Urban local bodies need to be equipped with adequate funds, functions and functionaries to ensure robust urban governance and solve regional administrative problems

Most of us must have been shocked to see the images of the flooded Bangalore city, which is the IT capital of India, and houses the officers of all the top multinational corporations — the CEOs of which live in tasteful villas in various posh localities. It is astonishing to see that a city which we normally associate with efficiency and glamour is facing such a situation. The problem of the stormwater drainage system not working properly is like a chronic disease afflicting most cities of India. It reflects poorly on the creation and maintenance of essential infrastructure in cities. Urbanisation is on an increase with 50 per cent of India likely to live in urban areas by 2050. The cities will have to act like engines of growth to make India a developed nation by 2047. On the contrary, even the best cities are facing issues of poor sanitation, lacking water supply, faulty sewerage system, traffic mismanagement, unauthorised slums, poor drainage, and degradation of the environment. We see Mumbai getting submerged each year. As Principal Secretary, Urban Development, I witnessed these problems plaguing most of the cities of Uttar Pradesh as well.

The development story of India has been one where there has always been a focus on schemes related to rural India, as agriculture has been the main sector, and majority of the population still lives in rural areas. In UP, for instance, only 22 per cent of the population lives in urban areas and 65 per cent of the people still subsist on agriculture. However, lately, a realisation has dawned upon policymakers that there is an urgent need to talk about the development of the urban sector. In 2007, the Jawaharlal Nehru National Urban Renewal Mission (JNNURM) was started to provide funds for development of essential infrastructure in cities. This was followed by the Atal Mission for Rejuvenation and Urban Transformation (AMRUT) and the smart city mission. There is no doubt that a reasonable amount of funds has been made available by the Central and state governments to selected cities under these missions but, still, there is a wide gap between the requirement and the availability of resources. More than the resources, it is the important reforms that are required in urban governance to enable Indian cities to absorb the funds given to them, and utilise them in the desired manner. The main concern of urban areas has been the generation of urban finance and effective urban governance.

Cities contribute the most to income tax, GST and other state tax collections, but all of this goes to the Central and state governments. Seventy per cent of the GDP of the country comes from urban areas, reflecting their crucial role in the growth of the economy. A major reform has been the setting up of state Finance Commissions that decide on what percentage of state taxes should be devolved to urban local bodies. In UP, this commission has been in operation but only seven per cent of the state taxes are transferred to urban local bodies. There is a demand from urban local bodies for a greater devolution of funds but the state governments have their own priorities, and are not able to transfer sufficient resources to them. A large part of the resources of urban local bodies is utilised in payment of salaries, leaving very little for developmental works. There is a definite case for a larger transfer of resources accruing from state taxes to these urban local bodies. However, it is imperative that urban local bodies should also generate their own revenue. The property tax has an immense unexplored potential but, due to political reasons, elected corporators are not willing to rationalise the assessment of the properties and, as such, this source of revenue remains grossly underutilised. Moreover, there is a lot of potential for leveraging the land with the municipal bodies for raising resources, and also for issuance of municipal bonds, which has been successfully attempted by better-managed local bodies. The stark reality is that the majority of urban local bodies face a serious shortage of funds and, resultantly, even basic urban infrastructure facilities are not created or maintained.

Funds apart, a very important but ignored issue has been that of urban governance. For example, the flooding of the streets that has happened in Bangalore, and is a regular feature of most cities, is often the result of the existing drains being clogged with waste materials and silt. The annual cleaning of drains is done in an inefficient manner and a lot of corruption is involved in this. Sanitation in urban local bodies in many states is looked after, for some strange reasons, by health department doctors. This is not their area of specialisation. Every urban local body requires a special cadre of people trained in solid and liquid waste management. Then, the level of engineers associated with these bodies is not of high quality. Better recruitment and in-service training are required to equip them to construct quality infrastructure. As Municipal Commissioner of Allahabad (now Prayagraj), I was shocked when I found that the gradient of an under-construction drain was being constructed wrongly — leading to a situation where water would accumulate rather than flow. Going further, I feel that every city should have a cadre of city managers, specially recruited and trained for this purpose. For larger urban local bodies, a senior IAS officer should be posted as municipal commissioner.

Funds, functions and functionaries need to be transferred to urban local bodies by the state governments if genuine decentralisation is to take place. The 74th amendment to the constitution has not been implemented in letter and spirit by most state governments, as neither the officers nor the political representatives are willing to share power with local bodies. The mayors of municipal corporations from across the country have this grievance that their posts are merely ceremonial, with the real executive powers vested with the officers. This is exactly the opposite of what prevails in most of the countries, and is not a happy state of affairs. Local issues are best solved by local governments. If the issues of urban governance are resolved on a priority basis, then better generation and management of resources will also be possible, and cities will get the kind of urban infrastructure they deserve.

Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2022 — through delicensing of the distribution business and incorporation of private players — can address the woes of the power sector

I was Secretary to the Chief Minister of UP in the late 1990s when there was a great sense of euphoria as the first major step had been taken towards power sector reforms. The UP-state electricity board was a huge organisation and had complete control on electricity generation, transmission and distribution. It was running at huge losses and the government had to periodically support it through budgetary allocations. The reforms focused on unbundling of the power sector into three companies, each looking after the three main functions of generation, transmission and distribution. The reforms were vociferously opposed by the electricity department unions having great blackmailing power. Fortunately, the Chief Minister at that time was an astute administrator and could take a stand. The government overcame the strike threat by the unions, and the reforms were implemented. I was handling this sector in the CMO and can recall how we all were excited that this will lead to a new era which will completely revive the power sector. Many other states also implemented these reforms. The electricity act of 2003 was a further step in this direction, which is now being sought to be amended by the new electricity bill. However, it was a false dawn. More than two decades have passed and the DISCOMS are facing huge losses, and not making payments to generation companies on time — leading to poor maintenance of the power plants and low-capacity utilisation.

