National Knowledge Commission Report to the Nation 2009: Baseline

Annexure I: BaselineReport to the Nation171

Table 5: Number of teachers by type of schools and pupil:teacher ratioType of SchoolNo. of teachers(in lakh)Percentage of trainedteachersFemale teachers per100 male teachersPupil teacher ratioPrimary 21.8 86 65 46Upper primary 16.7 87 67 34High schools 11.2 89 61 32Higher/ Senior secondary 10.3 90 62 34Source: National Level Statistics 2005-06, MHRDTeachers: The total number of teachers in primaryschools increased from 5.38 lakh in 1950-51 to 21.6lakh in 2004-2005 i.e. by more than four times.However, the number of teachers is still not adequate tomeet the needs of the bourgeoning student populationas is evident from the teacher pupil ratio.During the year 1950-51 the pupil teacher ratio inprimary schools was 1:24, in middle schools it was1:20 and in higher/higher secondary schools, the pupilteacher ratio was 1:21. By 2004-2005 this ratio hadincreased to 1:46 in primary schools; 1:35 in upperprimary schools and 1:33 in secondary/senior secondaryschools. Though the number of educational institutionshas considerably increased after Independence and alsothe number of teachers, the higher pupil teacher ratioindicates that the increase in enrolment at each levelis comparatively more than the increase in number ofteachers. The increased enrolment at various levels alsounderscores the need for opening of a greater numberof educational institutions as well as employing moreteachers for improving the quality of education.Teacher training programs: Teacher training has beenidentified as a crucial input for quality school education.However, the status of teacher training in India is amatter of great concern. According to DISE data, only33 per cent of the teachers received in-service trainingin 2005-06. In 2002, 65467 men and 67096 womenenrolled into teacher training courses in India. There areat present, about 571 DIETs, and DRCs, 104 Collegesof Advanced Teaching and 31 Institutes of AdvancedStudies in Education, for pre-service and in-servicetraining, functioning in the country.Teacher Absenteeism: Teacher absenteeism has beenidentified as a major impediment to improvement inquality of school education. The PROBE survey in 242villages across 5 north Indian states found that in abouthalf the schools, there was no teaching activity at the timeof the investigators’ visit. It is significant that this patternoccurred even in cases where the school infrastructure(in terms of number of class rooms, teaching aids andeven teacher-pupil ratio) was relatively good.Infrastructure: There is a severe lack of basicinfrastructure in schools in India. The PROBE (1999)survey, for instance, found the following with respectto government schools: (a) only a fourth of the sampleschools had at least two teachers, two all-weatherclassrooms, and some teaching aids; (b) at the time ofthe investigator’s visit, one-third of the headmasterswere absent, one-third of the schools had a singleteacher present, and about half of the schools had noteaching activity; (c) in many schools class students weresystematically neglected. Similarly, the DISE surveyfound that only about 50 per cent of the schools hadboundary walls, 33 per cent had electricity connections,and 52 per cent had playgrounds. These representserious flaws in the schooling process.Management: At present, government and localbodies own more than 90 per cent of the primaryschools, 72 per cent of the upper primary schoolsand 39 per cent of the secondary schools. Thereare indications of a rise in the number of privateunrecognised schools in India. According to theDISE Analytical Report as many as 63,411 and1,26,110 schools in 2005-06 were being managed bythe private aided and private unaided managementsrespectively. Together, they run a total of 1,89,521schools (16.86 per cent). There is evidence to suggestthat private schools are concentrated in areas wheregovernment funded schools are dysfunctional.Although the student profile of private schools is moreeconomically advantaged, the rate of enrolment frompoor families has also increased steadily. Findingsfrom the MIMAP survey in India show that, of allschool-enrolled children aged 5-10 years old livingbelow the poverty line, 14.8 per cent attended privateschools (8 per cent in rural and 36 per cent in urbanIndia). The corresponding figures for ages 11-14Report to the Nation177

years and 15-17 years were 13.8 per cent and 7 percent respectively (Pradhan and Subramaniam, 2000).Further, amongst the students from poor backgroundsin private schools, the majority are male.Curriculum, pedagogy and learning outcomes: An allIndia study Annual Status of Education Report (ASER)conducted by PRATHAM in 2006 found the levelsin arithmetic and reading amongst primary schoolchildren to be surprisingly low. Close to 35 per centof children in the 7-14 age group could not read asimple paragraph (grade 1 level difficulty) and almost60 per cent of children could not read a simple story(grade 2 level). In Government Schools, 49.6 percent of classes II-IV could not subtract (level 1), and77.8 per cent could not complete sums in division. Inprivate schools, 37.9 could not subtract (level 1) and66.7 per cent could not finish division sums (level 2).The situation in Tamil Nadu, Karnataka and Gujarat(where the schools function and where all provisionrelated indicators are good) are far worse than in Biharand Chhattisgarh (where indicators like teacher-pupilratio, drop out rates are extremely high, and thereare fewer schooling facilities). The high failure rates,especially among the rural, economically weaker andsocially deprived children, forces one to critically reviewthe whole system of evaluation and examination.It is widely recognised that there is a need to shiftfocus from rote learning from textbooks to developingbasic skills and the ability of students to apply theirlearning to real situations. Also creativity, problemsolvingability and encouragement for constructionof knowledge based on students’ own experiencesneeds to be promoted. Introducing accountabilityand developing other measures to improve teachingFigure 5: Percentage of schools with basic facilities9080706050403020100 Boundarywall(in %)Drinkingwater facilityCommontoilet facilityGirls toiletfacilityElectricityconnectionComputers Ramp Book bank Playground Medicalcheck upSource: Elementary Education in India, Analytical Report 2006-07Figure 6: Management-wise percentage of schools120Govt. Local body Private aided Private unaided10080(in %)6040200Primary Upper primary Secondary/SeniorSecondarySource: National Level Statistics 2005-06, MHRD178 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 7: Percentage of children (Class I to VIII) who cannot706050(in %)403020100Read Letter Read Word Read Level 1(Std 1) textRead Level 2(Std 2) textRecognisenumbersSubtractDivideSource: Annual Status of Education Report (Rural) 2006Figure 8: Expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP2.5ElementarySecondary/Higher secondary21.5(in %)10.501990-911991-921992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-20002000-012000-022000-032000-042000-05Source: MHRDquality at the primary level needs to be thought of.The National Policy on Education (NPE), 1986postulated that the examination system should berecast so as to ensure a method of assessment that isa valid and reliable measure of student developmentand a powerful instrument for improving teaching andlearning be developed.Government funding: The share of public expenditureon education has been declining steadily and was 3.5 percent in 2004-05. The share of elementary education wasRs. 40,000 crores out of almost 100,000 crores allottedto education. This amount is insufficient to provideuniversal elementary education of eight years for everychild in the age group 6 – 14 years. It is also less thanthe proportion of GDP invested in education in manyother developing countries. India’s total expenditureon school education for the year 2005-06, elementaryand secondary combined was around Rs. 78,661 crores,amounting to only 2.46 per cent of GDP. The TenthPlan outlay for Elementary Education and Literacy wasRs. 30,000 crore. The actual expenditure has been Rs.48,201 crore, out of which SSA (Rs. 28,077 crore) andMDM (Rs. 13,827 crore) account for 88 per cent. Thegraph below shows public expenditure on educationfrom year 1992-93 to 2005-06 in 1993-94 constantprices. The percentage allocation for education wasaround 3.5 per cent of GDP until the late 1990s, roseto more than 4 per cent at the turn of the decade but hassince declined to 3.75 per cent of GDP.Report to the Nation179

Formal vocational training and broadactivity status: The proportion of persons(15-29 years) who received formalvocational training was the highest amongthe unemployed. The proportion wasaround 3 per cent for the employed, 11 percent for the unemployed and 2 per cent forpersons not in the labour forceFigure 10: Status of Vocational Education and Training (VET)No VET Receiving formal VET Received formal VET Received non formal VET1% 2% 8%Issues in the CurrentFramework1. Participation: The Kothari Commissionon Educational Reforms, 1966 had visualisedthat 25 per cent of the students at thesecondary stage would go for the vocationalstream. At present only about 5 per cent ofthe children of the 16 to 18 age group arein the vocational stream. This is despite thefact that in urban areas, only about 19.6 percent of male and 11.2 per cent of femaleworkers possessed marketable skills, whereas,in rural areas only about 10 per cent of maleand 6.3 per cent of female workers possessedmarketable skills. This figure is far higher indeveloped even developing countries2. Capacity utilisation: There is littlecapacity in vocational education and eventhat is under-utilised. Only 6,800 schoolshave received grants and the total enrolmentreported is only about 5 per cent at most.More recent information suggests that theenrolment figure is less than three per centof the students attending Grades 11-12.The weighted average capacity utilisation ofthe schools receiving grants is about 42 percent. This implies that between 350,000 to400,000 students are enrolled in vocationaleducation, which works out to less thanthree per cent of the 14 million studentsor more in Grades 11 and 12, implyingthat less than one per cent of students whohad entered Grade 1 over the last decadeor so would have eventually participatedin vocational education. It is also widelyrecognised that existing student capacity inITIs/ITCs largely goes unutilised.3. Flexibility: The current frameworkrequires minimum qualifications, varyingSource: Status of Education and Vocational Training in India, 2004-05, NSS 61 st RoundFigure 11: Urban-rural break up of VocationalEducation and Training% who received formal VET87654321015-19Source: Status of Education and Vocational Training in India, 2004-05, NSS 61 st Round% who received formal vocational training161412108642089%Rural Urban Total20-24 25-29Figure 12: Activity status of persons receiving vocational trainingEmployedUnemployedRural Urban TotalNot in labour forceSource: Status of Education and Vocational Training in India, 2004-05, NSS 61 st RoundReport to the Nation181

