news details |
|
|
| Uplift of the under-privileged | | |
Subhas Sarkar
Three of the most significant ingredients of higher education are an uncompromising academic freedom, a critical spirit and examination of ideas and a true intellectual climate. These factors are largely dependent on independent thinking and a spirit of inquiry unfettered by any kind of regimentation or imposition of authoritarian discipline. What the great philosopher and thinker, Bertrand Russell, once said about the importance of autonomy of ideas and independent thinking still holds good in relation to the true objectives of higher education in our country: “Where independent thinking dies out, whether from lack of courage or absence of discipline, there the evil weeds of propaganda and authoritarianism proliferate unchecked. The stifling of criticism is thus a much more serious thing than many people realise. Far from creating a living unity of purpose in a society, it imposes a kind of insipid, brittle uniformity upon the body politic. It is a pity that men in places of power and responsibility are not more often aware of this.” (Wisdom of the West)
Three levels
The recent developments at AIIMS simply bear out Russell’s fears about the harmful impact of authoritarianism in the field of higher education and research. Political authority had simply trampled upon the autonomy of a great institute of learning and research in Indian medical sciences. How could we blame the faculty members of the institute who spontaneously went on strike at the sacking of their director, Dr Venugopal, an eminent teacher, physician and administrator?
The Kothari Commission wisely pointed out that autonomy in the field of higher education must work on three different levels:
i) autonomy within the institute of learning encompassing autonomy in the working of various departments, teachers and students in relation to the institute;
ii) autonomy in relation to the system, viz. the higher bodies, such as the UGC and the inter-university board; and
iii) autonomy of the university system itself, in relation to the agencies and influences coming from outside the system, the most important of them being the central and the state governments which offer financial aid.
It becomes apparent that in case of AIIMS the crisis stemmed from the intervention of those sections that wield power and influence. “The principal function of the administration”, the Kothari Commission rightly pointed out, “is to serve the academic interests of the university”. When such interests suffer or are belied by external interference the very concept of autonomy loses its meaning and relevance.
A significant aspect of the university or institutional autonomy lies in the matter of admission of students. Quality and merit alone must be the necessary criteria for enrolment. Otherwise, the qualitative degradation brought about by casual and indifferent choice of students would simply belie the very purpose of autonomy of the academic institution ~ qualitative improvement in the field of higher education.
In the larger interests of society, for extending the benefits of higher education to all sections of the society, the Kothari Commission suggested that there could be some kind of reservation of seats for Scheduled Tribes and Scheduled Castes. But it categorically stated that “even in such cases, however, the direction of the universities to judge the merit of the individual students should not be fettered; they should be able to elect the best students, from among the applicants within the underprivileged groups and if necessary, to refuse admission”.
In this context, the hue and cry raised over the proposed legislation for reservation of an appreciable percentage of seats for admission of students of the underprivileged sections of society was justified because of its political implications and ramifications.
If the Centre kept in mind the Kothari Commission’s report and recommendations there would have been no ground for the government’s unacademic intervention in the matter of admission of students in academic institutions. Thus was the concept of autonomy eroded.
Indeed, autonomy of academic institutions should have been the best safeguard for the academic uplift of the under-privileged in society. By compromising on quality and merit in educational institutions, a country can only bring down the levels of achievement and aspirations of the society. This could lead to an unfortunate stagnation. The politically-oriented administrators may win the votes, but will ultimately have to bite the dust of degradation and ruin.
Since the avowed purpose of higher education is to create centres of excellence all over the country, proposals for the creation of autonomous institutions of higher education were put forward by education commissions, including the Kothari Commission of 1964-66. The Kothari Commission categorically stated that there should be autonomy in three specific fields of the university or the college administration: i) in selection of students, ii) in appointment (or selection) of teachers, and iii) in determination of the courses of study and methods of teaching and research.
Independent thinking
It cannot be denied that true autonomy lies only in creation of the true spirit of inquiry and advancement of knowledge. In highlighting the true spirit of autonomy in higher education the commission emphatically stated that “without the fundamental consideration of autonomy, universities cannot discharge effectively their principal functions of teaching, research and service to the community; and that only an autonomous institution, free from regimentation of ideas and pressure of party or power politics, can pursue truth fearlessly and build up, in its teachers and students habits of independent thinking and a spirit of inquiry unfettered by the limitations and prejudices of the near and the immediate which is so essential for the development of a free society”.
How many of us can say fearlessly and honestly that all these recommendations are being followed by the administrators of the universities or the colleges or their patrons, the central and the state governments? Autonomy, genuine autonomy, in institutes of higher learning is not possible when parties in power directly or indirectly try to influence or intervene in the running of these centres of learning.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