None other than the Prime Minister of India has pointed out that neither are DISCOMS making payment on time to generation companies nor are the state governments paying subsidy amounts to the DISCOMS regularly. There is a huge backlog in these payments. It is surprising to note that even states like Tamil Nadu, which have controlled their line losses at 15 per cent against the Indian average of 21.6 per cent, have DISCOMS defaulting hugely on paying their dues. Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Telangana contribute to 57 per cent of the total dues owed to the power generation companies, followed by Uttar Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Madhya Pradesh that account for another 26 per cent. The total dues stand at a staggering Rs 1,14,222 crores. Government data till March 31, 2022, show that states owe DISCOMS Rs 62,931 crore for services and another Rs 76,337 crores as cost of freebies announced by them. Amongst the states that have defaulted on payment to the DISCOMS, Telangana leads the way with the cumulative standing of Rs 11,915 crore, followed by Maharashtra at Rs 9,131 crores. The government departments are willfully delaying payments to the DISCOMS despite provisions in the budget. Uttar Pradesh is a leader as far as not making payments to DISCOMS for subsidies is concerned at Rs 18,946 crores followed by Madhya Pradesh at Rs 16,240 crores. It is clear that this kind of a situation is not sustainable; it is not only having an adverse impact on the power sector but also threatens to derail the entire growth path of the nation. It is interesting to note that not only the relatively backward states but also advanced states like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are facing these problems. Gujarat is perhaps the only exception. This clearly gives a call for urgent action at both the Center and state levels.

The new electricity amendment bill is making a bold effort to resolve these issues even as some of the measures may not be popular. This is particularly so in the light of populist steps being taken by various state governments, like providing free electricity to farmers and other consumers. Debate is going on whether the promises are in the nature of freebies which are best avoided if the fiscal health of the DISCOMS and the state governments has to be maintained.

One of the main amendments proposed relates to delicensing of the distribution business and bringing in the private sector apart from allowing portability and reducing entry barriers. This is important as the earlier reforms, which I have mentioned, have not succeeded because one monopoly replaced another. Except for a few states or some cities, the private sector has not been able to enter into the power distribution sector. The government companies continue to enjoy the benefits of monopoly, and the lack of competition leads to gross inefficiencies which are manifested in large technical and commercial losses. The consumer also does not get the benefit of low tariff or better service. It was visualised that if the state governments want to give subsidies to any segment of the consumers, then they should compensate the DISCOMS from the state budget but as we have seen from the data quoted above most of the states are not honoring this commitment. This bill is being opposed by the states on the ground that power is in the concurrent list and amendments are encroaching on the principle of federalism. The reality is that the problem has become endemic and the states on their own are not able to resolve it. The Government of India cannot be a bystander and there is a rationale for it to intervene.

Once again, the power sector employees and engineers are also agitating as they see it as a step in the direction of privatisation. It is pointed out that private sector companies will take advantage of the DISCOM network created by the public sector. This is an age-old debate on the role of the private sector vis-à-vis the public sector. However, we cannot turn away from the reality that the DISCOMS functioning as a monopoly public sector have not been able to deliver the goods, and economic logic clearly states that if competition is allowed then power distribution will become much more efficient, ensuring better public service delivery. My experience in Uttar Pradesh points to the fact that there are some genuine issues regarding the entry of the private sector into distribution. They are willing to do cherry-picking — they want to take up distribution in urban areas but avoid the rural sector where billing and collection of dues is a difficult task. I guess the only way out of this is to have packages comprising both the urban and rural segments and offer them to the private sector also. If we want to have real competition then we cannot leave the DISCOMS straddled with poor revenue-generating areas.

Moreover, unless all electricity connections are covered by smart metering, and a system is evolved where subsidies are paid directly to the targeted consumer, things are not going to improve. The power sector in the states is highly politicised. By just improving the governance and linking performance to postings and promotions, thereby holding the officers of the department accountable, a huge difference to the position of the utilities can be made. However, this is easier said than done as there are a lot of vested interests involved. It is also true that state electricity regulatory commissions have not been able to fully play their role as envisaged, and most of them still function almost like state departments.

There is no denying that serious reforms are required in the sector otherwise no intervention will succeed. I recall that as Chief Secretary of UP in 2015, we implemented the UDAY scheme where we cleansed the balance sheet of DISCOMS by taking over 50,000 crores of their dues but within a few years things have gone back to ground zero as the reform measures had not been properly implemented. It is good that the bill has been referred to the standing committee for detailed examination from all angles. It is hoped that the Center and states will work together to reform this sector which is otherwise moving towards disaster.

The writer is an ex-Chief Secretary, Govt of Uttar Pradesh. Views expressed are personal

Electricity (Amendment) Bill, 2022 — through delicensing of the distribution business and incorporation of private players — can address the woes of the power sector

I was Secretary to the Chief Minister of UP in the late 1990s when there was a great sense of euphoria as the first major step had been taken towards power sector reforms. The UP-state electricity board was a huge organisation and had complete control on electricity generation, transmission and distribution. It was running at huge losses and the government had to periodically support it through budgetary allocations. The reforms focused on unbundling of the power sector into three companies, each looking after the three main functions of generation, transmission and distribution. The reforms were vociferously opposed by the electricity department unions having great blackmailing power. Fortunately, the Chief Minister at that time was an astute administrator and could take a stand. The government overcame the strike threat by the unions, and the reforms were implemented. I was handling this sector in the CMO and can recall how we all were excited that this will lead to a new era which will completely revive the power sector. Many other states also implemented these reforms. The electricity act of 2003 was a further step in this direction, which is now being sought to be amended by the new electricity bill. However, it was a false dawn. More than two decades have passed and the DISCOMS are facing huge losses, and not making payments to generation companies on time — leading to poor maintenance of the power plants and low-capacity utilisation.

None other than the Prime Minister of India has pointed out that neither are DISCOMS making payment on time to generation companies nor are the state governments paying subsidy amounts to the DISCOMS regularly. There is a huge backlog in these payments. It is surprising to note that even states like Tamil Nadu, which have controlled their line losses at 15 per cent against the Indian average of 21.6 per cent, have DISCOMS defaulting hugely on paying their dues. Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Telangana contribute to 57 per cent of the total dues owed to the power generation companies, followed by Uttar Pradesh, Jammu & Kashmir and Madhya Pradesh that account for another 26 per cent. The total dues stand at a staggering Rs 1,14,222 crores. Government data till March 31, 2022, show that states owe DISCOMS Rs 62,931 crore for services and another Rs 76,337 crores as cost of freebies announced by them. Amongst the states that have defaulted on payment to the DISCOMS, Telangana leads the way with the cumulative standing of Rs 11,915 crore, followed by Maharashtra at Rs 9,131 crores. The government departments are willfully delaying payments to the DISCOMS despite provisions in the budget. Uttar Pradesh is a leader as far as not making payments to DISCOMS for subsidies is concerned at Rs 18,946 crores followed by Madhya Pradesh at Rs 16,240 crores. It is clear that this kind of a situation is not sustainable; it is not only having an adverse impact on the power sector but also threatens to derail the entire growth path of the nation. It is interesting to note that not only the relatively backward states but also advanced states like Maharashtra and Tamil Nadu are facing these problems. Gujarat is perhaps the only exception. This clearly gives a call for urgent action at both the Center and state levels.

