Arun Kumar
Sukhamoy Chakravarty Chair Professor, CESP, SSS, JNU.
EPW Web edition Vol - XLVIII No. 24, June 15, 2013
I. Introduction
Delhi University has been in the news for introducing the
proposed Four Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP). Many have accused the
administration of being autocratic and rushing through with a scheme that is
potentially disastrous. The administration claims to have followed procedures -
having discussions with the stake holders and getting approval of the University’s
Academic bodies. They suggest that the new scheme will change the way
undergraduate teaching/learning occurs by providing greater flexibility to the
students. The administration brands the opponents as status quoists and
shirkers who are afraid of change.
A section of the MPs petitioned the PM and met him. The HRD
Minister and his MOS have argued that politicians should not intervene in what
is essentially an academic matter. This is a signal to the University
administration to go ahead. Five top intellectuals appealed for intervention by
the higher authorities to prevent the University administration from pushing its
agenda. They characterize non-intervention as abdication of responsibility. Could
they not have appealed to the academic body to rise to the occasion?
It is a cause for concern that academic matters rather than being
resolved within the University are sought to be settled by calling for outside intervention.
The crisis is that those outside who intervene all the time are calling for
non-intervention and those who should be demanding autonomy want intervention.
II. Concerns regarding the proposed FYUP
In principle, a four year (instead of three year)
undergraduate programme poses little problem. It is being justified in terms of
improved teaching-learning. In the first two years of programme the students are
to get a wide background before specializing in the next two years. Nothing
wrong if the students get more time to discover their interest. Inter-disciplinarily
is to be introduced through allied subjects and `foundation courses’ and this
sounds good. However, the problems are with the nature of the proposed courses,
operational aspects and the manner of introduction of the programme.
Students joining the programme have already specialized in
school and chosen their narrow field - social sciences or sciences and so on -
and studied courses only in that area. So, in the FYUP, they will study
subjects that they have not had at the secondary level and, therefore, the basic
courses for all would have to be pitched at the level of the 9th
class. So, the problem of specialization is linked to our secondary education
but it is sought to be resolved at the College level.
The deeper problem is how to make courses interesting? Innovative
syllabi and teaching would be required. JNU was supposed to be inter-disciplinary.
For instance, instead of having geography, there is the Centre for Study of
Regional Development. But, after more than 40 years of existence and many
attempts to be true to the original mandate, inter-disciplinarily remains a
distant goal in JNU. Inter-disciplinarity does not mean combining modules from
different subjects or doing a cut and paste job from existing courses. It
implies making an interconnected whole.
The manner in which FYUP has been pushed through has
antagonized many academics and getting their commitment will be hard. Those who
are concerned are protesting and those who are quiet are perhaps indifferent.
The supporters of FYUP have drafted the new courses in a matter of months and
even days. At JNU to revamp an entire MA course has at times taken ten years
(not that it should). When the challenge is inter-disciplinarily and
innovativeness, rounds of discussions would be required but some departments
have stated that they have been bypassed.
Operational problems with the FYUP will be serious since
more teachers and infrastructure would be required. There will be a mismatch
between the Delhi
University India
credits are not transferable across different institutions, Delhi University
Students who leave after two years would get a diploma which
would be little better than a school degree given the nature of the courses taught.
If students leave after the third year they would have done very few courses in
the subject of their specialization so they would not be equivalent to students
of other institutions and they would not be acceptable in the Masters programme
of other institutions. If they complete the 4 year programme and decide to go
for the Masters programme they would still have to do two years since there is
no possibility of transferring credits and they would have just about completed
what an undergraduate student from another institution would have done.
Is Delhi University copying the system in the USA? Some argue
that Indian students going to study in the USA face difficulties because our
system is different. But Indian students have been studying in the US for
a long time and have had little problem. The real problem is not a three year
undergraduate programme but rote learning and lack of questioning (Richard, 2013).
India as a poor country has to worry about access and equity
– more than in the rich nations. Education is crucial for upward mobility for
the marginalized sections. Adding one more year of studies to get to a better
job will be a disincentive for the deprived. In India there is a huge reserve army
of labour so that even for a job of a peon where the minimum requirement is a
high school degree invariably undergraduates also apply. The increase in the
costs of education due to an extra year will further undermine democratization in
higher education which is under attack due to privatization (Chattopadhyay, 2012).
Finally, the real problem in India is with what in the US is
called Graduate study. In India ,
this consists of 2 years of Masters followed by 2 years of M.Phil. and a
minimum of 4 years of Ph.D. – in all at least 8 years. In the US the graduate programme is of 4
years after the undergraduate degree. Thus, in the US
compared to India ,
students spend one year more in the undergraduate programme but save 4 years at
the graduate level. In India ,
the M.Phil and Ph.D. are often a parking place for students who are waiting for
some other job. It is this that needs urgent reform.
In brief, the wider ramifications of the introduction of the
FYUP need analysis. If at all it is to required it should be implemented all
over the country. Further, it is desirable that students specialize later rather
than earlier but this change needs to start from the schools. We need to decide
as a nation when and how to introduce specialization? Finally, reform of graduate
studies and manner of learning are more urgent than FYUP. The moot question is
how is the Delhi University
III. Weaknesses of
Indian Academia: Eroding of Autonomy
The answer to this question lies in the change in the
character of the academic body of Delhi University due to the increasing
bureaucratization of the institution. This is a problem common to most
institutions of higher education in India .
FYUP has gone through the formal process of approval by the
Academic Council (AC), the highest academic body of the University and the
Executive Council (EC), the highest decision making body of the University. The
question is why did these bodies discount the arguments presented by the
opponents of FYUP? The answer lies in the character of the AC and EC in Indian
universities.
