A note of warning and caution to the government should have come from educationists, college and university teachers’ organisations
PRABHAKAR TIMBLE
The Chief Minister of Goa seized the opportunity at the Tenth Session, 2019, of the seventh Goa Legislative Assembly to squeeze the information that the government proposes to move a bill providing for the Chief Minister to be the pro-chancellor of the Goa University. The object seems to be streamlining of university working and effective representation to government in the state-funded university. Presently, in all the state public universities numbering 399 in the country, the Governor is the ex-officio chancellor. The state government is represented by the secretaries of higher education and finance on the executive council and around five nominees of the chancellor on the Academic Council. In the 48 central universities in the country, the President of India is the ex-officio chancellor. The Chief Justice of India functions as the ex-officio pro-chancellor of the Delhi University. There are no such offices for political figures in the 334 private, 126 deemed universities and 74 institutes of national importance.
The provision of pro-chancellor in a state university is the rarest of the rare. There are instances which could be counted on finger tips of Chief Minister/Minister for Education being ex-officio pro-chancellor and Minister for Agriculture in respect of Agriculture University. This political creation is very recent. Though Governor is the Chancellor, it is only to be considered as a ceremonial office as it is ideal for universities to act independently and free from political pressures. Otherwise, there is not a single well-known university outside India which has a state Governor as its Chancellor. However, such a provision exists in India right from inception of state universities. It is actually the Vice-chancellor who is the de facto head of the university.
The position of the Chancellor is decorative keeping the appearance minimum. It would be only to preside over convocation or at the most meetings of the Senate/Court. The Governor as Chancellor comes in the picture in the appointment of the Vice-chancellor out of the panel of names recommended by the Search Committee. The Governor being just the titular head of the state executive is expected to be aloof from routine politics and the power equations which a Chief Minister needs to manage to restore equilibrium. To that extent, though a political functionary, the participation of Governor in university functioning is tolerable. They have largely maintained safe distance and respected university autonomy. There are also instances where Governor has called for resignation of Vice-chancellor at behest of Chief Minister. The step to transfer control of public universities from Governor to Chief Minister is retrograde though the projected objective is to provide effective role to the elected government in university. The role of the government should be restricted to funding and financial audit with complete autonomy on academic and administrative issues. The guidelines of the University Grants Commission prohibit the designation of a minister to the post of pro-Chancellor. Accountability should not be restored by Chief Minister settling in the shoes of a pro-Chancellor. It should be through the university bodies and mechanisms as provided under the University Act, ordinances and statutes. The presence of the ministers becomes a baggage as it puts the politicians and the Vice-Chancellor at loggerheads over powers and jurisdiction.
A note of warning and caution to the government should have come from educationists, college and university teachers’ organizations and students’ unions. The indifference to the proposed move of these stakeholders cannot be appreciated. The forum of Principals and College Managements has chosen to remain silent. At least, it is a solace that they have not gone hammer and tongs welcoming the move as a good deal for education in the State! Educational interests and academic cause would be served better if the government desists from such ministerial representation in the university hierarchy.
This new trend which has set in wherein the ruling politicians go on speaking and none argues back is not a healthy fashion. Recently, at the Goa BJP headquarters, former BJP Chief Minister of Madhya Pradesh Shivraj Singh Chouhan called Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru a criminal for Article 370 in the Indian Constitution and blamed him for the delay in the Liberation of Goa. The trials and tribulations during the stage of Jammu & Kashmir merging with the Indian Union are well known. It is a matter of historical record that if it was not for Nehru and the negotiations, the Valley would have gone the other way. On Goa’s struggle for freedom, the freedom fighters in Goa were in personal touch with Nehru and the oral as well as written correspondence between Nehru and the national-minded citizens of Goa are well documented. Men like T B Cunha, Purushottam Kakodkar, Luis de Menezes Braganza, Ravindra Kelekar, Pandurang Mulgaonkar, D Kakodkar if alive would have given a fitting reply to this utter nonsense. These politicians speak irresponsibly like children reducing monumental national and international issues to a school debating society. Here again, the silence of the Goan freedom fighters and their associations is sickening. Such stillness from freedom fighters for Pandit Nehru who suffered in much larger measure for the independence of India and later tirelessly worked for building a modern India and shaping its national and foreign policy is beyond comprehension.
In a public meeting organized by the Indian Council for Africa, Pandit Nehru confessed “We have deliberately, consciously, tried to follow a policy, a peaceful policy, hoping that we shall free Goa from this long Portuguese rule through peaceful methods. Many of our friends have criticized us, I do not blame them” (Chowpatty Sands, Girgaum, October 23, 1961). Nehru was clear as to how Goa comes to India when he said “and we do not want Goa, and we do not intend putting Goa, just as a part of a district of India” (Selected Works of Jawaharlal Nehru: Vol 72).