The new electricity amendment bill is making a bold effort to resolve these issues even as some of the measures may not be popular. This is particularly so in the light of populist steps being taken by various state governments, like providing free electricity to farmers and other consumers. Debate is going on whether the promises are in the nature of freebies which are best avoided if the fiscal health of the DISCOMS and the state governments has to be maintained.

One of the main amendments proposed relates to delicensing of the distribution business and bringing in the private sector apart from allowing portability and reducing entry barriers. This is important as the earlier reforms, which I have mentioned, have not succeeded because one monopoly replaced another. Except for a few states or some cities, the private sector has not been able to enter into the power distribution sector. The government companies continue to enjoy the benefits of monopoly, and the lack of competition leads to gross inefficiencies which are manifested in large technical and commercial losses. The consumer also does not get the benefit of low tariff or better service. It was visualised that if the state governments want to give subsidies to any segment of the consumers, then they should compensate the DISCOMS from the state budget but as we have seen from the data quoted above most of the states are not honoring this commitment. This bill is being opposed by the states on the ground that power is in the concurrent list and amendments are encroaching on the principle of federalism. The reality is that the problem has become endemic and the states on their own are not able to resolve it. The Government of India cannot be a bystander and there is a rationale for it to intervene.

Once again, the power sector employees and engineers are also agitating as they see it as a step in the direction of privatisation. It is pointed out that private sector companies will take advantage of the DISCOM network created by the public sector. This is an age-old debate on the role of the private sector vis-à-vis the public sector. However, we cannot turn away from the reality that the DISCOMS functioning as a monopoly public sector have not been able to deliver the goods, and economic logic clearly states that if competition is allowed then power distribution will become much more efficient, ensuring better public service delivery. My experience in Uttar Pradesh points to the fact that there are some genuine issues regarding the entry of the private sector into distribution. They are willing to do cherry-picking — they want to take up distribution in urban areas but avoid the rural sector where billing and collection of dues is a difficult task. I guess the only way out of this is to have packages comprising both the urban and rural segments and offer them to the private sector also. If we want to have real competition then we cannot leave the DISCOMS straddled with poor revenue-generating areas.

Moreover, unless all electricity connections are covered by smart metering, and a system is evolved where subsidies are paid directly to the targeted consumer, things are not going to improve. The power sector in the states is highly politicised. By just improving the governance and linking performance to postings and promotions, thereby holding the officers of the department accountable, a huge difference to the position of the utilities can be made. However, this is easier said than done as there are a lot of vested interests involved. It is also true that state electricity regulatory commissions have not been able to fully play their role as envisaged, and most of them still function almost like state departments.

There is no denying that serious reforms are required in the sector otherwise no intervention will succeed. I recall that as Chief Secretary of UP in 2015, we implemented the UDAY scheme where we cleansed the balance sheet of DISCOMS by taking over 50,000 crores of their dues but within a few years things have gone back to ground zero as the reform measures had not been properly implemented. It is good that the bill has been referred to the standing committee for detailed examination from all angles. It is hoped that the Center and states will work together to reform this sector which is otherwise moving towards disaster.

Exorbitant level of inequality in Indian cities makes urban employment guarantee scheme — on the lines of MGNREGA but with distinct features — an imperative

The latest CMIE data on unemployment rate show that unemployment in India continued to be high at 7.80 per cent in June 2022, with the urban employment rate being 7.30 per cent. At the same time, for May 2022, the urban employment rate at 8.21 per cent was higher than the overall unemployment rate of 7.12 per cent. Unemployment is definitely a matter of concern for policy makers and MGNREGA has proved to be a savior in rural areas but there is no corresponding safety net for the urban poor who also include the migrants from rural areas. The pandemic further brought into sharp focus the plight of the migrant labourers. Clearly, there needs to be a specific policy intervention for the urban poor to enable them to get gainfully employed.

There have been attempts at coming up with urban employment schemes in the past. In 1997, there was the SGSRY (Swarna Jayanti Shahri Rozgar Yojna) which consisted of both self-employment and wage employment features. In 2013, NULM (National urban livelihood mission) replaced SGSRY. However, none of these has been an employment guarantee scheme. Many states have come to realise the growing stress on the urban poor plagued by high unemployment rates and impact of high inflation as well as the phenomena of low wage rates and poor quality of informal work. Accordingly, states like Kerala, Odisha, Himachal Pradesh, Madhya Pradesh, Jharkhand and Rajasthan have formulated their urban employment guarantee schemes. This is partly the result of the fact that over the last two decades the Indian economy has been characterised by growth without employment. The level of inequalities in urban areas is much higher than rural areas and this is sufficient justification for a national level urban employment guarantee act.

While the need is clear, the scheme will have to be designed with a lot of thought. It cannot just be an extension of MGNREGA, as unemployment in rural areas is of seasonal nature and the kind of public works that are taken up in rural areas are very different from those which can be viable in urban areas. Besides, the Panchayat at the village level is able to implement the MGNREGA scheme but the current capacity of urban local bodies may not be adequate to handle this kind of scheme. It has been suggested by some experts that at the national level it is possible to fund the scheme from the budget where about 20 million urban workers can get employment for 100 days at Rs 300 per day. The Prime Minister advisory committee has also recommended such a scheme to reduce the level of inequality in the urban sector.

Nature of works to be taken up under urban employment programmes would need to be wider and should focus on improving and maintaining the basic urban infrastructure services. Azim Premji University has suggested a model in which apart from building local infrastructure like roads, lanes or drainage they have added monitoring of environmental quality, strengthening municipal capacity through apprenticeships and providing care for children and elderly. These kinds of works can be taken up by the educated youth for whom the Azim Premji University has suggested that the scheme should guarantee 150 days of employment at a monthly stipend of Rs 13,000. Green jobs like construction and maintenance of public green bodies such as parks, lakes, ponds and other water bodies can also be considered. Monitoring and surveying jobs along with providing administrative assistance to local bodies can be useful for the educated unemployed. Universal slum upgrading is an important activity in urban areas where labor can be provided under this scheme. Some experts have also talked about building infrastructure for the informal economy which could include activities like designing vending zones for street vendors or construction of multipurpose livelihood centers for home-based workers.

