Time for paradigm shift in PU

Panjab University (PU) has been in limelight in recent years after the London-based weekly magazine, "Times Higher Education" in its annual publication of World University Rankings for 2013-14 rated it as the No. 1 University in India, ahead of such prestigious institutions as the IITs and the Indian Institute of Science (IISc). Globally it figured in the Top 250 universities. The news was greeted with some scepticism that was found to be not entirely unjustified. The reason was the high weightage given to citations in which PU, with its research effort spanning multiple disciplines both in Humanities and Science, scored over other institutions like the IITs and IISc, which unlike PU do not span all domains. Another factor responsible for the exceptionally high citations in the case of PU was the involvement of its Faculty for a considerable time in the search for the elusive fundamental particles, including the so-called "God Particle" that recently attracted worldwide attention. Moreover many Indian universities that are highly regarded, for reasons best known to them, chose not to provide data for the international surveys.

Many other international rating agencies also ranked PU fairly high particularly among the universities of the emerging economies like the BRICS countries. Nevertheless it is obvious that PU needs to make greater efforts if it has to maintain, and further improve, its performance to be able to compete successfully with other institutions of higher learning both nationally as well as globally. A reliable yardstick for assessing its performance is provided by the periodic "peer review" conducted by the National Assessment and Accreditation Council (NAAC) established by the University Grants Commission in 1994. The Council grades institutions on a scale of 1 to 4, with a score of 3-4 being graded as A (very good).

In March 2015, a NAAC team conducted a detailed review of PU's performance in all its aspects. The University secured a score of 3.35, barely managing to scrape into the Top 20 Universities, considerably behind the highest ranking institutions, viz. JNU with a score of 3.91, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai (3.89), University of Hyderabad (3.72) and Jadavpur University (3.68). The NAAC Team has specifically emphasized the need for reviewing the university's governance structure and has provided the inspiration for an intensive exercise that is now under way with the establishment of a "Think Tank" that includes Justice MM Kumar, former Chief Justice of the Jammu & Kashmir High Court; Justice Bharat Bhushan Parsoon, retired Judge of the Punjab & Haryana High Court; Prof. SS Johl, Chancellor, Central University, Bathinda; and senior Senators and Faculty members. 

Historical background

The precursor of Panjab University, which was formally established in 1882, was the so-called Panjab University College, Lahore. The Governing Body of the College was a Senate, which took over the responsibility of managing the University and decided to set up a smaller body designated as the Syndicate for carrying out the executive functions. The composition of the Senate was designed to ensure adequate representation of all stake-holders, including the government, the civil society, the teachers and the students. The governance structure of the University underwent several fundamental changes particularly before Partition. Further adjustments became necessary after Partition in terms of providing the required legal basis, when the Panjab University Act, 1947 was adopted, and again in 1966 with the re-organization of Punjab. However, the governance structure embodied in the Panjab University Act, 1947 has by and large remained unchanged since1947, despite the fact that the scope and functions of the university have undergone a sea-change. In the early years it was largely an affiliating body for the colleges in Punjab. Its character changed significantly with the establishment and growth of the campus in Chandigarh. Simultaneously many other universities came up in the region, thereby reducing the number of colleges affiliated to PU. These changes have to be taken into account in assessing the adequacy of the present governance structure.

Time to assess

Any such assessment must address the question whether the governing bodies as now constituted effectively discharge the responsibilities entrusted to them by the various stake-holders. Judging by the serious governance problems that have arisen, this does not seem to be the case. After the initial euphoria of securing a high ranking by global rating agencies, the university has been in the news for the wrong reasons. Appointments to senior positions, made after due process, have been repeatedly challenged in courts; and the complainants have persisted with needless litigation despite admonition by the high court. The university has the dubious distinction of holding some kind of a record with as many as 1,200 cases pending in various courts - far higher than even large corporate houses. As a result the officials of the university have to spend a disproportionate amount of their time in handling court cases. The Chancellor's office is also flooded with frivolous complaints even in cases in which he has no jurisdiction, as he has had the occasion to point out in the case of allegations of sexual harassment against the Vice-Chancellor. The most embarrassing situation the university has had to face of late has arisen out of the delay in the release of funds for the financial year that has just ended. 

All this points to the need for drastic reforms in the governance structure embodied in the Panjab University Act, 1947 so that the governing bodies as well as the Faculty and officers are better equipped to concentrate on academic performance. These reforms must take into account the changes that have occurred since its establishment both in its character as well as its functions. Insofar as the character of the university is concerned, there has been some lack of clarity about its status, particularly after the adoption of the Punjab Reorganization Act, 1966, which describes it as an "Inter-State body corporate", thereby placing it under the dual control of the Central and Punjab Governments. As pointed out in the recent NAAC report, this "poses governance related challenges". Legal issues have arisen, for example, over the applicability of UGC regulations in matters such as the age of retirement and inter-se seniority of professors. These regulations are automatically applicable to Central universities but have to be specifically adopted by PU with government approval. Questions have also been raised about the sharing of the financial burden by the state and Central governments. 

