People's Democracy
(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of India (Marxist)
No. 29
July 22, 2012
|
Vol. XXXVI
No. 29 July 22, 2012 |
THE
HIGHER EDUCATION AND RESEARCH BILL, 2011 Towards Complete
Control over Higher Education Vijender
Sharma THE
central government had constituted a task force on
September 7, 2009 with joint
secretary (higher education) as its convener to advise the
central government
for the establishment of a commission for higher education
and research as
recommended by the Yashpal committee and National
Knowledge Commission. On the first
of February 2010, the Ministry Of Human Resource
Development (MHRD) uploaded on
its website the draft of National Commission for Higher
Education and Research
(NCHER) Bill 2010, as approved by the task force and
sought “feedback and
suggestions from all stakeholders.” AWAY
FROM AUTONOMY, ON
TO CENTRALISATION It
received strong criticism and opposition from students,
academia, people’s
representatives and several states. It was further revised
within three months
and re-titled as Higher Education and Research (HER) Bill
2010, and this draft
bill was circulated selectively for seeking opinion. The
second revised draft
bill also met with strong opposition because the main
issues of concern
remained in the new HER Bill as well. It was re-modified
as The Higher
Education and Research (THER) Bill
2011 and was introduced in the Rajya Sabha on
December 28, 2011 by the
minister of human resource development. It has been
referred to department
related standing committee on human resource development.
As
one reads this bill, one finds that this is not to
“promote” but undermine “the
autonomy of higher educational institutions.” This is to
restructure higher
education system for competitive global environment and
not for catering to the
aspirations of our youth. This is not for helping state
governments to
strengthen higher education in their states, but to snatch
away from them even
whatever their powers were left after education was
included in the concurrent
list of the constitution of When read along with five other higher
education related bills introduced
in parliament, which are basically to promote the entry of
private players in
higher education, both domestic and foreign, in a big way,
this bill seems to
provide them with a single window system for their easy
entry in education
business. The provisions of
this bill shall apply to all the
higher educational institutions and universities other
than those institutions
engaged mainly in agricultural education and research. The
provisions of this act
shall have overriding effect notwithstanding anything
inconsistent therewith
contained in any other law, other than the Companies Act
1956. The central
government can also supersede the commission and all
bodies under it if it is
not discharging its functions under this bill. The
commission will also submit
to the central government its regulations, policies or
activities for reporting
to parliament or for making the policy. UNFOUNDED
PRESUMPTIONS It
is presumed that abolishing the University Grants
Commission (UGC), All India
Council of Technical Education (AICTE) and National
Council of Teacher
Education (NCTE), and establishing an eight member
commission, will lead to
“renovation and rejuvenation” of higher education. It is
also presumed that the
selection committee, consisting of the prime minister,
speaker of the Lok
Sabha, the leader of the opposition in Lok Sabha and two
ministers in charge of
higher education and medical education, will chose seven
members, most
competent for “renovation and rejuvenation” of higher
education, and these will
be the best brains and the only brains to shape the future
of higher education
in India. It is further presumed that the ills of the UGC,
AICTE and NCTE and
prevalent corruption in these institutions would never
infect the proposed
NCHER. In
fact, the concept of an NCHER was ill-thought out by the
Yashpal committee
itself while responding to the neo-liberal agenda of the
central government. A
similar structure was proposed by the National Knowledge
Commission led by Sam
Pitroda, with market oriented motives. Both were strongly
rejected by “all
stakeholders.” The Yashpal committee had recommended that
the proposed NCHER
should be a constitutional body, like the Election
Commission, the provision
for which was there in the earlier two draft bills. But in
the present bill, it
has been withdrawn. The central
government will appoint a commission
called “National Commission for Higher Education and
Research” with its
headquarters in the national capital region. It will be
consisting of a chairperson,
three whole-time members and three part-time members, to
be appointed, by the president,
on the recommendations of the selection committee as
mentioned above. The chairperson or a
