'The main stakeholders in educational institutions are children'
Many believe he is the answer to the Indian education system’s crying need for a ‘thinking and savvy minister’. Human Resources Development Minister Kapil Sibal may be insisting that education cannot usher in a for-profit-participation, but entrepreneurs believe he will become flexible in time. “That’s public posturing,” say observers. “Give him time. He’s the one,” they say privately.
Sibal’s already done the groundwork: The Right to Education Bill has been passed by Parliament and he’s announced his intention to evolve different models of public-private-partnership (PPP) in 3,500 government schools out of the 6,000 model schools that the government is hoping to launch in future. Some, of course, question his ability to bring in foreign universities in a languishing environment. The plan to bring in an overarching authority for Higher Education based on the recommendations of the Yash Pal Committee Report (YCR) and the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) has raised eyebrows, too. Sibal, therefore, is cautious, but optimistic as he speaks to us. Excerpts:
Is there room for genuine entrepreneurs to set up good institutions, which are also profit-making?
Nowhere in the world are educational institutions set up for profit. In the US and Australia, you may have some such institutions, but bulk of them are based on endowments. All the money they make is put back into the system. I think the concept of ‘business’ is not in tune with the way educational institutions have been structured all over the world. It’s not that you can’t make profit from an institution. But the purpose is not profit. If you make profit, it should be channelised back to the system.
Is this view inflexible?
If you think the Government of India is going to allow a private company to set up an institution to pay dividends to its shareholders from investments in educational institutions, then, you are mistaken. Education is not meant to profit private shareholders. The main shareholders in an educational institution are children.
What about many entrepreneurs today who are making money from their institutions?
If somebody, through capitation fee or cash transaction of money, is doing so, then that is not only illegal, but a crime against society. One of the initiatives in the 100-day Programme talks of enacting the Malpractices Bill in the education sector, which will prosecute people who are doing so.
How do you plan to motivate entrepreneurs to participate in the space if there’s no legitimate gain from it?
We expect private players to invest for their own benefit. For instance, a pharmaceutical company needs enormous human resource by way of technicians, researchers, etc. It would be advantageous for it to start investing in education and eventually to have access to a good talent pool.
Often, you find educational institutions that are not in tune with the needs of the industry. If the private sector is involved, you will have people coming out of institutions with the right skills. Indeed, in the last few weeks, I have had queries from people wanting to participate in expanding the education system—building schools and universities through publicprivate partnership.
You have spoken of the 100-day Action Plan to usher in reforms in the education sector. What would be the pace of progress?
First of all, I think there is a misunderstanding: A 100-day Action Plan does not mean that everything needs to be completed in 100 days! Our plan has different components. It has proposed legislative and policy initiatives. Some of these programmes will span out in five years, but the seeds will be sown in 100 days.
What are the areas where one can expect change?
To begin with, there will be no concept of a deemed university. Anyone who passes the entry barrier should be -entitled to set up a university. Our motto is to expand the education system to give people choices. Foreign universities are very keen to come in. We will have a process through which we will seek to regulate the kind of universities which can come. This will be done on a case-by-case basis.
So, in principle, the Yash Pal recommendations have been accepted?
There are suggestions of NKC as well. YCR has suggested an independent regulatory authority on higher education. These are expert bodies that have a vision of their own about restructuring the education sector. It doesn’t mean we accept everything recommended by them.
There have been suggestions that the UGC and AICTE would cease to exist in the new scheme of things as you are seeking to bring an autonomous super-structure.
As I said, these are recommendations of the different committees and commissions. There will be a considered decision within the 100-day framework, but thereafter the matter has to go to the Cabinet and there has to be inter-ministerial discussion. At this stage, it’s too early to comment.
The fear is one regulatory body is being dismantled to set up another.
We are taking about an independent regulator or an independent accrediting agency. These will be statutory, have statutory powers and will be composed of experts in the field. The point is humans have the genius of adulterating any system they are in. If we are destined to have adulteration due to the very nature of humans, then, I guess, no system will work. We have to move towards transparency and have already taken initiatives in this regard. For instance, all universities now must have websites of their own, complete with faculty details. If they don’t, we will take action against them. So, there is already an element of transparency in the system.
