Higher Education Commission of India:Will it be a Reality

Indian higher education has expanded at a break-neck speed. Between 2007-08 and 2010-11, post-secondary student enrolments grew by nearly five million students where as the number of institutions increased by nearly 10,000. But this much needed expansion came at the expense of quality, primarily due to an inadequate and incoherent policy and legal framework. One of the most challenging problems facing Indian higher education institutions is funding mechanisms. According to the policy framework, institutions are required to have a non-profit structure, irrespective of how they are funded – by public or private sources. At the same time, degree-awarding powers rest only with universities as specified by the University Grants Commission, or UGC, under section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Given the pace of growth and unmet demand; the policy framework has failed to adapt and change its complex system. The system has remained embroiled in the politics of policy-making and suffered in terms of quality. The success of higher education lies in finding adaptable and innovative solutions. A focus on enforcing higher standards of transparency should be the first step in enabling a stronger institutional accountability and addressing the complexities and challenges of Indian higher education.

The Indian government has put forward two draft acts to dismantle its existing higher education regulatory body, the University Grants Commission (UGC), and replace it with a new body with a reduced role over university financing but greater powers in areas which the government says will improve academic standards. Promoting excellence in higher education is high on the agenda of the current government and replacing the UGC, which was set up in the 1950s, is touted as an important step in this direction. Replacing the UGC with a new body to be called the Higher Education Commission of India or HECI is intended to provide more autonomy to higher education institutions. The HRD Ministry, which oversees the higher education sector, is branding this major reform as the 'end of inspection raj' under which the government oversees and approves every aspect of university management and financing. The government’s view is that while disbursing grants and fellowships, the UGC has failed in the important function of ensuring quality standards.

Role in Enforcing Quality:

An important function of HECI, according to the Draft Bill unveiled on 27 June, will be its powers to enforce compliance on academic quality standards and to order the closure of sub-standard and bogus institutions. Non-compliance could result in fines or jail sentences. Currently, the UGC has no powers to take action against such institutions; it simply releases a list of such sub-standard institutions to inform the public. HECI will also have new powers to specify minimum eligibility requirements for administrative and leadership positions in institutions. The UGC has already said a PhD will be mandatory for teaching posts at universities from July 2021 as part of the drive to improve teaching standards in universities. HECI will also have the power to create new universities within a stated set of criteria without requiring specific legislation to set up – a move which some say opens the door to allowing in foreign-degree granting institutions within specified norms. Previous attempts to push bills through parliament to allow in foreign institutions floundered amid political opposition.

Two Categories of Autonomy:

Universities will not be equally autonomous. Depending on institutions' score in the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) rankings, autonomy is granted in two categories. The top 50 institutions with a score of 3.5 or above (on a scale of 0 to 4) will enjoy complete financial and administrative freedom; exempt from regular UGC inspections and they will be reviewed based on self-reporting.

Category two institutions with a score of 3.0 to 3.49, of top 51-100 institutions, will have conditional autonomy. They will also be free from UGC inspections but their performance will be peer-reviewed. Unlike the category one institutions, they will require authorization to enter into collaborations with foreign institutions.

Arun Kumar Grover, vice-chancellor of Panjab University, Chandigarh, which has been granted category two autonomy, however, is of the view that University which was “battling a financial crisis” already, will have to become more self-reliant. Any new academic programmes will have to be funded by the university. Though it can build an incentive structure for faculty, it will still have to strictly adhere to pay scales as laid down by the UGC. The incentive structure shall have to be paid from PU’s own revenue sources. He noted that to attract foreign faculty PU would have to devise a “better remuneration system for outsiders; while there will be no such freedom for regular faculty for whom it will have to adhere to UGC norms”. Grover added that PU was likely to launch twinning programmes “of short duration” with universities in Australia, the United Kingdom and Canada.

