Anjuli Bhargava: Mysterious workings of the CABE

It might be a good idea to ask why the Central Advisory Board of Education is needed, what we hope to achieve and by when

Much to my surprise and delight, I read the other day that Rohan Murty and a couple of other people had been nominated to be part of the Central Advisory Board of Education (CABE), which, it turns out, is the highest advisory body for all matters relating to education in the country. Surprised mainly since I had not heard much about this body in the recent past, and delighted because I believe that Union minister for Human Resource Development (HRD) Smriti Irani needs all the help and advice she can get.

The CABE has apparently been in existence since 1920. It functioned for a few years, was dissolved and then resurrected in 1935.

I found some explanation for why this board has managed to remain, by and large, a mystery even to those in the field (I spoke to a few people in the sector who muttered that they had heard of it but they could not be too sure of anything else).

This state of oblivion has been possible by following the practice of meeting once a year. Understandably, in a country where so much happens on a daily basis, the media can be forgiven for not having followed the yearly meetings of this board with its usual passion. This may need to change if the Narendra Modi government wants inputs from the reconstituted board on the 33 different themes for the proposed new national education policy.

Then, it is less than apparent what this board has managed to achieve in its 95-odd years of existence. What advice has the highest advisory body given? Which policy initiatives were based on its past advice?

The last report I could find (admittedly only through Google) was one submitted by Kanti Biswas, who, as a member of the CABE, headed a committee on autonomy of higher education institutions, in 2005 to then minister for HRD Arjun Singh. Whatever it may or may not have recommended, we have seen the consequences of autonomy in the latest reform attempted by the Delhi University in 2014.

During the United Progressive Alliance (UPA)-II regime, meetings were held in 2011 and 2013. The 2013 meeting agreed that board examinations were not required, something that we may again revisit, if Irani's recent statements are anything to go by. A National Mission on Teachers and Training was to be launched but to the best of my knowledge, it hasn't happened.

Again, I tried asking a couple of senior bureaucrats and members of the erstwhile Planning Commission what reforms could be credited to this board over the years, but they made the same point. The board met once a year; what can one expect?

Then, even stranger is the fact that in many years - 15 to be precise - the board never managed to meet at all. I know ministers, bureaucrats and even academicians have other things to occupy them - the country's education sounds quite dull in the midst of scams and scandals - but to miss the yearly meetings for a total of 15 years explains to some extent why we find ourselves where we do.

A former top gun of UPA-II described the education crisis to me as a "train wreck in slow motion". What then can possibly be achieved by meeting once a year in a country of this size and complexity? To my mind, once a week would be more like it.

On what basis members have been nominated or retained is not too clear either. The ministry list has 32 nominated members and strangely, still lists Padma Bhushan awardee Malcolm S Adiseshiah as one of the members, notwith- standing the fact that the distinguished economist and gentleman passed away in 1994. Current members also include Habib Tanvir, who passed away in 2009.

I know the Modi government is in a bit of a hurry but it may be a good idea to refresh our minds on why such a board is needed (and I have no doubt it is), how regularly it needs to meet, what we hope to achieve through its workings and by when. It also needs to revisit how seriously the highest body on education needs to be taken. And last but not the least, it may not be a bad idea to refresh the ministry's website by removing the names of members who are no longer with us, before we start appointing new ones.