By Napoleon S Mawphniang
Tragedy Befalls an Ideal
The government of Meghalaya supposedly had a grand idea when it came up with the People’s Colleges Grant-in-Aid Scheme to improve the state’s higher education system. Addressing the systemic flaws in Meghalaya’s academic landscape required challenging but important goals, such as recruiting skilled educators, improving institutional infrastructure, and providing fair access to quality education. Unfortunately, this plan has turned into a fertile environment for political patronage, favoritism, and nepotism—as is typical with many well-intentioned plans that fail to materialize.
What started out as a way to encourage meritocracy has turned into a tool to keep inequity in place. College Governing Bodies (GBs) are now able to use their position to promote allegiance above competence, rather than ensuring justice. The outcome is a system that undermines education by giving more power to those who aren’t qualified while promoting those who are. The purpose of this essay is to use a Foucauldian lens to critically examine the scheme’s execution, illuminating the power dynamics involved and their wider implications for the educational future of Meghalaya.
The Intersection of Power
A persuasive foundation for understanding the operation of the People’s Colleges Grant-in-Aid Scheme is Michel Foucault’s concept of power/knowledge. Power, says Foucault, is constructive rather than repressive because it builds knowledge systems that support its legitimacy. The Governing Bodies’ ability to influence the hiring process is a key component of this strategy. These groups do more than just choose educators; they also dictate terms like “merit” and “qualification,” molding discussions about educational standards to fit their agendas.
Take the Mawsynram Border Area College as an example. Here, an exceptionally qualified candidate—the senior faculty member in her field and a doctorate holder—was rejected for appointment. Her denial was due more to the Governing Body’s favouring of less competent candidates with stronger political ties than to any objective evaluation, according to an RTI investigation. This incident shows how authority works by discrediting people’s qualifications in addition to excluding them. Their power is intrinsic to the information they generate, which includes determining who is “fit” to teach.
Lack of Responsibility in Surveillance
Another way to look at Jeremy Bentham’s Panopticon is through Foucault’s examination of it. Prison architecture known as the Panopticon, in which an invisible watcher watches over inmates at all times, serves as a metaphor for contemporary forms of control. The Governing Bodies of Meghalaya’s colleges play the part of the watchdog, keeping tabs on the admissions procedures while avoiding responsibility for their actions.
Their replies, or lack thereof, to RTI questions demonstrate this imbalance. Under this strategy, several schools either don’t answer questions regarding their hiring processes or give just partial answers. Not everyone responds; some see transparency regulations more as annoyances than mandates. As a result of not holding anyone to account, bias is free to thrive. The Governing Bodies’ control over information allows them to avoid accountability and maintain their domination, which in turn strengthens their authority.
Time and Its Weaponization
The lack of established deadlines for finishing the hiring process is one of the scheme’s most obvious flaws. Appointments might take as little as eight months at some schools and as long as two years at others. This discrepancy goes beyond a simple administrative error and exemplifies what Hannah Arendt may term the “instrumentalization of time” in the service of power.
Indefinitely extending recruiting processes allows Governing Bodies to favor selected candidates through manipulation of outcomes, all while preserving the appearance of procedural legality. Qualified candidates are demoralized by the temporal uncertainty since they are left wondering if their applications will ever be examined. Those in control use time as a tool to strengthen their grip on power while undermining faith in established systems.
Structured Violence as Nepotism
In this system, nepotism functions as a kind of structural violence, an unseen but ubiquitous factor that unfairly benefits some groups at the expense of others. A prime example of the transformation of political capital into academic capital is the disclosure that one Governing Body of college had set aside a teaching position for the wife of a member of the legislature. The transaction was rationalized as a token of appreciation for receiving funding through the scheme, which exposes the appointment’s transactional character.
In addition to being morally reprehensible, these actions have serious consequences for educational equality. Students lose out on good education when incompetent teachers are hired for personal connections instead of merit. Appointments like this also send a discouraging message to future teachers: that political support is more important than talent and hard effort.
In systems where nepotism is rampant, comparable trends have been noted on a global scale. In the 1990s, colleges in post-Soviet nations were ruled by local elites who valued allegiance more than expertise, and they treated them like fiefdoms. Those in power would often redirect donor-funded educational changes in sub-Saharan Africa without proper supervision systems, causing schools to deteriorate. In the absence of immediate remedial action, Meghalaya runs the danger of following these paths.
The Exclusionary Epistemology
The idea of testimonial injustice put out by philosopher Miranda Fricker, in which people are demonized because of their bias, provides a another perspective from which to examine this plan. Existing power systems devalue the credentials of qualified candidates without political connections, which results in their systematic exclusion from consideration, regardless of their merit. As a result, power dynamics take precedence over knowledge, leading to what I call ‘an epistemology of exclusion’. People in power shape the criteria used to evaluate candidates in order to maintain their dominance. As a rhetorical tool to hide systemic injustices, meritocracy becomes an illusion in this setting.
The Paradox of Bureaucracy
According to organizational theorist Michel Crozier, there is a “bureaucratic paradox” in the function of the Education Department of Meghalaya. The Department is ostensibly in charge of carrying out this plan, but it is lacking in both the means and the determination to guarantee equity. As a result of its vague regulations and lack of oversight, Governing Bodies are free to do as they choose.
This department’s immunity from accountability and the maintenance of established power structures are both achieved by the institution’s current state of inertia. Because of this system, injustice becomes the norm, and people no longer speak out against it but instead quietly participate in it.
Suggestions:
Several changes are required to fix these systemic problems and rebuild public faith in Meghalaya’s higher education system:
1. Reorganizing Institutions
● External specialists should be involved in recruitment panels in order to limit the influence of Governing Bodies.
● To avoid power dynamics from becoming entrenched, implement a system of rotating leadership within Governing Bodies.
2. Systems that Promote Openness
● Require that all hiring processes and outcomes be made public.
● Form autonomous monitoring bodies to examine hiring practices.
3. Regular Schedules
● Set firm due dates (say, six months) for all universities to finish the hiring process.
● Institutions that do not meet these deadlines should face penalties.
4. Addressing Dissatisfaction
● Establish a separate appellate body wherein disqualified applicants can contest rulings.
● Ensure that those who report instances of corruption or favoritism are protected.
5. Conformity with NEP Requirements
● Verify that all scheduling adheres to the standards set out by the National Education Policy (NEP).
● Programs for professional development should be made available to newly hired educators.
In conclusion, the People’s Colleges Grant-in-Aid Scheme serves as a lesson in excess of its own good fortune and a chance for change. Because of the absence of accountability and transparency in their execution, even well-intended policies can be swayed by powerful interests.
“Where there is power, there is resistance,” Michel Foucault wisely says. The difficulty is in turning this opposition into productive action, which necessitates adjustments in both procedures and the basic power dynamics within educational institutions. That is the only way we can restore education to its rightful place: a vehicle for fostering inclusion rather than exclusion, for creating more just futures rather than preserving existing inequalities.
Keeping this in mind will help us keep in mind that education is not merely a policy issue, but a moral obligation that reflects our shared dedication to human flourishing and fairness.
Let us make sure that our inaction against injustice and the erosion of our state’s educational system will not be remembered by the generations to come.
(The writer is an Advocate and Humanist)