What Orissa needs

This has reference to the letter titled “Donate for a seat” (TNIE; 23.07.07). The letter unjustifiably holds all Indians as being poor - so poor that they all need subsidy to send their wards to Institutions of higher learning. Further, it raises pertinent questions about exploitation and accountability.

We have seen the outcome of the highly subsidized education in few elite government-run Institutes with limited-seats. In fact, the “not-so-poor” extracted the maximum benefits from this subsidy. These were, in effect, seats “almost-donated” by the taxpayer for transforming “bright” students into bright Engineers and Managers who should have perhaps served their country. However, many left the country for better prospects abroad. So who has been exploited?

Faculty in these elite Institutions never faced much competition while securing research grants. The five-year plans ensured substantial funds for them to maintain “quality” (at the cost of quantity). Without any “right to information”, taxpayers were not given any account of how these funds were utilized. So who is to be held accountable?

Post-liberalization, India is facing global competition in its own territory and we need to create conditions for reversing the brain drain. The first step in that direction is capacity expansion and infrastructure building through private participation. Today, many Indians want to come back because of the prospects brightening in India. Some NRIs want to send their wards to schools in India because of its “affordability”. Parents in India, who don’t like the infrastructure in the Govt-funded Institutions, look for alternatives in the private sector. They look forward to better material comfort while sending their wards to these Institutions. Moreover, these Institutions also provide placement – an important attribute of “quality in education”.

While these are the changed market conditions, it is unfortunate that educators of the bygone century are not doing enough to support the entrepreneurs in creating better “IIT-like” institutions in Orissa. They promote their superannuated views from a regime of “unhealthy-control” that almost always failed to fix accountability on the individual.
I respectfully urge these educators to be mentors and create the next generation leaders for taking the education sector forward. They need to encourage young “edupreneurs” to handle greater autonomy with accountability. That is the essential first step towards Institution-building in Orissa. Once that happens we would be on the path of attracting intellectual-capital while extracting even better price for meeting various social obligations (including high salary for the faculty). In the absence of subsidy, knowledge-resources will command their own right price in the new economy. The donor would not mind paying as long as he/she is satisfied.

Autonomy more important

The bottom-line of this news article in Telegraph reads => “Fewer students from Bengal in the IITs and IIMs mean fewer decision-makers of tomorrow from Bengal.” It expresses “parochial concerns” for not being included within a certain “pedigree”. It seems to suggest that decision-makers of tomorrow have to be from the existing IITs and IIMs. And, therefore, it is a do-or-die situation for the students. At the same time, it is oblivious of the outcomes of globalization in the education sector. Emulating Bengal will not definitely bode well for Orissa.

Today, while other states get away (with almost anything) by expressing their parochial sentiments, Orissa’s rightful demands are being neglected. The answer, therefore, lies in “making” our own IIT rather than “begging” for an IIT. Effort will be needed to inspire students and teachers to join these new IITs in the making. Some entrepreneurs (or “edupreneurs”) have already started on this road. The moot point, will the “regulators” allow enough autonomy to make such enterprise reach the level of an IIT? I don’t see that happening till education in India faces “free and fair” global competition. I hope that day is not too far.

Decision-makers in Orissa often seek the counsel of faculty members from IIT Kharagpur in matters related to higher education. However, thanks to the long prevailing “hierarchical control” in the system (MHRD => IITs => RECs => UCEs; somewhere along we were saddled with AICTE), technical education in Orissa has suffered to a large extent. It is not that the erstwhile engineering colleges of the state, UCE and REC, did not have the potential to be one amongst the IITs. As some of us know, there was a somewhat healthy relationship between the faculty of UCE, REC and IIT-Kgp. However, while IITs enjoyed a huge share of the taxpayers’ money along with the “autonomy” to use it the way they wanted, REC and most importantly UCE were left to fend for themselves with the scarce resources from the state. The least that could have been done was to grant academic autonomy to the individual faculty. Even that could not be granted because of this urge to “control”. Aspiring for the IAS, therefore, has instinctively been considered more important than to aspire for an IIT.

Instead of urging the students to work hard to get into these IITs/IIMs (read “limited capacity”), I would urge the educators to create systems that would grant greater autonomy to the individual in the upcoming Institutions of learning.