The Hindu Business Line : Reading between the lines

The Finance Minister's new programme of 1 lakh scholarships for secondary school children is long overdue. So far, that is good. However, there is no mention of any outcome.

Budget 2007 has been described as pro-education. It is definitely a pro-education Minister budget. However, the jury is still out on whether it is indeed a pro-education budget.

Doubts linger for several reasons. One, performance of central schemes for social development does not inspire much confidence. According to the Constitution, education is essentially a State subject. The Centre can make plans; only State Governments can execute them. Unfortunately, only a few State Governments have covered themselves with glory in this area. Even in the capital city of Delhi, Std VI children in State schools cannot perform simple arithmetic or read simple passages at the level expected from Std II children. A couple of years ago, Finance Minister P. Chidambaram came out with the laudable idea of "outcome budget". His colleagues have so violently reacted to it that he has been forced to beat a diplomatic retreat. We do not hear of outcomes any more. He did announce an increase of 34 per cent in the education budget. His new programme of 1 lakh scholarships for secondary schoolchildren is long overdue. So far, that is good. However, there is no mention of any outcome.

Is 34 per cent increase in expenditure on education the desired outcome? Is distribution of 1 lakh scholarships the desired outcome? Both are inputs, not outcomes.

Will this largesse improve employability of our graduates, of whom only a third is estimated to be satisfactory? Will the scholarships enable more students to qualify on merit for admission to professional courses? How will the Centre ensure such outcomes? Answers to these questions are not known. That is why we cannot say whether the Budget is pro-education or not.

The Centre can, justifiably, plead that this is the case of taking the horse to the water: it can only help State Governments invest more in education but cannot make them perform better. However, the Centre is not entirely free of guilt. A few days ago, the University Grants Commission announced that it was releasing funds for conducting nationwide seminars. Even by the end of February, formal orders had not been received for grants that must be consumed by end-March!

Year after year, the Government releases large chunks of money towards February-end and expects it to be consumed within a month. As no one knows how much will be given and for what purpose, none of the operational departments can plan the utilisation of such funds in a systematic and efficient manner. As a result, thousands of crores are wastefully, ineffectively squandered.

Flawed system

I used to avoid this problem by keeping large orders ready in anticipation of last-minute release of funds. One year, in the 1960s, I parked Rs 20,000 (a large sum for an IIT professor in those days) in the National Physical Laboratory in return for a promise to fabricate some electronic components. Most administrators are afraid to take such risks; their accounts officials also can be uncooperative. In any case, the system is badly flawed.

A simple change of rules will rectify the problem: The Finance Ministry can rule that funds will not lapse on March 31, but one year after the day they were sanctioned (and not necessarily released). That will transform the way government departments operate. That will give ample time for administrators to plan and implement schemes with care; it will bring sanity and efficiency.

However, it is most unlikely that either the Finance Ministry or legislators will accept even such a simple change. We, the educated, are fond of decrying religious diehards; we laugh at their rituals and superstitions. Our bureaucrats and legislators are no better: they too are bound more by traditions than by logic. Tradition says that the legislature will sanction expenditure for the financial year and no further. That ritual is held sacred even if it leads to waste.

This year, there has been excitement about education because of the introduction of 27 per cent reservation for backward castes in all university institutions. The Central Government had even prepared orders instructing all institutions to enforce such reservations in faculty selections and even for promotions. Thanks to Public Interest Litigation mooted by some students of the Jawaharlal Nehru University and faculty of the All India Institute of Medical Sciences, that order has been held in abeyance.

This year's budget allocation should be seen against this background. As the Finance Minister pointed out, admissions to Central Universities will be increased by 54 per cent so that seats under the merit quota will not decrease. The increase of 34 per cent the Finance Minister has provided should be seen against this requirement of increasing admissions by 54 per cent.

Years ago, Lord Rutherford, one of the greatest physicists of the last century, told his colleagues that money was getting scarce due to recession in Britain. Therefore, "we should think better", he said.

Human capital crucial

It is understandable that at Budget time we get exercised about money. Actually, more than financial capital, it is human capital that is crucial for economic development and social welfare. We need the kind of people who can think better... we need institutions that will educate people to think better.

According to a famous American study, financial capital contributed barely 40 per cent of what education did to the growth of American economy in the 20th century.

Unfortunately, we are obsessed with quantity and not quality. We measure progress by inputs and not by outcomes. In particular, whatever the government touches tends to turn into dross. We should not blame politicians alone. There are many so-called intellectuals who are no less guilty of debasing education.

While expanding higher education, we have two choices: One, select those who will benefit from desired education standards; two, lower standards to the level admitted students can handle. Many teachers are so enthralled by the prospects of expansion and by the increase in promotion opportunities that they are prepared to lower academic standards.

A very senior policymaker (an academic, not an administrator) was recently asked why he was expanding professional education knowing full well that there are not enough teachers to teach, and most private institutions are no better than teaching shops. His answer was that further expansion was necessary because there was demand for such education. He was not concerned whether the students will get proper education; he was not concerned whether the students were capable. He himself said that two-thirds of current graduates are sub-standard. He knows that admission criteria for professional courses have been reduced to rock-bottom. Yet, he was willing to pander to political pressure and sanction even more institutions.

Employable graduates are the desired outcomes of education. Output of internationally competitive graduates is the desired outcome of good education. Thirty-four per cent increase in budget allocation is but one step, and a relatively minor one. However, in the absence of concrete steps towards higher quality, even politicians remain cynical about its utility.

There is a saying "Do not shoot the pianist because he is doing his best".

We should say the same about Chidambaram. Just as the piano of the pianist was out of tune, the UPA within which Chidambaram has to function is out of tune; it is putting forth a cacophony; he cannot do any better.