Why amend KSU Act?

In recent days, we have heard that the Karnataka government is planning to amend the KSU Act, ostensibly for greater control over its varsities and the authority to appoint faculty. The government already appoints Vice Chancellors, Registrars, and Registrar Evaluation, the three prime administrative roles. It nominates members of the governing bodies, such as the Syndicate, Executive Committee, or Board of Management. Therefore, enough powers and privileges already rest with the state government, yet there’s a push for more control. Only a few vice chancellors, with courage and integrity, resist political pressures. Therefore, it is puzzling why the government machinery seeks greater control over universities and higher education.

It is common knowledge that most state universities are already in bad shape. One fails to understand why an education minister should opt to preside over the further deterioration of these institutions. Instead, why not think of rejuvenating the state universities with a clear and focused vision to make them at least on par with the best premier institutions like the IITs, IISc, and good central universities? In the given situations, we cannot imagine elevating our universities to the level of globally acclaimed ones.

To justify the amendments, first the government should come out with a preamble defining the purpose, strategies, and expected outcome. Firstly, foreseen amendments should help the resurrection of already ailing universities, the closing down of unviable ones, the restructuring of some of them, or the start of new ones with specific focuses. For instance, if a women’s university offers women-centric courses rather than traditional ones already available in other institutions, it can make women easily employable or entrepreneurs. Secondly, certain universities (for language, music, folklore, etc.) started in the past need introspection for their academic usefulness and outcome. Thirdly, future amendments should serve to facilitate the recruitment of worthy faculty and the avoidance of inbreeding. Fourthly, a larger objective of education should be to promote i) cross-cultural hybridization by admitting students on a pan-India basis, ii) nationalism, and iii) societal harmony. Amendments make sense only when they meet such objectives.

Ideally, the government should commission a white paper on ‘why and how’ our once-good universities have progressively deteriorated rather than reaching zenith and academic excellence and suggest corrective measures needed to raise the status of each university in the state. Such a paper, prepared meticulously based on harsh realities and in consultation with stakeholders, can become an evocative and guiding philosophy for uplifting quality higher education.

A vision document as outlined above can serve as a game changer and enable amendments of great significance, lest it be a futile exercise. Tampering the existing Act with myopic vision will serve no useful purpose. Framing rules should lead to their implementation to forestall chaos. For example, unbridled encroachment of roadsides by street hawkers and the use of pavements for vehicle parking are glaringly visible, and they horrifyingly force pedestrians, including children, the elderly, and physically challenged persons, to mingle with all-time unruly vehicular traffic and risk their lives. It is the result of callous disregard for the implementation of rules by the concerned district administration. Incidentally, any government capable of freeing roadsides for the rightful use of pedestrians can potentially become immortal by winning citizens’ appreciation.

Briefly, cosmetic changes in the KSU Act (or scrapping NEP-2020 totally) to have undue control over the education sector may serve political interest in the short term but are sure to create a quagmire that may haunt the state for a long time. Hedging the essence of the new education policy will be a misstep and an injustice to the people of Karnataka. Instead, the policy can be refined to include novel elements. Amending the KSU Act or belittling the NEP-2020 purely on political considerations will be of no avail. Besides, there is a difference between exaggerating faults and being misleading.

A meaningful revamp of the whole education system is unavoidable in the light of unfailingly technology-driven disruption of jobs, especially after IR 4.0 and ever-growing global pressures. Political conveniences serve political ends. Academic concerns and steps to ensure the security of future generations depend on the quality of higher education, which calls for institutional autonomy and accountability. Without first giving freedom and flexibility, people and institutions will only remain unaccountable. It makes sense for the government to remain a facilitator and not a controller of the education system. Is the state government willing to take control and remain accountable instead of leaving these to academicians?

(The writer is a former VC and Founder Director of Karnataka State Higher
Education Academy, Dharwad)