Tag: scholarship

Maharashtra Scholarship Squeeze: Stricter Rules Threaten Dreams of SC, OBC Students

The minimum marks requirement for the Rajarshi Shahu Maharaj Scholarship that aids overseas education has jumped to 75% across all degrees, and a family income cap of Rs 8 lakh has been introduced. Announced late in the application cycle, these changes leave students scrambling.

New Delhi: Students from Scheduled Caste (SC) and Other Backward Class (OBC) communities face a new hurdle as the Maharashtra government has enforced stringent eligibility criteria for the Rajarshi Shahu Maharaj Scholarship, designed to support marginalised students pursuing an education abroad.

Under the revised guidelines, applicants must now achieve over 75% in their Secondary School Certificate, Higher Secondary Certificate, bachelor’s and master’s degrees, marking a significant increase from the previous thresholds of 55% for SC students and 60% for OBC students. The introduction of an income cap of Rs 8 lakh per family and annual funding limits of Rs 30 lakh for master’s degrees and Rs 40 lakh for PhD programmes have also been announced.

Every year, 75 students each from SC and OBC categories are selected for the scholarship from a pool of approximately 500 applicants. This scholarship has been a lifeline for many first-generation learners, enabling them to study abroad and improve their families’ economic situations. However, the stricter requirements could now exclude many students from economically and socially challenging backgrounds. Ajinkya, who lives with his mother and brother, manages his household under Rs 7 lakh after his father’s death. As an alumni of the Tata Institute for Social Sciences, he has received offers from both Manchester University and University College London to pursue a master’s degree in social research, but now he fears his dreams will be shattered by a mere 2% gap in fulfilling the new criteria. “This policy is discriminatory. For students like us, getting 60-70% is a big deal. If we had AC rooms too, imagine what we could do,” he said.

Vikas Tatad, a former beneficiary of the scholarship, is currently studying in the international and comparative education programme at Columbia University. Growing up in a slum, he was inspired by Dr B.R. Ambedkar, who also studied at Columbia. He called the change in the scheme “irrational” and said it “defeats the purpose” of the scholarship. The introduction of a clause that limits beneficiaries to receiving the scholarship only once has made his prospects of continuing with a PhD at Columbia uncertain.

“Throughout these two years, I had planned, grown a network and gained skills in hopes that the government would have my back. Now I’m at the end of my course, but with the change in policy, I don’t know what will happen next,” Tatad explained. Despite acknowledging the significant help the scheme provided, he expressed concerns over the government’s annual cap of Rs 30 lakh for master’s degrees and Rs 40 lakh for PhD degrees. “My yearly expenses ranged from Rs 70-90 lakh, with Rs 50-70 lakh for tuition alone. My visa was rejected four times because nobody would give a loan to a farmer’s son whose home itself is constructed on government land.”

Raju Kendre, an Indian educator and social activist known for his work in enhancing education and development in the rural and tribal regions of Central India, also weighed in. As the founder of the Eklavya Global Scholars Program, which supports students from underprivileged backgrounds, particularly in rural Maharashtra, he guides them towards higher educational opportunities.

He said, “If someone is already admitted to top-tier universities like Harvard or LSE, criteria such as 75% become gatekeeping barriers for students from historically marginalised communities. This reflects the elitist, meritocratic approach embedded in our policy systems. If a foreign university deems a student eligible, why impose a cap based on percentage?”

Kendre urged the government to view these students not just as financial aid beneficiaries but as future leaders. “Treat them as global scholars, like those supported by platforms such as Rhodes, Fulbright, Chevening, DAAD and Commonwealth. These scholars are the future assets of our nation. Ultimately, we should invest in this human resource.”

Moreover, the government has faced criticism for delayed fund releases, which led to the Shahu Maharaj Scholarship being suspended at the University of South Wales, Australia. The timing of scholarship advertisements, typically released two-three months before the degree starts, severely limits students’ chances of finding alternative funding sources. And now, with the government tightening rules around the scholarship, many students are left uncertain about their future educational prospects.

Sanchita Bakshi is an intern at The Wire.

Pre-Matric Scholarship for Minority Students Will No Longer Apply for Classes I to VIII

Only students of Class IX and X will be eligible for the scholarship.

New Delhi: The government’s pre-matric scholarship to students of minority communities will no longer apply to students from Class I to Class VIII, and only be continued for students from Class IX and Class X starting from 2022-23. The scholarship is run by the Union Ministry of Minority Affairs.

According to the Indian Express, the government has said that this was done to bring the minority affairs ministry scholarship in line with the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment and Ministry of Tribal Affairs. According to the Times of India, while the pre-matric scholarships for SC and ST students was always only for Class IX and X, for OBC students it used to begin from Class I but was later restricted to Classes IX and X.

