SACW #2 | 5-6 Jan. 2006 | Pakistan- India: System Failures in Education

[Harsh Kapoor]

South Asia Citizens Wire - Packet 2 | 5-6 Jan, 2006 | Dispatch No. 2198

   [Pakistan- India: System Failures in Education]

[1] Pakistan:
     - Mullahs get the better of Musharraf - Madrassas untouched
     - If you can’t beat the system, ban it (Omar R. Quraishi)
     - Textbook Truths (ORQ)
[2] India: The Great Education Muddle - State failure and judicial
     jigsaw (P Radhakrishnan)
[3] The Economics of Elementary Education in India Edited By Santosh
     Mehrotra

___


[1]

   Deccan Herald
   January 6, 2006 	

   MULLAHS GET THE BETTER OF MUSHARRAF
   MADRASSAS UNTOUCHED

   By M B Naqvi

The Pakistani government caved in to opposition from fundamentalist
forces on the question of madrassas

Time was, less than six months ago, when Pakistan’s General-President
had issued the edict that all foreign students studying in religious
seminaries should leave the country by December 31 after which they will
be deported. Well, December 31 deadline came and went.

Not one student has been deported, though it is understood, some
foreigners did leave their madrassas on their own accord and returned.
Only the other day the provincial Assembly of NWFP, dominated as it is
by a six-religious-party alliance called the MMA, was told by the MMA’s
Provincial Government that no student would be expelled or deported from
the country. Just that.

Earlier, the President had taken no strong follow-up action, either out
of complacency or loss of nerve. The MMA was threatening a protest
agitation on the issue. The King’s party at the Centre as well as in
Punjab had no stomach for a confrontation with the MMA on the issues
involved. Way back in July, soon after the Presidential pronouncement,
other ministers got busy and issued tough statements.

There were three aspects of the task they faced: (a) there was to be
reform of the curricula of the religious seminaries; (b) all madrassas
would have to be registered with the government giving details of the
numbers of students, their places of origin and possession of valid
documents, especially their own funding; (c) reform of the curricula of
these madrassas were also to be undertaken; and (d) all foreign students
were to leave by the given date. The MMA has been opposed to these moves
from the beginning.

Mullahs and their defenders claim that the courses being taught in
madrassas all over the subcontinent are centuries’ old and uniform sect
wise. It has produced over the last three centuries only peaceable
prayer leaders. There is objective and historical proof of that. But
that was about the past.

The climate of opinion among several Sunni fiqahs has created a new
inflexibility, the foundations of which existed in the very texture of
the traditional education. That climate of opinion among Muslim scholars
in the later half of the 20th century has promoted extremisms of various
kinds that beget terrorism. So strong action was called for.

For a while, it did seem as if the Ministry of Religious Affairs was
moving in these directions along with provincial governments. But the
opposition was tough and it seemed it would give a tough fight. The
question was: Who would win, the General or the MMA?

But the ministers were the first to show weakness as some statements
were made to appeal to the MMA for not taking any precipitate action but
to discuss. Later Home Minister Aftab Ahmed Sherpao blandly told the MMA
there was no question of deporting foreign students and that there was
no deadline.

Political system cannot suffer

The government was actually hoping that the MMA would be divided by its
cynical tactics. It does not like unity in the ranks of its opponents.
Although impartial opinion holds that there is a basic understanding,
may be agreement, between the MMA and the General. This permits that
both parties can hold and propagate their own opinions but would not let
Musharraf’s political architecture suffer. They say there is a simple
proof of that understanding, whether formal or informal. The MMA has a
50 per cent share in the Balochistan government and has its own ministry
in NWFP.

They have co-operated smoothly for over two years with the central
government. There has been no crisis in the relationship between
Peshawar and Islamabad; their cooperation is hassle free.

Insofar as this battle of wits over the registration and reforms of
madrassas by December 31 is concerned, not all the schools have
registered though some have. There were inconclusive negotiations with
religious seminaries thought to be over a thousand.

The government first wanted the discussions and made concessions: It
dropped the crucially important detail about the sources of funding.
There has been absolutely no progress on the reform of curricula. The
mullahs had dug their heels in and proclaimed never. The government
itself had increased the time limit for registration. No other deadline
was announced. The foreign students are still there. The old books are
still being used. How does one describe this phenomenon?

It does seem as if the MMA has got the better of the government. If
credence is given to the opinion that holds that the Military-Mullah
Alliance is an unavowed foundation of today’s system, events seem to
confirm this theory. Within this agreement or understanding, it would be
easy to know which party has got what out of this unavowed working
arrangement.

Well, by the tough announcement in July by President Musharraf regarding
the madrassas, the Pakistan government impressed the Americans and
everybody else, including India, that it is serious about these matters
in addition to the successful working of the General’s system.

The position now is that most people are tempted to believe that he made
the statement in a hurry and the General had not realised the
difficulties he would face in implementing it. In the event he could not
implement his scheme, the conclusion is inescapable that the mullahs
have got the better of the General.

o o o

   Dawn
   January 1, 2006

   IF YOU CAN’T BEAT THE SYSTEM, BAN IT

A meeting of NGO activists and heads of various teacher associations in
Karachi this week deliberated on the country’s education system and
among the many brilliant conclusions that it arrived at was that the
country’s students should no longer have the option to study in the
O/A-level system education.

They presumably arrived at this conclusion because the O-level system is
said to — according to the view taken by those who oppose it — leads to
a stratification of society along class and language lines. Those who
study in the O-level system come from (or are thought to come from) more
affluent backgrounds (which is why their parents can afford to send them
to such schools) and grow up educated in a curriculum that is devised in
the UK and their achievement is tested via an exam that is drawn up and
assessed in the UK as well. The medium of instruction is English, which
means that by the time a student is done with his O-levels, he is able
to speak fluent English — no matter what his actual O-level grades might be.

