Pathan Committee Report: Undermining the Idea of a University

En Route to Further Centralisation

Thirty-nine central universities are regulated by 24 Acts passed by the parliament. Ideal decentralisation in the realm of higher education would aim at protecting sui generis aspects of all central universities and serve as a counter current to centralisation tendencies. As opposed to this, the PCR proposes to repeal all 24 Parliament Acts ³ replacing these by one single act for all central universities (Clause 122 (1); Schedule I). To minimise the impact of single act, the PCR suggests the additional objects to the existing specified central universities (Clause 7; Schedule III). This Bill represents absolute centralisation of central universities which has no parallel in the academic realms anywhere in the world. It not only destroys the autonomy of a university ⁴ while rendering the additional objects ineffectual which are an attempt to protect the sui generis aspects of specific universities but also paves the way, in case of non-opposition, to have a common act ‘for all’.

This process of centralisation is further reinforced through centralisation of administrative decision. As of now, the tripartite division of power between the vice chancellor, Executive Council and Academic Council represents massive centralisation for Indian universities. Furthermore, the PCR suggests the establishment of Vice Chancellor’s Council (Clause 62(1)). The human resource development (HRD) minister is the chairperson of this council (Clause 62 (2(a))). The council is mandated to coordinate all activities of central universities (Clause 67(1)), advise policy related to academic matters (Clause 67 (2)(a)), synchronise academic calendar (Clause 67(2)(b)), recruit and exchange faculty members (Clause 67(2)(c)), exchange faculty members particularly to Northeastern region or backward areas (Clause 67(2)(f)), maintain transparency in appointments (Clause 68(a)) and achieve higher academic standard (Clause 68(b)). These are clear indications of imposition of ‘mega system’ by way of ‘top-down’ approach. In place of the existing university system and the PCR suggestions, three actions are required immediately. First, the Executive Council must be more representative. Since this body is the apex body and primarily responsible for policy matters, being more representative will make it more accountable. Being ‘more representative’ entails not only presence of ‘critical numbers’ of diverse groups but also effective representation of issues. In other words, issues should shape the outcome, not the institutional paraphernalia. Critical reasoning must be prioritised over ‘power’. Second, by and large, entire university community should shape the agenda of the Executive Council. Third, Academic Council being primarily responsible for academic matters must be more democratic and transparent in terms of seeking opinion from all quarters.

The centralisation phenomenon becomes acutely serious as far as appointment of faculty is concerned. In the prevalent practice, the vice chancellor remains chairperson of the selection committee along with subject experts and a visitor nominee. The problem starts with the screening committee. The present recruitment model seems to give an unaccountable power to the screening committee. The arbitrariness of the screening committee is further combined with arbitrariness of the selection committee to declare a seat as none found suitable (NFS). Application of NFS takes place mostly in cases of reserved seats which indicates the caste bias of the Indian university system. In place of checking arbitrariness, the PCR proposes the appointment of assistant professors through the Central Universities Teachers’ Recruitment Board (Clause 43 (h), 95, 100) which is a five-member board (Clause 96(2) (a,b,c)). This is a further centralising imposition, highly ambiguous, mechanical and without accountability. The need of the hour is unambiguous application of the University Grants Commission (UGC) rule which must also be universal in terms of appointment so as to curtail any additional powers of a university that may allow it to lay down extra criteria for screening/selection. It is important to apprehend that university-specific requirement must be condoned but a university must not have right to decide or add an additional qualification. Any additional qualification is tantamount to additional exclusion. This will save applicants from class, caste and gender biases from the university system.