One of the two private universities to be granted autonomy, OP Jindal Global University in Sonipat in northern Haryana state, described the decision as a “milestone” for the university with category two autonomy. "This recognition initiates a major paradigm shift that will mark the future of Indian universities and encourage our pursuit of institutional excellence in higher education,” said C Raj Kumar the university’s vice-chancellor, noting the university would be able to hire global talent. “It is imperative for India to take stock of the state of its universities and redefine their roles in the fast-changing global scenario. It is time for India to join ranks with world-class universities and improve the academic environment for our students," the non-profit university’s founder, Naveen Jindal, said.

Ten colleges – among them engineering, management, arts and law institutions – have also been granted autonomy, but unlike universities they do not have the authority to award their own degrees. Their degrees are awarded by the universities the colleges are affiliated to. The colleges will have autonomy on admissions, curriculum, the organization and assessment of examinations as well as announcing exam results, while degrees will carry the university name along with theirs.

Funding Controversy:

Currently the UGC approves public grants for all higher education institutions in the country. The draft act stipulates HECI will focus only on academic matters and the grant-making functions would be carried out by the ministry – a controversial move even though the ministry officials claim it will “reduce rampant corruption in allocations”. The ministry already directly funds the country’s Indian Institutes of Technology and National Institutes of Technology, and Indian Institutes of Management, which all face a shortage of qualified faculty.

“A separate body is required to assume the function of providing education grants to higher education institutions,” said Arvind Panagariya, professor of Indian political economy at Columbia University in the United States, and B Venkatesh Kumar, a professor of public policy and an expert on higher education leadership at the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai.

Kumar contributed reform ideas to the ministry during work on the HECI bill, which Panagariya described in a tweet as “a huge step towards the Mother of All Reforms”.

In a blog published in the Times of India newspaper, they said: The decision to deny grant-giving powers to the HECI is a good one but transparency required that the function be vested in another independent body and not in the HRD Ministry, which is principally a policy-making body. “A principle of good governance is that this function be performed by an independent, arm’s length agency,” they said.

The Delhi University Teachers’ Association criticized the move in a statement issued last week saying it is “not clear how shifting the grant-related functions to the ministry will result in less interference. On the contrary, we fear that it will result in an increased direct interference in higher education.”

Tariq Zafar, former vice-chancellor of Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University, Bhopal, is of the view that the government should not have the power to grant funds to institutions. “If the government grants funds then they [institutions] will have to work according to the wishes of the government and their autonomy will be seriously curtailed”.

Others have pointed out that the UGC assesses the quality of an institution and provides funds accordingly. Removing the funding aspect will reduce the new agency’s clout.

However, the ministry has since clarified that a final decision on transferring funding approval powers to higher education institutions directly to the ministry is yet to be taken. “No final decision has been taken to shift the grant-related functions to the ministry, even though the recommendation to separate the regulator and the grant-giving entity was made by several expert committees in the past and is rooted in sound principles of governance," the HRD Ministry said. “The grant-giving process will be purely merit-based and online. We promise that if there is a successor to the current grant-giving system of the UGC, it will be operated in the most unbiased and impartial manner,” according to HRD Ministry.

Third Time Lucky?

While the scrapping of the UGC is seen by some as revolutionary, it is the third time in recent years the government has announced bills to replace it. However, both previous attempts were quickly abandoned amid sustained criticism and opposition from the federal states which oversee 70 per cent of the country’s universities and 90 per cent of colleges.

The Higher Education and Research Bill, 2011, introduced under the previous government, was discarded for many reasons including lack of consultation with the federal states and perceived violations of institutional autonomy. Another attempt was made under the current government but was scrapped last year when academics and institutions opposed the proposed changes, including the potential for greater government interference in higher education that could result from getting rid of the UGC.

