| |
|
The Colonial Legacy and India's Knowledge Infrastructure Although it has become very fashionable in India's elite academic circles to discount the lingering effects of colonization on the trajectory of the Indian Research and Education System and to direct all ones ire and frustration on post-independence leadership errors, a deeper analysis might require us to be less sanguine about the colonial legacy, and more forgiving towards the unintended consequences (or the shortcomings) of well-intentioned schemes initiated by India's post-colonial leaders. For instance, although many concerned Indian educators and academicians have raised several grave and important issues concerning some of India's crumbling universities, there have not been any comprehensive studies that can adequately gauge the quality of teaching, research and knowledge-dissemination by India's educational institutes. By and large, critics of the Indian Education System have mostly relied on personal experience and insights gained from many years of association and interaction with other Indian educators. Valuable as this experience might be, it cannot substitute for a more systematic, comprehensive, dispassionate and objective analysis of the situation. In part, this is because India is simply too large (and too diverse) for any Indian educator to be sufficiently aware of the strengths and weaknesses of education, research and knowledge dissemination in India. As a result, critical writings on what ails India's universities (or government research labs) often fail to see what is actually working well in India, and are usually unable to point to cases where a particular university (or individual department at a University) or research lab (that in spite of all the odds) may have emerged as a centre of excellence (such as IICT Hyderabad) or others such as some CSIR labs/institutes in Goa, Pune, Karaikudi, Lucknow and Chandigarh) that are doing good work in their assigned fields. For criticism to be truly effective and constructive, it can be as important to identify the positives, as it might be to highlight the failings and weaknesses. In the absence of good metrics that can be used to truly assess the strengths and weaknesses of India's academic institutions and government research labs, there is a tendency to either go with ones own limited experience, or rely upon hearsay, or go by ratings assigned by institutions such as the NAAC - whose ranking methodology is inexcusably vague and subjective, and sorely lacks concrete metrics and objective criterion that could provide at least a few tangible measures concerning the strengths and weakneses of Indian knowledge-institutions. For instance, there are many useful statistics that can shed at least some indirect light on the quality of a particular academic institution. One could look at qualifications of the faculty in terms of degrees obtained (PhD, MPhil, MS, PG-Diploma etc), or scientific papers published in refereed international or Indian journals, citations of research by other academicians (as a gauge of impact), papers presented at conferences (national and international), projects undertaken (scientific or industrial), students guided (Post Docs, PhDs, MPhils etc), invitations to PhD or other peer review panels, activities pertaining to knowledge dissemination (such as talks, organization of seminars, participation in industrial studies, articles in popular science and technology magazines,publiciation of lecture notes on websites). One could also look at the total research (or project) output produced by past and present researchers while at the university (to assess the nature of the general environment at the university as opposed to the motivation and abilities of individual faculty members) year by year (or in five-year periods). One might also look at whether a university provides good access to the Net, offers a comprehensive web-site that provides detailed statistics and complete profiles of the all the faculty members(along with research interests, research output, project work and other related information) so that potential students and external researchers could be inspired to seek admission or develop a mutually beneficial relationship with faculty whose interests might complement or supplement the interests of the external researcher. But it does not appear that these (or other such parameters) are used in a transparent and systematic way (or used at all) by the NAAC when it ranks Indian Universities. As a result, a supposedly high-ranked university (such as Bangalore) has gotten away without a web-site, and other highly-ranked universities (such as Lucknow) offer very little information on the web. Nor do most universities bother to keep any records or statistics along the lines mentioned. Ironically, a recent NASSCOM study that attempted to rank the IT Departments at various academic institutions did a somewhat better job, and some of its findings were not entirely on expected lines. In fact, the study was notable for the counter-intuitive results it produced. For instance, BITS Pilani (which enjoys a highly favorable reputation) was ranked relatively lower on objective criterion. On the other hand the public perception of IIT Guwahati and BHU-IT trailed their concrete achievements. Surprisingly, when it came to research output, it was BHU-IT that outperformed all its peers (including top-ranked IIT Kanpur). Clearly, what the country needs is much better data, and many more such studies (that are more comprehensive) that are widely disseminated so that Indian policy-makers can make more informed decisions as to who to fund, and how to fund, and where to take corrective action when necessary. Moreover, Government and Private Research Labs must also be subject to such critical scrutiny as must all affiliated colleges (whether state-funded or private) so that their performance can also be better assessed. In India's system of affiliating universities, detailed performance statistics are essential to track the quality of the large number of colleges that may be affiliated to a single university. In addition, guidelelines for lecturers and preofessors at the affiliated colleges are either non-existent or deliberately vague.For instance, there are many private colleges where almost all teaching is performed by faculty members with no more than an undergraduate degrees and virtually no industry experience. One might at least expect the NAAC to require that inexperienced undergraduates only be allowed to teach first year courses. That a Masters degree (or a few years of industry or project experience) be mandatory for second year science and engineering courses. For third year courses, the minimum requirement could be set at an MPhil (or diluted for those with industry or project/research experience), and for final year courses, faculty members must have a PhD (suitably diluted for Mphils with appropriate other experience). There also needs to be better tracking mechanisms for student performance and student feedback concerning the operations of labs and libraries at the affiliated colleges. Government