The stakeholders are clearly divided on whether or not to accept the New Education Policy. Its supporters argue that NEP 2020 accurately addresses the problems of stagnation, inefficiency and rigidities associated with the education system; encourages interdisciplinary education, ensures multiple choices of entry and exit, promises education in mother tongues, and all that. They welcome the policy recommendation that talks about spending a minimum of 6 percent of GDP on education and increasing the access to higher education. In contrast, its critics point out that the Policy is a poor imitation of the American model of education, tuned to the needs of the Indian and foreign educational entrepreneurs who want to make education a commodity in the market, and turn students as consumers and teachers as mere service providers. They express the fear that the NEP furthers commercialization, commodification and communalization of education in India. They criticize the reduction of central government’s allocation for education, and argue that the entry of private sector or foreign universities may help the rich, but will not do any good to the masses, as the fee in these institutions is not affordable to the majority of the Indians anyway. They also point out that even before the Policy is discussed and passed by the Parliament and the state assemblies, the Union government, against the spirit of democracy and federalism, is forcing the Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) to implement the same. Let our political representatives, teachers’ associations and student organizations debate over the veracity of these contrasting arguments. On my part, in this piece, let me focus only on the implications of the NEP for universities and HEIs in the northeast.
In a country like India where educational standards and access vary from region to region, and community to community, it does not always make sense to enforce a uniform admission policy in all HEIs. Unlike the universities like JNU, UoH, Delhi University, etc., which cater to all India needs, the central and state universities in the north-eastern states are created to address basically to the educational and economic needs of the disadvantaged communities and the backward regions of the northeast. Here the universities offer different types of official and unofficial preferential policies for the local students in the admission. Universities like NEHU may find it difficult to go for all India entrance tests for that admission, as it may not be perceived as advantageous to the locals.
As Education is in the Concurrent List, unless the NEP becomes an Act, it is not binding on state governments to accept its recommendations. Many proposals made in the NEP for the UG cannot be implemented unless the colleges under the state government are roped in. For example, whether a central university like NEHU should have one year PG, or a two-year PG depends on whether the colleges would prefer to offer a three-year degree or a four-year degree. It needs a larger consultation with the state government, the college managements and also the general public. Similarly, teaching PG courses in local languages is unthinkable in multilingual north-eastern states.
The NEP insists on making all HEIs multidisciplinary. For the idea to become a reality, it is essential to design appropriate courses, fill up all vacant faculty positions, and even make a provision in the University Regulations enabling appointment of teachers from other disciplines. NEHU has been experimenting with the CBCS system at PG level with some success. But there are problems in implementing the CBCS at UG level. Some resourceful colleges in Shillong and Tura may be in a position to implement CBCS to some extent, but most colleges in the city and in semi-urban areas will not be in a position to run the CBCS. Further, we don’t need to be excited about entry and exit options that the NEP proposes, for, a degree is viewed as a minimum qualification for most jobs. The students have little to gain if they drop out after one year or two years with a certificate or diploma.
Teaching and research are integral parts of any University or HEIs. Ignoring this aspect, NEP proposes into Research Universities and Teaching universities. Given that the teachers in NEHU and other universities in the northeast publish less, one is not sure whether the government would declare them as just Teaching Universities. For different reasons the teachers in the universities in the northeast devote more time for teaching, less on publications. While advocating the need for increasing the number of quality publications from the faculty and research scholars, there is a need to identify the reasons and address the problem. Further, there is a danger that the proposal for Autonomous Colleges encourages the sprouting of predatory private commercial colleges which start different courses and grant degrees without any control from the University. What would be the fate of the students emerging from such colleges where the admitted students spend thousands of rupees as fee and secure degrees with little market value?
NEP 2020 gives emphasis on online teaching methods. The Pandemic has shown us both the possibilities and limitations of information technology. It is true that there is so much on the internet today which can be made use of for improving our teaching and research. The universities in the northeast should create infrastructure in the form of multi-digital classrooms, a digital library and a well-equipped studio for recording, preserving and uploading our lectures and talks. At any time, or anywhere, the students, scholars and teachers should be able to access the library sources through the internet. While creating facilities for online teaching, it is necessary to keep in mind that the online teaching should be supplementary, never as an alternative to offline teaching. Healthy, humane and cordial one to one relationship between the student and teacher is essential for overall growth of the students. There is really no joy in sitting and talking in front of a laptop, and giving lectures without knowing whether the audience is really listening and enjoying our lectures, or sleeping and whining during our lectures. The governments should not be allowed to use online teaching as an excuse to reduce the number or the significance of teachers.
Some proposals that the NEP makes are good, and it is possible to implement them. The NEP proposes that pedagogy should be taught as a paper for scholars pursuing Ph.D. programs. The MHRD is also insisting on making ethical considerations a part of the research course for Ph.D. Such recommendations can be implemented without much difficulty. NEP also talks about academic leadership. The document says, “Leaders of an HEI will demonstrate strong alignment to Constitutional values and the overall vision of the institution, along with attributes such as a strong social commitment, belief in teamwork, pluralism, ability to work with diverse people, and a positive outlook.” However, given the nature of politics and the continuing feudal values and practices in universities / HEIs, one only hopes these ideas would indeed become a reality one day.
To sum up, the state governments, the universities and the people in the northeast should take a selective look at the NEP, and decide what is good for the people and the region in the long run. There is no need to be unduly sceptical, but at the same time one should not be in a hurry to accept everything without understanding the consequences of uncritical acceptance. Let all stakeholders understand, discuss and debate, and choose the best options that would increase the reach and improve the quality of HEIs in north-eastern states.
(The writer teaches Political Science in NEHU: email [email protected])
