On the issue of the autonomy to universities, many arguments are doing rounds in the educational corridors, from the day it was announced. For some it is historic and the best to happen in the educational sphere while many believe it is a step forward towards privatisation where the affluent class can avail the benefit more as compared to the middle and backward class.
In the middle of this debate, it is important to note what Daniel H. Pink once said, “Control leads to compliance; autonomy leads to engagement.” Another viewpoint, which is being strongly put forward by the experts is, “Autonomy without responsibility and accountability may not serve the purpose,” which reminds us what Philosopher Immanual Kant argued, “Autonomy is at the root of human dignity and the source of all morality.” In education, excellence in academics, good governance and financial well-being of institutions can be achieved only when autonomy is attached with responsibility and accountability.
However, it is also important to see that what would be the likely impact on minority institutions in particular and others in general. Because physical and demographic structures of these institutions may vary and that is why autonomy also requires to be debated in that perspective as we move from here onwards.
According to Prof. M. Aslam, former Vice Chancellor, IGNOU and President, All India Educational Movement, “Autonomy is important but it will become meaningless, if it is not supplemented by the supportive regulatory framework. It is true that Oxford and Cambridge evolved over a period of time with considerable autonomy in terms of governance. The scenario has now changed. You not only need a policy environment but also necessary dedicated budgetary support. I do not agree with too much emphasis on foreign faculty and foreign students. When we are talking of foreign faculty, why can’t we follow the Chinese model and start looking for internationally renowned foreign-trained Indians and non-resident Indians. This will make us believe in ourselves, to materialise this; we need to provide competitive salary and additional non-salary incentives. This is where enough funding/ budgetary provisions become important.”
“Similarly, I have failed to understand that when we talk of foreign students, why we forget about the Diaspora. I always found them deeply interested in our education system. They are talented and show strong intrinsic motivation. What worries me the most is that when you allow all these Universities to introduce online distance learning programmes, what will be the fate of one national and 13 state Open Universities? I strongly believe that open and distance learning mode is the best mode to democratise higher education in India, and needs to be encouraged and promoted. I do not think that this announcement is going to have any positive impact on Minorities because it is only 11 per cent of them who pursue higher education,” argued Aslam.
Another viewpoint put forward by Prof. Muhammad Iqbal, PhD, FNASc, formerly with Department of Botany and was also interim Vice Chancellor of Jamia Hamdard (Hamdard University) is, “Autonomy will perhaps give freedom to the selected universities to initiate new programmes of study without seeking any formal approval of the UGC. This will certainly expedite the process of expansion of knowledge in some innovative and cutting-edge areas of technology and in the interdisciplinary studies thus save the institutions from undue hustle and red-tapism of Government offices. This must result in a relatively rapid growth of the well-administered and active institutions, as the selected ones are expected to be. However, I think the main point to be clarified categorically relates to availability of funds required to manage the paraphernalia (e.g. laboratories/classrooms, equipment, chemicals, e-management etc) associated with these newly initiated, state-of-the-art programmes.”
“Nowadays, there is a fashion of starting applied and the so-called professional courses under the self-financing scheme, wherein fee structure is kept exorbitantly high, which is far above the paying capacity of the common masses. It means that only the five-star clientele can benefit from such programmes, and even the top brilliant students with poor family backgrounds cannot dream of it. Since a majority of Muslims in the country suffer from the low economic conditions, Muslim students in particular remain deprived of the benefits of such programmes. Given this, initiation of such courses in AMU in particular will not be of much utility. The socio-economic ethos of this (formally/informally) minority institution especially requires a high-value but low-cost education. However, if additional funds would be provided by the MHRD for the innovative programmes initiated by these institutions under the provision of their full autonomy granted to them, it would really prove a commendable step thus deserve appreciation, said Iqbal.
For colleges, the concept of autonomy is not new. It was for the first time formulated in the National Education Policy of 1992, and further strengthened by the Gnanam Committee. So far there are 441 autonomous colleges in the country.
There are mixed reactions from minority institutions on the issue of autonomy like AMU and others. However, Syed Ali Nadeem Rezavi, former President, Medieval Indian Section, IHC, and Chairman, Dept. of History, AMU, is not impressed with the idea of autonomy. It is one of the worst things to happen. It’s a step towards privatisation of education where the market would decide what one studies.
Further, the self funding due to withdrawal of state funding would raise the cost education and thus education would be rendered unaffordable for a large section of the masses. AMU draws students from the economically suppressed classes. They would thus be denied education. This is actually unconstitutional as our constitution guarantees education to all on equal footing. The result would be further backwardness among the Muslims, Dalits and other suppressed classes.