:: Related Stories ::
 |
Jio : UGC removes EEC report from website
NEW DELHI : The Statesman reported
on July 30 that the University Grants Commission
(UGC) has removed the report of the Empowered
Expert Committee (EEC) on the selection of
Institutions of Eminence (IoEs) from its
website. The UGC resolution on the EEC’s report
has also been mysteriously taken off the UGC’s
website.
They were apparently uploaded on the UGC website
on July 11 -- two days after the Union HRD
Ministry announced that the central government
has shortlisted six IoEs -- 3 from the public
sector and 3 from the private sector, including
the non-existent Jio Institute of the Reliance
Foundation -- based on the EEC’s report and
recommendation.
The link to both these documents now throws up a
cryptic statement on the UGC website, stating
that “We will be back shortly, we are undergoing
maintenance !!! The requested page or resource
was not found. We apologize for inconvenience.”
The point that other parts of the UGC website
have continued to function normally raises
suspicion besides putting a question mark over
this move.
Even other online references to these documents
did not yield any results. When The Statesman
reached the HRD ministry’s higher education
secretary R Subrahmanyam for a comment, he said,
“It was displayed for a month. UGC routinely
removes old documents.”
Strangely, the UGC website displays reports
going back to 1975. The government’s decision to
announce the Jio Institute among six declared
IoEs sparked a controversy which has been
raging, with a number of Opposition parties
continuing to question it within and outside
Parliament.
In its report, the EEC recommended 11
educational institutions as IoEs, of which the
UGC/government approved only 6 -- IISc
Bangalore, IIT Bombay, and IIT Delhi from the
public sector; and Jio Institute (Reliance
Foundation), Pune in “greenfield category”,
Birla Institute of Technology & Sciences, Pilani,
and Manipal Academy of Higher Education from the
private sector -- which was announced by the HRD
ministry in a release issued on 9 July.
At two places in this statement, however, the
HRD ministry’s release claimed that the EEC in
its report “recommended selection of only 6
institutions (3 from public sector and 3 from
private sector) as IoEs”, which is factually
incorrect.
With Jio’s inclusion among the IoEs continuing
to be at the centre of a row, the HRD Minister
Prakash Javadekar has repeatedly tried to give
explanations in both Houses of Parliament,
maintaining that the proposed Jio Institute has
not been given the status of IoE but only a
“letter of intent” under the greenfield
category.
Clarifying in the Rajya Sabha on 26 July,
Javadekar said that Jio Institute has been
offered just a “letter of intent”, which is
“conditional”. The same issue was again raised
in the Lok Sabha today. The HRD minister echoed
his claims in the Lower House too.
“They (Jio) have been only issued letter of
intent with a clear guideline of what they
should do for three years, complete the process
and then only they will be granted (IoE) status
after verification and inspection,” said
Javadekar in reply to a question from Prasun
Banerji, a Trinamul MP from Howrah.
Javadekar added that altogether 114 institutions
had applied for getting the tag of IoEs in which
various universities from West Bengal were also
included.
The HRD ministry officials have claimed that the
EEC is working independently to select more IoEs
in both the public and private sectors, with the
Centre planning to have ultimately a total of 20
~ 10 each from the public and private sectors ~
IoEs. Jio Institute is to be set up by the
Reliance Foundation Institution of Education and
Research.
To a query on whether the HRD Ministry would
reconsider the decision with regard to Jio
Institute, Javadekar said it has “nothing to do
with the government”. He said LoIs have been
issued to Jio Institute and Manipal Academy of
Higher Education with the condition that the
they would submit a report to the HRD Ministry.
|
|
|
A farce in three acts - The Statesman
report |
|

ACT 1 | A POLICY TAILOR MADE FOR JIO INSTITUTE
Statesman News Service
NEW DELHI August 1, 2018 : There are two ways
in which Governments can be made to bend to individual
will. The first is to persuade those in power to flout
policy to favour a person or an institution. This route
can open governments to criticism because the deviation
is easily established.
The other is to get Government to write policy that fits
the needs of a beneficiary. The Institution of Eminence
scheme formulated by the Government last year appears to
be an example of the latter, tailored as the
Gazette notification of 29 August 2017 was to favour
the proposed Jio Institute of the Reliance Foundation
run by Mukesh and Nita Ambani. But the devil is in the
details.
To begin with, the
Gazette notification entitled UGC (Institutions of
Excellence Deemed to be Universities), Regulations 2017,
lists the following parameters that the Committee of
Experts constituted to identify Institutions of Eminence
should seek in an applicant:
It should preferably be multi-disciplinary or
interdisciplinary and have both teaching and research
focus of an exceptionally high quality.
It should offer interdisciplinary courses, including in
areas of emerging technology and interest as well as
those of relevance to the development concerns of
countries like India and also award degrees, diplomas
and other academic distinctions in such
interdisciplinary areas.
It should have a good proportion of foreign or foreign
qualified faculty. Foreign / foreign qualified faculty
means: a. Any faculty of non-Indian citizenship, or b.
Any Indian citizen who has spent considerable time in
academics in a foreign country, with his academic
qualification/experience from top 500 Institutions
figuring in a reputed world ranking.
There should be a reasonably good mix of lndian and
foreign students.
There should be a transparent merit-based selection in
admissions, so that the focus remains on getting
meritorious students.
The admission process should be need-blind – so that
once a student gets admission purely on merit, such a
meritorious student should not be turned away for lack
of financial ability.
The faculty student ratio should be not be less than
1:20 at the time of notification issued declaring an
Institution as an Institution of Eminence and should
increase over time so as not to be less than 1: 10 after
five years of this date. The faculty for this purpose
includes the regular faculty, adjunct faculty, and
long-term faculty (for at least three years). Part time
faculty shall not be counted for the purpose.
There should be laboratory facilities to undertake
cutting-edge scientific research for those Institutions
of Eminence Deemed to be Universities doing scientific
research. In case of humanities, social science and
other interdisciplinary areas, the faculty should be
engaged in research and field work in frontier areas
using the latest methodologies.
The Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University
should strive to achieve social impact by engaging in
applied research and innovation in issues of concern to
developing societies.
The Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University
should develop teaching and research collaborations with
a reasonable number of global universities figuring in
the most reputed global rankings.
Even a cursory glance at these parameters, unexceptional
except for the use of delightfully vague phrases such as
“exceptionally high quality” and “most reputed global
rankings”, would suggest that they can only be met by
existing institutions, and not those proposed to be set
up. For instance, how can an institution that has not
been set up have a reasonable mix of Indian and foreign
students, or a faculty student ratio of 1:20? How indeed
could it have laboratory facilities of any quality,
leave aside those capable of cutting-edge research?
But if this isn’t enough, the notification goes on to
list further requirements for an Institution of
Eminence, which clearly can’t be met by an institution
that has not been set up:
The Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University
should be known for promoting a culture where faculty
are encouraged to publish regularly in peerreviewed
journals and engage academically with the issues of
concern to the society. It should have a record of
research publications at the mean rate of at least one
per faculty member each year in reputed peer reviewed
international journals based on publication made by top
100 global Universities in these journals.
The Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University
should have a worldclass library with subscriptions to
reputed journals in the areas of courses it is offering.
The Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University
should have student amenities comparable with that of
globally reputed institutions.
The Institution should be accredited by National
Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) or an
alternative version of NAAC which conforms to UGC
(Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities)
Regulations, 2017 or its amendments and also be assessed
by at least one reputed international accreditation
agency, one whose ratings are a credible and widely
accepted global benchmark.
So how did the Government do away with all these
requirements to favour the Jio Institute? Quite simply
by adding a few pertinent clauses to the notification.
Clause 4.2.11 (i) (b) of the notification says that a
“yet to be established institution” should have “an
initial corpus fund of Rs 60 crore which would be
increased at an annual uniform annual rate to Rs 150
crore in ten years’ time and guaranteed pipeline of Rs
500 crore, along with a credible plan for additional Rs
1,000 crore.”
Clause 6.1 (iii) says: “The Sponsoring organization for
greenfield institutions should have members whose total
net worth is at least Rs five thousand crore
collectively.”
Clause 6.1 (iv) says: “The Sponsoring organizations
should have at least some members whose credentials, as
borne out by their record and to the satisfaction of the
Empowered Experts committee, indicate that they are
committed to the objectives laid out…”
So, there we have it. An applicant with big money and a
statement of intent and a bushel of promises would
qualify under criteria that existing institutions would
find exacting. Who better to do so than Asia’s richest
man? And thus, Jio Institute was able to satisfy the
Empowered Experts Committee that it would be able to
meet all the requirements listed in the Gazette
notification without a brick having been laid. So
impressed were the experts that they noted in their
report to the Government that only Jio Institute met the
four criteria they had identified for inclusion – (i)
Availability of land for construction of the
institution; (ii) Putting in place a core team with very
high qualification and wide experience; (iii) Funding
for the institution and (iv) A strategic vision plan
with clear annual milestones and vision plan.
