名古屋高等教育研究 第 16 号 （2016）

Governance, Growth and Equity: Reflections
from Indian Higher Education
JOSHI Mahendra Kishore*＜Abstract＞
Higher education is now widely accepted as a foremost instrument
for fostering economic growth. The Indian higher education systemis the largest in the world in terms of the number of institutions andthe second largest in enrollments. About 29.6 million students are
currently enrolled in higher education institutions in India, but the
Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) is still very low about 21.2%. There arearound 712 universities and 36,671 colleges in India. This mammoth
network of higher education institutions includes a large private
sector that has emerged explicitly and outsized during last two
decades. The regulators associated with governance of higher
education are overlapping and entangled across various ministries
and regulatory bodies.
Despite the various intervention measures to address equity
objectives, disparity in access as well as participation still exists interms of gender, ethnic groups, and economic criteria and by location.
The present paper attempts to delineate and identify the advent andgrowth of Indian higher education besides discourses on governanceand equity.

1．Introduction
Higher education plays a significant role in knowledge production anddissemination. Further, the knowledge production and dissemination are
Professor, Economics of Education, Maharaja Krishnakumarsinhji
Bhavnagar University, India
Visiting Professor, Center for the Studies of Higher Education, Nagoya
University

215

indispensable in achieving economic growth. Economists have empirically
substantiated the notion about the contribution of higher education toeconomic growth, both directly and indirectly (Hansen and Lehmann 2006,
Joshi 2006, Barro and Lee 2010). Such writings and evidences have fostered
all countries to expand the periphery of their higher education.
It is common to observe in writings an assertion that in many countries
both developed and developing countries, the higher education landscapehas changed during the post 1990s period, and India does not seem to be
exception to this proclamation (Joshi and Ahir 2014). The higher educationin India has moved from elite to mass. This change has brought many new
dimensions to the shape of Indian higher education as reflected in theenrolments, institutions, private participation, equity, quality etc.
The present paper makes an attempt to introspect the growth of Indian
higher education and analyse the predicaments associated with thisgrowth. The first three sections discuss the structure of education, various
issues related to governance, higher education growth statistics, followedby discussion on equity in the last part of the paper.

2．Structure of Indian Higher Education
The level of education pursued after senior secondary education at theage of eighteen is referred to as higher education. Table 1 shows that the
duration of the undergraduate program vary from three years (like in caseof Bachelor of Science, Commerce, Business administration and Arts) tomore than three years (like in case of Bachelor of Engineering andTechnology ‒ B.E./B.Tech the duration is four years or in case of Bachelorof Medicine and Bachelor of Surgery ‒ MBBS the duration is five years).
Successful completion of an undergraduate program makes a student
eligible for postgraduate program. The duration of postgraduate program
may vary from one year (for education ‒ M.Ed.) to three years in case of
Medicine or Surgery (MD/MS). The duration for the postgraduate
program for most of the traditional subjects like social sciences, science,commerce and arts is two years (Joshi and Ahir 2014).

216

Governance, Growth and Equity
Table 1The Structure of Higher Education in India

Age
27
26
25
24

Ph.D.

23

M.Phil

22
21
20
19

Ph.D.
Ph.D.

PG
(Medicine/Dental)PG (For all
the below
PG
HigherPG (For all (Education) faculty)
Education the below
UG
in India faculty)(Education) UG
UG(Engineering, (Medicine
UG (Humanities, Science, Technology,& Dental)
Polytechnic
Agriculture andSocial Sciences,
Pre Teacher (Diploma
Commerce, Management, Veterinary
Training
Program)
Sciences)
Rural Studies)
Program

18
17 Senior Secondary School
Note: UG refers to Undergraduate Programme and PG refers to Post Graduate Programme.
There is also provision of M.Phil programme in the faculty of Humanities, Science, Social
Sciences, Commerce, Management, Rural Studies and education. Students in these faculty
can also enrol in Ph.D. directly without joining the M.Phil. programme

3．Institutional Autonomy
India has witnessed an incredible growth in terms of higher education
institutions during the last three decades. The Indian higher education systemis the largest in the world by the institutional count.
But this growth also endorse challenges in context of implementing thedefined authority/autonomy, assuring transparency in accountability andthe subsequent outcomes. These tangible challenges have contoured in theform of issues related to equity, efficiency, quality and above all thegovernance of higher education in India (Joshi and Ahir 2013).
Pandey(2004) recognizes three autonomies associated with thegovernance of higher education ‒ institutional autonomy (related to thedecision-making and operational mechanisms), financial autonomy (related
to raising funds and its use) and academic autonomy (related to theteaching learning process).
Various statutory documents like Acts, Statutes, Ordinances, andGazette Notifications etc. related to higher education have evolved over a
period of about a century. This process of inclusion, inception and217

amendment has involved various committees to review the provisions tokeep the system abreast with the dynamic changes resulting from an everexpanding higher education system and the global environment. Despite ahomogeneous organizational structure, the volume of higher education
institutions as well as financing source has led to differentiated provincial(State) legislation edifice for this sector. In spite of well framed regulations,laws and decrees, the piecemeal and defunct practice along with erroneous
implementation, impedes in the attainment of governance objectives.
Institutional autonomy is associated with the framework and structureof the decision making process and the operational freedom. The
institutional autonomy here is discussed in context of external regulatory
framework and internal regulatory framework in India thereby explaining
the power-play between the various interest groups (Joshi and Ahir 2015b).
3.1

University, Higher Education and Technical Education

India is a Federal Union of 29 States and 7 union territories. In the
post-independence era, a constitutional provision under Article 45
accorded the responsibility of providing the education on State
governments. All levels of education were on the State list till 1976. The
subject of education was brought to the Concurrent List in 1976 throughthe 42nd Amendment as Entry 2521. With this, the Center was placed at
par with the state to fulfill the responsibilities related to all levels of
education. Items in the Union lists provide for ‘Co-ordination anddetermination of standards in institutions for higher education or researchand scientific and technical education, Central Universities establishedunder article 371-E and institutions of national importance’. The separate
legislative powers of the Centre and the State have been derived throughvarious acts to define the authority and the accountability of various
stakeholders as also for the formation of various regulatory and statutory
bodies to govern the higher education. Thus, the Central government islargely responsible for the overall development and maintenance of thestandards of the higher education system in the country, providing limited
funding in the form of grants to State institutions and bearing the financial
responsibility of the institutions affiliated with the Central government.

