The new Minister of Human Resource Development, Kapil Sibal, has promised to open India’s doors to foreign universities and to promote private investment in higher education. Past policy has been sceptical of foreign involvement in Indian education. As India is about to embark on a new higher education direction, it is worth examining the likely consequences of the open door, based on the experience of other countries.

If Mr. Sibal assumes that foreign involvement will assist India to rapidly improve its lagging higher education system, he is quite wrong. With few exceptions, foreign higher education providers worldwide are engaged in making a quick profit by establishing programmes that attract high student demand and are inexpensive to start and operate. Worldwide, many of the foreign transplants are in information technology, business studies, and related fields. Most foreign providers are not top universities but are rather institutions at the middle or bottom of the hierarchy in their home countries. Some have financial or enrolment problems at home and want to solve them with offshore ventures. And some are “bottom-feeders” who will provide a substandard educational product in India. A truly open door permits pests as well as welcome guests to enter. International experience shows that the “market” is slow to detect low quality — and there seems to be a clientele for poor quality in any case.

A few top universities will be interested in India for a combination of reasons — to earn money and also to introduce long-term relations, in the country, with the best Indian institutions — and to provide a base for recruiting outstanding Indian students and faculty.
Improvement through foreign involvement?

Some have argued that India’s admittedly moribund higher education system will receive a needed dose of reform and upgrade from foreign transplants. This is a quite unlikely diagnosis. Thoughtful Indians know what is wrong with the system, and numerous high-level inquiries, including recently from the Knowledge Commission, have provided road maps for reform. Further, many Indians have experience in the best overseas universities and know how they work. Improvement will inevitably come from the inside and not from a few foreign institutions operating in India. Further, the foreign programmes will not be focussed on reforming Indian higher education but rather on successfully competing with local colleges and universities. Nor will the foreigners bring the full panoply of a complex and highly expensive university to India. Rather, they will bring specific programmes and facilities that will be profitable in India. Only when the host country pays the full cost, such as in the Gulf countries, do foreign universities establish full facilities and expensive programmes such as the Cornell University Medical School in Qatar.
Problems of sustainability

If Mr. Sibal believes that he will easily get well-functioning, top quality foreign universities to set up shop in India quickly, he is mistaken. It is likely that some of the for-profit providers, such as Laureate and Apollo, will be most interested. These institutions, which have operated successfully in many countries, are not seen as prestigious institutions. University transplants frequently have experienced significant logistical problems. A challenge involves convincing professors and staff from the home campus to teach abroad. Indeed, this ordeal often acts as the Achilles’ heel of foreign providers, for in almost every case, they end up hiring local staff to teach. It may be sufficient for Indians to study in an ostensibly foreign institution in India taught by local professors; the students may end up with a foreign degree but not with much of an international experience. Just as important, if the foreign institution cannot earn a quick profit, it might well pull up stakes and leave or, alternatively, reduce costs by lowering the quality.
International examples

India might study other countries’ experience with foreign branch campuses and international collaborations. A few that have opened their doors wide with little regulation found that most foreign institutions entering the market were substandard. This represents Israel’s experience. Lack of opportunity for access at home led the government to open the country to foreign providers. Most of the foreign institutions performed poorly and were marginal in their home countries. The door was soon closed again. The losers, of course, were the students who paid high prices for bad quality.

Most countries with a relatively positive experience involving foreign providers created a clear regulatory framework to control who could enter the market and the terms and conditions of operation. China, for example, requires foreign institutions to connect with a Chinese institutional partner and to receive government approval. Yet, some of the Chinese provincial and local authorities who approve foreign collaborations have made mistakes.

While Minister Sibal claims that other countries do not maintain strong regulators such as the University Grants Commission or the All India Council of Technical Education, this point of view seems not to be the case. Many countries have been run by strong regulatory regimes that have worked well. Singapore, with a largely successful history of foreign collaboration, stringently regulates foreign providers and has been willing to end the programmes, such as one with the Johns Hopkins University in the United States, which the Singaporeans felt was not living up to its promises. Ministries of education or their equivalents in South Korea, Japan, and some other Asian countries carefully regulate who can enter the local market and monitor performance.

