People's Democracy

On The Remarkable Victory & The Road Ahead

R Arun Kumar

THE 'March to Parliament' and the mass hunger strike organised by Students’ Federation of India (SFI), All India Students’ Bloc (AISB) and All India Progressive Students’ Union ended successfully after achieving a remarkable victory. The three main demands raised by the students were conceded by the union human resources development minister. The government agreed to enact a central legislation empowering the state governments to control the unaided private institutes after consulting all the state governments. The government has promised to discuss this issue in the conference of higher education ministers of all states that has been convened on January 10-11, 2005 in Bangalore. The minister has assured the delegation that he will strive to enact the legislation in the next budget session ‘and certainly before the next academic session commences.’ The minister also agreed to ensure more transparency in the functioning of the UGC and thus ensure that sub-standard institutes do not get the status of the deemed universities. He also promised to discuss this issue in the proposed conference and initiate necessary actions to control the spurious deemed universities established in the private sector. The minister promised to stand by the commitments made in the CMP and thus increase the number of free-ships and scholarships to the poor and needy to ensure that they are not denied of the access to higher education.

The relentless struggles carried out by the students across the country led by SFI and other Left student organisations and the increased strength of the Left in the parliament made the government concede the demands of the students. Students across the country were up in struggle against the Supreme Court judgment (October 2002) in the TMA Pai case. This victory is a result of the consistent and sustained struggles carried out in the past two years.

Many of these struggles were carried out braving severe hardships, police repression and attacks from the hired goons of the private managements. Students protesting the exorbitant fee hike, a fall out of the Supreme Court judgment, were severely beaten by the police in Kerala, an obvious indication of the state government siding with private managements. They were put in jails for days together. Repression of the worst form was unleashed on girls to scare them away from the movement. In spite of all these adversities, students stood firm in their resolve for the enactment of a central act empowering the state governments to control the private institutes. It is because of this determination of the students that the state governments of Kerala and Karnataka were forced to enact legislation in their state legislatures. These legislations were short lived as the Supreme Court had given its judgment invoking the plenary powers conferred to the Court under Article 142. According to this Article only an Act of the parliament can overrule the judgment given by the Supreme Court. It is precisely with this understanding that SFI has been demanding for a central legislation.

Here, it is note worthy to understand the stand of the erstwhile NDA government led by the BJP. The solicitor general who represented the central government in the TMA Pai case had argued against the control of the government on the private unaided institutes. To quote from the judgment "He (solicitor general) agreed with the submission of the counsels of the appellants that the Unnikrishnan decision required reconsideration, and that the private unaided educational institutions were entitled to greater autonomy." And again in more explicit terms the judgment states the position taken by the solicitor general as: "Counsel for the institutes and the solicitor general, submitted that the decision in Unnikrishnan’s case, insofar as it had framed the scheme relating to the grant of admission and the fixing of fee, was unreasonable and invalid."

This stand of the central government in favour of the private managements is true to its mindless pursuit of the neo-liberal economic polices. The NDA government was more intent on pleasing the imperialist bosses than catering to the needs of the common people of our country and this was reflected in their education policy also, leading to rampant commercialisation of education. People of India, dejected with these policies of the BJP and its allies, voted them out of power. The Left forces entered the parliament with an increased strength as the people identified them as the real champions of their cause. The increased strength of the Left naturally gave them a vital role in the government formation and this political reality was reflected in the CMP. It was because of the Left that the Congress has been forced to state that ‘no student will be denied of access to higher education because of his/her economic status.’ If this promise made by the government in the CMP has to be implemented then it has no other option but to enact a central legislation and thus overrule the Supreme Court judgment. It is this reality added with the struggles being waged by the students that forced the UPA government to concede the demands.

There is a common misconception about the Supreme Court judgment delivered in the TMA Pai case. Many believe that this judgment is concerned about the private unaided professional institutes only and thus it is an issue of the professional students alone. This is a highly misplaced concept. The implications of the Supreme Court judgement are far reaching and thus warrant a thorough discussion. The learned judges had repeatedly revealed the influence of the neo-liberal ideology in their judgment. They saw the real reasons behind the growth in the number of private institutions and thus stated, "Private education is one of the most dynamic and fastest growing segments of post-secondary education at the turn of the twenty-first century. A combination of unprecedented demand for access to higher education and the inability or unwillingness of government (emphasis added) to provide the necessary support has brought private education to the forefront." The judgment then goes on to state that "the logic of today’s economics and an ideology of privatisation have contributed to the resurgence of private education, and the establishing of private institutions where none or very few existed before". The entire economic ideology behind the judgment is more explicitly stated in this sentence: "We have been given to understand that a large number of professional and other institutions have been started by private parties who do not seek any governmental aid. In a sense, a prospective student has various options open to him/her where, therefore, normally economic forces have a role to play" (emphasis added). In simple terms this means that if more is the demand to a particular course more would be the fee. This is nothing but leaving education to the mercy of market forces. It is this ‘logic of today’s economics’ and the ‘ideology of privatisation’ that formed the basis for the judgment given by the Supreme Court. The court further stated that "the essence of a private educational institution is the autonomy that the institution must have in its management and administration". And what does the court mean by ‘administration’? "The right to establish and administer (emphasis added) broadly comprises of the following rights:- (a) to admit students (b) to set up a reasonable fee structure (c) to constitute a governing body (d) to appoint staff (teaching and non-teaching) and (e) to take action if there is dereliction of duty on the part of any employee." Identifying these as the rights of every private educational institution the court bars the government from interfering in any of these functions. "The fixing of a rigid fee structure, dictating the formation and composition of a governing body, compulsory nomination of teachers and staff for appointment or nominating students for admissions would be unacceptable restrictions."