218

Governance, Growth and Equity

Similarly, the State governments are responsible for financing institutions
affiliated with the state governments. Private unaided institutions arerecognized by Central or State governments depending upon theiraffiliation respectively. These institutions are also referred to as‘self-financing’ institutions since they are not dependent for funding on
public treasury (MoE 1964). The Central government discharges its
constitutional responsibilities through Ministry of Human Resource
Development (MHRD), Department of Higher Education. The Departmentof Higher Education is responsible for University and higher education.
The department discharges its functions through various regulatory andstatutory bodies like the University Grants Commission-UGC (foruniversity and higher education), All India Council for Technical
Education-AICTE (for technical education), National Assessment andAccreditation Council (NAAC) etc. (MHRD 2014b).
Analogous to the Central structure, the States also have an independent
ministry of education.

The States have their own State University Acts

with the broad structure more or less similar to the Central University
Act with minor variations in nomenclature or functionalities.
Central Advisory Board of
Education (CABE)

Central Goverment
Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD)
Department of Higher Education
University & Higher Education

State Governments
Minister of Education

Department/Commissionerateof Higher Education
Universities

University Grants Commission (UGC)
Central Universities/University Level Institutions

Affiliated Colleges

National Assessment &Accreditation Council (NAAC)
Association of Indian Universities (AIU)

Department/Commissionerateof Technical Education

Technical Education
All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE)Technical Institutions

MHRD Funded Technical Institutions & Councils
National Board of Accreditation (NBA)Distance Education
Distance Education Council of India (DECI) (proposed)
Difference Councils, Research Institutes and Other Insititutes of Higher Learning
Source: Joshi and Ahir, 2015b

Figure 1

External Regulatory Framework for Higher Education in India

219

The All India Council of Technical Education (AICTE) is the governing
authority for technical education in India. It was established through an
Act of Parliament in 1987. It is the governing body related to the education,
research and training in engineering, technology, architecture, town
planning, management, pharmacy and applied arts and crafts with Central
government having the ultimate power in considering the policy issues. Its
primary function is to ensure coordinated and integrated development oftechnical and management education and maintenance of standards using
the Central funds (MHRD 2014c).
Technical institutions in India are funded by Central government, State
governments and self-financed institutions. Many states regulate the provincial technical institutions through State Technical Universities/ Boards.
The technical self-financed institutions have flourished since last two decades. National Board of Accreditation, was incorporated to accredit technical programs unlike NAAC that accredits institutions (MHRD 2014c).
3.2

Internal regulatory framework of higher education in India

Higher education is provided through institutions like universities,
colleges and stand-alone institutions. Universities have the monopoly toaward a degree, but colleges and stand-alone-institutions cannot award a
degree. The way the public universities operate in India, affiliate theircharacteristics more towards the ‘bureaucratic model of governance’ ofhigher education, as characterized by Weber (1947) and Stroup (1966). It
has “legal rationality, tenure, competency as the basis of promotion andacademic career is exclusive” among others.
3.2.1

Universities

In India, Universities can be unitary with single or multiple campuses aswell as affiliating universities. Affiliating universities affiliate colleges andsupervise their academic standards, conduct examinations and award
degrees on behalf of the affiliated colleges. Various types of universities
comprise of central universities, state universities, deemed universities,
institutes of national importance and private universities. Various types ofcolleges comprise of government colleges, private-aided colleges, private-220

Governance, Growth and Equity

unaided colleges and autonomous colleges. Stand-alone institutions
generally run Diploma/PG Diploma program with an authorization bysome statutory body. A detailed bifurcation of the types of universities andcolleges is provided in Figure 2.
Central Universities, Deemed Universities, Central Open universities
and Institutions of National Importance, State Public Universities, State
Private Universities and State Open Universities are the types of
institutions empowered to award degrees1). A university is vested with thepowers to provide for the advancement and dissemination of knowledge;
grant or withdraw a degree, a diploma or a certificate on a person after
testing, examining and evaluating through various methods to maintainthe education standards; recognize or withdraw recognition of an
institution of higher learning; appoint persons in teaching or academic
positions and administrative positions and specify their conditions ofservices and code of conduct; establish and maintain colleges; award
fellowships, scholarships, medals and prizes; make necessary arrangements for research and advisory services and network with otherinstitutions and industries (MLJ 2009).

University / University Level Institutions

Universities under
the Purview of Center

Universities under
the Purview of State

Private Universities

Central Universities

State Public Universities

State Private Universities

Central Open Universities

State Open Universities

Private Deemed Universities

Government Deemed Universities

Institutes Established under
State Legislature Act

Institutions of National ImportanceStand Alone Institutions

Colleges
Affiliated Colleges

Recognized Center
Constituent /University Colleges

PG Center /Off Campus Center

Source: Joshi and Ahir, 2015b

Figure 2

Detailed Bifurcation of Types of Universities and Colleges in India

221

The officers of a university comprise of the Visitor, the Chancellor, theVice-Chancellor, the Pro-Vice-Chancellor, the Dean of Schools/Faculty, theRegistrar, the Finance Officer and the Controller of Examinations among
others. The authorities of a university include the Court/Senate, theExecutive Council/Syndicate, the Academic Council, the Board of Studies,
the Finance Committee etc. (MoE 1961). These officers and the authorities
are assigned crucial functions under various acts, statutes and ordinances.
An Act of the university lays down the broad terms and the structure
for the regulatory framework of a university. Further to ensure autonomy
to permit progressive experimentation suited to the local requirements ofa university, provisions for statutes and ordinance with more details of
operations is provided. A university has the powers to make/amend
Statutes/Ordinances.
State University Acts are largely similar to that of the Central
University Act. The State Universities Acts are also largely similar within
the state unless required otherwise to amend due to differences inhistorical or local diversity. Amendments are made to upgrade theUniversity Acts for homogeneity with the newer acts in the respective
states. The composition of senate, executive council, academic council mayvary slightly from State to State in terms of representatives fromgovernment, disadvantaged group etc. (UGC 1990).
Private universities are governed by the respective State Private
Universities Acts and in turn the UGC Establishment of and Maintenanceof Standards in Private Universities Regulations, 2003. A private
university has to further abide by the minimum standards set by thestatutory and regulatory bodies that govern the higher education in India
like the UGC, AICTE and various councils in context of faculties,
programmes, infrastructure facilities, financial viability, etc. They are
entirely selffinanced and are not entitled to any grants or financial aids
from the government. The detail of the programmes to be offered is to beprovided to the UGC and sanctioned by the UGC. The teaching, research,
examination, admission, employment, service conditions, remuneration,
student bodies, discipline, fees, funds, scholarships and concessions, budget,
annual report, accounts, audit, programme details and minimum standards