Act II: Policy makers and
protagonists
August 2, 2018 : It
is now well known that the presentation made by the
Reliance Foundation’s Jio Institute was led by Mr Mukesh
Ambani and
his Adviser, Mr Vinay Sheel Oberoi, an IAS officer of
the 1979 batch who had retired in 2017 as Secretary in
the Ministry of Human Resource Development, the wing of
government under which the University Grants Commission
operates and the one that appointed the Empowered
Experts Committee which selected the Institutions of
Eminence.
According to reports, the presentation was ambiguous
enough to raise questions on how the Empowered Experts
Committee could possibly have reached the conclusion it
did about Jio Institute’s suitability for inclusion.
Jio’s presentation, according to Republic TV’s website,
www.republicworld.com, was made up of in all of five
brief slides that made the following claims:
o Promoters’ commitment of Rs 9,500 crore towards
capital expenditure, gap funding and scholarships;
o Plan to recruit faculty from top 500 global
institutions
o Merit-based admissions
o Fully residential, self-contained and inclusive campus
o Interdisciplinary research and world-class research
infrastructure
o Multidisciplinary from the start
The same report on its first page gives the composition
of UGC in 2016-17 and lists Mr Oberoi as a Member up to
February 2017 in his capacity as Secretary, Ministry of
HRD.
Mr Oberoi’s involvement with Government and the HRD
ministry did not end with his retirement. In April 2018,
he was appointed by the HRD ministry as Chairman of a
seven-member high-power committee to examine the system
of Class X and XII examinations conducted by the Central
Board of Secondary Education.
In February 2018, Mr Oberoi was appointed Chairman of
the Raksha Mantri’s Advisory Committee on Ministry of
Defence Capital Projects to review ongoing capital
acquisition projects of over Rs 5 billion.
With the matter having been handled thus, it is little
surprise that those who are meant to be impressed by the
Institutions of Eminence Scheme are less than sanguine
about its prospects.
The Times Higher Education’s World University Rankings
are considered one of three top global university
indexes, the other two are by Quacquarelli Symonds and
by the Shanghai Jiao Tao University respectively.
In a scathing report published on 31 May, Times
Higher Education said, “But since the initial
announcement, things have not progressed quite as
planned. The UGC invited a select number of leading
universities to submit their applications by 12
December. About 100 did so. Prakash Javadekar, the
minister of human resource development – who looks after
education – initially expressed great satisfaction. But
a few weeks later, in late January, the UGC announced an
extension of the deadline to 22 February. In a country
where irregularities of all kinds are commonplace, it
came to be rumoured that the extension was to enable
select private universities, which had missed the first
deadline or were unable to make up their mind earlier,
to apply. It did not help that the names of the 100
universities that had applied initially were not made
public.”
The report added: “Most higher education experts believe
that the institutions of eminence initiative is a good
one. Many point to the success of China in building
highly ranked universities over the past two decades and
hope that India can emulate it. However, the entire
process so far has been amateurish. The guidelines
issued by the UGC in September 2017 are poorly written
and often lack clarity. The decision to extend the
deadline several weeks after the first deadline passed
was strange. So is the secrecy about the applicant
institutions. And the confusion over the criteria the
EEC is permitted to use is just embarrassing. Supporters
of India’s higher education can only hope that the
government, the UGC and the EEC get their act together.
So far, the opacity and coordination problems are just
feeding the idea that, as it has with many other big
initiatives in other sectors, the Indian government will
make a hash of the institutions of eminence initiative.”
The questions raised by Times Higher Education are
pertinent. The University Grants Commission was dogged
in its refusal to name the universities that had applied
for the Institution of Eminence tag immediately after
the first deadline ended on 13 December.
A query under the Right to Information Act filed on 13
December was disposed of with the remark that it did not
pertain to a particular section. An appeal was similarly
dismissed.
What were the UGC and the HRD Ministry hiding? When
contacted, the Secretary, HRD told The Statesman on 12
July that a 23-day extension was granted at the request
of some persons but refused to specify who they were.
