AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

        There can be no greater antagonist to nurturing higher education than the Human Resources Development Minister Arjun Singh. His efforts at desaffronisation of textbooks and academic management fit in with the programmes of secularists and pseudo- secularists who are chasing out of the higher educational system the ghosts which they only see and which for all others do not exist. As Sam Pitroda of the National Knowledge Commission puts it, the present regulatory system is seriously flawed with almost insurmountable barriers to entry. Multiplicity of regulatory agencies with overlapping jurisdictions constitutes a mandate not for real reform but for confusion which creates the type of chaos that occasions just drift and not progress. The source of all this is politicising of higher education where, at every decision- making level, the person in charge, in order to survive in office, plays to the (political) gallery. This converts Vice-Chancellors of universities into politicians shedding their academic complexion.

        The infection is caught by university syndicates and academic councils which slow down the decision- making process besides impeding progress.

        As stated by Sam Pitroda, the malaise is curable only by keeping at arms length the government which should not be allowed to meddle with higher education. Indeed for the good of this sector, it should be freed from the control of stakeholders including Central and State Ministries.

        According to Pitroda, the country needs a fully autonomous Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE) which would be responsible for setting the criteria and deciding entry. It should be the only agency that would be authorised to accord degree granting power to higher educational institutions.

        Obviously, the IRAHE has to take over the entry regulation functions of AICTE and other bodies while the University Grants Commission's role should be redefined to focus on disbursements of grants and maintenance of public institutions.

        It is not surprising that, by his recommendations, Pitroda has set the cat among the pigeons because he is accustomed to calling a spade a spade. It would be conceded in all hands that, but for his dynamic initiative, the country would not have had this revolution in telecommunication which has made even remote habitats in the outbacks communicable through land lines and mobile telephones. Of course, his success here is because the facilities created by him serve the needs of patricians and plebeians, the politicians and the masses.

        Such success cannot be expected for his reform proposals for higher education. Time was when building colleges was not seen as a profitable.idea. Now, on the contrary, higher education is a massive money spinner and it is idle to expect the politician in office to desist from the temptation to make money. They would see their private interest being amply served under the alibi of their unction for public interest.

        In these circumstances, the Sam Pitroda report would be left to collect dust with the government telling the legislature that his reform proposals were too idealist to fit the real world.