Second, it is an act of colossal hubris to even suggest that all Indian universities should have similar curriculum. Why confine our appreciation of diversity only to identity, rather than a myriad of institutional forms and intellectual experiments? The great wave of creativity in Indian university building, when Delhi University, BHU, Jamia, Shanti Niketan came up, was premised on educational innovators trying out different things. Surely India can have room for the pedagogical philosophies behind a Gandhian institution like Banasthali Vidyapeeth on the one hand, and out-and-out new economy institutions on the other?

Third, the UGC ought to recognise that centralisation impedes rather than promotes curricular updating and innovation in three ways. One of reasons so many Indian universities found it difficult to update curriculum was such updating required negotiation with a large number of actors. This inevitably made the negotiation over curricular change protracted and aimed at the lowest common denominator. Even within the Indian system, the universities that have done better have done so because faculties and departments have more autonomy and control over their courses. In the American system faculty members make up their own courses subject to department approval. This makes for a more supple and innovative system. Now try to imagine what centralisation of syllabus making over a country as large as India would entail: most likely such curricular reform will be done by diktat. Our best teachers will be even more demoralised, because they have to teach syllabi crafted by committees where political compromise more than pedagogical purpose will guide curricular choices. It is also more likely that the quest for homogenising large systems will aim at the lowest common denominator rather than promote distinction. And such revisions will in future be subject to even more protracted negotiation.

... contd.