New government, old higher education policies?

As the countdown to India's 2014 parliamentary elections begins, academics and social experts are cautious about predicting drastic change in education policy by any government that comes to power in New Delhi.

The general election will be held from 7 April until 12 May, with poll dates staggered for different states. Results will be declared on 16 May.

However, with young people aged 18 to 23 accounting for 8% of the country's 814 million eligible voters, what the main parties say on education and jobs is being watched closely for clues that could sway a youthful electorate.

Some analysts say the political leaders of the two main parties, the Bharatiya Janata Party, or BJP, and the Indian National Congress, offer no new vision for higher education.

Although dramatic changes are not expected, better administration and implementation of existing legislation could go a long way in reforming education, especially higher education, educationalists say.

Some announcements have been populist.

In its all-encompassing election manifesto unveiled on 26 March, Congress promised to set up 70 new universities - part of its previously announced Rs10 billion (US$166 million) Rashtriya Ucchatar Shiksha Abhiyan, RUSA, or National Mission on Higher Education.

The overall aim of RUSA, initiated by the Ministry of Human Resource Development in 2013, is to increase the gross enrolment ratio in higher education from 18% now to 30% by 2020.

The party has also pledged in its manifesto to create a separate national commission for youth and students, and make "systematic efforts" to address discrimination against students from states such as Kashmir, and India's neglected north-east - a response to attacks on students in these regions. Some are previously declared policies.

Analysts said it was unclear yet how these policies would be implemented, particularly the acquisition of land - a controversial issue in India - and building the infrastructure.

A previous human resource development minister under the Congress-led government, Kapil Sibal, had said the country needed to build 1,000 new universities in the next decade.

Modi's plan

The BJP's prime ministerial candidate Narendra Modi is seen by many as an answer to India's policy woes including the challenges of corruption, inflation, economic stagnation and developmental issues such as access to quality education and health.

Modi has said during his campaign that if elected, his government would set up top quality Indian institutes of technology (IITs) and Indian institutes of management (IIMs) in all states and new All-India institutes of medical sciences (AIIMS) to expand quality medical training.

He has spoken of the need to link research and education to the country's development needs, flagged up the poor performance of Indian universities in global rankings and compared them to China, and highlighted the need for skills-building and creating jobs in a country where 65% of the population is under 35.

Notably, addressing the ninth convocation of SRM University near Chennai recently, Modi welcomed the increasing role of private players in the education sector.

"Personally, I think we should encourage private participation on this front, and aid the creation of institutions. But I believe that the process of institution building should begin with the government. That's why I have been saying there should be an IIT, an IIM and an AIIMS in every state," said Modi.

But academics say this is not radically different from what the Congress-led left-leaning ruling coalition known as the United Progressive Alliance, or UPA, has been propagating for the last 10 years.

"The present government has set up 14 new IITs and IIMs and several central universities. They have set targets for skilling 500 million Indians by 2020," noted Deepak Pental, a professor of genetics at Delhi University.

Implementation

Pental added that the 12th Five Year Plan (2012-17) already states that private participation is necessary to expand the higher education sector, as the government does not have the finances or capacity to cater to growing demands for quality higher education institutions.

"What political parties have not said is how they are going to achieve all this. The existing new universities and institutions are struggling to find quality faculty, set up world-class infrastructure and conduct teaching and research," Pental said.

"The UPA attempted to reform higher education by bringing several bills into parliament. But no political party, including the BJP, has clearly stated their position on these bills. Do they oppose the bills? If so, on what grounds? What is the alternative that they are suggesting?"

According to Narayanan Ramaswamy, head of education at the consultancy firm KPMG India, no political party has given higher education the importance it deserves. The higher education sector needed a strong government at the centre, he said.

"Over the last two years we saw complete paralysis and no leadership in the education ministry. A lot of ad hoc announcements were made in the past year.

"But the greatest challenge is that this did not concern the opposition or other parliamentarians. No one took a stand against the lack of political leadership in higher education," said Ramaswamy.

A new government also needs to take tough action on corruption in admission policies, conduct quality checks on both government-funded and private institutions and tackle the faculty shortage crisis, Ramaswamy said.

More private participation

Whichever government comes to power in New Delhi, the role of private players in higher education is bound to increase.

The UPA government has already envisioned a greater role for private players and engaged industry and the private sector, especially in setting up institutions of vocational and skills education. Modi has also expressed his support for private players.

Dhruv Raina, professor of social sciences in the Zakir Hussain Centre for Educational Studies at Jawaharlal Nehru University in New Delhi, sees both parties pressing ahead on the privatisation agenda.

"The consequences of privatisation would be more complex if not thought through and regulated," Raina warned, in particular if unregulated private players invest only in certain types of teaching institutions.

He noted that private players have mostly been interested in technical and professional education such as management, IT, engineering and medicine, rather than comprehensive universities that encompass the sciences, liberal arts and social sciences.

"What of the role of social sciences? Political leaders are talking of opening IITs, IIMs and skill-based institutions. But where is the balance in a deeply complex society such as ours, where inclusive and sustainable development is being put on the sidelines?" Raina asked.