Backpage

IF ever one needed to know how not to introduce reform, one need look no further than Delhi University, a worthy exemplar of all that has gone wrong with India’s reform programme. Given the widespread consensus about the centrality of knowledge in the present century, the UPA-II, correctly, focused attention on India’s moribund higher education sector, unveiling an ambitious agenda of expansion and structural transformation, and initiating a slew of legislation which, once approved, would radically alter the face of our post-school learning architecture.

The timing, it was felt, was right. With growing dissatisfaction about the organization and management of higher education – outdated curricula and pedagogy, multiplicity of authorities resulting in turf battles, stifling bureaucracy, disgruntled faculty and students, significant underinvestment in infrastructure, and the list goes on – our educational mandarins felt confident that their initiatives would be widely welcomed. Unfortunately, at least for the powers that be, this was not to be. Each of the legislative initiatives started under the tutelage of then minister, Kapil Sibal, remains stalled, not even making it to the floor of the House for discussion and adoption. And while detailed analysis of what went wrong is still awaited, it can safely be asserted that insufficient prior debate and discussion, both among the political class and the key stakeholders in the education system, was a major contributor.

Powered possibly by some variant of the late Margret Thatcher’s ‘shock and awe’ strategy which totally transformed Britain’s higher education landscape and Barack Obama’s slogan that all that holds us back is the fear of change, the votaries of reform probably forgot that ‘often good intentions lead to bad outcomes, and base motives, in retrospect, produce revolutionary changes.’ Equally, to understand the full range of causal conditions that produce particular outcomes, the need is to focus, not on theories but on mechanisms that produce change.

The outcry of protest over the recent decision, incidentally ratified by the relevant university bodies and supported by the Ministry of Human Resources Development, to replace the three year undergraduate degree programme by a four year one – compulsory foundational courses across a range of disciplines and skills, greater flexibility of choice in areas of study and specialization, multiple points of entry and exit involving different modes of certification, stress on both practical as well as research skills, just to provide a flavour – has perplexed many. Surely, was not Delhi University in need of a radical shake-up? Too big and unweildy, too much variation among constituent colleges, moribund courses, indifferent quality of teaching and learning resulting in poorly trained products – these and many other complaints have long plagued the university. Little surprise that the vice-chancellor and his team felt that an alternative design, drawing on what they saw as the ‘best global practices’ was the need of the hour. And once assured of full support from the ministry, they moved rapidly to bring in the changes.

Possibly they should have moved with caution, given the recent experience with the introduction of the semester system at the undergraduate level. At that time too, though the new system is now in place, there was widespread opposition, particularly from sections of the faculty, many among whom are recognized as the best teachers and researchers in the university. The resistance was fuelled not by a fear of change or an unhealthy comfort with the status quo, but because it was felt that insufficient effort had gone in to design new courses and ensure that the needed resources and systems were in place. Above all, the faculty was incensed by the lack of substantive consultation which alone can ensure needed buy-in and thus enlarge the constituency for change. Today, even as it is likely that the semester system will settle down, the ensuing bitterness generated by a top-down, hasty process bodes ill for the university. For a better assessment of the impact on quality of teaching and learning, one will have to wait.

Each of the arguments advanced by the ‘opposition’ during the debate on semesterization has only been magnified during the current stand-off. Worse, for the university, instead of any resolution coming from within the fraternity, each side is busy mobilizing support from outside – appealing to MPs, petitions to the President, approaching the court and so on. A deeply divided university, emblematic of a breakdown of trust between management and faculty, rarely provides an ambience conducive to advancement of knowledge and learning. And while future generations may well read the current imbroglio differently, even regard the changes to the university as a much needed initiative for enhancement of relevance and quality, those forced to live through the turbulence are likely to be less forgiving.

Harsh Sethi