Opinion Abandon silos in higher education

Ashutosh and Radhakrishnan were rare. Most Indian universities remained examination and degree factories. When J.N. Tata wanted to endow an advanced institution focused on science (he felt there were too many lawyers and not enough scientists produced by British Indian universities),he chose to locate the Indian Institute of Science in Bangalore,outside the stultifying atmosphere of British India. The syllabus-examination-degree focus of Indian universities was accompanied by a “silo” strategy. Institutions were not developed as multi-disciplinary bodies operating in proximity. Roorkee was devoted exclusively to engineering — no place for economics or social sciences. Although part of Madras University,Guindy had a separate campus far away,devoted only to engineering. GS Medical College (better known as KEM Hospital) was far from,and had very little to do with,Bombay University. Again,no scope for inter-disciplinary work.

After independence,Nehru,realising that state politicians were bound to take over existing universities,tried to create “islands of excellence” through IITs and IIMs. Unfortunately,we adopted the “silo” model again. IITs would teach engineering,ISI would teach statistics,IIMs would teach management,AIIMS would teach medicine,FTII would teach film and so on. Our specialisation approach went to ridiculous levels — we have an Institute of Foreign Trade and an Institute of Infrastructure Management!

The problem with silos as distinct from inter-disciplinary universities is that “research” and “new knowledge creation” happens precisely in inter-disciplinary areas. Adam Smith was an economist and a professor of moral philosophy; the Delhi School of Economics would find it difficult to slot him in. (Amartya Sen holds professorships in both philosophy and economics at Harvard.) To attract a good physics professor,you need to assure her that sufficient PhD students will be available. In IITs,with the focus on engineering,physics PhD students are difficult to find. Good economics professors may avoid IIMs,as economics PhD students may not come to IIMs.

CSIR laboratories are silos twice over. They are laboratories focused on research. For research to take place,you need PhD students,Master’s students to do the grunt work and undergraduates providing the base. Otherwise top researchers are simply not that productive. Recently some CSIR labs have started giving PhDs. The IITs,IIMs,ISIs,FTIIs and CSIR labs should consider the option of becoming full-fledged universities. They have brands,resources,land (scarce in post-Singur India). If Carnegie and MIT,which started as engineering colleges,can have great literature and music departments,why not these?

Autonomy is important. The medieval European universities of Bologna,Heidelberg,St Andrews and so on were given autonomy by charter. They were run by “fellows” without interference by crown or state. They developed robust intellectual traditions. Victor Hugo captures the eclectic traits of the Sorbonne in The Hunchback of Notre Dame. Oxford theologians stood up to Mary Tudor. During the English Civil War,Oxford supported Charles I and the Cavaliers; Cambridge supported Cromwell and the Roundheads.

Autonomy,scope for dissent,the pursuit of excellence undisturbed by the state — these are prerequisites for research and knowledge creation. This autonomy was never disturbed even when the state provided funding. If the king or queen gave money,the fellows would happily name the institution King’s College or Queens’ College. That was about all. The sovereign had no role in running it. In America,the independence of universities was fiercely protected. When the state of New Hampshire wanted to take over Dartmouth,the college fought and prevailed.

Bombay,Calcutta and Madras Universities were established subject to government control. This increased after independence with the formation of the UGC and with governments politicising appointments. In West Bengal,for thirty years now,all teaching posts are reserved for those in favour with the Party. Higher education there has pretty much collapsed. During the permit-licence raj,Indian businesses looked for foreign collaborators. Less than ten years after liberalisation,the Tatas produced the Indica; in less than fifteen years the Mahindras produced the Scorpio; and in less than twenty years the Tatas are producing the Nano. In higher education we have had no Narasimha Rao-led liberalisation. We are dependent on foreigners to create new knowledge.

Our best academics in diverse fields are creating knowledge abroad. Ironically,the best professors of Indian history (Dipesh Chakrabarty,Sanjay Subrahmanyam),Telugu literature (Velcherlu Narayana Rao) are not teaching in India. I am told that last year the US produced more Sanskrit PhDs than India. We seem to believe in outsourcing knowledge creation to America and Britain.

After ten years,our growth rate will start falling unless we become a country that produces original research,focuses on discoveries,inventions,innovations and creativity. I am not persuaded that the private sector will fill this gap. Even in countries where private universities flourish,the ecosystem includes a vibrant public university system. Unless by a supreme act of historic political sagacity Sibal and Manmohan Singh move fast to encourage IITs,IIMs,CSIR labs and so on to become full-fledged multi-disciplinary universities,unless they guarantee them large annual grants,unless they give them autonomy where the governors become self-perpetuating autonomous groups like company boards,India’s future is pretty dismal.

jerry.rao@expressindia.com