222

Governance, Growth and Equity

have to be in accordance to the norms and procedures laid down by the
UGC and other statutory bodies and is to be provided for in the necessary
statutes and ordinances of the university Act. The State legislatureapproves the establishment of the Private University through an Act andformal approval is sought from the UGC under Section 2 (f) of the UGC Act,1956.
The authorities of a Private University include the Governing body, theBoard of Management, the Academic Council and others as required by
the statutes and ordinances. The governing body is the supreme authority
and is expected to meet at-least twice in a calendar year. It provides
general superintendence and directions to regulate/control functioning of
the University by using all such powers as are provided by the University
Act or the Statutes, Ordinances, Regulations or rules. The Academic
council is the primary academic body.
Colleges cannot award a degree of their own. Affiliated colleges arenecessarily associated with some university for the purpose of awarding
degree for the program that they run.
UGC Affiliation of Colleges by Universities Regulations, 2009, provides
for the regulatory framework for the affiliated colleges. An affiliatingcollege has to be registered as a Society under the Societies Registration
Act, 1860, or is a body corporate, established or incorporated under aCentral or a State Act or is a Trust with trustees being appointed andvested with legal powers and duties. The proposed college seeking
affiliation has to fulfill requirements related to ownership of land,
infrastructure and civic facilities, academic staff, library, laboratories,
recreational facilities, furniture and fixtures in the class, etc. The affiliating
universities exercise control over colleges in almost all aspects of its
operations. An affiliating college follows all the norms, rules andregulations stipulated in the Statutes and Ordinances of the university towhich it is affiliated. The syllabus approved by the Academic council of theuniversity is to be followed. UGC norms and provisions made in Statutes
and Ordinances are to be followed for staff recruitments and their pay
scales, maintenance of student-teacher ratio, fees to be charged, seats
sanctioned for each programme, facilities for the disadvantaged groups,

223architectural master plan for the land use, student amenities andresidential facilities, academic growth plans over a period of next ten year.
3.3

Autonomy, and Quality

The providers of higher education include public sector, private sector,
grant-in-aid (public-private) sector and international providers. The
grant-in-aid sector which is peculiar to largely the Asian region is also
referred to as private aided sector. In grant-in-aid institutions, the initial
capital cost involved in establishing the infrastructure and facilities areprovided by the private sector and the recurring costs are provided by the
public sector which is highly subsidized. Private unaided sector is largely
funded on the basis of user-charges and so are also referred to as
self-financed institutions.
At a more micro/institutional level the expenditures have steadily
increased and revenues have not kept pace resulting in financial dearth.
The sources of funds for a university comprise of endowments,
government grants, affiliation fees, examination and tuition fees. Few
universities had very generous donors that have resulted in large
endowment funds. State and Central universities receive grants
respectively from the Central and the State governments mostly.
The private sector largely relies on user-charges and is self-financed.
Tuition fees are generally fixed on a cost-plus basis with some surplus forreinvestment (Agarwal 2006). The government has been encouraging
private initiatives in higher education but not commercialization (CABE2005). The prohibition on capitation fee has been clarified through various
judicial interventions. Educational institutions are seen as distinct
organizations than business houses and so a tough stand has been taken
against for-profit higher education. In the opinion of Kapur and Mehta (2004),
the scenario has resulted in a regulatory environment where the public
sector is facing financial pressures due to constrained fiscal positions andideological issues with mobilizing public funds, and the private sector is not
being deregulated to allow autonomy. As a consequence the growth of thehigher education sector is being challenged.
The Academic autonomy is largely governed in the form of institutional

224

Governance, Growth and Equity

structure. As has been discussed in the powers of various authorities of auniversity, like the Court, the Executive council, the Academic council, theBoard of Studies, etc. the participation permitted or not permitted to theacademic fraternity respectively determine the role that the academic
fraternity can play in the decision making processes.
Regulations related to the staff in the higher education in India aregoverned by the UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for
Appointment of Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities andColleges and Measures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher
Education, 2010 (UGC 2010). These regulations apply to all types ofuniversities, colleges and higher education institutions.
The quality and standards of higher education institutions in India areassured by regulatory bodies like National assessment and Accreditation
Council (NAAC)2) established by UGC in September 1994 and National
Board of Accreditation (NBA) established by AICTE in 1994. Many state
governments have already made NAAC accreditation mandatory. There
have been attempts to link funding with quality accreditation processes.
As per the Gazette notification of January 2013, it is mandatory now for
institutes falling under its purview to accredit them-selves to NAAC,
failing which the NAAC committee can also influence funding (for aided)or notification validity (for unaided) of such institutes (Joshi and Ahir 2013).
The notification mentions that no university or college would be eligible
for grants from the central government unless accredited (Mohanty 2013).
But it is difficult to envisage that NAAC as a single institute canaccomplish this mammoth task and so even in the 12th five year plan
document it has been suggested to set up more accrediting institutes withNAAC as an apex body (UGC 2011, NAAC 2014).
The state of higher education governance in India reflects the deliberate
fortitudes to support the regulatory mechanism in a dynamic changing
environment. The democratic autonomy and accountability imbibed in thepolitical economy of India is to quite extent the impetus factors in swaying
the governance of higher education system.

In spite of minor

improvements in the regulatory mechanism as incorporated in the official
and legal documents, a bigger area of concern is the operationalization,225

implementation,

supervisionandassessment

toassurethatthedocumented objectives are realized. Both political bureaucracy and higher
education institutions are attempting to achieve unified national goals
associated with developing human resource potential to its fullest. But theoverlaps of functions and authorities blur the demarcation of theauthorities and leads to functional ambiguity. Even the State higher
education

departments/

ministries

often

becometoodominating,interfering and influential to allow autonomy in the university functions.
The institutional autonomy has been challenged by the political andpowerful non-academic interference right from the appointment of thedecision making stakeholders like the Vice- Chancellor and executive
council members of the university.

