Like the tightening coils of a python, statutory bodies continue to strangulate higher education in India. A recent survey of higher education systems worldwide conducted by the London-based Economist evaluated the degree of regulatory control in countries with major tertiary education systems. The survey confirmed that the universities of western Europe are virtually free from government control; that the US has accreditation requirements conducted by peer bodies, not government agencies, and that even communist China is loosening statutory control over universities. Only one country- India- is moving in the reverse direction and tightening government control in institutions of higher education.

Several examples of this reverse trend are readily available. Recently the Medical Council of India declared that candidates admitted into medical colleges should have averaged a minimum 50 percent in the entrance exams. Apart from there being no provision in the MCI Act, 1956 or regulations to justify this ruling, the council has ignored the fact that entrance tests are for the purpose of determining ranks, not marks. All candidates would have already scored the required percentage in the pre-qualifying examination. Furthermore, the construction of the entrance exam can be modified to create any cut-off mark, rendering the regulation meaningless. After the courts upheld this rule, numerous students had to leave medical colleges they had joined.

Another example is the recent regulation of the All India Council for Technical Education targeting foreign universities conducting study programmes in India. These regulations are restrictive and punitive in nature and in effect make all foreign courses clones of obsolete Indian curriculums. The Supreme Court in its interpretation of the historic judgement by a constitution bench in the TMA Pai Foundation Case has clearly indicated that unaided institutions have the right to administrative autonomy. But of course the government will have none of it and the Union HRD ministry has circulated a draft Bill to re-establish firm government control of private higher education institutions.

The principle of autonomy for universities was first emphasised by the Radhakrishnan University Education Commission in 1949. Recommendations of several subsequent expert committees have reiterated this principle, but university autonomy has been increasingly encroached upon. Every university suffers from humiliating political pressure (a case in point is the recent imbroglio in Bangalore University, when the vice chancellor threatened to resign if the state government insisted on appointing lackeys to the university syndicate) and threats of withholding pitifully small government grants.

The argument against over-regulation are a group of elite institutions which are free of statutory regulation. Created by special acts of Parliament, the best colleges in India are the IITs, IIMs, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Sree Chitra Tirunal Institute among others. These institutions have acquired world class status because they have been spared stifling statutory regulations and the education bureaucracy. With these outstanding examples I rest my case. Where there is minimal regulation, quality thrives.

While Indian leftists and liberals fulminate against higher college fees, the Chinese have no qualms about market forces operating in education. Twenty-six percent of government university revenues accrue from tuition fees compared to barely 5 percent in India. Moreover the communist government of China is creating a parallel system of private education with higher fees payable by less qualified students, a simple concept that India still cannot digest. We would rather deprive school leavers of a university education or force them to go abroad.

In developed countries, norms for quality education are established and monitored by professional peer bodies, not by government agencies. The market model pioneered in the US has resulted in a broad-spectrum high quality system spanning Ivy League universities to community colleges. It may come as a surprise to India’s socialists to learn that a higher percentage of poor students attend college in the US compared to Germany where university education is free. That’s because competition promotes equity and access.

Comments Adrian Wooldridge, a fellow at Oxford University and noted researcher on the economics of education: “The bargain with the state has turned out to be a pact with the devil.” He offers two bits of advice to Indian and Chinese academics. “First, diversify your sources of income. Second, let a thousand academic flowers bloom. A sophisticated economy needs a wide variety of universities pursuing a wide variety of missions.” 

But regardless of such useful advice, UGC and statutory councils still insist on standardisation and cloning. This head-in-the-sand mentality is stifling Indian higher education. In this climate, only politicians and fly-by-night education buccaneers are interested in setting up private institutions. The Private Universities Bill, shelved in 1996, needs to be revived, and incentives, rather than harassment, need to be given to education entrepreneurs.

(Glenn G. Christo is vice chancellor of the Martin Luther University, Meghalaya)