Detailed questionnaires sent to the HRD Minister, Mr
Prakash Javadekar at his official e-mail address, to Mr
Mukesh Ambani through his authorised corporate
communications official and to Mrs Nita Ambani through
the official e-mail address of the Reliance Foundation,
too did not elicit a response.
These questionnaires had among other things pointedly
asked when Jio Institute had applied for inclusion in
the scheme – before the first deadline or the extended
one. None of them chose to answer.
Act III: Letters of inexplicable
intent
August 3, 2018 : The announcement on 9 July by
the Ministry of Human Resource Development that the
yet-to-be-launched Jio Institute of the Reliance
Foundation had been chosen as an Institution of Eminence
was greeted with anger and derision.
Since that day, the Government has sought to convey an
impression that it is back-pedaling. Now, it has come up
with the facile defence that the Jio Institute has not
in fact been recognised as an Institution of Eminence
but has been issued a Letter of Intent that will
translate into the eminence tag only if the institution
delivers on everything it has promised.
This defence has been offered by the Minister, Mr
Prakash Javadekar, even in Parliament to suggest that
the non-existent Jio Institute and the long-running five
other institutions of distinction have been treated
differently.
Facts, unfortunately, come in the way of this tortured
re-alignment of the narrative by the HRD Minister and
his officials.
The first announcement of the six Institutions of
Eminence chosen by the Government came through a series
of tweets by the Minister, Mr Prakash Javadekar.
o “Yet another landmark quality initiative of @narendraModi
Government. The #Institute of Eminence are selected by
the Experts Panel and today we are releasing list of 6
universities – 3 each in public and private sector”.
o “The #Institute of Eminence are important for our
country. We have 800 univ, but not a single university
in top 100 or even 200 in the world ranking. Today’s
decision will help achieve this.”
o “Improving ranking needs sustained planning, complete
freedom and public institutes getting public funding.
This is the commitment of @narendramodi govt to not to
interfere but to allow institutes to grow the way they
should grow.”
There is nothing in these tweets to suggest that one of
the six institutes – the only one that has not yet seen
light of day – would get only a Letter of Intent.
Tweets, however, are a constrained form of communication
and it might not have been possible for Mr Javadekar to
tell the complete story via social media. But there were
no space restrictions on the press release issued by the
Press Information Bureau of the Government at 8.23 p.m.
on 9 July.
The release was headlined “Government declares 6
educational ‘Institutions of Eminence’; 3 Institutions
from Public Sector and 3 from Private Sector
shortlisted” and had a sub-head that read “Each ‘Public
Institution’ selected as ‘Institution of Eminence’ will
get financial assistance up to Rs. 1000 Crore over a
period of five years. The landmark decision will help
the selected Institutions to become World Class
Educational Institutions: Shri Prakash Javadekar.”
The text of the release was equally unambiguous in that
it made no distinction between the yet-to-be-built Jio
Institute and the five other institutions – the IITs at
Delhi and Mumbai, the Indian Institute of Science, BITS
Pilani and Manipal Academy of Higher Education – insofar
as this recognition was concerned.
The release said: “The Government has shortlisted Six
Institutions of Eminence (IoEs) including 3 from Public
Sector and 3 from Private Sector. An Empowered Expert
Committee (EEC) in its report recommended selection of 6
institutions (3 from public sector and 3 from private
sector) as Institutions of Eminence. The details of
these Institutions are as under:
“Public Sector: (i) Indian Institute of Science,
Bangalore, Karnataka; (ii) Indian Institute of
Technology, Bombay, Maharashtra; and (iii) Indian
Institute of Technology, Delhi.
“Private Sector: (i) Jio Institute (Reliance
Foundation), Pune under Green Field Category; (ii) Birla
Institute of Technology & Sciences, Pilani, Rajasthan;
and (iii) Manipal Academy of Higher Education, Manipal,
Karnataka.
“The HRD Minister, Shri Prakash Javadekar has said that
this is a landmark decision and goes far beyond graded
autonomy. It will ensure complete autonomy to the
selected institutions and facilitate them to grow more
rapidly.
At the same time, they will get more opportunity to
scale up their operations with more skills and quality
improvement so that they become World Class Institutions
in the field of education, the Minister added.
“It is expected that the above selected Institutions
will come up in top 500 of the world ranking in 10 years
and in top 100 of the world ranking eventually overtime.