The rigidity of the Board of studies

restricts the inclusion of industry representatives, national researchlaboratories or public undertakings (UGC 1990).
Despite the increase in the access to higher education in terms ofenrolments, serious concerns remain regarding the determination of an
ideal size of an institution to assure accountability. In India more than 100
universities have more than 100 colleges affiliated to them and about 13
universities have more than 500 colleges affiliated to each university.
Rajasthan University has a maximum number of 997 colleges (MHRD
2014a).
The financial autonomy is challenged both in public and private sector.
Most of the universities are facing a severe financial crisis since theendowment funds or grants are insufficient. The maintenance andoperational cost of the universities are higher than the available grants
and the development of infrastructure or enhancement of facilities
remains another concern. Even in such crisis, the efficiencies in
disbursement of funds is unchecked and unaccounted for while providing
for grants from the public treasury (NKC 2009).
Various committees have highlighted the need to raise the publicfunding available for the provision of higher education. While the Indian
higher education system is one of the world’s largest system, the public
provisions made for financing it as a percentage of GDP is one of thelowest in the world. Appropriate measures should be taken to tap

226

Governance, Growth and Equity

alternateresources

likealumniandphilanthropic

contributions,consultancies, commercial use of infrastructure, etc.
The academic autonomy in India is plagued by improper governancethat paralyze the purpose of knowledge production and dissemination. A
large part of the higher education system is compartmentalized within theboundaries of specific faculties, disciplines, courses and institutions. Lackof effective participation of the academic community in the formation andimplementation of university policy and programmes has deteriorated theacademic standards. A lack of motivation for research can be observed
due to paucity of funds, delay in disbursement of funds and lack of
incentives to organize seminars (Bhattacharjee 2013).
Quality and efficiency requires a closer affiliation between the academic
institutions, research organizations and industry. A collaborative effort tocomplement each other can prove mutually beneficial. To assure quality
and internal efficiency enhancement a greater and participative role will
have to be permitted to the research and industry experts in the decision
making authorities of the university specially the academic council (OECD2003).

3．Higher Education: Some Growth Statistics
Figure 3 shows that during a period of almost six decades in the
post-Independence era from 1950-51 to 2013-14, the number of colleges
increased from 695 to 36671. For the same period, the number of universities
increased from 30 to 712 (MHRD 2014d). The exponential growth in thenumber of institutions can observed in the post 2000 period. The colleges
increased with a Compound Annual Growth Rate (CAGR) of 8.43% during
2000-01 to 2013-14. During the same period, the universities increased with a
CAGR of 8.19%. In 2000, only two state private universities existed, but in theyear 2013, the number of state private universities touched 165 figure with
CAGR of 40.42%. The institutes offering distance education programs also
increased substantially during this period, reaching 197 in 2012-13 from 74 in
2000-01 with CAGR of 8.5%.

227

800

40,000

Colleges

654

665

712

33,023

Universities

30,00035,82936,671
700

600

564
25,000500

20,000400

15,000300

12,806
7,346

10,000256

Number of Universities

Number of Colleges

35,00035,593

200

4,722
3,604
5,000

695

55

30

0

190
100

1,542
103

133
0

1950-51 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 2013-14

Source: UGC 2014; MHRD 2014aFigure 3

Number of Universities and Colleges for 1950-51 to 2013-14

This growth in the number of colleges and universities took place withenormous private participation. The exponential growth of higher education
has been because of; growth in the population in the relevant age cohort,
lower cumulative drop-outs at earlier stages of education, increase in thetransition rate from secondary to higher education, increasedfordemandskilled workforce, greater purchasing power of the middle class,increasing fiscal pressures and prioritized ends in favour of other social
sectors, conducive environment for private sector

participation andincrease in the private returns on higher education. The increased demandfor higher education and the inability of the regional governments to financehigher education, provided space for private participation (Joshi and Ahir
2015a). The share of private unaided3) institutions in the year 2001 was 42.6%,
which climbed to 64.9% during 2013. This mammoth size of Indian higher
education is about seven times of the total higher education institutions in U.S.,eight times of all the institutions of Europe and twelve times that of total
institutions of China.
The enrolment in higher education institutions have also increased
substantially. In 1950-51, the enrolment was 0.4 million, which increased to14.3 million in 2005-06 and 29.6 million in 2012-13 (Figure 4).

The enrolment

share of private sector also increased during this period. In 2001, theenrolment share of private unaided institutions of the total higher education
enrolment was 32.9%, which increased to 59.4% in the year 2013.

228

Governance, Growth and Equity
Table 2

Insitutions by Type: 2013-14

Central University
State Public University
Deemed University
State Private University
Central Open University
State Open University
Insititution of National Importance
Insititutions under State Legislature Act
OthersColleges

42
310
127
143
1
13
68
5
3
36,671

Source: MHRD 2014d

27.5

17.2
14.4

18.5

29.2

29.6

20.7

15.6

8.6
3.3
0.4

4.8

4.9

1.0

1950-51 1960-61 1970-71 1980-81 1990-91 2000-01 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Source: MHRD 2014a, MHRD 2014dFigure 4

Number of Enrolments (in million) for 1950-51 to 2012-13

Students enroll in regular and distance mode for seeking higher education
degree. The share of students enrolled in regular mode is 88% of the total
enrolment and that of distance mode is 12%. The distance mode for access tohigher education has enhanced in recent times. In 2000-01, about 1.38 million
students were enrolled in distant mode, which increased to 5.17 million in
2012-13, reflecting CAGR of 10.69%.
The steep growth in enrolment took place in the post 2000 period withincrease in the number of institutions (largely private). During 2012-13, themale enrolment in regular mode was 16.33 million and female enrolment was
13.30 million. Similarly, the enrolment in distance mode for the same period
was 1.98 million for males and 1.55 million for females. The share of the girls
enrolment also simultaneously increased during the post 2000 period,
although it is not comparable to other countries. In 1950-51, the share of girls
enrolment in higher education was 11.3% only which remained around 30%
till 1990. In 2012-13, the female participation reached about 45% in the higher
education, reflecting private demand and policy outcome.

229

The faculty wise enrolment data (Figure 6 and 7) for the year 2012-13
reveals that about 41% of students are enrolled in various programs ofarts/humanities/social sciences faculty, which shows a decline of the faculty
share from about 45% in 2004-05. The programs run by arts/humanities/
social sciences faculty are inexpensive and access to these programs is easycompared to other faculty programs. Although the largest segment of
unemployed youth in India possess degree from this faculty.

