– Rahul Singh is the former editor of Reader’s Digest, Indian Express and Khaleej Times

In the latest THE (Times Higher Education) World University Rankings 2013-14 published in October, none of India’s 33,000 colleges and 659 universities are ranked among the Top 200. As usual, the THE league tables are headed by American and British universities — California Institute of Technology, the Massachusetts Institute of  Technology, Cambridge, Oxford, Stanford, University of California (Berkeley) etc. Several Asian varsities are ranked among the Top 50, such as Tokyo, Kyoto, Singapore and Seoul universities, as well as China’s Tsinghua and Beijing universities.

We have to go to the Top 400 in THE World University Rankings league table to find any reference to India. Punjab University, believe it or not, is India’s top-ranked (#226-50) followed by IIT-Delhi, IIT-Kanpur, IIT-Kharagpur and IIT-Roorkee (351-400). India’s vintage Bombay, Calcutta and Madras universities, established in 1857 and Delhi University (1922) are conspicuously absent from the Top 400. More tragic is the fact that the gap between Indian and foreign universities is widening. Ten years ago, Jawaharlal Nehru University’s department of social sciences was ranked a commendable 42. Now, it’s nowhere in the Top 400.

The gap between foreign and Indian universities is widening because there is declining comprehension in the academy about the meaning and purpose of post-secondary education. Post-independence India’s academics tend to view college as an extension of school. There’s little awareness that higher ed institutions need to provide liberal environments in which students acquire academic as well as broad-based life skills and lifestyle education.

The difference between collegiate education in India and abroad became clear to me way back in the 1960s when I was pulled out of St. Stephen’s, Delhi — one of India’s best liberal colleges  — by my father and made to write the entrance exam to King’s College, Cambridge University (UK). I passed the exam and that’s how I found myself as a student of one of the world’s Top 10 universities.

Among the first things that struck me at Cambridge was the wide choice of extra-curricular activities — debating, film, photography, dramatics, sports — available to students. The point is that while pursuing studies, one had the opportunity to also develop a variety of life skills. The Cambridge Union (debating society) sharpened the communication skills of innumerable British and non-native politicians and leaders including our very own Mani Shankar Aiyar, while the rival Oxford Union honed the skills of the likes of the late Benazir Bhutto.

It was official policy not only to encourage academic excellence but also  develop students with well-rounded personalities. Interaction and socialisation between the sexes was accepted as natural, and ‘bird-and-bottle’ parties were de rigueur. Moreover, unlike Indian universities, it’s not mandatory to attend a mini-mum number of lectures at Cambridge; you are free to opt out of all lectures as the university authorities presume you are adult enough to decide for yourself.

According to Deepak Nayyar, a Rhodes scholar at Oxford and a former vice chancellor of Delhi University and chief economic adviser to the government of India, there’s a “deep crisis’’ in India’s higher education system. “Academics are afraid to submit themselves to peer review and curriculums haven’t changed for decades,” he says. “The top priority is to improve the infrastructure — libraries, laboratories, hostel accommodation, classrooms and recreational facilities. It has become difficult to attract talented faculty into higher education and even more difficult to retain it,” says Nayyar.

Certainly teachers rank low in the Indian values system and students opting for academic careers go to the US and UK — and seldom return. Nobel Prize winners like Har Gobind Khorana and Amartya Sen became well-known only after they went abroad. In the USA, a star economics professor earns between $250,000-500,000 (Rs.1.5-3 crore) per year. On the other hand, a vice chancellor in India earns less than Rs.15 lakh. With undergraduate fees in India ridiculously low (Rs.500-1,500 per month), colleges and varsities are wholly dependent on government grants which erodes their academic and administrative autonomy.

Consequently, political interference is rife in Indian higher education. Though officially there’s a “search process” for the appointment of vice chancellors, in reality state governments and the Centre control selections. And they tend to choose those who are pliable or whose political persuasions match their own.

Universities are evolving the world over and adapting to changing times. New sources are being found for funding; student fees have increased massively; partnerships are being forged with private companies; and universities are even engaging in mergers and acquisitions. Above all, because of globalisation and the information technology revolution, the world is rapidly transforming into a knowledge economy. As The Economist puts it: “Knowledge is replacing physical resources as the main driver of economic growth.” Sadly, India’s universities are either oblivious of these momentous changes or refuse to adapt to them.