ELECTIONS '98
COMMENTARY
INTERVIEWS
CAPITAL BUZZ
REDIFF POLL
DEAR REDIFF
THE STATES
YEH HAI INDIA!
ARCHIVES

The Rediff Special/Shalabh Kumar

When the reforms process was initiated in the early 1990s, there was some discussion by the Indian intelligentsia on the core areas that India could focus on for rapid growth. That discussion died as the euphoria of the early days of reforms was tempered by reality. Yet, the basic premise of that discussion remains valid. We, as a country, are playing a catching-up game. It makes sense, hence, to learn from the experience of other countries who have played this game successfully. Focussing on a few areas, where the country has intrinsic strengths and/or future possibilities, is clearly one of these lessons.

Through this article, I would like to re-start the discussion on areas that we need to concentrate on. Education is not often discussed as a core economic area because the commercial benefits are not obvious, while the social benefits are. Yet education and the building of intellectual capital remain a corner stone of a strong and developed country.

Japan's rapid rise as an economic power was aided by an education system which 'mothered' its technological and process engineering strengths. The German education system has for long been the envy of other countries, for its ability to educate and train citizens for all levels of economic and social activities. Sweden, another success story of the 20th century, puts education at the top of the things that the government must provide for its citizens. Finally, we have the examples of Great Britain in the 19th century and the US in the 20th century. It is a moot point whether either of these countries would have built themselves into such powerhouses if it were not for their education systems.

The education model in these two countries provided not just basic education for everyone but also supported, in the fullest measure, advanced education which pushed the frontiers of human knowledge in all fields. In fact, the resurgence of the US economy in the 1990s, powered by the developments in the IT industry, remains the best advertisement for the support and building of higher education.

Interestingly, most countries treat education as a restricted field, directed to their own citizens and shaped by their own economic requirements. As we enter the 21st century, the USA stands alone among the countries of the world, with infrastructure and support for the pure pursuit of knowledge and learning . When you think of higher education, you think of the US. It is no surprise then that most major inventions and innovations seem to be coming from the US. It is also one of the fundamental reasons for the continuing pre-eminence of the US in the world today.

The absence of an alternative to the US is an opportunity for India.

India has a chequered history as a centre for higher learning. We all know the stories about Nalanda and Takshila. More importantly, even in current times we have demonstrated, on a limited scale, our ability to build excellent institutions of education -- the IITs, the premier medical schools, the IIMs are all indicators of this ability. There are two other factors which can help us build India as a favoured destination for higher education. There is, in India and abroad, a massive pool of Indians in the teaching and research professions. Maybe it is something that we do well as a race. Then there is the dominance of English in our higher education. The spread of English as a world language will continue to work in our favour.

We have an opportunity staring us at our face. The cost of education in the US is high and the students from developing countries face great difficulty in getting admissions. To the world community of developing countries, India could become the destination for higher education. There are two caveats to this -- one, the aim is to become a centre for excellence which means it is not just a cheaper alternative that one is talking about. Two, to be a world renowned place, we will need to look outwards and actively encourage deserving students from other countries.

When I first discussed this idea with people, a very valid objection was brought up -- shouldn't primary education be the priority area, given our high levels of illiteracy? Of course, it should be. But focus on widespread primary education and building world-class centres of excellence in higher education can go hand in hand.

Any education system needs to cater to three levels: primary education for every individual, skills training for a significant sub-set and advanced education for the other sub-set. Since the system on first glance appears unfair or 'elitist', we have chosen in India a system where higher education is also broadly available and government subsidised.

The broad availability of higher education creates multiple problems. It drains resources. That's one of the reasons why we do not have funds to support a broader, all pervasive primary education system. It is also the reason why we have not been able to build a system of practical training education, an idea which has been around for some time. A bigger problem is that it is such a waste of individual time and energy. In my own extended family, I have examples of people with multiple college degrees -- BA and two MAs, BA and LLB, MSc, etc -- with jobs which can at best be described clerical. I fail to see the value that an MA in History brings to an administrative assistant's job in LIC or an MA in Economics to a police job. The cost to the nation of the number of productive years wasted by its youth is high. The cost of the frustration that it builds in the youth is immeasurable.

The education system that the country needs is clearly different from what we have. Let us recognise first a few indisputables: we do need a primary education system which reaches every individual. We will never be able to pull ourselves out of the economic and social morass that we are in with 50% of the population illiterate. The purpose of primary education is basic -- literacy allows people to communicate more effectively with each other. Effective communication leads to awareness, awareness leads to progress. Ergo, we need primary education for all.

Yet, 100% literacy is only a necessary condition not a sufficient one. To power our growth and to secure our future, we need both people with 'skills' suited to economic requirements as well as those who push the frontiers of knowledge. The second tier of education has to impart 'skills' to people -- a lathe operator needs training on the lathe, an administrative assistant needs typing, filing and office software training, a service representative needs technical training, a primary school teacher needs education training. None of these people need a BA in History or a BSc in Physics. If we could change the curriculum in the vast majority of colleges in the country to imparting functional skills, one of the fundamental stumbling blocks in our economic development will be removed.

A revamp must be preceded by a number of questions -- if primary education (the education required to make a individual know the three Rs) is till Class 4, how many further years will complete the basic education? Class 10? Class 12? Bachelor's? The German education model actually evaluates students at the Grade 4 level. One set is identified for higher education and go through different schools, while the other set is moved into skills training through the 'apprentice' programme after high school. So, could we also define basic education to be complete after Class 12?

Given our economic situation, the participation of a large number of children will be dependent on the government support provided. Let us start with the assumption that primary education, till class 4, should be made available free-of-cost through government schools. The country does not have currently the resources to make basic education free till Class 12, but that should be the long-term goal. In the interim, a merit-cum-means system which ensures that 'needy' students, with academic or other potential, continue their education will need to be instituted.

The first level of screening should happen after Class 12. We already have an ad-hoc screening system working in the country. The IITs and the medical schools have entrance examinations, while the premier colleges recruit on the basis of the performance in the Class 12 examination. The top academic performers actually get selected for higher education. But the system fails at this point because of two reasons.

First, there are very few of these institutions of 'academic excellence', not enough to accommodate all the students who should be in such institutions and not enough to build a strong culture of academic and intellectual vibrancy. It also fails with the second rung of individuals -- it provides for them also a similar educational curricula, or at least the same qualification, in colleges of dubious value. It is this second rung of individuals who need to be directed to the centres for building practical skills. There are a number of ways in which this can be achieved. These centres should be partly subsidised to start with, making them economically attractive. In addition, conversion of the current colleges into such centres will lead to an automatic move.

We are, however, still nowhere close to building ourselves as an intellectual powerhouse. To do that we will need to strengthen the few academic institutions of excellence that we have and to significantly expand their numbers. While primary education is the foundation stone and practical training a key element in building our economic prowess, higher education will guarantee our future and our rightful place in the global community.

The US model for higher education is worth emulating. The key features of the system are: