The government decision to appoint board of governors at 26 colleges where four-year degree courses would be started has prompted a large body of teachers and students to raise their voice against the move. The protests took an ugly turn at the Punjab Assembly on December 8 when the police used violent means to suppress them, The BoGs, according to the unaddressed apprehensions of these protestors, were only the first step towards privatisation, which has, in the past, invariably gone against the interests of the ordinary citizen, if for nothing else at least for the ever escalating fee structure of private educational institutions. They point to a number of reputable colleges, privatised some time back, that soon afterwards went out of the reach of the common man, depriving his wards of the already scarce quality education available in the country. Once privatised, the educational institutions are free to produce and manage their own financial resources, and the poor are, quite obviously, left out of the loop. However, quite a few academicians would favour the four-year degree courses, proffering the argument that on completing these courses the graduates would have easier access to foreign institutions of learning and that they would not stand in need of doing their graduation from those universities before taking up higher studies. But they miss the concern of the ordinary person: the cost of education. Already, it is being pointed out that by the affected persons that if, on an average, a two-year course used to cost a student Rs2000 to 2500 per year, a four-year course now requires Rs6000 to Rs9000 per year, where the new system has been introduced. Simply increasing the number of years does not provide any justification for raising the yearly fee. Whether by design or sheer ignorance, the rulers are proceeding ahead with the implementation of the proposal to have BoGs in the 26 selected colleges, mindless of the fact that it would, inevitably, result in the creation of two permanently distinct classes of people: One that has the means to foot the bill of costlier education, well versed in modern education; and the other that finds it hard to make both ends meet, semi-literate. Ultimately, the first hailing from the rich would constitute the ruling classes, and the second from the poor serve in lower positions, producing the antithesis of democracy. Looking at history, we observe that the nations, which have developed their human resource to become prosperous did not leave this vital responsibility to the private sector. It has been the concern of the state not only to provide it to the rich, but also to the poor. Our government should not shun this obligation and deliver it in a manner that produces quality human beings through quality education.