Deemed universities: can of worms

The Union HRD ministry’s bombshell affidavit filed in the Supreme Court on January 18 proposing withdrawal of the deemed varsity status of 44 mainly private higher education institutions across the country, promises a battle royale with skeletons tumbling out of the dank cupboards of the ministry and University Grants Commission.  Summiya Yasmeen reports

Uneasy calm is reported from the campuses of the 44 mainly private sector deemed universities facing withdrawal of their prized deemed status by the Union human resource development (HRD) ministry. The initially violent protests of students against the HRD ministry’s bombshell affidavit presented to the Supreme Court on January 18, proposing withdrawal of the deemed (i.e. auto-nomous) varsity status of 44 listed private higher education institutions in 13 states with an aggregate enrol-ment of 200,000 students, have simmered down after the apex court gave the “doomed universities” a reprieve. On January 25 the Supreme Court issued a cease and desist order to the HRD ministry stating that “nothing will happen to students or the deemed universities in question without hearing them”, staying all action against the condemned universities, and adjourned the case to March 8. While this sympathetic court verdict has brought some cheer to the managements of the impugned varsities, disquiet, anxiety and uncertainty about the future pervades their campuses.

When counsel of the blacklisted universities argue their case in the apex court after hearing resumes on March 8, they are likely to question the bona fides and assessment methodology of the P.N. Tandon Committee Report which prompted the ministry to file its derecognition affidavit in the Supreme Court. Their case is that the four-member committee chaired by Prof. P.N. Tandon, emeritus professor of neuro-surgery at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, Delhi, and comprising Prof. Goverdhan Mehta, a former director of the Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore; Prof. Anandakrishnan, former vice chancellor of Anna Technical University, Chennai; and Prof. Mrinal Miri, former vice chancellor of North Eastern Hill University, Shillong, made the derecognition recommendation arbitrarily based upon the varsities’ written response to a questionnaire, and a mere 10 minute personal presentation. Their lawyers are certain to stress that none of the members of the Tandon Committee visited the campuses of the derecognised varsities to check out their impugned infrastructure facilities and/or academic and research standards.

Constituted by the Union HRD ministry in July last year, just a month after Congress Party heavyweight and legal eagle Kapil Sibal took charge as HRD minister consequent upon the Congress-led UPA-2 government returning to power in the general election of May 2009, to investigate reports of widespread malpractice, fraud and chicanery in the country’s 127 deemed universities, 90 of whom were conferred deemed status in the period 1999-2009, the Tandon Committee invited all deemed universities to Delhi to present their best faces in August and September. Representatives of 126 deemed varsities (mostly privately promoted colleges of professional education) attended these sessions. On the basis of this limited investigation and interaction, the Tandon Committee submitted a report to the HRD ministry on October 20.

As disclosed by the HRD ministry in its January 18 affidavit filed in the Supreme Court, the Tandon Committee found “several aberrations” in the functioning of these universities. The committee concluded that only 38 of the country’s 127 deemed universities merited deemed status which confers academic autonomy, exemption from the Union and state governments’ class/caste quotas, admissions regulation and fees fixation freedom, and degree awarding status. The Tandon Committee held that 44 institutions were deficient in some aspects, which could be rectified over a three-year period and, finally decreed status quo ante for the remaining 44 deemed varsities. The latter have been recommended for re-affiliation with the Central/state universities to which they were formerly affiliated.

Although the Tandon Committee’s actual report is strictly under wraps, the HRD ministry’s January 18 affidavit discloses some of the damaging comments the committee made against the 44 deemed varsities recommended for derecognition. For instance, the committee found “undesi-rable management architecture” in most of them, a reference to their being family, rather than professionally, managed. The committee also indicted the 44 varsities for “thoughtless introduction” of new study programmes beyond the mandate of the original terms of grant of deemed university status. It also concluded that none of them were engaged in any meaningful research activity.

