Opinion: What is ‘New’ in the Draft NEP 2019 on higher education?

Three documents played a major role in the preparation of the NEP 2019 with particular reference to Higher Education (HE): (1) the 2006 National Knowledge Commission Report (NKC), (2) the Yashpal Committee report of 2009, and (3) the Higher Education Commission Bill of 2018. However, the successive governments at the Centre could not implement any of the recommendations of these committees and commissions because of their shortcomings and flaws pointed out by the academic bodies and associations. The one commonality among the reports regarding a regulator for the Higher Education Institutions (HEI) at the national level suggested by all of them and its composition and functions was the significant difference of one commission from another.

Western universities are the models for modern Indian universities that originated in the 11th century. The University of Paris, founded in 1150 AD, was the first university endowed with all the features of the present-day universities. When the teachers and students left for England, owing to a political crisis, they started the University of Oxford and later Cambridge. The word ‘university’ is derived from the Latin word Universitas signifying ‘the whole’, which means a university is supposed to offer a ‘comprehensive’ or a ‘universe’ of knowledge. Universities did not have a place of their own so the knowledge was imparted through lectures, delivered in rented halls or the residences of teachers. The term ‘college’ was used in ancient Rome, which meant ‘association of persons for a specific purpose’ and so, the colleges such as the Royal College of physicians and surgeons came into existence. Eventually, a ‘college’ meant an academic facility in the context of universities and a place of residence for students. The first college to be associated with the University of Paris came into existence in 1180 AD-after thirty years of its existence. Similarly, more colleges emerged in other places where universities were established. In England, the London University, founded nearly 600 years after Oxford and Cambridge, became the first university to grant affiliations to the colleges, prepare syllabi, and to conduct examinations.

In India, these models were introduced with the first three universities instituted in Madras, Bombay, and Calcutta. The US after its independence started new colleges that were standalone institutions having the liberty to develop syllabi, evaluate, and award degrees. Interestingly, universities in the US were started only in the 19th century. Therefore, the US university model has been a highly decentralised structure for higher education. The draft NEP of 2019 has taken the US model of higher education in terms of developing curriculum, testing, and awarding degrees but with a centralised regulator at the national level. They tried to merge both the major education systems (the US and the UK) but the road map to achieve the goals is missing.

The two pillars of higher education, at least adhered to until recently, are affordable education regulated through a cap on fees, and reservation of seats. Only reservation and affordable education would strengthen the existing iniquities in Indian higher education.

The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) pointed out the abysmally low enrolment rate of 8% in the relevant age group in higher education. In this context, subsidies to those who pursue higher education become necessary. The consistent neglect of higher education has deprived the importance it deserves in our country. The Kothari Commission and the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE) recommended public expenditure on education to be set at 6% per cent of the GNP, of which 25% should be set apart for higher education. Unfortunately, the sectoral allocation for higher education is a meagre 0.37% of the GNP. Underfunding of higher education is the order of the day. In the 11th plan, the last major initiative on the development of higher education between 2007 and 2012, which is being dubbed as ‘education plan’, the actual allotment for major schemes in higher education was estimated to be only 12 per cent of the actual requirement of Rs 2,52,000 crore. The rest of the investment was sought to be raised through the public-private partnership.

The NKC report observed that to ensure a move towards a knowledge economy and society, there is a need to revisit the prevailing model of undergraduate colleges in terms of quantity as well as quality. The identity of colleges as distinct space has vanished and most UG colleges suffer from a paralysis of inaction, was another observation by the report. NKC presented a bleak picture of HE.

Besides, the NKC report has made a subtle distinction between different levels of excellence. It has recommended the establishment of 50 National Universities which could function as ‘examples for the rest of the nation’ and a large number of institutions across the country which could impart education at a lower level of excellence. However, the UGC has rejected the NKC recommendation for the creation of a new national regulatory framework by the establishment of Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE). The Yashpal Committee agrees with the National Knowledge Commission on the need to create a single regulator termed Higher Education Commission. Moreover, a seven-member Commission for Higher Education and Research (CHER) under an Act of Parliament should be set up to govern the higher education in the country. The panel, rechristened as the committee for rejuvenation of higher education in late 2008, suggested three wings for the proposed HEC: academic, accreditation, and grants. The first challenge was to increase the present rate of enrolment of 20 per cent during the 11th Plan (2007-12). Given the low rate of enrolment, the second challenge was the need for more quality teaching institutions at the undergraduate level. Without undermining the need and utility of research, imparting knowledge must be granted equal importance.

Sukhadeo Thorat, former chairman of the UGC, points at another challenge that confronts India concerning the disparities in access to education, especially in terms of economic class, gender, caste and ethnic and religious belonging. In 2008, as against an all-India enrolment rate of 17 per cent, the break-up for these categories was 7 per cent for Scheduled Tribes (ST), 11 per cent for Scheduled Castes (SC), 28 per cent for Other Backward Classes (OBC), and 47 per cent for higher castes. He also draws attention to the increasing role of private players in higher education. Students in the private, self-financing sector increased from about 7 per cent in 1996 to about 25 per cent in 2008. For 2013, data from the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) put the share of private undergraduate colleges and students at 59 per cent and 37 per cent respectively.

In this context, the draft New Education Policy of 2019 once again reiterates the need for a national regulator for higher education in the form of Rashtra Shikshan Ayog (Higher Education Commission). The composition of the Rashtriya Shksya Aayog (RSA) demonstrates that the higher education is politicised with a majority of officials in the proposed body. Involving too many institutions under the proposed new body such as the National Research Fund, Central Education Statistics Division (under NUEPA -National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration), National Repository of Educational Data, National Testing Agency, Indian Institute of Translation and Interpretation, Indian Institute of Liberal Arts, and General Education Council are taking away the academic focus of the education to administration. Too many structures and too little flexibility is a foolproof way to educational chaos.

The NEP on ‘Higher Education’ is only a development of the earlier commissions and their recommendations since 2006. The tendency to centralise the higher education and to create a regulator has been under discussion from the NKC report of 2006. The composition of the HE Commission has dramatically changed from what the Yashpal committee suggested in terms of seven members heading the body and the chairperson to be a Nobel laureate so that the HE commission is independent and non-political. The draft NEP 2019 suggests a commission with more officials constituting of politicians and bureaucrats, and a highly centralised structure, which goes against the sharing of powers between the Union and the States.