By H. Srikanth
Administering public universities in India was never easy. In recent years, it has become more difficult because of the interplay of different internal and external forces. With several academic and administrative departments, affiliating colleges, hundreds of faculty members, officers and supporting staff, the public universities resemble mini-empires. Every empire has issues to address; universities are no exception.
To meet public demand for increasing access to higher education, the central and state governments have established many universities and other institutions of higher education. Although there is an increase in the number of colleges and universities, there has been no corresponding increase in the budget allocation for the education sector, higher education in particular. Consequently, public universities are forced to work with limited funds, which are barely sufficient to meet the demands for expansion of infrastructure and human resources in the university. The funds are inadequate to meet the requirements of new academic departments, classrooms, hostels, laboratories, library, research and other facilities. There is general resentment among the students and faculty. The fund crisis and administrative restrictions make it difficult to address the stakeholders’ aspirations for admissions, appointments, promotions, and increments. The widening gap between the resources available and growing public expectations has laid the ground for conflicts between the university administration and the stakeholders.
How effectively the public universities meet the demands and expectations depend considerably on the ability of the academic leadership. Public universities are not bureaucratic institutions. It is not possible to handle students, teachers and non-teaching staff, the way the entrepreneurs or bureaucrats deal with their employees and subordinates. Those heading public universities should have an in-depth knowledge of how such universities function. Persons heading institutions of higher education command respect and acceptability if they have a sound academic record. But experience shows that academic qualifications and academic experience alone will be of no avail if the academic administrators lack administrative capacity to handle complex issues and carry along with them different stakeholders. Institutional heads must be well conversant with the rules, and dynamic enough to take risks when needed. They should neither be meek nor stubborn. Academic leaders should have sound judgment and good communication skills. They should know where to push and also when to step back. Having good rapport with the government and political leaders is as important as having working relations with the staff and students. No plan for the university, howsoever flawless that be in theory, cannot be implemented without the willing cooperation of the teachers, non-teaching employees and students.
Most successful Vice-Chancellors in the country evince the qualities I have mentioned. Unfortunately, their number is insignificant. In recent years, it has dwindled partly because of the politicization of the appointment of heads of higher education institutions (HEIs). At one time, the state and central governments would appoint persons with high educational qualifications and personal integrity as institutional heads but in recent years, the governments–both central and state – look for political loyalists to fill the positions. Qualifications, experience and character are secondary factors. What is expected of such heads is whether they are ready to toe the party line. Despite their highest degree and experience, VCs are expected to submit meekly to the bidding of academically less qualified ministers. The respect that the VCs commanded at one time is no longer visible today. We hardly see any critical debates and meaningful discussions on the philosophy or purpose of education. All that the heads of the institutions discuss when they meet are the technicalities of how to implement what the political masters want. The heads of institutions are aware they hold positions only as long as they enjoy their masters’ blessings. Hence they consider the appeasement of their political masters more important than working for the betterment of higher education. These days, we rarely find the academic heads daring to take a stand against the diktat of the government.
This is not to say that all heads of HEIs are incompetent. Even in the politically suffocating environment, we can see some VCs who demonstrate the urge to do something good. But their ability to deliver is often constrained by political and economic factors. Every day, universities receive so many notices and circulars from the UGC and the Ministry ordering them to meet deadlines. They even demand the universities to organize non-academic functions and send photos and videos as proof. In the name of better governance, new rules and administrative practices are imposed, making it difficult for universities to carry on day-to-day administration. Most often the heads and deans are busy compiling information and data to meet deadlines for sending one report after another. As the administrative burden has increased enormously, there is little time for the academic heads to focus on teaching and research. Failing to fill in the academic and administrative vacancies on time, many universities in the country are working at sub-optimal level and are not able to meet public aspirations. Unable to satisfy and lead all the stake-holders, the heads of institutions rely on coteries to run the day-to-day administration.
No university can insulate itself from events happening around them. Social and political environment influences the functioning of the universities. In India, factors like caste, religion, ethnicity, regional feelings have a bearing on the working of educational institutions. Political factors such as government policies, party politics and pressure groups also exercise their influence on academic institutions. The nature and extent of their influence may vary from state to state. The universities led by mature academic leadership can effectively manage and direct these influences in a positive direction. If the institutional heads lack insight and leadership, then the universities become the haven for regressive politics.
While acknowledging the importance of leadership, one should not forget that even the heads of institutions should work and exercise powers within the legal framework, respecting the Act, Statutes and Ordinances of the universities. Not just the VCs but other functionaries such as the Registrar, FO, deans and heads of the departments also play a conscious role in discharging their duties. All bodies in the university – Academic Council, Executive Council, the Court, the faculty and the staff – should perform their assigned duties and functions. There should be a clear division of labour, and checks and balances, so that no individual or body wields excessive powers to the detriment of the whole.
Apart from fighting for the demands of the members they represent, the associations representing the teachers, employees and students sometimes confront the administration on issues such as corruption, favoritism, discrimination and vindictive attitudes of the administration. They act as watchdogs to ensure that authorities work responsibly and not violate the university rules. While acknowledging their role, it is necessary to ensure that their activism does not promote anarchy. Their relations with the administration should always be professional. While it is alright to criticize and oppose wrong administrative decisions, it is also necessary to lend support to all good initiatives taken by the administration. Their opposition should be constructive and they should avoid getting personal in their dealings with the university officials.
On its part, the university administration should stop viewing everyone opposing it as adversaries. Even in the most tense moments, both should keep the windows open for dialogue. Both should give up one-upmanship or ‘only my way or the highway’ attitude. When communication breaks down, and the contending parties become rigid in their stand, then the institution collapses. A complete breakdown of administration is not in the interest of anyone.