“The Right to Education (RTE) Act, 2009 makes it obligatory for the Government to provide free and compulsory elementary education (classes I to VIII) to each and every child. Accordingly, only students studying in classes IX and X are covered under the Pre-Matric Scholarship Scheme of the Ministry of Social Justice & Empowerment and Ministry of Tribal Affairs. Likewise from 2022-23, the coverage under the Pre Matric Scholarship Scheme of the Ministry of Minority Affairs shall also be for classes IX and X only,” the notice stated, according to the Indian Express. “The Institute Nodal Officer (INO)/District Nodal Officer (DNO)/State Nodal Officer (SNO) may accordingly verify applications only for classes IX and X under the Pre Matric Scholarship Scheme of the Ministry of Minority Affairs.”

In March this year, minority affairs minister Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi had told parliament that after 2014-15, 5.20 crore scholarships had been given to minority students. Before this period, the corresponding number was 3.03 crore. “The total cost of all scholarships granted to minority students was Rs 15,154.70 crore for the same period,” the Indian Express reported.

The All India Muslim Personal Law Board and the Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind have expressed grave concern over the Union government’s decision to limit the scholarship’s reach.

AIMPLB executive member Dr S.Q.R. Ilyas said, according to the Indian Express, “The various scholarships provided to the minority community, in particular to the Muslim community, pre-matric, post-matric, merit-cum-means scholarships, were instituted after the Sachar committee report that children from the Muslim community were some of the most educationally backward in the country, even lagging behind the children from Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes.”

Niaz Ahmad Farooqui, secretary, Jamiat Ulama-i-Hind, told the newspaper, “This government can’t manage to pay teachers their due salaries, so what scholarships are they going to give?”

Opposition politicians too lashed out at the government’s decision. Congress spokesperson Randeep Singh Surjewala called the decision “shameful, shocking and stunning”.

Marumalarchi Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam leader Vaiko too condemned the decision. “This is only an assault by the Modi government, which has been targeting the minorities through hate politics,” he said, according to The Hindu.

Bahujan Samaj Party leader Kunwar Danish Ali claimed that the government has found a new way to keep these poor children away from education by stopping the scholarship given to minority students (Class 1-8). “Yes, don’t forget that educated children take the country forward irrespective of the community they belong to,” Ali tweeted.

Why Exclude SC Students Wanting to Study ‘Indian’ Topics Abroad from National Scholarship?

Amid more frontal assaults on the founding principles of the Indian republic, it is easy to gloss over an innocuous-looking government circular impacting no more than perhaps a couple of dozen students. However, this would be a huge mistake.

The National Overseas Scholarship Scheme (NOS) of the Ministry of Social Justice and Empowerment provides funding for students from SC, ST and landless agricultural labourer families to pursue postgraduate education (masters and doctoral levels) at top-ranked universities outside India. This scholarship programme has been operating for nearly seven decades, starting in 1954.

With a modest annual budget (of under Rs 20 crore per year in 2021), NOS seeks to award scholarships to 100 students (increased to 125 this year of which 115 are earmarked for Scheduled Caste students). However,  in the past six years, only about 50-70 students have been awarded these scholarships (the annual reports from the Ministry of Social Justice do not account for the fact that a significant fraction of the provisional awards does not translate into a final disbursement of the scholarship, as shown in the Table insert).

Table: Number of Final NOS Award Letters issued between 2016-17 to 2021-22

2021-22 2020-21 2019-20 2018-19 2017-18 2016-17
Male 28 51 32 30 47 30
Female 11 22 14 20 18 16
Total 39 73 46 50 65 46

Source: Information obtained under RTI by Mr A. Meshram.

As per the Ministry of External Affairs, about 5.53 lakh Indian students study abroad. Compared to this, the normative target of the NOS programme is a mere 100 students (or, as two chemical engineers would have it, 180 parts per million or ppm). The poor design of the programme and an ambivalent commitment implementation, along with impractical exclusion criteria, results in a final number that is closer to 40 ppm. For example, any MPhil student drawing a modest scholarship at a public institution will likely cross the income threshold for the NOS programme. We have had our students wait a year without a scholarship stipend to become eligible for the NOS programme.

Until last year, the NOS scholarship programme supported students in all major disciplines. However, the new guidelines issued this year exclude “[t]opics/courses concerning Indian [c]ulture/heritage/[h]istory/[s]ocial studies on India.” Further, the final decision as to which topic falls under these categories “will rest with Selection-cum-Screening Committee of NOS.” This sudden change was made just two months before the final application deadline and comes as a crushing blow to those hoping to avail these scholarships for the coming academic year. Two students from our home institution have secured admissions from top-ranked universities in the UK and were hoping to fund their doctoral education using NOS scholarship.

The ministry held no public consultation before taking such a drastic decision. It is pertinent to note here that when NOS programme began in 1954-55, it was restricted only to science, technology, and engineering fields. Humanities and social sciences were added in 2012.

When a 2006 Parliamentary Standing Committee questioned the rationale behind this exclusion, the ministry’s response was that “subjects, where adequate facilities are available in India, are not included in the list of subjects for the overseas scholarship.” This argument assumes that the only reason students from historically marginalised communities want to pursue their education abroad is because of better facilities abroad. It is not uncommon for scholars from historically marginalised groups to endure explicit and implicit caste discrimination on Indian campuses. Obtaining a PhD degree from an overseas institution offer better chances of securing faculty positions at elite Indian institutions. Above all, a foreign degree offers a potential escape from the ‘lack of merit’ insinuation that scholars from marginalised communities endure daily (even when a scholar has not availed reservation benefits).

