Nearly five years ago the Supreme Court of India ordered closure of 112 universities which were started under the Chhattisgarh Private University Act, 2002. The act gave state government power to grant registration for a private university without prior permission from authorities, resulting in mushrooming of "universities" with many of them running from a highly deficient infrastructure. Chaattisgarh case made a complete mockery of Indian education system and showed us how business and political nexus could completely derail the system and dupe the students.
Five years down the line we are witnessing similar mockery of the quality in education with some of the deemed universities. However, this time the Supreme Court has taken a passive approach and ministry is taking an aggressive cleansing stance. The HRD ministry had filed an affidavit in the Supreme Court based on the recommendation of a review committee and the task force "...to de-recognise 44 deemed universities across the country taking the plea that there were devoid of requisite infrastructure and being run as family fiefdoms." It is unfortunate that despite knowing the serious shortcomings at some of the universities, the court has ordered a status-quo. This is a set back to the reform and quality movement in Indian higher education.
More on this NDTV report
The concern for students career is valid and should be factored in the decision, but it is exaggrated out of proportion. Mr. Sibal had clearly said that every student who is supposed to get a recognized degree will get it. Also, when universities were closed during the Chhattisgarh Act, the court allowed the universities to affiliate with other state universities. Likewise this time, deemed universities would have got an opportunity to affiliate with the local universities. This means that the current annoucement only strips these 44 universities of their autonomy and status of deemed universitiy, they could have continued to be serve as an affiliated college. In the short term, it surely would have been a painful process for concerned students, however, in the medium and long term it would save many more from risking their careers.
While I agree with the measure of derecognition of certain universities with shortcomings, I found ministry's intent to abolish the whole concept of deemed univesities as unnecessary and unproductive. I agree with Prof. Sethuraman's view that "There are good deemed universities offering innovative degree programmes, engaging in quality research leading to publications, and providing high-quality teaching." The concept of deemed universities encourages innovation, efficiency and excellence in higher education. The real test for governance and regulatory mechanism is to provide an enviornment which fosters innovation and excellence and deters malpractices. Thus, it is not the concept of deemed universities which is at flaw, rather it is the execution of the princinples, practices and regulations which has failed. Despite the challenges and resistance faced by the reform process, I am sure that the message has gone out to the unscrupulous institutions that it is time to shape up.
Any thoughts on what should be done with deemed universities and how government is handling them?
- Dr. Rahul Choudaha
1 comments:
I find the whole case ridiculous. As far as infrastructure shortcomings are concerned, how can a committee sitting in Delhi and talking to the Vice Chancellor for 20 minutes figure that out. I am sure no VC would have told them that I have infrastructure shortcomings. In most cases, the UGC team consisting of several professors, who visited the same campus for 3 days, did not find any infrastructure shortcomings.
ALL of these universities have a much better physical infrastructure than ALL new IITs. Why should the decision to give a degree granting status depend on ownership of the Institute. The Government should clean up its own acts first.
Then government is worried about family fiefdoms. I don't know how to interpret this, but the ministery officials have been pointing out that Chancellors and even VCs in some cases are those who used to run a family business. And they don't have any academic experience, etc. It is being said that the new regulator will create a registry of potential VCs and all universities will have to select one of those. Well, again, the government many times appoints IAS officers as VCs. If IAS officers can become a VC, why not an entrepreneur, and why not a business manager.
I have personally visited some of these 44 universities, and I can say with confidence that the quality in some of these places is far better than many government owned institutes. Let the government first close down its own institutes (some of the new NITs, and a large number of state government owned institutes) before telling others that they have shortcomings.
Post a Comment