Abstract
The book under review, that is, Navigating the Labyrinth, deploys diverse methodologies to analyse the governance issues plaguing the higher education in India. The nuances of “governance” can be observed in terms of un/critical celebration of the glorious past through a political economy framework. This is important, as the variants of state place the Vishwaguru on the pedestal even against the stark reality where the literacy rate in 1931 was below 9% (p. 2). The book underlines “how the state universities charge little and teach little” (p. 13). These studies not only underscore the systemic complexities but also highlight paternalism of the educracy in both policy formulation and regulations. The public policy has been obsessive about input factors like access and infrastructure where the outcome dimensions are often left to the human agency. This is a problematic position to the very ideal of “development” where the weak academic performances, either in terms of capabilities or in terms of functionings, are due to the societal dimensions (Venkataraman, 2021).
The book has chapters written by eminent scholars on diverse aspects in terms of the declining college systems, multidisciplinary research on universities, financing, vocational, skill development and employment. As a postcolonial nation state, India is known for its access-driven policies in education. This is due to the obvious reasons of historical marginalisation across the primordial identities. The massification of university education has been due to diverse intersectional factors like growth and integration into the global economy, the rising demand for higher education and the increase in the number of private colleges over the years. The education inflation shall, thus, be contextualised in terms of the demographic momentum where “nearly a million Indians projected to enter the working age each month for the next two decades” (p. 7). Against this, what we are witnessing in terms of the systemic expansion is the creation of babudom where the indigene traces of managerialism are available in the ivory towers. This is depressing due to the complex fact that neither the state has a political will to reform the sector nor does the leadership available in most of the institutions inspire confidence. Hence, Apoorvanand’s Chapter (pp. 38–69) aptly picturises the broken system. How the cumulative disadvantages are pushing the system to the inertia has further been analysed by Chandra (pp. 235–264). Some of the left-over “quality” institutions are living on their past glories, whereas the majority of the rest are obsessive about the institutional politics for power and benefits. The collateral damage that occurs out of this complexity is the distrust one notices where neither the scholarship is organic in Gramscian sense nor is it collegial to navigate the labyrinth. Consequently, the mediocrity has entrenched into the system often in the name of governance. This redefines the very notion of university as a community of thinkers (p. 244). The grandiose structures are strengthened by the pretentious scholarship where the “knowledge is lost in information”.
Thus, the book underscores the dubious quality issues often due to severe regulatory and governance failures (p. 236). Though the access without quality has reconfirmed the soft state thesis of Myrdal, the volume has correctly identified the instrumental and normative goals of education. It seems that the editors have somehow overlooked the intrinsic ideals. This lacuna is similar to the mainstream analyses on the subject where the capability formation shall be considered in terms of substantive freedom. This is essential not just because of the reason that the sector is a “linchpin of a modern economy” (p. 1), but for the necessities of justice. Massification in the name of access may not be judicious if we do not aspire for quality. However, the very definition of quality shall begin from capabilities or the substantive freedoms. Failing which, the usual pitfalls define them in terms of employability to suit the surplus drives of the invisible hands. Though the oft-cited thesis of elusive triangle (Naik, 1979) is considered by the mainstream literature, it is unclear why the governance structures and even the personal agencies are seemingly hesitant about the importance of quality that is incomprehensible. This shall be conceptualised in terms of the disabling conditions of capability formations despite the “democratic” dispensations on “development”.
Thus, the credential regime is neither negotiating the structural rigidities nor empowering the human agency. If questioning the reality is the cornerstone of scholarship, how many of our institutions are dissenting the diverse discourses on “development”? Though Kapur and Khosla’s chapter on “how judges bring to bear a certain vision of the state and education in their assessment of disputes” (p. 208) underscored the importance of public discourses, the self-imposed silences of the ivory tower are a witness in India. Most of the institutions are into politics of dysfunctionalities where the strikes are often about pay hikes and not about the libraries and quality. In this utilitarian morality, sabbaticals are often available only to those who have a clout with the institutional politics where merits are an added advantage. There are larger concerns when it comes to the university system in India. When the societal ecosystem is employment-centric, the ivory tower often defines quality in terms of the instrumental values of education. On an ideal scale, this is indeed a reductionistic position.
In this context, the book shall be seen in light of the larger debates on multidisciplinarity. The present-day national realities demand that both basic research and teaching require strict boundaries in India. The applied research could be multidisciplinary in nature. This is essential, as the system has achieved neither intrinsic nor instrumental goals over the years. Apoorvanand’s reflective narratives has underscored the complex lifeworlds. His account on Bihar not only highlighted the decaying system but also signals about the larger implications. This is a standalone chapter of the book which depicts the systemic ills to navigate across the structure agency dualism in education. This will in turn take the reader to their college days to recollect those poignant memories. Though the chapter by Hatakenaka identified the problems correctly, her solutions are the concern; for instance, her analysis argues for a partnership with industry instead of questioning the market. Though this human capital reductionism could be a concern, her advocacy to establish “a small number of elite research institutions to set quality standards for the whole higher education system” (p. 91) questions the egalitarian concerns where India tops the global inequality index next only to South Africa. Furthermore, her prescription on how “university could forge dynamic partnership with research institutes to evolve into research-oriented education institutions” (p. 92) overlooks the practicalities of regulatory regimes in India. This regime is peculiar on its stands; for instance, while it often proscribes the autonomous pedagogic and curricular changes, it does prescribe the continuous and comprehensive evaluation (CCE). Thus, the autonomy of the academics exists officially where the educracy “selectively” calls the shot. Although the book has not raised these specific concerns in detail, it will certainly be useful for public policy scholars in education.