Sledge-hammer approach

They are better placed to assess the impact of subsidy cuts on universities than Finance Ministry officials whose main objective is to reduce the deficit. Budgetary considerations, obviously, cannot be the sole determining factor of educational provision in the country. A whole range of other issues must be examined such as demand, socio-economic objectives, future manpower requirements and the availability of skills-training centres.

The proposal to bring down higher education support from 90 per cent to 50 per cent over the next three years comes in the context of a series of cutback proposals for so-called non-merit goods and services. The assumption here, that the undeserving rich get most of the benefits of subsidised higher education, is challenged by the UGC which claims the majority of college and university students comes from low income groups. This being so, increased user charges can bridge the resources gap only to a limited extent. This is not to argue for continuing to hold down college and university fees at their present absurdly low levels. Fees must be raised across the board and not in token fashion but with the intention of bringing them into some sort of reasonable relationship with costs over a period of time. The huge demand for seats in foreign universities provides an indication of how much the top of the market can bear. Universities can also seek out private sector resources. Nevertheless, subsidies will still be necessary. Not only must large numbers of poor but academically-inclined students get the opportunity through state aid of acquiring university degrees but the need of the hour is also to drastically improve the quality of higher education.

Universities and colleges need more, not less, investment in libraries, computers and laboratories. India can boast of many institutions which offer world class education. But they are too few and far between. The private sector cannot be expected to fill the gap, at least not in the foreseeable future and not outside the major cities. There is no question that primary education has a prior claim on government funds. No doubt the products of many of the country’s colleges and universities fail to justify the huge amounts of money being poured into them. But the answer to these issues cannot be making weak institutions weaker by denying them funds. There is a golden mean between subsidising all and sundry higher education institutions under the rubric of social objectives and using a budgetary sledge-hammer. A white paper which the UGC suggests may be one way of finding it. What is essential is some clear thinking about the place of higher education in the country’s scheme of things for the future.