Discourses From the East
Reform without resources is not reform—it is withdrawal.
The recent directive to discontinue contractual teaching and non-teaching staff in Assam’s colleges reflects a troubling pattern in policymaking reform announced without the resources required to sustain it. While administrative standardisation may be the stated objective, the decision, in its current form, risks destabilising an already fragile higher education system. Over the past decade, Assam has expanded its higher education landscape at an impressive pace. New universities have been established, and several well-performing colleges have been upgraded or granted autonomous status, with many transitioning toward becoming universities. At one level, this signals ambition and institutional growth. At another, it exposes a deeper structural problem: expansion without adequate investment in human resources.
Neither the creation of new universities nor the upgradation of colleges has been matched by a proportional increase in sanctioned teaching and non-teaching posts. Institutions are expected to function at higher academic levels, introduce postgraduate programmes, diversify curricula, and meet accreditation benchmarks, all while operating with largely unchanged faculty strength. This disconnects lies at the heart of the current crisis.
The implementation of the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 has further intensified these pressures. Introduced in Assam in 2023, the four-year undergraduate programme has now entered a critical phase with the progression to the fourth year. The reform mandates a wide range of additional courses, including Ability Enhancement, Value Added, Multidisciplinary, and Skill Enhancement courses. These are not peripheral additions; they are central to the NEP’s vision of holistic and flexible education.
Across India, states implementing the National Education Policy 2020 have largely adopted a more phased and resource-backed approach. For instance, Kerala has focused on strengthening faculty positions alongside curricular reforms, ensuring that additional courses under NEP are supported by recruitment and workload rationalisation. Similarly, Tamil Nadu, despite its cautious stance on NEP, has continued regular recruitment and maintained staffing stability in government colleges. In Karnataka, where the four-year undergraduate programme has been rolled out, universities have been allowed flexibility in staffing, including the continued engagement of guest faculty to manage increased academic demands. In contrast, most departments in Assam’s colleges continue to function with just three to four sanctioned posts. At the same time, institutions are required to run multiple semesters concurrently first, third, fifth, and seventh each with distinct academic demands. The gap between policy expectations and institutional capacity has never been more visible. The question is unavoidable: how are colleges expected to deliver more with the same or even reduced human resources?
It is within this context that the role of contractual teachers must be understood. Their appointment has not been a matter of convenience but of necessity. They fill critical gaps, ensure continuity in teaching, and enable institutions to meet expanding academic responsibilities. Despite financial constraints, colleges have relied on them to prevent systemic breakdown. Their sudden removal, therefore, is not a minor administrative adjustment; it is a direct threat to institutional functioning.
Although the government has taken steps to fill vacancies in higher secondary schools and improve infrastructure, public trust in these institutions, after years of neglect, is far from assured. Meanwhile, school education is witnessing rapid privatization. If higher secondary education is removed from colleges without ensuring a robust and credible school system, the likely outcome will be a shift of students toward private institutions, further deepening educational inequality.
Against this backdrop, the directive to discontinue contractual staff appears both premature and counterproductive. Its immediate consequences are predictable: acute staff shortages, disruption of classes, delays in academic schedules, and a decline in the quality of education. Existing faculty members, already overburdened, will be pushed to unsustainable limits, affecting both morale and academic output.
The prolonged halt in Assistant Professor recruitment has only worsened the situation. For over one and a half years, vacancies have remained unfilled, creating a vacuum that contractual staff has partially bridged. Removing them without initiating recruitment or creating new posts effectively strips institutions of their functional capacity.
The impact will be most severe in rural and remote colleges, where staffing shortages are already acute. These institutions depend heavily on contractual appointments to maintain even basic academic operations. Without this support, many could face near paralysis, undermining efforts to expand access to higher education across regions. There is also a broader issue of policy coherence. On one hand, the state is pushing for expansion—new universities, autonomous colleges, postgraduate programmes, and NEP-driven curricular reforms. On the other, it is withdrawing the very workforce that makes this expansion possible.
If the objective is to strengthen higher education, the approach must change. Filling existing vacancies should be the first priority. This must be accompanied by the creation of new posts aligned with enrolment growth, institutional expansion, and NEP requirements. Recruitment of Assistant Professors needs to resume immediately and on a sustained basis. Equally important is the need for a transitional framework. Contractual staff should be allowed to continue until permanent appointments are made. Abrupt discontinuation, without alternatives in place, serves neither administrative efficiency nor academic quality. The timing of the directive also raises concerns. With the Model Code of Conduct currently in force due to ongoing electoral processes, such a significant decision appears poorly timed and insufficiently deliberated.
Higher education cannot be managed through abrupt directives that overlook ground realities. It requires sustained investment, careful planning, and a clear alignment between policy goals and institutional capacity. Assam’s colleges are not resistant to reform; they are struggling to implement it under constrained conditions. The present moment calls for course correction. The government must revisit the directive on contractual staff, taking into account the cumulative pressures created by expansion, policy reform, and resource shortages. Without such reconsideration, the state risks weakening the very institutions it seeks to strengthen.
