The ministry of hu­man resource development (MHRD) has taken one step forward towards cr­eation of an independent entity for regulation of higher education. The draft bill for national commission for higher education & research is on the MHRD web site and is open for public discussion. The ministry is cautious when it says that the draft of the bill is as written by the task force. This means the bill is further open for discussion and change. The recommendation to set up a higher education commission was fir­st made in 1964 by Kothari pa­nel and was subsequently supported in several commissions’ report. The National Policy of Education (1986) and the Plan of Action, 1992, envisaged a national apex body for bringing about greater coordination and integration in the planning and development of higher education system. The UGC appr­oach paper for Xth plan also talked about need for creating umbrella structure to manage higher, technical and professional education.

The concept got further pu­sh when Knowledge Commission, headed by Sam Pitroda, suggested to the PM a single autonomous body to regulate all education. He argued that the existing system “is overregulated but undergoverned” and there was a “clear need for an independent regulatory authority for higher education (IRAHE).” The IRAHE, Pitroda added, must be at an arm’s length from the Centre and independent of all stakeholders. He suggested setting up of IRAHE through an act of Parliament. It would be the only agency authorised to accord degree-gra­nting power to higher educational institutions. The Yashpal panel says “all of higher education has to be treated as an integrated whole. Professional education can’t be detached from general education. It would be, therefore, imperative that all higher education, including engineering, medicine, agriculture and law, is brought within the purview of a single, all-encompassing higher education authority.” It recommends creation of higher education commission that “would perform its regulatory (task) in a manner that does not interfere with academic freedom and institutional autonomy. It would not take recourse to inspection-based approval method. It would move to a verification and authentication system. Universities are to be seen as self-regulatory bodies and the commission is to be seen as a catalytic agency that is more interested in creating greater space for the individuality of each university.” The Yashpal panel is emphatic that “the academic functions of all these professional bodies be subsumed under an apex stat­utory body for higher education. Rather than acting as bodies engaged in giving licenses to professional institutions, they should be looking after fitness of the people who wish to practise in their respective fields.”

The NCHER bill is a bold attempt to bring order to higher education. The main body wo­uld have the commission, a decision-making autho­rity and a collegium. The commission has chairman and six other members with chairman and three members as full-time salaried officers. The collegium would have core and coopted fellows. The core fellow has to be either a national research professor or Nobel Prize winner or field medallist or Jnanpith awardees or member of an academy of international stan­ding. The core fellows would have powers to coopt one fellow from am­ong the panel of na­mes recommended states or UTs. It is not clear how many core fellows would be there but one visualises that coopted fellows would be 30 in number initially. NCHER has mechanisms for authorisation and its revocation of authorisation of a university. Incidentally, the ori­ginal bill on UGC that was submitted to the Parliament in 1953 precisely had vested these powers with the UGC. The appropriate provisos in the UGC Act were later dropped because state governments felt that they are the better arbiters for planning the development for the State. Higher education beca­me the concurrent subject only in late 70s. The education scenario and its role in economy have now got global dimensions and it needs to be seen how state governments react.

The NCHER bill has powers to establish norms in the domain of academics, govern­ance, accreditation and finan­ces to universities. The co­ll­egium is an advisory body to the commission. It is not clear whether its recommendations are binding on the commission. In fact, the recommendations of Kno­wledge Commission and Yashpal panel are not reflected in letter and spirit in the new bill. The spirit is lost, as it has no preamble that really spells the larger canvass of challenges that subscribes ope­nness, freedom and flexibility. Indeed, creation of simple leg­al structure with underpinning of these elements is a present need. This is true because su­ch a legal fram­ework should support creation, running and governance of su­ch educational institutions that make teaching and research more meaningful. The larger challenges are creating space for exclusive teaching, exclusive research and teaching and research universities under private and public mode, creation of uniform mo­dular credit based structure for getting a degree or a diploma that allows freedom of selection of subjects across disciplines and facilitates free mov­ement of students among various universities. Our challenge lies in addressing issues related to full and comprehensive use of infrastructure, both academic and physical, for serving continuously growing number of students. We also have to create enabling structure for PPP and exclusive private education pr­oviders. The provisions in NCHER bill do not get larger meaning, as the background is not built on the above premises. Finally, leaving medical, law and agriculture and host of other subjects covered by other cou­ncils out of the purview of NCHER is not a good sign. What India needs is a holistic approach for the entire gamut of education, not a fragmented approach.