Table 7: International comparisons on size of vocational-secondary educationCountry Secondary enrolment ratio Number of students(thousands)Vocational-technical share(per cent of total secondaryenrolments)Russia 88 6277 60China 52 15300 55Chile 70 652 40Indonesia 43 4109 33Korea 93 2060 31Mexico 58 - 12Malaysia 59 533 11South Africa 77 - 1Source: World Bank, 2006Table 8: All India seats utilisation in respect of technician, trade and graduate apprenticesSeats located Seats utilised Per cent utilisationTechnician apprentices 39004 22837 59 per centTrade apprentices 182046 127741 70 per centGraduate apprentices 20420 6084 22 per centSource: Annual Report 2002-03, Ministry of Labour, Govt. of IndiaFigure 13: Seat utilisation against sanctioned strength6051%50Percentage of ITIs403024% 25%20100Under utilisation Full utilisation Over utilisationSource: FICCI Survey, 2006from Class VIII – Class XII, for participation in formalvocational training. While this may be necessary forcertain trades, it is unnecessarily restrictive in others.Also, once an individual leaves mainstream educationfor vocational training, there is no provision for him/her to return to the former at a later stage. Not onlydoes this encourage a general view of work and studybeing mutually exclusive options, it also increasesthe perceived risk of taking up vocational training.The system is also not responsive to labour marketdemand conditions. The inflexibilities in the course/curriculum set-up, lead to over supply in some tradesand shortages in others. Moreover, there is not enoughemphasis on short training course designed to impartspecific skills. Vocational education and trainingin India relies exclusively on a few training courseswith long duration (2 to 3 years) covering around 100skills. In China, on the other hand, there exist about4000 short duration modular courses which provide skillsmore closely tailored to employment requirements.182 National Knowledge Commission

4. Impact: Of the trained candidates, the labour marketoutcomes as seen from placement/ absorption ratesare reportedly very low. Although countrywide figureson the labour market success of ITI/ITC graduatesare difficult to come by, an ILO study reports that inthe states of Orissa, Andhra Pradesh and Maharashtra,the percentages of graduates found to be in wageemployment/self-employment upon graduation fromITIs were 16.2 per cent, 41 per cent and 35 per centrespectively. The corresponding percentages for thosegraduating from ITCs were 21.3 per cent, 22.8 per centand 35.6 per cent respectively5. Industry linkages: Although provisions exist for theparticipation of industry representatives/experts in thesetting of curriculum and hiring of apprentices, there is asignificant mismatch between industry skill requirementsand the talent pool emerging from ITIs/ITCs. This isone of the factors contributing to low success in thelabour market for VET graduates. The private sectordoes undertake in-house training programs and to avery limited extent also trains ‘outsiders’. However, suchprograms are limited to catering to their own felt needs,in the nature of captive skill development. Low payingcapacity of learners and the reluctance of industries totrain workers for fear of losing them to competition hasresulted in chronic deficiency in private investment inthis area.6. Quality and accreditation: The quality of the trainingimparted is also a matter of concern, as the toolkits,faculty, and curriculum are reportedly sub-standard. Theexisting institutions also lack financial and administrativeautonomy. The testing, certification & accreditationsystem is reportedly weak, and since the deliverablesare not precisely defined, there is no effort at evaluatingoutcomes and tracking placements. The problemis further complicated with lack of industry-facultyinteraction on course curricula and other factors. Thesystem of vocational training is currently characterised bya lack of ongoing monitoring for quality in institutionsimparting VET. Although a system of inspections byState governments is in place, this is sub-optimal becauseit permits the proliferation of rent-seeking practices anddoes not achieve its stated objectives. An autonomoussystem of accreditation is missing in the VET sector.Figure 14: Employment status of ITI/ITC graduatesITIITC45% of graduates employed in organised sector4035302520151050Orissa Andhra Pradesh MaharashtraSource: Industrial Training Institutes of India: The Efficiency Study Report, ILO, 2003Table 9: Internal efficiency of ITIs and ITCs in 3 statesIndicator Orissa Andhra Pradesh MaharashtraITIs ITCs ITIs ITCs ITIs ITCsStudent retention 80.9 94.9 68.3 84.8 85.6 89Graduation rate 88.3 95.6 62.9 62.7 77.5 79.4Capacity utilisation 102.1 101 77.4 83.3 92.2 91Student:Teacher ratio 9.3 5.4 5.5 9.6 - -Overall internal efficiency 73.8 90.9 31.8 45.7 62.6 61.1Source: Industrial Training Institutes of India: The Efficiency Study Report, ILO, 2003Report to the Nation183

Higher EducationIntroductionAdemographic explosion in the youngpopulation of the country means that highereducation needs to keep apace with thegrowth in the relevant population. As per the 2001Census, 31.2 per cent of the country or 337 millionwere below the age of 15. Providing higher educationfor this group is imperative and has to be provided onan unprecedented scale to meet the challenges of thisunique demographic trend. The higher educationsector currently faces major challenges of quality andexcellence, and of improving access with inclusiveness.The proportion of our population, in the relevant agegroup, that enters the world of higher education isonly about 10 per cent (2004-05). Access to highereducation in terms of the available number of seats inuniversities is simply not adequate in relation to thecurrent demand. There are also large disparities inenrolment rates across states, urban and rural areas,sex, caste and poor-non-poor.Current ScenarioInstitutions: As in 2006, the Indian higher educationsystem consisted of 355 universities and 18,064colleges - there exist 20 Central Universities, 216 StateUniversities, 101 Deemed Universities, 5 Institutionsestablished through State Legislation and 13 Institutionsof National Importance.Enrolment: Around 110 lakh students were estimatedto be currently enrolled in the Indian higher educationsystem in 2005-06. The growth of student enrolmentin higher education in India has been uneven and slow.For instance, while the enrolment grew by 6.7 per centin 2001-2002, in 2005-06 it grew by 5.2 per cent.Teachers: The total number of teachers in the highereducation system is 4.88 lakhs. Out of the total teachingfaculty, 84 per cent were employed in affiliated collegesand only 16 per cent in the universities and universitycolleges. The student-teacher ratio works out to 18 inthe university departments and colleges and 23 in theaffiliated colleges.Issues in the Current FrameworkExpansion: The current enrolment in higher educationstands at about 11 million. While there has been aconsistent growth in enrolment in higher education overthe last few years, this is not enough when comparedFigure 15: Growth of higher education systemUniversitiesColleges4003503002502001501005001950-51 1955-56 1960-61 1965-66 1970-71 1975-76 1980-81 1985-86 1990-91 1995-96 2000-01 2005-0620000180001600014000120001000080006000400020000Source: UGC184 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 16: Growth of student enrolment in higher education in India(1950-51 to 2005-06)Annual growth rateTotal Enrolment25120000002010000000(in %)151080000006000000400000052000000001950-51 1955-56 1960-61 1965-66 1970-71 1975-76 1980-81 1985-86 1990-91 1995-96 2000-01 2005-06Source: UGCTable 10: Number of teachers in institutions of higher education, 2005-06InstitutionEnrolment(in thousands)Teachers(in thousands)Student:TeacherratioUniversity Departments & University Colleges 1427 79 18Affiliated Colleges 9601 409 23Total 11028 488 22Source: UGC Annual Report, 2005-06to other countries. The gross enrolment ratio (GER)for higher education currently is around 10 per centwhereas it is 25 per cent for many other developingcountries. Even South-east Asian countries show muchhigher enrolment: Philippines (31 per cent), Thailand(19 per cent), Malaysia (27 per cent) and China (13 percent). The enrolment figure for the USA is 81 per cent,54 per cent in the UK and 49 per cent in Japan. Variouscommittees that have examined the higher educationscenario in India have recommended an increasein the GER to at least 20 per cent. For instance, theCABE Committee on Financing of Higher Educationconcluded on the basis of international experience thatan enrolment rate of 20 per cent or more is consistentwith a turnaround in economic performance. If Indiahas to achieve the target soon, it would imply morethan doubling the scale and size of the higher educationsystem within the next 5 to 7 years.Table 11: Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) for18-24 years (in percentage)YearHigher Education2001-02 8.072002-03 8.972003-04 9.212004-05 9.97Source: MHRDAccess: With high disparities, inclusive education hasremained an elusive target. Inter-caste, male-female andregional disparities in enrolment still remain prominent.For example, while the gross enrolment ratio for peopleliving in urban areas was almost 20 per cent, it was only6 per cent for rural areas. Further, the gross enrolmentration for Scheduled Tribes (STs), Scheduled CastesReport to the Nation185