Yet the HRD ministry which in its January 18 affidavit has declared its intent to derecognise the 44 varsities on the recommendation of the Tandon Committee report, is likely to face considerable embarrassment. Because almost simultaneously a review committee of the Delhi-based University Grants Commission (UGC) gave the very same 44 deemed universities a clean chit. Moreover unlike the Tandon Committee, the UGC review committee physically inspected the condemned varsities and in its report to the HRD ministry gave positive feedback on their academic, research and infrastructure facilities. Nor is the more thorough UGC review committee’s report dated. The latter committee was constituted on June 4 last year by newly appointed HRD minister Kapil Sibal, who directed UGC to hold all pending deemed university applications until a thorough review of institutions already granted deemed status was completed. Sibal directed UGC to form a committee to review the 127 universities and file its report within three months.

Barely a month later, Sibal in an obvious vote of no-confidence in UGC, whose review committees have acquired an infamous reputation for liberally recommending privately promoted  colleges for deemed varsity status, announced that the HRD ministry had  constituted its own committee under the chairmanship of Prof. P.N. Tandon, to investigate existing deemed universities. In an insightful column written for EducationWorld (EW January), Dr. Arun Nigavekar, former chairman of UGC, commented that “the UGC inspection teams restricted themselves to the collection and verification of statistics relating to infrastructure rather than investigating their admission processes, the logic of their fee structures, and the quality of education they deliver. The net result of this elaborate and misdirected exercise is that the UGC committee reports indicate that all is well with deemed universities. Fortunately the HRD ministry got wind of the ineffectiveness of this UGC exercise and promptly appointed another review committee...”

The outcome of these two committees parallely evaluating the existing 127 deemed universities is two contradictory assessment reports. While the UGC review committee physically inspected 70 deemed universities, including the 44 impugned varsities, and gave them a favourable report, the Tandon Commi-ttee condemned them and recommended cancellation of their autonomous deemed varsity status.

Unsurprisingly, the Tandon Comm-ittee’s summary institution evaluation process and its harsh sentence have drawn sharp criticism from spokes-persons of the condemned institutions. Comments Dr. S.R. Khanduja, former vice chancellor and currently advisor of Graphic Era University, Dehradun (enrolment: 7,500), one of the blacklisted varsities: “We received a letter from the Tandon Committee on August 12 to attend a meeting in Delhi. At the meeting we were given only ten minutes to make our presentation, most of which was used up by committee members posing questions. Subsequently on August 25-26 a UGC committee visited our campus and inspected the infrastructure, curriculum, faculty and research activity, after which it gave us a favourable review. Moreover we were fully inspected by several UGC teams before deemed university status was conferred upon us in August 2008. Therefore we were shocked to learn that Graphic Era’s name was on the HRD ministry’s January 18 affidavit submitted in the Supreme Court. We did not receive any notice or communication from the Tandon Committee or the HRD ministry detailing the criteria under which Graphic Era was assessed and found deficient. The derecognition decision has been made without giving us a fair chance to make our case, and as a result our reputation has been injured.”

However according to Prof. Tandon, who chaired the HRD ministry’s committee, all deemed universities were offered adequate time and opportunity to make their case. “The methodology was simple. All deemed universities were asked to complete a pro forma detailing their curriculum, infrastructure, study programmes etc. Next, they were offered an opportunity to make a presentation before the committee. We didn’t visit any university because that wasn’t our mandate and this had already been done by the UGC committee. If we were to visit 127 institutions, it would have taken two years to complete our report. We evaluated the deemed universities strictly in accordance with the UGC guidelines of 2000. Parameters were given weightage and evaluated, but at this point I am not authorised to reveal weightage details as the case is before the Supreme Court. Broadly we evaluated academic curriculums, resea-rch, governance and infrastructure,” says Tandon.

Subsequent to submission of its report to the HRD ministry, the Tandon Committee has been transformed into a task force with the mandate to advise the ministry on drafting new regulations for grant of deemed university status to higher education institutions, and safeguard students’ interests.  Yet even as this comedy of errors which is of grave consequence to education entrepreneurs, many of whom have invested heavily in infrastructure and faculty upgradation to acquire deemed varsity status for their institutions, is being enacted on the national stage, the reputation of UGC, established in 1953 by the Union government as an apex-level supervisory body for higher education countrywide, has suffered severe erosion.

