The Punjab government recently asked the Vice-Chancellor of Guru Nanak Dev University, Amritsar, to explain his position before the Home Secretary of the state in respect of a few allegations. This was going beyond the limits of law. The Vice-Chancellor, therefore, refused to present himself before the Home Secretary and that should have been the end of the matter. If the intention was to disgrace him publicly, it should have been clear right from the beginning that without the Chancellor taking a hand in the matter, any other move was in the nature of “Willing to wound, but afraid to bite.”
Everyone who is in the know of things knows who is biting whom and why. It should not be necessary to go into the details except to say that the state government has consciously embarked upon a course of action which is in violation of law. Now that the unavoidable outcome is a matter of the past, everyone knows that nothing more is going to happen, nor indeed can happen. All procedures have been complied with and there is nothing more to do. What is more, nothing is morally or legally wrong anywhere.
Why was this done? The answer is simple. We are living in a period when politicians have forgotten that universities must not only perform but must also be enabled to command respect. In this connection. I am reminded of something which happened during the regime of Partap Singh Kairon.
Dr A.C. Joshi, who was the Vice-Chancellor of Panjab University during those years, told me this story himself. Whenever there was a problem and the state had to be consulted, he would ask the Chief Minister over the phone for an appointment. Kairon invariably volunteered to pay him a visit at a mutually convenient hour and would have the matter sorted out. Not even on one occasion did Kairon encourage the idea of the Vice-Chancellor visiting the Secretariat.
On one occasion, the matter concerned two other ministers also. So, Kairon agreed to a visit by the Vice-Chancellor to the Secretariat at an appointed hour. Indeed, Kairon did more than that. The Vice-Chancellor was received at the entrance by the Chief Secretary and the concerned ministers were present in the room when Dr A.C. Joshi arrived. The whole thing was sorted out in 10 minutes and that was the only time that he visited the Secretariat on official business.
The occasion for this conversation arose when in some other connection I mentioned to Dr Joshi that soon after Kairon’s death I had met an old teacher of his at the University of Michigan. Kairon had gone there for his master’s degree.
After a preliminary conversation, Kairon’s teacher asked me about his old student who, he had heard, had been shot down a short while ago. He had some idea of what had happened but he wanted to know more details. I cannot say that he told me anything new except that Kairon used to visit his teacher frequently at home and talked with deep concern about the British hold of India and how to get rid of it. It was a very lively conversation. I learnt about Kairon’s views as a student and this gentleman’s perception of him. His wife also remembered Kairon vividly.
Why did Kairon deal with Dr A.C. Joshi the way he did? The answer is obvious. Having seen the American system at work from close quarters, he tried to do something of the same kind in India in his own way. That he failed to establish what he wanted is obvious. Nor is it suggested that the state of Punjab is worse than other states.
Almost each state in India has sooner or later gone political. The intention is not to condemn the state of Punjab in particular but to make the point that if India is to grow as a democratic and progressive country, some of the conventions about university autonomy that have grown up in the other countries would have to be cultivated here. If somebody blames the vice-chancellors also for being political in response, it should not be forgotten that it all begins with the state. What the vice-chancellors do is to some extent an imitation of what is done to them. Once the state decides to act non-politically, the vice-chancellors would have no choice except to follow that model and act accordingly.
Without going into further details, let it be said that if the state of Punjab wishes to be non-political in its dealings with the Vice- Chancellor at Amritsar, it would be difficult to locate a more suitable person for the purpose. He cannot act politically even if he wishes to. Those who know him would vouch for this statement. This is not the direction in which the state of Punjab should move. The issue, however, is not personal. The issue is: can the state act non-politically if it wishes to?
Here a clear line of distinction needs to be drawn. As a matter of fact, it has already been drawn up. According to the University Act, the Vice-Chancellor’s appointment is made by the Chancellor. If the Vice-Chancellor does not act correctly, there are two ways open to the state. Whether the matter is handled orally or in writing, it will all depend upon the seriousness of the issue. The Chancellor can talk to the Vice-Chancellor and ask him to do something or do it differently and so on. In this particular case, these provisions of the Act were not adhered to. Instead, orders were issued whereby the Vice-Chancellor was required to explain a particular situation to the Home Secretary. This was adding insult to injury.
Two issues arise here. One, was the law followed? If not, why not? The second issue: was it correct to ask an official of the state to conduct the enquiry? Generally speaking, it is a retired judge of the High Court who is asked to conduct such enquiries. What the Vice-Chancellor had done was to act correctly and there was no justification for the state to do what was done. That is why it was said in the beginning, “Willing to wound but…”
At this stage one can go beyond the details of the case. The state has to make up its mind on how to deal with a Vice- Chancellor. The convention sought to be developed by Kairon has failed to develop. Over the decades, things have changed and Punjab is no exception to what has been happening in the country. But should the state of Punjab now wish to establish a new convention, there is nothing to stop it from doing so.
It is not necessary to develop this point further. What needs to be underlined is that a university is different from activities like transport, irrigation or home affairs. All such activities fall directly under the control of the state administration. In a sense, so does the university. But experience in various democratic countries has shown that universities should be treated differently. It is not difficult to do so except that an appropriate convention will have to be established. In response to it, the vice-chancellors, too, will begin to act differently. And that is precisely what is wanted.
To repeat, the initiative has to come from the state.
