Consequences of Repealing Goa University Act-II

by NANDKUMAR KAMAT
Posted on 2008-11-24
THE Central Universities Bill 2008 was introduced on October 23, 2008 in the Lok Sabha by the minister of state for MHRD. On November 17, the bill was referred to the 21 member standing committee of MHRD representing both the houses. The committee would have sittings on November 28 and December 5 and the report would go to the Rajya Sabha after its’ session begins on December 10.
The CUB 2008 may be passed by December 18 with or without amendments depending on the perceptions of the stakeholder states. The Goa government self-hypnotised with the IFFI euphoria may be caught on the wrong foot once again. The Rajya Sabha MP from Goa Mr Shantaram Naik is an active member of this committee and the state government besides contacting MHRD has to officially communicate its’ decision to amend CUB 2008 by making a request to delete all references to ‘Goa University’ to the chairman of the standing committee and all its’ esteemed members. Necessary deletion has to be included in the standing committee’s report. The state government which could never find a full time experienced officer to lead the directorate of higher education has made a complete mess of basic policy issues impinging on future generations. Institutional mechanisms recommended by the University Grants Commission have been sacrificed in the process. Goa University faced tremendous problems in transiting from a 20-year-old PG center under the University of Mumbai to a state university. A statutorily established state university is not a car or a computer which can be converted or upgraded easily and then expected to function on par with a brand new car or computer with state of the art technology. There are fundamental techno-legal, structural and functional differences.
Goa had welcomed, identified the land and accommodated the National Institute of Oceanography at Dona Paula, the Antarctica research center at Vasco, the ICAR research complex at Ela, the petroleum research institute at Betul and surrendered the island of Anjediv to the Indian Navy without getting into issues of regionalism or nationalism. There is no statutory burden on these institutions to do anything specifically for the state. The state government is free to hire their services. The addition of a new central university perfectly fits into this mosaic. There is adequate intellectual and functional space for several world-class institutions to exist simultaneously in this state because Goa is a unique, dynamic and creative place on this planet with its’ timeless charm. And most important, which institutional mechanism should decide the policy – when the central government makes an offer – for new IITs, IIMs and central universities and the matter of ‘conversion’ may lead to repeal of a bill of state legislative assembly?
This is not the mandate of government officers on short-term service, a few handpicked advisors and politically constituted corporations like GEDC. The government has deliberately hidden the fact that this should actually be the task of the state council of higher education (SCHE) as recommended by the UGC. But is it not a shame that the governments which ruled in Goa since 1988 and their self styled educationist advisors could never act on UGC recommendations 1988 to establish state council for higher education?
The powers and functions of the council are given by the UGC. Interestingly during the entire discourse on ‘conversion’ issue, none of the worthies have ever touched this uncomfortable aspect and/or even questioned the Goa government’s inaction on this count since 1997. The Chief minister was kept totally in the dark on two counts between June to November 2007. One was the necessity to refer the matter to a duly constituted SCHE whose establishment was kept pending since 1997 and another was the scrapping of budget subhead 103.02 for State Council for Higher Education from 2008-09. The UGC recommendations were accepted by the state government and incorporated in the ninth five year plan (1997-2002, page 192, (E).
A special budget subhead 103.02 was created under demand No 35. This subhead appears in Volume II of all the annual budgets but mysteriously disappears from the budget of 2008-09 once the state government gives its’ sanction to ‘convert’ Goa University. Was this a mere coincidence? Or was it a calculated and deliberate decision to get rid of the statutory council? Should we not learn from states, which are more experienced in higher education? The Goa government needs to give a convincing and justifiable explanation regarding the scrapping of this budget subhead suddenly from April 2008 and its’ failure to establish GSCHE since 1997.
Strict adherence to these noble and laudable UGC objectives would have sorted out all problems plaguing higher education in Goa. Tamil Nadu, Andhra Pradesh and Kerala have active state councils on higher education. Whereas the Kerala legislative assembly was busy in streamlining its’ institutional mechanism for higher education by passing Act 22, the Kerala State Higher Education Council Act 2007 in October 2007 the advisors to CM, Goa instead of recommending the Kerala model were busy in advocating the repeal of the Goa University Act, 1984.
Sensing the chaos on higher education policy issues, Maharashtra has recently established SCHE. The repeal of the Goa University Act, 1984 would have ended the process of gender transition at the PG level. It was because of the liberal admission policy of Goa University that it has maintained more than 60-65 percent female enrollment in all the faculties for more than 15 years. Unofficially it is fit to be called a champion of women empowerment.
The investment made by the Goa government to fund the Goa University all these years has to be seen as an investment in empowering local women. The CUB 2008 would not permit the continuation of the present trend of gender transition and female dominance. Most of these women postgraduates were the first postgraduates from their families. The CUB 2008 may be good for other states but it would permanently eliminate a state university by repealing the Goa University Act, 1984. The real debate should have taken place on the issues like establishment of the State Council for Higher Education pending since 1997 and its’ mysterious omission from budget provisions this year. This is in the interest of all stakeholders in higher education.
The issue of repealing a state act is not just the question of regionalism or of self-respect of Goans but the ability to govern institutions created by the will of the people in the state effectively and efficiently. Only a few selfless thinkers can envisage this. When the editor of the Konkani Monthly ‘Bimb’ asked the Dnyanpeeth awardee and Gandhian writer, Mr Ravindra Kelekar about the move to convert ‘Goa University’, he was visibly upset with the very idea. He had remarked – “this is a beggars’ mentality… If these people don’t want their own university then let them also bring their MLAs and ministers from Delhi to rule this state”. (Concluded)