Given Pakistani society and its colonial hangovers and that most good
jobs in the government or corporate sectors (or in academia or NGOs for
that matter) are impossible unless one has good command over English.
This means that for the most part those who graduate from the mainstream
(matric/intermediate) system — where the medium of instruction is
usually Urdu with English not even being taught till class six (now
changed to class one) — have little chance of getting a good job or
rising up the ladder of social mobility. This apparently creates a class
of the ‘haves’ versus the ‘have-nots’, with the former obviously lording
it over everybody else.

However, there are several problems with this thesis. The first has to
do with its basic structure, which lends to an approach or a worldview
that sees everything in black or white. But the truth is that most
things/issues in the world should not be seen in black or white. There
are always various shades of grey in between and to generalize
everything as either good or bad is to have a very simplistic view of
things. Applied to the matric/O-level debate, the flaw in the argument
against O-levels is that not everyone who studies and graduates from
this systems grows up to be a ‘brown sahib’ oblivious of his or her
local culture, language and traditions. By the same token, not everyone
who studies in the matric/intermediate system grows up to be well-versed
in his/her culture and aware of what it means to be a Pakistani.

Also, should the fact that someone is studying or has studied from an
O/A-level school be held against them, as some of those who oppose the
system tend to do? After all, people send their children to such private
schools because the other option — sending them to schools (mostly in
the government sector) which follow the matric/intermediate stream — is
not a good option. In fact, an independent survey should be carried out
of parents asking them which option would they prefer if fees were not
an issue and the results should be publicized in newspaper.

Curriculum

As for the matric/intermediate system, its flaws are well documented and
have extensively been written about. Most of them are quite serious and
need to be remedied before the system can offer an education to its
students worth aspiring to. In both qualitative and quantitative
aspects, the system suffers from major deficiencies. The standard of
textbooks is abysmal (see accompanying box), the syllabus is outdated
and contains subjects that are either unnecessary or have content that
places undue emphasis on faith and religion.

Besides, emphasis is placed not on making students think for themselves,
or on analyzing and questioning the material that is taught to them but
on making them conformists and subservient to some abstract and
amorphous national ideology. A look at the syllabuses will reveal that
the intention is instil in all students a sense of patriotism and to
make them good Muslims. Now, that’s not necessarily a bad thing per se
but it is debatable whether the curriculum should be doing that.

Clearly, it would be far beneficial to the students themselves if the
system of education that were part of imparted to them skills which
allowed them to think independently, logically, creatively and to
analyze information and knowledge. But this is obviously not going to
suit those who rule over Pakistan — the ruling classes meaning the
coterie of military officials, bureaucrats and big business who shape
and decide government policies and to benefit most from them — because
such students would then grow up and question the way the country is
being run, the way precious resources are squandered or siphoned on
wasteful expenditures and who would then try and hold the government
accountable. Hence, it makes sense to have an educational system that
places a high premium on learning everything by heart, on listening to
the teacher blindly and whatever other authority is found in the school
system, and which tells students that the government and the army is the
best thing that ever happened to the country.

Teaching

Coming to the quality of teaching, or lack thereof, the low standard in
government schools is widely acknowledged by everyone. Teachers in this
sector are poorly paid and not well-trained, and many even lack an
adequate knowledge of the subject that they are supposed to teach
(especially true for English language teachers). There is also a high
level of absenteeism with many teachers never showing up to school but
still claiming their salaries. Compare this to the private sector where
the pay is much better and, by and large, the teachers are better
qualified, better monitored (some may say a bit too much) and at least
have some training.

Again, this is not to say that every teacher in the government sector is
terrible and that all teachers who teach in private schools are
brilliant but there is a clearly discernible trend. Surely even those
who oppose the O-level system tooth and nail would agree with these
observations about both systems. As for the O-level system’s curriculum,
they would probably say that it is too westernized and unsuited for
Pakistani students. But is it really? And what to do if the quality of
local textbooks is such that there is no choice but to use texts written
by overseas writers — and even this is beginning to change with several
publishers — among them Oxford University Press, The Book Group and
Danesh Publications — making quality textbooks with content related to
the Pakistani context.

Punjab government’s opposition

A couple of weeks ago it was reported that the federal ministry of
education had decided to not act on a recommendation made by the Punjab
government to stop students in the country from enrolling in the
O/A-level system.

One can only wonder why the Punjab government would have thought of
something like this. If the intention is to improve the local system
then banning a much better alternative is hardly going to make anything
better.

A more logical and sensible course of action would be to improve the
local system of schooling so much so that parents voluntarily prefer to
send their children to matric schools. Obviously, if the standard of the
local system were at par with the foreign-based system, then anyone in
his or her right mind would send their children to the local school
because it would be a far more economical option. This is precisely the
case for India where the local system is quite sound and hence the
proportion of those studying in O/A-levels is quite small. Such
recommendations also smack of hypocrisy. One wonders how many senior
officials of the Punjab government, NGO activists and teachers have
children studying or who have studied in the O/A-level system.
Experience would suggest that most of them would have opted for this,
simply because it far superior than sending one’s child to a government
school.

Quite regrettably, the stand taken by the NGO activists and heads of
teacher associations taken in the meeting in Karachi — as well as that
suggested by the Punjab government — leaves much to be desired because
it does not really address the problem and seeks to punish the one
system that is actually doing a fairly decent job of educating those
enrolled in it. Of course the best option would be to have a quality
system of education that is indigenous — like in India. But we do not
have that but why strike at the one which is at least better than the
one we have. It would be far better instead to improve the local system
so that people want to enroll in it.

Right now, though, one gets the impression that all that the nay-sayers
want to do is that if the system can’t be beaten, then it is better to
ban it. As if that will somehow overnight improve the local system.