44.9
39.3

41.4

31.6
26.7
21.9
17.4
11.3

1950-51

1960-61

1970-71

1980-81

1990-91

2000-01

2010-11

2012-13

Source: UGC 2014

Figure 5

Percentage of Girls’ Enrolment to the Total Enrolment

The faculty wise enrolment data (Figure 6 and 7) for the year 2012-13
reveals that about 41% of students are enrolled in various programs ofarts/humanities/social sciences faculty, which shows a decline of the faculty
share from about 45% in 2004-05. The programs run by arts/humanities/
social sciences faculty are inexpensive and access to these programs is easycompared to other faculty programs. Unfortunately the largest segment of
unemployed youth in India also possesses degree from this faculty. The
enrolment in science faculty has reduced from 20% in 2004-05 to about 13% in
2012-13, and similarly in the law faculty it has reduced from 3.16% to 0.95%.
The share of engineering shows the biggest leap during last one decade fromabout 7% to 16%. The enrolment data shows an inclination amongst thestudents for professional programs, and in particular for engineering,
technology, IT and computer science.
With a nominal GER of 0.7% in 1950-51 to about 21.1% in 2012-13, India
has displayed the GER growth but at a slow pace as seen in Figure 6.
However, the last decade is an exception. India took as long as five and half230

Governance, Growth and Equity

decades to increase the GER from 0.7% in 1950-51 to 10% in 2005, whereas
a rise of about 11% in GER could be observed in the last decade alone from
10% in 2005 to 21.1% in 2012-13 (MHRD 2014a).
Other

1.60

Agriculture

0.55

Oriental Learning

0.46

Education

3.10

Law

0.95

Management

2.19

Medical Science

2.87

IT & Computer

4.11

Science

12.60

Commerce

14.53

Engineering & Technology

16.34

Arts/ Humanities/ Social Sciences

40.69

Source: MHRD 2014dFigure 6
Other

Faculty Wise Enrolment Share: 2012-13
0.80

Law

3.05

Veterinary Sciences

0.15

Agriculture Sciences

0.58

Medicine

3.16

Engineering

7.21

Education

1.46

Commerce/Management

18.01

Sciences

20.45

Arts/Humanities/Social Sciences

45.13

Source: MHRD 2008; MHRD 2014dFigure 7

Faculty Wise Enrolment Share: 2004-05

The growth in the GER had been resulting from a consistent rise indemand and increase in the transition rate from higher secondary tohigher education (Joshi and Kinjal 2013).
25.0
20.0
19.4
15.0
12.4

10.0
8.1

5.0
0.0

9.0

9.2

10.0

13.1

13.7

20.4

21.1

15.0

11.6

0.4
1950-51 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Source: MHRD 2014dFigure 8

GER 1950-51 to 2012-13231

5．Equity in Indian Higher Education
Addressing equity is an important aspect besides the access and quality.
Almost during last two decades various government reports and policy
documents have emphasized this. The nature and magnitude of the issues
related to higher education equity in Indian higher education are quite
different from other nations. The disparity in access in India can beclassified on the basis of the existing diversity and disparities. The various
forms of disparities include; ethnic diversity based disparities, religious
diversity based disparities, gender based disparity, regions based
disparities (interstate as well as rural-urban).
5.1

Gender based inequalities in higher education

The growth rate of GER of females has been higher than both the males
and the overall (All India) during the 2001-13 period (Figure 9). Despite theabsolute GER of females being lower during this period, the CAGR for
females was 9.45%. The CAGR during the same period for males andoverall was 7.56% and 8.42% (MHRD 2014d). This shows that the female
participation in Indian higher education is reflecting progressive
indications. But simultaneously, it had maintained almost equal widened
gap of about 2.5 from the GER of males. This is certainly pulling down thenational GER average. If the nation’s GER is to be raised, both male GER
and female GER have to be improved. Obviously, the latter has the added
advantage of reduced disparity between the GERs of males and females.
Thus, while GER figures for females’ participation in higher education isappreciable as reflected from the CAGR, an effective policy intervention toincrease the female GER, and reduce the disparity between the GER of
males and females needs to be addressed.
While India is geographically a huge country, inter-state disparities inaccess to higher education for females needs attention of the policy makers.
While GER of females and males need to be compared to capture thedisparities, Gender Parity Index makes this comparison more categorical(Joshi 2015). Gender Parity Index (GPI) is the ratio of the female to malevalues of GER. A GPI of 1 indicates parity between sexes, i.e. if the values

232

Governance, Growth and Equityof the GER for males and females would be same, the GPI would be 1,
indicating a perfect balance between the two genders. GER above one
indicates that a higher proportion of females belonging to the eligible age
cohort are enrolled as compared to their male counterparts. But incountries facing gender disparity the GPI is likely to be below one.

70.0

Boys

Girls

20.8

21.1

19.4

19.8

20.8

22.1

22.3

2010-11

2011-12

2012-13

Total

19.4

60.0

50.0

15.0

40.0

12.4

11.6
10.0

9.0

9.2

7.5

7.7

8.2

9.3

10.3

10.6

11.6

2001-02

2002-03

2003-04

2004-05

30.0

8.1

20.0

6.7

13.1

10.0

9.4

13.7

17.9
12.7

10.7

11.4

17.1

2009-10

13.5

14.5

15.2

15.8

2005-06

2006-072007-08

2008-09

10.0

0.0

Source: MHRD 2014d; MHRD 2014aFigure 9

GER in Higher Education of Males and Females from 2001-13

2012-13

2005-06

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
AndhraPunjab

Bihar

Chhattisgarh

Gujarat

PradeshHimachal

Jammu

Pradesh& Kashmir

Jharkhand

Karnataka

KeralaMadhyaPradesh

1.50
1.00
0.50
0.00
Maharashtra

Manipur

OrissaRajasthan

Tamil
Nadu

TripuraUttar

Uttarakhand

Haryana

Pradesh

West

INDIA

BengalSource: MHRD 2014dFigure 10 State-wise Gender Parity Index
for Higher Education India for 2005-06 and 2012-13

As can be observed from figure 10, the national overall average of the
GPI for India too only stood at 0.89, a rise during the period from 2005-06