(SCs) and Other Backward Classes (OBCs) was 6.57,6.52 and 8.77 respectively, much lower than the all-India figure of 11.Regulation: The regulatory structures in the currenthigher education system are cumbersome. Entry throughlegislation alone, at present, is a formidable barrier. Itrequires an Act of Legislature of Parliament to set upa university. The deemed university route is much toodifficult for new institutions. The consequence is a steadyincrease in the average size of existing universities witha steady deterioration in their quality. The absence ofcompetition only compounds problems. A vast majorityof the colleges are not recognised by UGC undersection 2(f) of UGC Act. This poses a great challengefor the UGC in respect of maintenance of standard ofteaching and examination in higher education. Also thecurrent system of affiliated colleges for undergraduatecolleges is not adequate. These are affiliated to largeunwieldy universities, making it difficult to monitorthe standard of education being imparted. Currentlyabout 90 per cent of the undergraduate enrolment and67 per cent of the postgraduate enrolment is in theaffiliated colleges. There are a large number of institutionsthat are technically under the purview of the UGC butare not provided financial support by it because they failto fulfill the minimum eligibility norms.Faculty: Shortage of quality faculty is one of the mainproblems afflicting higher education in India today.Teacher shortages often occur due to non availabilityof suitably qualified people. Further, the academicprofession has seen a steady decline in popularity –possibly as a result of lack of incentives here and morelucrative opportunities in other professions. Apart fromincreasing compensation of teachers, there is also a needto introduce performance-based incentives in order toensure teaching of superior quality.Funding: Public expenditure (Centre and States)on education is only around 3.6 per cent of GDP.Government funding of higher education is still below1 per cent of GDP. The percentage expenditure onUniversity and Higher Education to GDP, which was0.77 per cent in 1990-91 showed a gradual decreaseto 0.66 per cent in 2004-2005. Various committeeshave unanimously recommended that state fundingbe increased to 6 per cent. While the Central AdvisoryBoard for Education (CABE) recommends spending1 per cent to higher education and 0.5 per cent totechnical education, the proportions in 2004-05 were0.34 per cent for higher education and 0.03 per cent fortechnical education.India also has one of the lowest public expenditure onhigher education per student at 406 US Dollars, whichcompares unfavourably with Malaysia (11,790 dollars),China (2728 dollars), Brazil (3986 dollars), Indonesia(666 dollars) and the Philippines (625 dollars). Innominal terms the public expenditure per student inhigher education stood at Rs. 12518 respectively in 2003-04. The trend analysis shows that the increase is not thatmarked if we consider the growth in enrolment, withthe nominal public expenditure per student in highereducation going up by only 40 per cent from 1993-94to 2003-04. In fact, in real terms, public expenditureper student in higher education has declined fromRs. 8961 in 1993-94 to Rs. 7117 in 2003-04.Figure 17: Disparities in enrolment in higher education (2004-05)2520Gross Enrolment Ratio151050Source: UGCRuralUrban Male Female SCs STs OBCs Others All India186 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 18: Sector-wise plan & non-plan budgeted expenditure for educationdepartments of State & Centre (Revenue Account)ElementarySecondary Higher Technical4500040000(Rs. thousand crore)350003000025000200001500010000500001993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-20002000-012001-022002-032003-04(R)2004-05(B)Source: MHRDFigure 19: Public expenditure per student in higher education - nominal and realNominalReal140001200010000800060004000200001993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-20002000-012001-022002-032003-04Source: Analysis of Budgeted Expenditure on Education, MHRD, Govt. of IndiaPrivate institutions: The share of private unaidedhigher education institutions increased from 42.6 percent in 2001 to 63.21 per cent in 2006. Their shareof enrolments also increased from 32.89 per cent to51.53 per cent in the same period. This trend is likelyto continue and therefore, it is reasonable to expectthat about half of incremental enrolment targeted forhigher education will come from private providers.There is a need for the state to recognise the role ofthe private sector and encourage their participation.There has already been a de-facto privatisation of theprofessional education sector, with more than 80 percent of the engineering colleges being privately fundedand managed. While there are strict entry barriers forthe private sector, there is not enough regulation on theproducts and outputs of the private sector.Accreditation: Accreditation in higher educationpertains to determining the quality of an institution.The criteria on which institutions are judged typicallyinvolve expected student achievement, quality ofcurriculum, faculty, academic support and services forstudents, and financial capacity. In India accreditation(unlike in other countries such as the USA and the UK)is performed by government agencies. The NationalAssessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) wasset up by the UGC in 1994 to accredit institutionsof higher education. The NAAC’s assessment is basedon pre-determined criteria that combine self-studyand peer review. NAAC accredits and certifies foreducational quality in institutions based on sevencriteria with different weights for each criterion, andfor different types of institutions. NAAC has so farReport to the Nation187

completed accreditation of only 140 out of the 355universities and 3,492 out of the 18,064 colleges. Thiscovered just over 10 per cent of all institutions, andbarely any private colleges and universities. The resultsof the accreditation process thus far indicate seriousquality problems. Only 9 per cent of the colleges and31 per cent of the universities are rated as ‘A’ grade andthe rest fall in ‘B’ and ‘C’ categories. Accreditation byNAAC is voluntary and valid for five years. However,very few institutions have applied for accreditationby NAAC.Quality: There are concerns about the quality ofhigher education provided in India currently. There isan annual outflow of more than 1,50,000 students toinstitutes in the west every year – driving out nearly2-3 billion dollars in foreign exchange per annum. Itmakes India the second-largest target market globallyfor education institutes in the west. Though theproblem of reaching world class standards is not aspressing as meeting the larger needs of the population,India’s standing in this regard is indicative perhapsof the generally low standards. In a London TimesHigher Education Supplement ranking of the top200 universities, only 1 Indian institution waslisted, while the Shanghai University ranking of500 world-class universities featured only 3 Indianuniversities.Figure 20: Country wise Number of Universities in Times Top 100 Universities353031252015131050654321USA UK Australia France China Canada Singapore IndiaSource: Times Higher Education Supplement, LondonTable 12: Current Quality Status in Colleges of Higher Education in India (2005)DetailsNumberTotal number of colleges 17,625Number of colleges under UGC purview 14,000Number of colleges recognised under Section 2(f) of UGC Act5,589 (40 per cent)Number of colleges recognised under Section 12(B) of UGC Act5,273 (38 per cent)Number of colleges actually funded by the UGC4,870 (35 per cent)Number of colleges accredited by the NAAC2,780 (20 per cent)Number of colleges accredited by the NAAC and scoring above 60 per cent 2,506 (17.9)Source: MHRD188 National Knowledge Commission

More Talented Studentsin Maths and ScienceIntroductionAs India seeks to establish itself as a knowledgesuperpower, it is essential for it to build onits science and technology base. Pure scienceshas a critical role to play in this – a strong foundationin science helps in building excellence in technology,propelling economic growth and prosperity, andconsequently raising living standards. While India hashad a rich heritage in abstract thinking and scientificdiscoveries, of late the progress in this field has beenon the decline. It is increasingly felt that with thepopularity of arts, commerce and professional courses,and more lucrative opportunities in related professions,there has been a decline in students studying puremathematics and science. In order to create a criticalbase of scientific professionals in the country it isnecessary that immediate steps be taken to attractmore quality students in mathematics and science.Current ScenarioSchool level: While science dominates as the mostpreferred subject at the middle school level (class 6-8), itbecomes less popular at the higher secondary level (class11-12). In a science survey conducted by the NCAER,22 per cent of the class 6-8 students said they wouldlike to study pure science in the future. Yet, at the levelof class 11 and 12, only 13.4 per cent of the surveyedstudents wanted to study pure sciences at the graduate/postgraduate level. This percentage is lower than thefigure for other disciplines – engineering, medicine, artsand commerce.Further, the number of students opting for scienceafter the secondary school stage has dropped from 32per cent in the early 1950s to 19.7 per cent in recentyears. More significantly, while in the 1950s, thebrightest students entered science, the current sciencestudents often take it as a last resort. This indicatesthat young students, particularly the brighter ones, aredrifting away from science. For instance, as reportedby Homi Bhabha Centre for Science Education(HBCSE), very few students selected for Olympiadsin Physics, Chemistry or Biology went on to opt forhigher education in basic sciences. The choice of theNational Talent Search awardees also reflects this trendin recent years. Of the 750 awardees, only about 100Figure 21: Preferred subject for higher education by level of students (2004)Science Engineering Medicine Arts Commerce Others10080% of students60402006th - 8th 9th 10th 11th - 12thClassSource: India Science Report, National Council of Applied Economic ResearchReport to the Nation189

opted for science and only 15 to 20 of the awardeespursued science to the post-graduation level.Further analysis of the reasons behind why students takescience or choose not to take science at higher secondarylevel reveals that passion for science is the primary decisionfactor. Not surprisingly, ‘better job opportunities’ is thesecond most important reason for taking up scienceat higher secondary level. Peer pressure, the changingsocio-economic situation, and market mechanisms haveresulted in the drift of students away from basic sciencesto professional courses which lure the student pool withhigh salaries. (See Tables 13 and 14)Table 13: Reasons for taking admission in scienceReasonPercentage of sciencestudents(Class 11 & 12)Interested in science subjects 66.6Better job opportunities 20.4Parents’ desire 3.3Interested in doing research1.8in scienceInfluenced by the work of1.3scientistsQuality of science teachers0.8is very goodInfluence of peer group 0.7Intend to go abroad 0.2Others 4.8Source: India Science Report, National Council of Applied EconomicResearchTable 14: Reasons for not taking admission inscienceReasonPercentage of nonsciencestudents(Class 11 & 12)Not interested in science subjects 44.5Difficult subject 20.4Higher studies are costly 9.9Interested in commerce 5.4Like art subjects 4.8No future opportunities 2.1No science college nearby 2Difficult to get through1.1competitive examinationPoor quality of teaching at school 1.1Others 8.9Source: India Science Report, National Council of Applied EconomicResearchHigher education: Approximately 2.25 millionstudents were enrolled in science in 2005-06 (UGC)– accounting for 19 per cent of the total enrolmentin higher education. The number in absolute termsis not small. The stock situation in 2004 was alsogood. About a fourth of those qualified to the levelof graduate and above had a background of scienceeducation. There are 8.74 million graduates in all (22.3per cent of total graduates), 1.8 million postgraduates(19.4 per cent of total post graduates), and 0.1 milliondoctorates (one-third of total doctorates) in science.However enrolments in pure science and mathematicshave not grown as much as in professional fields. Eventhe number of students from India going abroad toFigure 22: Gross enrolment in higher educationArtsScienceCommerce/Management60000005000000400000030000002000000100000001995-96 2000-01 2005-06Source: UGC190 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 23: State-wise enrolment in science (2000-01)300000250000200000150000100000500000Andhra PradeshTamil NaduUttar PradeshMaharashtraGujaratWest BengalMadhya PradeshKeralaKarnatakaGujaratOrissaRajasthanJharkhandChhattisgarhPunjabAssamHaryanaJ&KSource: University Development in India, 1995-95 to 2000-01, UGCFigure 24: Science and engineering doctoral degrees as a percentage of all doctoraldegrees in selected countries706560555045403530France Mexico China USA Brazil UK Russia Germany India Korea JapanSource: NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators 2004, Appendix table 2-36pursue maths and science has fallen. According toMHRD figures, there has been an absolute decreaseof 33 per cent in the number of students going abroadin the science stream (between 1991 and 1998) whilethe numbers in banking, technology, commerceand management have increased considerably. Thiscould be a result of shift in student interest to pursuecourses which have better career options than science.There is also a striking regional imbalance inenrolment in science with Andhra Pradesh and TamilNadu having much larger students taking up sciencethan in the other states.Research: While research in all areas requires attention,the condition of science is particularly dismal. Theabsolute number of science graduates is not smallbut the number of doctorates in science streamleaves much to be desired. According to 2005-06UGC figures, science doctoral students formed only1.1 per cent of the graduate enrolment in science. Whilemost advanced countries have more than 60 per centof total doctoral degrees in science and engineeringfields, India has only 46 per cent doctorates in scienceand engineering (See Figure 24).The declining interest in science and mathematicsneeds to be addressed comprehensively. Issues relatingto pedagogy, evaluation, curriculum, careers, andinfrastructure need to be tackled effectively. Large scalescience popularisation programs could also re-establishthe passion science once generated.Report to the Nation191

