It is crucial that Government and private institutions co-exist. The Government cannot on its own revamp the education system. It needs specialised resources
The proposed Indian Institutes of Management (IIM) Bill, which is under consideration by the Union Government, seeks to provide autonomy to all IIMs, in all aspects except the selection of directors and governing board members. It was reported that the Government’s view on the Bill was to meet the objectives of all IIMs. For this, the Bill must be liberal in its outlook. If it is passed, IIMs will be allowed to grant degrees instead of diplomas. Programmes would then be called Master of Business Administration (MBA), instead of Post-Graduate Diploma in Management (PGDM).
In contrast, non-Government institutions which offer PGDM degrees and fellow certificates, are regulated by the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), which in its 2010 notification, mandated that for these institutions, fees, curriculum, admissions, etc, will be decided/approved by the AICTE or a relevant Government body. This notification was challenged by many institutions and is now awaiting the Supreme Court’s decision. Every year, since then, an extension of status quo, prevailing prior to this 2010 notification of the AICTE, is granted by the apex court for these non-Government institutions, to commence various activities for the next academic year.
The first Indian Institute of Technology was set up in Kharagpur in 1951. At present, there are 16 functioning IITs in the country. The first IIM was set up in Calcutta in 1961, and there are a total of 19 IIMs now. All IITs and IIMs have been set up outside the university system, with their own Board of Governors (BoG). It will be easy to speculate that the Government wanted to give these ‘new age’ institutions nimbleness in decision-making as well as independence from over regulations to be able to perform as desired. These aspects must not have been considered achievable in the university system or under AICTE regulations. Therefore, the inability of the university system to foster world class institutions was side stepped.
While the IITs had the authority to grant degrees, the IIMs could not, as they were registered as societies and could give only a PGDM, which was given equivalence to an MBA degree by the Association of Indian Universities (AIU), which is a non-constitutional body. Thus, higher education in India had three governing models — universities under the University Grants Commission, IITs which governed through the IIT Act, and the IIMs which worked on their own as registered societies. This kind of multiple academic governance and the associated degree/PGDM granting systems do not exist anywhere in the world. It must, however, be noted that for an individual, higher education is an option to pursue career growth, unlike elementary education that may be considered essential for a decent survival. The institutions must constantly keep developing and re-inventing themselves, considering sweeping changes in technology and the way technology is being deployed to harness resources available and people’s capabilities. The role of regulators becomes crucial in achieving these ends.
Regulating education must not be an end in itself. Rather, it must have a defined purpose and the performance expected of a regulator will achieve just that. To meet the huge demand for education, private sector participation in higher education must not only be encouraged, but must be incentivised. It is crucial that the Government, as well as private institutions, co-exist. Additionally, the Government must make regulations that is objective-driven. This means, all higher education institutions in India must have a common regulatory framework and must not be divided on Government versus privately-funded institutions, very much akin to a common corporate law that governs private and Government corporations in the country. The Government must encourage private investment in higher education and also recognise the necessity of financial autonomy for private institutions. Among the many possibilities of incentivising private funding, if a tax rebate incentive is given to private funding for ‘not-for-profit’ education institutions, the Government would be able to mobilise about three times the money it has forgone as tax revenue into the education system.
A policy for privately-funded university/institution with the kind of regulatory freedom, similar to that enjoyed by the IITs and the IIMs, has the potential to produce scores of world class universities/institutions in just 10 years. A comparative data on public and private universities in the US would be an eye-opener. Such a policy framework is not yet even in a discussion mode.
(The writer is director, Fore School of Management, Delhi)