Kapil Sibal?s plans for higher education have an ambitious outreach: he would increase college entry levels from 12.4% to 25%+. That?s what the sahibs achieve. But do the sahibs have a literacy rate of 70-75%? Do only 40% of their youngsters complete school? We are viewing an effective intake of 60-65%. The sahibs would be gobsmacked.

Now consider this. Only 30% of Indians completing tertiary education are thought to possess the advanced skills for our projected role in the global economy. If you double the intake, 100% of the newcomers may prove unfit. We don?t have enough suitable college entrants. Our globally branded IITs and IIMs, our much-prized English training, rest on a narrow base of elite schools and private coaching. The trickle of disadvantaged entrants provides little more than a political safety-valve. Again comes the nagging refrain: our whole HR edifice must stand or fall by the fate of the ?janata? schools. Our middle class may be Canada-sized, but we are thinking India.

Yet middle-class careerism alone ensures that Indian education has a quality sector at all. Can we ensure the quality without the exclusion?

Careerism has also spawned the polytechnic ethos. We would shrink tertiary education to a few fields of applied science; even there, to market-level skills rather than free inquiry. Andhra brands disciplines as ?utility? or ?non-utility?; other states implicitly agree. The humanities have suffered most, but so have basic sciences. Not long ago, three physics centres in Maharashtra shut down in a year.

Will our youth draw the economic coach faster if we blinker them? Look at their success in the global marketplace. But then look deeper.

We lament that India does not figure among the world?s top-100 universities. These are not mere technological institutes, though a few call themselves such. They cover the range of human knowledge.

Caltech has a division for Arts, and twice as many for basic sciences as for engineering. MIT has 10 Arts and 10 Engineering departments, 5 in basic sciences, plus several where humanities weds technology: frontier disciplines inspiring some of the world?s most creative thinking. India does not recognise that in the world?s knowledge order, philosophy is close kin to physics and maths, and language research basic to new directions in computer science.

Private investment has worsened matters: comparisons with America are impertinent. Our private universities ignore the roots and most branches of learning because they do not fetch instant six-figure salaries. In the world?s eye, these are not universities at all. India is intent on turning into a vast polytechnic vis-?-vis the Western university system. The latter knows better than to advance ?pure? technology, which does not exist beyond screwdriver level.

So the next quick-fix measure: let those universities set up shop in India. ?Shop? may be the word. British or Australian universities rely heavily on foreign students for revenue. This will surely influence their Indian operations: even if they charge 20% of ?home? fees, there will be 10 times the intake, yielding twice the income.

A university cannot clone itself: it is organic to its ambience. You cannot have an Oxford or Harvard except at Oxford or Harvard. You can have a well-endowed overseas learning centre with specific programmes under approved instructors, and visits from home faculty. That is much; but without other inputs, especially the library and research community on the home campus, it would amount to a deluxe polytechnic.

Meanwhile indigenous universities would lose out on students, on revenue, above all on morale and prestige. Bangladesh provides a warning example. Better the Yash Pal Committee?s call to absorb foreign players within the Indian system. The ideal mode would be partnerships between Indian and foreign universities. That would benefit the indigenous system at core, improving our own institutions instead of setting up a parallel order.

On home turf, a damaging development is the privileging of institutions with nothing in common except Central funding. ?Institutes of national importance? are equated with Central universities, ensuring greater funds and waiving quota appointments. The facts speak otherwise. Of the UGC?s 9 ?universities with potential for excellence?, only three are Central, the others state-run; but the latter receive less than Rs 5 crore a year as Plan assistance. The gap will widen once 14 new Central universities start tapping Union funds.

Again we are evading systemic reform by flaunting showpieces, erecting greenfield institutions instead of building on existing assets. The result is a waste of resources and a widespread decline of morale. The state governments, happy with their political fiefdoms, do not mind: the very neglect is good grist for the political mill.

State-run colleges and universities cater to most of India?s students. Very many (even postgraduate departments) have one or two full-time teachers per subject, or none. Part-time and ?guest? lecturers receive less than the minimum wage for farm labour. Libraries and laboratories are notional entities. The students learn, if they learn at all, through private coaching, often by the same teachers.

We need mandatory benchmarks for minimal levels of staff and infrastructure: for every institution, and every course. This means money.

India must spend that money: for state-run institutes, the only realistic source is the Union government. Anything above the minimum should be earned by performance, whether the institute is Central or state-run. The measure of performance should heed the current level of resources, workload and locational advantage. Much more can be demanded of a metropolitan Central university than a remote district establishment. The difference must be factored into assessments for future funding if we are to develop our tertiary education in a balanced and comprehensive way. There would still be differences, but determined by merit rather than accident of circumstance.

An Indian degree is an unknown quantity. An Indian graduate may be world-class or semi-literate. There cannot be another nation where so much excellence cohabits with such glaring deficiencies. A few institutional brand names are not enough: Indian education is a potential brand name. Actualising it is a viable proposition. We should settle for nothing less.

?The author is professor of English and director, School of Cultural Texts and Records at Jadavpur University, Kolkata. This article is the last in a two-part series on Kapil Sibal?s reform proposals. The first, ?We the educated people?, was published on July 2