Quality assurance has been a central concern, and few countries have solved that problem. Few countries can effectively monitor standards of their own universities, and foreign institutions do create additional challenges. American branch campuses are monitored by the U.S. accreditors, which have found it difficult to fulfil this task. India’s quality-assurance agencies do not function particularly effectively. Monitoring and evaluating numerous foreign transplants may be beyond the capability of the system.
What can be done?

Minister Sibal is right that India cannot forever keep its academic doors closed. India, after all, constitutes an increasingly central part of a globalised world. However, simply to throw the doors open would be a serious mistake. India, like other developing countries, needs a clear and transparent policy and regulatory framework. What comprises the rationale for participating in global higher education? What institutions — and investments — from abroad are appropriate for India? What are the criteria for selecting, monitoring, and evaluating foreign institutions? Without answers to these questions — and the policy framework to go along with the answers — opening the doors will create long-term problems for India’s academic system.

(Philip G. Altbach is Monan University Professor and director of the Center for International Higher Education at Boston College, USA.)

The results of 2009 general elections have thrown up a verdict where by BJP has lost lots of ground on electoral arena, its voting percentage has declined and number of seats have come down. Its calculations of coming to power as the head of NDA withered away. In 2004 elections despite the predictions by pollsters, its power declined and it gave way to Congress led UPA alliance. While BJP is ruling in many states and in couple of them it seems to have entrenched itself firmly for the time being, an overall atmosphere that BJP is on the decline is very much there.

BJP built its political fortunes on the foundations laid by RSS work of decades and the contextual economic and social changes which culminated during the beginning of 1980s. These related to changes in global political chessboard due to decline of Soviet states, leading to US becoming the sole superpower in the world. This in turn changed the dynamics of globalization, making it more adverse to the large sections of population. The changes which occurred due to lop sided industrialization in the country led to the rise of affluent middle classes. In this backdrop, the interest of affluent sections seemed to be to support the politics of status quo, with the political agenda to wean away the deprived sections from the path of struggle, by promoting the identity based politics. This might not have been a conscious planning, but this is what happened in the course of political changes. And Ram temple issue came to grab the nation and it threw the struggle for social issues to the margins. The rights based movements did face uphill task to keep afloat in this atmosphere, atmosphere seeped in divisive religious, social identities and enhanced religiosity all around.

BJP at this stage, mid 1980s, shifted from its ploy of Gandhian Socialism to Hindutva, Hindu nationalism. With Mandal coming to the fore, opponents of Mandal crystallized around BJP in a big way. The ascendance of BJP was assisted by the work of Vanvasi Kalyan Ashram, wooing a section of Adivasis around BJP and Samajik Samrasta Manch co-opted section of Dalits around Hindutva politics. This ascendance was further assisted by opportunist forces, the ilk of George Fernendes, that earlier would not touch it even with a barge pole. With the assistance of these forces BJP controlled the levers of power for close to six years. It is during this period that the infiltration and impact of RSS ideology of Hindu nation, Hate minorities seeped much further. It is during this period that severe cultural and educational manipulations further intensified in the arena of education and social work.

BJPs’ ability to come to power thrice was due to a section of population opposed to the process of social transformation of caste and gender, added on by winning over a section of middle class, around aggressive nationalism, nuclear explosion, and threatening postures against Pakistan and at times bravado against the issue of terrorism. This section does not comprise the large masses. Affluent sections, those who benefit from ‘Shining India’ and some others did remain loyal to BJP, but remaining sections soon realized that the empty rhetoric of identity politics is not going to fill their empty stomachs and they voted against this Hindu Nationalist party during 2004 and later in 2009. Interestingly other political formations operating around other identities also faced a set back during 2009 elections.

Meanwhile BJP has tried to change its stripes and at times been talking Bijli Sadak Pani, and development agenda a la Modi. But can it hide the fact that it is the party whose break away factions beat up women; it is the party which inherently believes in what Varun Gandhi says. Its so called development talk is a mere electoral ploy. As they say you can’t fool all the people all the time, so BJP stands in its moment of truth, electoral vote share going down from the 22 odd percentages last time to nearly 18% now. At one level now the liberal space can be made stronger and those engaged in social movements can further strengthen their work.

