Backpage

A shift from a Congress-led to a BJP-led regime almost invariably raises fears about a saffron assault on institutions of education and culture. Even if overplayed, the fear is not without basis, and not merely because ‘correcting’ the western and secular bias constitutes the core of the BJPs ideological worldview. More important is the fact that unlike in other domains, the BJP, historically, has displayed a greater purposiveness in the pursuit of its cultural agenda.

Expectedly, the most intense battles have been over the content and direction of school education, with forays into higher education usually limited to seeking control over institutions such as the Indian Council of Historical Research, the Indian Institute of Advanced Study, and so on, by influencing the funding and staffing pattern of these bodies. Interventions in ‘non-cultural’ institutions are less common, likely because there is greater ideological congruence across political parties about the role of these institutions. Possibly this is why the first high profile intervention by the HRD ministry – overturning the four year undergraduate programme (FYUP) in Delhi University – came as a surprise.

The FYUP, a pet project of the vice-chancellor, had invited strong criticism and opposition by significant sections of the university community from the moment the proposal had been advanced. Even those who felt that the undergraduate programmes in Delhi University are too rigid and dated and require radical overhaul were skeptical about the FYUP – the objections included a mix of pedagogic, administrative and procedural considerations. To a university still adjusting to the introduction of a semester system at the UG level, such a radical intervention many felt, could be fatal. And so, while the university did succeed in pushing through the FYUP, with more than a little help from the HRD ministry, opposition continued. The BJP, in its election manifesto, had promised to roll back this initiative.

Nevertheless, both the speed and the manner in which the roll back was carried out, raises deep fears how the new dispensation proposes to deal with autonomous institutions. The turnaround by the University Grants Commission, which incidentally had not only granted approval to the FYUP but had actually praised the programme and the university leadership for a visionary step, reversed its stand and questioned the procedural legality of the programme was shocking. Rarely has one witnessed such a spineless display of obsequiousness in an effort to curry favour with the political leadership. And while the HRD ministry did not ‘formally’ intervene in the matter – self-righteously asserting that both the university and the UGC are autonomous – preferences were never secret.

Both the manner in which the FYUP was first introduced or rather rammed through in Delhi University and the manner in which its withdrawal was orchestrated is cause for concern. If the introduction of the FYUP constituted a disturbing example of institutional capture, its withdrawal on flimsy, procedural grounds only revealed our cavalier attitude towards institutional autonomy. The most disturbing aspect of this sordid mess is that no one – not the university administration, the regulator, nor the ministry – inspires any confidence. The ease with which those tasked with reforming and strengthening our educational systems are complicit in undermining established conventions and procedures cannot augur well.

Not only has all this left one of India’s premier institutions in a state of disarray, with hundreds of students and teachers uncertain about their fate, the questioning by the UGC of all four year undergraduate programmes has wider ramifications. What, for instance, should Ambedkar University (set-up by the Delhi Government), the Shiv Nadar University, or even the Indian Institute of Science – all of whom, among others, have a four year programme – now do? Unlike in Delhi University, many of these programmes were well planned and implemented after ensuring widespread buy-in. Should their efforts at innovation be stymied only because the UGC, without application of mind, hastily decided that all undergraduate programmes not conforming to the 10+2+3 pattern were suspect? It does appear that in accommodating the political concerns of the new dispensation, the UGC has not only undermined its own claim to autonomy but significantly damaged prospects for future reform.

At a time when there is talk of setting up scores of new institutions of higher education in both the public and private sectors, a dismissive attitude towards pedagogic and procedural concerns can hardly inspire confidence. One only hopes that the new HRD minister does not repeat the mistaken of her predecessors.

Harsh Sethi