   — Omar R. Quraishi


o o o

   Dawn
   January 1, 2006

   TEXTBOOK TRUTHS

Those who think that the O-level system should be banned should think
again. Comparison is made below between two different Pakistan studies
textbooks. One is used by O-level students, the other by matric students.

The themes and issues discussed in either are quite different. In the
matric case, the emphasis seems to be mostly on religion, on civic
obedience and the ‘duty’ of the individual to the state, and sacrifice
and conformist behaviour. In the O-level textbook, students are taught
Pakistan’s economic and political history, and told of issues related to
governance and underdevelopment and how these are closely linked to
political economy. At times, the matric textbook reads like a badly done
PR job by a government spokesman.

The O-level textbook is titled An Investigation into the Political
Economy 1948-1988 by Nadeem Qasir (OUP, Rs 157, pp 95). The author is
listed in the credits as being a development scholar at the University
of London’s School of Oriental and African Studies.

The matric textbook is titled Pakistan Studies for class IX and X (Rs
26, pp 278), published by the Punjab Textbook Board and written by
Hassan Askari Rizvi, Javed Iqbal, Ghulam Abid Khan and Qamar Abbas.

The O-level book has three sections. The first on political economy, has
the following nine chapters: underdevelopment, the first decade, Ayub’s
reforms-I, Ayub’s reforms-II, The creation of Bangladesh, Bhutto’s
reforms, Bhutto’s fall, The Zia Years and foreign policy. The second,
culture, has two chapters: the culture of underdevelopment and the
imprints of the past. The third section has one chapter called
disarticulated development.

The matric text has nine chapters: The ideological basis of Pakistan,
its establishment its state and government of Pakistan, its land its
natural resources its people and their culture, international affairs,
relations with the Muslim countries and the country as a welfare state.

Matric students will find that the first chapter of their book is about
Pakistan’s “ideological basis”. The first thing they are taught is in
effect a lesson in religion since all the basic precepts of Islam are
mentioned here. From the advent of Islam in the sub-continent, the book
leaps to the time of Ghauri (not saying where he came from) and details
in five to six pages the history of the Mughals. At the end of the first
chapter, students are given several fill-in-the blanks-type and some
true or false questions (though the book uses the words, ‘right or
wrong’). For ‘practical work’, students are told to “arrange a speech
contest” on the “Sovereignty of Allah” and the concept of an Islamic state.

The O-level book, on the other hand, starts off its first chapter on
underdevelopment, by saying: “Pakistan is today and was at the time of
independence an underdeveloped country.” However, the author qualifies
the use of this term by saying that political scientists “consciously”
do not use terms like ‘poor’ or ‘backward’ (these might imply value
judgments) and instead use a word like underdevelopment, meaning that
development might have been denied for any number of reasons, and that
it might be possible for the country to become developed over the course
of time.

The next seven chapters follow as a result of the first, with emphasis
on the lack of development in Pakistan. A chronological discussion of
Ayub Khan’s regime follows, followed by those of Bhutto and Zia.

In the matric text, the first chapter is followed by a second titled
“Ideology of Pakistan”. It says: “The common objective of a nation
participating in any cultural, political or social movement is known as
its theory or ideology. Theory or ideology has great significance in the
collective life of nations. The political, social and economic theories
of nations form a style of life. Thus the system of national life comes
into being due to a specific theory [sic].”

While mentioning the Muslim League under Jinnah, the text also says that
the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind and the Ahrar were “important Muslim political
parties” ignoring the fact that both of them had opposed the creation of
Pakistan. Questions at the end of the second chapter contain a
multiple-choice section. It has a question which asks students what the
objective of the establishment of Pakistan was and then gives the
following three choices: (a) to establish an independent Islamic state;
(b) to set up an independent democratic state or (c) to establish a
secular state. The first two choices would imply that the authors of the
textbook, and its publisher, the government, seems to think that an
independent democratic state cannot be at the same time Islamic.

The O-level text has a separate chapter on the creation of Bangladesh
and talks about it in a socio-economic context. The historical
background vis-a-vis the Raj of united Bengal is also given to explain
why the events of December, 1971 took place. For example: “East Pakistan
constituted nearly 55 per cent of the total population. Yet its
political articulation in the state was significantly less.... Also in
the eastern province political leadership was not entirely in the hands
of big landlords — as was the case in the western province. A good
reason for this was that agrarian relations in East Pakistan were never
dominated by big landlords and, as in Western Bengal, political currents
were strongly tinged by radical ideas.”

The matric textbook, which contains no index, makes no mention at all of
Bangladesh. The events of 1971 are referred to in two sentences on pages
66 and 67 and the matter is referred to as a “political crisis” and a
“national catastrophe” which “resulted in the separation of East
Pakistan from the rest of the country”.

The O-level text has detailed discussions on the Zia and Bhutto years.
Mention is made of Zia’s Islamization policies. On page 121, the book
says: “A number of things deserve mention as part of Zia’s Islamization
programme. In schools and colleges, Islamiat — the reading of some of
the Quranic passages in Arabic and learning their translation — was made
compulsory. In the Pakistan Civil Service or the MBBS examinations,
extra marks were given to candidates who had learnt the whole of the
Quran by heart.... On TV the mullah was encouraged to visibly
demonstrate his authority; certainly not for the benefit of Pakistani
viewers ... women announcers on TV were made to wear dopattas. PIA
take-offs and landings were accompanied by announcements in Arabic. The
building of local mosques flourished, and their acoustics improved.”

It ties the country’s foreign policy with this move towards Islamization
saying that the latter has continued more or less even after Zia.

The matric level textbook unwittingly accepts this but goes on to
glorify this pre-occupation of a foreign policy centred around relations
with the ‘Muslim world’. No mention is made of the US (our largest
trading partner), the European Union or Japan. The United Nations is
mentioned but only in factual terms and then in reference to Kashmir.
Two chapters are set aside in the matric text, one on international
affairs and the other on Pakistan’s relations with Muslim countries. No
mention is made with reference to economics or trade, the main emphasis
being that since Pakistan is a Muslim country, other Muslim countries
have excellent relations with it.