233

to 2012-13, from 0.69. It will still not be a revelation, since only a few states
like Himachal Pradesh, Kerala, Uttarakhand, Jammu & Kashmir andPunjab have a GPI above one, while most of the states have a GPI below 1
with most of them being between 0.7 and 0.9. The states like Bihar,
Andhra Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Tripura and West Bengal
will have to enhance the female participation and develop appropriate
policy frame to reduce the gender disparity.
5.2

Ethnic-based inequalities in higher education

In India, the ethnic-social stratification categorizes the disadvantaged as
Scheduled Castes (SCs)4) and Scheduled Tribes (STs)5). The Scheduled
Tribes and Scheduled Castes are the most impoverished as well as sociallydisenfranchised groups in India. The Constitution (Scheduled Castes)
Order, 1950 listed 1,108 castes across 25 states in its First Schedule, while
the Constitution (Scheduled Tribes) Order, 1950 listed 744 tribes across 22
states in its First Schedule. The Hindu caste system divided the society
into four ‘varnas’ corresponding to the social divisions and hierarchy ofstatus, of which the Shudras (menial workers) and the Ati shudras (performing the most menial tasks), referred to as SCs/‘Dalits’ were enforced
hereditary occupations that made an upward social mobility unacceptableby the society. They were discriminated by hostile interactions between
classes in the form of exclusion from places of worships, residence, comercial places, etc. STs are the indigenous people or original inhabitants of thecountry and amongst themselves too they are distinct in their cultures,social practices, religions, dialects, and occupations (Joshi 2015, Ministry of
Tribal Affairs 2014). Their heterogeneity is a function of the environment
in which they live, the degree of exposure to the mainstream Hindu population, government involvement in their daily lives, their economic status,and past history (Sedwal and Kamat 2008). STs being community oriented,
their habitat is treated as their internal colony and such resource ownership in isolation gives them self-sufficiency, isolating them from mainstream economic, social and political activities. A major issue affecting theSTs have been the displacements, particularly resource displacements,
resulting from deforestation and inward move- ment by non-tribal234

Governance, Growth and Equity

peasants, traders and businessmen into such colonies (Xaxa 2001).
The GER for SCs and STs shows consistent improvement as seen in
figure 9, during 2001-02 to 2012-13. But the GER for SCs and STs remained
below the GER for all categories combined. The GER for all categories in
2012-13 was 21.1%, the GER for SCs was 15.1% and for STs it was 11.0%,
showing the disparity between the disadvantaged group and the rest of
the population.
25.0

All India

SC

ST

20.8

21.1

14.9

15.1

11.0

11.0

19.4

20.0

13.7

15.0
11.6
9.2

9.0

10.0

11.0

9.4

10.5

8.4

8.1
5.8

6.4

6.0

9.5

6.7

4.7

4.0

4.2

9.2

11.1
10.3

11.2

7.5

6.6

5.0

13.5

13.1

12.4

10.0

15.0

4.9

0.0
2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07 2007-08 2008-09 2009-10 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13

Source: MHRD 2014dFigure 11

GER for All Categories, for SC and for ST from 2001-02 to 2012-13

During 2012-13, the GPI for STs was lower than the GPI for all
categories including the SCs, with a huge gap as could be observed infigure 10. But the GPI for the other disadvantaged group SC was at parwith the GPI of all categories.
GPI

SC GPIST GPI

1.00
0.80
0.60

0.69

0.69
0.63
0.55

0.60 0.58

0.70
0.65

0.74

0.72
0.66
0.54

0.58

0.860.84
0.74

0.88 0.88
0.78

2010-11

2011-120.89 0.89

0.79

0.69
0.57

0.40
0.20
0.00
2005-06

2006-072007-08

2008-09

2009-10

2012-13

Source: MHRD 2014dFigure 12 Gender Parity Index for People Belonging to SC, ST and All Categories

The primary issue of concern is the states in which the overall GER
among tribals was below 10% in the year 2012-13. This includes

235

Chattisgarh (5.03%), Gujarat (9.7%), Jammu & Kashmir (7.3%), Jharkhand(5.7%), Orissa (6.1%), Madhya Pradesh (7.5%), and Tripura (7.2%). The
female GER in these states is also low, which reflects the explicit genderinequality persisting in tribal communities.
Besides SCs and STs, there is also another disadvantaged section(comparatively much less underprivileged then the former two) within the
Indian population and is known as the Other Backwards Castes (OBCs)6). It
is also referred to as Social and Economically Backward Castes (SEBCs).
This section of the population has also low GER, but are better placedcompared to the SCs and STs. This segment has also been provided incentives and considered affirmative action policies through various measures.
5.3

Interstate Disparities

Inter-state disparities also exist in India. While states like Bihar,
Jharkhand, Odisha, Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Rajasthan, and Tripura had a
GER below national average, states like Goa, Delhi, Uttrakhand, Tamil
Nadu, Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh and Himachal Pradesh had a relatively
appreciable GER. As per NSSO 66th round, the GER in rural location is
13.9% and in urban areas 32.5%. This disparity is largely due to economic
reason besides the better schooling facility in urban areas resulting inhigher transition rate. The disparities by location viz., rural and urban also
exists in India and the degree of disparity between these two is much wide.
As per the NSSO estimate, the GER in rural area was 13.9% whereas inurban areas it was 32.5%.
5.4

Religious Disparities

As for the religious disparities in higher education, as per the NSSO
estimate, a huge gap in GER between the Muslims population andNon-Muslim population was quite apparent. As per NSSO 66th round, theMuslims’ GER was the lowest at about 11%, the GER for the Buddhists
was about 18%, for the Hindus 20%, and for the Sikhs about 23%. GER for
the Christians was about 31%, 55% for the Jains. The highest GER among
different religions was of Zoroastrians, about 64%.