This new restriction is not surprising, coming from a dispensation that has consistently displayed utter contempt and scorn for rigorous social sciences and humanities scholarship. However, the cowardice that lurks behind the muscular and exclusionary nationalism from the annals of “entire political science” cannot fully account for why Dalit and Adivasi students have been unfunded.

In recent months, an assertive Dalit middle class in the United States and elsewhere have forced institutions to recognise the pernicious consequences of India’s caste hierarchy. A Fortune 500 corporation has been sued for abetting caste discrimination, and several major universities have started to incorporate caste as a protected category. The Dalit intelligentsia abroad has been at the forefront of making a case for why “Dismantling Global Hindutva” will not succeed without first dismantling Global Brahmanism.

This same Dalit diaspora has also exposed how “upper” caste students almost wholly corner diversity and affirmative action policies at US institutions that benefit Indians. This hegemony is especially complete in the social sciences and humanities. Any roster of the most successful Indian origin scholars in these fields is dominated by those who have used familial ties in the upper echelons of the Indian bureaucracy to produce the research that propelled them to academic stardom. The vocal Dalit diaspora has exposed these Brahmanical guild networks that are only rarely acknowledged by entrenched Indian origin scholars with gatekeeping powers at leading global institutions. When pitting themselves against White privilege, there is always studied amnesia around Brahmanical privilege that launched their own ascent.

The Dalit diaspora has also been at the forefront of shining the spotlight on the near-complete Brahmanical stranglehold on elite Indian institutions. At our own Indian Institutes of Management, we estimate that at least 80% of all faculty members are drawn from just two “upper” caste groups representing less than 7% of India’s diverse population. At our home institution (IIM Bangalore), a Brahmin faculty member runs a private youtube channel with “satsangs” produced using public institution facilities. A confident Bahujan scholar trained in the best global institution poses a threat to this hegemony.

An essential strategy in any fascist toolkit is to wear down the dissenters. Amid more frontal assaults on the founding principles of the Indian republic, it is easy to gloss over an innocuous-looking government circular impacting no more than perhaps a couple of dozen students. However, this would be a huge mistake.

The most successful challenges to modern empires have come from individuals and groups that mastered the “language” of the empire. A Gandhi, an Ambedkar or a Nehru all studied in the metropolitan centres of the empire. A generation of Bahujan scholars empowered to question centuries of domination and subjugation presents an existential threat to the Brahmanical empire – an empire that this regime is sworn to preserve at all costs. The history of modern India was altered because the Baroda State funded Ambedkar’s studies at Columbia University. Our rulers cannot and will not risk another Ambedkar rising. For this very reason, our finest public institutions have been under constant attack – sometimes literally. Rohith Vemula’s poignant suicide note represents a mortal threat to the Brahmanical empire.

Siddharth Joshi is a Fellow of IIM Bangalore, and Deepak Malghan is on the faculty at IIMB Bangalore. Views are personal. They tweet at @siddharthkjoshi and @deepak_malghan respectively.

Uttarakhand: Since 2017, Drastic Drop In Scholarships Availed by Minority Students

The budget for the scheme – which reduced from Rs 3 crore in 2017-18 to Rs 2 lakh in 2020-21 – reflected this decline in students availing of the scholarship.

New Delhi: The number of students from minority communities availing the pre-matric scholarship scheme in Uttarakhand dropped by over 100 times between 2017-18 and 2020-21, revealed an RTI filed by the Times of India.

The scheme, which is run by the minority welfare department of the state government, is exclusively meant for students belonging to a minority community studying in classes 1-10 who are natives of Uttarakhand.

According to the report, 38,477 students availed of the scholarship in 2017-18. The number dropped to 8,601 in 2018-19, and further declined to 3,498 students availing of the scholarship through the state-run scheme. In 2020-21, only 337 students availed of the scholarship

The budget for the scheme – which reduced from Rs 3 crore in 2017-18 to Rs 2 lakh in 2020-21 – reflected this decline in students availing of the scholarship, the report said.

Raees Ahmed, deputy director of the Uttarakhand minority welfare department, explained to TOI several factors that were behind the heavy decline.

“Attachment of a government-issued income certificate in the application became mandatory a couple of years back. Earlier, it used to be just a mere undertaking and was not online,” he told the newspaper. He added that making the documents and uploading them required sufficient money, which many did not have.

Also read: In the Modi Era, Scholarships Granted to Minority Students Dropped Drastically

He further said that the students preferred applying for the Central scheme for minorities, where the scholarship amount was Rs 5,000 per year compared to the state’s Rs 720 per year.

Another reason for students preferring the Centre-run scheme is that the state government-run scheme required the annual family income of the student cannot be more than Rs 38,000, whereas in the Central scheme, the annual family income can be up to somewhere around Rs 1 lakh.