The last chapter in the matric text talks about the concept of the
welfare state (in the Islamic sense) but does not define what is exactly
meant by that term. In a rare frank admission, the book does say that
Pakistan has suffered from lack of resources and their inadequate
utilization but does not lay the blame anywhere. In fact, it asks
students to make “sacrifices for the national interest” conveniently
forgetting to discuss what the government needs to do to discharge its
obligations.

While the matric book ends with the sentence: “God helps those who helps
themselves,” the O-level book sums up with reference to Pakistan’s
current economic and social problems. It ends with the question whether
the “disarticulated capitalism” of the Third World will be able to
provide some sort of cementing bond to remove the politician and
economic dichotomies of the region.—ORQ

____



[2]


   http://www.esocialsciences.com
   December  2005 – January 2006

   THE GREAT EDUCATION MUDDLE
   STATE FAILURE AND JUDICIAL JIGSAW

   by P Radhakrishnan*

A comprehensive White Paper on India’s higher education policy for a
pragmatic programmatic for at least the next 20 years is urgently
needed. Such a Paper should take stock of the present and required
availability of access taking into consideration the size of the
age-cohort population in the relevant age-groups, and cover all issues
relating to higher education such as ensuring social justice through
education for all, relevance of public-private partnership, admission
policy, quotas, fee-structure, quality-control and other matters.
Without this, higher education in India will continue to be in a mess
with the state and the judiciary tossing issues around without moving
towards a resolution on genuine concerns.

*Professor, Madras Institute of Development Studies, 79, Second Main
Road, Gandhinagar, Adyar, Chennai - 600 020, Tamil Nadu, India. Email:
prk at mids.ac.in .

The Supreme Court judgement of August 12, 2005 on unaided professional
education institutions, minority or non-minority, and the hullabaloo
over it adding grist to the much-hackneyed reservation mill, may help
vested interests use the reservation-backward classes-minorities
bugaboos for political ends, and the greed of those who have turned
education into exploitation, chicanery and commerce.
While it is inarguably right that the judiciary is the principal arbiter
of the laws of the land, it is also inarguably right that the people who
are governed by these laws have an inviolable right to dissect judgments
and if necessary express their dissent, which in a democracy can be
vociferous. In this context two observations will be in order.
The first is from the speech delivered by Justice Markandey Katju, Chief
Justice of the Madras High Court, on the first anniversary of the
inauguration of the Madurai Bench (24 July 2005). In it he said that
since the people are our masters, and we are their servants, surely the
masters have a right to criticise us and take us to task if we do not
function properly; so we should not take offence when the people
criticise us; our authority rests on public confidence, and not on the
power of contempt (Fali S. Nariman, ‘A Judge Above Contempt’, The Indian
Express, August 5, 2005).
The second is from a statement of the former Judge of the Supreme Court,
V.R. Krishna Iyer:
I hold the Supreme Court, in its holistic dimension, in high esteem. Its
great virtue is patient hearing, never furious outburst. Its wisdom is
profound and
  never provoked by the executive or the legislature. After all, if the
court goes wrong, it has the power to set itself right. Likewise, if the
executive and the legislature go beyond their power or commit egregious
error, the last word still belongs to the Supreme Court. Infallibility,
however, is papal folly and authoritarian intoxication. Our great judges
are free from ‘never-error syndrome'. (The Hindu, August 24, 2005)
Viewed from the above perspectives, the flak that the August 12 judgment
has drawn from a cross-section of the people – general public, lawyers,
parliamentarians, other politicians, students, teachers, intellectuals,
and so on - was only to be expected.
In fact, when the communal GO of the Madras Government was quashed by
the Madras High Court and the Supreme Court, shortly after the
Constitution came into force, the judiciary and the ministries in Madras
and at the Centre were in hell and high water. There is no parallel to
the agitation spearheaded by Periyar E.V. Ramasamy Naicker attacking the
rulings. Periyar and his loyal fighting-shouting-sloganeering-brigade
even demanded a new Constitution faulting the existing one as drawn up
by Brahmins. There was no flare-up by the Chief Justice of the Madras
High Court or the Chief Justice of India; and by the framers of the
Constitution, many of whom were still alive. The agitation was seen in
perspective by Prime Minister Pandit Nehru, who went in for the most
durable, sensible, and workable solution. That is, adding clause (4) to
Article 15 as part of the first amendment to the Constitution in 1951:
“(4) Nothing in this article or in clause (2) of article 29 shall
prevent the State from making any special provision for the advancement
of any socially and educationally backward classes of citizens or for
the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes”.
The meaning and message of the above anecdotes can be found in the
question repeatedly posed by Dr. B. R. Ambedkar” “When the salt has lost
its savour wherewith is it to be salted?” Interpreted in the present
context, it should mean that when the judiciary is the only limb of
Indian democracy in which people still have some faith, an outburst of
the kind (by the Chief Justice of India, R.C. Lahoti, on August 23 much
against the usually expected equanimity and judicial reserve and even as
the Court was hearing an entirely different case) “Should you
[Attorney-General Milon K. Banerjee] not tell your clients to give the
respect the courts deserve … tell us, we will wind up the courts, and
then do whatever you want”, against criticism of the August 12 judgment
can dampen the judiciary, make it more vulnerable, further discredit it,
and further unsettle people’s faith in it.
  In a nascent democracy - and the largest democracy of the world -,
which has been struggling to keep above the quicksand of centuries-old
hierarchy and recalcitrant social patterns, judicial interpretation of
law should be sensitive to the crying needs of an unjust society, and
its imperfections and inadequacies. Whether the August 12 judgment
carries such sensitivity is questionable.
The judgement was by a seven-judge Bench, headed by Chief Justice
Lahoti. The Bench was dealing with over 100 petitions filed by the
All-India Medical and Engineering Colleges Association, individual
colleges, the Government of India, and the Governments of Andhra
Pradesh, Karnataka, Kerala, Madhya Pradesh, Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu.
In the prefatory to the judgment the Bench recorded that the real task
before it was to cull out the ratio decidendi of Pai Foundation (the
11-Judge Bench decision in T.M.A. Pai Foundation v. State of Karnataka
(2002)) and to examine if the explanation or clarification given in
Islamic Academy (the seven-judge Bench interpretation of the 11-judge
decision in the Islamic Academy of Education & Anr. v. State of
Karnataka & Ors., (2003)) ran counter to Pai Foundation and if so, to
what extent; and if the Bench found anything said or held in Islamic
Academy in conflict with Pai Foundation, it shall say so as being a
departure from the law laid down by Pai Foundation and on the principle
of binding efficacy of precedents, over-rule to that extent the opinion
of the Constitution Bench in Islamic Academy.
Going by these observations, and the fact that some of the
Constitutional provisions have lost their original import, become
infirm, and even socially dysfunctional when not implemented
scrupulously, whether the judgment is well-grounded in broad social
concerns of justice, equity, and fairness, is debatable.

