Varsities are only losers in political feuds

Universities in Karnataka remained without vice-chancellors for quite some time around 2017 because the governor would not accept govt recommendations

Prof Furqan Qamar

Caught in the crossfire between the governor and the government, universities are invariably the worst sufferer. They get trampled, left and right, by the forces of the feuding factions and are left in the cold with no one to their rescue.

The ongoing tussle over the appointment, continuation and functioning of vice-chancellors in Kerala may be the ugliest, but in no way the first. Way back in 2017, universities in Karnataka remained without vice-chancellors, the principal academic and administrative officers, because the governor would not accept the recommendations of the government.

Universities in Punjab, West Bengal and Tamil Nadu, Maharashtra and Telangana too are victims of such tussles. These states have now been trying to amend legislation governing universities under their jurisdiction to curtail the powers of the governors as far as the appointment of vice-chancellors.

Many of them have passed the legislation but are not getting the assent of the very position whose power they seek to curb. In the past, however, some other states have succeeded in vesting the power of the appointment of the vice-chancellor to the political executive.

Also read | Guvs-vs-Govts: Campuses caught in crossfire

In the process, universities are left with no friends and are getting orphaned. Their chancellors who were supposed to protect them from the political onslaught or apathy and act as their friends, philosophers and guides, have been turning into their foes.

The idea of making governors ex-officio chancellors of the universities under their jurisdiction had emanated out of the belief that being the constitutional head of the state, they would safeguard their interests and protect their autonomy better than the political executives.

It was believed that they would shield universities from external interference and insulate them from political pressures. It was also hoped that they would use their good office to further the cause of higher education.

The idea rested on the premise that governors would be apolitical and act independently. Not being a part of the union executive, they would be able to uphold the independence of the constitutional office they hold. Such independence would be further reinforced by the fact that they neither serve the union government nor would be subordinate to it.

Alas! The actual outcomes have generally been far removed from the intended ones. In the contemporary context, these premises and presumptions appear to have been rendered quite utopian. Increasingly, these positions are getting occupied by people who belong to a particular ideology and political dispensation, and owe their allegiance to a specific thought and predisposition. Expecting them to rise above their party, politics and affiliations would become rarer.

Sadly, the solution to the problem does not lie in vesting the affairs of universities in the political executives. They have their compulsions and have come to be better known for their propensity to undermine university autonomy.

In tandem with bureaucracy, they tend to treat universities as subordinate departments of the government. Generous ones may allow them to function as departmental undertakings. They both bind universities in a myriad of processes, procedures and compliance eroding their autonomy.

In contrast, probably to appear politically correct across the world, the Acts and Statutes of universities provide for, insist and demand that universities must function with a fairly high degree of autonomy.

Further, most of the university Acts and Statutes make it incumbent upon the vice-chancellors to make sure that the Acts and Statutes of their universities are strictly adhered to. Accordingly, they are empowered to act in the best interests of their universities.

Even though many of their powers and privileges have gradually been circumscribed by regulations, guidelines, and notifications issued by external agencies, the academically sound, administratively astute and morally upright vice-chancellors could refuse to surrender to the whims and fancies of their bosses.

The growing instances of scrimmages are scarcely about protecting the autonomy or improving the working and performance of universities. Few of the fighting feuds seem bothered or concerned about merit.

The punches are all about putting in place people who are pliable enough to promote a particular political agenda. This is not to mention anything about the vested interests and various types of corruption that are said to be creeping into the system.

This is proven by the fact that no one is raising any question about blatant violations in the appointment of vice-chancellors in the states where the political executive and gubernatorial incumbents are birds of the same feathers.

So far, we have experimented with many methods and procedures for appointing vice-chancellors in the country. None have, however, proven better than the other. The probability of finding and appointing a good vice chancellor is almost uniform across all the methods. Most worryingly, with time, each of these methods is getting more skewed in favour of the worst.

There was a time when an empowered search committee would come up with names of three or five names, who they thought were eminent enough to be appointed as vice-chancellors and the chancellor would pick one of them.

The system was often criticised for the lack of transparency and being opaque on the count of qualification and experience etc. The procedure was changed.

Vacancies are advertised. People are required to apply and must fulfill certain eligibility conditions in terms of qualifications and experience. In many cases, the search-cum-selection committee must have a representative of the University Grants Commission (UGC).

Alas, the probability of a better person getting appointed as vice chancellor has not increased significantly, to say the least. After all, any system is only as good as the people who form it. Abuse of power, compromises on ethics and integrity and degeneration in the moral fabric are all human traits and follies. Aberrations caused by them could never be corrected by a change in the procedure.

(The writer is a former Adviser (Education) in the Planning Commission. He has served as Vice Chancellor of the University of Rajasthan and the Central University of Himachal Pradesh and also as Secretary General of the Association of Indian Universities. He is now a Professor of Management at Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi. Views expressed are personal)