Suddenly UGC and its top brass is under suspicion for corruption for green-lighting the unbridled growth of deemed universities from 37 in 1999 to 127 in 2009, and turning a blind eye to academic and infrastructure deficiencies in the institutions it has merrily sanctioned. Occasionally, stories of UGC review committees demanding — and receiving — lavish hospitality from privately promoted colleges aspiring to deemed varsity status surfaced in the media, with the “folklore of corruption” (in the late Swedish economist Gunnar Myrdal’s telling phrase) indicating that operational autonomy could be purchased for Rs.10-20 crore.

Moreover with reports surfacing that the commission has also been doling out infrastructure development grants to deemed varsities (the now condemned Tilak Maharashtra Vidyapeeth, Pune received Rs.1.81 crore during the period 2007-09 and the Gurukul Kangri Vishwavidyalaya, Haridwar, Rs.1.12 crore), it’s hardly surprising that the National Knowledge Commission as well as the Yash Pal Committee have recommended the disbandment of UGC, and its supersession by a National Commission for Higher Education and Research.

Deemed universities were conceptualised under s.3 of the UGC Act 1956 on the recomm- endation of the Radhakrishan Commi-ssion on university education (1948-49) to grant university status to “institutions which for historical reasons or for any other circumstances are not universities, and yet are doing work of a high standard in specialised academic fields comparable to a university, and that granting of status of a university would enable them to further contribute to the cause of higher education which would mutually enrich the institution and the university system”.

Under this provision of the UGC Act, the highly-respected Indian Institute of Science, Bangalore, and Indian Agricultural Research Institute, Delhi were the first to be granted deemed university status in 1958. During the 1960s The Gurukul Kangri Vishwavi-dyalaya, Haridwar, the Gujarat Vidyapith, Ahmedabad, the Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai, the Birla Institute of Technology and Science, Pilani, and the Indian School of Mines, Dhanbad, were similarly granted deemed university status. With the discretionary power granted to the commission under s.3 used sparingly after due care and deliberation during the period 1956-1999, deemed varsity status was conferred on only 37 institutions of higher education.

However in 1999, when BJP heavy-weight and hindutva hardliner Dr. Murli Manohar Joshi assumed charge of the Union HRD ministry in the BJP-led NDA government (1999-2004), this former physics professor of Allahabad University expanded the ambit of UGC’s guidelines to include a de novo category of deemed universities. As per the new guidelines, higher education institutions showing promise of excellence in “emerging areas” could be awarded probationary deemed status for five years subject to an annual performance review by a UGC-appointed committee. Joshi is reported to have directed UGC to expand the guidelines to specifically enable conferment of deemed university status on the Indian Institute of Information Technology (IIIT) in Allahabad — his parliamentary constituency.

This precedent set by Joshi, and the expanded discretionary power of UGC to confer deemed varsity status on high potential privately promoted colleges, was fully exploited by his successor Congress Party stalwart Arjun Singh, who was appointed Union HRD minister after the Congress party unexpectedly emerged as the single largest party in the Lok Sabha in the general election of May 2004. In 2005 Singh plucked JNU sociology professor and Dalit champion Dr. Sukhdeo Thorat out of academic obscurity and appoi-nted him chairman of UGC to succeed the allegedly pro-BJP Dr. Arun Nigavekar. Together the duo embarked on a deemed varsity status conferment spree. Moreover for not-so-mysterious reasons, deemed universities, which were hitherto obliged to identify themselves as such in all advertising and communications, were permitted to declare themselves as universities simpliciter. Thus during the decade 1999-2009, the number of deemed universities countrywide balooned from 37 to 127, with some patently unqualified colleges conferred exalted deemed varsity status.

