People's Democracy

 Globalisation Throws Higher Education Into Peril

Kanti Biswas

WHEN there was no university anywhere in Europe, Takshasila, Vikramsila, Pallavi and Nalanda vishavidyalayas in India were radiating the rays of higher learning and were able to attract learners from home and abroad.

Bengal had a particular role in the expansion of the scope of higher education, and the development of modern higher education in India started with the establishment of Hindu College in Calcutta in 1817. In the whole of the then British empire, Calcutta University was the first to confer the bachelor degree on women in 1883; Kadambini Ganguly and another Chandramukhi Basu were the first recipients of this honour.

GREAT ADVANCE, PATHETIC PLIGHT

At the advent of India’s independence, there were 19 universities and 591 colleges while students enrolment at the tertiary level of education was 0.2 million. After 56 years of independence now, the number of universities, deemed universities and institutions of national importance have risen to 261, the number of degree and above level general education colleges to 8,361, the number of professional colleges to 2,340 and total enrolment to 8.8 million. This certainly is a great advancement.

Though India claims to have the second largest higher education system in the world, in view of its vast population it is regarded as one of the backward countries in respect of education, especially higher education.

The data given in Table 1 demonstrate India’s position in the domain of higher education.

However, expenditure on higher education, as the percentage of gross national product (GNP), had fallen from 0.98 per cent in 1980-81 to 0.35 per cent in 1994-95. The share of higher education in the union budget’s total provision for education has fallen from 28.19 per cent in 1990-91 to 17.7 per cent in 2003-04.

Allocation for education in the first five-year plan was 7.2 per cent of the total outlay. In the tenth five-year plan, it has further come down to 2.9 per cent.

Given this pathetic picture of higher education in India, any one will be shocked and surprised to see the union government’s role in this respect.

MAD DRIVE FOR PRIVATISATION

Privatisation in the sphere of higher education was stressed in the country paper submitted by the union HRD minister at the world conference on higher education, held in Paris on October 5-9, 1998.

Then the Mukesh Ambani and Kumarmangalam Birla committee submitted its report in 2000, recommending a greater level of privatisation in higher education. It advocated for skilled but depoliticised, robotic labour inputs and, therefore, it recommended for banning any form of political activity in the college and university campuses (para 6.22).

The expenditure reform committee submitted its fifth report on March 7, 2000. In its report it recommended that "there should be a freeze on recruitment of staff in all the autonomous organisations at all levels. In addition, an ad-hoc cut of 10 per cent in the total staff strength should be imposed in all these institutions” (pages 7 and 26, part III). The University Grants Commission (UGC) issued a directive that only 80 per cent of the teaching vacancies will be filled up and that too on a temporary basis.

We have to remember here that education is the process by which people not only acquire knowledge and information skill, but also values and ability to live and interact within and with social groups, as well as participate in cultural life and productive activities which may not always be economic. Though not a fundamental right in India, higher education is considered essential for any nation’s cultural, social and economic development.

A survey conducted by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) revealed that 80 per cent of those completing high school to university level education are from the top 20 per cent income bracket. According to a UGC survey too, 70 per cent of those completing university education are from the 20 per cent top income groups. It is in this context that the issue of globalisation of higher education in India is to be considered.

The World Trade Organisation (WTO) was established in January 1995, replacing the GATT. Under the WTO, the GATS (General Agreement on Trade in Services) has also been formed. It comprises 12 specified services including educational services. But academicians worldwide have not taken kindly to the GATS. According to them, education exists to serve the community, and is not a commodity; this has been explicitly recognised by the UNESCO as well. The authority to regulate higher education must remain in the hands of competent bodies as designed by any country --- the universities.

