The Amicable Argument

A few days back a friend and I had what we would prefer to call a discussion. Now, he’s a software engineer turned film-maker. 

We have engaging conversations/discussions/arguments and he believes I am a right-wing thinker. On a lighter note, he is also that engineer who didn’t remember the Principle of Levers and the Raman Effect (for which Dr. C.V.Raman won the Nobel Prize), so you know how much to believe him! But that is no reflection on his capabilities as a film-maker or as an argumentative Indian. 

To set the record straight (and I hope he reads this): I do not have any political leanings.

I have tried to explain to him, many times before, that policy must be understood, appreciated, analysed and critiqued without any political leanings and affiliations. The points for any analysis rest on the necessities of economic reasoning, social welfare and distributive justice. An unbiased mind and conscience, free from the shackles of any allegiance and leanings, is more adept at articulate and sincere opinions and analyses than one where the soul is sold to, and the stomach fed by, such leanings. Those who are able to strike the middle path, do so with the heart and the mind! 

Our point of disagreement this time was about the government running institutes of higher learning. Is it really the job of the government to do so? Consider this: a government owned company is in the business of manufacturing condoms and, yet, we are the second most populous country in the world!

To put it very simply, the government’s duty is to ensure healthcare, primary and secondary education (basic), security and law and order, water and sanitation, food security and infrastructure, for which the citizens give up certain rights and privileges (Social Contract Theory). The government’s duty is also to provide opportunities for businesses, entrepreneurship etc., that will provide the jobs (easy laws, incentives, regulations for checks-and-balances etc., also come into the picture). While the economic well being of a country is measured by its GDP (and deficit, among other economic indicators), the social well being is reflected through the Human Development Index. Ofcourse, it is all more complex than I’ve made it out to be, but this is only for the purpose of providing a basic backdrop for our discussion.

So, coming back to the point. There is no doubt that the government has successfully set up and run some of the finest institutes and centres for higher learning in the country - the IITs, IIMs, AIIMs, NLUs, IISERs, universities etc. The government does this through grants and subsidies - land, funding for infrastructure, salaries, etc. But, to think of it, most of these institutes, barring the more recent ones, are now in a position to take care of themselves through the rich intellectual wealth that they have created over the years. 

Now, consider the issues at JNU, for instance. Institutes and Universities of higher education were almost perceived as a petri-dish for propagation of the ideology of the government of the day. So, these fundings almost never come without the proverbial ‘strings attached’. It may just be a matter of political accident that the Congress party has formed the government the maximum number of times and it becomes obvious that they encouraged the support to their ideology at the institutes of higher education, where the youth could take their ‘cause’ forward. 

But what happens when the government changes? The new government would want it’s own ideology to be soaked into the fabric of the young minds. With that intention, the new government appoints a person who could fulfil that task and, right or wrong, that becomes the primary criterion. This leads to resentment among the students who see this as an infringement on their own rights as students and citizens. The result: revolt.

However, if the government were to restrict its role in such institutes to providing the grants and subsidies alright, but not controlling the running of the institute, the purpose of the institute remains strong. The government may help set up these institutes, provide the capital and expertise, but exit when the institutes are strong enough to take care of their own interests. Having said that, I must clarify that the government must leave no stone unturned in encouraging and supporting such institutes since the importance of building a knowledge economy cannot be emphasised more.

This applies to any institute in the area of higher education, be it in science, technology, art and culture, research etc. The institutes, too, must move towards becoming more self-reliant to be able to establish and assert their own purpose, without the baggage of political compulsions. The government on its part, will have more time, money and human resources to direct its efforts and attention to more pressing areas of healthcare, primary and secondary education, food security and all that it takes for job creation.

With due credit to my dear friend, he clarifies that he fights ideas not people.