Administering the Public Universities

H. Srikanth

Administering the public universities in India was never easy.

In recent years, it has become more difficult because of the interplay of different internal and external forces.

With several academic and administrative departments, affiliating colleges, hundreds of faculty members, officers and supporting staff, the public universities resemble mini-empires. Every empire has issues to address, Universities are no exception.

To meet the public demand for increasing the access to higher education, the central and state governments have established many universities and other institutions of higher education. Although there is an increase in the number of colleges and universities, there has been no corresponding increase in the budget allocation for the education sector, higher education in particular.

Consequently, the public universities are forced to work with limited funds, which are barely sufficient to meet the demands for expansion of infrastructure and human resources in the university. The funds are inadequate to meet the requirements of new academic departments, classrooms, hostels, laboratories, library, research and other facilities.

There has been general resentment among the students and faculty. The fund crisis and administrative restrictions make it difficult to address the stakeholders’ aspirations for admissions, appointments, promotions, and increments. The widening gap between the resources available and the growing public expectations has laid the ground for conflicts between the university administration and the stakeholders.

How effectively the public universities meet the demands and expectations depend considerably on the ability of the academic leadership. The public universities are not bureaucratic institutions. It is not possible to handle the students, teachers and non-teaching staff, the way the entrepreneurs or bureaucrats deal with their employees and subordinates.

Those heading the public universities should have an in-depth knowledge of how the public universities work. The persons heading the institutions of higher education command respect and acceptability if they have a sound academic record.

But experience shows that academic qualifications and academic experience alone will be of no avail if the academic administrators lack administrative capacity to handle the complex issues and carry with them different stakeholders. The institutional heads must be well conversant with the rules, and dynamic enough to take risks when needed.

They should neither be meek nor stubborn. The academic leaders should have sound judgment and good communication abilities. They should know where to push and also when to step back. Having good rapport with the government and political leaders is as important as having working relations with the staff and the students. No plan for the university, how-so-ever flawless that be in theory, cannot implemented without the willing cooperation of the teachers, non-teaching employees and students.

Most successful Vice-Chancellor in the country evinced the qualities that I have mentioned. Unfortunately, their number is not significant. In recent years, it is dwindling, partly because of the politicization of the appointment of the heads of higher education institutions (HEIs). At one time, the state and central governments used to appoint persons with high educational qualifications and personal integrity as institutional heads.

But in recent years, the governments–both central and state – look for political loyalists to fill the positions. Qualifications, experience and character have now become secondary. What is expected of them the most is whether they are ready to toe the party line. Despite their highest degree and experience, the VCs are expected to submit meekly to the bidding of academically less qualified ministers.

The respect that the VCs commanded at one time is no more visible today. We hardly see any critical debates and meaningful discussions on the philosophy or purpose of education. All that the heads of the institutions discuss when they meet are the technicalities of how to implement what the political masters want.

The heads of the institutions are aware they hold positions only as long as they enjoy their masters’ blessings. Hence they consider appeasing their political masters more important than working for the betterment of higher education. These days, we rarely find the academic heads daring to take a stand against the will of the government.

This is not to say that all heads of HEIs are incompetent. Even in the politically suffocating environment, we can see some VCs who evince the urge to do something good. But their ability to deliver is often constrained by political and economic factors. Every day, the universities receive so many notices and circulars from the UGC and the Ministry ordering them to meet the deadlines.

They even demand the universities to organize non-academic functions and send photos and videos as proof. In the name of better governance, new rules and administrative practices are imposed, making it difficult for the universities to carry on day-to-day administration. Most of the time, the heads and deans are busy compiling information and data to meet deadlines for sending one report after another.

As the administrative burden increased enormously, there is little time for the academic heads to focus on teaching and research. Failing to fill in the academic and administrative vacancies on time, many universities in the country are working at sub-optimal level and are not able to meet the public aspirations. Unable to satisfy and lead all the stake-holders, the heads of the institutions rely on coteries to run the day-to-day administration.

No university can insulate itself from the events happening around. Social and political environment influences the functioning of the universities. In India, factors like caste, religion, ethnicity, regional feelings do influence the working of educational institutions. Political factors such as government policies, party politics and pressure groups also exercise an influence on the academic institutions.

The nature and extent of their influence and may vary from state to state. The universities led by mature academic leadership can effectively manage and direct these influences in a positive direction. If the institutional heads lack insight and leadership, then the universities become the haven for regressive politics.

While acknowledging the importance of leadership, one should not forget the fact that even the heads of the institutions should work and exercise powers within the legal framework, respecting the Act, Statute and Ordinances of the universities.

Not just the VCs, other functionaries such as the Registrar, FO, deans and heads of the departments also play a conscious role in discharging their duties. All bodies in the university – Academic Council, Executive Council, the Court, the faculty and the staff – should perform their duties and functions assigned to them. There should be a clear division of labor, and checks and balances, so that no individual or body wields excessive powers to the detriment of the whole.

Apart from fighting for the demands of the members they represent, the associations representing the teachers, employees and students sometimes confront the administration on issues such as corruption, favoritism, discrimination and vindictive attitudes of the administration. They act as watchdogs to ensure that authorities work responsibly and not violate the university rules.

While acknowledging their role, it is necessary to ensure that their activism does not promote anarchy. Their relations with the administration should always be professional. While it is okay criticizing and opposing the wrong administrative decisions, it is also necessary to lend support to all good initiatives taken by the administration. Their opposition should be constructive and they should avoid getting personal in their dealings with the university officials.

On its part, the university administration should stop viewing everyone opposing it as adversaries.

Even in most tense moments, both should keep the windows open for dialogue. Both should give up one-upmanship or ‘only my way is the highway’ attitude. When the communication breaks down, and the contending parties become rigid in their stand, then the institution collapses. The complete breakdown of administration is not in the interest of anyone.

[The writer teaches Political Science in NEHU, and article is first published in The Shillong Times]

Images from different sources

Mahabahu.com is an Online Magazine with collection of premium Assamese and English articles and posts with cultural base and modern thinking. You can send your articles to editor@mahabahu.com / editor@mahabahoo.com ( For Assamese article, Unicode font is necessary)