JOIN USStandards, not attire
In the Indian context, convocations are annual graduation ceremonies of universities to award degrees and diplomas to eligible students. These formal but solemn functions have been traditionally governed by certain protocols and procedures. One of them is the silent procession to the dais (led by a mace bearer) of the chancellor, vice chancellor, chief guest, members of executive and academic councils and the deans of faculties — all donning differently coloured ceremonial gowns with hoods having tassels. The candidates admitted to the convocation are advised to comply with the dress code, generally white in colour.
Recently, the University Grants Commission (UGC) has constituted a committee to finalise a set of ‘Indian’ attires for universities to choose from for their convocations. The idea is to drop the colonial legacy and instead ‘Indianise’ the ceremonial robes. Sometime back, it was reported that Jairam Ramesh, the then minister for environment in the UPA government, threw away the ceremonial robe at a convocation of the Wildlife Institute of India, Dehradun. It appeared that the minister felt strongly that the attire adopted by the institute symbolised the relic of colonial rule and hence he treated it with contempt.
After Independence, we have renamed states, cities, towns, roads, parks, museums, railway stations, airports, hospitals and a large number of other public utilities dating back from the colonial years. At the same time, we have also retained the dress codes of doctors, nurses, judges, lawyers, police, defence personnel, paramilitary forces and even for school students.
In a democratic set up, we are certainly free either to retain or reject, or to replace from time to time, many ‘norms’ that govern us. But, to insist that anything ‘foreign’ has to be abandoned, is a classic example of sheer absurdity and hypocrisy. Have we discarded electricity, the television, telephone, radio, internet and other user-friendly technologies just because they came from other countries?
Universities, as autonomous bodies, are free to adopt a particular attire for convocations, but we must be more rational and less sentimental about these practices. Any pseudo-patriotism has to be given up.
The real issue here is not Indian or foreign design, but one of propriety, dignity and decorum in a traditional and very formal event.
On the other hand, consider how much thought goes into the issue of awarding honorary degrees. A honorary degree (in Latin, honoris causa, implying ‘for the sake of honour’) is purely an academic award conferred on a person in recognition of distinguished contribution in any field. The authority to confer degrees is one of the privileges of universities across the world. Section 69 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000, stipulated that honorary degrees may be awarded only in exceptional cases.
Of late, the authority to award honorary degrees has been wantonly abused by many Indian universities, or more precisely, by their vice chancellors. The selection of prospective awardees is arbitrary and is often based on considerations other than one’s contributions. The anxiety of vice chancellors to garner political favour and personal gain has risen to such an extent that in the case of a few universities in Karnataka, the number of honorary awards at a given convocation went up to nearly a dozen!
What is amusing is that a few new universities that are yet to establish their own credibility as institutions of higher learning and research also resorted to bestowing such honorary degrees, only to earn political and/or academic patronage. In one instance that I am aware of, the governor, who is also the chancellor, summarily rejected the proposal mainly because the university concerned itself did not have the stature to confer such degrees. The governor’s action seemed justifiable in view of the fact that in such a lacklustre academic milieu, it does not enhance the prestige and honour of either the donor or the recipient.
These unhealthy and ridiculous practices compelled state authorities to suggest a committee of academics to identify “not more than three” candidates at a time prior to forwarding the recommendations to the chancellor through the University Syndicate. I believe, currently the procedure is more centralised, with the governor’s office itself determining the composition of the said committee.
Abuse of autonomy
What was once a laudable convention to acknowledge outstanding contributions of people that have had profound impact (an ethos that even the Nobel Committee adopts) in a particular field is being abused only to promote the vested interests of a VC, there being no benefit whatsoever to the university by the dubious generosity. In fact, the way honorary degrees are ‘distributed’ is one of the glaring examples of gross abuse of autonomy and authority.
Honorary degrees are not meant to form part of the recipient’s educational profile and their usage of ‘Dr’ before their names should be avoided. Like the Padma awards, these awards are supposed to be free from monetary benefits and politics and are only meant to serve as recognition of one’s contributions to society at large. Certainly, these awards are not to be reckoned as titles either to be prefixed or suffixed to names.
Given the fact that there exist so many domain-specific civilian awards (Phalke, Bhatnagar, BC Ray, Norman Borlaug, Padma, Jnanapeeth, Khel Ratna, Visveswaraya, CV Raman to name a few), the issue is how the benchmarks for the award of honorary degrees by a reputed university should be different from those generally applied by other organisations.
People who have made monumental contributions in an area falling under the faculties of a university should be preferably considered for conferring. D.Litt, D.Sc, and LL.D degrees. The university as well as the recipient must have proven track record of accomplishments and acclaimed credentials. Only such lofty traditions will restore the credibility of honorary degrees, and of universities themselves.