These objections are perfectly valid. But what has been the outcome of pursuing these lofty ideals? Until about a decade ago, most professional institutes were run by the government, and they were hopelessly inadequate to meet the country's burgeoning requirements for professionally trained manpower. A sea change in the situation occurred when the government allowed the setting up of private institutions. When I was collecting material for my book on the information revolution in 2003, I visited all the southern states. It was in the south, after all, that IT had had its greatest impact. I was astonished to learn that of the 252 engineering colleges in Tamil Nadu, only 14 were run by the government. In AP, this figure was 250 and 18; in Karnataka, 125 and one; and in Kerala, 220 and 11. So out of the total of 858 engineering colleges in these four southern states only 44 (5 per cent) were run by the state. The remaining 814 were unaided private institutions.

What has been the net outcome of this exponential growth in private professional colleges? Today these very states are spearheading India's information revolution. If the country's earnings from software exports are slated to touch $50 billion by 2008, substantial credit for this would have to go to the enlightened approach adopted by these states. They realised in good time that they just did not have the resources to set up new professional institutions. So, without bothering overly about the dictates of egalitarianism, they gave a free hand to private players to set up unaided engineering and medical colleges and thousands of doctors, engineers and management graduates emerged every year.

These colleges are certainly not models of competence and financial rectitude. A large number of them charge exorbitant capitation fees, do not maintain adequately equipped laboratories, the quality of their education is not high, and they indulge in all sorts of malpractices. As admissions are on a discretionary basis, merit is given short shrift. But, as the state is unable to meet even a fraction of the demand, the country has only two options before it. Either protect the integrity of its professional education by keeping profit-seeking interlopers out and let India move at a snail's pace towards modernity, or soil its hands by letting profiteers into these hallowed precincts and ensure the emergence of the requisite number of professionally trained youngsters.

It is incomprehensible as to how our hard-headed political masters expect private players to invest crores in setting up professional institutions without the prospect of an adequate return on their investment. At present privately owned professional institutions are facing an imminent threat from two quarters. One, a recent Supreme Court order debars them from charging any capitation fee, or earning any profits, although it has relieved them of the obligation of reserving quotas for any category. Two, the government proposes to introduce a Private Professional Education Institutions Bill, doing away with the Supreme Court's order on quotas, and making it obligatory for these institutions to ensure reservations — of around 25 per cent — for the under-privileged sections as a measure of social justice. These two provisions will certainly kill the goose that lays the golden egg, and put in reverse gear the growth of technical and professional education in India.

Instead of indulging in thoughtless populism, it would have been far more productive for the government to pursue a course which marries the dictates of equity to pragmatism in the long-term interests of India's development. There is certainly a need to subject unaided private institutions to a code of discipline to ensure that they do not indulge in unbridled profiteering and maintain a minimum standard of instruction. For this, an effective monitoring agency should be created to enforce a code of discipline. A modest quota for the underprivileged, and a certain percentage of seats for meritorious candidates may also be reserved.