agencies such as NAAC, UGC, DST, etc. need to do a much better job in making the data that they do have more readily available to the Indian Public - especially Indian journalists - so that when they write about issues pertaining to knowledge generation and dissemination, they can write with factual authority, rather than rely upon the possibly biased opinions of this or that public official, or individual academic. In the absence of comprehensive data, there is the danger that any published study could be taken as the last word on the Indian Education System. A case in point is how the nation's English-language media picked up on a Chinese study that ranked only one Indian University (Calcutta University) amongst the world's top academic institutions. Unfortunately, no one cared to examine the study carefully as to its validity or relevance to India. For instance, no one noted that the study was a rather light-weight perfunctory study that relied almost entirely on a few select Internet Databases that are not universally accessible - so cannot be evaluated for the accuracy and completeness of their data. No Indian reporter was puzzled by how a preponderance of the "top" universities were located in the English-speaking world even though it is quite well-known amongst physicists that some of the world's best science labs are in Germany and Switzerland. Some of the best engineering research has emanated from Science and Technology universities in Germany, Japan and Korea - but again, not enough of them made it to the top. The study also gave considerable importance to Universities that had Nobel-Prize winners on their rolls. But there are many other International Science Awards that are often much more significant, and are less subject to political manipulation. Had other awards also been considered, the picture may have been quite different. For instance, the UGC has rightly ranked Hyderabad University as an 'Island of Excellence' and identified its Science Departments as the nation's very best. Although a relatively young University, and also a relatively small university (when compared to Delhi University) - the research output of its science faculty is very impressive, and its Professors are not entirely lacking in International Awards or international recognition in their specific fields. But none is a Nobel Prize winner - so of course, Hyderabad wouldn't make it to the elite list. Just last year, an Indian physicist at Shimla University documented some important lacunae in Einstein's Theory of Relativity. Not only has he not won a Nobel Prize, he has not even been taken seriously by the Indian scientific community, let alone physicists abroad. After much effort, he was able to publish his work in a Canadian journal. But until then, without reading or understanding his arguments, he was treated with an irrational skepticism by his peers - the operative assumption being that how could any one prove Einstein - the very God of modern Physics - wrong or inadequate, and that too an unknown Indian from an obscure Indian university! Of course, even if an Indian Scientist were to win a Nobel Prize, it is highly unlikely that he or she would stay on in India. TIFR and IISC have seen too many top reseachers leave after achieving international recognition. Living conditions in cities like Mumbai are so pathetic when compared to international standards, that Indian researchers can hardly be blamed for migrating towards greener pasture abroad. This poses a particularly serious problem for Indian Institutions seeking international recognition. Suppose an Indian Researcher did his or her best work in the five years he or she was in India - say at TIFR. In that period, the researcher was extraordinarily productive. But as soon as the Researcher left to join a US (or other) university, most international databases would log his creative output at TIFR in the tally of the university where he was currently affiliated. TIFR would lose any claims to all that research. (This is not just a theoretical possibility - it has actually happened, and more than once.) Unless Indian knowledge institutions kept a log of all the research produced (independent of the specific location of researchers that may have subsequently migrated to the US, Britain or Australia) one would not get a good idea as to which Indian institutions offered an environment that was conducive to quality research. All too often, the world's best researchers end up in the US, but more often than not, their best research is conducted elsewhere. This is especially the case with some of India's best researchers who leave either due to lack of recognition, or lack of appropriate labs and substantive research grants, or simply because they are seeking a more renumerative position abroad. Not only are Indian researches leaving for positions in the US, Britain, Australia and Europe, but also for positions in the Middle East, Malaysia, and Latin America. It is little wonder that the Chinese study missed out - not only on India's best, but also muddled up the rankings for many other very fine European and East Asian institutions. Of course, it is one thing for the Chinese to put out such research without acknowledging the many nuances that might lead to possibly skewed conclusions - it is quite another for Indians to be so naive in accepting it at face-value. All the Indian newspapers ran headlines about how China had beaten India in the ranking game, but no one seemed to notice that although there were a half a dozen more Chinese universities on the list - they were all Hong Kong universities - or that the Hong Kong Universities were cited primarily for their highly influential Computer Science Researchers! Today, no one in the world needs any formal study to be told that Indian Computer Scientists rank with the very best in the world, and are possibly amongst the most influential today. One has only to look at the volume of research and projects undertaken by two very new IT universities - IIIT Allahabad and IIIT Hyderabad (leave alone the IITs) to gauge the prolific virtuosity of their IT faculties. But unless Indian Social Scientists take the trouble of measuring the right parameters, and bringing some scientific rigor to their analyses, India as a nation will continue to fall prey to such dubious international studies. Another problem with such studies is that when universities are ranked based on cumulative research output, younger institutions become severely disadvantaged vis-a-vis older institutions. It is little wonder, then, that Calcutta University, one of India's oldest, and certainly the first to inaugurate full-fledged post-graduate programs was recognized, but relatively young Hyderabad University was not. Unless cumulative data is complemented with non-cumulative recent data, (such as a recent five-year average), it will not be possible to gauge the progress of newer universities, or the relative decline (or stagnation) of older universities. Unfortunately, few Indians are aware of how most Indian universities are relatively very young, or that in the Chinese study, age and size could make a