On June 10 this year, the Department Related Parliamentary Standing Committee of the Human Resource Development Ministry (MHRD) invited suggestions on “Issues Relating to Functioning of University Grants Commission (UGC)”.

It gave the general public 15 days to respond. Just two days after the notice period, on June 27, HRD minister Prakash Javadekar invited suggestions towards the proposed “Higher Education Commission of India (Repeal of UGC Act) Act 2018”, giving only 10 days to respond. And later extended the deadline till July 20.

So the ministry has clearly decided to disband the UGC, even before the Parliamentary Standing Committee could review citizens’ feedback, let alone publish its report. This drives home the point that we are faced with a government which has no respect for the statutory processes of Parliament or the feedback given by stakeholders. Democratic decision-making processes have been eroded and reduced to entries in the logbook, to make paperwork seem proper.

Although this “reform”—the replacement of the UGC by the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI)—is being touted as a major step to improve and modernise higher education in India, it’s evident that the government has no confidence in the ability of the proposal to withstand public scrutiny. Not only is the public given no serious opportunity to respond, the HECI Act draft itself is remarkably silent about the need for this step.

The Introductory Note uses less than 300 words to describe the need for the new Commission and delivers only slogans such as “more autonomy”, “less government and more governance”, and “improving academic standards”. It has no concrete analysis of the mandate and functioning of the UGC, the needs of higher education today, and why amendments to the existing structures would not have sufficed.

Not a new idea

The idea that the UGC should be repealed is not a new one. In 2005, India offered higher education services under the WTO General Agreement on Trade in Services (GATS). Soon after, the Congress-led UPA followed by UPA-II pushed the sector of higher education on the “reform” trajectory, as per the needs of the WTO terms.

One of the education bills brought by the UPA-II was the Higher Education and Research Bill (HER) 2011, which proposed the setting up of a National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER). The NCHER was envisaged as an independent overarching body, responsible for steering higher education, and was to replace the University Grants Commission (UGC) (1956), the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) (1987), and the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) (1993). The HER Bill, along with other bills, was stalled in the Rajya Sabha. Educators slammed NCHER as an attempt by the then government to create a single window for private players to negotiate with.

The BJP-led NDA government has taken forward the “reform” agenda even more aggressively. UPA-II’s NCHER became the NDA’s Higher Education Empowerment Regulation Agency (HEERA). While no policy documents on HEERA are available in the public domain, the Ministry pushed the idea through press statements. Recently however, it was reported that the government has decided to put the creation of HEERA on hold.

The setting up of the HECI in such haste looks like a desperate route change.

Let us carry out our own analysis of the situation on the ground and the actual impact of the HECI Act draft. For this, we must study the changes in higher education and its governance in the last four years.

Disinvestment and privatisation

The budget allocation for higher education has steadily gone down. Arun Jaitley, in his 2016 budget speech, announced a scheme of replacing grants with loans for infrastructure development through the Higher Education Funding Agency (HEFA). Over the last four years, UGC fellowships have decreased and there have been attempts to withdraw non-NET fellowships. Institutions are being asked to raise their own funds, which can largely be done only by raising fees and thus shifting the burden of maintaining and expanding Central and state universities onto the backs of parents and students.

The twin impacts of these policies are decreased access to higher education for the masses, combined with an increased market for private institutions, by creating a level-playing field between the public and private sectors.

The HECI Act draft is in line with these trends. The HECI will only monitor governance and academic activities, and will not disburse grants. That power will now apparently vest with bureaucrats and politicians, with no input from academics. It is a mystery as to how the HECI will promote academic activity and quality, when it can provide no financial support or incentive. Institutions will instead have to bargain directly with the MHRD—or some yet-to-be-created agency—so they may function. Most likely, they will be forced to steadily increase fees to raise funds.

Illusory autonomy

Another major change which has happened in the last four years is the direct interference of the MHRD in daily affairs of universities. With a total disregard for their academic work, higher education institutions are issued notices by the MHRD every other day—forcing pet programmes of the government. The institutions are forced to observe Swachh Parisar Abhiyan, Yoga Day, and so on.

There is also direct interference in terms of deciding content of the course curriculum. The implementation of a uniform course curriculum—Choice Based Credit System (CBCS)—was pushed by a string of letters from the MHRD in 2014. This direct interference has become the new norm. A few days ago, Prakash Javadekar announced compulsory skill development training of 1,000 hours for BA, BCom and BSc students.

