Opinion: YISU and Telangana Polytechnic Education—don’t disturb the apple cart

Let Young India Skills University stick to its mandate, not change the goalposts. ITIs, polytechnics and engineering colleges have distinct roles, each catering to different levels of skills and qualifications

By D Nagarjuna

The Young India Skills University (YISU) was established in Telangana to bridge the gap between academic education and industry requirements and enhance youth employability. The university was formally established in October 2024 and announced ahead of its first academic sessions.

---

Classes and operations officially commenced on a temporary campus in November 2024. The university aimed to help academically qualified students secure jobs by acquiring special skills. Please note the wording: Academically qualified, not technically qualified. There is a sea of difference between the two.

Losing Way

One wonders whether the university has taken a detour by foraying into, or, shall we say, trespassing into, the technical education domain, when its original idea was to make academically qualified graduates in the first instance. Academically qualified graduates include Arts, Science and Commerce streams emerging from colleges that do not offer diploma or engineering qualifications.

YISU opened its doors to Intermediate or +2 students, which is a good augury for those whose cup of tea is to get employed rather than pursue degrees that do not necessarily guarantee quick employment. If you scan through the courses offered by YISU, you will find a disconnect between diploma and degree courses related to technology and engineering.

YISU, otherwise trying its best to establish and grow, suddenly landed in huge trouble when the government took a decision to bring all polytechnics under its umbrella. The rest is history, with the news hitting the headlines for more than a week. Students and staff took to the streets, social media went on a blitzkrieg, and the pressure forced the government to appoint a special committee to review the entire imbroglio.

Editorials in the print media, developing news stories, TV debates, YouTube coverage and extensive social media exposure of the issue persuaded the government to respond soon after the Chief Minister returned from his London trip. As a result, he appointed a special panel to review polytechnic education in Telangana.

Who are the Members?

This writer, who was associated with technical education for over three decades, has preferred to take up an aspect that has not been covered so far in the media: the very formation of the panel. The announcement of the members has made the panel appear more like a formality than an exercise aimed at reviewing technical education in a no-nonsense manner. With due respect to the qualifications and yeoman service of the members, it becomes imperative for people to know what purpose the panel is intended to serve.

• Keshava Rao

Chairperson Keshava Rao, an eminent politician who has served as a Minister, MLA, MP and, now in his late 80s, was also a journalist in the print media and ran a small newspaper called The Daily News in the 1970s. It stopped publication without leaving behind any archival data about the winding up of the unit. His ability to head the panel seems more political than professional. He is already an adviser to the government with cabinet-rank status.

What is needed for such a crucial body is such expertise where the Chairman has the onus to remain grounded, even to the point of differing with other members of the panel should the need arise. That can be done only by someone who has been in the thick and thin of heading polytechnic colleges.

It is equally surprising that Keshava Rao, who is known for independent thinking, accepted the chairmanship, more as an obligation than as a genuine participant in the process of reviewing polytechnic education. Anybody else as eminent as he is might have politely recused himself considering his age and lack of expertise, besides questioning whether he could do justice to the cause for which the panel is formed.

• Kodandaram

Coming to the next Member of the panel, Kodandaram is an MLC and has experience as a professor in non-engineering subjects such as Political Science. Mind you, he is part of a panel reviewing technical education despite having zero experience in the field. Ironically, he will also be part of studying the recommendations put forth by the Education Commission, which consisted of Murali Akunuri, who has an MTech background and was conferred IAS status, and other members who hailed from Arts subjects. Incidentally, he quit the Education Commission midway for reasons best known to him.

• Shantha Sinha

An eminent professor, again from a Political Science background, Shantha Sinha is currently with the NCPCR. How she would be able to relate the nitty-gritty of polytechnic education as she embarks on its review is a million-dollar question.

• Navin Mittal

He is the only member with an IIT engineering background, besides being an IAS officer holding the rank of Special Chief Secretary. He has the advantage of having served as Commissioner for Technical Education and Chairman of SBTET for over five years and is currently associated with the Energy Department.

However, he was in the news for a long period for all the wrong reasons when he was Collector of Hyderabad District, besides being Commissioner for Land Records, and controversies were pointed towards alleged misuse of authority in land-related issues. The irony is that he could emerge successful under many Chief Ministers despite constant exposure of his alleged misdeeds. When nothing is proven as per the law, he is innocent on paper.

