With the Cabinet Committee on Economic Affairs (CCEA) on October 3 approving Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA), a Central government-sponsored scheme for upgrading the higher education system in India’s 29 states and seven Union territories, new hope has risen in official circles that the “sick child of Indian education’’ — the tertiary education system as described by the late Union human resource development minister, Arjun Singh — can be resuscitated. Under RUSA, to be implemented in the remainder of the 12th Plan (2012-17) and 13th Plan (2017-22) periods, 316 public universities and 13,024 colleges in the states will receive additional funding for infrastructure development and faculty recruitment.

In the remainder of the 12th Plan period, the financial outlay for RUSA is budgeted at Rs.22,855 crore, of which the Central government’s share will be Rs.16,227 crore. In addition, the allocation of Rs.1,800 crore for  upgradation of polytechnics will also be subsumed in RUSA, raising the Centre’s total invest-ment during the next four years to Rs.18,027 crore. As per the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (universal primary education) scheme of 1999, state governments have to chip in. The funding pattern for RUSA will be in the Centre-state proportion of 65:35 and 90:10 for the north-eastern states, Jammu & Kashmir, Himachal Pradesh and Uttarakhand. RUSA is a serious effort to raise teaching-learning standards in laggard state universities.

Comments Pawan Agarwal, advisor (higher education and culture), to the Planning Commission: “RUSA is chan-ging the paradigm for funding higher education in two distinct ways. First, the Central funding will augment the higher education budgets of state governments and is a departure from the system of grants for chosen univer-sities and colleges. This systemic funding approach will ensure that the discretion to allocate RUSA funding will be vested in state governments. Thus, Central funding becomes a powerful tool to enable state governments to address access and equity issues, and improve quality in their colleges and universities. Secondly, RUSA will stim-ulate administrative, academic and financial reforms in state government-promoted and supported higher educ-ation institutions.”

Obviously the Centre’s belated awakening to the pathetic condition of higher education institutions in the states and its modest allocation to address the issue doesn’t come without strings attached. States will have to fulfill certain prerequisites which include creation of a State Higher Education Council, and accreditation agencies, as well as prepare perspective plans and fill vacant faculty positions. These conditionalities may turn off state governments.

“The idea of RUSA was mooted over 60 years ago by the Radhakrishnan Commission in 1949. The Centre’s belated interest in funding state gover-nment colleges and universities — the poor cousins of Central universities — is welcome, but implementation will be a big issue,” warns Prof. K.B. Powar, former secretary general of the Association of Indian Universities (AIU). According to Powar, the pre-condition that state governments must establish State Higher Education Councils is unlikely to find takers, given that they had vehemently opposed the National Commission for Higher Education & Research proposal mooted by the Yash Pal Committee in 2009.

“State politicians and bureaucrats won’t welcome an idea where their control over higher education is curtailed. The second issue will be accreditation. The Bangalore-based NAAC (National Assessment & Accreditation Council) established in 1994 never took off, and has accredited less than 5,000 colleges and 172 universities. Replicating it at the state level is unlikely to prove effective either,’’ adds Powar.

Moreover it’s important to note that while ex facie the Centre’s allocation of Rs.18,027 crore may seem impressive, if distributed among 316 state universities and 13,024 colleges, it is unlikely to amount to much. Therefore it’s unlikely that state governments will line up for these meagre handouts.

Quite obviously, this infusion of seemingly impressive funds into languishing state government-run higher education institutions, which will fructify only if already bankrupt state governments ante up an additional 35 percent, is linked up with the Planning Commission’s stated goal to raise enrollment in higher education from the current 18 percent of the age group 18-24 to 30 percent by 2020. But the question of churning out an additional 3-4 million unemployable graduates per year from sub-standard colleges and universities is being fudged. As usual.

Autar Nehru (Delhi)