Legal EducationIntroductionLegal Education as an aspect of professionaleducation has assumed considerable significance,not only in terms of the historical utility of law insociety but also in the current context of globalisation.Legal education is a vital link in the creation ofknowledge concepts as well as in the application of suchconcepts in society. The need for trained law personnelin academia, litigation, corporate practice, governmentand civil society has increased significantly over thelast few years and it is estimated that the demands forsuch trained personnel will rise far more exponentiallyin the years to come. There is therefore a need toarticulate a clear long term vision on legal educationin India.Current ScenarioInstitutions: As in 2006, there were roughly 750institutions in India imparting legal education.Of these, 153 were government institutionsand 586 were private institutions. There were atotal number of 11 National Law School Universities(NLSUs).Enrolment: In 2005-06, there were 3.36 lakh studentsenrolled in legal education in India, accounting for 3.05 percent of the total enrolment in higher education. Further,a total of 936 students were admitted to the NLSUs in2006.Figure 25: Number of institutions teaching law (2006)8007497006005865004003002001000Total153Government Private NLSU11Source: Bar Council of India192 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 26: Total enrolment in lawPercentage of total enrolment in higher educationTotal enrolment in law4.543.532.521.510.501995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01272000270000268000266000264000262000260000258000256000Source: University Development in India, 1995-96 to 2000-01, UGCFigure 27: Total number of law graduates admitted to the Bar50,00045,00046,43840,00035,00033,65730,00028,26825,00020,00015,00010,0005,00002002 2003 2004Source: Bar Council of IndiaReport to the Nation193

Medical EducationIntroductionAssuring a minimal level of health care to thepopulation is a critical constituent of thedevelopment process. As a result, the goal andobjectives of medical education, its quality and quantityhas wide ramifications for human development, healthservices and build up of intellectual capital for thewelfare of the whole country. While medical educationin India has expanded in the last 60 years, it continuesto remain inadequate given the needs of the country.This is reflected in the shortage of health professionalsand health services, with wide disparities betweenrural and urban areas and also between various states.There is thus an urgent need to expand India’s medicaleducation system while keeping issues of quality inconsideration.Current ScenarioEnrolment: The number of students enrolled in medicaleducation has increased by around 85 per cent in thelast ten years, from 1,88,187 in 1995-96 to 3,48,485in 2005-06. However, enrolment in medicine as aproportion to total enrolment in higher education hasbarely increased – it has changed from 2.9 per cent in1995-96 to 3.1 per cent in 2005-06.Institutions: The total number of medical colleges(allopathy, ayurveda, homeopathy, unani, dental,nursing and pharmacy) put together stood at 2092in 2005-06. This was a sharp increase from just 817medical colleges in 2004-05.Allopathic Medical Colleges: As of 2006, there were 262allopathic medical colleges in the country, out of which174 medical colleges were recognised under Section 11(2)of the IMC Act, 1956 by Medical Council of India. Theremaining 88 colleges are permitted under Section 10Aof the IMC Act, 1956 for starting MBBS courses. Out ofthe 262 medical colleges, 131 were government medicalcolleges, and remaining 131 were private medical colleges.The admission capacity in these colleges is approximately29,172 students per year. The increase in private medicalcolleges has been sharp – they grew from 47 in 1995 to131 in 2006. In the same period, government run medicalcolleges have increased only from 109 to 131.AYUSH Medical Colleges: Ayurveda, Yoga and Naturopathy,Unani, Siddha and Homeopathy (AYUSH) colleges haveseen a gradual increase in the last five years. (See Figure 31)It is a matter of concern that a large number of medicalcolleges are concentrated in six states (Maharashtra,Karnataka, Andhra Pradesh, Tamil Nadu, Kerala andFigure 28: Growth in enrolment in medicine4000003500003000002500002000001500001000005000001995-96 2000-01 2005-06Source: UGC194 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 29: Growth in medical colleges25002092200015001000759 78381750002002-03 2003-04 2004-052005-06Source: MHRD, Selected Statistics 2005-06Figure 30: Growth in medical colleges – government and privateGovernmentPrivate1401201008060402001993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006Source: Medical Council of IndiaGujarat). These states cover about 63 per cent of the totalnumber of medical colleges and 67 per cent of the numberof seats. In contrast to this, a disproportionately smallnumber of colleges/seats are located in the other states– 20 per cent of the aggregate number of colleges and 18per cent of the seats in the case of the Empowered ActionGroup states; and 3 per cent of the aggregate number ofcolleges and 3 per cent of the seats in the North Eastern/Hilly states. There is also a rural urban divide with only30 per cent of the population in the urban areas with96 per cent of educational institutes here, whereas wheremore than 70 per cent of the population lives, availabilityof educational facilities is meager.Regulation: A plethora of bodies exist to controlmedical education. Authorities involved includeMinistry of Health, Medical Council of India(MCI), UGC, State Medical Education Departmentsand Councils, Medical Colleges/Institutes, NAMSand NBE (National Board of Examinations). TheMedical Council of India (MCI) was established in1933 and as per Indian Medical Council Act 1933is the statutory recommending body. The MCI onlyrecognises institutions to start a course and expand itaccording to laid down criteria under the MCI Act of1956. With the prior permission of the Governmentof India, it has no regulatory powers; it is only arecommendatory body. Over the years it has failedto serve the purpose and led to a progressive declinein medical education. The State Medical EducationDepartments and Councils grant licenses to practicewithout assessment. Medical colleges largely followReport to the Nation195

the MCI with no attempt to upgrade or evaluatestudents or courses.Quality: There is lack of consistent and regulatedstandards in medical education with many of thecolleges having questionable training capacities and noaccreditation system. Medical graduates are often notassessed for clinical skills in accordance with nationaland international standards. There is lack of appropriateregulation and that further compounds the problem.State governments can grant license to practice generalspecialty, sub-specialty or super-specialty medicine withno assessment of clinical skills. With roughly 26000graduates passing out from MBBS every year and only11-12 thousand postgraduate seats, about 14-15 thousandgraduates get into medical practice with theoreticalknowledge but no application of knowledge. MCI hasneither the power nor the infrastructure to continuouslymonitor and standards. Major reforms at each levelare needed in order to elevate the present condition ofmedical education in India to international standards.Curriculum: The graduate course is 4½ years withassessments in the 1 st year and 2 nd year and 2½ years later,by internal and external examiners assessing theoreticalknowledge acquired. Skill assessment is limited to acase discussion. Internship is of 1 year duration with nofaculty supervision or system of assessment. The graduateacquires unsupervised clinical skills after leaving medicalschool and before entering general practice. Only aboutfive thousand can get a postgraduate seat and then gothrough a graded clinical responsibility. It is thereforenot surprising that a series of studies conducted byAIIMS and a consortium of 16 medical colleges duringFigure 31: Growth of AYUSH colleges in India460440420431 4314444003803603743883403202000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05Source: Medical Council of IndiaFigure 32: State wise distribution of medical colleges (2005)MaharashtraKarnatakaAndhra PradeshTamil NaduKeralaUttar PradeshGujaratWest BengalRajasthanMadhya PradeshBiharPunjabDelhiJammu & KashmirOrissaJharkhandHaryanaAssamUttaranchalHimachal PradeshChhattisgarhTripuraGoa0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45Source: Medical Council of India196 National Knowledge Commission

1989-1995 concluded that our medical graduates lackclinical skills. As a follow up to these studies, WHOSEARO conducted a study General Practice in India,Nepal & Sri Lanka- a status report (1998) which found themedical care delivered by a sample of general practitionersto be of questionable quality.Funding: The Central Budget allocation for healthwhich includes medical education has declined from1.3 per cent of the GDP in 1999 to about 0.9 percent today. As a percentage share of the Total CentralBudget, it has been stagnant at 1.3 per cent, while inthe states, it has declined from 7 per cent to 5.5 per cent(National Health Policy 2002). The results from theNational Health Account (NHA) for the year 2001-02showed that total health expenditure in the country wasRs. 1,05,734 crore, accounting for 4.6 per cent of itsGDP. Out of this, public health expenditure constitutedRs. 21,439 crore (0.94 per cent), private healthexpenditure constituted Rs. 81,810 crore (3.58 per cent)and external support Rs. 2,485 crore (0.11 per cent).In nominal terms, the per capita public healthexpenditure increased from Rs. 89 in 1993-94 toRs. 214 in 2003-04, which in real terms is Rs. 122.Given these statistics, it is no surprise that the reachand quality of public health services has been below thedesirable standard.Health Services and Medical Personnel: While Indiahas seen considerable improvements in health standardsin the last six decades, problems of access to qualityhealthcare and shortages of skilled medical personnelstill persist. As per 2007 figures, India had 6.9 lakhregistered allopathic doctors, 7.2 lakh AYUSH doctors,15 lakh nurses and 6.8 lakh pharmacists. While theabsolute number is not very low for a developingcountry, the numbers prove inadequate in view ofIndia’s large population.Figure 33: Growth of per capital health expenditure by Centre and StatesNominalReal2502001501005001993-94 1994-95 1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04Figure 34: Number of doctors per 1000 populationGreeceItalyFranceGermanyAustraliaUSUKJapanIndia0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4 4.5 5Source: Journal of Royal Society of Medicine Vol. 99, June 2006Report to the Nation197