Jean Dreze’ has suggested a DUET (decentralised urban employment and training) model where the state could provide financial resources and infrastructure for conducting formal training and skill development programmes to develop the capacity of workers and eventually that of the urban local body. Jean Dreze’ was very much aware of the fact that there was corruption in MGNREGA, particularly in the form of the existence of ghost employees, and to overcome this, he suggested the issuing of job stamps to employers. In urban areas there was a lot of scope for keeping public spaces clean and this could enable jobs for women also. In fact, he advocated that in the urban employment scheme, one-third of the jobs should be reserved for women. He also put forward the concept of worker cooperatives where only those enrolled would be eligible for jobs.

Currently, there is a lot of debate on ‘freebies’ being promised by political parties to attract voters and several economists and leaders have criticised this populism as it leads to draining of the resources of the nation. However, MGNREGA cannot be viewed as a freebie as it is a very important safety net scheme in the interest of the poor. In a similar vein, the urban employment guarantee scheme would help in taking a lot of urban poor out of poverty. Besides, there are tangible economic benefits like boosting local demand, improving quality of urban infrastructure and services, skilling urban youth and increasing the capacity of the urban local body. The urban scheme has to take the urban local bodies into confidence while designing the structure, as they are the implementing agency and success or failure of the scheme would be dependent upon their performance. One could also think of having wages of workers in the urban guarantee scheme decided in a decentralized manner at the level of the urban local body. As regards the availability of resources, it has been estimated that to provide employment to 50 million people, an expenditure of only 1.7 to 2.7 per cent of GDP would be required per year, which can certainly be made available with proper financial planning and expenditure management.

The example of MGNREGA has demonstrated the usefulness of such an employment guarantee scheme. Though there are some allegations of misuse of funds, and often, land owners complain of this scheme leading to a hike in rural wages, the scheme has by and large delivered results. I have personally used MGNREGA in Bundelkhand area of Uttar Pradesh when this region suffered a drought for three consecutive years. The employment provided by the scheme proved to be of immense value to the rural workers. Then again, the pandemic clearly illustrated the value of this scheme as it provided a huge safety net for the migrant labor which returned in large numbers to the villages.

The recent pandemic has highlighted the reality of the urban poor. Eighty-five per cent of the workforce in the urban areas is employed in the unorganised sector where they get least social benefits. There is, thus, an urgent need to design and implement a comprehensive urban employment guarantee scheme at the urban level on the analogy of MGNREGA but with its own distinctive features.

Role reversal and inconsistencies in deciding transfers of class-I and class-II officers has created a lucrative transfer industry which derails the process of governance

The corridors of power in UP are all agog with the recent controversy regarding the transfer of officers in various departments. It has snowballed into a politician versus civil servant standoff, and letters have been written which have found their way into the media. There is intense debate all over. The news is that the Chief Minister has set up high-level committees to enquire into the allegations regarding transfers in certain departments. In a democracy, the minister and the secretary have to work in an atmosphere of trust and mutual cooperation to facilitate smooth governance. Whenever there is a conflict between the two, it becomes detrimental to the interests of the government and the citizens whom the departments have been set up to serve. Such controversies are best avoided and it is left to the maturity and experience of both parties to ensure that disagreement, if any, should not find its way into the public forum. It is not as if differences of opinion do not arise but they are best resolved through mutual discussion in the spirit of give and take. In a democracy, the elected minister is the final decision-making authority and the Secretary/Principal Secretary has the freedom to voice his opinion and give advice before the minister ultimately makes his decision. If both the minister and the civil servant have a good understanding with each other then the system works beautifully to the benefit of all, as both carry different perspectives with them, which enrich the functioning of the government. The civil servant has to ensure that work proceeds as per the rule of law and in an impartial and transparent manner. A civil servant brings with him the knowledge about the subject matter under consideration whereas the minister understands the pulse of the people and has better knowledge of the realities at the ground level. A combination of the strengths of both leads to better public service delivery. If both move on the collision course then it is a sure recipe for disaster.

The issue of transfers is perhaps the most contentious one — leading to conflicts and misgivings. Uttar Pradesh, like other state governments, comes out with a transfer policy every year generally during April-May and seeks to transfer officers by the end of June. The policy lays down various parameters on which transfers would take place. For instance, the UP’s transfer policy stated that anybody who has been posted in a particular district for three years or in a division for seven years will need to be posted out. It provided for certain exemptions like giving consideration if the spouse of the officer was also working in government in the same city. UP is a huge state and has a large number of officers and employees. If all those who are eligible under this criterion are transferred then it would lead to a major overhaul which is not good for the administration and will also create a large financial liability for the government. Keeping this in mind, the policy puts a ceiling at 10 or 20 per cent of the total officers in the eligibility zone to be transferred. The problem arises because no criterion is prescribed for selecting these 20 per cent; though common sense would dictate that those who have been serving for a longer period of time should be transferred first. This creates the atmosphere where the transfer industry comes into full play as all officers enjoying good postings use every source or stratagem to remain at their posts — giving rise to allegations of corruption, nepotism and favouritism. Let us take the case of doctors as an example. Doctors, by the very nature of their job, get close to senior officers or politicians and manipulate them to continue staying in cities like Lucknow. Those who have no godfather languish in remote districts and never manage to get posted to big cities. This does not serve the objective of good governance but then this is an unfortunate reality.

It is also a laid down policy that the head of department is authorised to carry out transfers of officers and employees up to the class-II level. He has full powers for the same. Regarding the class-I officers, their transfers are done by the government, which means proposed by the Principal Secretary and approved by the Minister. This system ensures the authority of the head of the department (HOD) and also clearly demarcates the power between the government and him. The HOD has to take work from his team and therefore must be perceived as having this authority. Unfortunately, in reality it does not work in this manner. The transfer lists of all officers and employees are generally prepared at the level of the Minister, and the HOD merely carries out the paper formality of issuing orders. Same is true in the case of class-I officers where the minister indicates to the Principal Secretary his preferences and the file is prepared accordingly for his signature. This creates a situation where the transfers lead to a lot of heart-burning and dissatisfaction and derail the very process of governance. It is a time-honored principle of leadership and management that if you want outcomes and results then you must have the right man for the right job. However, the manner in which the transfer industry operates, this principle is totally sidelined to the detriment of the functioning of the department and the ability of the government to deliver quality public services to the citizens.

