There is considerable excitement at the prospect of reform initiated by the HRD Minister. But there are somewhat contradictory noises coming from the ministry over what the overall direction should be. Admittedly, it is early days and we do not know the details yet. And we should also not let the best be the enemy of the good.

But it is important that there be clarity over what exactly the ministry is trying to do and why. Here are some questions on different aspects of the plan in higher education.

First, there is widespread agreement that the system needs regulatory reform. But the new regulatory reform needs to take care of two things. It must ensure that the new regulator does not become yet another centralised overpowering regulatory body. It must also ensure that the regulator understands that the purpose of regulation is not to increase the power of the state, but to help students and parents make informed choices.

In short, simply creating a new institution will not be enough. There will have to be clarity over exactly what should be regulated. Ideally, regulation should focus largely on disclosure and transparency, not on micro-managing the choices institutions are allowed to make.

There are also different models on regulators in different reports. My worry is that the model that will end up being institutionalised will be overly centralised. The National Knowledge Commission had proposed that different functions of the regulators be parcelled out. UGC deals with one issue only: public funds for public universities. The independent regulator simply regulated entry -- who is allowed to set up institutions and on what terms. There must be competition in accreditation, so that a number of agencies are licensed on a competitive basis rather than a state monopoly. On the other hand, Mr Yashpal (though not his committee) seem to favour an omnibus which will have even more powers than the current UGC. It is important to specify what regulators cannot do.

... contd.