Since liberalisation, profit has become aim of the Governments. Profit is not bad. But, since ancient times, India has never considered imparting of education, skilling and ethics as profitable business
The state cannot abandon its duties and abdicate its responsibilities. The Niti Aayog has to realise it. The Aayog is unfortunately suggesting steps that are not in the interest of the poor and apparently is favouring the abdication of the onerous task of universalising and standardising, diversifying, creating ethical norms and universalising education that public institutions are entrusted with.
It has gone to an extreme of suggesting merger, closure or corporatisation (privatisation) of 42 of the 114 autonomous bodies. The Centre is planning a review of 679 existing autonomous organisations spread across 68 ministries. Most of these institutions were created between 1950s and early 70s. Together these organisations have annual budget of Rs72,000 crore, employs over 15,000 and serves over a lakh knowledge seekers every yearly.
It is not surprising as it comes soon after its recommendation to sell off fund-guzzling Air India, which has an accumulated loss of Rs52,000 crore. But its recommendation to close down Burn Standard Company limited (BSCl) that produces railway wagons and equipment in West Bengal and seeks to raise Rs100 crore through sale of surplus, but prime land in Jabalpur is beyond comprehension to turn it profitable. The BSCl has just received Rs50 crore orders for wagon production from Bangladesh and is likely to receive more orders. The move, though, may have been taken with honest intentions is to benefit some private sector Kolkata firms, which see Burn as a competitor. The BSCl closure recommendation was given apparently without giving much thought.
It is surprising that the officials responsible for merger of profit-making domestic carrier Indian Airlines with the international airlines, Air India, have gone scot-free. They drove it to maladministration, surrender of profitable routes, acquiring of unnecessary unproven aircraft, selling of various other aircraft and led it to huge losses. It is strange that those who took those decisions have never even been questioned. Some of them are occupying prime offices post-retirement.
It is one of the biggest scams in the history of world airlines. In the present circumstances the decision to hive it off appears prudent. It is a wonder why successive Governments have not ordered a detailed probe to find out who benefited from ‘planned slow-poisoning’ of the national carrier.
The Aayog’s decision not to sell it as one entity and hive off its land, real estate in prime areas across the country and other assets from the main operations is sensible. It would save public property while the government would be freed from the huge debt and other burden. Some private entities, including a large corporate that owned Air India before its nationalisation, have also evinced interest.
But the autonomous bodies, mostly registered under the Societies Act, imparting education, training and other services to strengthen the democracy, should not be put on the same platform as Air India.
Since the 1991 liberalisation, profit has become aim of the Government and Government-run organisations. Profit is not a bad word. This nation, however, since ancient times, has never considered imparting of education and empowering the people with skills and ethics as profitable business. Education and imparting of knowledge, that vidya sums up, is not for sale, ancient wisdom tells. It is for daan - bestowing and there cannot be any price on it. Thus the recommendation of Niti Aayog per se is faulty. The panel has to re-visit the basic concept through which since 1950s so many institutions were built. Each of these has a motto and vision.
Yes, there can be a review. But it should be for making these organisations more effective, efficient, people-centric for improved functioning of the society. But thinking of closing it down because that suits the whims of some officials in the name of ‘cutting’ expenses is imprudent. The organisations are contributing in myriad ways and providing affordable education.
The proposal to close down institutions or mergie them with any other university or organisation or privatise it, would be a body blow to the ethos they are meant for. Who can forget the contribution of the FTII in changing the scenario of film-making in IndiaIJ The IIMC has been singularly responsible in introducing and standardising media education in the country. Yes, for the virtual misutilisation of over Rs72 crore, the fund allocated to it by Planning Commission in 2010, for turning it into an international university through a parliamentary law, the institute today is not in the best of state.
Those who misutlised the funds have never even been questioned. The Niti Aayog needs to look into these issues. This is possibly not an isolated incident. Many other institutions may have similar tales.
Many are welcoming the decision for their merger with some universities because the institutes were not allowed to blossom particularly during the last 10 years. These, despite their noble memorandum of associations were allowed to drift as interference in their functioning increased.
Different other organisations like the Indian Council of Philosophical Research (ICPR) and thje Indian Council of Historical Research (ICHR), the National Council for Promotion of Sindhi language, have contributed in their own way. Would merging these with the JNU or the Jamia Milia Islamia or any other organisation make senseIJ Or would they be subjected to more disordeIJ
The targeted reduction of budgetary allocation would not happen but complications in their functioning might multiply.
The Children’s Film Society of India, of late, is less functional. So is the Films Division. How would the merger of the previous with the latter be helpful is difficult to comprehend. The Aayog’s suggestions should not be wavering but pointed. The way the recommendations have been given are open to many interpretations. This adds to more discretion or drift.
The panel has to look into the case of each in detail, seek suggestions from its staff — not the top men, who in many cases are novices — and then give specific suggestions. It also needs to be remembered that many of these are institutions with international standing. The Aayog should not be in a hurry.
Decisions cannot be taken on institutions with diverse aims in a wholesale manner. Each requires separate diagnosis and closure. Merger or supposed corporatisation is never the solution. The path has to be found for maximum utilisation and excellence. Nothing can be done piecemeal, and saving money cannot be the main criterion. The NY has to uphold the concept of bestowing ofvidya for the benevolence of the society.
(The writer is a senior journalist. Views expressed are personal)