The manner of appointments to the top positions in acamedic institutions, irrespective of what is prescribed by law, suffers from several infirmities. The problems arise when the final arbiter, the HRD minister acts like a mere politician
The highest level advisory body in education — the Central Advisory Body of Education — has been recently reconstituted. Created in the pre-independence era by the British, it has 50 members nominated by the Union Minster for Human Resource Development who chairs the CABE. The Minister would normally be expected to nominate experts from amongst distinguished academics and educationists, or at least those who have some interest in education and its advancement. But, in times of politics-without-principles, such would be an utopian expectation. The latest reconstitution indicates that CABE, apart from the official members, shall have only those ‘who think alike’, are ideologically convenient and are ready to tow the political line. One of the luminaries nominated wrote a book on the builders of modern India, in which Sardar Patel was not included. None of the liberals or secularists protested. Take up any autonomous body created by the Union Ministry of Human Resource Development by a notification under the Societies Registration Act or through an Act of Parliament, and you will find that all key nominations are made by the Minister whose prime consideration is his party’s interest. The HRD Ministry, in such attempts, fumbles and stumbles repeatedly in appointing the heads of institutions. The entire country knows what is happening in the appointments of the chairman of University Grants Commission and the vice-chancellor of IGNOU. Had the Ministry acted in time, the names of those on the panel would not have been dragged in to avoidable media speculation. Practically everyone is talking of MPs from a particular community favouring one candidate and the corporate lobby putting its weight behind another. Why should senior academics, being considered for such prestigious assignment, be subjected to such publicity? Instead, their academic contribution and professional standing should have been discussed. The case of selecting a vicechancellor for the IGNOU is also passing through comic phases. The panel of names suggested by the search committee, which itself was constituted more than once, is rejected by the Minister on the ground that the university needs an expert in distance education as vice-chancellor. This is a deliberate late cut and people are bound to read behind the lines. One wonders why the desired level of urgency and commitment is not visible in the HRD Ministry in senior appointments. It has brilliant and competent officers. It is widely known that no search committee is constituted without the concurrence of the Minister concerned. The Ministry officials coordinating the process invariably communicates the preferences of the Minister, which then do get the due consideration of the search committee. In States, the picture is no different, with the local regimes calling the shots. It is clear from the above that the manner of appointments to the top positions in academic institutions, irrespective of what is prescribed in the ordinances and statutes suffers from several infirmities. The problems arise when the final arbiter, the HRD Minister, acts only as a mere politician, take care only of likings and disliking of his own bosses and of course, listens to the recommendations of the ideologically compatible. During the last couple of months of UPA1, the major topic of discussion amongst educators and scholars was the manner of the sanction of private and deemed universities. After the coming of the new HRD Minister, the Union Ministry of HRD was on a new voyage. What followed in the next month or so was a series of declarations, announcements and pronouncements that were being publicised practically on daily basis. Initially people were impressed; including yours truly. Most of these have been forgotten by now, for which the Minister has a readymade alibi: The Opposition is not cooperating and the State Governments are not doing their job. It is worthwhile to recall that, in an action taken in a tearing hurry, 44 deemed universities were declared ‘derecognised’. Another 44 were put on stern notice: ‘Improve within stipulated time or else face derecognition’. Initially it caused tremendous tension to the ‘owners’ and the staff members. Moreover, the students and their parents were put to mental trauma and avoidable tension. What next? The HRD Ministry has come with a gem of an announcement: Students from derecognised universities and colleges would be accommodated in the nearby recognised institutions. What a way to deal with a crisis!
No comments:
Post a Comment