The absurd idea to set up exclusive teaching universities

Karnataka has about 32 state universities, 14 deemed-to-be universities, 19 state private universities, one open university and another central university. In addition, there are 10 other central institutions such as the Indian Institute of Science and the National Institute of Mental Health and Neurosciences. Some months ago, the state legislature approved the establishment of four more universities, one each in Mandya and Raichur and two in Bengaluru. In March, it was reported that six more private universities, namely Vidyashilpa, Sri Jagadguru Murugarajendra, St Joseph’s, Atria New Horizon and Acharya Universities, are on the anvil. Because of the multiplicity of higher education institutions, Bengaluru is often named an education hub.

The National Education Policy-2020 (NEP-20), while dealing with restructuring and consolidation of higher education in the country, has recommended two types of universities for the future — one with equal focus on teaching and research (research universities) and the other with greater importance to teaching (teaching universities).

Notwithstanding the rationale and justification for the dichotomy of universities, is there any wisdom in ascribing the nomenclature ‘teaching universities’?

Traditionally, universities all over the world are envisaged as centres of higher learning and research. It appears these hallmarks were manifested even in our prehistoric universities of Takshashila (700-400 BCE) and Nalanda (500-1200 CE). For a long period now, the twin core activities of teaching and research have been the distinguishing features of many top-ranking global universities. In India, university research goes back to the beginning of the 20th century, with the first doctorate (a D.Sc.) of the country being awarded by the University of Allahabad in 1904. This university was founded in 1887 as the fourth oldest after the establishment of Bombay, Calcutta and Madras universities in 1857. The University of Calcutta awarded its first doctorate degree in 1909. Until 1920, there were only 13 doctorates in India — one from the University of Allahabad and 12 from the University of Calcutta.

University research progressed well in the pre-independence era with the pioneering research of C V Raman, Magnadh Saha, Vikram Sarabhai, J C Bose and Homi Bhabha among others. It was reported that in the 1930s, some of the top-ranking Indian scientists were treated on par with their best global counterparts. However, the scenario changed drastically after independence in view of the establishment of research conglomerates such as the Council of Scientific and Industrial Research, the Indian Council of Medical Research, the Indian Council of Agricultural Research and other domain-specific Statutory Apex Bodies. Consequently, there was a major shift in preferential funding of research to the National Institutes of Importance/Excellence. Perhaps, it is relevant to mention that Prof S Chandrashekar, Nobel Laureate in Physics and nephew of Nobel Laureate Prof C V Raman, during one of his visits to India had opined that it was amazing that Indian universities with bright young minds were getting lesser research funds than those organisations run by the government. He lamented that the situation was the other way round in the US.

In the late 1960s and early 1970s, the University Grants Commission (UGC) introduced a proposal to start Postgraduate Centres (PGs) as a prelude to establishing new universities. For instance, in consonance with this suggestion, such centres in Mangalore, Gulbarga and Tumkur were opened respectively by Mysore, Karnataka and Bangalore universities and were elevated later as universities on substantial consolidation of academic programmes for more than a decade. Secondly, in the 1990s, the UGC introduced the concept of autonomous degree colleges, some of which are now considered by the NEP-20 as potential institutions for upgrade as universities.

It must be conceded that in the absence of a milieu with many faculty and students from other states and countries, the majority of our universities have lost their university character. Virtually, they are local/regional teaching institutions erroneously called ‘universities’. Second, if the objective of the state government, regardless of the political party that runs it, is to provide greater opportunities to our people for postgraduation and as recommended by the UGC, one could think of starting postgraduate centres and autonomous PG colleges. Under a situation of severe financial crunch that the state is suffering from, such steps are certainly wiser and viable substitutes to starting ordinary teaching universities.

Institutions with only teaching as the major activity do not deserve the nomenclature of ‘universities’. It is rather absurd and ironical, if not whimsical and farcical, that establishments bereft of basic facilities even for quality teaching are glorified as universities. We certainly need to provide opportunities to our students for PG studies, but then such teaching regional ‘shops’ need not be named universities.

Ideally, a university should have a composite character in having faculties of Arts, Humanities, Law, Engineering, Medicine, etc. It is the interaction of these academic bodies that brings in vibrancy, diversity and novelty to various programmes of studies and research. Mono-faculty institutions, even with state-of-the-art infrastructure and competent faculty, do not literally qualify to be called universities. It is for this very reason that the NEP-20 is not in favour of continuing deemed-to-be universities in the country.

Karnataka presently has 65 institutions functioning in the guise of universities. Many of these, both young and old, are floundering because of inadequate infrastructure, faculty and finances for academic as well as co-scholastic activities. Recently established institutions like Janapada, Music and Sanskrit universities have not been able to fledge due to lack of funds, faculty and physical facilities. Our enlightened public, by and large, are a kind of silent spectators to political but totally illogical decisions to add new universities while the existing ones are languishing and dysfunctional.

Swami Vivekananda once said, “Society does not go down because of the activity of a few criminals but goes down because of the inactivity of intellectuals.” The way multiple bills providing for new universities are passed in the Legislative Assembly and Council with hardly any meaningful discussion reflects the apathy and non-involvement of our elected representatives. It is time that our state government recognised developed PG centres and autonomous colleges for the purpose of offering postgraduation. There is no necessity or justification for starting new universities only for teaching, and that too, on truncated subjects like hospitality, tourism, cyber security, criminology, sports, organic agriculture, etc. The issue involved cannot, and shall not, be entirely political. Notwithstanding what is stated in the acts of various universities, there is little or no justification for the existence of ‘exclusive teaching universities’.

(The write is former Vice-Chancellor, University of Mysore, and President, Forum of Former Vice-Chancellors of Karnataka, Bengaluru)