The author of the Yash Pal Committee Report continues to remain ?not-cynical? about the prospects for education in India. Now getting ready for the upcoming release of his book ?Random Curiosity? published by National Book Trust, which epitomises his philosophy that ?real teacher training is conducted by children, as it is their questions that challenges teachers to think?, Yash Pal in an interview with FE?s Malvika Chandan speaks about a variety of issues.
•What is your wishlist from the Budget for education?
I have three fundamental requests. First, no matter what it costs the ?right to education? Bill should be passed in Parliament and implemented. There is no bypassing this law and is necessary in all sections of society. Even to be a good sportsperson you need to go to school and learn how to be a sportsperson. The bill has been pending too long and needs to be passed immediately. Later on if it needs to be amended it can be tackled at that time. Second, my request would be to extend the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act beyond employment to also include ?skill and vocational development?. Rural India has a repository of local knowledge and skills that can be shared and sharpened thereby making them more employable. Finally central schools and universities need to have enough money not for unnecessary frills but to function efficiently with the requisite infrastructure.
•What was the mandate given before starting the Yash Pal Committee report?
The scope originally given to us was to do a routine audit of the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) in terms of number of complaints they are receiving, approvals they are granting etc. This exercise did not excite me in the least and I went back to the then minister of human resources development, Arjun Singh and suggested that our committee would ?advise on renovation and rejuvenation of higher education?. Our suggestions in the report are simple and once universities embrace them they will also find their own way to execute them.
•What is your underlying philosophy for higher education in India?
Our current system ?cubicle-ises knowledge?, currently our universities are similar to the caste system in India wherein ?steel walls exist between universities and between disciplines?. This needs to break and an interdisciplinary system needs to be encouraged so that students? curiosity and creativity can be harnessed. This is not to say that boundaries do not have to be maintained, but it is a well-established fact that creativity in academia happens at the boundary of disciplines. The problem is deep and emanates from the founding principles of committees such as the AICTE which was created independent of the UGC in 1985-86 as it was felt a separate entity should be created just to review technology, architecture, engineering courses. This is wrong, as its basic premise does not entertain co-existence of interdisciplinary streams.
The other tenant of my report is that we should not lose track of the ?idea? or ?vision? of a university. An educational eco-system should be open to the external environment and industry. It was the efforts of my friend Vikram Sarabhai, that led to the launch after his death in 1976 of the satellite television experiment in India which later brought the world to our homes through satellite television. Similarly universities should be a ground that develops global or cosmic awareness. Management of the university, including grades, exams, credit transfers etc, comes next, but the university needs to welcome all. Why is it that our most talented citizens are not permitted entry into our formal systems, for instance rural artists who are experts in print and fabric work are referred to as ?artisans? and not ?fashion designers?.
•How is the national council for higher education and research (NCHER) that you are recommending different from the UGC or AICTE?
The difference is that autonomy will stay with the universities. The NCHER will act as a catalyst and not interfere in governance. NCHER will be the gatekeeper to see that a university is being set up with the right intent, namely for advancement in academics and not merely as a business enterprise. My late friend Pisharoty who worked in numerical weather forecasting, looked at data and recordings from instruments but never made a forecast without going out himself under the sky, to get a first hand perception of the colour of the clouds or the level of humidity, before giving a forecast. This is called ?estimation? and nothing describes it better than the hindi term andaaz, which is the crux of education, to enable you to make the right ?estimation? with the limited information or knowledge given.
What would you say are the key differences between the Yash Pal Committee report (YCR) and the recommendations in higher education by the National Knowledge Commission (NKC).
I have to say that in essence both are saying the same things but how we approach it is different. The YCR is more inclusive and believes in organic growth where as NKC?s recommendations suggest an exclusive approach, concerning for instance enhancement for a few universities but not all universities and instead of growing endogenously as we are suggesting, NKC?s approach would be to implant one practice from here and another from elsewhere.