Sir — This refers to the editorial, “Don’t drop reform plan” (June 6). I am shocked that the editorial has praised the FYUP sky-high despite the fact that above 90 per cent of the students who were admitted under this scheme during 2013-2014 session are convinced that the scheme is a wastage of one precious year. Almost all news channels and newspapers, except yours, have highlighted the utter failure of the FYUP to expand the mental and intellectual horizons of students in the first year of its implementation in Delhi University.
It is well known that the FYUP was the brainchild of the likes of Kapil Sibal, Sam Pitroda, Ashok Thakur and Professor Dinesh Singh to create an education market in India for second-rate American universities. The premier university of Delhi, a Central university, was used as a guinea pig for the pilot project.
Some apologists of the FYUP exploit the argument of autonomy to defend the indefensible programme. The university’s autonomy cannot supersede the supremacy of the will of the people represented by Parliament. The National Policy on Education unanimously approved by Parliament and endorsed by all States ordained the 10+2+3 scheme for the entire country for undergraduate programmes. DU cannot unilaterally alter the structure in the name of autonomy. The autonomy is only for deciding course contents within the framework of the national policy.
Section 3.8 of the NPE explicitly states, “In higher education in general, and technical education in particular, steps will be taken to facilitate inter-regional mobility by providing equal access to every Indian of requisite merit, regardless of his origins. The universal character of universities and other institutions of higher learning is to be underscored”. The FYUP is in complete violation of this statement. All other Central and State universities follow the three-year system for graduate programmes. The migration of students from other States has been impeded in the under-graduate and post-graduate programmes.
There is no doubt that our higher educational system requires reform. Tailoring our system to American structures is not the same as reforming our teaching programmes to suit our requirements.