From Quantification to Unqualified Commodification

The prevalent university system suffers from ‘quantification’ modality wherefrom brute academic production is prioritised and recognised. Preference of quantity over substance was started in last United Progressive Alliance (UPA) regime through introduction of irrational Academic Performance Index (API) score to evaluate faculty’s performance. There are different scores for national and international journals. The journals must have International Standard Serial Number (ISSN). There is no clarity how knowledge production becomes less important in peer-reviewed national journals than publication in peer-reviewed international journals. Moreover, relation between quality of knowledge and ISSN number is not explicated. Likewise, presentation in international seminars fetches more scores than in national seminars. The farcical division between ‘national’ and ‘international’, on the one hand, and valuing ‘mere’ publication and participation, on the other hand, have destroyed pursuit of knowledge completely. In place of reversing this irrational process, the PCR adds one more irrational dimension. The committee proposes the evaluation of performance of teachers by ‘External Peer Review’ (Clause 85(y)(B)). Thereafter, there is a provision for recognition of outstanding performance of teacher in terms of granting incentives (Clause 85(2) (b)). There is also a provision for ‘Internal Quality Assurance Cell’ for the aforesaid purpose (Clause 86). This is not only empiricisation but also particularisation of knowledge production and recognition. Instead, the much-needed reform is to improve teacher–student ratio, interaction and engagement. There has to be emphasis over qualitative knowledge. For this, the university needs to be upheld as a site of generation of ideas. ⁵

Instead of reversing the prevalent problems, the PCR multiplies the problem of ‘quantification’ with ‘commodification’. As of now, despite numerous constraints, a university retains ability to introduce academic courses which may be antithetical to dominant discourses and market suzerainty. The PCR proposal poses a grave danger to the status of the Central University. There is a provision of conversion of an existing specified Central University to self-financing and self-regulation, subject to certain conditions (Clause 88(1)). In this case, recurring and non-recurring expenditures are to be incurred by such universities (Clause 88(1) (b)). The deletion from Central University list is to be done on recommendation of UGC by the Government of India. The deemed university status is granted under section 3 of the UGC Act 1956 (Clause 89). Under this Bill, no financial resources or grants are to be given by the Central Government or Commission or any authority owned or controlled by the central government or state governments or both or by public to deemed universities. Consequence of such a conversion would be that the government/legislature has no control on the deemed university whatsoever. This gives deemed universities free hand to enhance the fees. The fee is directly linked with consumption of courses in the realm of market. Here, education becomes commodity to be bought and sold in the market. Any non-consumptive commodity will have no buyers in the market. The need is to create a condition wherein freedom from fears in terms of generating ideas and discourse for egalitarian world is nurtured. There has to be public-funded education for advocating education as ‘social value’. This social value is a comprehensive episteme meant for generic utilisation.

Towards Homogeneity over Heterogeneity

The present university system is quasi-heterogeneous in terms of faculty recruitment and subject matter of the disciplines. The faculty remains not only permanent but also an integral part of the system in terms of longevity. The PCR suggests inter-university mobility of faculty (Clause 9 (y)(B)). The consequence is more severe than it appears. This leads to unilinear knowledge system negating the idea of a university by way of making teaching a transferrable vocation. The teachers are a fleeting entity herein. In fact, teacher transferability is bound to affect the uniqueness of a university which develops in years.

The university simply can be defined as a universe which encompasses immense diversity not only in terms of people per se but also of nature of epistemic realm. This becomes immensely significant in the context of social sciences and humanities. Unlike engineering and technological institutes/deemed universities where ‘science-technology’ remains equally standardised, that is, sameness exists in content and pedagogy despite ‘time-space’ difference, social sciences/humanities have a special relation with a teacher and space. Didactics of social sciences/humanities takes cognisance of two set of values: first, synthesis of global and local domains of knowledge and second, contribution in local language in terms of understanding and changing the local vocabularies. Hence, teaching cannot be understood as a mere ‘job’ where fulfilment of certain hours is emphasised rather it is an idea where complex set of interaction takes place. Converting teaching into a transferrable ‘job’ is the negation of that organic heterogeneity which is nurtured through global–local synthesis contributing to the growth of the discipline where the teacher becomes a crucial component in this synthesis. This process may take decades. Therefore, a university is an idea, not a transferrable ‘space’. Since the present university system is quasi- heterogeneous, therefore the challenge is to make it more ‘heterogeneous’ at recruitment role. A teacher takes many years to acquaint herself/himself with local knowledge system to take it to further level of ‘global–local’ synthesis and critical engagement with local vocabulary. ‘Transfer’ entirely invalidates these organic linkages and purposes. ⁶