  Judicial jigsaw
The unanimous judgment of the Bench delivered by the Chief Justice,
which is effective from the next academic year, deals with the
tenability of government quota and reservation in minority or
non-minority unaided educational institutions, and admission procedure,
fee structure, and related issues in these institutions. The
observations and rulings of the Bench run thus:
  ¿æ Imposition of quota of State seats or enforcing reservation policy
of the State on available seats in unaided professional institutions are
acts constituting serious encroachment on the right and autonomy of
private professional educational institutions.

  ¿æ Merely because the resources of the State in providing professional
education are limited, private educational institutions, which intend to
provide better professional education, cannot be forced by the State to
make admissions available on the basis of reservation policy to less
meritorious candidates.
  ¿æ A limited reservation of seats, not exceeding 15 percent may be
made available to NRIs depending on management’s discretion subject to
the condition that such seats should be utilized bona fide by the NRIs
only and for their children or wards; and that within this quota merit
should not be given a complete go-by.
  ¿æ Unaided institutions can have their own admissions if fair,
transparent, non-exploitative, and based on merit.
  ¿æ Every institution is free to devise its own fee structure and
generate reasonable surplus to meet cost of expansion and augmentation
of facilities, subject to the limitation that there can be no
profiteering and no capitation fee can be charged directly or
indirectly, or in any form.
The abolition of state quota and reservation may appear correct insofar
as it is construed as interpretation of the law. For, one might ask (a)
when the Constitutional provisions for job quotas are enforced only in
the state services and not in the private sector, why fuss about
extending the parallel provisions for educational advancement to the
private sector; and say (b) as the Constitutional mandate for the social
and educational advancement of the backward classes (SCs, STs, OBCs) is
to the state it is for the state to honour it.
In response to the first, it is important to take note of the increasing
pressure for reservation in the private sector also, the debate on which
is still going on; and the fact that employment and educational
reservations are qualitatively different. As education is a sine qua non
for individual and social development, reaching the un-reached and
including the excluded through education are the most important tasks of
any humane society. Two quotes should drive this home. One is by
Frederico Mayor:1
The world we leave to our children depends in large measure on the
children we leave to our world. The world’s hopes for the future rest
with today’s young people and their readiness to take up the challenges
of the coming century. On the threshold of the twenty-first century, the
education of the young has never been more in need of our commitment and
resources.

1 In Foreword to UNESCO’s World Education Report 1998: Teachers and
teaching in a changing world.
   The other is by Alan Gilbert:2
Because good quality education promises an escape from poverty,
powerlessness, and despair, creating aspirations, opportunities, and
choices otherwise unimaginable, it has emerged more clearly than ever as
the last best, yet often seemingly forlorn hope that humankind may use
its Promethean resources to build a safe, peaceful, prosperous world. As
H.G. Wells put it in a
famous aphorism exactly 100 years ago, ‘Human history becomes more and
more a race between education and catastrophe.
In the same speech Gilbert pointed to the fact that for 15 per cent of
the world's population educational opportunities are more widely
available than ever before in human history and the other 85 per cent
remain seriously disadvantaged and often dangerously frustrated by
educational deprivation. He cautioned that access to higher education
will be one of the most serious global challenges of the 21st century.
The response to the posture that it is for the state to honour its
Constitutional mandate is that it is one thing to fault the state whose
failure relating to the backward classes has been gross and tragic, and
quite another thing to legally address the issues of the victims of its
wrongs. As the state, like the judiciary, is a creation of the society
its wrongs should not be allowed to shadow the society, and to be turned
into double whammy for the deprived sections – first because of the
state’s failure; second, because of the judicial insistence that the
state should withdraw from reaching out to the weak through the private
sector education. In this context, it is important to reaffirm the
earlier observation that as education is a sine qua non for individual
and social development reaching the un-reached and including the
excluded through education are the most important tasks of any humane
society. In this sense a liberal interpretation of the Constitutional
mandate to the state should necessarily mean that if its foray into the
private sector serves the greater good it is well within its rights to
do so. If the state has failed in its important social tasks it is for
the judiciary, which is expected to be an epitome of humaneness
(notwithstanding the flare-up by the CJI!) and social vision, to pull it
up, and if necessary work in other ways to fill in the void and redress
the wrongs.

