While a noble endeavour, the latest draft policy by the Higher Education Commission that seeks to replace the University Grants Commission and overhaul the national education system seems to be an action taken in haste. Released in June, the draft act aims at the reformation of higher education institutes in the country, with the ministry of human resource development (MHRD) keeping the policy in the public domain by inviting suggestions and remarks by stakeholders.

Explaining the move in a series of tweets, the minister of human resource development, Prakash Javadekar, said: ‘The transformation of the regulatory set up is based upon the principles – Minimum government & Maximum governance, Separation of grant functions, End of inspection raj, Focus on academic quality, Powers to enforce.’

The MHRD has been in the spotlight for various reasons, including over appointment of its minister and over controversies like the JNU row and others in the universities. It has often faced harsh criticism from all quarters. The ministry has also faced opposition from supporters as well as critics on its stand on the change of curricula and NCERT books. It’s important to understand the ministry’s remit at this stage.

The BJP government had its work cut out for it after coming to power in 2014. India has a huge demographic advantage over other ambitious nations, but where it clearly falls short is in making use of that advantage. Many reports have highlighted the unemployability of young graduates in India’s private sector. In fact, a sizeable amount of a company’s income is spent in training the youth to fit into jobs after recruitment. The co-founder of Infosys, Narayan Murthy, also highlighted the issue, stating that about 80-85% of India’s youth was not trained suitably for any job.

This deeply-rooted problem can go some way in explaining the reason behind the government’s multi-pronged approach of targeting vocational education as well as opening up many degree colleges and new institutes like Indian Institute of Technology, All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Indian Institute of Management, and universities. Let me now pull the critics of the government towards a structured and surprisingly well-implemented scheme of the MHRD. In 2013, the Congress administration was failing on all quarters. Many Congressmen could see the imminent loss in 2014 elections when the Modi wave rode high and wide.

The United Progressive Alliance (UPA) government took swift policy measures in higher education and introduced the Rashtriya Uchchatar Shiksha Abhiyan (RUSA). In October 2013, the cabinet committee of economic reforms approved the allocation of a whopping Rs 100,000 crores for RUSA with the promise to address a variety of missions and policy challenges. As fate would have it, the UPA government was shown the door the next year and the success of RUSA was uncertain, to say the least. However, since May 2014, the ministry has been steadily working to implement the RUSA.

As a result, new universities have won approval, infrastructure grants have been provided to more than 1200 colleges and 60 new model degree colleges have been established – all with strict monitoring. But numbers can deceive, can’t they? What then makes RUSA stand apart? Let’s take the example of Haryana. The Directorate of Higher Education (DHE) has a separate office to monitor the progress of the mission. The Directorate, in phases, recognizes the colleges eligible for monetary grants under the RUSA scheme. Each college is then provided with an approved stipulated sum, which is sent in instalments. A nodal officer, selected from each RUSA eligible college or University gauges the requirement and reports to the DHE; detailing the work the institution wants to carry out, after which a sanction approval is provided. The funds can be used for the construction of new facilities, buying new equipment or repairing existing infrastructure. It is important here to highlight what plagues most of our administrative offices.

The administrative lethargy, the opaque procedures of buying equipment, the questionable ‘tendering’ and ‘quotation-basis’ buy and most of all, the pending files and stuck finances. However, RUSA officials have found a way to solve all these problems effectively. Each nodal officer submits proposals directly to the DHE after consultation with the educational institution’s head. Every file is monitored and the grant is allocated to a separate bank account meant for RUSA grants. To purchase new items, the government has mandated the use of the government e-marketplace (GeM Portal). Moreover, institutions can use e-tendering for new construction work. Payments can be made through a new internet tool, the Public Finance Management System (PFMS) and all the funds are tracked through the RUSA Fund Tracker. The digital march does not end there. All new buildings and purchases under RUSA are will be geotagged using the Bhuvan Portal. In fact, all this and Utilization Certificates have been made a prerequisite for getting the next instalment of the grant. RUSA has effectively transferred power from the government to institutions, who can exercise the use of funds based on their needs.

Every college has now been given the autonomy to decide its future unlike before when the idea of the institution’s growth was based on a top-down model. To observe its efficacy I visited the southernmost part of Haryana – Narnaul – which takes diktats from the head office in Panchkula. Two institutions from the area have been receiving grants from the government under the RUSA scheme, and I spoke to a retired principal of one such beneficiary institution on condition of anonymity. He said that in the last 2 years, all new construction and recent purchases in the college have happened through RUSA grants. ‘It is well managed and quite a successful initiative of the government,’ he noted. In conclusion, RUSA and its effective implementation should be looked at as a case study for a positive change. Of course, it may not be perfect on microanalysis, but it has done some exceptionally good work. Analysts might question the lack of permanent teaching staff or the quality of education at these universities and colleges. Those are problems too, but if we observe one battle at a time, this is a clear win for the government.

Linkedin
Disclaimer

Views expressed above are the author's own.

END OF ARTICLE