Management EducationIntroductionIn recent years there has been an unprecedentednumber of technical and management institutionsbeing set up, mostly through private capital. Inthe field of management education, India has around1200 institutions providing undergraduate andpost-graduate level courses. Since the managementgraduates and post-graduates produced by theseinstitutions are primarily absorbed by industry,there is a growing need to match the curriculum andstructure of management education to better fit theneeds of India and to the changes in the industrialand services sectors within the country. Moreover,it is important to properly assess the quality ofmanagement education imparted to the students ofvarious institutions.Current ScenarioAs in 2006-07, there were over 1100 business schools inthe country. Of these, 5 were private aided institutions,903 were private unaided and 149 were governmentinstitutions.In the last decade, the country has witnessed aphenomenal growth in enrolment in managementeducation. The current intake stands at roughly 92,000,with the majority of the students enrolled in privatemanagement colleges.The distribution of management institutions shows aregional imbalance, with 86 per cent of the collegesconcentrated in north and south India. There appearsto be a correlation between the number of schools ina state and its economic and industrial development.The regional imbalances in development and thecreation of capacity for management education in thestate are probably related.A large proportion of the capacity is filled through all-India examinations conducted at a number of locationsthroughout the country. Therefore, a high per capita seatcapacity for a state does not necessarily mean a higherFigure 35: Number of management institutions(2006-07)1200Figure 36: Intake in management colleges(2006-07)1000001000800800006000060040000400200200000Government Private Total0Government Private TotalSource: MHRDSource: MHRD198 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 37: Regional distribution of managementcolleges (2006-07)7%17%46%North South East West30%opportunities in education. The imbalance betweendemand and supply for management graduates has ledto an overly commercial and exploitative environmentin management education. It is not clear how many ofthe recently started institutions are merely speculativeand how many are seriously committed to the cause ofmanagement education. It is not also clear how manyactually meet the norms and standards establishedby the All India Council for Technical Education.The regulatory framework and implementation hasbeen unable to link the entrepreneurial initiative toperformance in terms of educational quality. It has acontrol perspective focusing on inputs such as land,faculty, and other infrastructure rather than on theoutcomes such as quality of education, research,access, cost effectiveness or relevance.Source: MHRDlevel of opportunity for aspirants from that state. Theper capita seats per lakh of population may be partlya reflection of the state’s capacity to absorb a higherpercentage of management graduates.Growth in the number of business schools hasaccelerated over the last two decades. This acceleration,propelled by the increase in the rate of growth of theIndian economy, speaks also for the entrepreneurialinitiative of promoters to seize commercialTable 15: Growth of business schools in Indiaduring 1950-2006PeriodNo. ofBusinessschools addedAverageannualaddition1950-80 (30 years) 118 41980-1995 (15 years) 304 201995-2000 (5 years) 322 642000-2006 (6 years) 1017 169Source: Adapted from Dayal, I., “Developing Management Education inIndia”, Journal of Management Research, 2(2), August 2002, page: 101.Figure 38: State-wise MBA/PGDBM seats per lakh population (2006)2520151050DelhiAndhra PradeshMaharashtraTamil NaduGoaKarnatakaPunjabHaryanaUttaranchalOrissaUttar PradeshKeralaMadhya PradeshGujaratJ&KJharkhandWest BengalNagalandHimachal PradeshTripuraChhattisgarhManipurAssamBiharSource: Report of the Working Group on Management Education, National Knowledge CommissionReport to the Nation199

Engineering EducationIntroductionWith economic growth and the spread oftechnology, the demand for engineers hasincreased manifold. This has been matchedby an increase in enrolments in engineering as well as risein number of engineering institutes in India. Howeverkeeping in mind the growing opportunities for engineers,particularly in the field of information technology andbusiness process outsourcing, there is scope for furtherexpansion. A NASSCOM report foresees a shortageof 500,000 knowledge workers by 2010, 70 percent of which would be in the BPO industry. At thesame time, the quality of engineering institutes andengineering graduates needs to be improved. Apart froma few elite institutes, engineering education in India isoften seen as outdated and irrelevant. Most graduates donot possess the requisite skills, and industries have beenfacing a consistent deficit of quality trained engineers.Also, most institutes, including premier institutes, failto attract and retain quality faculty. These deficiencies inengineering education need to be tackled immediatelyto ensure that India does not miss out on significantopportunities.Current ScenarioEnrolment: Enrolment in engineering education has seena rapid increase in the last decade. The total enrolmentin 2005-06 stood at 795120 – accounting for 7.21 percent of the total enrolment in higher education.Institutions: There has been a phenomenal growth inthe number of engineering institutions at the graduatelevel, from 158 in 1980-81 to 1512 in 2006-07. A majorreason for this explosive growth in the last decade hasbeen the entry of private (aided as well as self financing)institutions. With the growth in demand, the averagesanctioned intake per institution has also increasedwith time.The investment from private sector has had a large role toplay in the growth of institutions. However, the qualityof these many of these private institutions is suspect.This has also been a major reason for the creation of aregional imbalance in the country.Regional imbalance: Although the number ofengineering institutions is more than 1500 at present,Figure 39: Time series trend in engineering enrolmentsAs percentage of total enrolment in higher educationEnrolment in engineering(in %)76.86.66.46.265.85.67000006000005000004000003000002000001000005.41995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-2000 2000-010Source: University Development in India, 1995-96 to 2001-01, UGC200 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 40: Growth in engineering institutions1600151214001200100080077660040033720001581980 1990 2000 2006Source: UGCdata on the region-wise distribution ofinstitutions and sanctioned intake ofstudents indicates regional disparity. Onone hand, where there are around 268institutions in the southern region, there areonly 9 institutions in the eastern region. Atthe extreme end of the spectrum, Nagaland,Andaman and Nicobar, Daman & Diu haveno engineering institutions at all. Out of theseven Indian Institutes of Technology, three(Delhi, Kanpur and Roorkee) are located inthe North, two in the East (Kharagpur andGuwahati) and two in the South (Chennaiand Mumbai).Faculty: The rapid growth of engineeringinstitutions and the inadequate supply ofteachers together have created a shortage offaculty across engineering disciplines andinstitutions. India has a faculty strength ofaround 67,000 in engineering. Accordingto the AICTE Review Committee Report2003, the increase in the sanctionednumber of student intake has led to anescalation of faculty requirements of about95,924. This indicates a shortfall of over26,000 engineering doctorates and 30,000engineering postgraduates for meeting theteaching requirements.Figure 41: Average sanctioned intake per institutionAverage Sanctioned Intake3803603403203002802602402202002000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07Source: AICTEFigure 42: Share of institutions by intake (2006-07)10%3%Private aidedPrivate unaidedGovt. institutionsQuality: Engineering education in Indiahas a pyramidal structure, with a fewelite institutions at the peak and a largeproportion of institutions at the bottom ofthis pyramid. Flexible institutions, worldSource: AICTE87%Report to the Nation201

Figure 43: Region-wise distribution of engineeringinstitutions in 2006-0714%Source: AICTE11% 9%37%8%9%12%CentralEasternNorthernNorth-westSouthernSouth-westWesternclass infrastructure, relevant curriculum, good facultyand industry linkages are crucial inputs needed toenhance quality of engineering education in India.Current engineering graduates are often found to beill-equipped to meet the skill demands of the industry– a survey by the McKinsey Global Institute showedthat multinationals found only 25 per cent of Indianengineers employable.Research: Postgraduate education in engineeringand technology had a late start in our country. Atthe time of India’s independence only 6 institutionsoffered postgraduate programs in engineering andtechnology to just about 70 students. In 2003, 1552postgraduate engineering programs were recognised inengineering, offered by 321 institutions with a totalsanctioned intake of over 26,000. In 2004-05, only968 doctorate degrees were awarded in engineering,the majority of which came either from the IndianInstitutes of Technology or the Indian Institute ofScience, Bangalore.202 National Knowledge Commission

Open and Distance EducationIntroductionDistance education is provided by openuniversities and correspondence coursesoffered by Distance Education Institutions(DEIs) of conventional universities. Almost onefifthstudents enrolled in higher education in Indiaare receiving education through the distance mode,i.e. through the open universities or though thecorrespondence courses of traditional universities.Given the rapid expansion required in highereducation in India, open and distance educationcan play an extremely significant role in meetingthe increased demand for higher education.Moreover, there is an unprecedented opportunitywith regard to technology especially in the formof open courseware. However, problems relatingto quality as well as brand equity of distanceeducation persist.Current ScenarioEnrolment: In 2004-05, around eleven millionpeople were enrolled in higher education inIndia, of which the open and distance educationsystem (including correspondence courses offeredby distance educational institutions (DEIs) ofconventional colleges) served roughly 20 per cent.Within this, open universities served 10 per centof the higher education need. The figure belowillustrates the growth in enrolment in highereducation and open and distance educationfrom 1996 to 2004. In 2000-01, only 4 percent of the higher education need was served byopen universities, but in 2003-04 the figure wasaround 10 per cent, while the overall distanceeducation contribution is around nineteen percent. The figure below also shows the contributionto distance education by open universities andby correspondence courses of conventionaluniversities.Figure 44: Contribution of Open and DistanceEducation (ODE)Figure 45: Enrolment in open universities andcorrespondence coursesThousandsThousands120010008006004002000120001000080006000400020000Source: MHRDSource: MHRDTotal enrolment in higher educationEnrolment in open universities and correspondenceEnrolment in ODE as a percentage of total highereducation251996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04Enrolment in open universitiesEnrolment in correspondenceEnrolment in open universities as a percentage of total higher educationEnrolment in correspondence as a percentage of total higher education1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-042015105014121086420Report to the Nation203

