It is evident from the journey of the finest universities of the world that autonomy and excellence go hand in hand. It is internationally acknowledged that the best universities which have reached and sustained themselves at the top of the pyramid are the ones that enjoy absolute autonomy in a real sense. Instead of seeking autonomy, they have earned and nurtured it in a manner that it percolates down from the top to the freshest member of the university family. They are committed to the philosophical doctrine of excellence and pluralism substantiated by available evidence. They firmly believe that the power of decision-making in the academic world requires expertise out of the ordinary, and since knowledge in academics is beyond the ordinary, all decision-making, be it academic, administrative or financial, must be taken by accomplished academicians of rock-solid integrity.
University autonomy is a multidimensional concept. The principal dimensions of university autonomy are academic, administrative, financial and staffing. Basically, it involves planning and execution of the highest level of learning on the one hand and governance of a complex organization on the other. In fact, autonomy is a self-regulating exercise of decision-making with an allegiance to the ideals of university education. It is a structural solution to provide an enabling environment to achieve excellence in teaching and learning and advancement of knowledge. It is for this reason that universities essentially require academically distinguished professionals who can take decisions on matters pertaining to academics and governance with the fullest commitment and accountability.
The idea of university autonomy is as old as the hills. Its history can be traced back to the University of Bologna, Italy, which is considered to be the oldest university in continuous operation since 1088. It is believed that the University of Bologna was founded by a group of foreign youths living in Italy to educate themselves about the penal provisions of city laws. The elected council of students had full freedom to hire and fire professors and negotiate with them about their salary and other service conditions. Professors had their own rights to determine broad outlines of the course contents, pedagogical processes, modes of assessment, examination fees and degree requirements. Both the parties had their own mechanisms to keep a tab on each other’s activities and settle issues, if there were any. More or less, the same model was followed by the University of Paris, which was founded in 1150. The University of Paris was completely empowered to frame statutes concerning everything from courses to methods of instructions, discipline, costumes, award of degrees, etc. In fact, this model gradually began to percolate into other European universities of the medieval period. So much so that when the Uppsala University was established in Sweden in 1477, the Pope specifically ordered that the new university have similar freedoms and privileges as the University of Bologna.
Some traces of autonomy are also visible in the first set of institutions of higher learning that were established in India during the nineteenth century. Prominent amongst them were Hindu College, Calcutta, CMS College, Kottayam, Christ Church College, Kanpur, Fergusson College, Pune, and Khalsa College, Amritsar, to name a few. The most striking feature of these colleges was that they were imparting secular education and were absolutely free from outside interference of any kind. They used to certify knowledge and skills in the form of finishing certificates or completion certificates. Such was the recognition of these colleges that their pass out certificates were valued at par with diplomas and degrees awarded by premier foreign universities.
The modern Indian higher education system had a rocky start since the establishment of the first three universities in 1857 in the cities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras. Despite being lawfully autonomous, these universities were given limited autonomy due to political considerations. They were treated like examining bodies as they were given the charter of testing the value of education imparted through colleges and were not allowed to offer any teaching and learning programs on their campuses. When Sir Asutosh Mookerjee started the first postgraduate department in the University of Calcutta in 1914, he not only got into a row with the domineering and control-freak government but also had to face an inquiry commission in 1917. Contrarily, the British were extremely protective of the autonomy of their homeland universities.
The misconception of the colonial era, that Indians lacked the ability to steer the affairs of education, was dispelled almost as soon as the new government took over in Delhi in 1947. Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru and Maulana Abul Kalam Azad reposed their greatest confidence in Prof. S.S. Bhatnagar and gave him charge of the office of the Education Secretary on 20 November 1947. It is heartening to note that the first six Education Secretaries in a row, until 1969, were renowned academicians like Prof. S.S. Bhatnagar, Dr Tara Chand, Prof. Humayun Kabir, Prof. K.G. Saiyidain, Shri P.N. Kripal and Shri G.K. Chandiramani. Of them, Prof. Bhatnagar and Prof. Kabir had held the office of the Education Secretary twice. They were the real architects of modern Indian education. They were men of honour and integrity with genuine concern for public welfare. They have left behind a lasting legacy of scientific insights and contribution that have served the country with great distinction for the last 74 years and unflinchingly remained the same throughout.