difference. Almost all of the top-ranking universities in the Chinese study were very well-established by 1947 when Indian gained independence. Most were founded in the 19th century or even earlier (as is the case with Oxford and Cambridge and several other British universities), and grew very rapidly in the first half of the 20th century. Most Indian universities weren't even in existence at the time of independence. How could they possibly be generating high-quality research 50 years ago, when the Chinese study's clock started? In fact, contrary to the myth that the British furthered the cause of education in India, Indians were relatively starved of normal schooling, and had extremely limited options for higher education. In 1931, literacy in British India was an apalling 8%. And although universities in Calcutta, Madras and Bombay were founded rather early (in 1857), they were inaugurated at the behest of Britishers residing in India - to train and educate their progeny - not Indians. They were intended to be liberal arts undergraduate-oriented universities that could provide British residents with a familiarity with British literature and history - acquaint them with the latest British economic theories, become familiar with British jurisprudence, and produce adminstrators and judges who could keep Indians on a tight leash. If an Indian were to study at these universities, he was in all likelihood trained to grease the wheels of the colonial administration. He was to graduate with an admiration of all things British, and a hatred and contempt for all things Indian. In other words, if the British Indian universities accepted Indians at all, it was with the express purpose of churning out colonial flunkies. The Indian who graduated with a liberal arts degree from a British Indian university had not only not learnt the truth about India - its true history or its relative position prior to colonization, he or she had also not learned how to discover the truth. Indians - who had once been pioneers in debating the scientific method (as is borne out by Indian writings on epistemology in the Nyaya-Sutras and other ancient texts) were now transformed into intellectually infantile toadies - too ready to believe what any Britisher wrote about them, and too servile (or gullible) to challenge even what was patently false or incongruous. When such Indians staffed the Indian Civil Service, not only were they not expected to do anything good for their country, they were, on the contrary, taught how to obstruct good ideas in the name of 'order' and 'stability'. They were trained to be obsequious - and not to take initiative. And the few who were brave enough to preserve their conscience (and sincerely wished to do something for their country) had simply too little training in science and mathematics (or modern research and organization methods) to actually be able to accomplish anything tangible. And so even when the British left, the Indian bureaucracy was overloaded with intellectually immobilized, yes-men. Not required to serve the people, such Indians naturally became self-serving, corrupt and nepotistic individuals, whose qualifications were worth little more than the paper produced to record them. Lackies are by nature and training insular. And they swarmed through the ICS and later the IAS. It was this tradition - conservative and unresponsive to the extreme that seeped through much of the bureaucracy (including the educational system) in India. Prevarication and procrastination are the other hallmarks of this tradition. For instance, two decades before independence, there were rising demands for Gujarat to have its own universities - at least in Ahmedabad and Baroda. Studies were undertaken twice to ascertain the viability and effectiveness of such an undertaking. Each time, there was a virtually unanimous consensus that Ahmedabad and Baroda were both deserving of their own universities. But nothing concrete happened. For twenty years, the British government and the Maharajas colluded to deny the citizens of Gujarat their own university. In fact, it wasn't just the state of Gujarat that lacked a University till after liberation from colonial rule. Assam and the entire North East had to wait till 1948. All of Punjab (and Haryana and Himachal) had only one university - in Lahore, which was lost to the country after partition. Undivided Madhya Pradesh got its first university in 1946 (Sagar) thanks to the pioneering efforts of philanthropist Hari Singh Gaur. Rajasthan had to wait till 1947 for Jaipur University to be launched. Orissa was marginally more fortunate - getting its Utkal University in 1943. All of Bihar (and Jharkhand) was served by the lone Patna University till 1952. Only the South was relatively more fortunate - primarily due to the strength of its nationalist currents, and the support of relatively visionary policy-makers and industrialists. Mysore University was established in 1916 by the Maharaja of Mysore upon the urging of his chief advisor Viswesaraya who was an engineer by training. Until 1964, it remained Karnataka's sole institution of higher learning - other than the IISc, which had been launched a few years before Mysore by the Tatas (also with encouragement from Viswesaraya). Osmania University (1918), Andhra University (1926), Annamalai University (1929), Kerala University (1937) followed in steady succession, and helped create the foundations of a modern educational infrastructure in the South. Although UP got Allahabad University towards the end of the 19th century and Agra in the first quarter of the 20th century, it might be noted that both Agra and Allahabad were important garrison towns with very large British expatriate populations that had also been demanding a local university. They were not founded to serve the Indian population. In any case, universities were only undergraduate training universities until 1904, when the nation's first graduate programs were launched at Calcutta University as a result of intense National pressure. By and large, there was an extreme paucity of Science and Engineering seats in the country. In the north, there were engineering colleges in Howrah, Roorkee and Benaras,(and in Delhi in 1940) but there was no full-fledged Science and Technology university such as an IIT or BITS or a CUSAT - all of which were inaugurated after independence. IIT Kharagpur functioned out of a jail in 1951, and IIT Delhi didn't get its own buildings till 1968. In contrast, even China and Thailand (who were relative latecomers from an East Asian point of view) had a more comprehensive university infrastructure when compared to India by the early years of the 20th century. In China, Nanking University (Nanjing) was founded in 1888, Tianjin in 1895, Shanghai Jiatong in 1896, Sichuan Univ. (Chengdu) and South West Jiatong also in 1896, Zhejiang (Hangzhou) in 1897, Huazhong Agriculture (Wuhan) and Beijing Univ. in 1898, Jingshi and Soochow in 1900, Shandong University (Jinan) in 1901, Guizhou(Guiyang), Nanjing Normal, Nanjing University, Shanxi University (Taiyuan) - all in 1902, Tongji (Shanghai) and China