TOI had earlier also reported a decline in the state-run scheme. According to the report, more than 2.2 lakh students were availing the scheme in 2014-15 while in 2016-17, the number reduced to 26,000.

Ahmed told TOI that the eligibility criteria were set by the government according to 1995 guidelines, and a proposal was sent in early 2021 to the secretariat to increase the scholarship amount as well as the family income limit.

Watch: Unable to Receive Benefits From PMSSS Scheme, Say J&K Students

The lack of funds coupled with tensions created by the pandemic have left many students in the lurch.

The scholarship given under the Prime Minister’s Special Scholarship Scheme (PMSSS) is not reaching many students in the Jammu, Kashmir and Ladakh regions. Due to the coronavirus pandemic, the non-availability of these scholarship funds has led to students fearing that they will miss out on their education.

The Wire spoke to the students and RIFD AICTE assistant director Rakesh Kumar on this matter.

In a response released after The Wire‘s video was published, saying that full scholarships payments had been made up to May 2020 for claims received by the Council. The maintenance allowance, it continues, is paid to students as soon as it has been verified whether or not they stayed in the the hostel, PG or private rented accommodation. The AICTE also urged students who have not yet uploaded documents for verification to do so immediately. The full response is below.

Note: AICTE’s response was added to this page on September 10, 2021.

For Three Years, Bihar Denies SC/ST Students Post-Matric Scholarship: Report

The state government blames it on ‘technical issues with the National Scholarship portal’. However, the government had restructured the fee in 2016, which led to several students discontinuing their education.

New Delhi: For the last three years, Bihar has not received a single application for the post-matric scholarship, a scheme sponsored by the central government for Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribe students, Indian Express reported. The scheme benefits an estimated 60 lakh students across the country.

“Technical issues with the National Scholarship portal” is the reason why the government hasn’t received any application, officials told the newspaper, however, they were unable to explain why the issue has not been sorted out in three years.

In comparison, Uttar Pradesh has done exceedingly well in providing benefits of this scheme to SC/ST students, the report added.

At least five lakh students are eligible for this scholarship every year, where SCs make 16% of the population and the STs 1%. An SC/ST student whose family’s annual income is up to Rs 2.5 lakh can avail of the benefits of the scheme.

According to the report, SC/ST students have been denied this scholarship for six years now, and for completely different reasons from 2016-17 to 2018-19.

Also read: Why Aren’t Enough Students From Tribal Communities Receiving the National Overseas Scholarship?

In 2016, the Bihar government’s SC/ST welfare department restructured the fee to rationalise the fee structure between government and private colleges, ranging from annual Rs 2,000 to Rs 90,000. The move led to several students discontinuing higher education or professional courses.

The newspaper spoke to students from Bihar who described how the fee restructuring move in 2016 impacted them.

Muzaffarpur-based Vikash Kumar Das, who joined a five-year BA LLB integrated programme (2015-20), was not able to pay his fee after the Bihar government restructured the fee in 2016. He was also denied a bank loan as he didn’t have any collateral for a Rs 10-lakh loan. He was able to complete his course with the help of private donations, by selling off a piece of land and his mother’s jewellery.

Pramod Kumar, assistant director, SC/ST welfare department, had earlier told the Patna high court that different institutes were charging different fees for the same course, so it was pertinent to rationalise the fee structure for reimbursement of fees.

The Patna high court directed the Bihar government to submit a report on this matter while hearing a plea by Samastipur resident Rajiv Kumar.

A state is expected to spend about Rs 115 crore each year under the scheme, and it can also avail any amount from the Centre above its annual committed liability. However, Bihar could barely spend around Rs 60 crore annually between 2017-18 and 2019-20. And, therefore, between 2017-18 and 2019-20, Bihar did not qualify for any Central share since it had spent much less than its committed state liability. The scheme has not been continuing for the last three years as the state government has not received a single application under the scheme.

The number of beneficiaries for the scheme fell to 39,792 in 2018-19 from 155,000 in 2015-16.

In 2016-17, the number of beneficiaries plunged to 37,372 and in 2017-18, 70,886 students availed of the benefits from the scheme.

Sanjay Kumar, additional chief secretary, education, told the daily: “There has surely been delay in implementation of the scheme because of technical issues with the National Scholarship portal. We have been provided a single window on the portal. We have requested for a separate site and hope to get it streamlined very soon… But it will be wrong to assume or say that it has been discontinued.”

Sub-Classification of Scheduled Castes: Why the Chinnaiah Judgment Must Go

Are all Scheduled Castes equal or are some less equal than the rest? To answer this question, a 2004 judgement which ruled that Scheduled Castes are constitutionally ‘homogenous’ will have to be looked at again.

Can a state government sub-classify or sub-categorise Scheduled Castes in the state to ensure an equitable apportionment of reservations and greater representation of the weaker sections within the Scheduled Castes? This is the question that a constitution bench of the Supreme Court of India is posed with at the moment.

The constitution bench of five judges headed by Justice Arun Mishra concluded hearings in the case of State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh last month and is likely to pronounce a judgment soon on whether the question needs to be referred to a larger bench. The reason for the likely referral is that a five-judge constitution bench of the Supreme Court had already dealt with this question in 2004 and answered in the negative.

