Not by the book The Bengal government’s recent Ordinance proposing amendment to rules of governance of 13 state-run universities needs a closer look, writes manas joardar

136 YEARS IN PRINT                                           4 December 2011

Not by the book

The Bengal government's recent Ordinance proposing amendment to rules of governance of 13 state-run universities needs a closer look, writes manas joardar

                                                                                     Promulgation of an Ordinance proposing amendment to some of the rules in relation to governance of 13 state-run universities of West Bengal has not been welcomed by many. Had the critics been confined to  the protagonists of the Left Front ~  displaced from power a few months ago ~ this could have been brushed away. But unfortunately, that is not the case and the amendments made, therefore, call for a closer look.
The Ordinance  has been introduced, presumably, with an intention to free higher education from the grip of all-round politicisation which has been widely accepted as a major cause of the downfall in the quality of higher education offered in Bengal. In an article written more than 20 years ago, renowned educationist Prof. Bhabatosh Datta, while pointing out that higher education in West Bengal "reached the lowest depths of turbid politics",  suggested "the ultimate solution lies in so changing the University Act as to eliminate the influence of local or national politics." 
Within a few years of it assuming power in 1977, the Left Front government legislated new Acts for West Bengal universities.  People took a little time to  make out that the  provisions  made in the Acts ~ ostensibly with the pious objective of "democratisation" of the university bodies ~  were, in fact, for establishing domination of the ruling political parties  only. 
In case of Calcutta University, the teachers' body, Calcutta University Teacher's Association, protested against the  pernicious provisions and organised, without success, a series of protracted agitational programmes. They alleged that the Calcutta University Act, 1979, among other things, encouraged concentration of too much power with the Vice-Chancellor, undermined the role of the university community (teachers, students, research scholars and non-teaching employees) by bringing in too many external elements on university bodies and empowering the government to interfere with all affairs of the university.  The Act provided for representation of students in Calcutta University's Senate and Syndicate, but they were forced to stay away from the bodies during most of their tenure of four years as they ceased to be members of the constituency they had been elected from after a year or so. 
 In the Ordinance passed recently, representation of assistant professors,  students (both under-graduate  and post-graduate), research scholars,  non-teaching employees of the university and members of society outside the university precincts has been either totally done away with or drastically downsized. This needs reconsideration keeping in mind a relevant observation of Kothari Commission on education (1964-66) on the matter: "It is recognised that the representation of lay elements on the various governing  bodies of the university is necessary and justified in view of the nature of relationship between the university and society. It would, however, be contrary to the principle of university autonomy if the lay or non-academic members in these bodies assume a dominating and controlling position." 
 The recent government Ordinance makes way for a larger representation of people from among those in superior  administrative positions. This again contradicts Kothari  Commission's recommendation: "It is necessary to ensure that universities do not become administration or administrator dominated… The dominance, if one is to use the word at all, must be of the academic element and the principal function of the administration is to serve the academic interest of the university."
In context of this "dominance", we may consider the composition of the Executive Council (Syndicate, in case of Calcutta University) of the affiliating universities. It  works, inter alia,  as the governing body for day-to-day functioning of the university community. For its  affiliated colleges, that is not the case. As per the Ordinance,  the Syndicate of Calcutta University  shall comprise 18 undergraduate teachers and nine post-graduate. Both UG and PG councils deserve autonomy to the same extent.
The  Ordinance  recommends appointment of Vice-Chancellors and Pro-Vice Chancellors from among  "the persons of the highest level of competence, integrity,  morals and institutional commitment".  If such a "distinguished academic with a minimum of 10 years of experience as Professor in a University system or 10 years of experience in an equivalent position in a reputed research or academic administrative organization"  who is  not connected or  " otherwise associated  with any political party" can be searched out, it  would be commendable. Loyalty to any political party will be a disqualification. Similar is the provision for removal of Vice Chancellors and Pro-Vice Chancellors from office by Chancellor. Offences include "incompetence to perform or has persistently made default in the performance of the duties imposed on him by or under this Act." Abuse of this clause for interests other than academic, cannot be ruled out.                                                                                                                                                                           
Addressing the matter of exclusion of students from the governing bodies of universities, Bengal's higher education minister reportedly said that the decision taken was particularly in consonance with the provisions adopted by Delhi University (DU) and  Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). In both these universities and many others, the provision exists for the post of Dean of Students' Welfare who can be a member of the highest university bodies. Besides, the academic councils of the two universities have a provision for student representation ~ five representatives in case of DU and seven for JNU.
Prior to the recent Ordinance, the power of appointment of university teachers rested with the Syndicate/Executive Council as in DU and JNU. This  has now been taken away and transferred to the Vice-Chancellor. This has put the composition of selection committee, role of departmental committee, faculty council and higher bodies in the matter of   choice of experts of  selection committee  under a  cloud. Besides concentration of power, the very important as also sensitive issue such as teacher selection will become largely non-transparent. This proposition is likely to draw flak from knowledgeable quarters and the Trinamul government's claim of doing  away with party-political hegemony  over university affairs may be called into question.

The writer, a former member of Senate and Syndicate, Calcutta University, is a retired teacher of Applied Physics.                                                   

Top of Form

---

--
Palash Biswas
Pl Read:
http://nandigramunited-banga.blogspot.com/