University of Mining technology (CUMT)in 1907, Lanzhou 1909, Tsinghua (Beijing) and Zhejiang Gongshan(Hangzhou)in 1911 - were all born before Mysore University, India's first truly national university. In addition, Shanghai's Fudan Univ.,Shanghai Maritime (then SFU) and Beijing Normal had all been founded by 1917 (as had Kaifeng's Henan Univ. - 1912, and Henan Agr. U.in 1913) prior to Delhi University which was founded in 1922. China's Nankai University, founded in 1919 in Tianjin (which was bombed, but rebuilt), also preceded Delhi; as did Hebei University in Baoding(which was Tianjin Normal in 1921) and Xiamen University (1921). In fact, before Delhi got its first university, Shanghai already had four, Tianjin, Nanjing and Beijing three, and Hangzhou had two universities. Several more Chinese universities followed in quick succesion: Harbin Instt. of Technology was set up in 1920; followed by Wuhan U., Yunnan U., Shenyang's NEU and Jiangxi U. in 1923,Kunming's Undergraduate University in 1925; Qingdao in 1926; Guangdong's Zhongshan, Guanxi University in Nanning, Guanxi Normal in Guilin, and Anhui Univ (now Hefei) followed in 1928, Chongqing in 1929 and Xidian (Xian) in 1932. By 1932, China had an educational infrastructure that would only be paralleled in India two decades (or more) later. And by the time many Indian states got their very first university, China had already begun to notice the lack of advanced science and technology universities. Modelled along Soviet lines, a spate of universities geared towards engineering and high technology were launched in the first decade after the revolution. Hefei Univ. of Tech.(1945), Beijing Instt. of Tech.(1945), Dalian Univ. of Tech.(1949), Northern Jiatong(1949), Harbin Univ. of Sc. and Tech.(1950), Qingdao Instt. of Chem. Tech. (1950), Beijing Univ.of Aeronautics and Aviation(1952), Nanjing Univ.of Aviation(1952), China U. of GeoSc.(1952), Qingdao Tech. (1953), Harbin Engg. Univ. (1953), Guangdong Instt. of Tech.(1954), Beijing Univ.of Posts and Telegraph(1955), Chengdu Univ. of Tech (1956), Ningbo Science Univ.(1956), Beijing Univ.of Chemical Technology(1958), Nanjing Univ. of Sc. and Tech.(1958), Shanghai Univ. of Sc. and Tech.(1958) and Shanghai Univ. of Tech.(1960) were all born before IIT Delhi. In addition, universities in Chongqing and other cities were upgraded with full-fledged engineering departments and new universities in smaller towns such as Yanbian were launched with full-scale engineering schools. Although Mao's catastrophic policies after the "Great Leap Forward" in 1958, and during the "Cultural Revolution" proved disastrous for higher education in China, and allowed India to catch up to some degree, Jiang Zemin's interest in rapid scientific and technological modernization helped in a speedy recovery of China's knowledge institutions. But the important aspect to be gleaned from the above (albeit incomplete) listing of China's universities is to emphasize the relative youth of India's educational infrastructure, and the enormous neglect of higher education that India inherited after colonization. As late as 1958, India lacked the capability to train its own Naval and Aeronautical Engineers who had to be sent to India's former colonial master for training and education. And even when India's premiere technology universities were launched (such as the IITs), there were too few PhDs to staff them. As a consequence, a highly competitive examination system was put in place so that to this date, only 2% of aspiring entrants are able to gain admission to an IIT spot. Even highly exclusive universities (such as US's Harvard) accept a much higher proportion of candidates - 10%, as opposed to the IITs 2%. Although such exclusivity is not entirely desirable, it may still make eminent sense to preserve such a high level of selectivity to ensure the unique character of the IIT's, especially since the prime benefit to the nation from the IITs is in the enormous contribution they make in providing cutting-edge research and generating post-graduates - especially PhDs. The IITs are also amongst the few Indian institutions that offer avenues for post-doc research. (Unfortunately, the government's reckless quota policy threatens to turn the IITs into mere undergraduate teaching shops which will distract from the far more important purpose of advanced studies and research in cutting-edge science and technology) Of course, no serious policy maker ought to remain oblivious and indifferent to the plight of the 98% that fail the JEE. Several of those who fail are only slightly less prepared for an IIT education. Many work extraordinarily hard, and make enormous sacrifices to gain admission into an IIT. Many of those who fail might have a deeper interest in engineering, and more aptitude for innovation than those admitted. But the right solution may not be increasing undergraduate seats at the already over-burdened and space-limited IITs. The solution lies in developing a second track of institutions that can command similar respect by improving the government engineering colleges and augmenting existing NITs wherever possible. At the same time, the government could provide scholarships at the better private engineering colleges that are run by non-profit community-oriented trusts. There can also be greater pressure on private engineering colleges to upgrade, and offer more scholarships for deserving students. In addition, the top 5% or top 8% of JEE scorers who fail to place in an IIT ought to be considered for automatic admission in the NITs instead of requiring students to take a separate exam for NIT admission. There are similar problems with the GATE exam. There are simply too few Masters slots available at the country's best science and technology universities. IITs and large universities like Delhi need to be offering at least twice as many post-graduate slots as they do today by opening Post Graduate centers in new locations. With the proliferation of private colleges, the government must now focus more on upgrading standards at existing institutions and look at issues of affordability and equity. At the same time, where government needs to step in is to provide education in those areas where private offerings are limited. This would have to be in the post-graduate and research arena where there is a severe shortage of slots. It could also be oriented towards engineering areas where the country may be lacking such as energy studies, petro-chemical engineering, deep-sea engineering, transportation engineering etc. During British rule, less than 2% of the population was even able to secure access to higher education, let alone a quality education. Much has changed in India, and those who can afford to pay do get an education at some college or another. But the fact remains that there are too few high quality spots in the Indian education system. So in some (albeit less onerous) ways, the colonial exclusivity lingers on. However, the main problem is not a shortage of colleges - as some falsely assume - it is more the limited qualifications of the existing faculty, weak management and old (or