This time a consultative committee was set up in advance to provide input into drafting the new bill and the government says it has taken care to remove the shortcomings of the previous bills. Government has assured stakeholders that the new entity would not infringe on institutional autonomy; instead it promises more freedom for institutional management. The federal government is confident that scrapping the UGC will receive support in most states. Deadline for public consultation submissions, which was originally set to end on 7 July, has been extended to July 20. To date government has received 3,000 suggestions in all, including 500 in writing. The new act is likely to be tabled in Parliament during the monsoon session, which begins on 18 July. Analysts say the new education regulator could also be helpful to the ruling party in the run-up to the general elections scheduled for early next year.

India is the world’s seventh-largest economy and has advanced in several fields of technology and science. But it has failed to achieve its decade-long dream of having world-class universities to showcase its technical and economic power to the world. The government has recently allotted several thousand crore (tens of billions of rupees or hundreds of millions of dollars) to make this dream a reality, but will this work? In traditional world-class universities, there is a culture of research and practice that encourages innovation and entrepreneurship. How is that best cultivated?

The Times Higher Education (THE) World University Rankings 2018 lists only a few of India’s institutions. Yet the country has potential. There are two Indian institutes in the 251 to 400 range of the THE ranking - One is the Indian Institute of Science and the second is the Indian Institute of Technology Bombay. There are another 40 universities and institutes that have the potential to attain a top 500 ranking.

The government should look at a range of objectives to improve performance in the rankings. Its primary objective may be to focus on the two top-ranking Indian institutes and getting them into the top 100 ranking. To do so, they need a maximum average score of 60-65; they currently have an average score in the 40-45 range.

The second objective is to bring all the other 40 universities in the 500 to 1,000 range into the top 500. These universities’ total scores range from 30 to 9 and they need at least a minimum average score of 55 to enter the top 200 and-or a 35-40 average score to enter the top 500. This is possible in the next couple of years with government effort and investment.

There are short-term and long-term ways of achieving these aims. The government should not differentiate between private and public universities that it wants to be world class and should focus on creating a world-class infrastructure in which to do research as well as improving Indian industry awareness of the importance of innovation.

The government needs to join forces with industry to invest in research and development. The central government finance, science and technology ministries must create a special national research fund through a special new tax and ensure accountability when it distributes the funds for which this tax is used.

Short-Term Actions:

First, the government should grant a special status to these top institutes and bring them under one umbrella by giving them a special name under a special law which grants them greater autonomy.

The government must find a way to get transnational and multinational industries to support the research projects of these institutes. Indian international organizations must be asked to support these institutes. Moreover, all the international and multinational organizations that are working in India should give a certain amount of research and development projects to these institutes.

The government must announce special incentives for the faculties, students or teams for getting projects, publications, PhDs, etc. This is essential to change the culture in these institutes.

They should accept international students of non-Indian origin through GRE, TOEFL, SAT, IELTS and other standard exams accepted by American and European countries. One cannot expect international students to pass Indian exams at this point in time. Institutes should be able to admit those students who are able to communicate well in English.

A special government scholarship scheme for international students should be set up in keeping with international standards – or surpassing them.

A special scheme should be created to admit the international students into these institutes. Places should be reserved for different countries. International students (undergraduate, masters and PhD students) should be permitted to visit these institutes for short-term and long-term study. Indian students should be permitted to visit other international institutions in the same way, particularly the top 100 world-class institutions.

The institutes must create classrooms, teaching aids and lab facilities that are on a par with international standards.

Investment should be made in luxury international-standard board and lodging facilities for faculty as well as students.

Foreign teachers should be appointed based on an international-standard salary and perks on the basis of three- or five-year tenure track. Retired world-class university faculty should also be encouraged to teach in these institutes.

Increasing the faculty to student ratio of these institutes is another big challenge. The main problem with these top institutes is the very slow process in making appointments and the low salaries.

Second, these institutes must find a way of appointing local faculty on a tenure track basis at a lower grade and training or sponsoring them to do their doctorate or post-doctoral study. More than 60 per cent to 70 per cent of top-ranking university faculty are appointed under tenure track. The same practice has to be adopted in Indian institutes.