Chinnaiah’s treatment of Scheduled Castes

In the case of E.V. Chinnaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh, going against well-known and what would seem to be obvious wisdom, the Supreme Court held that the Scheduled Castes form one “homogenous” group and therefore any inter-se classification within the Scheduled Castes would be a violation of Article 14.

The court was dealing with a law passed by the Andhra Pradesh government based on the report of the Justice Ramachandra Raju Commission, which recommended sub-dividing the Scheduled Castes into four groups and apportioning reservations separately for each. This was to ensure that all communities within the Scheduled Castes, particularly those that have been oppressed and marginalised the most historically and have been deprived of the opportunities of education and formal employment, receive adequate and equitable representation in educational institutions and state services.

However, the court proceeded to strike down the law on the premise that the declaration of a caste as a Scheduled Caste in the presidential list issued under Article 341 meant that it became subsumed in the broad monolith and was to be treated at par with the other Scheduled Castes for all purposes.

Archival image of Dr. B.R. Ambedkar. Credit: Flickr/Public Resource.org CC-BY-2.0

This was obviously wrong. Dr B.R. Ambedkar described the Indian society as a gradation of castes forming an ascending scale of reverence (which he later amended to an ascending scale of “hatred”) and a descending scale of contempt. As is the nature of any hierarchical structure, no two castes are equal and while the Scheduled Castes form one group owing their commonality to their shared experience of untouchability, there is a large gradation within the Scheduled Castes. The ones at the bottom of the ladder, those who have been most severely ostracised and subjugated, have not yet received the benefits of reservations as a tool to ensure their representation in society and government.

The nine-judge bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Indra Sawhney v. Union of India was cognisant of this and it held that it would be perfectly legal for the state to categorise backward classes as backward and more backward. The concurring judgment of Justice Sawant read:

“Whether the backward classes can be classified into Backward and More Backward, would depend upon the facts of each case. So long as both backward and more backward classes are not only comparatively but substantially backward than the advanced classes, and further, between themselves, there is a substantial difference in backwardness, not only it is advisable but also imperative to make the sub-classification if all the backward classes are to gain equitable benefit of the special provisions under the Constitution.”

The Supreme Court has held in a slew of judgments such as Subhash Chandra (2009) that the term “backward classes” in Article 16(4) includes Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes for all intent and purport. Therefore, the Supreme Court in Indra Sawhney paved the way for sub-classification not only among the other backward classes (OBCs), which it was primarily dealing with, but also within the Scheduled Castes for the purpose of apportioning reservations.

Also read: Why Maharashtra Government’s Overseas Scholarship Scheme for Dalits Needs Overhaul

Misreading Indra Sawhney

Interestingly, but wrongly, the Supreme Court in Chinnaiah (mis)understood that the Indra Sawhney judgment applied only to OBCs and not to the Scheduled Castes. This it did by reading out of context a line from Justice Reddy’s majority judgment recommending exclusion of the creamy layer within the OBCs:

“…we feel that exclusion of such socially advanced members will make the ‘class’ a truly backward class and would more appropriately serve the purpose and object of clause (4). (This discussion is confined to Other Backward Classes only and has no relevance in the case of Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes.)”

The last part of the above paragraph, that “This discussion is confined to Other Backward Classes only” was intended only with regard to the exclusion of creamy layer. This concept, Justice Reddy warned, was not to be extended to the Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. (The 2018 Supreme Court judgment in Jarnail Singh v. Lacchmi Narain Gupta did extend the concept of creamy layer to Scheduled Castes and the government of India has since filed a review petition which is pending.) In Chinnaiah however, the court misread this to mean that the whole of the Indra Sawhney judgment did not apply to the Scheduled Castes, and thus the inter-se classification permitted by Indra Sawhney amongst the OBCs did not extend to the Scheduled Castes.

The Supreme Court. Photo: Reuters

Therefore, since Chinnaiah misunderstood caste to be a homogenous group and misread the nine-judge bench judgment in Indra Sawhney, it can safely be identified as having been per incuriam (literally ‘through lack of care’). The current case of Davinder Singh v. State of Punjab is thus likely to be referred to a larger bench, which would be called upon to decide the correctness of the court’s judgment in Chinnaiah in terms of Article 341 and the judgment of the court in Indra Sawhney.

The ‘usurping’ argument

One thing to watch out for, though, would be the reliance of the court on the narrative of “usurping” or “gobbling up” of the benefits of reservations by the “upper crust” among the Scheduled Castes. During the recent hearings in Davinder Singh, the bench asked whether it is not unfair for some castes within the Scheduled Castes to ‘usurp’ all the benefits of reservation. This echoed Justice Krishna Iyer’s observations in N.M. Thomas (1975), wherein he talked of a “tiny elite gobbling up the benefits” of reservations. While this statement purportedly supported the argument for inter-se classification, its basis is wrought with danger, steeped in caste biases and in common myths about reservations. What it means is that certain Scheduled Castes, which have managed to obtain representation in society and government through reservations or who are “affluent and socially and economically advanced”, no more deserve reservations and that reservations need to be rethought and provided on the basis of economic conditions so that benefits can “trickle down to the needy”.