236

Governance, Growth and Equity

6．Conclusion
Indian higher education system is the largest in the world byinstitutional count and second largest by enrolment count. The Indian
higher education has witnessed colossal growth during last 15 years
through private participation. Despite this, the Indian higher education has
various complexities in context of regulations, access, financing, equity,
efficiency, quality etc. The GER is still very low about 21% and theefficiency of higher education is also reflecting obscure accomplishments
due to high rate of unemployment among the highly educated.
The state of higher education governance in India reflects the strengths
to support the regulatory mechanism in a dynamic changing environment.
In spite of minor improvements in the regulatory mechanism as
incorporated in the official and legal documents, a bigger area of concern isthe operationalization, implementation, supervision and assessment toassure that the documented objectives are realized. Both politicalbureaucracy and higher education institutions are attempting to achieve
unified national goals associated with developing human resource potential
to its fullest. But the overlaps of functions and authorities blur thedemarcation of the authorities and leads to functional ambiguity. The
transparent and effective governance can improve the accountability andquality of this large higher education system. Various stakeholders will
have to play a decisive role to bring in this pragmatic governance.
Even though the data reflect indistinct engagements of access andparticipation for disadvantaged groups when considered in absolute figures,the comparative data for the last decade demonstrate a significant
improvement.
What factors have played a vital role in enhancing access andparticipation of these disadvantaged groups? The most prominent policy
for promoting access to higher education has been reservations. The
policy of reservation in higher education is based on the assertion thatparticipation of disadvantaged groups has been low, and reservation would
enhance their participation. Along with reservation, the government
provision of scholarships, special hostels, meals, book loans and other237

schemes have encouraged the participation (Joshi 2010).
Discrepancies and gaps in educational achievements are related not only
to sub-castes, region and social groups, but are also sturdily linked to otherindicators such as earnings, gender, region and location of residence.
Therefore, we need to develop a meaningful and inclusive policy structurethat would account for the multi-dimensionality of differences that still
continue among these impoverished groups.
Despite the mammoth growth, the Indian higher education data sets are
not comparable to other akin countries. Indian higher education will have toaddress access, equity, quality and efficiency issues to become globallycompetitive through effective policy framework.
Notes
1) A Central University is established or incorporated by a Central Act. A
State University is established or incorporated by a Provincial Act or by aState Act. An Open University imparts education exclusively throughdistance education in any branch or branches of knowledge. A Private
University is established through a State/Central Act by a sponsoring body
viz. a Society registered under the Societies Registration Act 1860, or any
other corresponding law for the time being in force in a State or a Public
Trust or a Company registered under Section 25 of the Companies Act, 1956.
An Institution Deemed to be University commonly known as Deemed
University refers to a high‐performing institute, which has been so declaredby Central Government under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission(UGC) Act, 1956. Currently many private institutions have also acquired thestatus of private deemed university although they are not high performing
institutions.
Institute of National Importance is an Institution established by Act ofParliament and declared as Institution of National Importance such as All
Indian Institute of Technology (IIT), National Institute of Technology (NIT).
Institute under State Legislature Act are established under State Act(Agarwal 2006).
2) The process of NAAC involves submission of self-study report, its validation
through on-site visit of the institute, followed by the submission of peer teamreport which is then evaluated by executive committee to give the final
institutional grade. Institutes are accredited on seven criteria namely:238

Governance, Growth and Equity
Curricular Aspects, Teaching-learning and evaluation, Research,
consultancy and extension, Infrastructure and learning resources, Student
Support and progression, Governance, Leadership and Management,
Innovation and best practices.
3) Two types of private institutions exist in India. The first one is private aided,
also known as private grant-in-aid, which receives assistance from thegovernment. The second, private unaided institutions do not get financial
assistance from the government and their major source is tuition fees.
4) The term scheduled caste (SC) is now used to refer to the communities listed
in the government schedule as “outcastes.” The notion of “outcastes” ispremised upon the Hindu caste system, which divides society into the four
broad categories of Brahmins (priests), Kshatriyas (warriors), Vaishyas(traders), and Shudras (menial workers) (Dirks, 2001). Today, the SC
population represents 16.6% of the country’s population and still struggles toachieve social equality. There remain geographic divisions within Indian
cities and villages which exemplify the role that the caste system plays intoday’s society (Desai et al., 2010).
5) Scheduled tribes (STs) in India are generally considered to be adivasis,
meaning indigenous people or original inhabitants of the country. The
adivasis or the tribals (STs) constitute the second-largest minority socialgroup (the first being SC) in India (Maharatna 2005) and account for
approximately 8.6% (equivalent to 104.3 million people) of the total
population. The total number of tribal communities recognized by thegovernment as STs is 701, each with its distinct cultures, social practices,
religions, dialects, and occupations (Ministry of Tribal Affairs 2014).
6) OBCs stand for Other Backward Castes. A community is classified as “OBC”
if it qualifies as “backward” based on a complex set of social, economic, andeducational criteria, as specified by the National Commission on Backward
Classes (NCBC).

References
Agarwal, P., 2006, “Higher Education in India: The Need for Change”, ICRIER
Working Paper, Indian Council for Research on International Economic
Relations, No. 180.
Bhattacharjee, R., 2013, UGC’s academic Performance Index: Will it grade or
degrade teachers?, Merinews.com.
(http://www.merinews.com/article/ugcs-academic-performance-index-will-i

239

t-grade-or-degrade-teachers/15883514.shtml, 2015.12.14)
Barro, R. J., and J. W. Lee, 2010, “A New Data Set of Educational Attainment in
the World: 1950-2010”, NBER Working Paper, No. 15902, NBER.
CABE, 2005, Report of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE)
Committee on Financing of Higher and Technical Education, Report of theCentral Advisory Board of Education, Government of India, New Delhi.
Desai, S., Dubey, A., Joshi, B., Sen, M., Shariff, A., and Vanneman R., 2010, Human
Development in India: Challenges for a Society in Transition, New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
Dirks, N. B., 2001, Castes of Mind: Colonialism and the Making of Modern India,
Princeton: Princeton University Press.
Hansen, J. A., Lehmann, M., 2006, “Agents of Change: Universities as Development Hubs”, Journal of Cleaner Production, 14: 820-9.
Joshi, K. M., 2006, “Human Capital and the Economic Benefits of Education:
Understanding the Investment Arguments”, Working Paper, 1(06), OSED.
Joshi, K. M., and Ahir, K. V., 2013, “Indian Higher Education: Some Reflections”,
Intellectual Economics, Vol. 7, 1(15): 42-53.
Joshi, K. M. and Ahir, K. V., 2014, “Higher Education in India: Reflections on
Changing Landscapes”, K. M. Joshi and Saeed Paivandi, eds., Higher
Education Across Nations, Delhi: B. R. Publishing Corporation, Delhi, 411-57.
Joshi, K. M. and Ahir, K. V., 2015a, “Higher Education in India: Retrospections
on Advent and Growth of Private Sector”, K. M. Joshi and Saeed Paivandi,
eds., Private Higher Education: A Global Perspective. Delhi: B. R. Publishing
Corporation.
Joshi, K. M. and Ahir, K. V., 2015b, “The State of Higher Education Governance inIndia”, K. M. Joshi and Saeed Paivandi, eds., Global Higher Education: Issues
in Governance, Delhi: B. R. Publishing Corporation.
Joshi, K. M., 2015, Higher Education, “Social Demand, and Social Equity in India”,
Simon Schwartzman, Rómulo Pinheiro, and Pundy Pillay, eds., Higher
Education in the BRICS Countries, Dordrecht: Springer.
Kapur, D. and Mehta, P. B., 2004, “Indian Higher Education Rreform: From
Half-baked Socialism to Half-baked Capitalism”, CID Working Paper, No. 108,
Harvard University.
Maharatna, A., 2005, Demographics Perspectives on India’s Tribes, New Delhi:
Oxford University Press.
MHRD, 2008, Selected Education Statistics: 2004-05, New Delhi: Ministry of
Human Resource Development.
MHRD, 2014a, All India Survey on Higher Education 2012-13 (Provisional),240

