[Assam] No More Sarkari Universities-Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala, The Sentinel (08.02.2007)

[Buljit Buragohain]

          No More Sarkari Universities
Dr Bharat Jhunjhunwala
The National Knowledge Commission (NKC) has suggested that the Union Government establish 50 new Land Grant Universities along the lines of those in the United States. The government should allot large piece of land in excess of their academic needs so that they may raise resources by commercial use of the surplus land. The entirely laudable objective of the NKC is to make top-grade higher education accessible to the common man. But the establishment of more sarkari universities will hardly lead to such result.
About 150 years ago, the Federal Government in the US established a Land Grant University in each of the 50 States. At that time, only a few private universities like Harvard and Yale were in existence in that country. These universities provided top-grade education to the elite. The Federal Government wanted to promote the spread of quality higher education but was short of funds; hence it made available large tracts of land. The running expenditures were mostly provided by the State governments. The Federal Government provided running grants for specific purposes such as extension, but the State governments had to make available a matching grant to avail of this. The explicit objective of these universities was to provide practically useful education, not only theology and philosophy as was the tradition in Europe at the time. Secondly, they were to provide education to the common man. These universities even today have provision of a fee waiver for ‘‘sons of soil’’
 students of their State. These universities made a decisive contribution to the expansion of higher education, particularly in agriculture, engineering and applied sciences, and had a major role in the emergence of the United States as a world economic powerhouse in the 20th century.
Taking lead from this happy American experience, the NKC has suggested the establishment of 50 Land Grant Universities in India. But there is a fundamental difference in the conditions of the US in the 19th century and our present circumstance. Only a few elite universities were in existence in the US then. The government had no role in higher education. There existed a case for government intervention to break this stranglehold of the elite. Our situation is qualitatively different. There exist no private universities of importance. The government is already running 150-odd universities. Obviously, these universities have failed to take education to the common man; hence the NKC has suggested establishment of new universities to fulfil that mandate. 
The American Land Grant Universities are in a similar sad situation today as our sarkari universities. In a paper read at Michigan State University in 1996, James T Bonnen said: ‘‘Today, I find Land Grant leadership is in trouble. Land Grant faculty are confused. Our island empire, our isolated self-sufficiency, has collapsed. We only infrequently stand together and our critics are accumulating. As the federal government has withdrawn from public responsibility, the leadership has devolved to the States. In response, legislatures have looked to ‘their university’ for help only to be disillusioned. While their expectations were often unrealistic, the universities were unresponsive.’’ The situation of our universities is strikingly similar. Vice chancellors are appointed according to their political connections. The faculty takes its salary for granted. There is no compulsion to do research.The universities contribute little to the development of their States except churning
 out substandard graduates. Universities are unresponsive to this crisis or to the needs of the people. The NKC points out that salaries consume 75 per cent of their budgets, and telephone and other essential administrative expenses another 15 per cent, leaving a paltry 10 per cent for research and other growth activities. The long-term outcome of the Land Grant Universities in the US as well as our universities is equally dismal. The establishment of a new series of Land Grant Universities in India will hardly solve the problem.
Another problem in the NKC’s suggestion is that of running expenditures. In lecture given at Texas A&M University in 2002, Dr Michael Martin, Vice President of University of Florida, said, ‘‘Over the last several decades, there has been a general softening of public support for higher education. Other pressing issues have pushed public expenditures in other directions.’’ The Land Grant University system in the US is facing fund crunch today. Pray, how will the proposed Indian system garner funds when the Union Government is trying to reduce its fiscal deficit and State governments are straddled with huge salary expenses?
The NKC has suggested that the proposed as well as existing universities be allowed to use their surplus lands to generate funds for their current expenditures. This is problematic. It is seen that decrepit temples often give out shops on their roadside properties on rent. Items such as soft drinks and pan masala are sold in these shops, which undoes the very objectives of the temple. It is like taking money from the thief to provide legal aid to the victims! Dependence on such rental income is a veritable proof that the temple is not doing what it is supposed to do and the worshippers are not giving donations. Similarly, reliance on commercial income indicates that universities are not doing teaching or research or extension — hence they need rental income to hide their shortcomings.
The NKC’s suggestion for the establishment of new sarkari universities is unacceptable. Instead, the need is to privatize the existing 150-odd universities and establish an independent TRAI-type regulator for this sector. Foreign universities should be allowed to open shop to heat up the competition. The commercialization of primary and secondary education has successfully provided high-quality education to our people. Increasing competition is forcing them to reduce fees. This same model should be applied to the universities. The argument that education is not a commodity is not acceptable for the simple reason that most university professors are themselves engaged in commercial tutorial activities. They make this argument only to protect their secure salaries.
     
 The Sentinel (08.02.2007) 
 				
---------------------------------
 Here’s a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://assamnet.org/pipermail/assam_assamnet.org/attachments/20070208/5ea563ad/attachment.html