s vision, implemented by Jamshedji Tata and the Maharaja of Mysore, but also because in his world view science was an inseparable part of nation-building. In 1900, after witnessing the International Conference of Physics in Paris, Swamiji wrote: “Here in Paris have assembled the great of every land, each to proclaim the glory of his country. Savants will be acclaimed here; and its reverberation will glorify their countries. Among these peerless men gathered from all parts of the world, where is thy representative, O thou the country of my birth?” When candidate Narendra Modi expressed his devotion to Swamiji, when he started his campaign by paying tribute to Pt Madan Mohan Malaviya at a sacred place like BHU, when he promised to make Varanasi the knowledge capital, some of us believed that under his leadership India was about to usher in an era of intellectual renaissance worthy of its glorious past. But the actions of UGC and MoHRD in last two months, particularly the unseemly spectacle unfolding in IISc, has tempered our enthusiasm (and that is very mild way of putting it). There is still time perhaps, and the Prime Minister should personally intervene, nipping the mischief in the bud and stopping the damage before it becomes lasting, permanent and irreversible. At stake is India’s future, no less! (The writer is a doctoral student at a leading Indian university.) Disclaimer: Opinions expressed in this article are the authors personal opinions. Information, facts or opinions shared by the Author do not reflect the views of Niti Central and Niti Central is not responsible or liable for the same. The Author is responsible for accuracy, completeness, suitability and validity of any information in this article.
Posted on: Tue, 12 Aug 2014 00:21:27 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015