As learning was challenged during the pandemic, so was the management and governance of our universities. Naturally, it is time now to design the post-pandemic future of higher education in our governance models to make them more effective and more responsive. Higher education initiatives need to unlearn the conventional way of planning and delivering education through learning based on innovative pedagogical approaches.

The future of Indian universities should not be only about learning in a traditional way but also about an interconnected process: learning-unlearning-relearning. Higher education today is confronted with a number of challenges owing to a number of factors including growing interference of government leading to a sharp erosion in autonomy; snowballing financial resource crunch chiefly caused by spiraling prices of goods and services and fixation of grants by some state governments at old levels; hike in fees by the universities making it difficult for the poor to pursue education; privatization and even internationalisation of education at a cost beyond commoners, and sharp deterioration in work culture. Institutions are so badly managed that quite often there are agitations by students, teachers and employees leading to widespread indiscipline and chaos. Work culture among all sections of management is poor. One area of concern is the lack of a well-defined road map and implementation strategy for the curriculum reforms envisaged at short intervals.

The shift to a new framework, as is currently to be experienced through the ensuing fouryear undergraduate programme to achieve the goals of NEP 2000 without proper infrastructure in many cases is likely to undermine the quality of higher education and effective delivery of intended outcomes. It is feared that adequate resources may not be invested in capacity-building to ensure a smooth transition and effective execution of the curriculum reform.

To satisfy the need of fulfilling the many objectives of curriculum programmes, at times in experimental mode, classes cannot be properly held and extension programmers not properly taken care of in our educational institutions. Unfair practices cannot be ruled out; question papers are leaked; evaluation is questioned, and bias is distinctly visible. The atmosphere is politically charged mainly because of the patronage enjoyed by leaders of various political parties on campuses. Even cases of forged degrees made available through employment of corrupt practices come to light. In such a scenario, the universities today are found to be performing merely two functions ~ of admission and examination.

The real functions of teaching, research and extension have been generally relegated to the background. This state of affairs puts a big question mark on their existence as institutions of higher learning, particularly from the standpoint of their role in promotion of human and social development. Universities are not autonomous institutions either academically or financially or administratively as they were.

State governments have acquired powers to frame even their courses from time to time as per their ideological commitments. Decisions regarding annual grants-in-aid which might be a small portion of the expenditure are taken by respective state governments. As a populist measure, state governments sometimes fix rates of fees to be realized from the students pursuing regular as well as self- financed courses. Again, to gain popularity, governments sometimes sanction class III and class IV posts in bulk, sometimes even teaching positions, without any obligation to meet the financial burden.

University campuses have been politicized. All constituent elements of the system ~ teachers, employees and students are associated with political ~ generally not on the basis of ideological commitments which they have but on the basis of personal convenience, especially from the standpoint of self-aggrandizement. Such politically active teachers and employees are seldom able to perform their duties. Many students are not interested in quenching a thirst for knowledge. Their objective may be contest student union elections, occupy hostel seats or gain a certificate as a way to secure a job. University administrations being bound by legal provisions and precedents, and being subjected to pressure of varied kinds, are forced to adopt an apathetic attitude towards various issues that confront the system.

They either refrain from taking any initiatives, or just do enough to keep the system going in order to meet narrow interests. Use of the latest information and communication technology requires a sound financial base as also competent manpower. Unfortunately, most universities lack such resources and in addition saddled with teachers and staff selected on the basis of considerations other than merit. There are two kinds of opportunities for education at all levels. The first is provided by the private sector, which charges huge fees and provides quality education by hiring competent employees and using the latest ICT.

The second is offered by the government as part of its obligation to provide education. Since in pursuance of its policy of liberalisation, the state is gradually withdrawing itself from social services, including education, and since a major part of the budget is spent on payment of salaries, very little is available for such services. University autonomy should be restored by making necessary changes in the University Act and Statutes, to ensure they are able to offer the highest levels of teaching, research and extension.

They should have freedom to frame their academic programmes, conduct research and chalk out extension activities in accordance with their mission of national development. They should be given a free hand in preparing their budget and in identifying and mobilizing resources without contravention of the general laws of the land. Educationists will agree that university bodies should be supreme in academic matters.

The university is not the tool of the government, still less it is the instrument of the political powers of the day. When Harvard University began to consider its role in the New World that followed World War II, Mr Conart laid it down as a first principle that no senior appointment on the faculty should be dependent on financing beyond Harvard’s own control.

This policy kept Harvard free from government influence. It seems Indian universities have yet to learn this lesson. It is time for a national debate on who should be a Chancellor or Visitor. Are the President of India or Governors capable of providing academic leadership to the university community? The vital question is about the role of the UGC or the Association of Indian Universities on issues like autonomy, credibility of head of the institution, inquiry into the functioning of the administration, academic freedom and intellectual dissent.

Has our intelligentsia given any serious thought to dealing with allegations regarding irregularities in our universities? Many of our academics often willingly play into the hands of vested interests when they become vice-chancellors. Irregularities in faculty selection, violations of university acts, statutes, ordinances and manipulations in regard to the functioning of academic and executive committees vitiate the academic atmosphere.

( The writer is a former associate professor Department of English gurudas College, Kolkata, is presently with Rabindra Bharati University)