Autonomy of Institutions of Higher Learning and Excellence
Arun Kumar
Mainstream July 15, 2006. Volume XLIV No 30.
The Governing Council of AIIMS has recommended the dismissal of the Director. That the Director had fallen out of favour with the Health Minister who is also the President of the Governing Council has been clear and it was on the cards that sooner or later the Minister would try to ease him out. Yet, the Director continued with his opposition to the Minister for many months during the Anti-Reservation stir in that Institution. Unlike, most other Directors and Vice Chancellors of our institutions of higher learning who chose to keep quite so as not to displease the political bosses, the AIIMS Director continued his opposition. This episode illustrates many things that are wrong with our management of our institutions of higher learning and why autonomy is essential if we are to have world class institutions.
Why is AIIMS considered to be a good institution not just in India but internationally? Because it has maintained high standards of teaching and medical practice. This has been possible because of the faculty and the huge amount of resources provided by the state. While the latter is important, in itself that is not enough since without highly qualified people, the money would have simply been wasted. How could the Institute recruit the best in most of the fields? Because, it could go for the best without having to adopt any other criterion or satisfy the whims of the political bosses. Many insiders, in recent years, have been complaining of growing political interference over the last 20 years and the decline in quality of the faculty of AIIMS but the situation was not out of hand. The problem is being compounded by the departure of some of the faculty given the inducement of high salaries in the new private sector hospitals that have come up. Some of these people have felt that if dignity cannot be maintained due to the growing interference, we may as well go and earn money.
The autonomy of an institution of higher learning is closely linked to its quality. Pressures from outside are to accommodate someone who on their own may not make it to a post or to promote someone out of turn. Such people, even if competent, when appointed lack in self-confidence since they know that they made it due to considerations other than their merit. They feel beholden to those who helped them and are willing to grant them favours when asked for. They use this source further to advance their careers and others feel resentful of this. The atmosphere of the institution deteriorates as the number of such people increases.
Others in the institution also get drawn into such a nexus to gain undue advantages. Soon political groupings emerge with different faculty members allied to different factions. This is not to argue against political affiliations of faculty members. Each faculty member has the right to have her/his political beliefs but these should not interfere in the working of the institutions. Unfortunately, that is happening all too often.
With Congress in power those with affiliation with the party got plum positions. When BJP came to power many saffronites got appointed. Now again with UPA in power, it is the turn of Congressmen and Marxists to get to power. Further, it is the favourites of individual Prime Ministers and Ministers who get to head institutions. Some of them are capable and good but the moment they are selected because of closeness to those in power, the dynamics changes. Some may even resist political interference but that is hardly the rule.
The Planning Commission has the nominees of various groups. Can they independently advise the government? The NCERT has had to cope with political interference. History is written by the victors so it is repeatedly rewritten. There was an impatience to replace the directors, etc. as soon as one came to power. Not even the nicety of waiting for a retirement in a short time and then appointing one’s favourite. Boards of ICSSR, Institute of Advanced Study, National Book Trust, etc, had to be replaced and packed with fellow travelers. Earlier, a few independent minded people used to also get appointed to these bodies but now one has to be a fellow traveler. Autonomy is unthinkable and the institutions are sinking.
What is this autonomy about? Commitment to the Institution, to one’s professional work and above all to society. Individuals who are autonomous will give unmotivated advice based on their best judgment. They will stand up to the powers that be and tell them when they are wrong. Others will tend to be proper, see which way the wind is blowing and change their direction. That is the case with most Directors and Vice Chancellors who have not spoken up on an issue of vital importance to their institutions. Is that what is expected of an intellectual? They are supposed to give a lead to society but they are failing in their responsibility when they keep quite. Because most of the top people are appointed on political and personal considerations and not academic, how can they take an independent stand?
The issue is not whether one agrees or disagrees with reservation for OBCs. The issue is of a debate on such a crucial issue. It is not important that the AIIMS Director did not believe in reservations and helped the agitation against reservations. That was his opinion and he stood by it like an academic is expected to. It is far fetched to compare him with Galileo who stood against the Church but progress was made because of his independence of thought. Till the time reservations for OBCs is not a national policy any one can oppose it. Once it becomes policy, the Director is duty bound to implement it. Just like today every VC has to implement the reservation for the SC/ST no matter what their personal opinion may be about such reservations. If they do not implement it, they can be thrown out and prosecuted. They are violating a law and even autonomy does not allow that.
The Minister is interfering with the autonomy of AIIMS and irrevocably damaging it. Earlier there was the spat between the Directors of IIMs and the Ministers. The Boards of Governors were used for disciplining the Directors. What is clear is that even the Board of Governors and Executive Councils of institutions should consist of independent people and not politicians and bureaucrats otherwise autonomy would be eroded and the institutions would decline. If the politicians had the national interest in mind, the problem would not have arisen so one can only make a plea to them to not misuse their power in the wider interest of society. It needs to be appreciated that autonomy enables dissent and that enables progress.