That these prescriptions are not just for unaided professional institutions alone is stated in unambiguous terms in the judgment. In paragraph 61 of the judgment the court observes "In case of private schools, maximum autonomy has to be with the management with regard to administration, including the right of appointment, disciplinary powers, admission of students and the fees to be charged." The court certifies the private institutions as centers of excellence and directs the government not to interfere with the fee they collect as it apprehends a detrimental impact on the quality of education imparted in these institutions. "But by curtailing the income of such private schools, it disables those schools from affording the best facilities because of a lack of funds." The court in the next paragraph laments the lack of similar autonomy in under graduate colleges and states, "There is a need for private enterprise in non-professional college education as well. At present insufficient number of under graduate colleges are being and have been established, one of the inhibiting factors being that there is a lack of autonomy due to government regulations" (emphasis added). The court then goes on to state the nature of the autonomy meant by it in the following terms, "…it should also be possible for private unaided under graduate colleges that are non-technical in nature to have maximum autonomy similar to a school" (emphasis added). It has already been stated as to what the court meant by ‘maximum autonomy’. Thus with these words it becomes clear that the entire education sector starting from school to the professional institutes fall under the gamut of this judgment.

The Supreme Court unfortunately did not study the education systems in other countries and thus erroneously states that "it is well established all over the world that those who seek professional education must pay for it." Even in many developed countries like US, UK and Germany the fee that is collected from students in private institutions does not exceed more than 25-30 per cent of the costs incurred on imparting education. This is stated by none other than Professor U R Rao (former chairman of ISRO) who chaired the committee constituted by the AICTE to look into the status of technical education in our country in his report. The skewed notion of self-financing institutes prevalent in our country meaning that the entire costs of education are collected from the students is an Indian specialty. In many developed countries a self-financing institute means an institute run by private managements and not dependent on any sort of government aid. Here the funds to run the institute are mobilised from charity organisations, philanthropists and industrial houses with the fee collected forming a small component. The court gave judicial sanction to the principle of ‘user must pay’ in the realm of education and this is again a concept of liberalisation. In fact the court extended this principle a little further and gave the private managements permission to collect "a reasonable surplus." This is over and above the costs incurred on a student for his/her education and is for the management to expand its activities in education sector.

The court had rightly identified the reasons behind the spurt in the private institutions but had failed to identify the motive of the persons running these institutes. According to the court, "The object of establishing an institution has thus been to provide technical and professional education to the deserving candidates, and is not necessarily a commercial venture." But for a few exceptions most of the institutions are being run on a purely commercial basis by persons interested in reaping profits. A brief study of the managements is enough to prove this point. The influx of bootleggers, liquor barons, criminals, black marketers and persons of dubious credentials in the field of education has corrupted the noble service of imparting education. The concept of charity has today paved way to money-minting. Education is identified as one area where profits can be harvested at will as it concerns the future of many aspiring candidates and no parent would be willing to compromise on their wards' future except in the most trying circumstances. A new section which can be aptly called the ‘education mafia’ has emerged and it is they who are strengthened by this Supreme Court judgment.

Another important point in this struggle is the demand for the control on the private deemed universities. Many private education institutes are now trying to attain the status of a deemed university. This will virtually rule out even the slightest control on them as was prescribed in the Supreme Court judgment. "A college or a professional educational institution has to get recognition from the concerned university, which normally requires certain conditions to be fulfilled before recognition." In order to escape the fulfillment of even those ‘certain conditions’ most of the private institutions are opting for the status of a deemed university. This enables them to decide their own standards, conduct examinations and grant degrees according to their convenience. The World Bank report on the status of technical education in India has stated that the standard of education imparted in private technical institutes in our country is highly deplorable. This being the case, if these institutes are accorded the status of deemed universities then the standard of the pass-outs from these institutes can easily be gauged. The experience of Chattisgarh is there before us. Out of the 170 deemed universities permitted by the government and the UGC to start their campuses, majority have failed to measure up to the norms required of a university. The intensity of the mess can be understood by the simple fact that for 70 such universities the postal department failed to identify their addresses and the letters written by the UGC were returned undelivered. Even among the others remaining, they were running the show from a single roomed building and some even from STD booths. Our struggle was thus to plug the loopholes in the UGC Act and stop it from granting permission to such sub-standard institutions.

The Constitution of India gives the government certain powers to control and regulate the private capital and wealth. Article 39 of our Constitution states "The State shall, in particular, direct its policy towards securing … (b) that the ownership and control of the material resources of the community are so distributed as best to subserve the common good; and (c) that the operation of the economic system does not result in the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment…" The government of India should invoke these powers given by the Constitution and overrule the judgment of the Supreme Court through legislation in the parliament. The Supreme Court judgment in one single go had written off the governmental control on the private unaided institutes and our struggle is precisely to restore this control. The struggle against this judgment and demanding the union government to use its legislative powers to overrule this judgment is thus not just a struggle of the professional students. Our struggle is much broader and raises the basic question of the role of State vis-à-vis private managements. Our struggle is both for the access of education and for ensuring quality in education. Our struggle is for the future of education and thus the future of our country. It is because of this gravity of the situation that the three Left student organisations had decided to sit on a 48-hour mass hunger strike if the government does not accept our demands. Bowing to the popular pressure and due to the political compulsions the government accepted the demands and this led to the withdrawal of the hunger strike within a few hours. The chief task before us is to carry on struggles and pressurise the respective state governments to commit themselves for the central legislation. The stand of all state governments for/against the central legislation and for/against government control over private institutions will be known in the education ministers’ conference. If a central legislation is not ensured from the conference then again the option open before the students would be to carry forward the struggles with renewed intensity. We are eagerly awaiting for January 10-11.

(The writer is SFI joint secretary)