At a precipice

By Ajay K. Mehra

SWAMPED COMPLETELY in the storm over saffronisation of education, little news items appearing in the media relating to principals of colleges of the Delhi University (D.U.) drew little attention. The issues of management of higher education that suspensions of four principals, during the past five years on the charge of financial irregularity, raise were neither discussed in any of the four universities, nor in the intellectual portals of the capital. Only trade unionised bodies of teachers and the Principals' Association raised partisan objections, completely ignoring larger issues regarding management of educational institutions. The issues are relevant not only for one university, State or city, but also in the context of higher education in the country.

If such controversies abound in a university in the national capital, institutions of higher learning in the periphery, particularly in highly politicised States, could have deteriorated beyond description. The principal of a college is not just another head of an institution. Entrusted with the responsibility of polishing human resource at the first stage of maturity, the person occupying the chair presides over the destiny not only of young individuals, but also of a society and a nation. To create an environment conducive to higher learning, a principal, always above partisan interests, must not only be a manager, but also a leader par excellence. Leading by example, (s)he must get the best available faculty and nurture their talent.

Let us list some of the recent problems in D.U. colleges to comprehend the context of institutional (mis)management. The College of Vocational Studies (CVS) during the late 1980s and early 1990s possibly posed the first question. In the absence of a `regular' principal, Dr. R.D. Panwar, then the `seniormost' teacher at the CVS, officiated in the capacity for nearly seven years. With charges of misbehaviour with teachers and of `manipulated' seniority flying thick and fast against him, a fierce and prolonged agitation followed. When eventually the Governing Body appointed a `regular' principal, there was trouble again.

The Principals of Aditi Mahavidyalaya and Laxmibai College (both women's colleges), both appointed during the BJP rule of Delhi, were suspended on charges of financial irregularity, `coincidentally' after the Congress(I) came to power in Delhi. Dr. Panwar, who was at the centre of the controversy in the CVS, was appointed principal of the D.U.-run Dayal Singh College a couple of years back, fuelling protests by some teachers' bodies that the rules and procedures were ignored in his appointment.

Ironically, a couple of weeks back, he decided to quit as principal to return as Reader to the CVS. Recently, the principal of Deshbandhu Evening College was suspended on charges of financial irregularity. The principal of Maharaja Agrasen College was suspended, after a prolonged agitation, on charges of financial irregularity. He too was appointed during the BJP rule of Delhi.

Four of the principal-related controversies mentioned here relate to financial irregularity. Obviously, management of institutions of higher learning deserves introspection. Two issues clearly emerge out of the listed cases. First, the management of colleges under the D.U. needs to be put under a microscope. Although governing bodies of colleges are constituted by representative bodies, there is room for greater transparency and accountability in their functioning; after all they are not running patronage structures on public money but are custodians of the country's future. Second, trade union activities, politics and partisanship are becoming the bane of academic institutions in general and of the D.U. in particular. Since the D.U. is located in the national capital, university, students', and teachers' politics become extremely contentious due to the high stakes of political parties and individual leaders. The compulsions of political recruitment compel parties to keep their presence and stakes high on campuses. Of course, personal interests intermingle with political at each level.

Management of the 100-odd colleges under the D.U. is entrusted to the respective governing bodies, constituted annually. These colleges can be divided into three categories. First, the colleges maintained by the D.U. Out of those mentioned above, CVS, Deshbandhu College and Dayal Singh College fall under this category. Second, the colleges under the Delhi Government are maintained by the governing bodies appointed by the Government. Obviously, the governing bodies of these colleges change their political colour with the change in the State Government. No wonder there was tussle a few years back between the BJP-run Delhi Government and the D.U. over constitution of governing bdies. Aditi Mahavidyalaya and Laxmibai College fall under this category.

Finally, some colleges maintained by trusts, including minority trusts, have governing bodies appointed by them. However, the governing body of each of the colleges has representatives nominated by the University and there are members each from the teachers and the karmacharis.

All the appointments in the colleges are made by the respective governing bodies. The selections are made through a committee consisting of representatives of the governing body, the University representatives, the principal and the departmental head (in case of faculty appointments). Though a Vice- Chancellor's nominee is in the selection committee for principals, whatever the category of the college, the governing body has the main say on preparing the panel and sending it to the Vice-Chancellor for the University's approval.

Apparently, the first two categories of colleges have been facing most of the controversies. Clearly, political, partisan and extra- academic considerations pervade selections at D.U.-managed colleges as well. Having been on both side of the table in selection committees at D.U. colleges during past 25 years, one can testify to intense bargaining in academic selections.

The D.U. since the early 1960s has been an ideological battleground of the Congress(I) and the Jana Sangh/BJP. The Left flourished during the 1970s with the patronage of Indira Gandhi. As national and local politics became highly contentious since the mid-1970s and Indira Gandhi discovered the unreliability of ideological and political dependence on the Left, positions in educational institutions, particularly in D.U. colleges, have been up for grabs for the Congress(I) and the BJP. The race begins by packing the governing bodies with partisan and woolly- headed persons totally indifferent to academic requirements. Obviously, academics and merit as considerations have been contemptuously thrown into the dustbin by the two. The self- righteous Left too ignores the established procedures, for it prefers ideological, if not political, compatibility.

Processes and procedures are integral to institution building. By ignoring and short-circuiting them in appointing principals of colleges parties, politicians and academics alike have pushed matters to a precipice.

(The writer is Director, Centre for Public Affairs, Noida, U.P.)

Send this article to Friends by E-Mail

Section  : Opinion
Previous : Indo-Russian military cooperation
Next     : Needed: honest probe