Merit vs. reservation
The enunciation of the Bench that reservation for backward classes is
contrary to merit is untenable for a number of reasons. Among others,
the Mandal judgment by the nine-judge Bench had affirmed that
reservation is not anti-meritarian. If reservation is anti-meritarian,
it should be more so for employment. Experience has not proved this
right; for Tamil Nadu with 69 percent reservation in state services (and
education) is one of the relatively more advanced, and efficient states.
The inference that private institutions provide better professional
education whereas state-institutions do not do so because of the
reservation policy is invidious and is not borne out by facts. More
often than not, private professional institutions do not go by merit,
and are the last resort of the less meritorious who by paying extra
amount manage their admission.
When all is said, reservation policy has more to do with scarcity of
resources and opportunities than merit, which in the context of
education should be seen as lack of access to the small education cake.
Whether the policy really addresses the needs of the really backward or
whether the advanced among the backward corner the benefits which they
really do not need, is a different issue, which the judiciary is
expected to probe.
2 In a speech Education or Catastrophe, General Conference of the
Association of Commonwealth Universities, Queen’s University, Belfast,
Media Release, 1 September 2003; Web: www.acu.ac.uk/belfast2003.
  The following observations in an editorial in The New Indian Express
throw more light on these and related issues:
It is too facile to suggest that reservations are, by definition an
anti-merit principle. The fact that reservations entail a compromise
with strict indices of merit, does not automatically entail that they
are anti-meritocratic. Merit should not be judged only by the criteria
used for admission; merit can be judged also on the output side. And,
indeed, while the concept of merit should not be ridiculed, we ought to
admit more complex criteria for determining merit than are currently
allowed. And there is nothing in reservations that is per se
incompatible with producing meritocratic students… [The] Court… seems to
think that merit as an issue applies particularly to professional
colleges and not to other institutions like undergraduate colleges. This
assumption that merit, whatever it is, applies only to a particular
class of degrees is also untenable. A principle for facilitating access
must not be confused with a claim about the merit of individual students
who benefit from that access.
But it is equally important to think more imaginatively beyond
reservations as a policy to promote access. We ought to all agree
towards building an education system that promotes both excellence and
access. An ideal system would be completely needs blind: anyone would be
able to get the education appropriate to them, regardless of their
financial circumstances. But we ought to reflect on the fact that our
current investment, pricing and admissions policies in education have
not enabled us to achieve this goal. Reservation has been an easy way to
assuage our conscience that we are doing something to promote access,
when in reality it confines more students from marginalised communities
to third-rate institutions. Empowering students from marginalised

communities with real choice will require a much more creative effort
than reinstituting controls over private education (‘Think this
through’. The New Indian Express, August 20, 2005).
The suggestion by the Bench that within the NRI quota, merit should not
be given a complete go-by, thereby meaning that private institutions can
admit the less meritorious if they are children or wards of NRIs,
appears inconsistent with its insistence that private institutions
cannot be forced by the State to make admissions available on the basis
of reservation policy to less meritorious candidates. This is
notwithstanding the reservations expressed by the Bench about the NRI
quota:
In fact, the term 'NRI' in relation to admissions is a misnomer. By and
large, we have noticed in cases after cases coming to this Court,
neither the students who get admissions under this category nor their
parents are NRIs. In effect and reality, under this category, less
meritorious students, but who can afford to bring more money, get
admission.
The NRI quota which the Bench suggested has another dimension, which
columnist TJS George summed up in his inimitable style:
Actually the Court gave a stick to the politician to beat it with. Even
as it abolished quotas and reservations, it allowed 15 percent quota for
NRIs with a tame caution that ‘within this quota, merit should not be
given a complete go-by.’ What we can now expect is that the
aforementioned RI will first become an NRI-RI and spend a few more lakhs
to acquire the right to play with the lives of patients. Never has so
much been done by so many to achieve so little for the common good
(‘Merit? What merit? Money has most merit’. The New Sunday Express,
August 21, 2005).
Admission racket
The ‘if’ in the judgment that unaided institutions can have their own
admissions if fair, transparent, non-exploitative, and based on merit,
is a big IF. Many of these institutions have not been fair, transparent,
and non-exploitative in their admissions, and their admissions are not
really merit-based. One of the many incidents relating to admissions in
Tamil Nadu this year should drive this home.
On the basis of a written test, a ‘deemed university’ in Chennai called
candidates for ‘counselling’ in one of its colleges. But there was no
counselling. Students were shown a printed card informing that seats in
certain branches were available for the amounts shown against them,
which in the case of engineering was anything between Rs. 2 lakhs and 5
lakhs per year. They were asked to pay then and there part of the amount
to book the seat, and the remaining amount within a few days. To avoid
losing the seat there without any guarantee of a seat anywhere else many
anxious parents rushed to pay the entire amount.
When a senior academic met the ‘chancellor’ and chairman of this ‘deemed
university’ at the instance of the vice-chancellor of one of the
state-universities to change the admission of a candidate from one
branch (for which he had paid the initial deposit) to another, his
response was ‘the candidate has got low marks in written test, we can
shift him to the other branch if you paid Rs. 3 lakh extra for a seat on
the same campus, and 1.5 lakh extra for a seat on another campus. When
the person asked how these extras will improve the performance of the
candidate in the test which he had already written, the ‘chancellor’ had
no answer. When the person met the vice-chancellor of the university and
apprised him of what happened, his response was “Professor, we feel
‘humbled’ before these persons; private management has ruined our
education system”.
With different private institutions charging different amounts of fee,
with no idea of the likely fee-hike in the remaining years, with poor
infrastructure facilities, poor teaching staff and other infirmities the
private education system is a den of corruption, greed, incompetence,
sleaze, unscrupulousness, and what have you; and the institutions hold
the parents and students captive using the admission-uncertainty
syndrome. Here it is important to remember that while private
institutions have strong lobby, network and bargaining power through
political clout, money power, all-India associations and consortia,
parents and students have nothing to fall back upon.
The suggestion by the Bench that private institutions can have their own
admissions and fee structure may not be practical; in the absence of
standardization and state intervention the situation is already chaotic
and disquieting.

