Lessons in irony

Please criticise the government for defiling our temples of learning by entrusting to undeserved men and women the responsibility of administering them

At a time when our own institutions are starved of funds, we go around distributing largesse to some well-endowed universities overseas. At a time when primary/secondary education needs greater state support, the central universities are siphoning off scarce resources allocated to education. At a time when the world is trying to harmonise sectarian differences and create a forward-looking and enlightened worldview, our latest blueprint for education seems potentially divisive.

Even part-time educationists have joined in the cacophony of noises, making serious demands on the teaching fraternity to ‘perform’. Some have taken upon themselves the responsibility of devising strict codes of conduct not for themselves but for us. Bemoaning the presence of delinquent teachers in our ranks is a favourite pastime. Sadly enough, nobody keeps a record of the scores of brilliant students produced by their own colleagues.

All said and done, our temples of learning continue to have large numbers of prayer leaders and learners, though their single-minded devotion rarely figures in the voluminous educational reports periodically compiled only to be consigned to the dustbin of history. According to the Jawaharlal Nehru University vice-chancellor, 90 per cent of the teachers take their classes regularly; the faculty published 300 books and 1,700 research articles between 1995 and 1999. JNU alone does not keep the academic publishing industry in India in business; other institutions have also contributed their bit to scholarship.

Mind you, the performance of prayer leaders and their adherents is all the more significant because they operate in a system where reward for, or recognition of, merit rarely exists. Remember, too, that these persons, who have virtually no access to state daan, continue to publish books, write research papers and, in the process, raise our intellectual profile in the temples of learning located in the rest of the world.

If, on the other hand, educational standards have declined drastically, we should blame the state for investing so little in primary and secondary education. Please chide political parties for fouling the corridors of learning with their blatant and unwanted interference in appointment and selection procedures. Please also criticise the government for defiling our temples of learning by entrusting to undeserved men and women the responsibility of administering them, and our educational planners for messing around with education for so long and with such tenacity. It will not do to find alibis for their own lack of vision and foresight.

True, our own conduct has not been exemplary; indeed, we have much to answer for. Besides suffering from a degree of intellectual inertia, many of us have failed to reform our teaching methods or revise our curriculum from time to time. Indeed, teacher’s associations and student’s unions have not been able to generate a serious debate on restructuring and modernising our educational system. As a result, the government has seized the initiative. Finally, most of us have insulated ourselves from our neighbourhoods and localities, and abdicated our civic/social responsibilities. It is thus commonplace to find our own colleagues defending the status quo and jockeying for positions in the college/university hierarchy.

Yet, I see no reason why the fraternity of teachers should be singled out for their acts of omission and why harsh standards of judgement are applied to them alone. Accountability, a recurring theme in current debate, is a noble ideal. At the same time, for purposes of public scrutiny, other privileged sections of society should also be made accountable. Politicians go scot-free for five long years before the electorate punishes them, whereas teachers are berated for demanding their due share.

I believe the conduct of principals, rectors and vice-chancellors should be monitored by a public agency, not just by ineffectual bodies like the academic council and executive council. Once this is done, you may well find that some amongst them have, in collusion with vested interests, contributed in no uncertain way to the ills that plague our educational life. Some amongst them have encouraged mediocrity, created a coterie of advisers around them and stifled independent research. Increasingly, they turn to international funding agencies — sometimes without the concurrence of university bodies — to gain political leverage in their institutions. Yet they are ones who pontificate from a high moral ground, though their stakes in improving higher education is limited to personal career advancement.

The way out is for the academic community to identify persons with experience and administrative flair and devise rigorous methods to exclude political nominees. The ill-conceived merit promotion scheme illustrates how the authorities have blatantly used their authority and discretion to distribute patronage without any consideration for talent or merit. A bizarre drama of partisanship has been enacted-from Kashmir to Kanyakumari, with academic bodies colluding with the heads of institutions. By a single stroke of pen, the distinction between brilliance and mediocrity has been done away with. Again, the solution lies not in reversing a well-established trend, but in providing academic incentives to motivated teachers.

A disconcerting development is also the undue government interference in education. Here, two points merit consideration. First, the idea of a uniform curriculum for the schools being mooted in certain quarters must be resisted, for it threatens the multireligious and multicultural character of our society.

Secondly, government agencies should not be allowed to impose their ill-conceived agendas on the already fragile educational structures; indeed, the need to seek autonomy vis-a-vis the University Grants Commission and Shastri Bhawan, the home of educational bureaucrats, is greater now than ever before. For this reason, the proposal for sending UGC-appointed ‘observers’ at selection committee meetings betrays a lack of confidence in the vice-chancellor and, above all, the subject experts.

The current trend of ignoring statutory bodies, except when it is convenient to validate a decision, is a recipe for disaster. As an old-fashioned teacher, I repose my faith in the mature judgement of my colleagues manning college/university bodies. Some amongst them tend to be populists, but most are not. Some are no doubt ill suited in the profession, but most are fairly well equipped to perform their duties. That is why they are entitled to a free hand in deciding on matters concerning teaching/research. Independence and autonomy, the hallmark of our educational experimentation, cannot be taken away by idiosyncratic politicians and bureaucrats.

Earlier Columns