By P Sandosh Kumar
Indian higher education has witnessed tremendous progress since independence. There has been a significant increase in the number of colleges and universities across the country. The Nehruvian consensus believed in providing limitless possibilities of free liberal education that reflects the spirit of reason, tolerance, humanism, dissent and dialogue. Influenced by Gandhian ideals of self-reliance and Marxian philosophy of social justice, Nehru was instrumental in building a pluralistic and secular higher education edifice in post-colonial India. Despite the tribulations and challenges, no one can deny the incredible achievements of India’s higher education sector since independence. India has the third largest higher education system after China and the USA. Our higher education institutions like IIMs, IITs and JNU have already carved their imprints in the global education landscape.
Undoubtedly, the ethos of the Indian higher education system sounds synonymous with our rich cultural and social fabric woven by threads of different identities, each blending to form a perfect amalgamation. And, at its core, we could always find creativity, innovation, and inclusion. We always hailed an education that stands for freedom and democracy. Obviously, the quest for diversity and dissent always heralded radical transformation within the system.
We cannot undermine this broader context of higher education when we look into the New Education Policy (NEP 2020) and its underlying politics. Unfortunately, NEP 2020 completely ignores the modern secular and democratic higher education system that contemporary India inherited. It deliberately dismantles our modern values and replaces it with ancient values of Brahmanical ethos, conservative principles and rigid compartmentalisation of higher education institutions.
NEP replaces inclusion with commercialisation and institutional plurality with monolithic hierarchy. It attempts to replace social justice with merit and critical thinking with skill-based training. Above all, the policy tries to deconstruct the Nehruvian liberal modernity with that of a rightist and elitist model of education. This is indeed a deviation from the previous education policies, and therefore it will lead to serious repercussions in the higher education sector in our country.
Before analysing the problematic recommendations of NEP, it is interesting to look into the ‘paradoxical’ positions and internal inconsistencies that the NEP document contains. Although the NEP is popularly perceived as a visionary document that can transform the genes of higher education, the arguments are often flawed and contradictory. For example, in the section on higher education, NEP states that the purpose of quality higher education is more than the creation of greater opportunities for employment for individual, but the key to creating a more vibrant, socially engaged and cooperative communities and a progressive nation.
While the focus on individual employment is ignored in the above sentence, in another section, the document clearly argues that the purpose of higher education reform is to equip the student to cater to the need of the emerging 4th industrial revolution in India. Apart from that, throughout the document, the NEP raises voice for a skill-based vocational education instead of a system based on intellectual discourse. The legitimisation of ‘student drop-out’ from universities also aims to encourage the creation of a semi-skilled workforce that can serve the Indian capitalists. Hence, the core argument of the NEP on the purpose of higher education is an oxymoron.
Secondly, the NEP calls the contemporary higher education system as ‘highly fragmented’. Although the document is silent about the rationality behind such a sweeping generalisation, critics relate it with the existence of 800 universities and 40,000 colleges across the country. Actually, the so-called ‘fragmentation’ represents our diverse social structure, geographical coverage and unique needs of the students from both rural and urban regions. The NEP has unethically labelled it as ‘fragmented’, and completely disregarded the scope, spread and decentralisation of higher education. But does the new policy reform offer a constructive alternative to this fragmentation? Interestingly, the answer is no.
The new structure that the NEP offers is extremely complex and challenging to operate in a federal system. It is unclear how the coexistence of private/ autonomous/ foreign/ government colleges and universities, the hierarchical regulatory authorities, contractual appointments of teachers, dropping out of students and different types of colleges will ensure a ‘sustainable, robust and uniform’ higher education. One can easily identify the lack of vision behind such rhetoric. Platitudes cannot be turned into pragmatism. Unfortunately, the NEP is full of platitudes rather than practical wisdom.
Thirdly, the document is conspicuously silent about the rights of the students, although it often hails the role of ‘dharma’, ‘duties’, ‘responsibilities’ and ‘accountability’ of students. The document envisages the establishment of a ‘liberal’ education. The NEP perceives the term liberal as ‘privatisation and commercialisation’. But the real meaning of ‘liberal’ in the context of education implies the centrality of ‘dissent and freedom of expression’ within the landscape of higher education. The NEP doesn’t recognise the legitimate rights of students, their political representation and the need for including student representatives in the regulatory bodies.
The concept of liberal education is narrowly defined as employability, freedom to drop out, choice of multiple disciplines, etc. In reality, liberal education doesn’t imply the development of ‘disposition’, but the development of a free individual who can think critically and independently. Therefore, it is sad to understand that the NEP is a travesty of the great tradition of Nehruvian modernity.
Fourthly, the document doesn’t address the complex realities that our higher education system faces today. The approach is superficial. There is no pragmatic strategy to improve access to education to hitherto disadvantaged sections of society. The real challenge is our unequal social structure that breeds social injustice, oppression and the resultant lack of access to education. But instead of offering a rational strategy to ensure social inclusion and justice, the NEP promotes privatisation and commercialisation. Contrary to the expectations, the privatisation drive will only exacerbate the prevailing inequality and exclusion of the Dalits and Adivasis from higher education.
Lastly, the NEP 2020 states that the central and state governments will endeavour to increase expenditure on education sector up to six per cent of the GDP. But the Commission is silent on the source of funding. It is paradoxical to note that since May 2014, India’s total spending on education to GDP ratio has been falling. During 2012-13, the total education expenditure was 3.1 per cent of the GDP. Surprisingly, it fell in 2014-15 to 2.8 per cent. There was a further decline during 2015-16 as the total spending fell into 2.4 per cent of the GDP. Hence, it is evident that the government is not committed to increasing public spending on education. So how does the NEP expect such an unrealistic target? We can assume that the gap in funds will be managed with an increase in fee. This will slowly lead to the retreat of the state from the higher education sector and the back-door entry of commercial interest into the realm, making higher education more corporatised and profit-oriented. (IPA Service)