One of our former students got his PhD degree from the University of California, Berkeley, about two decades ago, while his father-in-law also did his PhD from the same university – a different department though – about three decades before him. During a casual conversation, that student once told me with utmost interest that both have PhD certificates signed by renowned Hollywood stars – Ronald Reagan for his father-in-law and Arnold Schwarzenegger for him, for they were the Governors of California during those periods. The governor of California – by virtue of his post – is the president of the regents of the University and a signatory in the certificate too. Interestingly, of course, he didn’t care to highlight that his father-in-law’s certificate was actually signed by a future US President. 

As the West Bengal cabinet approves making the Chief Minister the Chancellor of State Universities, replacing the Governor, and while a Tamil Nadu university has already paved the way, amid the ongoing political tug of war, a common man might wonder what’s the big deal in this issue. Isn’t the chancellor the titular head of a university whose function is largely ceremonial? Doesn’t society think that the Chancellor is just an ornamental post and a Chancellor’s main role is to distribute certificates during the convocation? 

Advertisement

Hold on. Politicians rarely get engaged in a tussle for something merely ‘ornamental’. Certainly, the Chancellor can play an important role in the recruitment of faculties by nominating his choices in the recruitment committees and also in the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor who is the de facto head of any government university. Thus, the Chancellor may sometimes become instrumental in controlling the activities and academics in a university – something that common people would not see. Of course, whether a Chancellor would do that with some political motivation is a different issue. But, since in India, the governor of the state, appointed as the union’s representative by the president, is the honorary chancellor of all State-owned universities, such apprehensions may emerge, especially when the political ambience is tense and Centre-state coordination is fragile. 

In the British system, the Chancellor is usually a ceremonial non-resident head of the university, while the Vice-Chancellor is the chief executive of a university. This system is mostly followed in most Commonwealth and former Commonwealth nations. The system is different in the United States, where the head of a university is most commonly a university president and the executive head of a specific campus of a university may have the title of chancellor. 

Our system is largely a derivative of the British system. But are we really following the British style of functioning in the academic institutes? It might be interesting to look at the profiles of chancellors of different British universities at the moment. Well, there are Dukes, Duchesses, Barons, Baronesses, Earls, and even the Prince of Wales among the chancellors of different Universities. Princess Anne – Princess Royal, is the Chancellor of the prestigious University of London. While Christopher Francis Patten, the Baron Petten of Barnes, the last Governor of Hong Kong, is the Chancellor of the University of Oxford, there are some interesting chancellors in some other universities. Ranvir Singh, journalist and deputy presenter for ‘Good Morning Britain’, is the Chancellor of the University of Central Lancashire; British actor, comedian, and television presenter, Sanjeev Bhaskar, is the Chancellor of the University of 

Sussex; 2012 Summer Olympic gold medalist, four-time Olympic silver medalist, and six-time World Champion former rower and current Chair of UK Sport, Dame Katherine Grainger, is the Chancellor of the Oxford Brookes University; American-British actor, comedian, television personality, and mental health campaigner, Ruby Wax, is the Chancellor of the University of Southampton; British-South African restaurateur, chef, television presenter, cookery writer, and novelist, Dame Prudence Margaret Leith, is the Chancellor of the Queen Margaret University, Edinburgh; British filmmaker, screenwriter, former actor, Amma Asante, is the Chancellor at Norwich University of the Arts; to cite a few examples. And not to miss the Chancellor of the University of Bristol, Sir Paul Nurse, who is the winner of the 2001 Nobel Prize in Medicine. 

Yes, many people in our society also believe that it might be better to appoint renowned educationists or persons of high scholarship as chancellors of various universities. But would that guarantee that only apolitical persons would be chosen as Chancellors? And, more importantly, would such debate end? 

We, in society, are really obsessed with the ‘autonomy’ of a university. However, it’s better if we understand that the boundary of autonomy is a shadowy region – it is up to the level the politics and society 

of the concerned country at that particular time period wish to offer the academic institutes. What’s the autonomy of a flying kite, for example? Whenever a kite flies in the sky, the person flying it is the controlling authority. The control can be instituted in various ways though. How high the kite flies depends on the willingness of the person flying it and society’s outlook and its reluctance. A high-flying kite indicates that the person with the spool in hand has just allowed it to do so. Similarly, the Lakshman-Rekha of the autonomy of a university and the interference of politics in it always gets redefined by ever-changing socio-political dynamics. We may or may not like that change, of course. 

Well, how much possibility of political intervention is there in the US university system? Take the example of the University of California once again. The Regents of the University of California is the governing board of the University and has “full powers of organization and government”. In fact, the Board of Regents has 26 voting members, the majority of whom are appointed by the Governor of California to serve 12-year terms. 

However, what is it from a common man’s perspective? Who would have a society preferred to be the ceremonial head of a university? The above-mentioned former student was visibly proud as his certificate was signed by a star like Schwarzenegger – in the capacity of the Governor of California – although the certificate was also signed by three other persons: the President of the University, the Chancellor at Berkeley, and the Dean. This ongoing debate on ‘a suitable Chancellor’ gave me an impetus to surf an old file to discover that my own PhD certificate from Calcutta University is actually signed by the then Vice-Chancellor, Rathindra Narayan Basu. There was simply no provision of the signature of the Chancellor in the certificate. Well, could this certificate be more valuable if it were also signed by the Chancellor, the then governor of West Bengal? Possibly not. Or, would this be more attractive if it were additionally signed by Jyoti Basu, the then Chief Minister of West Bengal? May not be so for every recipient of the degree. In fact, it doesn’t matter academically or professionally. However, there is little doubt that I could have gladly participated in the discussion with the above-mentioned former student if my certificate were additionally signed by a Soumitra Chatterjee or a Mrinal Sen, a Chuni Goswami or a PK Banerjee – may be by any capacity in the university set up. 

But that may not be the driving force for finding ‘a suitable Chancellor’, for sure.