Expert Comment

Dangerous discouragement of private sector

Prof. N.S. Ramaswamy

Admittedly, it’s difficult to govern a large country like India within the framework of democracy. The parliamentary democracy system based on the British model which we adopted in 1947, is responsible for most of the nation’s problems. The democratic system functions well in western countries which are homogenous societies and government participation in economic activity is very limited.

On the other hand India is a society of multi-dimensioned diversity, comprising many competing interest groups. Moreover government is directly involved in economic activity in innumerable capacities. As owners and managers of numerous business enterprises, political leaders have little time and energy for governance, which is the primary role of government. Therefore while it’s a matter of pride that we have sustained a democratic framework of governance for the past 57 years, its negative aspects and ill-effects are becoming evident. Now it’s incumbent upon all institutions of government — the executive, Parliament and the judiciary — to ensure they don’t further strain or overstretch the system which is in danger of collapse.

There are a variety of ways in which access of backward castes and socio-economically disadvantaged students into professional education can be facilitated. First, it needs to be admitted that private sector educationists have done great service to professional education by expanding capacity several fold. Starting with four engineering colleges in the early 1950s we now have 1,200 — of which over 1,000 are privately promoted — with an annual intake of over three lakh students. Moreover today there are over 800 business management institutes — of which 95 percent are private — churning out one lakh MBAs annually. Similarly, our medical education system has expanded and is internationally recognised with India emerging as a favoured destination for ‘medical tourism’. Nor is it contestable that the spectacular success of India’s information technology companies is because of the quality education delivered by our engineering colleges, most of whom are privately promoted.

By diminishing the autonomy of private unaided colleges, politicians are discouraging private educationists who can further expand the higher education system. True there are sub-standard private colleges indulging in profiteering and demanding exorbitant fees, but they will slowly disappear if maximum autonomy is given to private educationists, genuine investors, philanthropic institutions and the corporate sector to promote educational institutions. Currently they dread to enter the education sector as the procedure of obtaining sanctions, licenses etc is cumbersome within a rigidly controlled system. Western experience clearly shows that privately promoted higher education institutions with maximum autonomy tend to emerge as centres of academic and scholastic excellence.

In Parliament and even the Supreme Court, much emphasis is given to ensuring that admission into institutions of professional education is merit based. Yet the truth is we have a greater number of students who are not top performers. They are also entitled to education. In any education system, room has to be made for average and less than average students. Quite obviously government can’t meet the demand of this huge segment. Therefore, private sector educationists should be encouraged to promote institutes of learning to accommodate all desirous of acquiring professional or general education.

It’s important to appreciate that appropriation of capacity in independently promoted, unaided private colleges is wrong in principle. If a private entrepreneur constructs a hotel or an apartment complex, the government can’t insist upon 20-50 percent reservation in them for weaker sections. The same logic should apply to the education sector.

Admittedly the nation cannot progress without the upliftment of weaker sections through education and culture. If 5,000 private professional colleges are sanctioned, they could easily contribute Rs.1,000 crore per year to the government or another body to run special institutions for students from disadvantaged households who need to learn at their own pace.

In short, there are numerous ways and means through which students from underprivileged backgrounds can be provided access to higher education. Overruling well-reasoned judgements of the Supreme Court and weakening the foundations of Indian democracy is neither desirable nor necessary.