The NCHER (National Commission for Higher Education and research) is a long overdue response from the Central government to meet the demand for effecting changes in higher education.
Both the Knowledge Commission and Yash Pal Committee have placed their trust in an all powerful commission to 'rejuvenate' a system which had been stagnant for long.
The result is the proposed NCHER.
The Bill for materialising it is currently being discussed nationally by the Task Force entrusted with the responsibility to draft it.
The preamble of the Bill lays down two objectives.
First, 'to provide for the determination, co-ordination, maintenance of standards in and promotion of higher education and research', and secondly to 'promote the autonomy of higher educational institutions for the free pursuit of knowledge and innovation and for facilitating access, inclusion and opportunities to all'.
The bill meant for setting up the NCHER not only outlines how to set up the commission and appoint its members, but also it prescribes in detail how it will work on each issue.
One gets an impression from the bill that the NCHER will be more obsessed with the appointment of vice chancellors, preparation of a national registry to select members from which vice chancellors of universities will be selected, formation of the collegiums, and processes of authorisation of setting up of new institutions and to commence academic operations by the new institutions.
The bill also, of course, outlines in detail the procedure for taking decisions by the collegiums, selection of one co-opted member of the collegiums out of the five proposed by each state, the preferential voting procedure, etc.
The bill also sets out the eligibility conditions, terms and service conditions of the chairperson and members of the commission, of the collegiums and its fellows and co-opted fellows, and of the executive council of the collegiums, executive directors, the periodicity of the meetings, the powers and functions of these bodies, and so on.
Registry Erosion of academic autonomy of the universities and politicisation of the higher education institutions, the two major concerns of the NKC ( National Knowledge Commission) and YC ( Yashpal Committee), receive a different kind of treatment in the bill.
Many of the problems of the universities, including autonomy and politicisation probably lie with the leadership.
The process of appointment of vice chancellors has become of late a serious issue, with widespread suspicion of manipulation and corruption.
So far the vice chancellors of state universities are appointed by the state governments, the governor normally being the chancellor or visitor of the university.
Both the NKC and YC have noted all this.
The bill proposes the creation of national registry as the solution, but I doubt if at all it is the right solution.
Besides the appointment of the vice chancellor, no new institution can begin academic operations without an authorisation from the NCHER.
Though the NCHER is meant to promote the autonomy of higher educational institutions, the bill does not care much for university autonomy - academic or administrative.
It is assumed that if the NCHER is autonomous, universities will also be autonomous.
But the power and functions of the NCHER are so vast and so over-riding that little is left to the universities.
Thus, the bill recognises that autonomy is important "for free pursuit of knowledge and innovation", but does not give any scope for innovation by the universities themselves.
Perhaps the NCHER will itself develop and provide to the universities the norms, terms and conditions for innovation.
But with an overarching Regulatory body of this kind and with an enormous range of powers, it is difficult to imagine that any scope exists for self-governance.
Certainly it does not recognise the size factor of the higher education system and the need for specialised bodies.
It wishes to turn the wheel back and have only one body for higher education.
While we need the holistic development of higher education, It may be necessary to have specialised organisations for development of specialised branches of study.
But the draft legislation proposes the creation of the NCHER as a single body to replace all existing bodies in higher education, with the exception of medical and agricultural education, as the concerned ministries in the union government do not seem to favour bringing these two areas under a single non-specialised body.
The advantages of having a single body are not clear, while the possible disadvantages and losses are clear.
All powers and functions are centralised and are vested in the NCHER.
With such a high degree of concentration of powers, there is a danger that the new body can become a powerful controlling body, if not an authoritarian one in nature and functioning.
But before implementation of NCHER and its proposals the government needs to think seriously on the following points: 1.
What is the relationship between the union government and the NCHER? Though the NCHER will be set up and funded by the government, it is expected to be autonomous In its functioning.
Both the provisions are too contradictory.
2.
The NCHER seems to be more than a think tank for the government.
The recommendations of the NCHER may seem to be binding.
3.
According to the clause 30 of the NCHER, the commission and the central government can simultaneously make policies as long as they do not conflict with each other.
In case of any dispute between the two, the decision of the president shall be final.
But again, there are two minor issues: first, since the president is necessarily guided by the union government on all issues, it might mean that the union government has the final say.
Second, such a procedure is not allowed in the case of the state governments.
State governments cannot make any policy decisions in higher education.
4.
The proposed bill severely restricts the role of the states and the autonomy of the state governments with respect to several affairs in higher education.
5.