Profiteering
While banning capitation fee and profiteering in private institutions,
the Bench has also dwelt on these evils:
Capitation fee cannot be permitted to be charged and no seat can be
permitted to be appropriated by payment of capitation fee. 'Profession'
has to be distinguished from 'business' or a mere 'occupation'. While in
business, and to a certain extent in occupation, there is a profit
motive, profession is primarily a service to society wherein earning is
secondary or incidental. A student who gets a professional degree by
payment of capitation fee, once qualified as a professional, is likely
to aim more at earning rather than serving and that becomes a bane to
the society. The charging of capitation fee by unaided minority and
non-minority institutions for professional courses is just not
permissible. Similarly, profiteering is also not permissible. Despite
the legal position, this Court cannot shut its eyes to the hard
realities of
  commercialization of education and evil practices being adopted by
many institutions to earn large amounts for their private or selfish ends.
Though the Bench has held that if capitation fee and profiteering is to
be checked, the method of admission has to be regulated so that the
admissions are based on merit and transparency and the students are not
exploited; as it has also ruled that every institution is free to devise
its own fee structure, the rulings are not free from ambiguities and
dilemmas. That apart, how effective and enduring the regulatory
mechanisms can be in a corrupt society where it is easy to bribe and buy
the regulatory authorities is a big question. In this context the
following observations by TJS George are pertinent:
As far back as in 1993 the Supreme Court had declared the levying of
capitation fee by professional colleges as illegal. Even earlier Andhra
Pradesh and Karnataka had put a ban on the practice. Tamil Nadu and
Kerala and Maharashtra had followed. In August 2003 the Supreme Court
put a complete ban on capitation fees and specifically said that under
no circumstances should educational institutions be allowed to ‘indulge
in profiteering.’ Yet, profiteering flourishes in professional education
more uproariously than in, say, the edible oil adulteration business.
This results in two disastrous consequences. First, when a Rich Idiot
gets into the MBBS course just because he has Rs.40 lakhs to pay as
capitation, he emerges as a doctor who is likely to destroy more lives
than he saves. Those who are not too rich and not too idiotic will focus
on just one thing: How to recover that 40 lakhs and make another 40 or
80 for his children's admission. The second disastrous consequence is
that a poor kid simply won't get admission at all even if he has the
most brilliant brain in the land. This, naturally enough is what the
politician has seized. He says that the Supreme Court ruling is ‘a blow
to social justice,’ and that it ‘does not factor in social realities.’
And he is right. (‘Merit? What merit? Money has most merit’. The New
Sunday Express, August 21, 2005).
The judgment insists on the adoption of ‘a rational fee structure’ that
would not be ‘capitation fee,’ and suggests that the state or university
should devise an appropriate machinery to ensure that (1) no capitation
fee is charged, and (2) there is no profiteering. However, K.T. Thomas,
retired judge of the Supreme Court, who was once on the 11-judge Bench
that heard arguments in the Pai Foundation case, rightly asks how many
State Governments will make regulations to ensure that the twin
insistence is implemented, that a proper law is passed to prevent
managements from collecting capitation fees and also to ensure that
students of merit will not be denied admission owing to non-payment of
bribe money camouflaged under other names. His related observation about
capitation fee for appointments in private institutions should be a
revelation:
It became a regular practice for the private management to collect
gratification with immunity from the appointees by calling it
‘donation'. The range of such
  donations has swelled up to a two digit figure in lakhs. The
unfortunate pattern on this aspect is that none of the managements
receiving this corrupt money has chosen to call it that. Instead they
call it ‘donation', ‘interest free loan', and so forth. If any of the
appointees refuses or declines to pay the aforesaid amount, he or she is
sure to forfeit the appointment. Collection of this money is really
extortion, which is an offence. But the managements are adamant in not
showing the basic honesty to admit this practice, lest they should
forfeit their right to run the institutions (‘Courts, colleges, and
governments’. The Hindu, August 30, 2005).
Here a distinction needs to be made between minority institutions
started several years ago, and minority and non-minority institutions
started recently. Most of the institutions of the first category are
known for their earnestness in purpose, and commitment to the cause of
education. They do not work for profit. The websites of some of them
contain a notice during admission time that ‘the college does not
collect capitation fee or donation; if anybody approaches you on behalf
of the college for capitation fee or donation, please bring it to the
notice of the authorities.’ Such institutions are a category apart, and
deserve encouragement. While they are also caught in the eddy of
globalization and the related knowledge revolution, their contribution
to the society and the education system is still invaluable.
It is institutions of the second category which are a menace, driving
the education system haywire. The deemed university mentioned earlier is
a case in point. Its website claims that its ‘chancellor’ began his
foray into education by starting a school dedicated to his mother. How
that school recently spawned so many state-of-the-art buildings and
campuses, which may now fetch a few hundred crore rupees is a mystery. A
number of other similar institutions are also flourishing in Tamil Nadu
without scruples.

State’s failure
No doubt, it is the state governments’ abdicating their responsibility
of expanding higher education, with the few government-aided colleges
unable to meet the demand for engineering and medical courses, which
first necessitated the establishment of unaided private institutions. In
the absence of proper policy formulations by the state governments, the
practice of establishing unaided private institutions soon turned into
piracy, and the ongoing chaotic proliferation of professional
institutions, particularly engineering colleges, especially in Tamil
Nadu, other southern states, and Maharashtra. Justice Thomas in his
write-up mentioned earlier draws attention to the mushrooming of
‘self-financing private professional colleges' inspired by the huge
wealth accumulated by the professional college racket
  in Karnataka, and to the fact that a lobby developed and succeeded in
wangling government sanction for starting such colleges in other States.