To achieve the top world ranking, these Institutions
shall be provided with greater autonomy to admit foreign
students up to 30% of admitted students; to recruit
foreign faculty upto 25% of faculty strength; to offer
online courses upto 20% of its programmes; to enter into
academic collaboration with top 500 in the world ranking
Institutions without permission of UGC; free to fix and
charge fees from foreign students without restriction;
flexibility of course structure in terms of number of
credit hours and years to take a degree; complete
flexibility in fixing of curriculum and syllabus, among
others.”
There was thus in the press release of 9 July no
hair-splitting between declaration as an Institution of
Eminence (in effect, a current-dated instrument) and
issue of a Letter of Intent to Jio Institute (a
post-dated one).
That only came later, and after a storm had broken over
the oxymoronic naming of a non-existent university as an
institution of eminence.
Mr. Javadekar informed Parliament on 30 July: “Letter of
Intent has been issued to only one institution, namely
Jio Institute, under greenfield category for setting up
‘Institution of Eminence Deemed to be University’ in the
next three years.” Similar statements were made by the
Secretary of the department to suggest that Jio
Institute had not actually been recognised as an
Institution of Eminence.
There is one problem with this narrative, and that is
the Gazette notification of 29 August 2017 which under
Clause 8.4 lays down the procedure for “Selection of
Institutions of Eminence Deemed to be Universities”.
This clause states: “After the receipt of application, a
two-stage approval process would be followed – issue of
Letter of Intent (LOI) initially and finally issue of
order for declaration as an lnstitution of Eminence
Deemed to be University.”
In other words, all selected institutions, and not just
the Jio Institute, would be issued Letters of Intent.
Clause 8.4 (d) states: “The recommendations of the
Empowered Expert Committee shall be submitted to the
Commission, which shall forward it to Ministry of Human
Resource Development within fifteen days of receipts of
the recommendations.”
Clause 8.4 {e) states: “The Ministry of HRD will issue a
Letter of lntent (LOI), or otherwise, within two weeks
of receipt of the recommendations under Regulation
8.4(d).”
Clause 8.4 (f) states: “The EEC will conduct yearly
review of the progress made by the Institutions to whom
LoI has been issued, to ascertain whether the progress
made by the institute is commensurate with time
considering that Institute has to be ready for
commencing the academic operations within the time
stipulated in LOI. In case EEC is satisfied that the
progress of any institute is not commensurate, it will
ask the Institution to rectify the situation within a
time frame prescribed by EEC and if still not rectified
by the end of the time period given, the EEC may
recommend withdrawal of LOI of that institute.”
Clause 8.4 (g) removes all ambiguities when it says:
“The Sponsoring Organization in case of new Institution
or the University, in case of existing Institution, will
set up or upgrade, as the case may be, the institution
and indicate its readiness for commencing academic
operations, as per the plan within three years of issue
of Letter of Intent. For extension of this period for a
maximum six months, it will have to apply to the
Ministry of Human Resource Development specifically for
the same giving the reasons for delay.”
In other words, the scheme as gazetted provides that all
selected institutions – and not just a greenfield
institution – would be (a) given Letters of Intent and
(b) begin to function as projected in their
presentations to the Empowered Experts Committee within
three years.
In law, in fact and in terms of its own notification,
the non-existent Jio Institute would in the eyes of the
Government thus appear to be on the same footing as the
Indian Institute of Science, the two IITs, BITS, Pilani
and Manipal Academy of Higher Education.
In conclusion, three assertions must be made:
* It is to the credit of this government that it was
able to take the enormously cumbersome World Class
Universities Bill of its predecessor and create a
workable model that could over time give the country at
least a handful of institutions to rank with the best in
the world.
* The Ministry of Human Resource Development under Mr
Javadekar and his bureaucrats allowed a good scheme to
be submerged in shame and opprobrium by the manner of
its implementation, whereby they seemed to go overboard
to please an individual and convey the impression that
the government can be made subservient to him.
* Mr Mukesh Ambani has through means that have been well
chronicled acquired the wealth to become Asia’s richest
man. Today, he has the power to do for the country that
created him a world of good in the field of education.
But this cannot be done by the assertion – as appears to
have been the case here – that he is bigger than the
country and a government seeking transformation, or that
he can blithely proceed from conclusion to premise.
Institutions, even those promoted by Mr Ambani, must
work towards eminence, not claim the attribute as a
birth-right. India after all is a democracy, not a
plutocracy. (Concluded)
(Courtesy : The Statesman)
|
|
|
|