India Culture, Business, Sports and Food. Get all the buzz in India now

A COMPLETELY LITERATE INDIA

India’s unique contribution to the growth of the knowledge industry has significantly transformed the global perception of Indian education and raised expectations within the country as well as abroad. Yet paradoxically, India continues to be at the bottom of the pile as far as the human development index is concerned, ranked as low as 126.
UNESCO’s Global Monitoring Report cautions that the country, along with its South-Asian neighbours and Sub-Saharan African countries, is at the grave risk of not meeting the global commitment to reach the goal of education for all by 2015.

Providing education for all is also a national goal. Can India ensure universal adult literacy and basic education for all children by 2015? The question is doubly relevant as the country is drawing up its 11TH  five year plan. Can the Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (SSA) deliver? There is no option but to make it work. Unfortunately, while more money is being spent year after year, fatigue for action seems to be setting in at the field level, and no significant improvement is visible in the functioning of the public education system. If the SSA has to deliver, there will be a need for radically changing its course.

First, let us move beyond the numbers to look at school functioning, and shift attention from enrolment to effective functioning of schools. As revealed by a recent national survey by Pratham – an NGO started by the UNICEF-30 per cent children do not attend school and learning levels are abysmally low. A recent international study on India found 25-30 per cent of the teachers missing from school. In the existing framework of the SSA, school and teacher grants are meant to focus on individual schools. Without careful monitoring and follow-up, the scheme is now a spending proposition with little to show for results.

Global experience shows that overall improvement in education can be achieved if financial support to schools is linked to their management and performance and the implementation process is monitored by the local community. Such an approach could be effectively implemented in India by making use of the process of the Panchayati Raj institutions and grass root - level bodies.

The second proposition is that the SSA - which is funded through Central plan resources, with a substantial component of international assistance-should invest selectively, that is, in states and on social groups that really need attention. While in Kerala, practically every child attends primary school, and every school has at least five teachers and five classrooms, there is Bihar, where only one out of two children is enrolled in a school.
Towards the end of the 1990s, it was estimated that three-fourth of the children who are out of school lived in six states- Andra Pradesh, Bihar, Madhya Pradesh, Rajasthan, Uttar Pradesh,  and West Bengal.

Gender disparity was as high as 42 percentage points for enrolment rates in Bihar, and 31 percentage points in Uttar Pradesh, but was only three and five percentage points, respectively, in Kerala and Punjab. Has the situation significantly changed?
Estimates derived from the seventh All India Education Survey revealed a very similar story in 2002-03. Nearly 69 per cent of children who are out of primary school are concentrated in the same six states, in addition to Jharkhand. Bihar and Uttar Pradesh alone account for 33.87 per cent.

With respect to girls’ education, states like Gujarat and Haryana have regressed in recent years, falling below the national average. There are also unmitigated disparities between social groups. The SSA has to entrust the situation in better performing states to the respective state leaderships and concentrate on the difficult states. Focused programmes for meeting the needs of the SCs, STs and minorities are needed.

The third proposition relates to reforming the plan-funding framework, which has got seriously distorted in recent years. Plan inputs should add value to the existing system in a cumulative fashion and incrementally transform the system over a period of time. Unfortunately, funding, through five-year plans in education, has often become a vehicle for fighting fiscal crisis of state governments. A pertinent example is that of appointing a number of ‘Para-teachers’ instead of building a professional cadre of teachers. This approach derails the trajectory of progress, while distorting the process of planning and budgeting.

Finally, it is time that we grow and mature, looking beyond project goals, and towards a transformation of the system. Governments are preoccupied with reporting the progress in terms of expansion of schooling facilities and coverage of children in different age groups. Huge investments have been made for more than a decade in several districts of the country, using domestic as well as external funding sources under different banners. But the net effect seems to be increased bureaucratisation.

There is alack of a long-term perspective. The over emphasis on  meeting short-term project goals of spending and implementation has trapped the system in a low-efficiency equilibrium status where things appear to be happening keeping people busy and the money flowing-but do not add up to anything significant. It is necessary to focus on achievement of a cumulative change in the grass-root level, not just in the reports of the project authorities. Planners as well as the international agencies supporting the scheme seem to be overtaken by the anxiety to show quick results. Much of these visible-and quick-results are unsustainable and will disappear if not backed by long-term vision and a framework for systemic reform.

DEAL OR NO DEAL
   

To understand the future of the Indo- US nuclear deal you need to consider four critical facts. The analysis that follows is distilled from conversations with Left leaders, in particular the CPI’s A. B. Bardhan.

First, the reason why the Left is adamant the government must not initiate formal talks with the IAEA is because this is the last point at which they can stop the deal. Once it sails or sneaks past the Agency there is not further intervention required by the Indian government. The Americans will pilot it through the NSG and the Bush administration will secure the final updown vote from Congress.  The IAEA stage is the only point at which the left can obstruct its passage.

The Left believes that IAEA’s clearance might only require 72 hours. It’s aware the government has done a lot of the spadework through informal contacts and non papers. Equally importantly, it acknowledges that despite the tricky nature of the fuel supplies assurance India wants, the rest of the safeguards are routine stuff. It doesn’t believe the IAEA will fall back on the 4 days clearance option. This reinforces the need to pull the plug as soon as the government approaches the IAEA.

Second, when the Left withdraws support the government will enter what they call a grey area.  This is the interregnum between the Left informing the President and any test on the floor of the House to prove the government is a minority. During this stage, there may be doubts about the legitimacy of the government but no certainty. Therefore the government can or at least, can claim to function normally.

The question is, will the IAEA accept a government in this predicament as a credible representative of India? The Left hopes it won’t but isn’t sure. If the IAEA has doubts, it will balk at concluding a safeguards agreement. If no, the deal is through.

Third, how late can the government leave the start of negotiations with the IAEA without endangering the schedule for all the other steps that must follow? This will determine how long the present UPA-Left confabulation continues. The government has shared the timeline with the left but neither side has made it public. A safe date would be the end of October but it could stretch to early December. If by then, the government hasn’t initiated talks with the Agency, then it won’t leave itself enough time to pass the NSG and the US Congress before the mood in America is overwhelmed by elections.

So sometime soon after the UPA- Left meeting, the government has to take its courage in its hands. At that point the Left will withdraw support, the government will enter the grey area and the focus will shift to how the IAEA responds.

Fourth, the Left is gambling the government hasn’t got the gumption to do this. The government says it has. But, asks the Left, is that bluffs and bluster? The reason this could be crucial is because if the government falls, the Left will also suffer. In the election that follows they will lose seats. The biggest loser could be Karat’s CPM. So, even if it’s pushing it, the Left doesn’t want the government to fall.

At this pint of apparent contradiction, which has greater force the Left’s instinct to preserve its numbers or its desire to protect its ideological purity?
In A.B. Bardhan’s assessment only four outcomes are possible:
First, the government survives and the deal goes through,
Second, the government falls and the deal goes through
Third, the deal is lost and the government survives
Fourth the government falls and the deal is also forsaken.

The Left claims it’s the fourth possibility that’s paralyzing the government. But it’s also true the second possibility has the Left petrified. Which will it be?