Overall is it not the case that the propose solution in the form of NCHER is worse than the disease?
Both the Knowledge Commission and Yash Pal Committee have placed their trust in an all powerful commission to 'rejuvenate' a system which had been stagnant for long.
The result is the proposed NCHER.
The Bill for materialising it is currently being discussed nationally by the Task Force entrusted with the responsibility to draft it.
The preamble of the Bill lays down two objectives.
First, 'to provide for the determination, co-ordination, maintenance of standards in and promotion of higher education and research', and secondly to 'promote the autonomy of higher educational institutions for the free pursuit of knowledge and innovation and for facilitating access, inclusion and opportunities to all'.
The bill meant for setting up the NCHER not only outlines how to set up the commission and appoint its members, but also it prescribes in detail how it will work on each issue.
One gets an impression from the bill that the NCHER will be more obsessed with the appointment of vice chancellors, preparation of a national registry to select members from which vice chancellors of universities will be selected, formation of the collegiums, and processes of authorisation of setting up of new institutions and to commence academic operations by the new institutions.
The bill also, of course, outlines in detail the procedure for taking decisions by the collegiums, selection of one co-opted member of the collegiums out of the five proposed by each state, the preferential voting procedure, etc.
The bill also sets out the eligibility conditions, terms and service conditions of the chairperson and members of the commission, of the collegiums and its fellows and co-opted fellows, and of the executive council of the collegiums, executive directors, the periodicity of the meetings, the powers and functions of these bodies, and so on.
Registry Erosion of academic autonomy of the universities and politicisation of the higher education institutions, the two major concerns of the NKC ( National Knowledge Commission) and YC ( Yashpal Committee), receive a different kind of treatment in the bill.
Many of the problems of the universities, including autonomy and politicisation probably lie with the leadership.
The process of appointment of vice chancellors has become of late a serious issue, with widespread suspicion of manipulation and corruption.
So far the vice chancellors of state universities are appointed by the state governments, the governor normally being the chancellor or visitor of the university.
Both the NKC and YC have noted all this.
The bill proposes the creation of national registry as the solution, but I doubt if at all it is the right solution.
Besides the appointment of the vice chancellor, no new institution can begin academic operations without an authorisation from the NCHER.
Though the NCHER is meant to promote the autonomy of higher educational institutions, the bill does not care much for university autonomy - academic or administrative.
It is assumed that if the NCHER is autonomous, universities will also be autonomous.
But the power and functions of the NCHER are so vast and so over-riding that little is left to the universities.
Thus, the bill recognises that autonomy is important "for free pursuit of knowledge and innovation", but does not give any scope for innovation by the universities themselves.
Perhaps the NCHER will itself develop and provide to the universities the norms, terms and conditions for innovation.
But with an overarching Regulatory body of this kind and with an enormous range of powers, it is difficult to imagine that any scope exists for self-governance.
Certainly it does not recognise the size factor of the higher education system and the need for specialised bodies.
It wishes to turn the wheel back and have only one body for higher education.
While we need the holistic development of higher education, It may be necessary to have specialised organisations for development of specialised branches of study.
But the draft legislation proposes the creation of the NCHER as a single body to replace all existing bodies in higher education, with the exception of medical and agricultural education, as the concerned ministries in the union government do not seem to favour bringing these two areas under a single non-specialised body.
The advantages of having a single body are not clear, while the possible disadvantages and losses are clear.
All powers and functions are centralised and are vested in the NCHER.
With such a high degree of concentration of powers, there is a danger that the new body can become a powerful controlling body, if not an authoritarian one in nature and functioning.
But before implementation of NCHER and its proposals the government needs to think seriously on the following points: 1.
What is the relationship between the union government and the NCHER? Though the NCHER will be set up and funded by the government, it is expected to be autonomous In its functioning.
Both the provisions are too contradictory.
2.
The NCHER seems to be more than a think tank for the government.
The recommendations of the NCHER may seem to be binding.
3.
According to the clause 30 of the NCHER, the commission and the central government can simultaneously make policies as long as they do not conflict with each other.
In case of any dispute between the two, the decision of the president shall be final.
But again, there are two minor issues: first, since the president is necessarily guided by the union government on all issues, it might mean that the union government has the final say.
Second, such a procedure is not allowed in the case of the state governments.
State governments cannot make any policy decisions in higher education.
4.
The proposed bill severely restricts the role of the states and the autonomy of the state governments with respect to several affairs in higher education.
5.
Overall is it not the case that the propose solution in the form of NCHER is worse than the disease?
Source...