This is in line with the oft-repeated misrepresentation of the purpose of reservations as a means for poverty alleviation or to substitute for quality public education, which has its subscribers inside and outside the court, and which was given a parliamentary stamp of approval with the passing of the 103rd Constitutional Amendment reserving 10% seats for “economically weaker” savarna candidates.

Also read: Creamy Layer Judgment Ignores the Reality of Workplace Caste Discrimination

To argue that reservations should trickle down to the ‘needy’ within the Scheduled Castes, ‘needy’ being defined on the basis of economic conditions, refuses to accept caste as a social problem, one which does not go away with some degree of educational or economic mobility. The Supreme Court in Jarnail Singh observed that certain caste groups or sub-groups have “come out of untouchability or backwardness by virtue of belonging to the creamy layer”. This is a cruel and typical denial of the atrocities, humiliation and violence faced by members of the Scheduled Castes across classes, in rural as well as urban spaces. Take the recent example of a minister in the Himachal Pradesh government, with admittedly considerable social standing, who was disallowed from entering a temple in the state in January 2020. This is only one of the several thousand instances of caste atrocities committed across the country every year.

As Justice Reddy forewarned in Indra Sawhney, the concept of a creamy layer has no application to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. Even with considerable education, economic or social mobility, the humiliation and violence of untouchability does not cease. Reservations thus become necessary to ensure representation in government and society to counter the deep-rooted structures of caste hierarchy, domination and oppression. The fact that some Scheduled Castes have obtained representation in society through reservations is only proof of reservations being an effective tool of ensuring equitable participation of all communities in government and politics and why they were introduced in the first place.

The fact that some Scheduled Castes have obtained representation in society through reservations is only proof of reservations being an effective tool. Photo: PTI

Therefore the court ought to steer clear from allowing inter-se classification among Scheduled Castes on the flawed ground that some Scheduled Castes who have gained representation through reservation have “usurped” or “gobbled up” the benefits and therefore, potentially, now should be excluded. The rationale for inter-se classification is simply that it is imperative and a fundamental requirement for our democracy that all communities within the Scheduled Castes are adequately represented in society, polity and government.

The case of the Arunthathiyars

An example of state legislations earmarking quotas for certain communities within the Scheduled Castes is the 2009 Tamil Nadu law that reserves 3% of the total seats in educational institutions and state services for the Arunthathiyar community. While the Arunthathiyars constitute nearly 16% of the total Scheduled Caste population in the state, a report of the Justice Janarthanam Commission observed that their representation in most government departments, corporations and education institutions was anywhere between 5% to 0% within the Scheduled Caste communities. For this reason the Tamil Nadu government found it necessary for the state to ensure that the Arunthathiyars obtain representation corresponding to their proportion in the total population of the state.

The fate of this law, as is the fate of other such state legislations, hinges upon the eventual decision of the Supreme Court in State of Punjab v. Davinder Singh. One hopes that the Supreme Court reverses its judgment in Chinnaiah and upholds the democratic political purpose served by reservations.

Siddharth Seem is an advocate at the Human Rights Law Network (HRLN), Delhi.

In a Surprise Move, Education Ministry’s Budget Hiked by 5%

The revised estimates also showed that the ministry utilised 100% of its last budget allocation.

Jaipur: India’s education sector has been allocated Rs 99,312 crore in Budget 2020, a 5% increase from last year, according to official documents released on Saturday afternoon.

What is more interesting, and perhaps even curious, is that the revised estimate (RE) for FY’20 stood at Rs 94,854 crore, which is exactly the same figure compared to the fiscal year’s budget estimate. This implies that the ministry spent exactly the whole amount allocated to the sector by the government in July 2019’s budget.

The 5% increase is also surprising, considering that media reports had indicated that the ministry would see its budget slashed by Rs 3,000 crore.

However, when it came to the centrally-sponsored National Mid Day Meals in schools, the Union government could spend only Rs 9,912 crore in the year 2019-20 against the allocated Rs 11,000 crore. For the year 2020-21, Rs 11,000 crore has been set aside for this scheme.

In the National Education Mission scheme too, the government spent Rs 37,672 crore, as against Rs 38,547 crore allocated last year. For 2020-21, the government has allocated a slight increase of Rs 39,161 crore.

Also read: Budget 2020: How did Nirmala Sitharman Manage to Rein in Fiscal Deficit at Only 3.8%?

The National Education Mission includes Saakshar Bharat programme, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan and teachers’ training.

Finance minister Nirmala Sitharaman also announced the introduction of ‘Ind-SAT’, an exam for Asian and African countries’ students to help make India a higher education destination. “It shall be used for benchmarking foreign candidates who receive scholarship for studying in Indian higher education centres,” she said in her budget speech.

The government also proposed to attach a medical college to an existing district hospital on public-private-partnership mode. It further asked states to provide land for the same at a concession to receive viability gap funding.

