Anil Swarup retired from the elite echelons at the apex of the Government of India less than a decade ago. He is well placed therefore to understand what ails India’s education system. In this hard-hitting piece, Mr Swarup points the finger as much at commercial interests (who operate like a crime syndicate) as at the government. That in turn leads Mr Swarup to believe that setting up more committees – even if they are headed by the legendary Nandan Nilekani – won’t help the cause of education in India.
Mr Swarup begins with a wry reversal. “From darkness to light—or so I thought when I learned I would be moving from the shadowy world of coal mines, as Coal Secretary, to the seemingly promising field of school education.” What he found was worse for being hidden. “While mining in the coal sector took place underground, with mafias operating openly above ground, the ‘minefield’ of school education had its mafias hidden below the surface, all masked and masquerading as ‘noble giants.'” These outfits — B.Ed and D.El.Ed colleges, examination centres, textbook publishers, private schools — were “thriving, eating away at the very fabric of society like termites,” a minority that was nonetheless “extremely well-connected and deeply entrenched.”
The state’s instinct, predictably, has been to legislate and to appoint the “redoubtable” Nilekani, the “Aadhaar man.” Mr Swarup has no quarrel with the calibre of the committee. His doubt runs deeper — “laws have never been a problem with education,” he writes; “the real problem is with execution.” His exhibit is the 2024 NEET paper leak, where, he notes, the CBI eventually found “no evidence” against the main accused. “You may bring in even more stringent laws,” he writes, “but if the enforcement agencies are preoccupied with settling political scores, they will not have time to bring the culprit to book.” If a country cannot even punish “a police officer who slaps a woman in broad daylight when the incident is recorded,” how will it catch those who “operate in a more sophisticated environment?”
“Based on past experience,” he warns of the coming report, “once the dust settles, this report will gather dust.” The Radhakrishnan Committee set up after the 2024 leak gave more than 100 recommendations — how many were implemented? Among them was a strong push for decentralisation. “Why does the Central Government want to do everything?” he asks. “Why doesn’t it trust the States?”
The Centre, he argues, “should focus on developing guidelines and act as a facilitator to the State governments” — the UPSC being proof the model works. “In India, most of the prescriptions already exist. The problem is implementation.” Laws are no substitute: “We have often believed that laws will solve the problem. They haven’t so far. At best, they have led to an increase in litigation.”
The piece’s sharpest line is a lament about what India inherited at Independence. The British, “who were in any case unjust to us,” on leaving “took whatever justice we had. They left behind ‘in-laws, outlaws and above-laws’ who are tasked to legislate, execute and adjudicate the laws.” The result: “More and more legislators pass more and more laws without even evaluating their efficacy. Those in charge of executing these laws apply them selectively to benefit their political bosses, and those who adjudicate have all the time for high-profile cases but do not want to ‘waste’ their time on issues that deserve attention and impact the masses.”
So, what can Nilekani’s team actually do? The Committee, Mr Swarup insists, “should not merely come up with recommendations, but draw out a clear action plan.” Credentials at bodies like the National Testing Agency matter too, for “merit, and not suitable ideological bent, should be the primary criteria.” But above all, “they should prescribe how their recommendations would be or can be implemented. A road map has to be provided” — one naming who is responsible, and by when.
To survive, he writes, an idea has to be made “politically acceptable, socially desirable, technologically feasible, financially viable, administratively doable, judicially tenable, emotionally relatable, and environmentally sustainable.”
If you want to read our other published material, please visit https://marcellus.in/blog/
Note: The above material is neither investment research, nor financial advice. Marcellus does not seek payment for or business from this publication in any shape or form. The information provided is intended for educational purposes only. Marcellus Investment Managers is regulated by the Securities and Exchange Board of India (SEBI) and is also an FME (Non-Retail) with the International Financial Services Centres Authority (IFSCA) as a provider of Portfolio Management Services. Additionally, Marcellus is also registered with US Securities and Exchange Commission (“US SEC”) as an Investment Advisor.
