Does India need a super regulatory body for higher education?

New Delhi: The National Commission for Higher Education and Research (NCHER) Bill is all set to be sent to the Union Cabinet for approval next month. If approved, the much discussed proposed legislation will clear the first step towards the centralisation of higher education in India.  Although the bill would have to clear many legal and constitutional hurdles before it becomes a full-fledged law, it has already sparked a debate across the country on the merits and de-merits of centralising higher education. The NCHER is the outcome of recommendations made by the National Knowledge Commission (NKC) and the Prof Yash Pal Committee. While the NKC suggested the dissolution of all the regulatory bodies like the University Grants Commission (UGC), All India Council for Technical Education, the Medical Council of India and the Bar Council of India; the Yash Pal  Committee recommended that all regulatory bodies be brought under the purview of the NCHER. Although the government says that the proposed bill was aimed at improving the standards of higher education in the country, experts fear that it would only create a super-powerful regulatory body called the NCHER. It will have a chairman and six members, supported by a collegium. Many academecians expressed fear that the entire higher education system will come under the control of these seven individuals. Right from seeking approval to set up a college to the release of grants, every single process will have to pass through the NCHER. Some experts even apprehended that the proposed commission would be an isolated organisation with no democracy. India is the third largest higher secondary education system in the world with 480 universities including 25 Central Universities, 231 state universities, five institutions established through state legislation, 100 deemed universities,  31 Institutes of 'National Importance' and 22,000 colleges. Once the bill is cleared, all these institutions may come under the control of NCHER. Experts argue that centralisation of all these institutions would only complicate the higher education system in the country. Due to their size and nature, the NCHER will have to focus more on administrative matters than raising the academic standards. For instance, presently the UGC allocates funds and give academic directives to the all universities in the country. While the AICTE oversee the technical education, especially the engineering, the MCI regulates the medical education in India. Later, the NCHER alone will have to address to all these areas. The NCHER will also play a crucial role in the appointment of vice-chancellors for different universities in the country. The state governments will be forced to appoint a vice-chancellor from the list of five individuals proposed by the NCHER. Experts say that this may lead to political interference and favoritism. Experts fear that through the NCHER, the  higher education system in India would be centralised to the extent that even the state governments will have no control on important matters. Now the big question arises -- In a democratic set up like ours, can we afford to have a super-powerful body regulatory body like the NCHER in the name of improving the quality of higher education? Or, should we empower the existing regulatory bodies? Source: Hyderabad News Syndicate