Governance, Growth and Equity
Department of Higher Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development,
New Delhi: Government of India.
MHRD, 2014b, University and Higher Education, Department of Higher
Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development, New Delhi:
Government of India.
(http://mhrd.gov.in/university-and-higher-education, 2014.10.11)
MHRD, 2014c, Technical Education, Department of Higher Education, Ministryof Human Resource Development, New Delhi: Government of India.
(http://mhrd.gov.in/technical-education, 2014.10.11)
MHRD, 2014d, Educational Statistics at a Glance 2014, Department of Higher
Education, Ministry of Human Resource Development. New Delhi:
Government of India.
(http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload̲files/mhrd/files/statistics/EAG2014.pdf,
2015.4.10)
Ministry of Tribal Affairs, 2014, Annual Report 2012-13. New Delhi: Ministry of
Tribal Affairs.
MOLE. 2013, Report on Employment and Unemployment Survey: 2011-12,
New Delhi: Ministry of Labour & Employment.
MoE, 1961, Report of the Committee on ‘Model Act for Universities’, Ministryof Education, New Delhi.
(http://www.teindia.nic.in/mhrd/50yrsedu/n/2J/3I/Toc.htm, 2014.12.18)
MoE, 1964, Report of the Committee of the Members of Parliament on Higher
Education, Ministry of Education, New Delhi.
(http://www.teindia.nic.in/mhrd/50yrsedu/n/2J/3J/Toc.htm, 2014.11.18)
Mohanty, B. K., 2013, UGC Makes Accreditation Mandatory, The Telegraph,
Calcutta, India. March 5.
(http://www.telegraphindia.com/1130305/jsp/nation/story̲16634387.jsp,
2014.10.9)
MLJ, 2009, The Central Universities Act, 2009, Ministry of Law and Justice,
Legislative Department, The Gazette of India.
(http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload̲files/mhrd/files/upload̲document/CentralUniversitiesAct.pdf, 2015.2.5)
NAAC., 2014, Institutions with Valid Accreditation Status, National
Assessment and Accreditation Council, Bangalore, Karnataka, India.
(http://www.naac.gov.in/, 2014.10.5)
National Sample Survey Organization, 2011, “Ministry of Statistics andProgramme Implementations”, NSS 66th Round, New Delhi: Government ofIndia.

241

NKC, 2009, Report to the Nation: 2006-2009, National Knowledge Commission,
Government of India.
OECD, 2003, “Changing Patterns of Governance in Higher Education Report(Chapter 3)”, Education Policy Analysis, Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development.
Pandey, I. M., 2004, “Governance of Higher Education Institutions”, Vikalpa,
29(2): 79-84.
Sedwal, M. and Kamat. S., 2008, “Education and Social Equity: With a Special
Focus on Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes in Elementary Education”,
Monograph, No. 19, New Delhi: NUEPA.
Stroup, H., 1966, Bureaucracy in Higher Education, Free Press: New York.
UGC. 1990, Report of the Committee on Alternate Models of Management,
Gnanam Committee Report, University Grants Commission. New Delhi.
UGC. 2002, The University Grants Commission Act, 1956 (as modified up to 20
December 1985) and Rules and Regulation under the Act, New Delhi: UGC.
(http://mhrd.gov.in/sites/upload̲files/mhrd/files/upload̲document/ugc̲act.pdf, 2011.11.3)
UGC. 2010, “UGC Regulations on Minimum Qualifications for Appointment of
Teachers and other Academic Staff in Universities and Colleges andMeasures for the Maintenance of Standards in Higher Education”, The
Gazette of India, 2010-Ⅲ(4), New Delhi.
UGC. 2011, Inclusive and Qualitative Expansion of Higher Education, 12th Five
Year Plan: 2012-17, New Delhi: University Grants Commission.
UGC. 2014, Annual Report 2013-14, New Delhi: University Grants Commission.
Weber, M., 1947, The Theory of Social and Economic Organization, Free Press,
New York.
Xaxa, Virginius, 2001, “Empowerment of Tribes”, Singha Roy and Debal K.. ed.,Social Development and the Empowerment of the Marginalized Groups:
Perspectives and Strategies, New Delhi: Sage Publication.
Acknowledgement
The present paper is the result of my stay at CSHE, Nagoya University as avisiting professor.
I extend my sincere thanks to CSHE and Prof. Tatsuya Natsume inparticular for providing me this opportunity.

242

インド高等教育におけるガバナンスおよび経済成長と社会的公正性
ジョシ・マヘンドラ・キショア*＜要旨＞

高等教育は現在、経済成長を促進する主要な手段として広く認知されている。インドの高等教育機関数は世界一、学生数は世界 2 位である。在学生数は 2960 万人であるが、該当世代の在学率は 21.2%と低い。大学が 712 校、カレッジが 36671 校あり、この大部分は過去 20
年間に急拡大した私立大学である。これらの高等教育機関は、様々な省や組織が相乗りする形で統制されている。公正を実現するためにさ
まざまな介入がなされているが、性、民族、経済状況、地域などによるアクセスの不均衡が残っている。
本稿は、インドにおける高等教育の出現と成長について描出するとともに、ガバナンスや社会的公正性についてもその実態を明確にしようとするものである。

*インド マハラジャ クリシュナクマリシン バーヴナガル大学・教授
名古屋大学高等教育研究センター・客員教授

243