member of the national commission
for human resources for health will be an ex officio
member. COMMISSION
OF
UNEQUALS There
are four
distinctions between members of the commission: (1)
While the chairperson
and the whole-time members have to be persons “possessing
leadership abilities
and proven capacity for institution building” with 25
years of experience,
other part-time members have to be with “proven
contribution to economic and
social development” with 20 years of experience. (2) The
chairperson
and whole-time members will be salaried employee, and
other part-time and ex-officio
members will be allowance
holders only. (3) The
term of
office for the chairperson and all other members except
the ex-officio
one will be five years. While
the chairperson and whole-time members will cease to hold
office after
attaining the age of 70 years, there is no such
restriction on part-time
members. (4) The
chairperson
and all other members will have to disclose their
interests of whatever kind in
any educational institution and will not sit in the
meetings in which the
matters of such institutions come for discussions, the
chairperson and
whole-time members will not be allowed to take employment
for five years after
their ceasing to hold office in any educational
institution, whether public or
private. But there are no such restrictions on part-time
and ex-officio
members. This also means that
any part-time member may not be initially having interest
in an educational
institution but may later develop interest in one after
having dealt with its
case, and also can take up a job after ceasing to be a
member of the
commission. With
these
distinctions, the commission itself will not be a cohesive
body and will be composed
of unequal members. Thus, practically, four members will
control the commission
and part-time members will be enjoying certain immunities. CENTRALISED
STRUCTURE The commission will
take all steps (Section 16), in
consultation with the General Council, for promotion and
coordination of higher
education and research. It will be responsible for
promoting accountability
framework in regulatory systems, development of a
curriculum framework with
specific reference to new or emerging or
inter-disciplinary fields of
knowledge, development of a flexible academic framework,
the exercise of choice
by students for self-development, joint and
cross-disciplinary programmes
between and amongst the universities like those in
meta-universities and other
higher educational institutions, code of good practices,
coordination between
universities and higher educational institutions, and
industry, encourage
universities for enabling colleges to evolve into
universities or institutions
with an authorisation to award degrees by itself, etc. It will make
regulations (Section 17) with the
approval of the General Council regarding the norms and
standards of academic
quality for accreditation, norms and processes for
establishment and winding up
of a higher educational institutions and university, norms
and processes for
permitting a university or an higher educational
institution to award any
degree and to enrol students in any course or programme of
study for the first
time, norms of academic quality for a university to
affiliate colleges, the
entry and operation of foreign educational institutions,
norms and mechanisms
for transparent, efficient and accountable governance in
universities and other
higher educational institutions, standards for leadership
positions for appointment
as vice chancellor of a university or the head of a
central educational
institution not being a college, allocation of grants to
higher educational
institutions and universities, etc. It will also create an
enabling environment
for universities to emerge as autonomous, self-regulatory
bodies. The commission will
also advise the central
government, state governments and professional bodies on
policies relating to
higher education and research in any field of knowledge. The commission will
maintain a “directory of
academics” prepared by the collegium for appointment as
vice chancellor or head
of a central educational institution. It will recommend a
panel of three names
from this directory for the post of vice chancellor of a
central university or
central educational institution. All these are the
functions and responsibilities of
the academia and academic councils of the universities
which are being taken
away. The commission will issue directions to the
universities and institutions
of higher education to follow its norms. Thus it will be
an all powerful body
for the higher education in the country. CONTRADICTORY
PROVISIONS Interestingly,
the
measures taken by the commission under Section 16 will not
be “obligatory for
higher education institutions to adopt but will act as
reference for them to
advance quality, access and inclusion” [Section 16(3)].
