Reform in varsity administration crucial

Karnataka’s proposal to amend the Karnataka State Universities (KSU) Act to replace the Governor with the Chief Minister as the chancellor of universities has sparked a heated debate in political and academic circles. According to Higher Education Minister M C Sudhakar, the government seeks to adopt the Gujarat model where the role of the Governor is largely ceremonial, limited to attending convocations. If the amendment is passed, the state government will assume control over appointing vice-chancellors and members of academic bodies, centralising university governance under the chief minister. Historically, the Governor’s responsibility as chancellor, was created to ensure university autonomy. Governors, as impartial figures, were supposed to shield higher education institutions from political interference and safeguard academic integrity. However, the growing politicisation of gubernatorial appointments has raised doubts about the neutrality of chancellors. In recent years, non-BJP-led states have increasingly questioned the Governor’s role in university administration. As appointees of the central government, the role of Governors in university affairs is often perceived as a tool to further the ruling party’s political agenda. In response, the state governments have pushed for reforms to curtail the Governor’s influence and restore control to locally elected leaders.

The proposed amendment in Karnataka has its own merits and demerits. One of the significant advantages is the potential for greater accountability and responsiveness to local needs. The Chief Minister, as an elected leader, is more directly answerable to the people of the state and can be held accountable for decisions related to higher education. However, critics argue that concentrating too much power in the hands of the Chief Minister could compromise the independence of universities, making them susceptible to political pressures. This politicisation could undermine the role of universities as spaces for intellectual debate and dissent. If key academic positions, such as VCs, are filled based on political loyalty rather than merit, the quality of education and the credibility of universities could be jeopardised.

While the amendment has the potential to bring about a more responsive and regionally focussed governance, the concern over politicisation of higher education remains a major worry. This calls for comprehensive reforms in university administration that goes beyond the appointment of VCs. The ideal solution lies in striking a balance between efficient governance and the autonomy of academic institutions. Whether Karnataka’s proposed reform achieves this balance remains to be seen, but the debate underscores the urgent need for a more transparent, independent, and accountable approach to university governance.