Institutions: In India there are 14 open universities– 13 state open universities and one national OpenUniversity – Indira Gandhi National Open University(IGNOU). IGNOU now has a cumulative enrolmentof about 15 lakh, offers a total of 126 programs and hasa teaching staff of 325 and 1157. Distance educationthrough correspondence courses is provided byother regular universities as well. As on date there are119 Correspondence Course Institutes (CCIs) inconventional Universities. In 2003, open universitiesserved only eight per cent of the total higher educationenrolment, while correspondence courses constitutednearly one fifth of the total higher education enrolment.Quality: The quality and delivery mechanisms ofdistance education provided by correspondence coursesare relatively poor. Most correspondence courses areinstituted as a mode of resource generation in view ofthe unmet demand for higher education. Further, theresources thus earned are not used for the improvementof the correspondence programs. Therefore, qualityconcerns become secondary to those of numbers andincome. Due to inadequate mechanisms of qualitycontrol and regulation, students graduating from bothregular courses and correspondence courses get the samedegree, despite sharp differences in quality of pedagogicalprocess and achievement. Substantial investments inTable 16: Enrolment in open universities and correspondence courses (1996 to 2003)YearTotal enrolment inhigher educationEnrolment inopen universitiesEnrolment inopen universities(% of total)Enrolment incorrespondenceTotal enrolmentin open & distanceeducation1996-97 6842598 294947 4.31 819110 11140571997-98 7260418 316089 4.35 959228 12753171998-99 7705520 247168 3.21 868459 11156271999-00 8050607 381862 4.74 971991 13538532000-01 8399443 379286 4.52 1055317 14346032001-02 8821095 632214 7.17 1123344 17555582002-03 9516773 765489 8.04 1012779 1778268Source: Department of Secondary & Higher Education, MHRDTable 17: Enrolment and teachers in open universities in India (2003-2004)Open University Enrolment Studentson RollTeachers Budget # RevenueReceipts*Indira Gandhi National Open University, New Delhi 334315 1187100 307 21170 13950Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Open University, Hyderabad 190320 - 89 3320 2730Vardhaman Mahaveer Open University, Kota 5999 - 30 355 390.5Nalanda Open University, Patna 1805 8484 6 948 95.95Yashwantrao Chavan Maharashtra Open University, 102642 800587 39 2189 1600NashikDr. Babasaheb Ambedkar Open University, Ahmedabad 13824 68865 39 - -Madhya Pradesh Bhoj Open University, Bhopal 192230 192230 36 121.5 1129.04Netaji Subhas Open University, Kolkata 14734 225244 4 310 175Uttar Pradesh Rajarshi8025 22172 11 - -Tandon Open UniversityKarnataka State Open University, Mysore 19580 33172 63 46 1156Tamil Nadu Open University, Chennai 9361 9361 20 192.9 192.9#Budget plan + non plan * in Rs LakhSource: Distance Education Council204 National Knowledge Commission

correspondence courses must be made by universities toimprove resources, delivery and modes of pedagogicalassistance and assessment.International comparisons: Most of the developingcountries worldwide have realised the need for openuniversities. Developed countries such as France andUK have pioneered open and distance education. UnitedStates remains the undisputed leader in online education.Table 18 below lists mega open universities of the world,along with enrolments and budget.Issues in the Current Framework1. The same form and structure of degree programs:Open and distance education imparted in openuniversities system has evolved alternative deliverymodes with a lot of flexibility. However, it has retainedthe same form and structure, eventually culminating in adegree or diploma certification. Though this is followedto retain recognition from employers and acceptancefrom society, it has not made the system responsive tothe dynamic developmental needs of the people.2. Limited linkages with the workplace: The emphasison people’s education with a focus on work relatedskills and productivity as expected in the Report ofEducation Commission (1964-66) on Educationand Development is yet to be achieved and built intothe open and distance education system. Linkingeducation with productivity demands linking learningwith workplace based training and education for valueaddition.3. Limited coverage and access: Although the existingsize and the share of the open and distance educationsystem in higher education is significant, it is still toosmall to support life-long learning for the citizens of thecountry.4. Lack of access to media: Study texts form themain study materials for a large majority of students.Pedagogical use of various electronic media is yet verylimited.5. Lack of coordination: There is an overlap of targetgroups to be covered by the open schooling and open anddistance higher education. The latter is for mature adultsand many open universities have reduced the age criteriafrom 21 years to 18 years to enable open admissionfor preparatory courses essential for admission to opendegree programs, for those who have not class twelvegraduates. Since open schools also cater to mature adults,it is essential to have coordination amongst the schooland higher education programs to cater to diverse needsof mature adults.Table 18: Open and distance education in other countries - mega universitiesCountry Institution Enrolment ~Budget in Million US$ Unit Cost*Pakistan AIOU 456,126Turkey Anadolu 1,187,100 32.4 budget for 2000 10China CCRTVU 2,300,000 40France CNED 184,614 56.0 1995 figure 50India IGNOU 1,187,100 47.0 budget for 2004 35Korea KNOU 196,402 > 79.0 1995 figure 5UK OU 203,744 > 300.0 1995 figure 50Thailand STOU 181,372 > 46.0 1995 figure 30Indonesia UT 222,068 > 21.0 1995 figure 15* Unit cost per student as a percentage of the average for other universities in the countryReport to the Nation205

More Quality Ph.DsIntroductionAs India seeks to transform itself into aknowledge society, reviving the culture ofresearch and innovation becomes all the moreimportant. High quality research in all frontiers ofknowledge is essential to achieve long term competitiveadvantage. However, the growth in higher educationin India has not been accompanied by an equivalentgrowth in doctoral students. The declining quality ofresearch work and deteriorating research standards andinfrastructure in the country are a cause of concern.Inadequate infrastructure and lack of strong incentivesto practice quality research are major causes of declinein interest towards research work. Administrativehurdles add to the already unfavourable environmentfor research.Current ScenarioThe current quantum of research happening in Indiais insufficient. Of the 11 million students enrolled inhigher education in 2005-06, only 0.64 per cent wereenrolled in research programs. Further, out of the 17898of doctorate degrees awarded in 2004-05, the Faculty ofArts awarded 7532 degrees and the Faculty of Scienceshad 5549 degrees. Thus, these two faculties togetheraccounted for 73 per cent of the total number of researchdegrees awarded. There are also wide disparities withinstates in the number of doctoral degrees granted.India’s poor performance in research is also highlightedby comparisons with other countries. In 2002, USA had4373, Japan had 5084, Germany had 3208 and evenFigure 46: Growth of doctorates: Faculty-wise number of doctorate degrees awarded20000Arts Science Engg. Med. Vet Others1800017853 178981600015418140001200011544 1189910000800060004000200002000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05Source: Annual Report, 2005-06, University Grants Commission206 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 47: State-wise distribution of Ph.D degrees awardedUttar PradeshMaharashtraMadhya PradeshKarnatakaRajasthanKeralaTamil NaduWest BengalDelhiOrissaAndhra PradeshGujaratPunjabHaryanaChhattisgarhAssamUttaranchalChandigarhBiharHimachalJharkhandManipurMeghalayaJ & KGoaArunachalNagalandTripuraSikkim0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200 1400Source: MHRD, Selected Statistics, 2004-05.Figure 48: Growth in number of doctorates compared to other countriesIndia USA China Germany UK Japan45,00040,00035,00030,00025,00020,00015,00010,0005,00001983 1985 1987 1989 1991 1993 1995 1997 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003Source: NSF, Science and Engineering Indicators 2006, Appendix Tables 2.42 and 2.43China had 633 researchers per million inhabitants whileIndia had only 112. Similarly, while the number ofdoctorates increased by only 20 per cent in India, Chinashowed a spectacular growth of 85 per cent in Ph.Ds,Taiwan 57 per cent and Japan 48 per cent between 1991and 2001.Further, according to National Science Foundation,USA, the number of Indians who received USdoctorate degrees in 2003 in science and engineeringis approximately 14000, a figure roughly doublefor Indian science and engineering doctorates whoreceived degrees in India. Indians also earned byfar the largest number of U.S. doctoral degreesawarded to any foreign group in computerand information sciences. This points out to theabsence of a conducive research environment inIndia.Report to the Nation207

Intellectual Property RightsIntroductionIntellectual property rights (IPR) have emergedas an indispensable strategic tool in today’sknowledge economies and societies, particularlyin the context of economic globalisation. An entity’sability to compete in the global market depends toa large extent on its capacity to generate new ideasthrough innovation in science and technology. IPR, byconferring exclusive monopoly rights to its owner fora limited duration, has emerged as a significant factorin creating incentives for innovation and generationof economic value. An effective IPR system is also aconstituent of a reliable legal environment, which inturn becomes an important factor for decisions onforeign investment and technology transfer.Current ScenarioPatent trends: India has witnessed a markedrise in the number of patent applications filed.While in 1992, 3467 applications were filed, in2006-07, almost 29000 applications were filed.Similarly, number of patents granted has increased– although less rapidly. In the past five years,patent grants have shown a more than five-foldincrease.Further, of the total of 28940 applications in 2006-07,only 18 per cent were filed by Indian residents – theremaining were filed by foreign applicants. This insharp contrast with countries such as USA, China,France, Germany, Korea and UK, where domesticpatent application filing is much higher than foreignapplications.A sector-wise analysis of patents filed in India showthat the chemical, mechanical and computer fieldsrank the highest in terms of number of applicationsfiled. However, the food, biotechnology and electricalindustries have seen the highest growth in the lastthree years.International comparisons: India figures in the top 20patent offices, both by patent filings and patent grants.Its ranking further improves if one takes into accountFigure 52: Comparative Trend of Patents Filed and Granted35000FiledGranted3000025000200001500010000500001992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-20002000-012001-022002-032003-042004-052005-062006-07Source: Annual Report of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks, Geographical Indications,Intellectual Property Training Institute, and Patent Information System, 2006-07208 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 53: Applications filed by Indians and ForeignersIndiansForeigners25000200001500010000500001992-931993-941994-951995-961996-971997-981998-991999-20002000-012001-022002-032003-042004-052005-062006-07Source: Annual Report of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks, Geographical Indications,Intellectual Property Training Institute, and Patent Information System, 2006-07Figure 54: Number of patent applications filed under various fields of inventions70002004-05 2005-06 2006-076000500040003000200010000Chemical Drug Food Electrical Mechanical Computer/ElectronicsBiotechnologyGeneralSource: Annual Report of the Office of the Controller General of Patents, Designs, Trademarks, Geographical Indications,Intellectual Property Training Institute, and Patent Information System, 2006-07Figure 55: India patent figures (2005)30,000Patent filings25,00020,00015,000Patent grantsthe data for the year 2006 (WIPO rankings shown beloware based on 2005 figures for India and 2006 figures forthe other countries). Yet, when one takes into accountpatent filings as a proportion of population, GDP andR&D expenditure – a better index for innovation –India fares badly.10,0005,0000By patent officeBy country of originSource: WIPO Statistics DatabaseReport to the Nation209