Among the prime beneficiaries of UGC’s liberalism under Dr. Thorat were politicians-educationists in the southern state of Tamil Nadu, where 16 of the state’s 29 deemed universities have been recommended for derecognition by the Tandon Committee. In Chennai’s academic circles, it’s an open secret that a large number of higher education institutions were conferred deemed university status because they were promoted by politicians, rather than on merit. With the DMK an important ally in the coalition UPA-1 government at the Centre, it was easy for its party members to arm twist Arjun Singh and the Congress-led government to confer deemed status on their institutions. Not just in Tamil Nadu, in other states too, suspect quality politicians-owned institutions were quickly conferred deemed varsity status. (see box)

With the floodgates having been opened by Arjun Singh and reports of the poor quality and unemployability of Indian university graduates causing alarm in industry and media, immediately upon assuming office as the Union HRD minister of the Congress-led UPA-2 government, Sibal ordered a freeze on sanctioning new deemed universities, and placed existing ones under the scanner of the Tandon Committee. According to UGC sources, at the time of the freeze order, 225 proposals for deemed universities were under the consideration of the commission, of which 37 were from Tamil Nadu, 30 from Uttar Pradesh, 24 from Maharashtra, and 17 from Karnataka.

Though well-intentioned and perhaps overdue, the HRD ministry’s intent to revoke the autonomous status of the 44 deemed universities has angered and frustrated students, who in good faith have paid substantially higher tuition (and in some cases capitation) fees to the managements of the condemned varsities. These amounts are unlikely to be refunded if deemed universities are derecognised. Moreover despite Sibal’s repeated assurances that derecognition status of the 44 condemned institutions will not jeopardise the future of the 200,000 students enroled in them as they will be re-affiliated with the Central/state universities with which they were formerly affiliated, there is the possibility that some now tainted institutions may not be given affiliation by government universities. There is also widespread apprehension of dislocation of study programmes, as some of the deemed varsities offer innovative new courses unavailable in government-run universities.

Moreover the prospect of the condemned deemed varsities re-affiliating themselves with Central/state government universities doesn’t enthuse students or managements, because academic and infrastructure facilities in the vast majority of the country’s 300-plus government-run universities are minimally if at all, better. Indeed many of them have worse market reputations than the tainted deemed universities. For instance the implicit verdict of the Tandon Committee that the infrastructure and academic stand-ards of Christ University, Bangalore which has been recommended by the Tandon Committee for derecognition, are inferior to those of the thoroughly dumbed down Bangalore University, is patently absurd. Quite obviously the Union HRD ministry has generously exempted its own i.e. government universities, from meeting the stringent academic and infrastructure standards it sets for private institutions of higher education.

The general consensus within the academic community is that in its hurry to sweep clean the Augean stables of Indian higher education and slow the process of sanctioning deemed universities, the HRD ministry under Kapil Sibal has acted too hastily. The Tandon Committee should have given all deemed universities time to upgrade their academic and infrastructure standards, since most of them had recently been given a clean bill of health by UGC. “Recently UGC had given conditional deemed varsity status for a period of two-three years to several institutions, though they didn’t have adequate faculty or research facilities. Likewise the Tandon Committee should have given the 44 institutions notice and opportunity to correct their deficiencies before recomm-ending derecognition. That would have served the cause of education and students better,” says R. Sethuraman, founder and vice chancellor of the SASTRA Deemed University, Thanjavur which is in the approved list of the Tandon Committee.

Even the 22-member Yash Pal Committee report titled Renovation and Rejuvenation of Higher Education in India submitted to the HRD ministry in October last year, which heavily criticised the regulatory mechanism for deemed universities, recommended that deficient deemed varsities be given sufficient time to upgrade themselves. “The institutions, which have somehow managed to secure such status should be given a period of three years to develop as a university and fulfill the prescribed accreditation norms, failing which the status given to them would be withdrawn,” said the authors of the report.

