Revisit KSU Act to revamp our varsities

There is a lot of discussion in the state about the need for reinventing higher education. While it is true that the responsibility of bringing about qualitative changes remains largely with the academicians, the changes also need to be anchored broadly within the framework of the legislation prevailing in the state, i.e., the Karnataka State Universities (KSU) Act, 2000. The Act was passed when the Congress was in power. Hence, the present government may not think in terms of replacing it totally. It may at best bring about some changes through amendments. Here is an attempt to suggest some changes in the Act which has 14 chapters dealing with issues like the establishment and incorporation of universities, key officers of the university, authorities of the university like the Syndicate and the Academic Council, boards like the Board of Studies, Planning Monitoring and Evaluation Board, Finance and Accounts, Affiliation of Colleges, etc. 

It is impossible to cover all the aspects contained in the Act but it is imperative to highlight the areas where the law needs amendments so as to improve the functioning of public universities and strengthen the higher education ecosystem. 

First, there is a need to create the office of pro-vice chancellor in the university’s organisational structure. This would require amending the existing Act. While there are arguments both in favour and against creating such a position on the grounds that it may result in an additional power centre, I am of the opinion that the position be created and the holder of the office — an educational administrator — be entrusted with the task of ensuring coordination in the field of administration, freeing up the vice chancellor to focus entirely on academic matters to provide leadership for promoting quality in teaching and research in the university and affiliated colleges. The vice chancellor should also be in charge of raising resources from different quarters, including guiding the faculty to bring prestigious projects, as universities are short of funds and are being asked to raise resources on their own from as many sources as possible including alumni and industry. 

The selection and appointment of VCs is a crucial process that requires extraordinary care. The government is likely to continue with the existing procedures outlined in the Act but it is also imperative that governmental interference and the role of ‘extraneous considerations’ be kept out in the appointment of vice chancellors. The search committees that are constituted for this purpose must consist of men and women of integrity and vision, who can resist pressures and recommend the most deserving candidates based on merit and social justice.

The Syndicate is the highest decision-making body in the university system. Though the existing practice of the government and the chancellor nominating members of the Syndicate may continue, it is necessary to bring in
persons with expertise in the field of higher education, industry and civil society. The practice of nominating politicians belonging to the ruling party must be stopped. The chancellor, too, should appoint educational administrators of high integrity as his/her nominees, who can contribute positively to the university’s vision and mission.

When it comes to the Boards of Studies, whose main function is to prepare the curriculum, there is a need for greater interaction between the postgraduate departments, and affiliated and autonomous colleges including industry representatives. Representation must be ensured either by formally making them members or by co-opting them as special invitees. In any case, curriculum design and development should reflect quality with adequate opportunities for skilling, reskilling and upskilling of the students.  

The system of affiliation of colleges will continue in all probability, though the National Education Policy (NEP) 2020 calls for its gradual phasing out. Here, the VCs need to ensure that the committees are composed of academicians with an industry representative, if needed, to evaluate the preparedness of colleges to run courses with optimum facilities for the benefit of students. Colleges that secure an A+ grade from the accreditation agency NAAC can be subjected to the affiliation exercise once in five years only.

Chapter 12 of the KSU Act deals with the University Review Commission. However, this provision is largely ignored or neglected in practice. Universities must be mandatorily subjected to review once in five years. The highest standards of transparency must be maintained in the constitution of the commission and its functioning. The report of the commission must be made public and accessible to all the stakeholders.

It is hoped that the government would give priority to amending the Act to ensure the effective and optimal functioning of our public universities.

(The writer is former dean, Faculty of Arts, Bangalore University)