Table 21: Patent filings by patent office: Top20 offices, 200620061 United States of America 4259662 Japan 4086743 China 2105014 Republic of Korea 1661895 European Patent Office 1352316 Germany 605857 Canada 420388 Russian Federation 376919 Australia 2600310 United Kingdom 2574511 India (2005) 2450512 Brazil 2407413 France 1724914 Mexico 1550515 Hong Kong (SAR), China 1379016 Singapore 916317 Israel 749618 New Zealand 736519 Thailand 624820 Norway 6076Source: WIPO Statistics DatabaseTable 22: Patent grants by patent office:Top 20 offices, 200620061 United States of America 1737702 Japan 1413993 Republic of Korea 1207904 European Patent Office 627805 China 577866 Russian Federation 232997 Germany 210348 Canada 149729 France 1378810 Mexico 963211 Australia 942612 United Kingdom 790713 Singapore 739314 Hong Kong (SAR), China 514615 India (2005) 432016 Ukraine 370517 New Zealand 341218 Poland 268619 Israel 258420 Brazil 2465Source: WIPO Statistics DatabaseFigure 56: Resident patent filings per million population (2006)JapanKoreaUSGermanyFinlandUKFranceRussiaCanadaSingaporeAustraliaChinaBrazilThailandMexicoIndia500.00 1,000.00 1,500.00 2,000.00 2,500.00 3,000.00Source: WIPO Statistics Database210 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 57: Resident patent filings per $Billion GDP (2006)KoreaJapanRussiaChinaUSAGermanyFinlandUKFranceCanadaAustraliaBrazilSingaporeIndiaThailandMexico20.00 40.00 60.00 80.00 100.00 120.00 140.00Source: WIPO Statistics DatabaseFigure 58: Resident patent filings per $Million R&D expenditures (2006)6.005.004.003.002.001.000KoreaRussiaJapanSource: WIPO Statistics DatabaseChinaThailandGermanyUSAUKBrazilFranceIndiaFinlandCanadaAustraliaMexicoSingaporeReport to the Nation211

EntrepreneurshipIntroductionEntrepreneurship is considered to be a significantdeterminant of economic development. Newentrepreneurial activities play a vital part in theprocess of creative destruction that fosters innovation,employment, and growth. While India has traditionallybeen an entrepreneurial country, it fares poorly innumerous global studies exploring the entrepreneurialand business potential of countries. For instance, inthe World Bank Doing Business report (2008) whichinvestigates regulations that enhance business activity,India is ranked 120 out of 178 economies. Similarly, inthe World Economic Forum’s Global CompetitivenessIndex (2007), India ranks 48 th among 131 countries.Current ScenarioAccording to the Global Entrepreneurship Monitor(2007) report, India’s High-Growth ExpectationEarly-Stage Entrepreneurship (HEA) rate is only onefifthof that of China. Further, among medium andlow income countries, while China’s nascent and newentrepreneurs appear to be the most growth-oriented,with more than 10 per cent of them anticipatinghigh growth. Early-stage entrepreneurial activity inIndia is marked by low levels of growth expectation.This is despite the extremely high levels of potentialentrepreneurial activity as perceived by the nonentrepreneuriallyactive population in the country(See Figure 60).While data on entrepreneurship is hard to come by,the following numbers are telling. According to theNSS 62 nd round, in rural India, almost 50 per centof all workers are self-employed – 57 per cent amongmales and nearly 62 per cent among females, whilethe corresponding figures in urban India are 42 formales and 44 for females. The NSSO defines a selfemployedperson as one who has worked in householdenterprises as own-account worker; worked inhousehold enterprises as an employer or worked inhousehold enterprises as helper. The essential feature ofthe self-employed is that they have autonomy (decidehow, where and when to produce) and economicindependence (in respect of choice of market, scaleof operation and finance) for carrying out theiroperation. According to the 5 th Economic CensusFigure 59: Ease of doing business – Global Rank140120100806040200Singapore Japan Mexico Pakistan China Russia India BrazilSource: Doing Business, 2008212 National Knowledge Commission

Figure 60: Overall and potential entrepreneurial activity60Overall entrepreneurial activityPotential entrepreneurial activity5040( in %)3020100Thailand Brazil China Hong Kong USA India Japan UK RussiaSource: Global Entrepreneurship Monitor, 2007conducted by the Central Statistical Organisation(CSO), there are 41.83 million establishments inthe country engaged in different economic activitiesother than crop production and plantation. Fivestates viz. Tamil Nadu (10.60 per cent), Maharashtra(10.10 per cent), West Bengal (10.05 per cent),Uttar Pradesh (9.61 per cent) and Andhra Pradesh(9.56 per cent) together account for about 50 percent of the total establishments in the country. Thesame five states also have the combined share of about50 per cent of total employment.Issues in the Current FrameworkFinance: Access to credit is considered to be one ofthe key problems faced by entrepreneurs in India.This problem is particularly acute at the start-upstage, where bank finance is hard to obtain. Despitenew sources of finance such as venture capital, angelfunding and private equity becoming increasinglypopular, institutional finance is still not able to meetthe current entrepreneurial demands.Regulation and governance: An entrepreneur has todeal with a host of regulatory and compliance issues.These include registering one’s business, obtaininggovernment clearances and licenses, paying taxes andcomplying with labour regulations. Cumbersomepaperwork, long delays and red tapism involved insuch transactions create unnecessary burdens forentrepreneurs, constraining their productivity andtheir ability to do business. As seen in the DoingBusiness 2008 rankings, India performs poorly inthese indicators. A study investigating the effect ofregulation on entrepreneurship using the GEM datasetshows India to be having one of the worst regulatoryindices. (See Figure 61). Moreover, lack of clarity oninformation relating to legal and procedural aspectsof starting an enterprise, as well as those relating toclearances, licenses and government schemes furtheraggravates the problem.Table 23: India’s Ranking in Doing Business 2008Starting a Business 111Dealing with Licenses 134Employing Workers 85Registering Property 112Paying Taxes 165Trading Across Borders 79Enforcing Contracts 177Closing a Business 137Source: Doing Business, World Bank, 2008Manpower: Availability of skilled manpower is anothercrucial issue for entrepreneurs. For example, in a surveyof entrepreneurs conducted by KPMG and TiE in2008, skilled manpower emerged as the second mostimportant factor for fostering entrepreneurial growth.Further parameters reflecting labour market efficiencyand flexibility are dismal. In the Global CompetitivenessIndex, India ranks 102 nd in hiring and firing practicesand 85 th in employing workers in the Doing Business2008 report.Report to the Nation213

Figure 61: Regulatory indices0.9Entry Contract Labour0.80.70.60.50.40.30.20.10Singapore US UK Germany Korea China Brazil IndiaSource: Explaining International Differences in Entrepreneurship: The Role of Individual Characteristics and RegulatoryConstraints, Silvia Ardagna and Annamaria Lusardi, 2008Figure 62: Relative importance of factors on a scale of 1-32.82.72.722.67 2.662.62.52.522.42.32.28 2.272.22.12.0Infrastructure Manpower issues Finance Local environmentand ecosystemGovernance issuesRegulatory issuesSource: Entrepreneurial India, KPMG-TiE Report, 2008Infrastructure: India’s physical infrastructure – roads,rail, ports, power, and telecom – is also considered to bea bottleneck to the smooth operation of entrepreneurialactivity. The high transport and supply chain costs thatpoor infrastructure entails can be affect competitivenessto a great extent, particularly for a small and mediumenterprise. Enterprises surveyed in the GlobalCompetitiveness Report 2007-08, rated inadequateinfrastructure as ‘the most problematic factor’ for doingbusiness in India.Education: While the influence of educationon entrepreneurship is considered debatable,increasingly education is being seen as part of thelarger ecosystem that impacts entrepreneurshipand entrepreneurial motivations. Greater practicalexposure, critical analysis, entrepreneurshipcurriculum, incubation and mentoring,industry-research linkages can help in fosteringentrepreneurship.214 National Knowledge Commission

AgricultureIntroductionAgriculture is the principal means of livelihood forover 60 per cent of India’s population. Despitea steady decline of its share in the GDP (from36.4 per cent in 1982-83 to 18.5 per cent in 2006-07), it remains the largest economic sector in India.Low and volatile growth rates plaguing agriculture aresymptomatic of agrarian crises in several parts of theIndian countryside. Public investment in agriculture hasdeclined and this sector has also not been able to attractprivate investment because of lower/unattractive returns.A well thought-out strategy for promoting agriculturalgrowth is essential for both alleviating poverty andachieving food-security at the national level. Generationand application of knowledge – through agriculturalresearch and extension services can play a crucial role inmeeting the above objectives.Current ScenarioResearch: The Department of Agricultural Researchand Education (DARE) is responsible for addressingagricultural research and education needs in the country.This responsibility is discharged through the IndianCouncil of Agricultural Research (ICAR), an apexand autonomous organisation for agricultural researchand education. The DARE has an extensive networkcomprising 48 Central Institutes, 5 National Bureau,12 Project Directorates, 32 National Research Centresand 62 All-India Coordinated Research Projects.Education: The Indian agricultural education systemcomprises of 40 State Agricultural Universities (SAUs),four ICAR Institutes (IARI, IVRI, NDRI, CIFE),Allahabad Agricultural Institute, one Central AgriculturalUniversity and four Central Universities which have astrong agricultural faculty. There are also a large numberof private colleges both affiliated and non-affiliated toSAUs. According to UGC, there are currently 63962students enrolled in agriculture education in India,accounting for just 0.58 per cent of the total enrolment inhigher education. There is a striking regional imbalancein enrolment with Uttar Pradesh accounting for almost30 per cent of the all-India student enrolment. Further,agricultural studies are not an attractive option anymoreFigure 49: Average GDP growth rates of agriculture and other sectors at1999-2000 pricesNon-agriculture Total economy Agriculture & allied108Average growth rates (%)6420Pre-Green Revolution(1951-52 to 1967-68)Green Revolution period(1968-69 to 1980-81)Wider technologydissemination period(1981-82 to 1990-91)Early Reforms period(1991-92 to 1996-97)Ninth and Tenth Plan(1997-98 to 2006-07)Source: Economic Survey, 2007-08Report to the Nation215