This provision appears
to have been made to thwart the criticism that the central
government was
trying to over centralise higher education and taking away
the powers of the
states. This is
clear from Section
17 of the bill. According to its Section 17(1), the
commission will frame
regulations to determine, coordinate and maintain
standards of higher education
and research. Without prejudice to the generality of the
foregoing provisions [Section
17(2)], the commission will have the power to regulate
almost everything
related to higher education institution as pointed out
above. However, the
commission, under Section 17(3), will create an “enabling
environment for
universities to emerge as autonomous and self-regulatory
bodies.” The
provisions of Sections
16(3), 17(2) and 17(3) are self-contradictory. Once the
regulations are made
under the Section 17(2), the provision of Section 16(3)
will not hold good. If
the universities have to “emerge as autonomous and self
regulatory bodies”,
then there is no need to vest the commission with so much
power. In fact, given
the provisions in Sections 16(3) and 17(3), if they are
really meant for
implementation, the national commission of higher
education and research is not
required at all. What is actually required is a set of
guidelines for helping
the universities in becoming “autonomous and
self-regulatory bodies.” MARGINALISING
THE
STATES The
commission will
prepare, every five years, a report on the state of higher
education and
research in every state and its relation to national
trends. The governor of
every state will get such report laid before the
legislative assembly along
with an explanatory memorandum on the action taken or
proposed to be taken on
each recommendation made by the commission. Thus the state
governments will be
forced to implement the agenda set by the commission and
the powers of the
state legislatures will be restricted. The
central
government will prepare, from time to time, in
consultation with state
governments and commission, a national policy for the
development of higher
education and research. This policy will guide the
commission. The central
government will also inform the commission of all
decisions taken by it on
matters of policy concerning higher education and
research. However, the state
governments have not been given any power under which it
can inform the
commission about its decision regarding higher education
in their states. These
provisions will continue to marginalise state governments
in the field of
higher education. The powers of the
state governments have also been
limited as they can appoint vice chancellors of their
universities only when
they satisfy the standards set by the commission. GENERAL
COUNCIL The
General Council
will consist of about 90 members including one
representative of each state and
union territory such as vice chairperson of state higher
education council or
vice chancellor of a state university, all heads of
professional bodies and
research councils, and one central university vice
chancellor, one director or
head each of IIT, IIM and institution of national
importance in medical
education (in rotation), one national law university vice
chancellor, and ten
academics from such fields like agriculture, medicine,
environment, economics,
Indian languages, etc, three persons from the associations
of industry, trade
and commerce, two persons from NGOs, directors of CBSE and
NCERT and a
principal of an autonomous college. The General Council
will meet once in six
months. It does not have any representative from the real
stakeholders in
higher education like students and teachers. The
General Council
will advise the commission on enhancing access, inclusion
and equity,
connecting higher education and research to the practice
of professions,
measures to remove imbalances (including those relating to
regions, academic
disciplines, gender and other socio-economic factors),
adequacy of funding of
higher education, statement and report prepared by the
commission, and on the
course of reforms to rejuvenate higher education and
research. The
General Council
is just an advisory and recommendatory body. In the HER
Bill 2010, the General
Council could amend every measure or regulation proposed
by the commission by
two-thirds majority of its members present and voting.
Such amendments were to
be binding on the commission. This provision has been
withdrawn. COLLEGIUM
OF
SCHOLARS The
central
government will constitute a ‘collegium of scholars’ with
30 fellows who will
be of “integrity and eminence” in higher education and
research. The first
fellows will be persons who are or have been national
research professors or
recipients of Nobel Prize and Fields medal. Their
membership will be for life.
If no such person is willing to be a fellow, the selection
committee headed by
the prime minister will nominate ten persons of “integrity
and eminence” who
will be the first fellows of the collegium. Their term
will be for a period of ten
years. These fellows will propose the rest of the fellows
for a ten year term. The
collegium will
advise the commission a vision on the emerging trends in
different fields of
knowledge. It will propose the names of three persons for
the appointments of
chairperson and other members of the commission. It will
recommend persons
having prescribed qualification and experience for
inclusion in the directory
of academics. It will assess the performance of the
commission and also make
recommendations in respect of the statements and reports
of the commission. Its
functions will be performed by the chair or co-chair
selected by majority from
amongst fellows of the collegium for a term of two years. NO NEW
UNIVERSITY WITHOUT
NCHER’S
NOD Every
university
empowered by or under any law intending to enrol the
students for the first
time in any course or programme of study has to intimate
such intention to the
commission, in accordance with the regulations which have
yet to be framed,
along with an assessment report from a registered
accreditation agency. The
commission will either accept or reject such request
within 120 days. Thus, a
new university can start its operation only after getting
acceptance from the
commission. It means that the states cannot start
universities unless permitted
by the commission to do so. It has
been further
made clear that no university or institution can start
conferring or awarding a
degree unless it has been “declared” to do so by the
commission. Once it comes
into being, the powers of the state legislatures to start
new universities will
be seriously eroded. They have to be established in
accordance with the norms
and processes to be specified by the commission later.