I have seen that many Principal Secretaries decide to adopt the path of least resistance and look the other way. They are aware that the HOD is sitting with the Minister and taking orders regarding transfers but choose to accept the reality and not interfere in the matter — fearing that it would lead to unnecessary conflict which would be a huge drain on their time and they would not be able to focus on more important policy issues. Some Principal Secretaries make the mistake of interfering in this process and soon a controversy erupts. Even the higher civil service like the IAS is not immune to the threat of transfers being used as an instrument of making them compliant and ever ready to toe the line.

Very often, there is also the issue of proper data not being available which can easily be handled by computerization, and a system of taking preferences from the offices in the eligibility zone can certainly help. Also, the first-in-first-out principle could be made a part of the transfer policy to eliminate discretion. However, the transfer industry will continue as long as it is viewed as being a lucrative one. Good governance needs an institutional mechanism to handle this malaise and there are ways in which this can certainly be done. The important thing for the Ministers is to realize that their job is to frame policies while transfer is a part of policy implementation which should be left to the HOD and Secretary — except in particular cases where their approval is specifically required. The tragedy is that the roles have been reversed, leading to a colorful Principal Secretary making the statement, “I keep on making policies but the Minister does not implement them properly!”

Impact of Agnipath scheme on operational capacity of armed forces needs to be assessed and communicated properly before rolling it out in phased manner

The Agnipath scheme recruiting agniveers for the armed forces has been a hot topic of discussion over the past fortnight, and has even led to violent protests and demonstrations in various parts of the country. There is a legitimate room for dissent and debate in a democracy but violence and damage to public property cannot be condoned in any manner. However, the intensity of the adverse reaction from the youth does point towards certain genuine concerns which need to be addressed and, in fact, should have been anticipated by the policymakers. Public policy is a complex issue because it deals with human beings who are prone to rational as well as emotional responses. It is for this reason that the formulation and rollout of any public policy needs to be done with a lot of care and has to involve all the possible stakeholders. We find that as soon as negative responses started coming in after the declaration of the policy, the government started announcing various other measures like 10 per cent reservation for agniveers in Central police forces or non-combatant wings of the armed forces. Some state governments have also assured of giving preference to agniveers in state government jobs. These announcements have helped in reducing the tensions but are somehow appearing to be an afterthought and a case of too little and too late.

Public policy always has some objectives in mind but, inevitably, there are unintended consequences to any policy, and it is the job of the policy framers to anticipate them and provide solutions in the policy document. The civil servants and the defense bureaucracy should have been aware of the likely reactions, and after deliberating on those, they should have been able to address them in the policy. The political executive normally has a much better understanding of the pulse of the people, and they should easily have been able to sense the likely reactions and prepare accordingly. I was surprised to read in one of the newspapers the statement of a senior officer of the government who said that they did not expect this kind of intense reaction. It points towards inadequate attention paid to the process of policymaking. Policies are not to be framed in isolation but have to be in close touch with the ground realities.

The government has outlined various merits of the scheme. The first is putting a check on the huge cascading liability of pension payments for better utilisation of defense outlay. In the budget for 2022-23, the defense ministry has been allocated Rs 5,25,166 crore — of which 54 per cent i.e., Rs 2,83,130 crore has been provided for pensions and salaries. Thus, pensions and salaries take away a large portion of the defense budget, leaving less to be spent on modernisation of equipment which is a necessity in modern day warfare. Only 27 per cent of the overall defense budget is for capital expenditure. It has been pointed out by some experts that ideally the ratio of revenue to capital outlay in the defense budget should be 60:40 whereas for India this ratio is 80:20. Indeed, this is a genuine cause for taking remedial action. Further, the government has also said that they will absorb 25 per cent of the agniveers in the armed forces and, eventually, by 2030, reach a state where agniveers and regular recruits would be in the proportion of 50 per cent each. This would reduce the average age profile of the armed forces, which today stands at 32 years. India needs a much younger profile for its soldiers. Unfortunately, the scheme has not been communicated properly and it has got positioned as a pension reform scheme whereas any reform relating to the armed forces has to focus on the objective of improving national security and operational capability. People would have accepted the scheme better if it could have been explained to them that this scheme would make the nation more secure, and by spending more on modern equipment, the defense forces would become far better equipped to handle any threat to the nation.

The adverse reaction is coming because 75 per cent of the agniveers are getting a job only for four years, after which they are not entitled to any pension or medical facilities, and left on their own to seek further avenues of employment. The government has come out with the promise of reservation in certain jobs for agniveers but there are reasonable doubts in the minds of the youth about the level of implementation, as even today the ex-servicemen quota in most employment remains unfulfilled. The private sector may be making pious statements about how agniveers would be a useful and disciplined resource for them but considering that they would only have a class-12 level education, one wonders to what extent the private sector would be able to employ them and in which capacity. The issue of unemployment is a genuine one confronting the youth today and this is why they are reacting in such a negative manner to the proposed scheme. It is interesting to note that most of these protests are happening in the states of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh. This is because these states have the maximum population of young people looking for jobs. Further, in both these states, the level of industrialisation is low and there are few job opportunities outside the government sector. In UP, I am personally aware of the thousands who apply for a grade-D level post in the government and many of them hold post graduate degrees and some of them are even PhD-holders. We can look around and see that in states like Maharashtra, Gujarat or Tamil Nadu, there is hardly any protest. Looking at the problem of unemployment, even the honorable Prime Minister has recently declared that one million vacancies in government should be filled up within 18 months.

In public policy, the issue of timing of a reform is also of crucial importance. Regular recruitment to the armed forces has not taken place for four years because of Covid, and many young aspirants have cleared various stages of the selection process. All of a sudden, they are informed that all these selections in process are cancelled and Agnipath scheme is to be implemented. Naturally, a negative reaction is bound to unfold due to a sense of desperation among the youth. The ideal thing would have been to complete all the selections which were in process and introduce the agniveer scheme along with regular recruitment in a phased manner. This would have given the opportunity of evaluating the scheme and, if found beneficial, rolling it out fully within four to five years. Some government spokesman has made the astonishing statement that this is a pilot scheme. A pilot scheme is one which is introduced on a small scale and, if it gives good results, it is scaled up. Evidently, there is apparent confusion in the government on how to make the scheme palatable to the people.

The Agnipath scheme has to be evaluated on its impact on the operational capacity of the armed forces and should be rolled out in a phased manner, depending on the results of a concurrent evaluation. Major policy reforms need far greater thought and involvement of all concerned.