The Senate

The Senate, which is "the supreme authority" of the university under the Act, should normally concern itself with formulating the broad policies. In practice it is burdened with routine administrative matters such as appointments, promotions etc. As a result the agenda for the senate meetings is too heavy and a disproportionate amount of its time is taken up in discussing administrative issues that are better left to the syndicate, which is charged with the responsibility for the "executive government of the university". The debates in the senate often lead to frayed tempers with high decibels rather than sound reason carrying the day. It is imperative to redesign the governance structure to ensure that the Senate concerns itself only with policy matters by delegating executive functions to the Syndicate and the Vice-Chancellor, who is the chief executive.

The need for changing the composition of the senate to make it more responsive to the evolving needs has been acutely felt for some time and several attempts have been made to devise an entirely new governance structure. Notable among them was the proposal put forward in 1999 by former Vice-Chancellor, Prof. MM Puri, which sought to make the senate exclusively a policy making body with the management of the university vested in the syndicate. It also proposed a complete overhaul of the various constituencies represented in the Senate. All these attempts have been frustrated due to stiff resistance from vested interests.

The senate, as now constituted, comprises the Chancellor, the Vice-Chancellor, Ex-officio Fellows representing the Punjab and Central governments and Ordinary Fellows numbering 85 of whom 46 are elected by various constituencies and the remaining are nominated by the Chancellor. The rationale of this structure was to ensure adequate representation of all stakeholders, viz. the government, the civil society and the teaching Faculty. Any new structure, while keeping this basic objective in mind, has to take into account its shortcomings in ensuring its fulfilment.

For the Senate to be an effective deliberative and policy-making body, its size should be much smaller and its membership should include persons who are not only qualified to represent the various interests but are also able to devote adequate time and attention to the work involved. Keeping this requirement in mind, the wisdom of having high dignitaries such as the Chief Minister and Chief Justice, who understandably cannot be expected to find time for the meetings of the Senate, as Ex-officio Members is highly questionable. Both the Central and the Punjab governments, whose involvement in the work of the Senate is vitally important need to take this responsibility more seriously and designate their representatives accordingly.

As far as the elected Fellows are concerned, the constituency that has been the target of maximum criticism comprises the so-called "Registered Graduates", designed to represent the Civil Society. This is the largest constituency and returns as many as 15 Fellows to the Senate. It is a tradition carried forward from the British days when the Graduates were much smaller in number and were considered to be highly competent individuals capable of representing the Civil Society. With their number growing into hundreds of thousands the validity of this assumption has been called into question. 

Crucial reform 

Another essential reform of the Senate, which is long overdue, is to correct the imbalance in the representation of the Campus Faculty in relation to the colleges that has occurred due to the expansion of the campus and the shrinking of the number of affiliated colleges. 

In a recent proposal submitted by Panjab University Teachers' Association (PUTA), it has been suggested that no senator should be allowed to become a member of the Senate for more than two successive terms. This is reflective of the concern that has been felt for quite some time that the dominance of senators of long-standing, with personal agendas that have nothing to do with the university's academic well-being, often results in situations that bring the university into disrepute. There have been cases where Fellows held responsible for serious misdemeanour have managed to escape punishment because of the protection they have enjoyed. The acceptance of the PUTA proposal can mitigate such situations to some extent. 

Faculties & Syndicate

In any scheme for the reform of the governance structure of the university, most careful attention will have to be paid to the way the Faculties are constituted. This is because the Faculties not only determine the content of what is taught but also serve as the constituencies that elect important functionaries charged managing its affairs, including the deans of Faculties and members of the Syndicate.

The first requirement is a reduction in the number of Faculties. Under the powers vested in the Senate, it has constituted as many as 11 Faculties. There is no reason, for example, why we need separate Faculties for Pharmaceutical Sciences; and Design & Fine Arts, which can easily be merged with the Faculties of Science and Arts respectively. There is also no justification for a Faculty of Medicine, which comprises only the teaching staff of the Dental College, who is not specialist in the medical field.

The university's constitution provides for Fellows to be assigned to four Faculties each with reference to their qualifications. They are also empowered to assign additional members to the Faculties, subject to a maximum of half the number of Fellows assigned to each Faculty, bearing in mind their special knowledge of the subjects concerned. These provisions presuppose that the Fellows, as well as the additional members assigned by them, are academically qualified to be able to contribute meaningfully to the work of the Faculties. In practice, this requirement is totally ignored and the choice of Faculties as well as that of the additional members is left entirely to the discretion of Fellows. The major consideration that the Fellows seem to have in mind in making these choices is the impact it has on the electoral process, particularly in the annual election of the Syndicate members. Experience has shown that this process is manipulated in such a way that Fellows are re-elected to the Syndicate year after year.

If academic background is an important consideration in assigning Fellows to various Faculties, it is difficult to justify their assignment to as many as four Faculties as is the case now, or to permit changes after the expiry of two years. That considerations other than academic interest guide the choice of Fellows assigned to the Faculties is also obvious from the fact that many senior Fellows of long standing have been members of diverse Faculties at different times in all of which they do not necessarily have the required expertise.

The writer is a former Diplomat and currently a Member of the Panjab University Senate.