For deprived sections, the government proposed a degree level full-fledged online education programme, to be offered only by institutions who are ranked within the top 100 in the national institutional ranking framework, mentioning further limitations.

In other announcements in the education sector, the government said that about 150 higher educational institutions will start apprenticeship embedded courses, one-year internship opportunities to fresh engineering graduates with urban local bodies and special bridge courses for teachers, nurses and para-medical staff, designed by ministry of health and skill development, to improve skill sets of those seeking employment abroad will also be launched. It also proposed a national mission on quantum technologies and applications with an outlay of Rs 8,000 crore. However, it didn’t list any details.

Sitharaman said that the Centre would announce a new education policy, but did not provide any more details.

An Opportunity to Learn Spanish in Colombia

A new language immersion programme offers students a chance to spend a semester studying Spanish in Colombia.

The Colombian embassy in New Delhi is now offering an exciting opportunity for students to study in Colombia. The initiative, called ‘Foreign Language Asia +’ offers 14 scholarships to study Spanish in Cartagena, Colombia for tourist guides, undergraduate and graduate students from India, Bhutan, Nepal, Bangladesh, Maldives and Sri Lanka.

According to the embassy, the programme aims at “fostering the mutual understanding, trust, political dialogue and friendly cooperation between Colombia and the aforementioned countries through the teaching Spanish as a Foreign Language for promoting the linguistic, cultural and touristic values of Colombia.”

Selected students will be matched with Colombian universities for the course of one semester in 2018.

Credit: Embassy of Colombia in India

Apart from its recent fame for ‘Narcos’, Colombia was also home to famous personalities like Gabriel García Márquez and Laura Restrepo.

Language immersion programmes encourage scholars to socially engage and interact with their local communities, in addition to traditional academic work. According to the embassy’s press release, over 165 people have come forward to participate in the programme during its short existence, which testifies to “the large interest existing in the countries of Asia about Latin America.”

The scholarships include a monthly stipend, round-trip air ticket and tuition fee for the university that a student is matched with.

Interested students can apply here or visit the Colombian embassy’s website for more details.

Subsidising IITs is Not a Handout to the Undeserving

The argument that higher education is not a merit good and the government ought to spend on school education instead, is a false binary.

The argument that higher education is not a merit good and the government ought to spend on school education instead, is a false binary.

Credit: PTI

Not all IITians walk away with sky-high salary packages or do not contribute to the process of nation-building. Credit: PTI

Recently newspapers were abuzz with reports that IITs,  India’s premier technology institutions, have hiked annual tuition fees from Rs. 90,000 to Rs. 2 lakh, a more-than-two-fold hike. The standing committee of the IIT council (SCIC) had proposed a fee of Rs. 3 lakh per annum. The committee had reasoned that “On an average, it costs a bit over Rs. 5 lakh a year to educate one student at an IIT,” and felt that 60% should be collected from them. This would ensure financial autonomy for the premier institutes, averred the report.

Although the government has not accepted the SCIC’s recommendations in toto,  the move towards another hike, even if the quantum may not be as high as recommended, is alarming and needs to be countered with reason.

Last year on social media a message was being circulated exhorting the government to stop “subsidised education” to IIT students. The reasoning was IITians use public money to fulfil their private ambitions. They bag packages worth crores in campus placement. They hardly contribute to nation-building and therefore should not be paid for out of public funds. Such demands have not been raised only by the unaware WhatsApp users who in their fit of patriotism chose to circulate it far and wide, but also by noted economists in the past, albeit with a slightly different rationale. Their line of argument was that education at IIT is not a merit good; it does not benefit society as a whole. As it benefits only a minuscule minority, it ought to be stopped.  The government should rather spend on school education which needs hard-earned public money more than IITs.

Another argument in support of a massive fee hike is that IITs provide merit-cum-means (MCM) scholarships to the deserving and needy students who then pay a very small fraction of their tuition fees (though their hostel fees and mess charges are at par with other students; though more on it, later). Another very convenient option for students is to avail an education loan which they can pay back after they get the much-talked about pay packages worth crores. In fact, the government has started an online portal for facilitating education loans. Otherwise also, education loans are never really a problem for an IIT student, because banks are assured of a timely repayment given the good placement records of IITs.

Each of these arguments ignore certain basic facts about IITs and the past circumstances and future prospects of  IITians. The latest report of the SCIC is titled ‘Roadmap to Financial Autonomy of IITs,’ and aims to achieve this autonomy through this hike. But the fact is IITs enjoy substantial autonomy already despite subsidy for some of the students. A fee hike is unlikely to make IITs independent of government financing, given the huge funding required for scientific research. A better way to ensure autonomous funds could be to tie up with industry and foreign institutions for joint research. Anyhow, complete autonomy is unwarranted as public money is involved and IITs also need to address prevailing socioeconomic challenges through socially relevant research. This is the vision with which they were set up by India’s first prime minister. 

Moving on to the argument that subsidy to IITians is not warranted, because they get fat pay packages: the fact is there are sixteen IITs in the country. Every IIT has a different placement scenario, with top pay packages mostly coming from older IITs. Further, a majority of the students get much smaller offers and news reports about the maximum packages distort the reality. This is primarily the reason why IITs decided to keep pay packages secret in the last placement season.