Figure 50: Investment in agriculture: Gross capital formation in agriculture as apercentage of GDP from agriculturePublic SectorPrivate Sector1210Average growth rates (%)864201980-85 1985-90 1990-95 1995-2000 2000-01 2001-02 2002-03 2003-04 2004-05 2005-06 2006-07Source: Eleventh Five Year Plan, Planning CommissionFigure 51: Enrolment in agriculture education (2001)1600014000120001000080006000400020000Uttar PradeshSource: University Development in India, 1995-96 to 2000-01, UGC– it is looked upon as an inferior science to be taken upwhen all else fails.Extension: The Department of Agriculture and Cooperation(DAC) is the central agency coordinatingagricultural extension. In addition, the National Instituteof Agricultural Marketing (NIAM) and the NationalInstitute of Agricultural Extension Management(MANAGE) are autonomous bodies established forproviding the government further assistance, especiallyin facilitating the acquisition of managerial andtechnical skills by personnel involved in the agriculturaleconomy.Various structures, projects and initiatives have beenput in place in order to promote agriculture extensionin the country. These include Agricultural TechnologyManagement Agency (ATMA), Krishi Vigyan KendrasMaharashtraKarnatakaTamil NaduAndhra PradeshRajasthanMadhya PradeshGujaratWest BengalUttarakhandPunjabHimachal PradeshHaryanaAssamOrissaKeralaChhattisgarhBihar(KVKs), Agri-clinic and agri-business centres, KisanCall Centre Scheme etc. ATMAs have been set upin various districts to decentralise, integrate andcoordinate R&D activities, using modern informationand communication technology to improve linkagesbetween the various extension agencies. KVKs havebeen initiated by ICAR to identify the technologicalgaps, critical needs and requirements of the farmers,and impart skill through various programs. Inaddition to the demonstration of latest technologicaldevelopment, assessment and refinement at farmers’fields, the KVKs also provide farm informationservices through literature, exhibitions, field days,farmers tours, crop seminars, kisan melas, radioand television programs, correspondence services,telephone consultancy and helpline services etc. Sofar over 554 KVKs (as on August 2007) have beenestablished.216 National Knowledge Commission

Table 19: Global extension practicesCountryUnited Statesof America,Canada, Australia,DenmarkCosta RicaEnglandHollandAlbaniaUgandaIsraelIndonesiaLao People’sDemocraticRepublic, Vietnamand MaliExtension PracticesStrong extension services – first public, and now public and/or private. None of these very developedcountries has ever considered the discipline of extension as inferior to other agricultural disciplinesat the time of resource allocation. Several developed countries have fully or partially privatised theiragricultural extension services in a variety of ways.The government provides farmers with extension vouchers which can be used for getting extensionadvice from private specialists.The public extension service has evolved over time into a private consulting practice. The positiveresult is enhanced efficiency of staff, and the negative effect is the deprivation of small farmers ofextension services as the result of their inability or unwillingness to pay.About 60 per cent of the extension budget comes from farmers, while the remaining 40 per centis provided by the government. The benefits include increased efficiency, improved quality, clientorientation,job satisfaction for staff, and expanded marketing opportunities for farmers.Private sector entrepreneurial initiatives to create a long-term relationship with farmers have proved tobe successful.Privatisation of extension through the creation of a pool of private extension specialists out of itsexisting public extension service. Registered farmers’ associations could call upon this pool throughbidding for providing services related to selected enterprises, and pay for the services from the fundsgiven to them by the donors through decentralised government units.The government is still responsible for providing extension advice, but encourages privatisation throughthe standing practice of growers to contribute portion of their income to research and developmentincluding extension, public and private partnership in financing and operating units within theextension service, payment for services by commodity production and marketing boards beyond a basicextension package, the provision of more intensive extension activities at the request of needy growers,special agreements with commodity farmers’ organisations, extension staff working on their day off inexchange for direct payment from farmers, provision of equipment like mobile phones to extensionadvisers by growers associations, and direct payment by farmers for participation in training activities.Some projects have not only encouraged NGOs and the private sector, but also agricultural researchinstitutes, agricultural universities and farmers’ associations, to participate in the delivery of extensionservices. Indonesia has successfully established new institutions called Agricultural TechnologyAssessment Institutes at provincial level, bringing together farmers, researchers and extension specialists.Experimenting with tele-centres, which have already exhibited their benefits in several Western Europeancountries. Virtual linkages are being established for bringing research and extension together, andone example is the VERCON (virtual extension, research and communication network) tool, whichFAO has introduced in Egypt and Bhutan. Under an FAO project in the Philippines, the Internetand interactive e-mail facilities have been established at municipality level for supporting decentralisedextension staff. Expert systems are also being developed to compensate, to some extent, for the too-rarevisits of subject-matter specialists to farmers’ fields. Over 30 per cent of extension staff in Estonia use theInternet. One can find programs like “virtual gardens” and “virtual farms” on the Internet.Source: ‘Modernising National Agricultural Extension Systems, A Practical Guide for Policy-Makers of Developing Countries’, FAO, 2005.Issues within the research and extensionframeworkFunding: The current allocation to agricultural R&D,which stands at is 0.7 per cent of agriculture GDP, isgrossly inadequate. This funds crunch is the main factorbehind the disintegration of public systems of agriculturalR&D in several places. Today almost in all SAUs about80-85 per cent of the budget goes towards salary and otherestablishment costs. The ICAR share also has dwindledand varied from 33 per cent in the Fifth Plan to almost9 per cent in the Eighth Plan. In all SAUs, 25 to 30 percent posts are not filled on account of squeeze in budgetand this has seriously impacted quality of instruction.Allocations to this sector must be significantly increasedboth at the Centre (to at least 1 per cent of GDP) andin states.Infrastructure and human resources: The financial crunchcoupled with bureaucratic rigidities has caused colossalgaps both in basic infrastructure and human resources.Lack of water, power, basic equipment like cell phonesReport to the Nation217

and vans, vacancies in the scientific posts in agriculturaluniversities and understaffing of extension providingbodies by underpaid workers are just some of the problemsplaguing public research and extension units.Service providers outside the public sector: TheFarmers Commission Report testified that in the 40 percent of farmer households at an all-India level who didaccess modern technology, “other progressive farmers”emerged as the most popular source (16.7 per cent);followed by “input dealers” (13.1 per cent) and “radio”(13 per cent). Private R&D institutes and demanddrivenextension service providers have entered theagricultural economy in a big way. As R&D providersby proxy, they may well be motivated by vested interestsand thus pose a real threat to the farmer who has no otheroption. Alternatively, service providers in the privatesector may fulfill an important function efficiently,in the absence of a more reliable mechanism.Research-Extension linkages: There is often disconnectbetween the research done by agricultural scientistsand the on-farm practices of farmers. (See Table 20)The structure of the present public extension system islinear and compartmentalised, thus propagating a topdownapproach that does not encourage interaction andco-operation amongst the several actors. Mostimportantly, it does not incorporate a mechanism forfeedback. Therefore, extension workers continue todisseminate technology that may not only be irrelevant,but also harmful for the farming community.Information and Communication Technology (ICT):The availability and convergence of ICTs – computers,digital networks, telecommunication etc. – has beensignificant in the dissemination of knowledge andinformation to the rural population in recent years.The village knowledge centres established by the MSSwaminathan Research Foundation (MSSRF) inPondicherry, and the village internet kiosks establishedby ITC under the “e-chaupal” program are examplesof highly successful ICT deployment for research andextension and market access in agriculture.Agricultural universities: In order to meet the systemicchallenges in the R&D arena, the syllabus and curriculumin agricultural universities need to be more flexible andinterdisciplinary. Incorporation of social sciences andmanagement techniques, primacy accorded to fieldworkand regular training and refresher courses for extensionworkers must be added to the curriculum in order toaddress the disconnect between the lab and the land.Incentives and schemes must be established to attract thebest minds to stimulate R&D activities in universities.Table 20: State-wise performance and potential yield of selected cropsStateImprovedpractice (I)Farmerpractice (F)Actual yield2003-04 (A)Gap (%)Wheat (Yield: Kg/ha - 2002-03 to 2004-05)I and FI and ABihar 3651 2905 1783 25.7 104.8Madhya Pradesh 3297 2472 1789 33.4 84.3Uttar Pradesh 4206 3324 2794 26.5 50.5Rice (irrigated) (Yield: Kg/ha - 2003-04 to 2004-05)Uttar Pradesh 7050 5200 2187 35.6 222.4Bihar 4883 4158 1516 17.4 222.1Chhattisgarh 3919 3137 1455 24.9 169.4SugarcaneMaharashtra 127440 99520 51297 28.1 148.4Karnataka 147390 128000 66667 15.1 121.2Bihar 74420 49440 40990 50.5 81.6Source: Economic Survey 2007-08Note:The data and statistics provided in the baseline section, unless stated otherwise, have been taken from Ministry of HumanResource Development (MHRD), Planning Commission, University Grants Commission (UGC) and District InformationSystem for Education (DISE).218 National Knowledge Commission