So what happens to BJP in times to come? It is definite that it has brought in the polarization of sections of society through the ‘Hate other’ ideology. Its major faces symbolizing this divisive ideology have been Advani, Modi and Varun Gandhi in that sequence. This politics did lead to violence of mammoth proportions. It is not easy to write off BJP as it has already made its foundations around the ideology of Hindu Nation etc. And BJP is not a stand alone party. It is merely and electoral wing of RSS, the organization with hundreds of branches and offshoots, which will continue to work notwithstanding the defeat of BJP. Apart from these multiple organizations, RSS ideology and politics has also got entrenched in the educational, media and social channels of cooption. Social engineering and increased religiosity is another phenomenon strengthening communalism.

Communalism does not just mean the power of BJP in political arena. Divisiveness begins from propagation of the exclusivist ideologies of nationalism. The next layer is demonizing minorities through various layers of propaganda etc. This has been leading to sectarian violence and polarization of communities. Surely these processes are very much intact and thriving in the society. The ‘social common sense’, perceptions about minorities has been doctored to frightening proportions. The subtle, and word of mouth propaganda against father of the nation, against the values of Indian Constitution and a blind reverence to elite tradition has been pushed through broad and deep.

So as of now, the divisive politics is very much thriving, in the form of ideas, in the form of different organizations, which may be presented as ‘cultural’, ‘religious’, ‘social’ or what have you. Surely it is unlikely that Ram temple or any other emotive issues can now come to the fore powerfully. It is unlikely that they can repeat Gujarat or Kandhamal so easily, though one does not rule these cataclysms, as the land mines of such a politics have already been laid far and wide.

This type of politics knows that it can thrive through identity issues, through divisiveness, so those efforts may be intensified. RSS, BJPs’ political father, has already started telling BJP to go back to Hindutva, i.e. take up issues like temple, Ram Setu etc. There are studies which show that in the areas where communal violence takes place, rather is orchestrated, BJP becomes stronger. Same is the observation in current elections. Dominique Immanuel, a Human Rights worker and Communal harmony award winner, points out that despite an overall decline in BJP seats and voting percentage it has retained its hold where violence took place or divisive agenda was put forward. Mangalore, Udipi, Malegaon, Kandhamal, G. Udaigiri, Gujarat and Pilibhit are the areas in which saw the sectarian violence or propaganda or act of terror. In Kandhmal in the Loksabha segments where violence took place BJP candidate did very well. In many other places in the country, the constituencies where violence was orchestrated, BJP has romped home. What does this indicate?

RSS has already stated that BJP needs to come back to Hindutva agenda. A lot will depend on how RSS combine is able to whip up hysteria around that. A lot will also depend on how much secular forces can ensure the preservation of peace and amity all around. This is possible by restating the core idea of India, pluralism, values of freedom movement and values of syncretism. A lot will depend on how effectively the propaganda done by RSS combine can be effectively countered. Despite RSS instructions to BJP to ‘return to Hindutva’, Nation has to guard against such deviations and stick to the ethos of the country which thrive in diversity and inclusiveness.

