If John Osborne were an Indian university student of the late nineties, he would have modified the title of his 1950s play Look Back in Anger to Look Forward in Anger. The protagonist of that play, just out of university, seethed at the establishment: "Is it for this they got us educated?" Students in India's ten central universities have realised that the post-liberalisation slash in state funding of higher education leads them to a dead-end. "Is it for this that they gave us free primary education?" asked Agha Zafar, a students' union counsellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

The academic community all over echoes his sentiments. From vice-chancellors to students... everyone is clear that the cut in subsidies and the directive to universities to raise finances internally will herald the beginning of the end of higher education.

The students are up against increases of tuition and boarding fees, and apprehensions are more pronounced in the humanities and social science departments, where one finds a large number of socially and economically backward students. "The university authorities, to raise money on their own, will favour business management, computer and science departments over humanities and social science," said Deepak Kumar, associate professor in the Zakir Hussain Centre for Educational Studies, JNU.

The governments of the nineties have felt that total subsidisation of higher education would be anti-poor because one finds here more students from the rich and middle classes. Their argument: 85 per cent of India's revenue comes from indirect taxes; direct taxes, levied from the rich, constitute only a small proportion; hence subsidisation of higher education amounts to transfer of resources from the poor to the rich. They prefer to get the rich to pay and subsidise the deprived sections.

Illustrating the approach was Prime Minister Vajpayee's address at the 48th meeting of the National Development Council in New Delhi in February. He said: "Is it not paradoxical that even rich students pay college fees that are less than what they spend on cold drinks? No government can afford to provide costly services, free of cost, universally. They must levy reasonable user charges, particularly for non-merit goods and services."

Central to the understanding of the cut in subsidies to higher education is its inclusion among Ônon-merit goods' and its projected dichotomy with primary education (Ômerit goods') in the white paper titled ÔGovernment Subsidies in India'. Brought out in May 1997 by the National Front government, the paper said subsidies were needed only for Ômerit goods' such as inoculation against diseases, basic education and environmental protection. ÔNon-merit goods' such as electricity, fertiliser and higher education need not be subsidised.

This was the government's first overt statement of abdicating responsibility of higher education. "We can't allow this to happen," said Nazir Hussain, vice-president of the JNU Students' Union. "Such measures are preposterous at a time when the country is spending hardly 4 per cent of its GDP on education."

After liberalisation, the government has been stressing the need to curb the enrolment rates in universities and colleges. "We reacted strongly against the 1992-93 UGC annual report which subtly hinted at this," said Jandhyala B.G. Tilak, head of the educational finance unit of the National Institute of Educational Planning and Administration (NIEPA). "Though the enrolment figure was about 5 million, it covered only 5 per cent of the relevant age group. In no country is the figure less than 20 per cent."

The social base of higher education has been static. "Students from scheduled castes and tribes hardly make up 10 per cent of the enrolments," said Prof. Karuna Chanana, JNU. "The enrolment of women of these sections is next to nothing."

Though the government has promised to subsidise the education of the socially and economically deprived, it has taken little effort in the direction. In the early years of liberalisation, the expenditure on scholarships decreased.

The Punnayya Commission Report (1992-93) on the UGC funding of institutions of higher education referred to buffer packages for needy students. "In concordance with the World Bank scheme of floating student loans to protect the weaker sections from the effects of privatisation, the government's 1994-95 budget introduced concessions to educational loans," said Tilak.

However, the loans from banks and financial institutions hardly provide relief to those who need it. "Most of these loans cater for the students in the scientific, technological and management disciplines," said Tilak. "The high interest rates after liberalisation and the need for collaterals ensure that the loans go to the rich."

In the late 80s, the government had a recovery rate of 15 per cent on all fees, the same as in the US. "The Punnayya Commission suggested a recovery rate of 20 per cent," said Tilak.

The government's new line of thinking on higher education is inspired by its perceived picture of the scene in the US. "What the policy makers overlook is that the state universities in the US run on huge subsidies," said Chanana. "The private universities have a huge reserve of public trust funds as support system. The students are allowed teaching assistantships to ease the burden of exorbitant fees."

Step into the library canteen of the JNU, and a caricature on the wall catches one's attention. It's a classroom. The teacher is clad in typical American attireÑsuit and top hat. He blows puffs of smoke from his pipe and has ÔWorld Bank' emblazoned on his suit.

