Dr. Asangba Tzüdir
In what was hailed as ‘historic’ by the Union Human Resource Development Minister, the University Grants Commission has granted autonomy to sixty Higher Educational Institutions which have maintained high academic standards. The HRD Minister, Prakash Javadekar rationalised the move as a strive towards introducing a liberalized regime in the education sector giving emphasis on linking autonomy with quality.
Giving further details, Javadekar said that the sixty Higher Educational Institutions which have been granted autonomy includes 52 Universities i.e. 5 central universities, 21 state universities, 24 deemed universities, 2 private universities and 8 colleges. The Minister explained that these universities will remain within the ambit of UGC but will have the freedom to start new courses, off campus centers, skill development courses, research perks and any other new academic programs. Among others, the selected institutes can now decide their admission procedure, fee structure and also the curriculum.
This move has been widely opposed by a wide section of teachers and students and rightly so because of the implications. The above details of the autonomy seem to suggest freedom of teaching and learning but on the whole it is seen as a privatisation move in the guise of autonomy. Further, this autonomy is such that it will still come under the ambit of the UGC and therefore it is not full autonomy but can be translated as ‘greater autonomy.’
Under this autonomous arrangement, the highlight is on the aspect of managerial and finance, and therefore the so called autonomy of teaching and learning will very much depend on finance. At the end of the day it is given because the government wants to withdraw from public funding of higher education. The freedom to hire foreign faculty, enroll foreign students, give incentive based emoluments to the faculty, enter into academic collaborations and run open distance learning programmes is a move towards their financial withdrawal mode.
The implication is that the financial resources will have to be generated by the institution concerned and therefore the freedom to decide their admission procedure and fee structure. Automatically it will lead to a hike in the students fee, and even the subjects and courses may be tailor made in terms of market value. When the cost of education increases, a student will be greatly discouraged to take up a course of study which does not have market value. Subjects associated with Humanities especially will hit difficult times in terms of value. Online and distance mode open learning will surely cut down the infrastructural expenses, but it cuts quality education as well. Thus this autonomy drive can be seen as a move towards commodifying education along with compromise on quality education.
Besides, it will be difficult especially for financially marginalised section to undergo self-financed programmes of study. Added to this, even teaching as a profession will become very unattractive because under this mode more teachers will be employed on contractual, guest or adhoc basis. Equity and access to education will be compromised and thereby distances the marginalised section of students not only from higher education but also of their right to education. Research is another component which will be affected. There is already cut in research seats and critical disciplines that lie at the heart of addressing social and human values and which are essential to the growth of a nation will be sacrificed.
On the whole, the scope of education as a public good ends with its commodification process and education is going to lose its human face. Thus, parents, teachers and students as stakeholders need to stand up and collectively lent the voice of resistance against such ‘commodifying’ move from the government in the name of ‘autonomy.’
(Dr. Asangba Tzudir writes a weekly guest editorial for The Morung Express. Comments can be mailed to asangtz@gmail.com)