On the contrary, the objective of the WTO and GATS is to bring to the market all educational production and institutions of all kinds. But the real power lies in the hands of the multinational corporations who are carrying on most of the world's trade. The GATS calls for drastic cuts in public expenditure on education. Its ideal is the University of Phoenix that is a profit generating corporation and listed as such in New York Stock Exchange. It has been expanding its areas in foreign countries aggressively by opening new universities. The danger to highly education is highlighted by certain recent trends; for example, the Global Alliance for Transnational Education (GATE), a profit making institution in the USA, has been swiftly establishing its branches in developing countries.

The National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA) observed in 2000 that the danger of opening up of the education sector under the auspices of the WTO-GATS regime is that is might result in the draining of resources of the privatising country. Also there may be strong cultural and political influences by one set of countries on another set of countries. Thus the danger of GATS has been correctly apprehended --- that it will lead to the commodification of education, and degrade the humane face of education, culture, health and social welfare.

THE PERILS OF GLOBALISATION

The impact of globalisation on higher education may now be summarised in the following ways:

•  Increasing interest of parents to get their children admitted to foreign educational institutions will cost us precious foreign exchange. In 1997-98, about 31,000 students were studying in the USA, which cost us 62 crore dollars (Rs 3,000 crore).

•  Sometimes there is also the possibility of sub-standard courses being offered to the students, which may lead to cheating of innocent citizens of India.

•  It will lead to the creation of three different classes of graduates --- those educated in foreign universities, those from costly private domestic institutions, and those from economically weaker sections studying in government funded institutions. This will only lead to social tensions.

•  In view of the nature of the globalised higher education, the commodification of Indian higher education is bound to have an adverse effect on our culture, the ethos of social welfare and even the quality of Indian education system.

The government of India has recognised these dangerous phenomena and belatedly started the process of constituting a Committee for the Promotion of Indian Education Abroad (COPIE) under the ministry of human resources development, department of education. During 2001, there were 54,664 Indian students in the United States alone, with the total number abroad exceeding 10 lakhs. In contrast, there were only 7,791 foreigner students in India, mainly from the developing countries like Bangladesh and countries of South and East Asia. On the other hand, the number of foreigners in Australian universities has increased in 10 years from 47,000 to 1,80,000 (in 2000) and this contributed to the Australian economy to the extent of 3.2 billion dollars.

The emphasis of extensive privatisation and commercialisation of education and deregulation by advanced industrial countries are understandable in terms of the following facts:

• Sixty per cent of production and employment is in the service sector.

•  It accounts for two thirds of the, European Union’s economy and jobs and for one fourth of its exports.

•  It accounted for two thirds of the US’s economic growth in the last five years.

As the private sector’s contribution in higher education in India is gaining in strength, India cannot take recourse to article 1.3 of the GATS that allows exemption for services provided by the government. In order to cope with the western countries, the measures required include the adoption of a credit based semester system with continuous internal evaluation, a cafeteria type option to the students for the course to be offered and facilitates of credit transfer. A majority of conventional universities in India are far behind, at least in non-professional courses. As the UGC, AICTE (All India Council of Technical Education) and other controlling agencies are not in a position to intervene effectively and control the foreign educational institutions, the government of India has set up a committee under the NAAC, under its chairman Ram Takwale, to monitor the applying foreign universities. At present 150 foreign universities (50 from UK, 45 from Australia, 30 from USA and the rest from Canada and other European countries that have been operating in India. The UGC has decided to invite proposals from institutions that are keen on “exporting Indian education” to foreign learners under a “Study India Programme (SIP).” A recent study shows that one in every 10 students studying in the US was an Indian, while less than 0.6 per cent of American students were receiving educational credit for studying in India.

Globalisation and commercialisation of education has thus become a reality and, India being a signatory to the WTO as also to the WATS, we have to be very much cautious about the functioning of the foreign educational institutions.

The entire higher education in India has thus been thrown into a dangerous situation, which was never witnessed before. The World Bank has published a report on higher education in developing countries, titled Peril and Promise. Is there any doubt, however, that the current drive of globalisation of higher education will not bring any promise to developing countries; on the contrary, it will thrust into a catastrophic peril the higher education system in developing countries?