Satya Niketan Tragedy: What Good Is Higher Education Without Safe Housing?

What kind of educational system are we building if students are compelled to risk their lives simply to pursue it?

Is there any well-thought-out policy, monitoring mechanism, or regulatory framework for such informal residences that provide shelter to aspiring students coming from far-off places?

(Photo: X/The Quint)

The PG accommodation tragedy that occurred on 6 September at Satya Niketan, New Delhi, raises a number of questions pertaining to governance, management, and the kind of agenda that dominates the thinking when it comes to running institutions of higher learning.

It is a serious tragedy, and one must reckon that this is not an isolated case. Similar tragedies are waiting to happen, not only in Delhi but in all major centres of educational learning, unless stringent action is implemented on the ground.g

It was only a few months ago that a fire in a hotel led to several losses of life. A few years ago, the basement of a coaching centre was flooded in Mukherjee Nagar. The Delhi Government and the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) have now swung into action, inspecting and raiding the so-called PGs. The fundamental question, however, is whether the MCD or the Delhi Government even knows the numbers, names, and locations of the private hostels masquerading as PGs.

Is there any well-thought-out policy, monitoring mechanism, or regulatory framework for such informal residences that provide shelter to aspiring students coming from far-off places?

Central Universities Failing Students

At the centre of this tragedy are two main issues that relate to educational policies and institutional priorities. It is well documented that there is an uneven distribution of colleges and other institutions of higher and professional education across rural and urban areas in more than 700 districts of India. It is not the quantity alone; the quality of education also varies significantly, even among the Central Universities. Institutions that were established during the colonial period and in the decades after independence are clamouring for funds to maintain facilities that are already meagre.

Aspiring youth converge at these few centres of higher education in order to build careers for themselves. On top of that, we have a situation where the government, under National Eeducation Policy (NEP) 2020 has introduced a centralised admission process in the country.

The Central University Entrance Test (CUET) selects students and allocates offers of seats to those who qualify, irrespective of where they come from in the country. A student from Kerala, for instance, could be allotted a seat at the Central University of Punjab, while a Punjabi boy or girl could perhaps be asked to enroll in a university in the Northeast.

Since central universities are supposed to have a national character, this is a fair practice in principle. But it requires adequate residential facilities for students staying away from home. If students are forced to live in dingy and substandard so-called PGs—private hostels that have mushroomed all over major centers of education such as Hyderabad, Bengaluru, Kota, Jaipur, Delhi, the NCR, and several cities in Uttar Pradesh—then the very idea of a national system of higher education is compromised.

I am concentrating on Central Universities because they provide an important case study here. If students admitted to Central Universities are not provided with hostels and residential facilities that offer reasonably good and dignified living spaces for both boys and girls, then the very idea of a Central University as a national institution fails.

There are two ways in which one could perhaps think about this. First, universities should build their own hostels or hire hostels through whatever arrangements may be described as public-private partnerships. Second, where private accommodation is used, there must be a regulatory framework to ensure that minimum standards are maintained.

We have several prestigious private universities around Delhi and Sonipat. For example, there is Ashoka University, OP Jindal Global University, and Shiv Nadar University. Several such universities have created residential facilities for their students. A number of them, including Azim Premji University, have also provided highly subsidised hostel facilities. I have had the occasion to visit Azim Premji University a couple of times and have seen some of these arrangements.

Privatisation of Educational Infrastructure

At the other end of the spectrum, however, hostel fees in some elite private institutions are extremely high and are perhaps beyond the capacity of a middle-class, and even an upper-middle-class, family. On the other hand, we have technical and professional institutions such as the IITs and NITs and medical institutions such as AIIMS. The majority of these are residential campuses. Even IIT Patna, which I had the opportunity to visit, has several hostels, and a majority of its students coming from different parts of the country stay on campus.

I understand that several of these institutions are still in the process of construction and that new hostels will come up. But what is more disturbing is that several services in these hostels have been privatised without any systematic monitoring process.

For example, food services are often given to private contractors. I had the opportunity to serve as Associate Dean of Students at JNU from 2007 to 2011, and I saw this first-hand. There was one hostel where food services were managed by a private contractor, while the remaining hostels were managed by the university. The quality of food and the pricing were significantly different. This was despite the fact that no direct subsidy was being given to either arrangement.

