The government’s one-size-fits-all panacea to ensuring quality in educational institutions has been “control”. How does one ensure teaching quality? Answer: state control. How does one deal with particularly mediocre educational institutions? Answer: even more control. The idea that independence fosters excellence, that the state must regulate quality not squash it, has long been alien to Indian higher education apparatiks. Which is why Union Human Resource Development Minister Kapil Sibal’s talk of institutional “autonomy” (especially in the context of IITs and IIMs) has been such a refreshing change.

However, consider the recommendations of a UGC-appointed committee, recommendations the UGC has accepted, and ones that the Sibal-appointed committee on deemed universities is said to be in favour of. The Tareen Committee was appointed by the UGC to examine its own haste in giving “deemed university” status to several institutions. One would suppose that the logical corrective to providing deemed university status to places which are ill-equipped, ill-qualified, and mint-fresh is to revoke that status (in fact, another UGC-appointed committee to look into precisely this has been less than stinging). But no, the Tareen Committee recommends that “deemed universities” must have entrance exams and fees must be fixed by a panel. This is in complete contrast to ideas of institutional autonomy. Private bodies must be free to set their own curricula and determine their own fees. The government’s role must be reduced to overseeing excellence, and withdrawing licences in the case of fly-by-night operators. The recommendations, if accepted, would constrict all deemed universities, instead of just shutting down the tardy ones.

... contd.