And, in order to start
functioning they have to get the permission from the
commission to award any
degree. RESEARCH BOARD The central
government will also constitute a 13-member
board for research promotion and innovation. The board
shall recommend measures
to the commission to promote and facilitate research in
the fields of knowledge
in higher educational institutions including research in
recognised health
educational institutions. The board will also
identify and recommend to the commission
to grant funding for competitive, merit-based proposals by
higher educational
institutions and universities for research and related
infrastructure in such
institutions. CORPORATE
CULTURE
IN
HIGHER EDUCATION Under
this bill,
the central government will establish the higher education
financial services
corporation. This corporation will have an 11-member board
of directors. The
chairperson or a member of the commission will be the
non-executive chairperson
of the corporation. It will include only two
representatives in rotation from
amongst the representatives of the states in General
Council. It will also
include one nominee each from members of the General
Council from professional
bodies, research councils and vice chancellors, and two
nominees of the central
government. It will also include two persons as expert in
finance, banking and
management and a managing director to be appointed as
whole-time officers of
the corporation. The
corporation
will notify its memorandum and articles of association. It
will disburse grants
to higher education institutions in accordance with the
regulations yet to be
made. It will also give proposals of grants to be
allocated to each higher
education institutions. It will be guided by the
commission and the managing
director will be responsible for the disbursal of grants.
Thus corporate
culture in funding of institutions of higher education is
being developed. VOCATIONAL EDUCATION The central
government will establish several
“qualifications advisory councils” in vocational
education. Each qualifications
advisory council will be headed by a chairperson and eight
other members. Of
the eight other members, two shall be from amongst heads
of state councils of
vocational education, two shall be from amongst members of
the General Council
with exposure to vocational education, one shall represent
trade unions and two
shall represent associations of industry, trade or
commerce. Each Qualifications
Advisory Council, constituted for
specific skill areas, shall advise and make
recommendations on qualifications
framework in such skill areas, standards of academic
quality and study leading
to the award of any diploma, elements of curriculum and
syllabus, etc. RETROGRADE
PROPOSAL On
what basis, the central government thinks that the
ailments of the UGC, AICTE
and NCTE would not affect the NCHER. After all, these
bodies were also
established with similar intentions for which the NCHER is
being proposed! The
understanding of the eight members of the commission will
decide what should
happen in the field of higher education in India. If this
all-powerful commission
decides to direct the universities to look towards market
for its requirements
including general funds, then what would happen to our
higher education system?
The need is to make these bodies function democratically
and efficiently,
eradicate corruption prevalent in them, make them
accountable to the people and
serve the cause of education. We
have enough experience of how the education curriculum and
structural framework
of educational institutions have been communalised. We
also have experience
that policy thrust of these bodies and education ministry
changes with the
change in persons. Some of the issues which would fasten
the process of
commercialisation of higher education taken up by the
present human resource
development minister on priority basis were not the
priorities of the previous
ministry. The
proposal of the
central government to establish the NCHER, which will have
control over all
functions of universities and higher education
institutions including policy
framing, their regulation and financing, reflects the
tendency of the central
government towards centralisation of higher education. The
NCHER can certainly not
be most competent for “renovation and rejuvenation” of
higher education, and one
having the best and the only brains to shape the future of
higher education in
the country. It negates the role of the state governments
and the academia in
strengthening the higher education system in their
respective areas and in the
country as a whole. It will prove to be retrograde for the
development of
higher education in India. Therefore, all stakeholders
need to oppose the
central government’s move of establishing such a
commission.
