The report of the National Knowledge Commission on higher education makes several important recommendations, and after due review they should be implemented in a mission mode for a much-needed revolution. The National Knowledge Commission's report on higher education is one in the series that started with the report of the Dr. Radhakrishnan Commission (1948). The learned reports have met with one common fate: they are often quoted but remain largely unimplemented. It is hoped that such of the recommendations of the NKC as are accepted will be implemented. Most of the recommendations here have already been made in the earlier reports. Strangely, the NKC does not refe r to any of them though it is stated that the earlier reports were consulted. Among the recommendations that have been reiterated, one that advocates 1.5 to 2 per cent of GDP for higher education, assuming a provision of 6 per cent for education, and the observation that "implicit politicisation has made governance of universities exceedingly difficult and much more susceptible to non-academic intervention from outside' (Page 51) are worth emphasising. We may consider the recommendations that are unique to this report. In order to increase the gross enrolment ratio to 15 per cent, the Commission suggests that India needs as many as 1,500 universities by 2015. This recommendation has met with strong disapproval from many quarters. It is a modest requirement for a country of India's size and, if implemented it would mean rectifying the following major deficiencies: 1. With 90 per cent of the undergraduate students and 66 per cent of the postgraduate students studying in affiliated colleges, we have today a system that is overwhelmed by affiliated colleges which are, in many cases, only marginally better than good higher secondary schools. 2. We have in the affiliated colleges 84 per cent of the total faculty in higher education, comprising only lecturers of different grades who do not, and are not expected to, pursue any research. Consequently, only the faculty members in the universities who constitute a mere 16 per cent of the total are expected to do research. In other words, the universities which are to be the prime centres of scholarship, and where there is an uninterrupted flow of young minds, play an insignificant role in generating a base for creating new knowledge and technologies. This is regrettable. While China published 72,632 research papers with citation in 2005, in India the number was 25,227. The progressive decline in Indian research can be seen from the fact that the corresponding figures in 1990 were 6,991 for China and 11,563 for India. The research potential of Indian universities is alarmingly poor. Professor C.N.R. Rao is reported to have said that "our universities have largely stopped doing research.' It is amazing that the situation does not seem to disturb our sleep. The urgent step that is needed to improve the health of higher education and research which is really anaemic is to increase the number of universities and transfer higher education from affiliated colleges to university campuses. The number of universities that has been suggested is not too large. Japan with a population of 12.7 crore has 726 universities; Germany with 8.2 crore has 350; the U.K. with 6.1 crore has 125; and the U.S. with a population of 30.4 crore is reported to have 2,466. China, according to the NKC, has authorised the creation of 1,250 new universities in the previous three years (Page 49). Having suggested a massive increase in the number of universities, the Commission has broadly outlined acceptable measures to achieve it, namely, the establishment of 50 national universities, the upgradation of deserving colleges into deemed universities, and the establishment of new universities by the Central and State governments and private providers. Role of private sector The role of the private sector in higher education has been stressed by the Commission in unambiguous terms. Consequent to the increase in demand and inadequate response on the part of governments, there has been in recent years a quiet but steady increase in private participation in general and professional education. The world is also witnessing a gradual transformation of higher education from public to private good. Against this development, the attitude of the political leadership in India towards private participation appears to be one of disapproval. But its unwillingness to prevent and inability to regulate, and in general an indifferent attitude, have led to the pervasive co-existence of the good and the bad. In view of the NKC recommendations, India must formulate a realistic policy for the regulated development of private institutions. The most controversial recommendation is under the section on regulation. The Commission recommends: "There is a clear need to establish an Independent Regulatory Authority for Higher Education (IRAHE). Such regulatory authority is both necessary and desirable' (Page 53). "The IRAHE would have to be established by an act of Parliament. It would be the only agency that would be authorised to accord degree granting power to higher education institutions. It would also be responsible for monitoring standards and settling disputes. It should also be thought of as the authority for licensing accreditation agencies' (Page 55). "The Chairperson and Members of the IRAHE would be appointed by the Prime Minster based on the recommendation of a Search Committee' (Page 55). The functions and powers of IRAHE indicate that it will take over most of the responsibilities of the UGC, and all the functions of the AICTE, the MCI and the BCI. This proposal is extraordinary: the academics and researchers are viscerally anti-regulatory and are prone to opt for self-regulation and peer review. However, the growing emphasis on accountability requires a balance between external and self-regulation. Consistent with this requirement, it is desirable that responsibility devolves on well established intermediate institutions rather than being concentrated in a single sovereign centre. The Commission in its defence says: "The other regulators, say in the sphere of professional education, are often inconsistent in their adherence to principles' (Page 54). One wonders whether such a thing may not happen with IRAHE in which all the powers of the autonomous bodies are to be vested. The chairman and members of IRAHE are nominees of the Prime Minister. The chairpersons of all the bodies