inadequate) infrastructure. Opening new undergraduate facilities will not solve the problem since the remedy lies in improving quality - not quantity - something Indian politicians and adminstrators have yet to grasp. What India lacks is not more 3-yr or 4-yr colleges but real universities geared towards post-graduation studies and research. Unfortunately, the colonial legacy has greatly delayed India's maturity as a modern nation, for it is universities, that in so many ways, define and establish modernity. In the first place, the colonial education system made no attempt to educate the masses. In the second place, it created a very limited university infrastructure. In addition, this infrastructure was heavily biased towards a liberal arts program that neglected science, technology and modern management. As a result, the bureaucracy was manned by Indians who were almost completely ignorant of how education and research was structured in the technologically more dynamic nations such as Germany, Japan and the US. And as emphasized earlier, Indian bureaucrats had acquired a long list of bad habits. In too many instances, this had the all-too debilitating effect of sapping the creativity and curiousity out of many a fine scientist who may have had the misfortune of locking horns with an indifferent or obstructive bureaucrat. But rather than undercut the power of the university bureaucracy, the perpetuation of the affiliating system at Indian universities (has in many instances), only expanded the stifling stronghold of the parasitic Indian bureaucrat on India's Higher Education. Conversely, when the affiliating university has been too liberal, it has led to the anarchic growth of poor quality private colleges. Take the case of Delhi University - now one of the largest affiliating universities in the world. With a student population of over 300,000 and 200 plus PhDs in departments such Physics and Chemistry attached to the University through its various affiliated colleges, one might be forgiven for expecting it to also be a prodigious place for research and knowledge dissemination. But on too many counts, the University disappoints. Notwithstanding the reputation of excellence in undergraduate teaching enjoyed by more than a dozen of its affiliated colleges, and some very dedicated researchers at its post-graduate centers, it functions like a bumbling giant. Navigating through its cumbrous bureaucracy is like finding ones way through a particularly well-crafted maze. In this age of computers and the Internet, it is virtually impossible to identify key resources that may be available somewhere in the university system. Not only is there considerable duplication and wastage of precious resources, there is also too little communication and coordination between affiliated faculty members. Faculties at affiliated colleges are virtually isolated from each other - there are few synergies in research - there aren't enough lively academic exchanges - and international and national conferences and seminars are relatively infrequent when compared to what has become the norm at the more developed universities, not only in the West, but also in China and Malaysia. To top it all, there are unparalleled restrictions on the affiliated colleges in terms of offering post graduate courses, and there is little push for research at the affiliated colleges, even though the paper-qualifications of the faculty members might imply otherwise. Rather than its size assist in realizing economies of scale, Delhi University's very enormity has enabled adminstrators to routinely pass the buck and not take responsibility for any shortcomings. Even as so many smaller universities with more dedicated staff and management struggle for funds, Delhi University sucks in funds without delivering proportional results. Looking at the situation that prevails at Delhi University, some reforms suggest themselves. First, there is a crying need for administrators specifically trained in university management which is typically the case in the US. University appointments are all too political in India, but at the very least, one could demand that the government only appoint university adminstrators from a pool of well-trained and highly qualified individuals. There must be an immediate end to foisting unqualified political hacks on universities. Second, size is an asset only when a large entity is well-managed. If Delhi University cannot be better managed, it ought to be broken up. At the very least, the university's science departments need to be liberated from the clutches of cynical and jaded political appointees who have little genuine interest in academics, and even less affinity for the sciences. This too is a by-product of the British legacy when individuals with little scientific training ruled the roost, and ran roughshod over genuine academics. Throughout the developing world, from Nigeria to Indonesia, university administrators have sought to emphasize engineering and technology so that their nation's dependence on imported technology and foreign experts might be reduced. But in India, it is usually the superficially-intelligent generalist, with a background neither in science nor in engineering, who ends up securing key management positions at too many of India's institutions of higher learning only to undermine the nation's scientific potential. Not only are these individuals poor role models for teaching in the humanities or social sciences - they are especially disastrous for the natural and physical science faculties. Rather than insist that every Indian social scientist go through mandatory training in logic and epistemology, and be exposed to a minimum level of mathematical and scientific training, most Indian social scientists aren't even required to study geography, which is often key to a correct understanding of history, economics, sociology or political science. Nor are they expected to become familiar with modern statistical methods, or modern computer-assisted techniques of data collection and organization, or data-mining, or fuzzy logic techniques that could also assist in deepening and broadening ones understanding in the social sciences. Indian Social Scientists have generally failed to understand important links between scientific training, intelligent management, and wise policy-making. They have also generally failed to leverage the capabilities of modern technology in improving management and communication at India's universities and affiliated colleges. Yet, it would be incorrect to paint the entire Indian University system with a broad brush. Even though key national universities such as Delhi, Lucknow, Patna, Bangalore and many others have failed to fully harness the power of technology, some South Indian universities are using technology to mitigate against some of the problems inherent in an affiliating university system. For instance, Anna University provides an on-line database of Masters and PhD guides in different engineering and science disciplines available at its various affiliated colleges. Kerala's Kottayam University offers something similar. These are