Our prime institutions were singular

Modern times are fragmenting times. Despite our claim of getting closer to holistic education, we feel the loss of what we are rejecting, ignoring or erasing from the university system. It is the binding thread, the institutional ideology of merit and excellence.

It is because the agenda is different now. The role of the university has changed from individual release for knowledge and wisdom for human emancipation to capacity building training for market manipulations. University is now presumed to be skilled trading institution for generating resources and seeking material empowerment.

The idea sounds profound. But comprehension of it brings break and lacks details of imagination. The idea of university in the present form has come from the Enlightenment Movement to perceive the notion of universality and bring it in through the institution of university.

The expression what is ‘the best and has been said and thought in the world’. The institutional history is old, back to the emergence of kingdoms and republics, but institutional ideology came up from intellectual traditions of modernity. It is to provide atmosphere and impetus for unfolding the human genius and make its assemblage for human creativity, the discourse of universality.

Sharda, Nalnda, Taxla give us a peep into the historical sense of institutional history of university. Its continuity was lost, in a sense; Earth was not then measured, owned and subjugated, the way it had been classified through nation-states. Oxford and Cambridge, though established in12th century were molded in the bash of renaissance.

The knowledge repertoires from India and Greek travelled through   Arab to Europe, where it got screened, translated and owned, when Europe found its moment of arrival. The idea was that ‘university stood for and on the unwavering and singular standard of universal truth’. This made academic community exclusionary to the political institutions and finance raising institution. Scholarship is exclusive, without any presupposition and preconditions or interference from outside academic sphere. The referent was not material but creativity of idea and expression.

It was the responsibility of state and non state agencies to provide sufficient grants to the persons engaged in the university without any preconditions or forced conditions. The dissent was tolerated and critical understanding was promoted. The ‘stock of cumulative knowledge’ experimented in making universals were through academic traditions. The university embodied the intellectual tradition and transcript of university person, who beyond creativity is a moral soldier.

Despite having given the world the intellectual traditions though the exclusive sites, before Europe could imagine, the present system of university emerged in India in 19th Century, after early reform movements on the lines of European universities.

Banaras Hindu University and Aligarh Muslim University are the prime premier institutions. Its punch was essentially on modernity; however, the spirit of Reform Movements, as well as, the fervor of National Movement had its bearings on the evolution of these universities.

The distinction between the two was that AMU in its initial phase was meant exclusively for the elite Muslims, whereas, Banaras Hindu University had inclusive agenda, right from its foundations.

In this way, Banaras Hindu University encompassed the idea of Mrs. Annie Besant to establish ‘The university of India’, when She met Malaviyaji in 1911.With its establishment in 1916, its vision was declared by founder himself, “It is my earnest hope and prayer that this centre of life and light, which is coming into existence will produce students, who will not only be intellectually equal to the best of their fellow students in other parts of the world, but will also live a noble life, love their country be loyal to the Supreme Ruler…whose conduct though life would show that they bear the landmark of a great university.”

Until recent past, the university represents this ideal type structuration of agency and structures. The vice chancellors were scholars of immense repute and disposition. No wonder, the vice chancellors would command respect, aura of their scholarship and integrity.

Acharya Narender Dev, on request of Prime Minister Nehru had accepted to be the vice chancellor of the university in 1952 and in the subsequent year 1953, Nehru visited the university and put an odd question to him,” The University has fallen in its standards, Mr. Vice chancellor. How bad are these internal roads? You know roads carry knowledge? Acharya was quick to reply,” The standards have fallen, for the Prime Minister has lost his touch with the university”. Nehru had admitting grin tin response.

Sir CP Ramaswami Iyre, jurist scholar was a critic to Nehru, yet he was appointed Vice chancellor, who redefined tradition and scientific temper and brought it in the curriculum and teaching in reformative measure.

Special attention was paid that the university should have all India representation in teaching faculty as well in the strength of students. Government grant had this prerequisite condition.

University was having its institutional identity. No matter what discipline one would learn, studying in the campus had one identity, the identity of BHU. This would cut across all other identities and make students meet and live like one joint family, a home out from home. This had a rupture when India witnessed the process of decentring after mid seventies; university reflected this transition of populism and political precedence and interference in policy framing from curriculum to appointments. Eventually, BHU identity remained academic identity, when institute of technology separated itself from the mainstream administration of the university. The bond exists, but the bond has turned the bond of fluidity.

The post seventy era witnessed era of weak vice chancellors, who hardly could take pride in their positions, as did the vice chancellors, earlier to them. The popular movement of Total Revolution of 1974 fizzled out in generating spaces for political elites that they either communalize or paracholize national issues, often to the point of no return.  Despite judicial activism, there do not seem supportive social movements for creation of moral rationality in the system. Anna tried but failed in political dispensation. These contemporary movements were concerned with the major issue of redistribution of resources and sharing of power, which got divided on two sharp non political divides: the Savarans and Arvans.

One has no patience to go into historical factors of deprivation, and the other would tolerate no alternative measures, but fling allegations. Consequently, there was no space for dialogue; rather politics vanished from the movements. The Savrna hegemony of Hindu community was finally broken into two mutually exclusive categories; people forward and backward.

Closely allied with hegemonic and counter hegemonic cultural movements, these are the caste and community consolidations engagements, active in voting pattern behavior. It has pushed out popular politics from public space. It has given way to certain movements of cultural nationalism, sub nationalism and ethnicity.

There was no need to factionalize the moral issue. It was under this background BJP emerged to power position. It goes to the credit of Prime Minister Modi that it took India not by castes and communities, but gave it a notional portrayal for inclusive pluralism. It has its success in economic front and assertion of Indian-identity to subsume the centripetal social forces.

However, university as such has been deprived of its moral contents with increased emphasis on creation of infrastructure and generation of resources. The merge of university into economic culture edifice primarily would be an interment with historical spaces of language, hierarchy and inequality, which would undermine the tradition of merit and scholarship. Primordialism and culturalism are not going to provide a transformative future.

To presume Vice chancellors, as market executives and universities, as sites of resource spring would mean departure of Humanities and Performing Arts in creating gratis expressions of humankind. True, it does not have immediate market gain, but it is invisible moral epistemic yarn that humankind needs in its historical journeying.

Market at best can be ‘signaling device not controlling mechanism’. This fluidity will make politics also fluid and weaken the role of university in its historic role for human emancipation.

In conclusion, human capacities could be identified and empowered on merit and quality of education. No hierarchical honour but dignity of man.

Multiculturalism is a kind of late capitalism for goods to meet the demand of new styles of life.

It is empty of political content. Popular politics for public good shall come up from universities through universal ideals of knowledge and wisdom. It shall not come from target clicks, packaging of market rationale.

Let universities remain sacred temples of learning and growing for putative principles of knowledge, creativity and expression without the burden of materiality in its organic endurance. The university person is a universal person.

Ashok Kaul, Retired Emeritus professor of Banaras Hindu University