Nevertheless, here is a case study which proves that he is vulnerable to being misled by his officers below him. In 2019, he almost wound up an excellently running Diploma in Printing Technology course conducted by the most reputed statewide Government Institute of Printing Technology (GIPT), which was established in 1977, and was a 42-year-old institute at the time.

Like this panel to review polytechnic education, his committee in the department was guided by a non-printing Principal with Shorthand and Typewriting qualifications and other obliging officers, who decided to dilute the printing diploma course by stripping it of its statewide status, reducing the number of seats and relocating it to the Old City at QQ Polytechnic.

The committee that took this decision did not have any printing expert, be it from college or industry. In fact, the attempt was to close down the course altogether, but for the furore raised by GIPT alumni and retired staff, besides Telangana Today also highlighting the issue.

GIPT is the only course which has been having one semester exclusively earmarked for industrial training right from its inception in 1977 to this day. Students receive a stipend for the work they produce during this semester, even though there is no rule requiring them to be paid a stipend. This has been continuing uninterrupted for 49 years. It is during this semester of industrial training that students acquire skills needed by the industry and get jobs almost immediately after completing their diploma.

Naveen Mittal retracted his decision, but not before giving a fatal blow to the otherwise the best Institute in India, guaranteeing 100% jobs in government, public sector and in private industry in India and abroad.

The reason for forcing the exclusively designed and well-furnished college for GIPT was to make way for establishing a Government Women’s Polytechnic (GPW) in a rather hasty manner. There was a plan for an exclusive building, and the construction also began with good speed on the same premises. However, it suddenly stopped midway after pillars were raised. No one knows why it was stopped and why GIPT had to be made a sacrificial goat.

This development could be noticed just a day after a memo was issued by the government, and mind you, no GO for such a major policy decision is taken at the Principal Secretary level, let alone without seeking AICTE approval. To this day, the GIPT exists on paper, and the salary of the Principal of GPW is drawn from the GIPT account. Legally and technically, GIPT exists, and the board still stands at its Marredpally premises. By the time the alumni approached the then Principal Secretary Janardhan Reddy, the memo was sent out, and he pleaded helplessness.

Later, it was learnt that although he was convinced that something was amiss, he would have hesitated to recall the memo because the recommendations were sent by Naveen Mittal, who happened to be his senior despite holding a lower rank. The Principal Secretary did not want to rub him the wrong way in the situation in which he found himself. The purpose of highlighting this is to show how susceptible Naveen Mittal can be as a Member of this panel. To be fair to him, he is the only competent person on the panel to speak on the review of technical education because of his BTech from IIT, Kharagpur.

• Harichandana Dasari

Harichandana Dasari, Secretary, Shakti Department, is also from a Political Science background like Kodandaram and Shantha Sinha.

• A Devasena

Last but not least, A Devasena, the present Commissioner for Technical Education, is an IAS officer from a non-technical background. People are asking as to how she could not guide the government in saving the Department and SBTET, which come under her direct control.

This entire problem could have been nipped in the bud if she had sought advice from well-wishers of the department, be they her subordinates or direct stakeholders—the polytechnic students. She should have let her ego go, according to staff and students alike. Her stubbornness has resulted in this undue pandemonium and embarrassment to the government.

The panel itself comes under scrutiny, though one cannot underestimate the eminence of its members. But, when it comes to polytechnic education, the committee cannot be heavily loaded with Political Science members rather than technology, industry or engineering experts.

Vested Interests

If the BRS and the BJP criticise, the move can be dismissed as an outright political and destructive approach. But if the general public sees the composition of the panel, it will take it for granted that the panel may serve vested interests, narrowing its focus to real estate, misuse of men and machinery and use of invaluable polytechnic assets rather than serving skill development and enhancing employment.

Technical education has been running smoothly. Yes, the polytechnics need to be upgraded, and staff and students need to be upskilled, but not by bringing it under a bigger umbrella of YISU, which is being established under a public-private partnership and, in no way, fits into the domain of polytechnic education, which is entirely engineering-based and government-controlled.

Let YISU stick to its objectives and not change the goalposts. Industry, per se, has recognised for ages that ITIs supply purely skilled students, polytechnics supply the next best skills, while engineering colleges deliver a blend of higher qualification with lesser skills. Industry accordingly draws its manpower and talent from ITIs, polytechnics and engineering colleges according to its needs. Now asking industry to adjust to a new formula is like putting the cart before the horse.
Why disturb the apple cart of polytechnic education?

 

(The author is retired HoD, Government Institute of Printing Technology)