important first steps in bringing some degree of transparency to India's affiliating universities. But much more needs to be done. Few affiliated colleges provide good websites. Nor are there any good rating agencies that can rank individual courses offered by the different affiliating colleges. However, aside from making such improvements, India's policy-makers need to seriously look at the pros and cons of continuing with the British-instituted system of higher learning. While it may be argued that an affiliating university offers local areas and isolated regions of the country easy access to colleges, and therefore students need not leave their homes, or travel too far for a college education, there are also many drawbacks to such a system. Although the system works for the commercial entities that are more concerned with making easy money, it is not at all clear that the system works for advanced studies - or for research. Even in terms of undergraduate education, it works as long as everyone is content with the stereotypic and traditional choices that such a system can offer. For instance, at most large American Universities undergraduates can choose all manner of combinations that might facilitate future studies or research in emerging or inter-disciplinary fields. Many modern areas of investigation involve disciplinary overlap, and require courses from more than one traditional field of learning or specially targeted courses. But in India, there are hundreds of affiliated science and engineering colleges with as few as just one or two PhDs in the core science fields. In such a situation, it is virtually impossible to provide anything beyond the basics. When scarce scientific resources are scattered over too many small colleges, it becomes impossible to offer specialty courses at any college. Each small college is only capable of offering a very basic science (or engineering) program, whereas at a larger university, faculties with varying specialties and research skills can be hired to complement each other. Students can benefit from the wider range of elective options that then become possible. This is not to say that Indian Universities ought to become so liberal that students should graduate without core skills, but rather that colleges need to produce more than just students with the same routine skills. Take Materials Science - a crucial subject in the modern world - it is neither quite Physics, nor quite Chemistry. Universities throughout Asia (from Indonesia and Malaysia in the South to China in the North) offer undergraduate and post-graduate degrees in Materials Science at almost all of their universities. But in India, a Materials Science elective is conspicuously missing at most Science or Engineering Colleges. Even in Delhi were so many colleges have several Physics and Chemistry PhDs on their rolls, Materials Science is not offered as a separate undergraduate discipline. Bureaucratic indifference and inertia combine with complacency in maintaining the status quo. Since bureacratic manipulation has ensured that the demand for honours courses greatly exceeds the supply, Delhi colleges quickly fill up their Physics and Chemistry quotas, and there is no pressure to provide new courses. Such problems are further compounded at the Masters and PhD level. With so many PhDs distributed amongst thousands of small colleges (so as to ensure a minimum level of quality in undergraduate teaching), there are simply too few PhDs left for the Post Graduate programs at the universities. Universities with weak Post Graduate departments are then shunned by students, because they offer a very limited range of electives and very restricted research posibilities. All the serious students then clamor for a position at the IITs or IISc or TIFR or the few universities (such as Hyderabad) with strong research reputations and internationally recognized faculties. Bereft of adequate students intake at the PG level,research suffers at the weaker universities. Cutting edge research cannot take place in isolated vaccuums. Faculties need ideas and stimulation not only from each other, but also from eager young students willing to spend long hours in the lab investigating what may seem like minor problems, but which may nevertheless be key to the solutions for more complex problems. When universities (such as Hyderabad) are able to organize dynamic teams that reach a certain critical mass, the research engine gathers steam and develops a powerful momentum that can lead to very admirable results. But the lone PhDs at the affiliated colleges are simply not in a position to engage in very effective research. It is actually a miracle that some are able to plow along and make useful contributions in spite of their very lonely existence. Science communication and dissemination can likewise suffer when scientists are too widely dispersed. If there are ten important concepts to communicate, a single individual will successfully transmit two or three at best, but a group of ten or twenty will probably transmit all the important points that need to be made. This is not to dismiss the value of having science colleges in the small towns. On the whole, it is a laudable democratic step. With adequate networking and interfacing support, it is conceivable that adequately staffed PG Colleges in the districts could tie up up with larger universities, and greatly augment the research stock of the country. But it must be recognized that the anarchy that comes with the proliferation of affiliated colleges can greatly reduce the efficacy of India's science faculties. A colonial power such as Britain which had the ability to suck capital and resources from colonies across the globe could afford the luxury of affiliated colleges because the wealth from the colonies could fund a much more extensive eduational system. But India's educational resources are still very scarce relative to the size of its population, and it must be asked - are affiliating universities ideally suited to modern education? Can they really deliver on what should be the mandate for any university - to generate new knowledge through sustained research and investigation, to communicate that knowledge to government agencies, industry and the public at large, and to train people in both core and specialized course at various levels? It would seem that by and large, the Indian Education System has evolved in a manner that makes the above goals much more difficult to realize. The Indian system is optimized more for the convenience of the trusts and managers who run India's affiliated colleges. They are obliged only to meet certain minimum standardized norms, and since most students are presented with too few choices anyway, they must go along with what is offered. In India's British-inherited university system, the scientists who are at the very cutting edge of knowledge simply get too little say in recommending new courses and curriculums. College after college offers the same traditional fare, and in the end, the Indian nation suffers. Even though stray media reports point to missing skills amongst Indian graduates, little