In the world-class rankings there are some Indian private institutions that have the ability to reach the international level. But they face challenges such as unrestricted intakes, a lack of policy, a lack of finance, etc. Therefore, the government must find a way to treat private institutes on a par with the government universities.

Ministries of state and central government and private and public industries must launch and fund collaborative industrial affiliate programmes in these institutes in larger numbers. Industries should be compelled to give projects and funds to the institutes.

Student and staff ratios need to be improved in all educational institutes in India on a par with global standards.

Political interference at all levels in the education system must be eliminated. Unfortunately, merit is taking a backseat in educational institutes.

Per capita spending on education and research must increase so that Indian institutions can compete with global universities.

Long-Term Actions:

The Indian system needs to learn from international ideas and standards with regard to product innovation. An Indian ‘international committee’ comprising several sub-committees in different fields of expertise should be established immediately. The committee must be permitted to visit various world-class international institutes. The committee should exist for at least 10 years. It should have foreign experts as members. A centre should be set up specially to study the quality and productivity of world-class universities.

All the institutes should set up funds and endowments to sustain these activities over time. Central government must find a special way to strengthen these funds over time. A tax holidays/exemption scheme should be made available to those contributing to such a scheme. All these institutes must be able to host international lectures by eminent personalities.

 International Approach:

Over the past three decades, especially after the opening up of its economy, India has emerged as one of the big global powers in terms of quantity of students. Now, it is time to rethink and focus on quality. Simply spending money will not lead to world-class status. Only by adopting the international approach to innovation and entrepreneurship will the country achieve the elite status of world-class universities in the long run.

In a landmark announcement in the recent past, Indian government announced greater autonomy for 62 leading higher education institutions to start new courses, plan their own curriculum and syllabi, decide their own admission procedures and enter into academic collaborations with foreign institutions.

In a boost to internationalization, 25 top-ranked universities out of the dozens selected will also be able to hire foreign faculty and enroll foreign students – up to a fifth of the student body and faculty – and be allowed to fix fees and charges from foreign students “without restriction”. The others will be able to do so with government approval.

In all, five centrally-funded universities, 21 state universities, 26 private and so-called ‘deemed’ universities and 10 other colleges will benefit from the government’s initiative announced by HRD Ministry -a “historic decision” that would enable institutions to function more efficiently. Government is “striving to introduce a liberalized regime in the education sector” and “emphasis is on linking autonomy with quality”.

While the institutions will continue to be under the ambit of the national higher education regulatory body, the University Grants Commission (UGC), they will have the freedom to start new departments, off-campus centres, skills development courses and research parks, and provide incentive-based emoluments to the faculty. The selected institutes can engage in academic collaborations with the world’s top 500 universities, and also set up distance-learning courses.

Protests:

A day after the announcement, students and teachers from a large number of colleges from Delhi University – which was not among the universities given autonomy – and JNU, which was, held a protest describing it as an “ill-conceived decision”. The Delhi University Teachers’ Association said it was a step towards privatization of publicly-funded institutions. Dinesh Singh, former vice-chancellor of Delhi University, criticized the fact that the UGC will continue to have oversight, despite the proposed autonomy.

The role of the UGC has been regressive and counterproductive and it was important to do away with UGC control and regulations. He added that “The institutions can work better without the government meddling in their affairs.”

The Federation of Central Universities Teachers' Associations (FEDCUTA) said financial autonomy would enable institutions to decide fees, but it also means cuts in government funding. “The government wants to reduce the institutions’ dependence on government funding and this would make education commercial, market determined and market dependent,” according to FEDCUTA.

JNU teachers said in a statement it would bestow on “authoritarian university administrations” the impunity to “flout all rules, norms and codes and exercise unchecked power in privatizing universities and undo the agenda of social justice”.