Even after independence the students’ movement enjoyed celebrated status, especially in Bengal between 1968-1971 when student organizations, in an unprecedented show of unity, voiced a common demand for the release of Sheikh Mujib-ur-Rehman from jail in Pakistan. The kernel of Bangla nationalism was implanted by idealistic students and it was the Sarbadaliya Chhatra Sangram Parishad (All Parties Students Resistance Council) that first voiced for an independent Bangladesh. The nationalist ‘Joy Bangla’ and all associated slogans and symbols were coined by the parishad. Historically, students were the standard bearers of just and popular causes. For instance between 1966 and 1970, LUSU organized a spirited movement against the Official Language Bill and pressed for the acceptance of Hindi. Similarly in Karnataka, student unions were in the forefront of mass agitations demanding a better deal for Dalits and farmers. Likewise in Bihar and Gujarat student unions spearheaded the late Jaiprakash Narayan’s anti-corruption crusade which prompted Prime Minister Indira Gandhi to impose the Emergency in 1975. Then started the detrimental ingression of political parties in students’ affairs, student unions lost much of their idealism and began to focus on relatively prosaic issues such as continuous subsidization of higher education, admissions, changes in examination schedules and postponement of exam dates, issue of scholarships etc. And predictably, the degeneration of national and state-level politics began to be reflected in campus politics.
Unfortunately, the word politics has acquired a different significance and it is because of this that there is so much confusion at the present time. Politics has come to mean agitation either against certain measures which the Government of the country has thought fit to adopt or in favor of certain measures which the Government does not adopt and which the agitator thinks it ought to adopt. And either kind of agitation has come to involve in the minds of many the imputing of bad motives to the opposite party. Newspapers, pamphlets, books, are brought into play by both sides to hurl sarcasm, abuse and logic against the opposing forces, personalities are indulged in and sooner or later the excitement thus produced threatens to become uncontrollable.
The topic student- campus politics is one of the vexed and deserted questions of the day. There are two classes of people in India — those who believe that students should as a matter of duty take part in politics and those who are of opinion that they should not. In the first place it seems to be necessary to know what is meant by politics and then it is equally important to know the circumstances surrounding the student and his age. First, with regard to the definition of politics, the broadest definition of politics is a science concerned with the means of promoting the general welfare of the state. It is a science (like any other science) with laws which, if brought into operation, produce certain definite effects. The academic discipline that describes and analyses the operations of the government, the state and other political organizations and any other factors that influence their behavior, such as social and economic in short, a study as to how power is exercised and by whom (and for whose benefit) through the administration of public power, to manage people's affairs may perhaps be termed politics, a great concern of every intelligent member of society.

Albert Einstein observed: "It is the duty of every citizen according to his best capacity to give validity to his conviction in political affairs." The ignorance of politics among the masses of a country paves the way for the rise of tyranny and the fall of democracy. It is a grave injustice and ludicrous understanding of public affairs to command that political science shall be abhorrence in a college campus since, such allergy amounts to a backing of political illiteracy, social insensitivity and cultural bewilderment. The grammar of politics, in an enlightened sense, is the birthright of every member of our polity, which is a sovereign, socialist, secular, democratic republic as India is and shall be. The great guardian of the rights of the people in a republic is an enlightened youth educated in the various dimensions and instruments of political science such as the legislature and the judicature.

The land mark judgment of the Division Bench of the Kerala High Court empowering principals of respective colleges to ban any sort of political activity in the campus, had led to many heated debates in recent time. The issue moved into focus when a student, Sojan Francis, was debarred from appearing for examinations due to lack of attendance- the underlying reason being his participation in politics. The court, on the score of political importance, launched on a long discussion about the constitutionality of prohibiting political activity altogether on college campuses. The college concerned, St. Thomas College, Pala, in Kottayam district has certain guidelines regarding general discipline. One of them with which the court was concerned directly states that political activism is strictly banned on the campus and that "students are forbidden to organize or attend meetings other than the official ones". Strikes are prohibited within the campus, and the challenge of the student was that such forbiddance was violation of Article 19 i (a) & (c) of the Constitution. "Since this question is of `considerable general importance'", the court felt the urgency of the issue as one of adjudicatory moment. The ideas in favor of student participation in politics are varied, the bedrock being that politics and society are inseparable. The ignorance of politics among the masses of a country paves the way for the rise of tyranny and the fall of democracy. The right to govern belongs to every citizen and so political science, knowledge of which ultimately secures for the citizenry justice, liberty, equality, dignity of the individual and the integrity of the nation, can never be alienated from the concern of the community. It is a grave default, therefore, to deny to the population at any level the right and indeed, the duty to acquire a basic knowledge of local, national and global political forces. Thus, cutting out the air of politics from colleges will essentially rob young minds of the oxygen of freedom.

It is said that if studied within the highly politicized educational environment of any Education system- at the end of the day- there will be no opposition left to anything. By making politicians out of students is fundamentally wrong. Politics is the business of the shrewd and crafty- not young and energetic people who have an abundance of energy and enthusiasm but need direction and guidance. To be able to lead a group of youngsters towards a common political goal requires acumen coupled with experience and wisdom. If energetic but inexperienced teenagers get into the act and are given authority, it would lead to more bad than good. Secondly, once the practice of politics is let loose on campuses there is a definite competition of interest between academics and politics. Another aspect to deleting political awareness and thought from the minds of college students is that talented students end up wasting a great deal of time in such activities, which could otherwise have been spent in other more productive activities, all this only if things move without eventuality. Thus, student politics can also be viewed as the veritable ghost that looms on campuses and distracts young and creative minds- distorts their futures and manages to systematically decimate the peace and harmony on campuses.

