Knowledge reform

The creation of a new Knowledge Commission will evoke contrary sentiments. While there is no doubt that the entire structure of education needs radical reform, India is still not as well positioned as it ought to be to benefit from a knowledge economy. A commission that can transform the regulatory, pedagogical and investment bottlenecks to unleashing India’s knowledge potential would be of immeasurable service. At the same time, the move can be seen as another example of “commission mania” that often grips governments. Commissions can simply multiply the sources of confusion. What for instance is going to be the relationship between the Knowledge Commission and the Commission of Science, that was also recently announced?

The fact that such a commission has become necessary is an acknowledgment of the abject failure of existing institutions: the HRD ministry, the UGC, AICTE, ministry of science and technology, the Planning Commission and the university system. This points to potential limitations of the Knowledge Commission. First, like all commissions, its powers vis-a-vis the existing gamut of institutions, will have to be more clearly specified. Is it realistic to expect Sam Pitroda to reform education by by-passing Arjun Singh? Second, the problem with institutions like the UGC is not their statutory design. In India, institutions with the best statutory design can be subverted if the quality of personnel appointed is not up to the task. Therefore an emphasis on reform of formal powers alone will yield little. But it is doubtful that a commission can go beyond redefining formal powers. Third, most commissions deal with general goals like increasing enrollment, and so on. The difficulty, as with all reform, lies not in the paucity of ideas, but in educating the education bureaucracy to change its ways. Fourth, any successful reform will not only have to create a blueprint but also engage a diverse range of constituencies.

The Knowledge Commission will be useful if it can go beyond hortatory proclamations, banal generalities and actually engage with the details of reform. It can provide a new framework for discussion but we should not make the mistake of supposing that a commission is itself a substitute for the hard work of reform.