can be done in the near-term to ease the shortage in specialized skills. Key technologies must then be imported, and crucial projects must needlessly be delayed. However, one must also guard against the wrong remedies to address such problems - particularly those driven by political considerations. As already noted, the IITs are serving a vital role in Post Graduate and Doctoral education, and are also providing valuable cutting-edge research for the nation, but too much focus has been paid to undergraduate education at the IITs by the government. The recent step to overload the IITs with quotas and increase undergraduate enrolment without regard to availability of land and concomitant educational resources and infrastructure is a highly retrograde step. As it is IIT Delhi and Mumbai have no more land to expand - they cannot build new cutting edge labs or research facilities. What is obviously needed is for new IIT campuses to be built in states that don't yet have an IIT. The real value of the IITs lies in Post Graduate, Doctoral and Post-Doctoral research. Rather than over-burden the IITs with undergraduate teaching, it is the research wings of the IITs that need to be nourished and enriched. Much modern research depends on investment in physical infrastructure. Without state-of-the-art labs and resources, cutting edge research also becomes impossible. This will always be a limiting factor in the further development of some of the existing IITs. Although many faculty members at the IITs are extremely productive in terms of quality research, the relatively small pool of active researchers (especially Post-Docs) prevents the IITs from making a bigger impact. Even though IITians have played an extra-ordinary role in the creative dyanmism of Silicon Valley, and IITians are typically very grateful for their undergraduate IIT experience, it must be acknowledged that in the end, the country is not able to reap the full benefits of a strong undergraduate program if it is not supplemented with an equally strong post-graduate and post-doc program and vibrant research institutions. India simply cannot be too complacent in this regard. India should not merely be generating talent for other countries to leverage and exploit. It needs to structure its own knowledge institutions so that the Indian economy, and by extension the Indian people get the maximum benefit out of the intellectual talents that are currently available in the country. That may well require going beyond the current paradigms that have been tacitly and unquestioningly accepted. It may also mean looking more closely at what is happening in other developing countries - not just the scientifically advancd nations. By and large, when it comes to science and technology, no nation has been able to progress without a considerable measure of enlightened state support. It is primarily state support that has contributed to India's growing strengths in Space and Nuclear Energy. For instance, in a fairly short time, the country developed some comprehensive agricultural universities (such as in Ludhiana, Hisar, the Konkan and Tamil Nadu).India can now design and manufacture a very wide range of agricultural machinery thanks to the efforts of the research engineers at the agricultural universities. In fact, in some instances, the agricultural universities are better staffed, and functioning somewhat more successfully than many science and engineering departments at Indian universities. But today, some of the agricultural universities need to broaden their horizons and look more closely at post-harvest processing and also at utilizing farm wastes and wasteland for energy production. But even as much needs to be done, one need not ignore what has been accomplished.Indian scientists have acquired a reputation for excellence in theoretical physics as well as in several branches of chemistry and the biological and plant Sciences where progress is not hindered by equipment limitations. In fields such as agriculture and medicine, electoral pressures from a large and restless peasantry and the urban middle class have played a positive role. But on the whole, India's urban populace is not as technologically savvy, or as influential as it could be. So there is iandequate pressure on the government to intervene when key technological skills are in short supply. For instance, Indian skills in Oil Prospecting and Deep Drilling are not quite commensurate with the nation's size and hunger for energy resources. But too little has been done to bridge this gap. The centre has yet to inaugurate a new energy exploration and eneregy studies university (or university centre for excellence).Only the state of Gujarat has taken some initiative in this regard. In contrast, in Saudi Arabia, universities at Jeddah, Riyadh and Dammam have built up internationally comparable departments in Petroleum Engineering, Civil and Chemical Engineering, and Geology to support their oil industries. This has come about not through private initiative or an emulation of the British model, but rather through a study of American models and conscious state intervention. State intervention in higher education has been crucial throughout the world, from Brazil to Indonesia. While Indonesia is hardly a model for India, since (with the exception of Bandung), traditional pure science departments are generally even weaker than India. But, it may be noted that Architecture and Marine Engineering departments (geared towards ship building) have made significant strides at some of the state universities, and engineering departments at universities in several tier-2 cities (such as Yogyakarta, Makassar, Medan and Semarang) are now at least as large and well-equpped as an Indian NIT. Moreover, Indonesian universities have been much more agile in launching courses in emerging disciplines such as Materials Science. Like Indonesia, pure science departments at the typical regional Thai University are not especially strong; but unlike India, architecture and engineering departments have not been left to the mercy of private initiative. As a result, most government-run Thai universities have developed fairly good architecture and engineering schools. The applied sciences, and petroleum and energy studies have also received special attention. Even in Nigeria (a nation with a much lower per capita income than India) the government has felt obliged to strengthen engineering departments at its universities. But most impressive has been the rapid expansion of higher education and research in Taiwan. Thanks to aggressive state intervention, Taiwan has been able to expand very rapidly and improve its university Science and Technology departments in all important fields - whether advanced electronics, communications, mechatronics, materials science or safety engineering. As a consequence, its universities are now able to attract highly-motivated researchers from all over Asia, and notably, also from India. This international pool of educators and researchers (along with their students) is now showcasing projects and inventions at prestigious international technology