The flipside of the argument has strong supporting pillars. While politics in campuses can be utilized as the best tool to liberate an individual from the general grime of the politics and as a platform to develop into not only better students but also good citizens in a democracy. It would be best to take a deeper look at whether the propensity to convert politics into a bloody and violent juggernaut can be controlled or even eliminated.

College education is improved through college debates and free speech. To control this collegiate freedom is to permit the manufacture of young minds conditioned by the management politics. To swear by what is officially ordered as sound political activity and to swear at every other political process to which the principal is allergic to is to create conditioned minds, which is the negation of political activism, democratic diversity and developmental sovereignty. The republic will suffer from robotism if the creative vitality of the young generation at college is ordered. This is a new menace that benumbs the intellectual potential of the nation. Apparently, even the judiciary is not sufficiently alerted about this ominous portent. Every young mind passing through college must be trained to be sensitive to the constitutional pledge of social, economic and political justice, liberty of thought and expression and the dignity of the individual in relation to the nation's integrity. Since the mid-1980s, as student movements are almost absent in the university campuses, the interest of social scientists in the area is also waning. Thus, the arguments for the inclusion of politics are based on the right to expression and the use of politics to emancipate the student’s mind. The end is that – even though politics requires considerable time - it is time well spent in developing the political instincts of an individual and in turn making him into a better citizen.