This daily interference is accompanied by an increased surveillance of academic activities through the appointment of favourable heads of institutions, or through the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the student-wing of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS). Seminars, plays, film screenings, and other student activities are monitored and reported. Students and teachers have been labelled as “anti-national” for questioning government policies, like in the case of the students of Panjab University fighting against the fee hike in 2017; or for questioning inequalities in the society (such as the case of the Ambedkar-Periyar Study Circle in IIT Madras); or Rohith Vemula and his friends, for trying to screen the documentary Muzaffarnagar Baaqi Hai; or the Ramjas College violence over inviting Umar Khalid and Shehla Rashid for a seminar.

With these attacks on critical thinking, democratic spaces, and the academic freedom to design and decide the curriculum, there is an unprecedented attack on the fundamental idea of a university.

The proposed Act’s claim of the desirability of increasing autonomy must be evaluated against this backdrop. The UGC had the mandate to be an autonomous and academic body, even if in recent years it has lacked the spine to enforce its autonomy. For instance, the UGC Act states that the Chairman of the Commission “shall be chosen from among persons who are not officers of the Government or any State Government”, with the purpose of maintaining the autonomy of the Commission from any form of direct interference by Government.

The HECI Act draft, however, drops this condition. It pushes out teachers from the policy-making body, and packs it with bureaucrats, chairpersons of regulatory bodies and accreditation bodies, and serving vice chancellors. This empowers a small group of people to shape policies. It robs the Commission of the possibility of having people on board who can be free of government control.

The proposed Advisory Council, to be headed by the HRD minister, is again a body of bureaucrats and administrative heads. The HECI Act thus places education completely in the hands of political and bureaucratic control. Lack of teachers and representatives of marginalised sections on the Commission and on the Advisory Council will fail the HECI in assessing the needs of the education sector, and ways of addressing issues like quality, accessibility and equity.

There has also been an increased thrust towards declaring selected colleges of repute to be “autonomous”. This autonomy does not include academic autonomy, as that has been taken away by the CBCS. It does not include financial security, as government grants are continually downsized. It does not even include autonomy in internal governance, as that is attacked by the steady stream of circulars, targeted appointments, and even physical intimidation.

The only autonomy is to raise funds for the expansion that is demanded by the regulatory and accrediting bodies: of courses, research parks, incubation centres, etc and accreditation will be the new whip to enforce these changes.

Over-regulation and direct control

The Introductory Note touts the idea of the HECI as an attempt to “downsizing the scope of regulations” since one of the criticisms of the UGC was that it over-regulates. However, the reading of the functions of the HECI tells a different story.

An increased focus on accreditation and yearly evaluation of higher educational institutions is bound to create a system of over-regulation. There are roughly 850 universities and 40,000 colleges. Yearly evaluation will not only mean mindless over-burdening of the HECI, but also a shift in the focus of higher education institutions from teaching-learning processes to creating and maintaining documentation of their activities. It is going to be a much bigger failure than the point-based system for promotions for college and university teachers, which forced them to generate sub-standard research work, attend meaningless seminars, and buried them in the documentation of the same. Institutions can and should be evaluated only over an extended period of time.

Further, the proposed Act mandates the HECI to promote autonomy of higher education institutions. This cannot be achieved if the Commission is allowed to micromanage institutions by even deciding learning outcomes of courses of study.

Further, as opposed to HECI, the UGC was to inquire into the financial needs of universities. The fact that the government does not acknowledge the direct linkage between investment and quality is rather worrisome.

Against the needs of the education sector

The most worrisome feature of the HECI Act draft, however, is the attempt to create a level-playing field between public and private, domestic and foreign. The role of the HECI with respect to higher education institutions looks the same, irrespective of their nature and purpose. Can clauses of closure of institutions or grant of authorisation be applied to public and private on equal footing? The HECI Act draft dilutes the responsibility of Central and state governments in maintaining public-funded institutions, in terms of grants for infrastructural and human resources necessary for imparting quality education. The HCEI or any other organisation cannot be given sweeping powers to close institutions.

This may result in an unparalleled corruption (UGC and AICTE are often alleged with corruption for their work as regulators). It may also create a situation similar to shutting down of public-funded schools, with land and buildings shifted into the pockets of NGOs and private players.

The Preamble to our Constitution guarantees to all citizens “fraternity assuring the dignity of the individual”. Education is an important means of achieving this, for the upward mobility of an individual, and for the much-needed social transformation and strengthening of democracy. With over half of its population below the age of 25 years, India cannot go wrong in setting priorities and policies in sectors like health and education. Accessibility of quality education and equity as constitutional rights have to remain central to education policies. HECI is an act to repeal the aim and the goals of higher education as set by the constitution.