Backpage

IF substantial sections of the scholarly community today reflect deep disappointment with the UPA regime, the reasons are not difficult to fathom. Following the disconcerting phase of NDA rule, reflecting greater obsession with weeding away the ‘unhealthy’ influences of secularism and westernization rather than on the much needed reforms in India’s ailing and moribund higher education system, the expectations from a Manmohan Singh led government, arguably the country’s most educated politician, were high. And when he chose Kapil Sibal, a highly regarded lawyer with a modern mindset, the augury seemed propitious. Finally, many felt, we would witness not just greater investment into higher education and research but also a rehauling of our archaic systems of governance, enabling autonomy and experimentation with course content, pedagogy, faculty hiring and so on.

UPA-1 started promisingly with the setting up of a National Knowledge Commission and a range of proposed legislation to rework the systems of control and oversight, institute new accreditation measures, engender competition by seeking involvement of private providers, including foreign universities, among others. And while many of the proposals appeared controversial, seemingly too radical for a strata more concerned with protecting its turf than accountability, the overall mood was positive – the desire for change was stronger than the fear of an altered, somewhat unsettling, environment.

Just why the process of reform became mired in controversy and more or less ground to a halt requires a deeper look. Possibly the leadership in the ministry underestimated the power of entrenched lobbies and mindsets. More likely, it just did not invest sufficient political capital and time to bring on board the different stakeholders, particularly teacher and student unions. Convinced of the worthwhileness of its proposals, the ministry treated all different and dissenting imaginations as something to be brushed aside and overcome, not engaged and reasoned with.

An early signal was the resignation of important members from the National Knowledge Commission, upset at not even being consulted before the decision to extend reservations to the OBCs in higher education. Soon thereafter, each of the proposed legislations for reforming the higher education sector got stuck at different stages in Parliament. The mere fact that none of them even reached the stage of being voted upon is sufficient indication of the ministry’s inability to ‘win friends and influence people’. More likely, faced with other challenges, the UPA leadership lost interest as also the stomach to argue its case for systemic reform.

In a phase where higher education and research, not just in the country but globally, is undergoing deep transformation, an absence of leadership and will represents a significant setback. Alongside missing out on an opportunity, the ministry relapsed into its well-settled ways of fixing appointments, rewarding loyalists and weeding out all those seen as dissidents, in effect strengthening a debilitating patronage network. True, this phase did see a substantial increase in budgetary outlays and a flurry of announcements about the setting up of new institutions. But, in the absence of serious debate about design and procedures, many of these initiatives failed to register progress. Worse, the unhealthy practice of partisan patronage further alienated an already embittered scholarly community.

Possibly nothing captures the disturbing state of affairs better than the situation in Delhi University. The ongoing imbroglio over the shift from a three year bachelor’s programme to a four year course, despite sustained opposition from a substantial section of teachers and students, has ramifications beyond the term of the current leadership. Many of the best teachers/ researchers in the university are depressed and angry, upset that their views receive no consideration. Worse, departments seen as ‘not endorsing’ the present Vice Chancellor’s pet programme of bringing Delhi University in line with his understanding of ‘best global practices’ are experiencing systematic discrimination. Many departments face serious shortages of faculty despite availability of sanctioned posts. In some, appointments of questionable merit have been made, bypassing procedures and without consulting faculty.

The Vice Chancellor and his team may well be pleased that they have managed to ‘break the back’ of the opposition and stamp their authority. What they do not realize, or maybe it does not matter to them, that what they will leave behind is a scarred and bitter landscape. Soon, what was once India’s leading university may reach a stage from which recovery may be impossible. And now with moves afoot to reward the insitu Vice Chancellor with a second term by altering the university’s statutes, the signal is clear. Both Delhi University, and our higher education sector, are in for difficult times.

Harsh Sethi