However, the very first Commission (University Education Commission) set up in 1948, soon after Independence, noted that Indian universities were not enjoying the autonomy that they deserved. According to the Commission, most of the universities had no real autonomy whatever, and proved incapable of resisting pressure from outside. The Commission believed that while universities have to be sensitive to enlightened public opinion, they should never let themselves be bullied or bribed into situations that they know to be educationally unsound or, worse still, activated by nepotism, faction and corruption. The Commission was totally opposed to governmental domination in educational processes. It unequivocally recommended that “our universities should enjoy full autonomy, constitutionally and actually, and that they be completely released from the control of politics.”
Since the country required a radical reconstruction in education, the Government of India set up another comprehensive Education Commission in 1964 wherein the subject of university autonomy was dealt with at great length. The Commission made a distinction between university autonomy and academic freedom of university teachers. The Commission observed that despite any curtailment of academic freedom on paper, it was neither practised within the university nor at the interuniversity and governmental levels. The Commission was of the opinion that without autonomy, the university would not be able to discharge its principal functions of teaching and research nor would it be able to serve the community. According to the Commission, “this freedom implies that a teacher cannot be ordered or required to teach something that goes against his conscience or conflicts with his conception of truth.”
Notwithstanding incredible recommendations made by two powerful Commissions, things did not get any better, partly because of a lackadaisical approach of academics to earn autonomy and partly because of the control-freak attitude of political and bureaucratic leadership. The general impression about the university system is almost a complete lack of accountability, dissension and disagreement, which are the essential hallmarks of autonomy. All these years, universities have been crying hoarse to seek autonomy which somehow is considered asking for rights of governance without accountability by the political and bureaucratic class. Thus, negotiations and concessions seem to have become the order of the day, resulting in a compromise on ideals of autonomy.
Inevitably the onus of responsibility for autonomy rests more with the universities than with others as was eloquently summarized by the Education Commission, “…that the universities should also realize that it would be unwise to expect that effective autonomy could descend as a ‘gift’ from above; it has to be continually earned and deserved.”Thus, universities will have to be resourceful enough to find solutions and workarounds on multiple fronts instead of looking all the time towards other power centres.
Universities need to focus on a whole range of parameters, from the quality of programs to degree requirements. If their programs are rated the best in the world, if they ensure the highest appreciation for meritocracy in terms of recruitment of both faculty and students, if improved academic excellence becomes the goal of every department, if they successfully prepare every student to adapt to new changes to solve the problems of tomorrow, and if their research outcomes start addressing issues and concerns of national and global concerns, then it could be considered they are inching towards autonomy.
If universities set up benchmarks for teachers, students, staff and management and keep a tab on them on a continual basis, if the statutory bodies of the universities learn the art of protecting themselves from the domineering role of public representatives, if every member of the faculty is trained to design and transact the course without confining within the defined boundaries of the syllabus, if every member of the faculty starts mobilizing resources through research grants, and if each member of the faculty is fully accountable to the self, the system, individual learners, the society and to the noble ideals which inspired our national struggle for freedom, then universities could consider that they are getting closer to their goal of earning autonomy.
A cursory analysis of programmes in universities reveals that most of them are offering identical programmes. There is hardly any cooperative arrangement amongst universities for the optimum utilisation of limited resources nor in the division of operations in terms of meeting out the social, economic and research requirements of the country. Issues such as these do not even become the subject of discourses during their zonal or national conferences. Most universities have been operating in much the same way. If they can come together and institutionalise interuniversity autonomy in its real sense and adequately demonstrate to the sovereign bodies that they are the real engines to fuel the economy of the country then they can presume that they have arrived. Once they sagaciously achieve a very high level of excellence on these parameters, no one would dare to trample upon their autonomy.
The global experience shows that governmental domination in universities is invariably counterproductive since it stifles innovative initiatives and creativity. It is clear that universities do a much better job when they are freed from outside control that impacts their governance. It is, therefore, imperative that the political and bureaucratic classes should be far too protective and generous in providing substantial funds to help them become self-reliant. Indian universities, as of now, do not have access to the kind of resources that are essentially required to become globally competitive.
However, it is never too late to learn from the pearls of wisdom which radiate from the Radhakrishnan Commission, wherein it is mentioned, “Higher Education is, undoubtedly, an obligation of the State but State aid is not to be confused with State control over academic policies and practices”, and that of the Kothari Commission, which observed, “University autonomy cannot become real and effective unless adequate provision is made to meet the financial requirements of universities and colleges”. There is definitely a groundswell of support for the idea for too long a time, but has not made any inroads into the system. Similarly, universities have also not been able to institutionalize standards of excellence in the true sense of the word. Both are compromising on the ideals of autonomy. That is a hard truth, but truth nonetheless.
The author is former Chairman, UGC.