Conclusion
Given the above dismal scenario, notwithstanding the uproar against the
judgment in Parliament and outside, and the assurance by the HRD
Minister, Arjun Singh to get around the court order, as demanded by
various political parties, legislation to circumvent the court order may
not be the right solution to the issues thrown up by the judgment and
other issues plaguing private education. We need to develop a holistic
approach to higher education and evolve a comprehensive White Paper on
India’s higher education policy for a pragmatic programmatic for at
least the next 20 years. This should take stock of the present
availability of access and the required availability taking into
consideration the size of the age-cohort population in the relevant
age-groups, increase the availability on a war-footing, cover
practically every conceivable issue relating to higher education such as
ensuring social justice through education for all, relevance of
public-private partnership, invasion of the higher education system by
the MNCs, entry of, and partnership with foreign institutions many of
which are little known, flexible and need-based admission policy, quotas
for the backward, affordable fee-structure, quality-control for
maintaining standards, proper conduct of examinations, improvement of
institutional ambience, mechanisms to ensure that no institution
collects capitation fee or donation, and committees to regulate all
these and a lot more.
In this context the following observations by V.C. Kulandaisamy are
pertinent to note:
We have to consider the quantum of manpower with higher education needed
for achieving a developed nation status by 2020. The advanced countries
are moving towards mass higher education. The following information
about the proportion of the relevant age group (18-23) entering higher
education in some of the advanced countries may prove the point (2000):
U.S. 80 percent; Canada 88 percent; Australia 80 percent; Finland 74
percent; and the U.K. 52 percent. In general, the advanced countries
have more than 50 percent of the relevant age group in university level
education. India with nearly 300 universities and 16,000 colleges has
only seven percent of the relevant age group entering the portals of
universities. This number has to be augmented if we are to become a
developed nation: it may have to be at least 25 percent by 2020.
Governments, by themselves, will not be able to meet this need. It is
necessary to welcome and encourage the participation of the private
sector, but on a selective basis and with safeguards to ensure quality
(emphasis added; ‘Reconstruction of higher education in India’, The
Hindu, May 18, 2005).

Of the 7 per cent of the relevant age group entering the portals of
universities as mentioned by Kulandaisamy, the representation of the
Scheduled Castes, Scheduled Tribes, and Muslims is too low as to be
inconsequential to them and to the rest of society. It is in cases like
these that India’s affirmative action programme has to be reinterpreted
as to make it really affirmative, and the judiciary has to be proactive
without unduly being pedantic in its interpretation of the
Constitutional provisions, and work in tandem with the executive and the
legislative wings.
To conclude, in the reconstruction rightly suggested by Kulandaisamy the
state governments and the Centre should be the major players in
expanding higher education and augmenting facilities in the existing
institutions, both in a time-bound manner, and ensuring that
state-institutions are indeed the mainstream and backbone of the higher
education system. Once this happens proliferation of unregulated private
institutions will decline, many of the existing institutions will become
redundant along with their advocacy groups, and the interests of the
backward classes and other weaker sections will be protected. In this
sense, the judgment has to be seen as writing on the wall.


____


[3]

   THE ECONOMICS OF ELEMENTARY EDUCATION IN INDIA
   Edited By Santosh Mehrotra
   Hardback
   SAGE Publications
   Rs. 640
   Pages: 328
   ISBN: 0-7619-3419-7

India has one of the lowest educational indicators in many of its
northern states – Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh
and West Bengal. These states account for most of the country’s children
out of school and most of its illiterate population. Not surprisingly,
they are the states with the highest incidence of poverty in India.

This volume discuses key aspects of the economics of the elementary
education system in the poorer and educationally backward states of
India, while also examining one high-achiever state – Tamilnadu.
Providing the first state-by-state analysis of major cost and financing
issues, the book is based on data gathered from one of the most
comprehensive surveys conducted in recent times in these states, which
was specifically commissioned for this book. The survey covered 1,20,000
households and a thousand schools spread over 91 districts in eight states.

Written by leading education economists, the original essays in this volume:
• Analyse the major cost and financing issues in elementary schooling in
seven of the eight states surveyed – Assam, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh,
Rajasthan, Tamilnadu, Uttar Pradesh and West Bengal
• Identify recent initiatives made by the governments of these states
• Systematically scrutinise the pattern of public spending in elementary
education
• Examine enrolment in government schools and the quality of education
that they impart
• Study household expenditure on schooling – the costs to parents of
sending children to school
• Compare government schools with private schools, showing how the
private sector has begun to take over what should be the responsibility
of the government, particularly in the poorer states.

In a country where administrative records – concerning enrolment,
dropout, retention and repetition – are unreliable as a source of data,
surveys and analyses of the type reported in this volume help
policy-makers and scholars get a better picture of the ground realities.

Here is an excerpt:

“Today, India has a population of illiterates that is larger than the
country’s total population in 1947 during Independence. There cannot be
a greater testimony to how we have failed our children. Of all the large
so-called emerging market economies – Brazil, China, Argentina, Mexico,
Indonesia, South Africa – India has among the lowest health indicators
and the worst educational indicators. Yet, the Indian state has always
trumpeted the fact of India ‘having the third largest scientific and
technical cadre in the world’. It is indeed an irony lost on no one that
the sixth nuclear power in the world, India, has educational indicators
for a majority of its population in the most backward states which are
not different from those of an average sub-Saharan country. These
educationally-backward states are the ones that account for most of the
country’s children out of school, and most of its illiterate population.
Since higher educational levels are known to be highly co-related with
better health indicators, and also with income levels, these states are
the ones with the highest incidence of poverty among Indian states. Poor
educational outcomes in these states reproduce poverty in a cycle from
generation to generation.”

_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/_/

Buzz on the perils of fundamentalist politics, on
matters of peace and democratisation in South
Asia. SACW is an independent & non-profit
citizens wire service run since 1998 by South
Asia Citizens Web: www.sacw.net/
SACW archive is available at: bridget.jatol.com/pipermail/sacw_insaf.net/

DISCLAIMER: Opinions expressed in materials carried in the posts do not
necessarily reflect the views of SACW compilers.