College premises definitely cannot become scenes of sound and fury obstructing classes, but these important control measures of discipline do not justify the tabooing of political discussions, political magazines and political seminars inside the premises, setting aside with the permission of the principal as if to avoid law and order problems. Students’ study and learning involves several processes. Teachers, government servants and other employees in public institutions certainly can have their political views, but cannot resort to conduct or membership that will distract from or interfere with the neutrality needed for functional efficiency. Mixing up this category with the student community points to confusion; of course, disturbing demonstrations, obstructive strikes, ragging and other operations which make classes difficult to be conducted or study menaced by turbulence can always be prevented because they have a nexus to the goals of a student in college to equip himself with knowledge. Banishing politics for an 18-year-old student is to deny him the fundamental opportunity of becoming a good citizen to vote.
While student politics in the southern states may be driven by greater idealism. Down south where education tends to be regarded more seriously, things are much grim. A modification of the Karnataka State University (KSU) Act, 1986 banned students unions. Subsequently though the KSU Act 2000 permitted elected student unions in colleges subject to official permission, college managements have seldom granted permission, citing political interference in pre and post student union elections. Though some colleges do have unions and elections, they are mostly apolitical cultural and sports promotion organizations committed to student welfare activities (i.e. subsidization of higher education). With politicians of all parties committed to heavy subsidies for tertiary education, violence has been kept away from college and university campuses in the state. Likewise in Tamil Nadu, the student movement which peaked in the sixties and seventies in the wake of the anti-Hindi language agitation has lost much of its steam. Most Chennai colleges have done away with direct elections to college unions.
It’s also because of Students unions the situation aroused. Student Unions should focus not only on the rights and sentiments of students but also there should be societal concern too. Political awareness and involvement is an integral part of education. If students are involved in student union activity they should get a feel of the pulse of the people, should become acquainted with peoples’ problems and aspirations and debate ways to solve them. All this is good training for the future when some of them will enter active politics and serve the country. People who argue that students should be insulated from national and state level politics may prove anti-education in future. Society needs leaders and leadership qualities are best nurtured in the realms of academia. Our students today are aimless and leaderless because student politics and debates have been proscribed. Mobilizing students for a cause and advocating idealistic causes is integral to higher education. Banning student elections and debates is like cutting off nose because of a cold. Student leaders should be encouraged at every level right from conduct of cultural, social and sporting events to everything.
The concern at present, however, is as to how best can the coming generation be prepared to take an intelligent part in the work of their country's regeneration. The recent interim order of the Supreme Court to implement the Lyngdoh committee recommendations on students’ union elections is widely accepted by the academic community. The committee, as per the order of the Supreme Court, was mandated to examine the alleged criminalization in student union elections, financial transparency and limits of expenditure involved in such elections, eligibility criteria for candidates contesting in such elections including the maximum age limits and minimum standards of academic performance and the need to establish a forum to address grievances and disputes arising out of such elections. Nevertheless, the J.M. Lyngdoh committee differing with the Kerala High Court judgments and even the primary observations of the Supreme Court and arrived at the conclusion that the ban on political activities of students shall amount to an infringement of the fundamental right to form associations, freedom of speech and expression enshrined in the Constitution. While stating this, the committee quotes a 1981 report of a UGC committee, which reiterates the necessity of political activities. “Political activities in the Universities are natural because the university is a community of thinking people, of those who are exploring the frontiers of knowledge and of those who criticize and evaluate every idea before accepting it.”
Our democratic tradition and the constitution, ensures fundamental rights to all citizens, which include freedom of speech and thought and freedom of association. Teachers and a section of students are not only voters but they can also be candidates in local, state or parliamentary elections. Presentations and debates about different ideologies and plans and perspective of national development are to be welcomed and political activity directed towards this end would be wholesome for the growth of the universities. Regretfully much of political activity comprising of violence and loathing is noticed and sensed on the campuses, is of a degenerate nature, which is a blot on the concept of campus politics. It is the politics of expediency, opportunism that is doing while even knowing that it is wrong. The price of the little gain for the doer may be a disruption of educational activities for all. One sees this when campaigns are mounted to prevent action against those who copied in the examinations or misused university funds in a variety of ways. In the words of the Lyngdoh Committee, the purpose of Student Unions is to voice students' “grievances”, take up issues of “student welfare”, and be a “healthy” ground for “training future leaders”. In fact, the universities are encouraged to organize “leadership-training programs with the help of professional organisation so as to groom and instill in students’ leadership qualities”! Many modernists believe that the days of violent revolutions are long gone and thus revolutions can be realized through the ballot and not necessarily the bullet. That brings the reason as to why our universities and other institutions of higher learning have a big responsibility to transform, recreate and organize our society.
College days usually should dream of changing the world. It should not matter in whose hand the power is, everyone should be invited, people from all shades of political and intellectual opinion to promote an ambiance of debate among students. Today students are vexed with the political pygmies. Politics unfortunately has become just about power grabbing and big bucks with the nation’s youth emulating what they witness. Student politics is dead all that is left is either student hooliganism or student reticentism. Almost six decades after independence it is self-evident that the student movements which discharged a vital role in the freedom struggle, has lost its bearings. The idealism which characterized the movement and prompted the Mahatma to co-opt it into the freedom struggle has evaporated from the nation’s campuses and transformed into a vested interest. At a time when foreign and private universities and colleges are gathering to storm the ramparts of higher education, this is an opportune moment for students’ unions to regain their struggle and idealism and help India’s institutions of higher education recover their lost momentum to re-position themselves as globally benchmarked centres of excellence. Certainly post-liberalization, India’s quest for developed nation status depends upon it.

Indeed, the right to vote vested in everyone at the age of 18 becomes a meaningful operation if only the exercise of franchise is an expression of political wisdom. In the finest sense of the word, politics must be obligatorily a subject of learning on every college campus that owes allegiance to the Constitution and its Preamble pledge. "We, the People of India" - the first five words of the Constitution - have made a revolutionary resolution to defend the politics of the Constitution. Winston Churchill once defined and defended the ballot process which every judge and administrator must constantly remember: "A little man, walking into a little booth, with a little pencil, making a little cross on a little bit of paper - no amount of rhetoric or discussion can possibly diminish the overwhelming importance of the point." The mission of our higher education institutions should be to educate future citizens about their civic as well as professional duties instead of making them ‘Knowledge labor’ and ‘intellectual slaves’ working for the so called capitalistic forces according to their will and wish. Therefore our institutions must prioritize and implement society centered education in the classroom, in research and in services to the community thus thinking for the society debating for the policies in the campuses and compelling the Assemblies and Parliament to adopt the right policies, right decisions at the right time for the welfare of the people consequently crafting “Creative Campuses” for a developed India.