Essays In Dissent: Remaking Higher Education

By Amrik Singh

Part memoir, part analysis, this is a polemical study of the state of higher education in India. Drawing on his extensive experience as educator and academic in India and abroad, Amrik Singh provides the reader with a much-needed critique of policymaking in the area of higher education - its shortcomings, the reasons for these flaws, as well as measures for improvement. He focuses on the procedural and financial changes that are essential for improving standards so India can be at par with the more progressive nations of the world, and also the absolute necessity for teachers more than administrators to take a hand in the framing of policies. In this erudite volume, Amrik Singh sounds a clarion call for transparency in policymaking and freedom from corruption - for there is no doubt that higher education is the cornerstone of all future development.

• Language: English
• Publisher: HarperCollins
• Release date: Jul 31, 2015
• ISBN: 9789351360636

Amrik Singh

Amrik Singh was a teacher for over twenty-five years. During this period, he also became a teacher activist. Then he went into administration and wound up as a vice chancellor. Since his retirement over thirty-five years ago, he has published more than a dozen books, and a few plays in his mother tongue, Punjabi.

Book preview

1

Introduction

Along with several other thoughtful people, I am of the view that, after 1947, India made two serious mistakes. These were to continue with both the legal system and the educational system more or less as they were before 1947. There is a good deal of substance in both the systems. What was required was to adjust the two systems to suit our own requirements. Had we done that, the situation today would have been significantly different.

In the case of the legal system, people have continued to suffer though no serious or permanent damage may have been done. In the case of education, quite some damage has been done and it would not be easy to undo it. Changing the system, even when it is agreed upon doing so, is not going to be easy. Expansion of education since 1947 has been almost twenty to thirty times as compared to what existed before the said year. Though negative in some respects, it had certain positive qualities too. Those who are committed to the status quo—and most people belong to this category—will oppose any change even though it would mean a better tomorrow.

What the Indian planners had to do was to sift through the system in such a way as to distinguish what was in tune with our needs and aspirations and leave out the rest. Should we wish to do that today, because the number of people who are now committed to the existing system has become so large, it will become difficult to change the system without considerable political assertion.

It is difficult to say if everybody will agree with most of the statements made above. The fact of the matter is that the impact of the past has been so powerful on our thinking that most of the committees and commissions appointed in the first few years failed to go beyond what they had inherited. It is not possible to go into the details of all these here. What is sought to be underlined is that we had to re-tailor the British-imposed system to suit our requirements and we did not do so.

II

At this stage I do not propose to go further into the various issues raised in the book. One or two things however need to be highlighted. The most important of them is that by neglecting the role of the teaching profession and its management, the state has not helped itself. Decentralization at the elementary level and vocationalization at the lower secondary level are two issues that for example have been grievously neglected and the damage caused to the polity has been considerable.

More than any other agency, it is the relative non-performance of the state governments which is responsible for this lapse. The fact of the matter is that with the growth of numbers, not many people paid much attention to the order of priorities which education at different levels had to follow. It is not as if we were totally unaware of what was required to be done. As a matter of fact, numerous committees have commended several relevant jobs which had to be done. But since those jobs were not done, in consequence things have become more difficult to do than before.

To take an example, nobody can disagree in theory with the need to decentralize the management of primary education. Some people might have certain reservations but by and large the role of the panchayats as decision makers at that level is regarded as both obvious and perfectly feasible. But neither the state governments gave this particular issue the priority that it deserved nor did anyone else. Even teachers did not press for it beyond a point.

Some of the senior officials were against it in any case. This opposition could have been overcome had the states been clear-sighted about their objectives. On the contrary, the style of administration in them as also in the Centre continued to be what it was; there was expansion of numbers and little more than that. This in turn consolidated the system of empty verbal performance even further.

For almost a quarter-century now, a new complication has begun to make its impact. Most of the political patronage in the states is exercised today by MLAs. Were the system to undergo a change, it would mean a loss of power for them. Among other factors, therefore, they have become hostile to the idea of decentralization of power. Anyone can see for himself what is happening. It would be a safe generalization to make that, so far, the desired extent of decentralization has taken place only up to 5 or 10 per cent and not more than that.