At Jawaharlal Nehru University, the subsidy in the hostels was largely in terms of employees and their salaries, although not all employees were paid by the university; some were still paid by the students. Nevertheless, the quality of food in the university-run hostel and its price for all three meals were much better and lower than those under the private contractor.

Ultimately, we decided to do away with the private contractor and establish a mess committee. It started functioning quite well, and students began managing it. In several state-government-run universities, wherever hostels exist, similar practices have been followed. Wherever private contractors are involved, either the quality of food is poor or, despite the poor quality, the monthly bill paid by students is quite high. This again discourages an average middle-class family from sending their children to such institutions.

And whatever meagre institutional hostel facilities we have are simply not enough to accommodate the growing number of students.

This brings us to an important question: what is there in the name of NEP 2020 when it comes to hostels and other infrastructure?

The NEP 2020 is broadly supportive of privatisation and greater involvement of external stakeholders in higher education. It proposes changes in university governance and greater involvement of industry and other eminent persons. Yet, to my surprise, there is hardly anything substantial in the policy concerning hostels and student residential facilities.

It is therefore not surprising that residential requirements are increasingly being left to the private market in the form of PGs. No wonder we have seen the mushrooming of PGs and private hostels.

Absence of Regulatory Framework

I wonder whether the MCD or the government has any comprehensive policy for these establishments. Is there a regulatory framework comparable to the regulations governing hotels and other forms of accommodation? I believe there should be one, because this is not a new phenomenon. PGs and private hostels have existed for more than three decades.

Mukherjee Nagar is well known for this phenomenon. There are other localities near JNU, such as Ber Sarai, Munirka, and Jia Sarai, where numerous private hostels have emerged. The issue is therefore not merely one of law and order; it is an institutional and structural issue.

Delhi University has a very large student population. It has been reported to have an enrollment of more than 2.5 lakh students across its colleges and departments, although I would like to verify the exact current figure. The university, however, has only a limited number of hostel places available to students—far fewer than what is required.

This speaks volumes about where our priorities have been.

If we have this kind of situation, private and community interventions will inevitably develop. I am not against private hostels or private provision of residential facilities. But they must be reasonably priced, properly regulated, and required to maintain minimum standards of quality of life. Safety, sanitation, access to clean water, adequate ventilation, fire safety, and dignified living conditions are essential considerations.

I am reminded of whatever little time I spent at foreign universities. In many universities abroad, students' cooperatives play an important role. They run cafés and provide various services, including assistance in finding accommodation. They maintain lists of dormitories and private residences that are inspected, approved, negotiated with, and periodically monitored through institutional or cooperative mechanisms.

Students can then choose where to stay and pay an appropriate amount. There is no single standard rent; it depends upon the quality of accommodation, its distance from the university, and several other factors.

During one of our visits, when we needed family accommodation, we stayed in a house in Chiba, Japan, whose address had been provided through the university cooperative. Such mechanisms provide an important model of how private accommodation can be linked to institutional oversight.

The same principle can be applied in India.

The Toxic 'PG' Network

The private so-called PGs that operate in our cities are often not really PGs. A paying guest arrangement essentially means that a household decides to let out one or two rooms to a person or a small number of people who live as guests within the household. What we have today, however, are essentially private hostels. These students are not guests; they are regular tenants living without any formal agreement between the tenant and the property owner.

There is virtually no role for the state or the university in this transaction. It is purely private. The costs can be exorbitant, and the risks are considerable.

NEP 2020 also speaks about internationalisation and globalidsation of higher education. If we want to attract foreign students, it becomes important to recognise that the quality of education and the quality of residential support systems are equally important.

We are not asking for five-star accommodation. We are asking for reasonably good and dignified living conditions—with clean water, sanitation, ventilation, appropriate heating or cooling facilities, and basic safety. These requirements are becoming increasingly important in the context of climate change and extreme weather conditions.

The matter, however, is not restricted to private PGs. I would also like to point out a couple of other historical experiences in which institutional provisions were almost absent.

When colleges and universities were predominantly government-run and government-funded but did not provide adequate hostel facilities, communities often joined hands, created societies, and established hostels for children coming from their own caste, sectarian, or religious backgrounds.

This began during the colonial period, and examples can still be found today: Rajput Chhatrawas, Pragya Samiti Chhatrawas, Saini Chhatrawas, Shahrawat Chhatrawas, Jat Chhatrawas, and numerous others across the country. I am not equally familiar with the situation in South India, but there too one can find examples of caste-based and community-based residential institutions.