events in the US and Europe. Other Asian countries, like Malaysia are attempting to emulate the model provided by Japan, Korea and now, Taiwan. Indian scientists may also be somewhat familiar with Iranian and Turkish scientists who publish quite regularly in Indian scientific journals as do Chinese scientists. China's trajectory is especially intriguing, where unlike India, there hasn't yet been a huge growth in private UG engineering and IT colleges. Instead, China has expended enormous resources in augmenting its PG departments and Research Labs in an endeavour to transform what may have been relatively unknown Asian universities into what it hopes will be attention-grabbing world class universities. Unfortunately, in India the trend has been to simply keep adding to the list of low-tech undergraduate institutions. Rather than step in to build more poorly-staffed undergraduate colleges, the focus must be on expanding the facilities and options at existing government institutions - especially so that they can strengthen their post-graduate and research wings. In recent years, too many Indians have developed a false sense of complacency - basking in the glory of their IITs (which are too few in number) and the halo of their IT and Pharmacy experts. But there is an expanding world of knowledge that is emerging on the horizon - especially in the world of new materials - new ceramics, new alloys, new polymers, new silicon replacements, and yet to be designed microscopic carbon nano-materials and super-conducting materials. There is also the pressing need for intensified investigation into new energy sources and energy-efficiency in manufacturing and daily living; there are likely to be accelerating advances in robotics and mechatronics (the merger of advanced electronics with advanced machinery). There will also be increasing pressures on the physical environment, and growing shortages of precious raw materials. New recycling and re-processing techniques will be required. There will also be continued presure to improve air and water quality, to preserve or improve soil quality, and forest and wasteland management. To what extent are our colleges and universities (and research labs) geared towards meeting the future? Will we explore emerging fields when they are still new, or wait till they have become old elsewhere? Do we wish to be at the leading edge of new research, or are we going to be content by merely catching the waves at their tails? These are just some of the questions that confront us as we mature as a nation and attempt to transcend the colonial legacy that is undoubtedly still holding us back. The Indian government must not continue to renege on its responsibility towards the nation in terms of augmenting the nation's knowledge infrastructure. While it cannot be denied that some of the scientists at the country's best research labs (and universities such as the IITs) are working in many cutting-edge areas of modern science and technology, the quantum of such activity is not enough for a nation as large as ours. On the threshold of yet another independence anniversary, we ought not shirk from looking far into the horizon and contemplate a more dynamic future for the nation. Notes 1. The State that leads other major states in its post-graduate science and technology infrastructure is Tamil Nadu. Its educational base includes Science/Engineering PhD granting institutions in over 25 cities and towns; over 200 colleges and institutions offering Post Graduate degrees in the Sciences; 60 or more colleges offering Post Graduate Engineering degrees (not including the MCA colleges); and about 20 Post Graduate/Research institutions in the Agricultural sector. Thus in some ways, Tamil Nadu exemplifies the democratic potential of the affiliated college system since virtually every nook and corner of the state is covered by UG Science and Engineering colleges, and PG institutions are available in all the district centers. On the other hand the size of many of the PG departments is quite small compared to a typical PG department at a Delhi University college, so the numbers don't tell the whole story. In addition, Tamil Nadu's highly dispersed educational infrastructure also conceals a weakness in that by allowing so many colleges to offer PG courses, it has left some of the university departments quite small - such as in Coimbatore. With 45 affiliated colleges offering PG Science courses, there is no doubt that there is the potential of creating at least one or two strong university departments capable of taking on cutting edge synergistic research, not only in Coimbatore, but also in Erode. (Likewise for Trichy, Madurai, Salem, Tirunelveli, Calicut, Thiruvananthapuram, Kochi, Vishakhapatnam, Guntur/Vijayawada, and Bhopal). In contrast, at the other extreme is Bengal's Burdwan University which has 37 affiliated colleges offering science electives but no PG colleges affilated to it. However, on the plus size, its University science departments are somewhat stronger than Coimbatore's, and are thus somewhat more productive in terms of guiding students towards a PhD. Clearly, the nation needs to strike a better balance between quantity and quality - between teaching and research, between decentralization and consolidation. While it is laudable that so many small towns in Tamil Nadu (or Kerala, Andhra) have the option of providing a PG education to their local populations, a certain degree of PG consolidation (or at least improved coordination) and added emphasis on research could go a long way in strengthening the nation's research capablities. 2. Nevertheless, in spite of these lacunae, among the major states (and excluding the major metros), Tamil Nadu and its Southern neighbors generally lead the nation in terms of science, technology and agricultural education. For instance, (excluding union territories) the top states in terms of per capita UG Science opportunities are Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala and Karnataka. In terms of per capita PG Science options, it is Tamil Nadu, Kerala, and Andhra Pradesh; in terms of PG Engineering options, it is Tamil Nadu, Karnataka, and Haryana that lead (followed by Maharashtra, Punjab, Kerala and Andhra Pradesh). For PG Agricultural Education it is Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Haryana and Rajasthan that lead the nation. Amongst the smaller states, Uttaranchal, Goa, Manipur, Himachal, Meghalaya and Mizoram do quite well. (Based on data gathered from GISTNIC's Search Engine and University websites)
Human Development and Infrastructure in the Indian Subcontinent Is India Shining? Where is India headed in terms of Culture and Civilization? Back for other selections from South Asian Voice for other articles on issues confronting India and the region. Also see South Asian History or Topics in Indian History for relevant essays that shed some light on the history of the subcontinent. (If you liked our site, or would like to help with the South Asian Voice project and help us expand our reach, please click here) To send an e-mail, write to india.resource @yahoo.com
|