Concerning admission to the university, admission is done either directly to the university or through a combined examination. The PCR opens the possibility of Common Entrance Test (CET) (Clause 9(y) (B); 70 (c)). On the face of it, CET does not seem to be harmful. Indeed, it may even be justified in the name of saving human labour and increasing cost–benefit to students. However, it is the unintended consequences that are far reaching, expansive and almost regressive and therefore need to be investigated with utmost concern. Besides being a representative of the overt centrist tendencies, the CET also makes the admission process more complex. This can be elucidated further through deconstructing the element of ‘choice’ as is evident either in university-specific entrance test or in CET. In the university-specific entrance test, ‘choice’ is manifested substantively and supports the inclination of an individual towards a particular university where a specific course may be unique. The CET, on the other hand, treats a university as one of the options in terms of admission, making the element of ‘choice’ functional, directive and procedural. This kind of choice may be more effective in case of those courses where ‘universal standard’ is applicable (as in sciences or technologies) and heterogeneity in context, content and/or outreach is not required. The courses with universal standard could be introduced anywhere with a slight modification. In case of social sciences/humanities, this is not feasible due to global–local synthesis and requirement of critical engagement with local vocabularies. To maintain the ‘idea’ of a university instead of the ‘option’ of a university, direct admission to concerned universities through university-specific examination must be persevered. To make its outreach inclusive, multiple examination centres along with reduced/no examination/prospectus fees may be opted for.

University and Democracy

The aforesaid discussion is intricately linked with the issue of ‘university– democracy’ inseparability. There could be two propositions with regard to a university. According to the first, a university may be viewed as a finite sphere having a circumscribed purpose. Herein, no external functions may be accorded to a university; and centralisation, commodification and homogeneity thus become intrinsic components of this proposition. Since this proposition keeps any external concern outside the purview of university, ipso facto it delinks university from democracy. The Word Bank Report (1994), ⁷ the Ambani–Birla Report (Government of India, 2000) and the Pathan Committee Report (Government of India, 2013) are examples of this finitude proposition. Not surprisingly, Ambani–Birla Report ⁸ (Government of India, 2000) and Pathan Committee (Government of India, 2013) do not even allude to the word ‘democracy’. ⁹

The second proposition with regard to a university may stress upon the purpose of a university as beyond circumscription. According to this infinitude proposition, a university has an external/universal purpose. Herein, John Henry Newman’s controversial yet celebrated book (The Idea of a University) could be a reference point. One of the noticeable criticisms that Newman invites is over his rejection of specialised knowledge (as according to him narrow specialisation begets narrowness of mind) (Newman, 1982).

The defence of Newman comes from communitarian philosopher MacIntyre (2009). He suggests that ‘undergraduate education has its own distinctive ends, that it should never be regarded as a prologue to or a preparation for graduate or professional education, and that its ends must not be subordinated to the ends of the necessarily specialised activities of the researcher’ (MacIntyre, 2009: 362). According to MacIntyre, distinguished graduates from distinguished universities have caused maximum havoc around us because they acted ‘decisively and deliberately without knowing what they were doing. Examples of such disasters include: the Vietnam War, the policies of the United States towards Iran for more than half a century, and the present world economic crisis’ ¹⁰ (MacIntyre, 2009: 361). Despite considerable disagreement over their aphorisms, the impeccable consonance between these two scholars is that a university has social value, impacting outside, to democratise the world.

Michael Oakeshott, one of the distinguished conservative philosophers, makes a crucial intervention. For him, a university is both spatial and engaging, which is of course not possible if teaching was made a ‘transferrable job’, as envisaged by the PCR. A university is ‘the pursuit of learning as a co-operative enterprise. The members of this corporation are not spread about the world, meeting occasionally or not at all; they live in permanent proximity to one another’ (Oakeshott, 2004: 24) and they are the scholar, the scholar who is also a teacher and those who come to be taught (Oakeshott, 2004: 25). What he is hinting at is changing the nature of university by the whims of ‘powerful world’.

