A: There’s absolutely no doubt that a comprehensive reform of the regulatory structure of both the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) is necessary. There has been a revolution in the way knowledge is imparted in the rest of the world and the structures we have were set up 30-40 years ago. In the Eleventh Plan, we had said we should undertake a comprehensive review. The government has actually appointed a committee to review both the UGC and the AICTE. We have representatives on that committee and I hope its report will give us some view on how we should move forward.

Q: Committees and more committees… Are we not running out of time?

A: I agree that we need to speed things up. The Eleventh Plan clearly states that we need to reform higher education, bring in the private sector, give more autonomy to universities and review the regulatory structure. So, pursuant to that, the human resource development (HRD) ministry has set up a committee. So yes, it takes a year, but you have to remember, institutional change in Indian education is a process that will take 10 years. I don’t believe that by signing some order you can sort things out in just one year. This is a long-term issue.

Q: But is there consensus on issues such as autonomy, opening up the sector to foreign players, etc?

A: Often, opinions differ. You have to take into account views of different people. I should add this is not very different from economic reforms. Rajiv Gandhi first talked about it in the mid-80s. The next major step came in 1991. Those reforms took over a decade to be implemented. So, don’t expect reforms in education to happen in 1-2 years. Having said that, a number of initiatives taken in this area are yielding results. Look at education as a whole. At the bottom of the pyramid is the attempt to expand primary education and I believe this government has done a remarkable job by developing infrastructure under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan. So, almost 97 per cent of the children are enrolled.

Q: What about allowing foreign universities and foreign investment in education?

A: We are looking at the issue. The most important thing is to expand and improve public sector universities and to give a level playing field to private Indian universities. I’m not saying that we should keep foreign universities out. I’m only saying that we cannot give preferential treatment to a foreign university that we won’t give to an Indian university. I have no doubt we need to encourage private universities and create a better environment for them. But if an Indian university wants to come in, we can’t tell them no, this is only for foreign universities.

Q: But that will happen only when you allow foreign universities to come and then level the field for all.

A: Let us, by all means, decide what is a good regulatory environment for private universities, put it in place and then invite Indian private and foreign universities on the same terms. I am not happy with an arrangement where we have a provision for a foreign university, but if an Indian corporation or a philanthropist wants to set up a university they wont be given the same benefits… that’s not right.

Q: Do we expect corporatisation of education some time soon?

A: This is an important issue… Present provisions do not allow education for profit that can be distributed. It must be a non-profit activity. Many people have questioned that but I am not too concerned on this issue because the great universities of the world are not profit-making organisations. There is nothing wrong with saying that education should not be a profit making body, but it should be possible to make surpluses provided they can be ploughed back. The Indian law actually allows that but it doesn’t quite work that way in practice. There are two problems. First, there is a restriction on fees that are often fixed at unrealistically low levels. I think we need to review its logic. Second, not-for-profit has been interpreted to mean it has to be a society or a trust. Many people have said, and I agree with them, that we should allow educational institutions to take the form of a Section 25 company, which is also a not-for-profit company. This allows much more transparency in the governance structure. I think the present structure is illogical and needs to be changed.

Q: Reservations extending even in faculty positions… Are we moving in the right direction?

A: Personally, I don’t think we should have reservations for faculty if we’re talking of having world-class universities. We don’t have it in some institutions like Department of Atomic Energy or in high technology science, so a precedent exists. Reservation in student admissions is much more defensible and I think we can aspire to have world-standard even with such reservations, but not if its extended to faculty. You can, of course, have affirmative action to ensure that the faculty reflects the social composition. But this should be done through a proactive search for suitably qualified candidates. Not through a mechanical imposition through reservation. As this is a sensitive issue, we do need to discuss it.

Q: Another issue, you would agree, is of autonomy, especially when it comes to fixing fees…

A: Autonomy in many respects is very important and of course also in the matter of fees. Nowhere in the world do fees pay for the entire cost of education. Education has to be subsidised through endowments or research grants or other forms of government support. However, in India, the percentage of cost of education covered by fees is exceptionally low. In many cases, it is only 3 per cent. It needs to be raised to at least 20 per cent. A move to a more reasonable fee structure should be accompanied by a loan-cum-scholarship programme so that any student who gets admission in a university should be even if his family circumstances do not allow him to pay the fee. But this does not justify low fees for everybody. Remember only 10 per cent of the relevant age group at present goes for higher education. Most of them can certainly pay a higher fee. It is well known that for the vast majority of our students at our better universities, the cost of education is lower than the cost of the schools they attended. This is simply not rational. I agree, however, these ideas are not yet readily accepted. I made the suggestion to move to a system of higher fees combined with a loans-cum-scholarship at a recent meeting of the vice chancellors, but it was turned down because they did not think it was realistic. They were probably right to think that it would not be easily accepted. We need to build a consensus on this issue.