Want to go abroad for higher studies? You have to pay an “exit tax.” Want to hire a college graduate in India? Pay a “graduate tax.” Allow foreign universities but subject them to stringent controls. Bring about a new law to regulate the private sector in higher education. If you thought these recommendations of a Parliamentary standing committee, chaired by Congress MP Janardan Dwivedi, submitted last month make little sense at a time the Prime Minister has called for more private participation in education, read the lone two-page dissent note by member and CPM MP Brinda Karat. No fee hike, no private universities, no foreign universities, no dilution of powers of the UGC, these are the four key points Karat makes as she puts her disagreement with the committee on record. Her January 28 note has been addressed to Congress MP and now Overseas Affairs Minister Vyalar Ravi who was then heading the Standing committee. Karat’s logic: • The committee said that if a fee hike is “unavoidable,” it should be done in phases. But Karat disagrees. “There should not be any further hike in the fees charged in colleges and universities since in most places they are already quite high,” she says. “Fee hikes in the name of cost recovery is totally avoidable since it would further limit access to higher education.” • The committee favoured the opening of universities in the private sector but Karat claims regulation of private educational institutions will be “meaningless” if universities, which in most cases are the affiliating bodies, are themselves run by private parties. “Universities should not be allowed in the private sector.” • The committee advised the Government to be “aggressive and pro-active” on both imports and exports to benefit from liberalization of higher education, including FDI. Karat is dead opposed. “Foreign investment in higher education would impede the development of indigenous and critical research. impinging on our intellectual self-reliance.” So “offshore campuses of foreign universities in India should not be allowed.’’ • Critical of the UGC’s role, the committee called for an “independent accreditation agency with the participation of industry (on the lines of CRISIL, ICRA and ISO). This is erroneous understanding, says Karat, because it “views higher education as a commodity being produced in teaching shops. Assessment and accreditation of universities should remain with UGC.” What Karat evidently agrees with is the committee’s controversial recommendation of an exit tax for educated students who leave the country. The panel’s argument: these students get the best education for nominal fees but if they leave, the expenditure incurred gets no return. So the exit tax in the “larger interest of the country.’’ That’s not all. The panel recommends that an employer should pay an annual tax to the government for each graduate it recruits. What’s wrong with this? The panel has a bizarre answer: “a major drawback with this scheme is that it might lead to substitution of university graduates by lower-level educated manpower.’’ And then adds: ‘‘Nevertheless, the committee feels, that taxing employers based on the type and number of manpower they use has a good rationale and should be considered seriously for implementation.’’ -shubhajit.roy@expressindia.com