While one exam may be the threshold to qualify as civil servant, the officer’s promotion is based on annual performance along with seniority which ensures objectivity

Just passing one exam assures you a promotion to the top in your career and also provides a lifetime job security is the refrain I have been witnessing in various WhatsApp groups and in a spate of articles in the print media ever since the civil service exam result was announced a week ago. Many are surprised at the media space being made available to those candidates who have succeeded in the civil services exam, and in particular have qualified for the IAS. I read some opinion pieces which express surprise at this, and compare it to other countries where possibly this would not be newsworthy at all. They tend to equate this with a colonial hangover or the excessive importance to government in our society. It is not true that only candidates clearing the civil services exam get so much publicity as I have read similar stories about those who clear the JEE exam for IIT or get 100 percentiles in the CAT exam for admission into the Indian Institutes of Management and others. However, there is no denying the fact that there is no comparison to the attention being given to candidates who secure top ranks in the civil service exam. All of us are aware of the names of the girl candidates who secured the first three ranks in the exam. This is no doubt an indicator of the fact that the civil services exam is an extremely tough one where barely about 800 candidates qualify out of 8 to 10 lakhs applying and around 5.5 lakh students actually writing the exam — which means about 0.15 per cent candidates succeeding. There cannot be a more difficult competitive exam on which the aspiration of not only the candidate but the entire family is focused. Success in the exam leads to immediate recognition for the candidate and her family, and the status in society goes up exponentially.

The biggest credit must go to the Union Public Service Commission (UPSC) which conducts this exam in a completely fair and impartial manner and it is perceived as such by all. Such a large exam being conducted with total honesty and integrity is a great achievement, especially when we find that much smaller exams relating to selection for government posts at lower levels become subjects of allegations of nepotism and cheating. The total integrity of the civil service exam gives it a halo of merit, and even the most powerful politicians or officers cannot interfere with it. The best is selected and this ensures that the civil servants are capable and intelligent people. I recall when I qualified for the IAS and looked around my batch, I found each one of them having exceptional qualities and knowledge. In fact, when in college, we could predict which student will make it to the civil services and more often than not the prediction came true. However, commentators, while agreeing with the fact that the exam selects the best on merit, criticize that just passing one exam provides a career of more than 30 years where promotions are based on seniority and almost everybody reaches the top. They argue for a system in which the merit is assessed at different points of time in career and the wheat is separated from the chaff and only those who continue to learn and grow reach the higher levels. The argument has force in it but I must point out that things have changed and now a candidate qualifying for the IAS does not automatically become Secretary to the Government of India, or even Joint Secretary or Additional Secretary. A 360-degree evaluation system has been introduced and now for promotions to the top the government does not only rely on annual performance reports but on feedback about competence and integrity from various stakeholders. The result has been that not more than 30 per cent of a batch is getting promoted to the top. Of course, questions are being raised about the efficacy of this 360-degree system which is opaque and often arbitrary. Still, it does ensure that not everybody reaches the top. In the system before this, the assessment was done on the basis of annual performance reports which generally tended to rate an officer as good or very good. I feel that there is a need for designing an objective and transparent evaluation system but there are issues related to this which must be kept in mind.

An IAS or IPS officer, amongst all the civil servants, works directly under the supervision and control of the elected political executive who is the final decision maker. Many decisions are taken for political reasons for which it would be difficult to hold the officer responsible. If seniority as a criterion for promotion is done away with and replaced with merit it could lead to complications as the merit would be assessed by the political masters. I have seen this in Uttar Pradesh, and it is true for many other states also that officers get aligned on political grounds with one ruling party or the other by design or by default. Some officers themselves are responsible for this as they fall to the lure of good postings under a particular dispensation. However, there are a large number who get identified for no fault of theirs, simply due to the fact that in a particular government they hold important posts and are perceived as being close to the party in power or belonging to a particular caste or community. Merit then gets subsumed under the weight of political influence. Promotions, if based on merit determined in such a manner, would lead to officers close to political party in power reaching the top. As part of police reforms, it is now mandated that top three names on the basis of seniority are sent by the UPSC to state governments for appointing one of them as Director General of Police. This has been a welcome move, considering that before this it was open to the party in power to appoint an officer who is close to them as Director General.

Even in this system, the political executive finds a way out by branding a selected officer as incompetent and removing him before the completion of his tenure. The point I want to make is that both the IAS and IPS work under political masters and it is thus very difficult to have an objective system of performance appraisal. It is for this reason that seniority is worth continuing with as a criterion for promotion.

It is also not true that there is no effort to upgrade the skill-set of an officer after the initial one exam. There are now at least five phases of training for the IAS at different levels of seniority, equipping them with the knowledge required for jobs that they will hold at that level. It is also not true that all officers get important postings. Each officer acquires a reputation during his career which does determine his career path. The one exam is important as it selects the cream but it is also true that an objective system of performance evaluation free from political bias and based on attainment of results and outcomes is very much required for the bureaucracy to deliver in this age of disruption.

We are in the midst of celebrating the 75^th year of our Independence and the entire country is organizing functions and programmes to commemorate this year as Azadi Ka Amrit Mahotsav. There is a lot that we should be justifiably proud of in our progress during this period but at the same time we should be aware where we stand with respect to various indicators of development and also consciously chalk out a road map to make our country a developed nation by 2047. A holistic approach of development is required but we must realize that the 21^st century is one where knowledge will determine the progress of a nation. If India wants to keep pace or even go ahead of the rest of the world in the 21^st century then main area of focus has to be education. We have a vast army of young people giving us the advantage of a demographic dividend but without providing quality education to all this will turn into a disaster. Education is a tool of political empowerment and also the means to bring about social equality and economic progress. The SDG goal for education very succinctly puts it that we have to strive to achieve “inclusive and equitable education to all by 2030”. This is a tall order for our country where the mean years of schooling are low and the gross enrolment rate for higher education in only 26.3 percent at the moment and the status of all education indicators are much lower for girls.

We had an education policy in 1986 under which a significant amount of work was done in the education sector but the new education policy coming 34 years after this in 2020 has a completely new vision about what education should mean for the Indian citizen. The vision statement envisions an education system rooted in Indian ethos and wanting to transform India (Bharat) into an equitable and vibrant knowledge society by providing high quality education to all. It seeks to inculcate pride in being Indian but also to become a truly global citizen. It is indeed a wonderful vision which aspires to blend the Indian culture and ethos with modern science and technology. The NEP decisively wants to free itself from the shackles of the colonial legacy as pronounced in the famous Macaulay minute on education. The Indian citizen should be a self confident person conscious of the great culture of the country but also desire to bring in the best of science and technology.

