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 NKCs 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 NKCs 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)
---------------------------------
Heres a new way to find what you're looking for - Yahoo! Answers _______________________________________________
assam mailing list
[email protected]
http://assamnet.org/mailman/listinfo/assam_assamnet.org