When it comes to the issue of nurturing and promoting vocationalization at the upper primary and secondary levels, there were numerous difficulties to contend with. To elaborate them here would be difficult. Apart from the fact that social prejudices had to be fought and defeated, everyone had to be clear about the need for vocationalization. This has made things doubly difficult and no wonder things have been drifting.

It may not be out of place to repeat here that by having neglected the constructive role of teacher education in the manner that we have done so far, we have now created vested interests against any kind of change. These interests take the form of lack of funding for education, poor syllabus for teacher education and non-availability of the right kind of teachers.

The examples quoted above show that we did not choose the right priorities. For the last few years, the whole idea of reservations on the basis of caste has been under considerable discussion. If one may venture to say so, this has created further complications. This issue is discussed further in the second chapter.

The point which needs to be understood is that while living with the unsolved problems we have created further problems for ourselves. No wonder the overall weight of these issues is beginning to make progressive functioning even more difficult. Meanwhile, mediocrity of performance has got built into the system and it is not going to be easy to outgrow it.

III

At the level of higher education, the role and status of the teacher were neglected till the end of the first quarter-century after independence. When an attempt was made to solve it, the job was mishandled and today the state has created a lobby against its own order of decision making. As said repeatedly, a situation has been created where the teachers, instead of helping to act in an area of new decision making, have become suspicious of any proposed change. It is a situation where new efforts get thwarted before they even take off.

The bulk of energy, both of the teachers and of the state, is spent in contending with each other. The picture is not all negative, however. One significant development has been the growth of professional education. Faced as it is with a number of problems, this dimension of education has expanded perhaps more than it should have. The right kind of balance between supply and demand has not been worked out and the result is out there for us to see. The crisis of quality also exists at that level.

What is even more disconcerting is that the number of students seeking admission in foreign universities is growing at such a fast pace that unless we take steps to cope with the quality of our performance within the next few years, the situation is going to be particularly difficult.

A related problem is the fact that teachers who should have been a positive force remain edgy and suspicious of ^ whatever the government does or proposes to do. All that the teachers want is that the status quo should continue. At the same time, the momentum of growth has strengthened most of the professions. To put the issue strongly, if the system of education has to grow, the leadership has to come from within and that is not happening.

IV

What about the role of the state? In a sense, that is the most disappointing part of what we witness today. If anything, the state has failed. One of its roles was to provide the right kind of enlightened leadership. Another was to ensure that the share of the GDP available for education went up to what was suggested four decades ago by the Kothari Commission. The Commission had favoured 6 per cent of the GDP as its contribution to education. With the best of effort, it has barely reached 4 per cent. It is difficult to say when the remaining 2 per cent will become available to education.

To some extent, this issue is also linked with overcoming the ongoing confrontation between the state and the teachers at the university and the college level. This is an issue which has to be settled in such a way that the teachers do not lose anything substantial in the process. If they do so even by remote implication, the consequences will be negative rather than positive.

To put it in comparative terms, the wage structure of the teaching profession—from the lowest to the highest levels and not only a small segment of it—has to be radically revised in such a manner that there is a sense of progression right from the primary level upto the research level. Something like ten to twelve stages of growth will have to be identified and the placing of each stage defined appropriately and justly. In plain words, it is not possible to adjust the salary scales of only one or two sectors. The entire sector of education has to be taken as a unit.

The biggest mistake of the state was that it never took an overall view of the teaching profession. That has to be ensured now. Once that is done, other things will gradually fall into place. More than that, there will be a sense of mutual respect between the teachers and the society as well as a certain degree of growth in the profession.

One clear proof of the change will be that the higher level of the profession will provide leadership rather than trail behind the bureaucracy. There is no country in the world where the educational system is doing well and its leadership does not come substantially from the teaching profession. Can India be different?

V

Only one chapter in this volume deals with the specialized problems of professional education. This exception has been made so as to illustrate the complexity of the problem. This is the only chapter which was not written for the book but is being reproduced here. In any case, it should be clear that problems of each profession are unique to itself. This is also a way of saying that the work of each professional council needs to be scrutinized closely as well as creatively.

I wrote the piece on ‘Restructuring Medical Education’ some three years ago. As a reading of this chapter will show, much more is involved in medical education than to simply take care of the requirements of the syllabus. A couple of letters by way of commentary were published in the Economic and Political Weekly where it was published. But no one really grappled with the problem of the particular experience of China which was the core of the thesis put forward here.