The foundation has to be strong for any building to withstand any shock or pressure. Unfortunately, our elementary education system is of an abysmal quality and this clearly means that it would be difficult to build the edifice of a developed nation on this base. Rightly the NEP has focused on foundational literacy and numeracy. The education system would now be 5+3+3+4 years instead of current 10+2+3. There would be a national mission for foundation literacy for the first five years of a child’s education. This would be till the age of eight years and is based on the scientific premise that 85 percent of a child’s cumulative brain development occurs up to the age of 6. Today we see the sorry spectacle as brought out by the survey reports of the NGO Pratham that students of class five can barely read or do simple arithmetic of class two level. This requires serious remediation if our nation has to develop. The teachers need to be specially trained in early childhood care education. In India this work is done by Aganwadis who are not trained for this job and have a lot of additional duties to perform. They will have to be trained specifically for this job and a synergy would have to established with the primary school teachers so that together they are able to fulfill the goal of foundational literacy. It is indeed a matter of sadness that even today I have noticed in UP there are a large number of schools where the children don’t even have chairs and desks and they sit on the floor. We cannot become leaders of the knowledge society if serious steps are not taken to completely overhaul primary education. The community has to be involved in this. I would vouch for decentralization of primary education so that the village level local bodies are able to monitor them and bring about improvement in the quality of education.

Teachers are crucial if school education has to turn round the corner. The new education policy rightly says that efforts have to be made to restore the respect and dignity of teachers which should motivate her to feel responsible and accountable for imparting quality education. We need to create an environment where the best are willing to enter the teaching profession and are prepared to work in outlying rural areas. There should be a regular programme of training and capacity development for teachers and to keep them motivated the governance has to ensure a fair and impartial system of career management and progression. Qualified teachers should be recruited. Vacancies need to be urgently filled up and system evolved to protect the teachers from the menace of transfers.

The goal of having a multi disciplinary approach at the school level is laudable but difficult to implement. The schools system as well as teachers will have to be oriented and geared to take up this responsibility. Besides it is imperative to give equal importance to vocational and extracurricular education but once again this requires a lot of reforms at the school management level.

The new education policy has given valuable suggestions about developing education from primary to higher level but I feel we have to begin by focusing on school education.  If the quality at this level remains poor then higher education will not improve. Education must get the highest priority from all political parties and the governments otherwise the problem of unemployment will grow larger and we will have an army of frustrated youth who would be diverting their energies into deviant channels. The future of India depends upon how we manage and transform school education.    

Looking through the lens of social realities, rather than just in economic terms, revival of old pension scheme appears to be a viable proposition

A recent debate has been triggered on the issue of demand of the government employees to be given pension as it was done before 2005 under the old pension scheme (OPS), and not as per the new pension scheme (NPS) — brought into existence by Central Government in 2005 and adopted by all state governments except West Bengal at different points of time. Uttar Pradesh has been witnessing a major agitation in this regard by various employee associations and, recently, in the run up to the assembly elections, the Samajwadi party had promised in their manifesto that they would revive the old pension scheme if voted to power. Soon thereafter, the Government of Rajasthan went ahead and announced the implementation of the old pension policy for their employees. Recently, I also noticed advertisements appearing in newspapers justifying this decision and pointing out its several benefits. In a similar vein, the Government of Chhattisgarh is seriously considering reviving OPS and several other states are also actively examining the issue.

Noted economists and several retired civil servants have been voicing serious reservation on the revival of the OPS. Their contention is that this would be a financial disaster for the public finances of state governments as salaries and pensions were a major drain on the state resources and were increasing every day due to increase in the number of employees. Additionally, longevity of people was causing a huge strain on the budgetary position of governments, leaving limited resources for expenditure on capital items or social areas like health and education. It is true that the logic used to replace OPS by NPS was that the pension liabilities were rising too fast and the state finances would not be able to bear their burden. To discuss the implications further, it is essential to understand the mechanics of both the schemes. In the OPS, a retiring government officer or employee was entitled to 50 per cent of his last basic pay drawn as a monthly pension till the end of his life. He would also be eligible for an increase in dearness allowances announced from time to time to counter inflation by the government. In the case of the death of the employee, his wife was entitled to get 50 per cent of the pension amount for her life. The NPS does away with this system and instead provides for a monthly contribution being made by the employee (10 per cent) and the concerned government (14 per cent) of the basic salary of an employee and this contribution has been kept in a separate fund where fund manager is expected to invest this in the market and get good returns. On the date of his retirement, a lump sum is available for the employee where he can draw 40 per cent and leave the balance 60 per cent in an annuity scheme to get monthly returns. It is true that this would have a lesser impact on the cash flow on the governments than the OPS. However, it must be examined as to why it is being universally opposed almost by all officers and employees who joined service after 2004.

The employees argue that the NPS is linked to the market. They are apprehensive that the amount contributed is being invested in the stock market and that they would get an amount at the time of retirement which is determined by the stock market. There is, thus, no certainty as to what the value of their contribution would be and nor do they have any role in deciding how the amount is to be invested. Employees have different number of years of service and with the age of entry to almost all government services having been increased significantly, many employees are retiring even after just around 20 years of service. During this period, the NPS corpus that is created by their contribution is too small to give any significant lump sum return or a viable stream of returns through annuity. The employees’ associations have been quick to point out several cases where on retirement the employee has been getting a measly sum under the NPS which is too meager to enable the employee to live his balance life with any sense of dignity or comfort. The problem has been further compounded by the fact that many state governments have not been making their contributions regularly to the corpus and also that there is no real time knowledge that an employee has about the fate of his pension fund. Significantly, they point out that if the NPS is as attractive as OPS as pointed out in justification by some governments then why is it that their senior officers who joined the service before 2004 are availing the facility of OPS and not opting for NPS. Similarly, they allege that the policymakers have themselves not made NPS applicable to them. It is also significant to point out that NPS has not been made applicable to the armed forces where the OPS is continuing. In a recent advertisement issued by Rajasthan Government, it was pointed out that the second national judicial pay commission has recommended OPS for the judicial services and the national human rights commission has also expressed its opinion that the state should examine the human rights element involved in NPS vs OPS.