He is teaching the alphabetÑA for Avoid educational issues, B for Ban educational projects, C for Cut educational expenditures and D for Dump education. The students' attire indicate they are from the not so rich areas such as India, Latin America, East Europe and Africa.

The poster reflects the linkage between shrinking public expenditure on higher education and the Fund-Bank loans. It is a reminder that the finance minister Manmohan Singh commissioned a study by National Institute of Public Finance (NIPF) to cut down on subsidies barely a year after his liberalisation budget of 1991.

In 1992-93 came the Punnayya Commission report which suggested methods by which universities could raise money on their own. "The recommendations came near to a form of privatisation," said Tilak. "After the report came out, the government should have framed a policy on higher education. Instead, it remained silent."

Another blow was the directive that universities meet the burden of 20 per cent of enhanced staff salaries recommended by the Fifth Pay Commission. On top of it came the recent decision to allow foreign universities and encourage Indian private universities.

The Central government policy has rubbed off on the state governments as well. "In 1991 we got Rs 1.5 crore from the Karnataka government as plan grant," said the registrar of Bangalore University, Dr M.S. Thimmappa. "Now, it has come down to Rs 50 lakh."

Many feel the UGC's decision to disburse one-third of plan grants to universities based on the National Assessment and Accreditation Council's (NAAC) qualitative assessment will hit state universities.

However, Dr A. Gnanam, chairman of the Bangalore-based council, an autonomous organisation of the UGC, said such fears were unfounded. "Consideration will be given to the social and economic contexts in which universities and colleges function," he said. "However, that does not mean quality will be compromised."

Delhi campuses resounded with talk, especially among the yuppies, of the recent Bollywood blockbuster Kuch Kuch Hota Hain. The Lacoste-wearing lot willingly parted with Rs 100 from their wallets for a balcony ticket. They spend a lot less on their monthly tuition fee.

"There has to be a hike in the near future," said V.R. Mehta, Vice-Chancellor of Delhi University (DU). "We have to get money from the rich and subsidise the poor to the extent that lack of financial resources must not prevent a poor Dalit student in the south from joining an elite institution, such as St Stephen's, Delhi."

However, some others, such as Rahmatullah Khan, acting vice-chancellor of JNU, do not favour a fee hike. "The JNU is for students from the weaker sections," he said. "With no increase in their scholarships, it's not right to take steps that will make their life difficult." Khan, however, admitted that his university too was facing financial troubles.

In DU, Mehta is trying to attract research funding and endowments and planning to offer consultancies and market his university abroad. The Michigan-based direct-marketing company Amway Corp. set up a Rs 3.5 million endowment at the DU's Faculty of Management Studies to promote research in the field of entrepreneurial development. The university hiked the fee of professional courses 11 times, increased the registration fee of the foreign students, and is encouraging self-financing courses such as management, marketing, finance and journalism for which separate colleges have been set up.

Another vice-chancellor aggressively marketing his institution is Pramod Talgeri of the Central Institute of English and Foreign languages (CIEFL), Hyderabad, a deemed-university. "Such survival strategies are needed because of the government ideology that universities are private limited companies and vice-chancellors, their managing directors," he said.

The institute has been getting fee in foreign exchange for its English for Special Purposes course. Teachers, executives and parliamentarians from countries such as Kazakhstan, Uzbekistan, Vietnam, Venezuela and Guatemala have enroled in it. The courses offered by the newly opened Centre for European Studies are revenue generating.

The University of Hyderabad (UH) is in trouble. "Last year, the university had a deficit of Rs 1 crore because the UGC didn't reimburse the DA to employees, " said acting vice-chancellor A.K. Bhatnagar.

Rahmatullah Khan, acting vice-chancellor of JNU, said that the UGC effected a cut of Rs 1.46 crore in the non-plan grant to the university on a particular issue. "We will be losing about Rs 36 crore because of the new government policy. Fee hike will not compensate for the loss."

Bhatnagar too believes that raising resources through fee hike is impractical. "UH has an annual expense of Rs 25 crore," he said. "According to the prevailing policy, 20 per cent, or Rs 5 crore, has to come from within. There are about 2,000 students here, which means that each will have to pay annually Rs 25,000 as fee. I can barely spend that much for my children's education. So what hope do the poor have?"

As in Osborne's play, they can only pound on the drums in anger.