Another dimension which is sought to be illustrated is that as India grows the growth of professional education will become more important. This is not generally understood. The next stage of our growth will involve greater emphasis on professional education. The Eleventh Plan recognizes this need. How it is translated into new programmes is to be seen. As and when the salary structure of the entire spectrum of education is covered and salary scales are adjusted appropriately, things will begin to fall into place. And that is how it should be.

We are so committed to the status quo that it appears as if we are not in favour of any proposal to change the syllabus. The change, really speaking, has to come from within and it is not the medical profession alone which has to go into the issue of what is wrong and how it can be set right. Without a change of policy at the political level, no change within the medical profession can take place.

At this stage, it will be in order to say something more about the role of the state. The first one is that it has to provide funding. And the second one is that it has to ensure that the amount is properly spent and in terms of the right priorities. How are the priorities to be fixed? So far, this job has been monopolized by the state. This is not right. The state has the responsibility of laying down the objective but the mode of fulfilling that objective has to be thrashed out between the well-informed teachers and the agents of the state. So far it is the agents who have been running the show.

To take an example, the emphasis of the proposed Eleventh Plan is right. But is it realized that, in the process, the lower levels of education will get neglected. In plain words, no new imbalance should be allowed to take place.

VI

Six decades after 1947, it is time to re-examine and reassess what we have been doing in the field of education. It is not claimed that what is said here is necessarily right. At the same time, it must be acknowledged that unless one stops and asks a few questions, we are not doing our duty as academics. That the state has failed to perform this crucial role makes it doubly important that academics play this role now.

Will they do so? It is difficult to answer in the positive. But to return a negative answer will amount to closing the door to further thought and progress. The fact that after half a decade even the first edition of my book on the UGC has not got exhausted speaks for itself. This is the only book on the subject so far. In other words, those for whom the book is written—the teachers—are not reading it. It is not the done thing to talk about one’s self. But one cannot get away from it either.

That apart, the real issue is whether the state will provide leadership or continue to be self-centred and bureaucratic in its thinking and functioning. If the teachers do not sit in judgement on what the state is doing, who will act in a decisive way and lead the path of reform? Reactions to the Chadha Committee report submitted to the UGC tell us how half-hearted reforms are received. This will not do. The state has to be thorough and uncompromising. The ultimate saviour of education will be the teachers. Even the state is unable to play the role it is required to play unless teachers support it indirectly, if not also directly.

The fact of the matter is that, as in the case of economic reforms, the first assertion will have to come from the state. The first reaction of the teachers will be to stick to what they already have and ask for more. But if the state sticks to its innovative role, the situation will start changing. This is what Indian experience tells us.

2

The Key to Teacher

Performance

THE OSMANIA EXPERIENCE

In the beginning of this decade, something significant happened in the Osmania University, Hyderabad. It deserves to be better known than it is. Indeed, there are larger reasons as to why this particular experience should be more widely known than what has happened so far.

One of the university professors, D.C. Reddy, got appointed as the vice chancellor of the university. According to budget calculations for the year under discussion, there was a deficit of four to five crores of rupees. The state government was both unable and unwilling to increase its grant. In order to meet the deficit, the vice chancellor made a proposition at the first meeting of the syndicate. The proposition was simple. As per the existing practice, forty students were admitted in each class at the master’s level. If this new proposal was to be accepted, the number of forty would be raised to fifty.

There was a significant difference, however, between what was happening and what was proposed. The vice chancellor proposed that if the number of seats could be increased by ten per course, on payment of the full cost of the course, this would not create any serious academic problem. In any case, the situation would vary from discipline to discipline. The admission was to be on the basis of merit as per the existing practice. Nor would there be any other deviation from what was being currently done. Nobody saw any serious problem as long as the criterion of academic merit was upheld and not violated.

When this decision was announced, only two to three students per course could not manage to raise the requisite funding which varied from Rs 40,000 to 50,000 per year. In those cases, those next in order of merit were admitted. In other words, there was no significant decline in the quality of those admitted.

So far, so good, as they say! After a few weeks of instruction in the classroom under the new arrangement, those who had paid the full cost began to express dissatisfaction with the quality of instruction being imparted in the classroom. While those who expressed dissatisfaction had paid the full cost, others too shared the same feeling. Only they had not taken the initiative to express their feeling of dissatisfaction till then. It had