<p>Karnataka Higher Education Minister Basavaraj Rayareddi lamented recently that the “chairs” for special studies in the universities were in the “grip of caste interests,” that they served no useful purpose and that “even the educated demand a ‘peetha’ (chair) for every caste.” <br />The minister hastened to trace the pernicious casteist demand to the political system and religious mutts. He thus discounted the assumption that casteist decisions, corruption, appointment or nomination of the ineligible was “unavoidable” in politics and not in the universities. Previous to this, he had spoken of the “misappropriation of hundreds of crores of rupees in the universities.”<br /><br />Sometime ago, Governor Vajubhai Vala, acting as chancellor, had cried a halt to the unacademic decisions of vice chancellors to award honorary doctorates to the undeserving. Following persuasive charges of irregularities and nepotism, he had barred university recruitments six months prior to the end of term of the vice chancellor’s office. He followed this up by ordering an enquiry into charges of corruption in the construction of buildings and in the purchases in the universities. <br /><br />These embarrassing decisions pointing at the vice chancellors were applauded within the universities although they were inimical to university autonomy. The misdeeds of a few have knocked out the moral confidence of the many who are unable to defend academic and administrative autonomy. <br /><br />These ‘others’ would have facilitated and inspired achievements in research and publications breaking new grounds of knowledge, produced students of national and international calibre, and shared knowledge and innovative technology for the benefit of the people and Karnataka’s economy. Such a leadership would have motivated freedom of inquiry, freedom of discussion and freedom of teaching while inspiring generations of students to think and articulate. <br /><br />Incidentally, such an intellectual environment would prompt scholars to celebrate the constitutional values that have sustained India’s multi-faith, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic culture and civilisation. With some honourable exceptions, academics have preferred silence to being public intellectuals. <br /><br />More immediately, the government’s proposal to set up a centralised recruitment committee — intended to prevent scams in recruitment — needs serious discussion amongst teachers on its implications for autonomy. One fears that such centralising tendency might lead to a common admission, common syllabus and disciplinary inter-university transfers adversely impacting creativity and diversity. <br /><br />I was shocked to hear recently that a top bureaucrat from the higher education department had asked for video versions of class room lectures in colleges be sent to him, presumably to assess their quality. Who will assess them and with what consequence? Cannot colleges and universities rate their own performance? <br /><br />‘Academic freedom,’ which is an element of autonomy, is not defined by any law in India. In the UK, for example, university community relies mainly on tradition and autonomy to safeguard academic freedom. Only recently, the Education Reform Act 1988 directed university managements “to ensure that academic staffs have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges.” Significantly, the fact that the majority of the UK universities are state-financed just does not allow the state to compromise on academic freedom, as happens Karnataka.<br /><br />The problems mentioned above can be traced to a deficit of academic and moral endowments of the top leadership — the vice chancellors. High academic attainment and integrity ensure moral authority. The vice chancellors should be compelling role models for teachers and students. The Oxford University that I was familiar with in UK expected the vice chancellor to demonstrate a deep personal commitment to the power of education to transform society, integrity, fairness, equality and diversity.<br /><br />We only need to recall some names of the last five or six decades to understand the high potential of our universities K V Puttappa (Kuvempu), K N Panikkar, K L Shrimali, D C Pavate, D M Nanjundappa, Sudha Rao etc. None of them was selected on the basis of his/her caste or political contacts. They commanded respect in society. Conversely, the political leadership of those days was qualitatively of a high order that respected teachers and writers. <br /><br />Bright spots<br />Fortunately, there have been bright spots too. At the Indian science Congress organised as part of Mysore University’s centenary not long ago, the special talks by eminent scholars from across the world were very impressive. Also, a couple of historians and several Kannada and English teachers and researchers have made seminal contribution to the world of knowledge including to Karnataka’s culture and society.<br /><br />What has been problematic is that there are no clear-cut regulations on the criteria for appointment of vice chancellors either in the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations of 2013 or in the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. The Act provides for a search committee of four nominees. It has to send to the government a panel of three names “who are eminent academicians.” <br /><br />The government, in turn, sends the panel to the chancellor “who shall, keeping in view merit, equity and social justice, and with the concurrence of the state government, appoints one person from the panel as the Vice-Chancellor.” But how does a search committee identify an eminent academician? <br /><br />Govardhan Mehta, professor at the Indian Institute of Science and an eminent academician who served on search committees, has rightly said that these committees are themselves not accountable for their recommendations. In his words: “The most important criterion in selection should be the academic standing of the individual in his or her domain.” Will the government think about it?</p>.<p><br />There is an urgent need to reconsider the entire process of appointment of vice chancellors focussing on intellectual credibility and integrity. It requires the political powers that be to refrain from interfering in university affairs in the appointment of the vice chancellor, and to nominate only those “from amongst eminent educationists” to the most powerful body in the university — the syndicate. If governments are cavalier with nominations, the chancellor would do well to step in. <br /><br />(The writer is former minister and Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council)</p>
