On 9th August 2017, the nation for the first time witnessed historic India March for Science (IMFS). It was a great moment that initiated the much needed concerted effort by the academic community to save the spirit of science and education. Being an initiation which the policy-makers choose not to pay heed to, the second phase of the march is organized (in sync with the worldwide initiative) on 14 th April 2018. The march has received immense response and greatly enhanced public discourse of science and education policy. All agree that the first thing is funding, except which no goodwill works and no plans realized. On this, two important questions came up :

1. While we all agree that funding in education in general and research in particular must be increased substantially, what should be the amount "needed"? What is the rationale behind the numbers 10% of GDP for education (and 3% in research)?

2. With best of intentions, is it ‘viable’ at all to allot the needed funds in a country like India?

​

After the union budget for 2018-19 and some follow up measures, the allocation for science and research has increased marginally in absolute monetary terms. When inflation is taken into consideration and the public spending calculated as a fraction of GDP, it turns out to be actually reduced! It only demonstrates that we need to intensify the collective endeavor and sustain it for long.

​

Therefore it becomes more important to have a holistic look at the situation and the demands: whether the demands are tenable when compared to necessities as well as viability, and whether the policies and measures conform to it or contradict. This article is an attempt to initiate a detailed discussion in this and relevant matters.

​

The requirements for education in India

Let us set a minimum goal regarding education: Within a reasonable time period, say in two decades, ALL children should be taught till class 12, and as many as possible should be provided education up to the Bachelors degree. Remember, it is a long-standing announced goal of our governments to build a new India which will be among the top five countries in the world.

​

We take the following approach. First we will have a look at the government’s take on financing education. Then we’ll have a look at the percentage of GDP spent in many advanced and not that advanced countries. Thereafter we will compare the relevant demographic and educational parameters of India and few of the nations we want to surpass. Based on these we will make a comparative study of the resource requirements to achieve the minimum goal, and will sketch its reflection in financial terms.

​

6% of GDP is too less

The phrase “6% of GDP” became a standard utterance when it comes to education funding. For decades the governments acknowledge 6% of GDP as a requirement, and all policies after 1968 envision the same without ever fulfilling it in reality. The new National Education Policy (NEP) proposal is no exception. However, building new institutions/ infrastructure is not considered in this 6% [1] . (The proposed ways of raising funds through privatization, hike in fees, education loans etc. are further issues of concern and a separate discussion).

​

Section 5.7 (particularly section 5.7.2) of the full TSRS committee recommendation for NEP 2016 makes two cases : firstly, it strongly advocated for 6% of GDP, and secondly it clearly states that this is not even a minimum: “Just for comparison, the corresponding level of expenditure in OECD countries is at an average of 5.3% of the GDP of those countries; indeed 11 OECD countries exceed 6%. Note that these are highly developed countries, where income levels are high; the governments consider such expenditure as investment in their people. In India’s current state of development, a minimum of 6% of GDP, if not at much higher level, should be essential expenditure in the education sector.” It further says: "Most OECD countries spend more than 6%, and many progressive countries have managed to cross the 6% benchmark" (Cuba spends 18%, global average is near 5%. For some further references of country-wise data, see reference [2]).

​

The OECD countries had already built the infrastructure, the income level is also much higher; still they need 6% mainly to maintain and advance education. Looking at the vital parameters for India : its population, poverty, overall educational backwardness, and the volume of young demography – all of which are way greater compared to those countries – one can imagine the quantum of resources Indian education requires.

​

It is imperative to note that, the TSRS committee consulted 107 documents including surveys, census, and several reports before preparing their own report with recommendation. They reached an “inescapable conclusion” that, not only the 6% “must be attained almost immediately if there is to be any realistic hope of meeting the needs of the sector”, but there is “imperative need to maintain at least 6% expenditure of GDP on education”. And in fact, it recommended several other education related arena where additional financing outside the 6% need to be procured. This repeated expositions only certify that, 6% of GDP is way too less. It is contextual to remind ourselves that, the current spending on education stands at 3% of the GDP!

​

Broad requirements of the education sector

Let’s compare the vital parameters of India with France. While France has a youth population (age below 15) of 1.2 crores, India's count is 30 times more, 36 crores. Our “minimum goal” is to educate all till the age of 18, and as many till 20. According to 2011 census and a more recent estimate, below 20 population is around 50 crores [3]!

​

The last but one para of reference [3] also gives a picture of education in 2011. After 65 years of freedom: "... only 4.5 percent of the population in the country is educated upto the level of graduate or above while a majority of 32.6 percent population is not even educated up to the primary school level". This huge demography to be educationally elevated so that, after say 20 years, most of youths below 40 are graduate and almost all are at least high school pass outs. It is worth noting that, in 2011, 74% of the population was below 40.