These community hostels emerged partly because institutional provision was inadequate. They also, however, reproduced social segmentation. The colonial government found such arrangements useful because they helped create trained manpower for lower-level administrative and other occupations while simultaneously reproducing social and spatial inequalities. Education was thus selectively extended, while sections of the population continued to remain available as a source of cheap labour to both dominant social groups and the state.

Social Stratification Impacts Accommodation

What we see today is that these historical forms of social segmentation have not completely disappeared.

The Thorat Committee, which investigated the issue of caste discrimination at AIIMS more than a decade ago, found evidence of discriminatory practices in the allocation of hostel accommodation. There was segmentation, with students belonging predominantly to certain caste groups being placed in particular hostels. In other words, traditional restrictions relating to commensality, dining together, and living together could be reproduced through institutional mechanisms.

This raises an important constitutional question: can such practices be permitted within public institutions?

The Thorat Committee findings raised serious questions regarding violations of constitutional principles and existing laws. One may also ask whether those responsible were ever held accountable. To cut a long story short, even so-called PGs may not necessarily be open to everyone, even if one is prepared to pay the price.

A study published in Economic and Political Weekly, around 2015, if I recall correctly, examined the nature of residential segregation and discrimination in Delhi. It indicated that people belonging to particular social groups or religious communities could face discrimination in obtaining accommodation. The study was not specifically about hostels; it examined residential segregation more broadly. Nevertheless, it is highly relevant to the present discussion.

Alongside this, we have the evidence from the Thorat Committee on caste discrimination in hostel accommodation at AIIMS. We have plenty of similar episodes from Bihar, Rajasthan, and elsewhere.

I had written a piece in 2011 on how even the distribution of midday meals could reproduce caste hierarchies. These examples show that there are layers upon layers of issues that need to be addressed.

Many of these problems can be addressed comprehensively if we institutionalise residential facilities for students. To suggest that governments and universities cannot run such facilities themselves is simply not credible.

I can give numerous examples of successful institutional hostels, although there are certainly bad examples as well. There are good and bad examples in both the private and public sectors. The existence of a bad private institution does not prove that all private institutions are bad, just as the existence of a good public institution does not mean that every public institution functions well.

What I am arguing is that regulation is essential, irrespective of whether the provider is public or private. Without effective oversight, it is impossible to ensure the well-being of students and the educational environment for which the government claims commitment under NEP 2020, including its stated objective of achieving a 50 percent gross enrollment ratio in higher education.

A Wake Up Call

What we therefore need is an effective monitoring and regulatory mechanism.

The MCD and the Delhi Government may bulldoze some establishments or shut down some PGs in the immediate aftermath of a tragedy. But they are likely to return to business unless the structural conditions that allow them to flourish are addressed. We have seen this pattern in several other cases: something happens, the government becomes active for a short period, inspections and raids are conducted, and then the system gradually returns to business as usual.

There are layers of vested interests. Politicians may themselves have connections with such businesses. University administrations can also become part of these networks. I know of university employees who supply various goods and services to different colleges and run businesses of their own. I am not against anyone having a business, but the question is, what is happening to their primary responsibility within the university? Are we doing justice to our educational institutions and to our commitment to education?

Are we doing justice to our students?

At the end, I would say that, as a nation, we have for decades collectively failed the dreams and aspirations of our youth.

The government lacks a coherent long-term vision for providing equitable access to higher education and dignified residential facilities. Society remains deeply divided along class, caste, religious, and other lines and, in many cases, also lacks both short-term and long-term vision for its children and families.

For a developing country like India, this is not merely a question of accommodation. It is a question of social justice, educational equality, institutional responsibility, and the future of our youth.

The Satya Niketan PG tragedy should, therefore, not be treated as another isolated accident or as an occasion for temporary administrative action. It should compel us to rethink the entire system of student accommodation around institutions of higher learning.

The question is not merely who is responsible for this particular tragedy. The larger question is, what kind of educational system are we building if students are compelled to risk their lives simply to pursue an education.

(Dr Sachidanand Sinha is a former professor of social geography and Associate Dean of Students, JNU and currently a Visiting Professor IHD. This is an opinion piece and the views expressed are the author's own. The Quint does not endorse or is responsible for them.)