<p>Karnataka Higher Education Minister Basavaraj Rayareddi lamented recently that the “chairs” for special studies in the universities were in the “grip of caste interests,” that they served no useful purpose and that “even the educated demand a ‘peetha’ (chair) for every caste.” <br />The minister hastened to trace the pernicious casteist demand to the political system and religious mutts. He thus discounted the assumption that casteist decisions, corruption, appointment or nomination of the ineligible was “unavoidable” in politics and not in the universities. Previous to this, he had spoken of the “misappropriation of hundreds of crores of rupees in the universities.”<br /><br />Sometime ago, Governor Vajubhai Vala, acting as chancellor, had cried a halt to the unacademic decisions of vice chancellors to award honorary doctorates to the undeserving. Following persuasive charges of irregularities and nepotism, he had barred university recruitments six months prior to the end of term of the vice chancellor’s office. He followed this up by ordering an enquiry into charges of corruption in the construction of buildings and in the purchases in the universities. <br /><br />These embarrassing decisions pointing at the vice chancellors were applauded within the universities although they were inimical to university autonomy. The misdeeds of a few have knocked out the moral confidence of the many who are unable to defend academic and administrative autonomy. <br /><br />These ‘others’ would have facilitated and inspired achievements in research and publications breaking new grounds of knowledge, produced students of national and international calibre, and shared knowledge and innovative technology for the benefit of the people and Karnataka’s economy. Such a leadership would have motivated freedom of inquiry, freedom of discussion and freedom of teaching while inspiring generations of students to think and articulate. <br /><br />Incidentally, such an intellectual environment would prompt scholars to celebrate the constitutional values that have sustained India’s multi-faith, multi-ethnic, multi-linguistic culture and civilisation. With some honourable exceptions, academics have preferred silence to being public intellectuals. <br /><br />More immediately, the government’s proposal to set up a centralised recruitment committee — intended to prevent scams in recruitment — needs serious discussion amongst teachers on its implications for autonomy. One fears that such centralising tendency might lead to a common admission, common syllabus and disciplinary inter-university transfers adversely impacting creativity and diversity. <br /><br />I was shocked to hear recently that a top bureaucrat from the higher education department had asked for video versions of class room lectures in colleges be sent to him, presumably to assess their quality. Who will assess them and with what consequence? Cannot colleges and universities rate their own performance? <br /><br />‘Academic freedom,’ which is an element of autonomy, is not defined by any law in India. In the UK, for example, university community relies mainly on tradition and autonomy to safeguard academic freedom. Only recently, the Education Reform Act 1988 directed university managements “to ensure that academic staffs have freedom within the law to question and test received wisdom, and to put forward new ideas and controversial or unpopular opinions, without placing themselves in jeopardy of losing their jobs or privileges.” Significantly, the fact that the majority of the UK universities are state-financed just does not allow the state to compromise on academic freedom, as happens Karnataka.<br /><br />The problems mentioned above can be traced to a deficit of academic and moral endowments of the top leadership — the vice chancellors. High academic attainment and integrity ensure moral authority. The vice chancellors should be compelling role models for teachers and students. The Oxford University that I was familiar with in UK expected the vice chancellor to demonstrate a deep personal commitment to the power of education to transform society, integrity, fairness, equality and diversity.<br /><br />We only need to recall some names of the last five or six decades to understand the high potential of our universities K V Puttappa (Kuvempu), K N Panikkar, K L Shrimali, D C Pavate, D M Nanjundappa, Sudha Rao etc. None of them was selected on the basis of his/her caste or political contacts. They commanded respect in society. Conversely, the political leadership of those days was qualitatively of a high order that respected teachers and writers. <br /><br />Bright spots<br />Fortunately, there have been bright spots too. At the Indian science Congress organised as part of Mysore University’s centenary not long ago, the special talks by eminent scholars from across the world were very impressive. Also, a couple of historians and several Kannada and English teachers and researchers have made seminal contribution to the world of knowledge including to Karnataka’s culture and society.<br /><br />What has been problematic is that there are no clear-cut regulations on the criteria for appointment of vice chancellors either in the University Grants Commission (UGC) regulations of 2013 or in the Karnataka State Universities Act, 2000. The Act provides for a search committee of four nominees. It has to send to the government a panel of three names “who are eminent academicians.” <br /><br />The government, in turn, sends the panel to the chancellor “who shall, keeping in view merit, equity and social justice, and with the concurrence of the state government, appoints one person from the panel as the Vice-Chancellor.” But how does a search committee identify an eminent academician? <br /><br />Govardhan Mehta, professor at the Indian Institute of Science and an eminent academician who served on search committees, has rightly said that these committees are themselves not accountable for their recommendations. In his words: “The most important criterion in selection should be the academic standing of the individual in his or her domain.” Will the government think about it?</p>.<p><br />There is an urgent need to reconsider the entire process of appointment of vice chancellors focussing on intellectual credibility and integrity. It requires the political powers that be to refrain from interfering in university affairs in the appointment of the vice chancellor, and to nominate only those “from amongst eminent educationists” to the most powerful body in the university — the syndicate. If governments are cavalier with nominations, the chancellor would do well to step in. <br /><br />(The writer is former minister and Chairman, Karnataka Legislative Council)</p>