​

Regarding the state of infrastructure, the memorandum submitted by the IMFS to hon’ble Prime Minister makes the picture vivid : “In India the education system has been seriously neglected, resulting in a large section remaining illiterate or semi-literate even after 70 years of independence. The public school system, where a majority of Indian children get their education, is in a very bad shape, as many schools are without proper buildings, toilets, and playgrounds, have overcrowded classrooms, face acute shortage of teachers and are without laboratory facilities. As a result, a majority of children are deprived of the opportunity of being a part of the scientific manpower of the country. The college and university system is also reeling under acute shortages of infrastructure, teaching and non-teaching staff, and funds for carrying out research resulting in a lack of atmosphere for pursuit of excellence and in falling standards in the quality of education.” [4]

​

This being the situation, India's need is three-fold:

1. To include a dividend many many times larger (here "inclusion" means not mere enrollent but all facilities and requisites to educate all till class 12, and then to place as many in colleges);

2. To upgrade the whole education body in terms of infrastructure and quality to a minimum level;

3. To maintain and expand.

​

These colossal 3 fold needs will count, in a persistent manner for coming decades, several times of the resource that many developed countries spend mainly for sustenance and expansion. In absolute monetary terms, the manifold need of resources will translate to several times of the spending in such countries.

​

Now, the GDPs of different countries are different. So when we express the absolute monetary requirements as the fraction of India’s GDP, where would the percentage stand? Before discussing this, we take note of another argument. It says, “prices” are much lower in India, and the same resource will be availed in lesser monetary cost. Thus, to make a comparison we need a compatible benchmark that takes into account the scales for the differing prices in different countries. This is measured by GDP-PPP (PPP–purchasing power parity). While India is 7th in the world in terms of total GDP (the amount being comparable to many advanced countries), she stands 3rd regarding GDP-PPP [5].

​

Now let us compare. Our GDP-PPP is 3.2 times that of France, and 2.2 times that of Germany. Spending for education in these two countries are around 5.5% and 5% of their own GDPs respectively, which as fraction of India’s GDP-PPP stands around 1.7% and 2.3%. That is, these two highly developed and wealthy countries with much higher per capita income and much lesser poverty level (who also contribute highly to the world’s knowledge and culture) spend money comparable to 1.7% and 2.3% of India’s GDP-PPP only to the sustenance and expansion of the educational needs of a 30-35 times lesser demography. Now looking at the three-fold needs of Indian education, let the readers decide whether the fraction of India's GDP for educating Indians should be many many times higher than this 1.7% or 2.3%, or not. Remembering that creation of new requisite infrastructure is sidelined at first go while asking for 6% in the policy proposal, it goes without saying that, even the 10% is really too small to ask for, at least during the coming decades.

​

India's pressing needs, economic ability, and the policy orientation of the state

"...there can be no better investment than in the future of India’s children", said the TSRS committee in their recommendation for NEP 2017 (pg-60). Indeed, based on last section’s discussions, there could be no excuses for the persons in responsible positions to deny and avoid the urgent needs. However, there are acute popular misconceptions, like – if we spend 10% on education, what will be left for the other essential sectors like health, food security, social welfare schemes, infrastructure expansion like electricity road etc., expansion of scopes for employment, and so on?

​

It is a well known myth that India is a poor country. But the actual question should be, what is happening to her huge natural and human potential? We will try to find an answer in subsequent parts. Prior to that let us note that, India is a corporate monopoly where large share of the GDP comes from private revenue. It doesn’t have any serious social responsibility. (At the same time let’s remember, the corporate share which is nothing but profit accumulated over decades also comes from people.)

​

While tax revenue accounts for 7% of India's GDP, government spending in 2014 was only 17%. The 2018 budgetary outlay is estimated to be 13.5% of the GDP. India’s GDP is indeed growing, but total public spending is not increasing compatibly. Anyway, since one expects that at least government spending should be solely for the people, we’ll focus upon how the "government budget" is actually allocated, and spent.

​

The public funding scenario

There are a set of internationally acknowledged parameters that measure human and social well being. Main three of them – life expectancy, education, and income per capita – are collectively known as Human Development Index (HDI). Latest report say that, although India ranks 3rd on GDP-PPP, her HDI rank is slipped to 131 [6].

​

The share of education in GDP is around 3%. In health it is worse than imagination – only 1.4% in 2014 (the world average being 6%) [7]. Together health and education are not alloted even 5% of nation’s GDP! If we look at the share of "government spending" for public welfare as a whole, we see that, in 2016 and 2017 the proposed outlay was merely around 15% of total budget.