Indian pastures

Furthermore, the argument that IITians do not contribute to nation-building because they leave the country for greener pastures is not wholly true.  The names of Manohar Parikkar, D. Subbarao, Raghuram Rajan, Ashok Khemka, YC Deveshwar, Nandan Nilekani, and many more debunk this argument. IITians are instrumental in the task of nation-building in various fields, be it administration, business, technology, education, and now even politics. In fact most of the professors at IITs are IITians themselves.  Raghuram Rajan said in a recent talk, that he was unable to afford a blazer in his school days. It is anybody’s guess if he could have afforded post graduation at IIM and doctorate in finance from a foreign university if IITs were “financially autonomous” in his time, given the fact that he would have had to borrow from the bank and would have been caught in the vicious repayment routine immediately after passing out. 

The argument that higher education is not a merit good and the government ought to spend on school education instead, is a false binary. It is a concocted ‘either-or’ dilemma, which is more psychological than logical.  This argument is reminiscent of a similar argument given by British Raj while explaining its financial constraints and consequent helplessness in deciding between mass school education and higher education. IITs are not given grants by snatching them away from the dilapidated schools in India. It is equally undesirable that bright students are unable to afford education at IITs after their school education, because government could spend only on schools. The government ought to look after the needs of both the sectors. Technical education is as much a merit good as research by ISRO, TIFR and other research institutes. Just like the money spent on these organisations is justified on the basis of socioeconomic impact of their innovations, same criteria need to be applied to IITs.

Scholarship benefits

Let’s come to the provision of scholarships and loans. The fact is, only a fraction of students are able to avail merit-cum-means (MCM) scholarship in IITs, either those who have faced abject poverty or those who are able to fudge their parental income (mostly self-employed people) given the fact that the ceiling for parental income to come under the MCM net is extremely low. At present, it is Rs. 4.5 lakh per annum and is available to only 25% of the students. If IIT’s fees are to be hiked, then the income ceiling for MCM should be hiked to at least Rs. 10 lakh per annum and the limit of 25% should be removed. Most of the salaried parents, including the government employees would easily breach this ceiling and thus become ineligible for availing the scholarship provision. It means those who earn Rs. 4.5 lakh per annum will have to pay ₹ 2 lakh out of this for their ward’s education, and manage their household and other expenses within the leftover of ₹ 2.5 lakh. According to one survey, 97 percent of working Indians earn less than Rs. 17 lakh per annum. True, IITs provide good scholarships to SC/ST students, but many other students who are financially constrained are not so successful at availing the scholarships. Further, there are many essential expenses in a college which are not covered by MCM – food, computer, hostel accommodation, books, technical equipment needed for an engineering education, etc. These add up to cast a substantial burden on the students. A lower middle-class family would face the double whammy of high tuition fee and exclusion from public social security net, despite the fact that its disposable income would be only slightly more than Rs. 2 lakh per year.

Education loans in India are one of the most exploitative categories of loans. It hits the borrower on multiple fronts. The rate of interest charged is higher than even home loans, because of the fact that there is no collateral in case of education loans. It is more secure for the banks to lend for buying a car or a property, but less important to help out a needy student. The rate of interest may be as high as 15 %. The net result is that the student ends up paying more than double of what she actually used during her studies. Increasing the fees will only push the students to borrow more, and thus pay back even more. The pernicious effect of loan continues many years after graduation. The student is forced to find employment by the end of her studies. The psychological pressure this indebtedness, at the start of one’s career, creates is tremendous. She cannot even think of going for higher education. The dream of establishing India as research and innovation hub will be put paid to, if graduates from the best technological institutions are forced to run after hefty pay packages instead of going for higher education.

Similarly, India’s start-up mission will cater only to the relatively well-heeled IIT graduates, since most of the other graduates will not be able to take the risks associated with a start-up, as they will have to pay their loans back. 

Most advanced nations have a well-functioning, government-sponsored higher education system. This “subsidised” technical education has played an important role in making countries such as Germany and Japan what they are today. Technological advancement is a necessary prerequisite for national progress. This advancement can be ensured only if talent from all socio-economic strata is allowed to realise their potential in this field. The move to increase the fee at IITs would make the best technical education out of bounds for the substantial talent pool amongst the financially weak, thus jeopardising technological progress. Only the well-heeled will be able to join IITs. Those among financially weak who do decide to join IITs and borrow for their education, will have to settle for a salaried job after undergraduate study and pay loans thereafter, even if they show great academic potential. Short-term concerns about financial autonomy and fiscal consolidation may result in long-term technological enslavement, industrial backwardness and high unemployment, apart from the patently unjust phenomenon of making IITs and further post-graduate studies out of bounds for the poor. It is high time we realise that by subsidising higher technical education, we are not giving out a dole to the undeserving, but securing our own future as a nation.

Abhay Sharma is 2011 batch civil servant and a graduate from IIT-Delhi.