The Hindu Business Line : Investing in scholarships

Even as there is talk of reservations in the private sector, corporates should organise, collectively, a nationwide scholarship programme for talented poor children, as woefully poor-quality education lies behind the demand for reservation. The scholarships, says P. V. Indiresan, will be a sound investment, as they will also be an insurance against the government forcing private firms to employ unqualified persons purely on considerations of caste politics.

IN THE matter of socio-economic justice, there are two irreconcilable visions: One, backward castes are entitled to privileges of reservation even if they are well-to-do and powerful, and by the same token, forward caste members should suffer discrimination however impoverished and weak they may be. Two, only the poor need special support, and do so irrespective of caste or creed. Those who favour the first view hold the upper hand. They have forced the government to announce that, in the matter of recruitment, the private sector too should take caste into consideration.

Basically, politicians and Mandalite activists are hunters: They consume what others have produced or cultivated but do not create wealth on their own. They argue that they have discharged their responsibility in full once they distribute the wealth created by others, and that they have no responsibility to create wealth on their own. Once again, nature has shown that hunters (like tigers and lions) survive only in the jungle and even there only under protection.

As Jesus said, the meek inherit the earth. Thus, the aggressive stand taken by Mandalites is no less tenable than that of employers who, ostrich like, refuse to see the dangers of neglecting the disadvantaged.

The Prime Minister has promised that the Government will not legislate that the private sector should adopt the reservation policies that prevail for government appointments. He has asked for a debate on an Affirmative Policy to help the disadvantaged. However, the private sector would be unwise to take his assurance for granted. Enforcement of the reservation policy in the private sector may only be a matter of time.

Some years ago, psychologists conducted an experiment to measure maternal affection. They placed a mother monkey and its baby in a pan and slowly heated the pan. As the pan started getting painfully hot, the mother monkey picked up the baby and held it in the lap. When the heat became unbearable, the mother monkey dropped the baby on the pan and sat on top of it. If there is a limit to maternal affection too, how far can we expect Prime Ministers (the current or future ones) to resist political pressure and protect the private sector?

Leaders of the private sector have argued that their responsibility stops at generating wealth, which they are doing better than the government. Politicians and activists will not accept that argument, and they are right. Every agent in the society has not one but several responsibilities, and even multiple roles to play; for instance, employers are also citizens.

Then, consider the accompanying table, which gives a matrix with seven agents vertically and six types of responsibilities horizontally. How much should be the weightage in each cell of the matrix is a matter of personal opinion. Social scientists can prepare elaborate tests to determine what weightage each cell of the matrix should have. However, depending on the experimenter's bias, the results will vary widely; there can be no unanimity. Readers may like to fill the matrix themselves according to their own perceptions. They will then realise why everyone has multiple responsibilities, and how difficult it is to apportion responsibility.

Employers too should consider the following factors: One, wealth created without reference to the way it is distributed is tarnished wealth. It is also unsustainable wealth because, as history has demonstrated repeatedly, unbalanced economic systems cannot stand tall, and collapse under their own weight. Two, woefully poor quality education lies behind the demand for reservation. Mandalite politicians derive a dual benefit from this situation: Keeping most poor people ill-educated preserves their vote banks intact; job reservation ensures the ardent support of the vociferous.

For that reason, there is little prospect of Indian politicians allowing the poor to be educated properly. Lack of finance cannot be the problem because many State governments have failed to utilise even 10 per cent of the funds allotted to them under the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan programme.

Three, 50 years ago, Brahmins monopolised most jobs that required higher education. Nowadays, that is no longer true; other communities have demonstrated that they too have the same competence. Apparently, all castes have similar distribution of inborn intelligence; backward communities are backward not because of inborn deficiency but because of poor education.

Four, until the 1960s, England had the system of 11-plus examination. At age eleven, after their primary education, all children went through a nationwide "11-plus" examination. Those who qualified went to reputed academically oriented schools; those who did not went to secondary schools with vocational bias.

The system was given up on the ground it is unfair to the poor who tend to be "late-developers". It has now become evident that it was an incorrect argument. By streaming students at 11 years of age helped many poor children to study in top schools.

Postponing selections to end of higher secondary level condemned them to badly run government schools all through. (Even in England, only three government schools are in the top one hundred, with the highest ranked 97.)

Then, why not identify talented children at the kindergarten level itself? That is ideal but not optimum. Success depends not merely on innate talent but also on application. Not all bright children take studies seriously. Testing at age 11 after five years of schooling is a reasonable compromise: It measures zest for study without putting an undue premium on privileged tutoring that only the rich can afford.

Five, and finally, political pressure is mainly for high-level jobs. The Indian Army, which demands exacting qualities in its officers, has always recruited officer-cadets at the school level, and has not waited for them to graduate.

Hence, except in the case of learned professions such as law, medicine, science and engineering, there is no proof that higher education is necessary even for superior jobs.

These arguments lead to the following hypotheses: (a) Poor education is not the curse of backward castes but of the poor of all castes. (b) Talent is not the preserve of any community, or of the well-to-do. With due training and education, all communities (and the poor too) will yield similar proportions of talented youth. (c) Due to political self-interest in vote banks, and political disinclination to discipline teachers, state-run schools cannot provide good education. (d) In their own self-interest, employers should support talented poor children. (e) Political pressure will be mainly for high-level jobs (about 100,000 recruits per year). (f) Most jobs do not need higher education; school level education (combined with in-house training) will suffice. (g) Potential talent is best identified at the end of primary education. (h) Confining assistance to the poor, irrespective of caste, is the best way to eradicate caste distinctions.

Then, employers should: (a) Identify talented poor children (irrespective of caste) from among those who have completed primary education. (Landless labour, uneducated parents, those living in unauthorised slums are typical indicators of poverty that will effectively capture all needy children irrespective of caste.)

(b) Select each year, around a 100,000 such children and grant them handsome scholarships for education in the best possible schools.

Educating each child in top schools for six-seven years will cost Rs 1-1.5 lakh. That may appear a lot. It is not. The capital cost of creating a high-level job is at least ten times more. Even office space costs much more.

Scholarships for poor deserving students are not a charity but a sound investment. Such scholarships will also be the insurance against the government forcing private firms to employ unqualified persons purely on considerations of caste politics.

For the healthy growth of the economy, and for its own survival, the corporate sector should resist caste-politics and organise (preferably collectively) a nationwide scholarship programme for talented poor children. The estimated cost is one per cent of the wage bill, much larger than the education cess the government has imposed.

As State governments are unable to utilise efficiently the funds they already have, Education Cess is unlikely to help the poor much but these scholarships will surely produce valuable additional talent. For that reason, the Centre would do well to offer tax incentives for such scholarships in the same manner as it does for science research.

Alternatively, the Centre may use the cess collection for expanding the admittedly successful Navodaya school system. However, the basic question remains: Who deserves reservation in good schools — the poor irrespective of caste or the backward castes irrespective of wealth?

(The author is a former Director of IIT Madras. Response may be sent to indresan@vsnl.com)

This is 136th in the Vision 2020 series. The last article was published on November 1.

More Stories on : Education | Vision 2020 | Social Welfare | Politics

Article E-Mail :: Comment :: Syndication :: Printer Friendly Page

Stories in this Section
Equity-linked annuities for pension investors

Be a sport, don't tax

Management by prioritising

Half-yearly review of Central finances — Putting fiscal rectitude in perspective

Oil-rich, corruption-riven

A reality check on perceptions

Wanted: Cool heads

Investing in scholarships

Alternative fuels