The AC and the EC consist of the top most academics of the
University - the Deans, the department heads, senior professors, outside
experts and so on. The senior academics of the university are dependent on the
University administration for many things and, therefore, prefer to hold their
counsel and mostly take a cue from the VC. Those academics who dare to
challenge the VC are branded as trouble maker. Often they face systematic
harassment like, delays in project funding or sanction of leave and so on. An
example is set to dissuade others from following these independent academics.
The result is the silence of most academics and the
dominance of the administration. VCs resist decentralization of power so that
they can have a hold on academics. This furthers bureaucratization since no VC
can go through all the papers that come to them and, therefore, become
dependent on the bureaucrats around them and largely mechanically sign on the
note put up by the bureaucrats. No wonder, in academia, often decisions are
taken for administrative convenience and not to serve an academic purpose. This
is the bureaucratization of academia.
The erosion of autonomy (Kumar, 1987),
growing bureaucratization and growing outside interference in the universities in
India have gone together. This is at the root of the present crisis in Delhi University
In India, politicians like to control institutions and ambitious
academics collaborate in this to quickly move up the ladder to gain power. The
search committees set up to form the panel for the post of VC largely consist
of pliant members who look to the political masters for signals. The letters
exchanged between Hill and Bhatnagar in 1952 show (Kumar,
2006) that in independent India VCs have been political appointees.
Such people at the helm who are usually academically weak often
depend on bureaucratic structures to force academics to fall in line. Their
mind set is such that they would not even consider opposing the impositions of the
UGC and the Ministry. For instance, courses and syllabi have been proposed by
the UGC and the Universities have meekly accepted them. Centres have been set
up for the study of North East, Informal economy and so on. That this
duplicates departments of regional studies or economics is immaterial. Soon political
correctness would require opening Centres for the study of each of the Indian states.
Schemes have been introduced for improving the admittedly
poor standards in most institutions of higher education. In the 1980s, the Academic
Staff Colleges were started. Now an index of performance (API) has been
initiated to quantitatively measure the performance of academics. It has set
into motion a process of weeding out the committed academics in favour of
mediocrity and paper chase. Hundreds of journals have sprouted to enable
academics to earn points – quality be damned? The philosophy underlying these changes is that
standards can be achieved through standardization (Kumar,
2013).
Is the charge of bureaucratization in academia vacuous? It
is argued that most committees suggesting the changes have consisted of
academics. But, they are the `favourites’ who are willing to comply with the
administration’s wishes. Thus, the Pay Commissions which have suggested many of
the steps to improve quality have followed the wishes of the political and
administrative masters rather than take an independent line.
Higher education has long term implications. It is crucially
about knowledge generation which at the best of times is difficult since it
requires questioning and dissent. Academic decisions typically have long term
implications but the world is uncertain, so, the likely outcomes of any
decision need careful consideration. In the case of FYUP, none of this is being
considered. The impression is that the proposed changes are linked to some
agenda of the administration and not based on the interest of the institution.
The new programme is not going to be co-terminus with the
present administration. It is the faculty that will have to carry it forward
but it is being marginalized. What if another administration is convinced that
the proposed programme is not good for Delhi University
Universities cannot function like a bureaucracy or the
police where orders are implemented without questioning; compliance is expected
and dissent is a malaise – the anti-thesis of what academia needs. In the
universities, faculty make their own courses and syllabi. Given the unique
thinking of an academic, what she/he wishes to teach tends to be unique. That
is why autonomy of the institutions and of the academics is so crucial for
advancing knowledge generation. In Delhi
University
Often, indiscipline in institutions of higher learning has
been given as an excuse to impose non-academics as their heads and justify
intervention. Undoubtedly, indiscipline leads to a deterioration in the quality
of education. But, the cause of the indiscipline is often the political
interference. Politicians try to control the teachers and the student bodies
since they need them for their elections and general support. Political patronage
is given to the favourites and appointments manipulated top down. Thus, rather
than merit often it is the connections that matter. This emboldens students and
teachers who indulge in non-academic pursuits and makes them academically non-accountable.
The problem due to outside interference in academia is mistakenly stated to be
a problem of indiscipline. So, when a favourite army officer is placed at the
helm of an institution, that is hardly the solution since that leads to further
erosion of autonomy of academia with consequent problems.
IV. Conclusion
Delhi University today presents in a distilled form the
crisis in higher education in India. All that has been going wrong in academia
has come to a head. FYUP will aggravate the problems it is supposed to solve. Delaying
specialization till the students have found their interest is good but it has
to start in the schools. Today the problem is more with the graduate degrees
than with the undergraduate degree and reform is needed to promote questioning.
The events in Delhi University, suggest that the basic
weakness of institutions of higher learning is outside interference enabled by weak
and pliable academics at the helm who promote bureaucratization and erosion of autonomy
in their institutions.
Delhi University teachers are seen as the stumbling block to
change for the better and they are being marginalized. Can a perfectly designed
FYUP succeed, if a large number of faculty members are demoralized by the autocratic
behaviour at the top? Or, is FYUP to be taught mechanically? But then why introduce
it at all?
References:
Chattopadhyay, S. 2012. Education
and Economics: Disciplinary Evolution and Policy Discourse. N. Delhi : OUP
Kumar, A. 1987.
Accountability and Autonomy in Higher Education. Economic & Political
Weekly. October 31.
------------. 2013. Indian
Economy since Independence N Delhi :
Vision Books.
Kumar, D. 2006. Science
and the Raj: A Study of British India . 2nd
Edition. N Delhi : OUP.
Richard, T. 2013. Academic
Excellence and St. Stephen’s College: A response. Guest Post in Kafila.
April 30.
