Rethinking NCHER (National Commission on Higher Education and Research) India

G S Singh

Founder Member, Higher Education Forum and Hon. Prof. GUD University, Amritsar, India.

Abstract

In this paper , the author, after having studied the draft NCHER bill and trying to put in clause by clause suggests, realized that whatever one may do cannot put in the soul into NCHER draft bones and flesh. The draft is introduced more as making one central authority assume the charge of almost everything in higher education, as the multicity of authorities did not work for the cause of education. What’s the cause of higher education and what’s the raison d'être for creating an authority like NCHER and what this “authority” should be taking upon itself so that it does not completely subsume the role of university and institution heads and their academic and administrative authority, which is ultimately responsible for delivering and nurturing the higher education and research across India, beyond themselves. Here is a small attempt to rethink the NCHER draft bill and suggest some premises based on which a new NCHER can be evolved.

Introduction

Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru, in his convocation address to the University of Allahabad in 1947, thus summed up the basic objectives of the university and its role in national life:
A university stands for humanism, for tolerance, for reason, for the adventure of ideas and for the search of truth. It stands for the onward march of the human race towards even higher objectives. If the universities discharge their duties adequately, then it is well with the nation and the people. Quoted from: A Larger Sense of Purpose: Chapter 1 of Higher Education and Society, by Harold T. Shapiro 

Building the Premise

To pause once in a while to adjust our sails and correct our course requires leadership in higher education at each level which imbibes the trait of “not for ourselves alone”.
To quote Shapiro, Universities serve society as both a responsive servant and a thoughtful critic. Thus, although the modern research university must serve society by providing the educational and other programs in high demand, the university must also raise questions that society does not want to ask and generate new ideas that help invent the future, at times even "pushing" society toward it. In this latter respect the contemporary research university is a prototypical liberal institution, always looking for a better set of arrangements within a wide spectrum of our individual and community lives. 
The two roles of a university 1) serve society by providing the educational and other programs in high demand and 2) raise questions that society does not want to ask and generate new ideas that help invent the future, at times even "pushing" society toward it.
Both of these roles are embedded in Nehru’s definition of a university albeit at a more sublime manner.
The author feel that there will not be any disagreement in agreeing to the above two roles of a university or of an Higher Institution. In that respect any authority like NCHER should have its main function in acting as a facilitator and catalyst towards performing these roles.

Present NCHER Bill

How the creation of NCHER and whatever is contained in the draft bill will help the universities performing the two above roles is a question we need to ask and figure out whether the authors of this draft bill have the same focus or its more of creating a Super Body to regulate and orchestrate the functioning of Higher Education institutions as per some “standard norms and processes” framed by NCHER.
On the other hand what we need to address here is just not making these institutions function as per the rules of NCHER, but allow them to function and govern as education institutions which are essentially public trusts to serve society as both a responsive servant and a thoughtful critic. 
NCHER draft bill goes into great detail about the selection, creation and functioning of the commission. It also details the powers of the commission. In the suggested draft, very little is left for the universities and institutes to differentiate themselves and have the opportunity to allow diversity of scholarship, thought process, teaching and learning, research and development in chosen direction to flourish as responsive servants to the society and also as thoughtful critic. 

Rethinking the Premise

With these major roles for our Higher Education Institutions in mind, we need to think afresh as to how we can achieve this without further complicating the issues. Generally the tendency in govt. is that if a system is not producing results because of the faulty execution and the people with personal agenda at the helm of affairs, instead of clearing the mess, a new system is sought to be created. The recent notification by AICTE regarding management institutions is a glaring example of putting more controls in place without making an attempt to understand the cause of failure and hence overhauling the system and processes to deliver better and nurture the cause of Higher Education.
We need to look at the core requirements and then the core enablers to fulfill those requirements. More autocratic and monolith a structure, more difficult it will become to get all the stake holders involved in furthering the cause of education. And equally worry some fact is that in the process we lose the best people, thus encouraging mediocrity over meritocracy.
NCHER in any form should be a body more with moral authority – rather than executive authority. It should author the overall guidelines for the Higher Education in India. It should ascertain that only the best of the people are attracted to the field of Higher Education. For example it can invite people of eminence to its portal but then we will be having a “grey” think tank past prime of their productive years. It’s observed over a period of time, that a noble laureate is least productive after getting the prize. Generally a person is most productive between 40 and 60 years of age. Then we have the problem here – our beurocracy will be hard put to find out these people, who may be working on grand challenge problems, producing world class work, but still remain “unknown” as they have not got any international accolade. Major problem to tackle is how to get these people on board NCHER and into our Higher Education System.
Form an inclusive body of scholars, scientists and researchers in engineering, sciences, technology, sociology, management sciences, comparative study of religion, history and so on. This group should be an international group. Let them pose the problem of Higher Education in India to themselves and put themselves away for one month and come out with draft approach- addressing the following:

1.        What is the function and role of a university? (Yash Pal report may have some inputs here)

2.        If we agree on two roles of the university as mentioned above, then how these two roles can be realized by the university, in the context of:

a.      time dependency- changing social, economic and political world scenario

b.     What it is that will remain constant in these roles.
 What kind of persons will be able to lead these institutions?  

                                          

3.        Do the scenario building exercise for various types of institutions; say 5 years, 10 years and 15 years from now.

a.      Come out with the funding requirement, mode of funding and role of researchers, faculty and     the institutions in raising and utilizing the resources.

b.     What should be the guidelines for intellectual capital creation and ownership? Traditionally, for example – Copy Right of books absolutely rests with the author but IPR should not go the same way as the institutional resources – intellectual and material, built over years are extensively used in creating these IPRs. It’s also very important for keeping our future safe that public trust institutions should hold a substantial portion of the Intellectual Capital being created.

4.        The above will also provide pointers to how demand driven and how beyond ourselves kind of teaching, research and thought process should be evolved. Going forward, a draft frame work could guide the universities and Higher Education Institutions in fulfilling their roles.

5.        In doing all this – extreme caution and care has to be exercised that we encourage rather than taking away the heterogeneous character of our institutes. This will require that instead of a regulatory and controlling authority, NCHER functions as a guiding body for universities and universities in turn act as guiding bodies for institutes and departments with them. 

6.        Conclave also needs to figure out the way and means to curb the malpractices and also clean the existing system. For that it may be a good idea to take the leaf from financial regulators and allow neutral agencies to grade the present institutes and universities. NCHER can fix the criteria for merging the weaker with strong, to close the very weak ones or make them shift their focus to vocational education. 

7.        The selection of the Head of the Institutions from a registry sounds a good idea but is fraught with loosing good people or not even getting them interested, who may like the assurance and offerings in a much quicker time frame. It may be a good idea to have a search committee with international membership to do the needful. Search committee itself needs to be of the people who are active in the field and may know the highly eligible people from their work. 

Conclusion

NCHER will be able to serve better if it understands the role of a university/Institution of higher learning and then sits down to prepare a document for its own and as well as the institutes / university guideline. Higher education institutions should be allowed to function and flourish as fountain head of professional and liberal art education, centre of excellence, innovation, research, professional education and also act as thought leaders for the society and nation as a whole.
giansunder.singh@gmail.com