According to Prof. Kapil Kumar, president of the Professors Forum of India and history professor at IGNOU’s School of Social Sciences, Delhi, who in 2006 filed the PIL (public interest litigation) protesting misuse of the UGC provision for conferment of deemed university status, which is currently being heard in the Supreme Court, overhaul of the regulatory process in higher education is the first step towards cleaning up the mess. “I am not against deemed varsity status being conferred on merit. I challenged arbitrary conferment of deemed varsity status in 2006 in the Delhi high court and won. Subsequently the UGC issued an order tightening its regulatory mechanism. This order was stayed by the Supreme Court on the petition of a Chennai-based university. But the irony is that neither the UGC nor the HRD ministry has moved to get the stay order vacated. Instead they constituted the two review committees. If the ministry is serious about initiating higher education reform, it has to devise transparent rules and regulations open to public scrutiny for conferment of deemed university status. As was originally intended, the status must be given only to exceptional institutions of higher education,” says Kapil Kumar.

This is good advice, because devising clear and transparent rules and criteria for conferment of deemed varsity status on privately promoted higher education institutions which better themselves, is patently in the national interest. Perceived bias against private sector institutions is likely to send out wrong signals to foreign universities and educa-tion entrepreneurs waiting to enter higher education. Sibal’s contradictory statements on the subject have also added to the confusion. While on the one hand the minister pleads for private initiatives in higher education, on the other he has also called for abolition of deemed universities in toto.

“The HRD ministry seems to be confused on the issue of private sector participation in higher education. It wants to encourage private initiatives in education, but it also wants to continue to micro-manage and put obstacles in the path of private sector institutions. This is what has happened in the case of deemed universities. Without even serving us notice or any other communication, it has filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court declaring its intent to withdraw the deemed status of 44 universities. This is no way to encourage private participation,” says Dr. Sandeep Shastri, pro vice chancellor of Jain University, Bangalore (aggregate enrolment: 8,000 students across five campuses) which has been included in the Tandon Committee blacklist of 44 deemed universities.

Against the backdrop of declining government spending in higher education (according to an Ernst & Young-EDGE 2008 study, government (Centre plus states) spending on higher education in India aggregates a mere 0.37 percent of GDP, less than of global laggards such as Brazil, Russia and China which spend 0.91, 0.67 and 0.50 percent respectively), private investment and initiatives to expand higher education capacity are an urgent necessity. Private sector deemed universities, for all their faults, have created capacity for hundred of thousands of students in higher education. Therefore the peremptory withdrawal of deemed varsity status of 44 higher ed institutions — some of whom  have established good market reputations — is certain to dismay entrepreneurs aspiring to enter the education sector.

“If India’s tertiary education enrolment ratio is to rise from the current 11 percent to a respectable 20 percent, we need hundreds of new colleges and universities. This expansion of capacity is possible only through private sector participation. On the whole private deemed universities have played a very significant role in improving student access to higher education. Govern-ment must encourage private initiatives in education — including high-quality deemed universities — and devolve full academic and administrative autonomy upon them. The HRD ministry is not serving the cause of higher education by centralising and micro-managing private institutions. It must restrict its role to setting and monitoring academic standards,” says M.S. Thimmappa, former vice chancellor of Bangalore University and a well-respected educationist.

With the 44 blacklisted deemed universities preparing to defend their autonomous status on March 8 when the Supreme Court resumes hearing of Viplav Sharma vs. Union of India (2006), and in particular objections to the HRD ministry’s January 18 affidavit, a battle royale in which the fur is set to fly, is in the offing. The ministry is likely to be confronted with uncomfortable quest-ions relating to the conferment and peremptory withdrawal of deemed varsity status granted to the 44 condemned higher ed institutions, and the contradictory reports of the UGC and Tandon committees are also likely to be ripped apart by the counsel of the country’s “doomed universities”.

Meanwhile the fate of 200,000 students enroled in the blacklisted universities hangs in the balance, as long-hidden skeletons tumble out of the dank cupboards of the HRD ministry and UGC.

With Natasha Pathak (Dehradun); Autar Nehru (Delhi) & Hemalatha Raghupathi (Chennai)