Not reservations, this policy is about statism

There are 265 universities, 13,150 colleges, 8.821 million students and 0.427 million teachers (2003 figures) that make India one of the largest higher education systems in the world. If we recall that in 1950-51, there were only 32 universities and 0.175 million students, it is easy to visualise the phenomenal growth. To complete the numbers, India?s gross expenditure on education, both central and state governments, is over Rs 1 lakh crore or 3.5% of the GDP, with an expectation of doubling in the next two years. Total expenditure is likely to touch the promised figure of 6% of GDP before 2009.

At the other end of the statistics, India has only 8-9% of its relevant age group enrolled for higher education, very much lower than in developed countries. At the primary level, India has about 41 million illiterates in the 7-13 age group and 16 million illiterates in the 14-17 age group; they account for about 27% of the total population of the relevant age groups. Women illiterates far outnumber men and the traditionally backward scheduled castes, scheduled tribes and Muslims (accounting for about 47% of India?s population) have a higher share of illiteracy.

It is important to recognise that there is a problem. As per census 2001, the share of graduates in the 20-24 age groups is 8%. In the scheduled castes, this falls to only 2.3% of the population, and 3.6% of the population for scheduled tribes. Only 4% among Muslims. It rises to around 10% for caste Hindus and 11% for Christians.

In my state of Tamil Nadu, communal rotation for state government jobs was introduced by a government order in 1932, several years before independence. Only every twelfth to fifteenth job could be given to a forward community candidate. The ?forward communities? had much stricter admission criteria at every level in education, and reservations have been at over 69% for several decades now.

These reservations have done more good than harm. The competition for the top 10% of marks in any public examination clearly demonstrates the advantages of affirmative action. There is no evidence that reservations have re- sulted in a decline in standards of skills or technology in the state.

Even at the all-India level, that reservations have had impact can be seen from the fact that the proportion of first generation students in universities has been rising dramatically. The ratio of general to SC/ST students has dropped from almost 12:1 to 8:1 by the early 90s.

The concerns over the policy stem from totally different considerations. Devesh Kapur and Pratap Bhanu Mehta argue in a Harvard Working Paper that higher education in India has been de facto privatised on a massive scale. This privatisation has resulted from a breakdown of the state system and an exit of Indian elites from public institutions, as private philanthropy slowly withdraws.

The education policy has been captured by vested interests that use these institutions for commerce. The state, through its policies, having allowed this to happen, now feels that these vested interests are a power group of their own, and feels a need to reassert its authority.

Second, there is a wide variation in the institutions of higher learning. More than four fifths of the students in higher education are not in professional schools like engineering and medicine. Most of these universities do not perform any signalling effect to the job market, as a degree from these universities could mean anything in terms of quality. There are only a few institutions that command, for their students, an instant job market, and admission criteria to these are extremely fierce. The discussions in the media about the new policy have been entirely about these institutions.

Finally, much of what goes as state policy is a product of the overriding concern of the education bureaucracy, namely state control in as many ways as possible. Not just in approvals for institutions, for the ways in which history should be taught, but very much for ways in which every aspect of the process could be regulated?almost as though, having lost the public funding nature of the policy, they need to control the sector through increasing regulatory complexities.

And hence such a policy. The objectives of the policy are therefore, not reservation per se at all. At one level, it is an attempt to exercise political control over the body of the private owners of the institutions?to make sure they acknowledge and respect the mandates of the state, and are therefore unable to exercise any societal or political independence. It is an exercise to curb commercial activity and, indeed, an act of jealousy that a group can prosper without the umbrella of the state.

At the next level, having failed in enunciating a policy for improving the job markets for higher education graduates, it is an attempt to share out the small pie of the IIT and IIM admissions to their political clientele as a measure of vote catching. The efforts may yield some more OBC and SC/ST graduates from these institutions, but not provide any improved opportunities for the millions in other higher education institutions.

Finally, quietly, it is an empowerment of the bureaucracy, of the babus and the regulators, who can now visit, examine, ask questions and be feted by a much larger number of institutions than they would otherwise have been able to.

The policy is not about reservations, it is about statism, exercise of power over selected interests and about expression of inability to provide education that can provide employments and livelihoods. As Myrdal said in his Asian Drama several decades ago, in developing countries, when action is infeasible, activities replace action. This is a clear example.

?The writer is a former finance secretary and economic advisor to the PM