Background :
1) A few days before India celebrated the 75th year of Independence, Union Minister of Education said in reply to a debate in the Lok Sabha that people should let go of the idea that universities must be funded only by the government.
2) His remarks are only a corollary to the General Financial Rules of 2017, which encourage all autonomous bodies to maximise generation of internal resources and attain self-sufficiency (Rule 229(iv)).
Still, the Minister’s remarks shocked many, for only a week earlier, while launching education and skill development-related initiatives to mark two years of the launch of the National Education Policy (NEP), Home Minister had said that the public education system is the basis of a vibrant democratic society.
The National Education Policy’s vision
The NEP 2020 envisaged that it would “promote increased access, equity, and inclusion through a range of measures, including greater opportunities for outstanding public education.”
It also provided an assurance that the autonomy of public institutions would be backed by adequate public funding.
The NEP noted that public expenditure on education in India was nowhere close to the 6% of GDP envisaged by the 1968 policy, reiterated in the 1986 policy, and reaffirmed in the 1992 review of the policy.
Against this backdrop, it was gratifying that the 2020 policy endorsed a substantial increase in public investment by the Central and State governments to reach 6% of GDP at the earliest.
Elaborating on the reasons, NEP 2020 said this level of public funding was “extremely critical for achieving the high-quality and equitable public education system that is truly needed for India’s future economic, social, cultural, intellectual progress and growth.”
Going by the National Education Commission, also known as the Kothari Commission, which was the precursor to the 1968 policy, higher education should have been getting at least 2% of GDP.
In contrast, the expenditure on higher education by the Centre and the States taken together nosedived from 0.86% of GDP in 2010-11 to a measly 0.52% in 2019-20 (Budge Estimates, or BE).
It is disquieting that the Centre’s expenditure on higher education dropped from 0.33% of GDP in 2010-11 to a mere 0.16% in 2019-20 (BE).
The decline in public investment in higher education does not appear due to the fall in the receipts of the Central government. The revenue receipt of the Union government went up three times from ₹7.51 lakh crore in 2011-12 to ₹22.04 lakh crore in 2022-23 (BE).
So have total receipts, from ₹13.07 lakh crores in 2011-12 to ₹39.44 lakh crore in 2022-23 (BE).
As a percentage of the total receipt, the allocation for higher education fell from 1.49% to 1.04% during the corresponding period.
Consequence of privitisation
Higher education in India is already highly privatised. Most private higher education institutions are run on a self-financed basis, a euphemism for full cost-recovering institutions.
Besides, private tendencies have also penetrated deeply into public higher education. The most obvious consequence would be a substantial increase in fees and other charges from students. The idea that higher education could be funded fully by the students or their parents out of their savings or through bank borrowings appears grossly misplaced in the Indian context.
The NEP 2020 envisages enrolment in higher education to double by 2035. Considering the fact that the social and economic elites, the rich and the affluent, have already crossed a gross enrolment ratio of 100%, the future growth in higher education has to come from the socio-economically disadvantaged groups.
Would these people be able to afford full-cost recovery from their higher education institutions?
Disputes about the levels of poverty apart, it is now a reality that 62.5% of our population have to be provided free ration to save them from destitution.
No nation would want to deprive such a vast section of accessing higher education. Higher education in India may have had its failings, but it has served the nation rather well.
It has played a critical role in sustaining the $2.8 trillion economy that India has become today. But for enhanced investment in higher education, our vision of a $5 trillion economy and the aspiration of becoming a high-income developed country could be jeopardised.
Higher education cannot be a luxury reserved just for a privileged few. It is an economic necessity for every family. And every family should be able to afford it
Receive Daily Updates
Recent Posts
[wptelegram-join-channel link=”https://t.me/s/upsctree” text=”Join @upsctree on Telegram”]2021 WEF Global Gender Gap report, which confirmed its 2016 finding of a decline in worldwide progress towards gender parity.
Over 2.8 billion women are legally restricted from having the same choice of jobs as men. As many as 104 countries still have laws preventing women from working in specific jobs, 59 countries have no laws on sexual harassment in the workplace, and it is astonishing that a handful of countries still allow husbands to legally stop their wives from working.
Globally, women’s participation in the labour force is estimated at 63% (as against 94% of men who participate), but India’s is at a dismal 25% or so currently. Most women are in informal and vulnerable employment—domestic help, agriculture, etc—and are always paid less than men.
Recent reports from Assam suggest that women workers in plantations are paid much less than men and never promoted to supervisory roles. The gender wage gap is about 24% globally, and women have lost far more jobs than men during lockdowns.
The problem of gender disparity is compounded by hurdles put up by governments, society and businesses: unequal access to social security schemes, banking services, education, digital services and so on, even as a glass ceiling has kept leadership roles out of women’s reach.
Yes, many governments and businesses had been working on parity before the pandemic struck. But the global gender gap, defined by differences reflected in the social, political, intellectual, cultural and economic attainments or attitudes of men and women, will not narrow in the near future without all major stakeholders working together on a clear agenda—that of economic growth by inclusion.
The WEF report estimates 135 years to close the gap at our current rate of progress based on four pillars: educational attainment, health, economic participation and political empowerment.
India has slipped from rank 112 to 140 in a single year, confirming how hard women were hit by the pandemic. Pakistan and Afghanistan are the only two Asian countries that fared worse.
Here are a few things we must do:
One, frame policies for equal-opportunity employment. Use technology and artificial intelligence to eliminate biases of gender, caste, etc, and select candidates at all levels on merit. Numerous surveys indicate that women in general have a better chance of landing jobs if their gender is not known to recruiters.
Two, foster a culture of gender sensitivity. Take a review of current policies and move from gender-neutral to gender-sensitive. Encourage and insist on diversity and inclusion at all levels, and promote more women internally to leadership roles. Demolish silos to let women grab potential opportunities in hitherto male-dominant roles. Work-from-home has taught us how efficiently women can manage flex-timings and productivity.
Three, deploy corporate social responsibility (CSR) funds for the education and skilling of women and girls at the bottom of the pyramid. CSR allocations to toilet building, the PM-Cares fund and firms’ own trusts could be re-channelled for this.
Four, get more women into research and development (R&D) roles. A study of over 4,000 companies found that more women in R&D jobs resulted in radical innovation. It appears women score far higher than men in championing change. If you seek growth from affordable products and services for low-income groups, women often have the best ideas.
Five, break barriers to allow progress. Cultural and structural issues must be fixed. Unconscious biases and discrimination are rampant even in highly-esteemed organizations. Establish fair and transparent human resource policies.
Six, get involved in local communities to engage them. As Michael Porter said, it is not possible for businesses to sustain long-term shareholder value without ensuring the welfare of the communities they exist in. It is in the best interest of enterprises to engage with local communities to understand and work towards lowering cultural and other barriers in society. It will also help connect with potential customers, employees and special interest groups driving the gender-equity agenda and achieve better diversity.