In India, the infinite proposition gets strong defence from Rabindranath Tagore, M. K. Gandhi, B. R. Ambedkar and Jawaharlal Nehru albeit differently. For Tagore, Visva Bharti is ‘an international centre of humanistic studies’ (Alam & Chakravarty 2011: 787). Gandhi, despite his opposition to higher education at state expense, ¹¹ founded the National University (popularly known as Gujarat Vidyapith ¹² ) in 1920 ‘as a protest against British injustice and as a vindication of national honour’ (Gandhi, 2011: 83). Ambedkar insisted ‘in the Bombay University Act Amendment Bill (1927) to move beyond the examination-oriented patterns of learning and teaching…’ (Rege, 2010: 93). For Nehru, ‘[a] university stands for humanism, for tolerance, for reason, for the adventure of ideas and for the search for truth’ ¹³ (Nehru, 1983: 333). In a nutshell, a university has external value. The crucial question crops up in terms of direction. The minimalist direction could be democratisation of the society. This is important, otherwise ‘university-debate’ may be reduced to either ‘expansion-excellence’ (Beteille, 2005) conundrum or a university being ‘a perpetually liminal institution continually in conflict with society’ (Visvanathan, 2000: 3597). In other words, a university has a role to democratise the society. This has been recognised in various committees and commissions constituted by the Government of India. In fact, Radhakrishnan Commission ¹⁴ (Government of India, 1949), Kothari Commission ¹⁵ (Government of India, 1966) and Yashpal Committee Report ¹⁶ (Government of India, 2009) linked university and democracy.

Therefore, democracy or ‘democratisation of education…is an integral part of, and intimately connected, with the democratization of society and polity’ (Bagchi, 2010: 5). However, can a university play any substantive role towards democratisation of society? The answer may be in affirmative in case of infinitude proposition and negative in case of finitude proposition. Centralisation, commodification and homogeneous precepts make a university undemocratic and cultivate an insulated attitude towards society. Thus, decentralisation within a university is imperative because ‘[e]nforced servility to petty bosses for survival and advancement is hardly the royal road to healthy academic life and improved standards’ (Sarkar, 1989: 32). Decommodification is crucial on three accounts: first, universities are in trishanku (globalisation, liberalisation and privatisation) (Tilak, 2005); second, ‘[a]n education bazaar, no matter how big, is no substitute for a public higher education system’ (Tilak, 2014: 37). Third, decommodification is also the negation of globalisation. Since globalisation ‘supports and promotes uncritical education while de-emphasising critical pedagogy’ (Sadgopal, 2005: 95), therefore, ‘[w]e should not allow markets and globalisation to shape the higher education’ (Nayyar, 2007: 35). Without critical education, critical pedagogy, critical consciousness and necessity of academic freedom for creativity of the academics, democratisation of society cannot take place. Furthermore, a university must be heterogeneous because ‘[b]oth teachers and students are jointly working on behalf of the people’ (Patnaik, 2007: 3–4) wherefrom ‘they influence social forces…’ (Tilak, 2013: 9). In other words, all universities must not look similar either curriculum-wise or teacher/faculty-wise. Homogenisation of university is negation of heterogeneity of people.

Conclusions

The idea of a university per se has come under attack from numerous commissions and committees under neoliberal order, delimiting its decentralisation, decommodification and heterogeneity. The PCR is the latest onslaught under such an order due to its severely containing provisions which endorse a university through the prism of finitude proposition. In this, a university is turned into a finite sphere thus severing any linkages with the outside world. The noteworthy casualty is democratisation of society by way of a university. The issue is to reclaim a university from such debilitating a perspective, envisioning the role of a university from infinitude proposition which contributes towards the democratisation of society. To reclaim the idea of a university from peoples’ perspective decentralisation, decommodification and heterogeneity are vital components.