Tags:
Journalism of Courage
Withdrawal of the career advancement scheme (CAS) by the University Grants Commission (UGC) has sent a wave of anger among college and university teachers all over the country. The UGC had earlier accepted the scheme and allowed its implementation. In Delhi University, a couple of appointments of readers as professors in colleges have already been made. Now the UGC has started having second thoughts on the subject. Peremptorily, it has announced the scheme’s withdrawal. This is morally indefensible and perhaps legally wrong. The teacher’s objection to this is valid.
But the UGC, too, has a case in the matter. It says that its earlier decision to approve the CAS was a mistake. The scheme, it says, is unviable financially and unwise academically. UGC chairman Hari Gautam said: “There are over 11,000 colleges in India. The salaries of college teachers, except of those of Delhi University, are paid by the respective state governments. Promotion of reader to professor under the CAS in the colleges, if permitted, will create a financial crisis all over the country. Also, allowing professorship in substandard undergraduate institutions would lower the academic standards of higher education.” Weighty arguments. But why were these not considered in October 1999 when the UGC originally made the decision to allow the promotion? Prof Gautam’s reply is that the commission now felt that “an error of judgement had been made in October 1999”. Few would buy this plea. The fact seems to be that earlier the UGC and the Union Cabinet which gave its approval to the CAS were hustled intothe decision by political pressures.
That university and college teachers like employees anywhere should have full opportunities for career advancement, few would deny. But career advancement cannot be on the basis of length of service in the job. A university teacher is expected to grow constantly in the subject he or she teaches. After an initial period of four or five years, the teacher should get actively involved in research work. Promotions should depend on merits.
This is an ideal that is beyond reach in today’s India. Much has changed in our campuses in the last three or four decades after Independence. In Delhi University, in the fifties, professorships in colleges was a viable proposition. This was the vision of Sir Maurice Gawyer about this university.He wanted a small university office at the centre surrounded by a cluster of constituent colleges in which all honours and postgraduate teaching would be located. There might be one or two departments with a professor or two each but for the rest teaching would be done in colleges cooperatively by the college staff. There would be only a few thousand students in the colleges, all studying in a compact campus. Since then, the university has changed beyond recognition. It has 81 colleges and over two lakh students. Thedepartments themselves have a strength of 3,500 professors and readers who look after postgraduate teaching and research. Rarely is a college teacher allowed to participate in postgraduate teaching at the university. If professors are appointed in the colleges, they will continue to engage, by and large, in the undergraduate teaching as at present. How would this serve the cause of higher education? Why should an individual teacher who, despitehard work and research effort, remain a lecturer or reader his whole academic life just because the departments are overstaffed?
The problem must be sorted out through a dialogue. The UGC must realise thatcollege teachers, some of whom have acquired better academic credentials than many university professors, cannot for long be denied their due. On theother hand, teachers should realise that a wholesale promotion of readers in colleges is neither feasible nor desirable. A via media has to be found. Professorship in colleges should, for instance, be allowed but the selection to the post should not be through a tailormade selection committee. The committee should consist of a university professor, a UGC nominee, the principal of the college concerned and at least three experts from outside the university. Preferably, the vice-chancellor of the University should sit on the committee. Nobody should have a veto. Decisions should be made by consensus. Political and non-academic influences should be strictly kept out of the process.
The writer is a former principal of Hindu College, Delhi.