Even though it would not be correct to examine this issue from a purely financial angle I would like to first examine this aspect. All that the OPS is saying is that 50 per cent of the last salary should be given as pension on a monthly basis. There is no reason why state governments cannot plan for this by continuing with the 14 per cent contribution every month and keeping it in a separate corpus and earning returns on it. The budget size of each government is increasing by almost 10 per cent every year and there is no reason why the contribution to the pension cannot be increased by the same amount every year. In this way, the government will be spending only as much every year as they are spending under the NPS. The returns on this corpus can come as an addition to the state finances and, from this, a monthly pension can quite easily be paid to the retiring employees from the government treasury. In this way, I do not foresee any extra pressure on state finances which could imply curtailment of expenditure on physical and social infrastructure. Other innovative ways of handling the situation can also be thought of.

The crucial thing is that the old pension acts as a social safety net for the retiring employees. You only have to look around to see that it is a pension or family pension which allows a pensioner to live a life of dignity and enables him to address his health issues that crop up after retirement. The society is such that children look after their parents if the parents are earning a monthly income to cater to their needs. If a lump sum amount is given then it rarely remains with the old parents, as the children lay claims on the amount to meet some immediate financial requirements of theirs. An OPS ensures that a retiring employee is not dependent on his children and lives in comfort for the remaining part of his life. Every issue should not be seen simply in economic terms and the realities of social life need to be factored in. The government should seriously consider reviving OPS to keep their employees motivated and also get the best brains to apply for government jobs. If the apprehensions around NPS were not genuine then the phenomenon of almost all employees and teachers agitating on a regular basis for revival of OPS would not be there. Policymakers must view this issue not as simply an economic problem but one concerned with providing lifelong social security which is a major objective of a welfare state.

Making the MCQ-based CUET mandatory for UG admissions will promote coaching culture and ignore comprehensive parameters of selecting candidates

Each year, the month of June raises the heartbeats of thousands of young boys and girls, as they rush to apply for admission to Universities for undergraduates courses, based on their class 12 marks. Such is the situation today that even a student with marks in the high nineties is not sure of getting the subject or college of her choice. Delhi University witnesses cutoffs as high as 100 per cent for several courses. I wonder how students score 100 per cent in subjects like literature or history! There seems to be intense competition among various boards to provide higher marks to their students. I read somewhere that this year, students from the Kerala board were more favourably placed than others. There is no doubt that different boards have different ways of evaluating their students and, often, there is a difference in the curriculum also — making it unfair to compare their scores. I have been Principal Secretary of Education in UP. I remember that there was a time when marks secured in the UP board used to be far below those in other boards, and students of UP board found it almost impossible to get admission in Delhi University. This issue was addressed accordingly, and now, even UP board students are securing sky-high marks — though the general level is still below other comparable boards.

Let us first understand what the common university entrance test (CUET) is all about. The University Grants Commission (UGC) has made CUET mandatory for Central universities and has suggested that state and private universities should also follow it. The National Testing Agency, under the Ministry of Higher Education, has announced the format for CUET. The admission to UG courses in Central universities will have CUET replacing the class 12 marks-based admission system. This test shall be based on the NCERT syllabus and will be divided into four broad sections. Section 1A and 1B will involve papers on languages, which will test the reading and comprehension skills of students. Section 1A is compulsory for all and will test the candidate in English or any of the 12 chosen languages. Section 1B shall test their proficiency in specified foreign languages. Section 2 shall test the knowledge in core subjects out of a list of 27. This includes subjects like visual arts, performing arts and music. Section 3 is a general test — not related to any domain subject — which shall test the mental ability of the students. A candidate is allowed to take up a maximum of nine papers in two different combinations. The CUET will not rank students but will provide scores, based on which admissions shall be made. The board exam scores will not have any impact, except that a minimum qualifying score shall be indicated by different universities.

Quite obviously, the main merit of such a system is to put all the students coming from different boards on a level playing field. The race for high cutoffs shall be done away with. This clearly is an improvement over the earlier system. However, this could lead to a situation where the students will focus on preparation for this test rather than learning the prescribed syllabus for class 12. A similar kind of situation is apparent in the case of students applying for engineering entrance tests. It is true that the domain subject will be based on the class 12 NCERT syllabus, implying that students have to be thorough in their class 12-level knowledge. However, multiple-choice questions cannot substitute class 12-level exams. Important skills like written communication, power of discussion, analytical reasoning and logical flow are difficult to test in an objective paper. In this light, it may be worthwhile to consider giving anywhere between 25 to 50 per cent weightage to class 12 board exam results. Such a measure could bring in the best of both systems.

It is also almost certain that coaching institutes for CUET will sprout up in every nook and corner. You only have to look around and see the coaching institutes that have mushroomed for engineering, Law or management entrance tests. The CUET then becomes a question of who can afford the better coaching institutions, and also, test the particular kind of skills required for solving CUET papers, which will be imparted by these coaching shops. The system will work to the detriment of those coming from underprivileged backgrounds. Moreover, very recently, the CSAT, which was an aptitude test for civil services preliminaries, was reduced to a qualifying test after a furore all over the country that this test discriminated against students from rural backgrounds. The same arguments will apply to CUET. Strangely, the chairperson of UGC has confidently stressed that coaching will not be necessary, as this would be different from IIT entrance because the ratio of seats for applicants will be 1:5 against 1:50 in the case of IITs. Furthermore, he said that the level of difficulty of the questions would be moderate so that the students are comfortable without coaching. Frankly, I am unable to see any logic in these arguments. I can foresee that coaching institutes shall spring up within a year of the introduction of CUET.

All over the world, questions are being raised on the efficacy of such tests as a reliable medium for ascertaining the eligibility of students for admission. Even the time-honoured SAT has been open to questions. Many foreign universities are now not in the favour of SAT and have dispensed with SAT as a requirement for entrance to the universities. Moreover, serious issues have been raised about SAT being a genuine test of merit. Most foreign universities now have essays, social activities, references and interviews as means of testing a candidate for admission. Maybe Indian universities will also have to consider adding some of these parameters in their evaluation of a candidate.

The biggest point in favour of CUET is that it is common for all. Curiously, this is also the main criticism of this test where critics argue that one-size-fits-all tests may not give the desired results. It is also to be noted that the CUET needs to be designed intelligently so that it becomes a true reflection of a student’s ability and talent. One critic very candidly said that a test is only as good as the person who sets it.

One feels that CUET is an improvement over the earlier system but it is still a work in process, and much more discussion and understanding will have to go into having a university entrance system that does not discriminate and genuinely tests the aptitude and competence of the students.