Jawaan

Most of the programmes and policies that the Higher Education Commission (HEC) has introduced so far, especially the ones pertaining to raising the bar for academic excellence, face resistance in the already established universities. The resistance is spearheaded by teachers who are hardly known outside their own departments. And if they are, it is more for their politics on campuses than their academic achievements. They are part of a nationwide network which works in cohort with their counterparts on other campuses. Patronised by an extreme right-wing national political party, which is known for its politics of sit-ins, protests, boycotts, and processions, and duly supported by a student federation (their political next of kin) these teachers create a situation with a semblance of a nationwide protest and hold universities hostage.

The trio works more like an organised junta whose objective is to monopolise the seats of higher learning. One of the leading universities in the country is already their den; others are in the process of becoming their haven. Politically, morally, and logistically they supplement and complement one another. Despite the Supreme Court ban on student politics on campuses, the student wing of this junta thrives and flourishes. Under the political umbrella of their pet teachers and politicians, the students continue to provide both of them with the support they need for their nuisance value on the campuses and in the country. Depending on the nature of the issue, the three scratch each other’s back whenever and wherever needed. They have successfully been opposing most of the policies that aim at bringing about healthy change in universities.

There is an interesting pattern and a rationale of sorts to the whole process of opposing the HEC’s policies. Whenever any new plan or programme is introduced on campuses, there are some pet slogans that reverberate on campuses and in the press; anything that portends change, triggers some sort of obsessive compulsive behavior among these maintainers of status quo and protests, and press statements become a daily routine. Instead of suiting themselves to the standards set for all the universities across the board, they insist the criteria should be made in accordance with the norms they and their cronies determine.

It is certainly not a coincidence that only one student federation and their guardian teachers have problems with the new policies. Either these students and their ‘guardians’ are the only custodians of the interests of students and universities in the country or they have an agenda to ensure and perpetuate mediocrity. What the HEC, university administration, and chancellors need to heed to is who is opposing what and why?

Some of the policies that the duo resents the most are the new eligibility formula, TTS and the MPhil/PhD admission criteria. The first two demand academic excellence and quality research from teachers who want to move up the professional ladder; the latter discourages the chronic students who join universities more for politics than for earning degrees. Since their objective is to monopolise the seats of higher learning to ensure their version of academics to breed like-minded people, they loathe any policy that promises quality. The way the HEC introduced its new policies unwittingly helps the duo. By undoing the old policies before the statutory bodies of universities could bless the new ones, the HEC created a vacuum which the duo exploits and brain drains. Even though it had its policies sent to universities through the offices of chancellors for immediate implementation and compliance they are yet to see the light of the day.

One might ask why the statutory bodies of universities have not blessed these new policies to date? Either the HEC did not measure its authority before introducing the new programmes or the invisible hand of politics sabotaging its plans is at work. While one might contest the former, the latter seems to have much weight. A cursory look at the teachers’ associations and the composition of the statutory bodies in the established universities, like the senate and the syndicate, shows how the same faces dominate these bodies. The faulty mechanism of election to the senate and the syndicate helps perpetuate teacher-politicians. The constant recurrence of the same names in these bodies might not just be another happenstance. There is certainly some calculated effort behind it.

On the one hand, the Acts of universities have loopholes that allow the chronic mischief-mongers to be part of the statutory bodies, and, on the other, the apathy of genuine academics gives them a walkover and monopoly. The number of years they spend in these bodies outnumbers the years they devote to research and academics.

Emotional sloganeering, manipulated protests, and planted press statements of these teachers and their pet students attract the attention of the on- and off-campus quarters. Somehow, any new plan or programme that a university or all universities across the country introduce are dubbed as ‘pro-West’, ‘pro-US’, ‘anti-student’ or ‘anti-Islamic’. All this is followed up by anonymous letters to chancellors and the HEC against university administration. Coupled with these hollow slogans and anonymous letters are the statements of national politicians who in their own pet way criticise and condemn the HEC for introducing policies which are not in “accordance with our values and traditions.” Teacher associations, usually dominated by these teachers or their allies, get their cue and jump on the bandwagon of protests.

The HEC, university administrations, and the chancellors’ office do not want any unrest on campuses; neither do any serious academics. Each plays its role in quelling the unrest on campuses.

The HEC had to tone down some of its policies, which certainly emboldened the mischief-mongers hoping that their continuous protests would eventually bear fruit. And if they don’t, the duo would resort to their time-tested protests to frustrate the administration. The university administration easily gives in so as to complete its term without any problems. If it does not, the orchestrated protests continue, and the offices of chancellors ask the university administration to explain the unrest. The latter blames it on the political elements on campuses, which somehow is misconstrued into covering up for the mistakes and weaknesses of the university administration. This is truer in cases where the political elements might have like-minded people working in the provincial government or the offices of chancellors.

Teachers and students feel encouraged knowing that the HEC and the chancellors’ offices resent university administration for turbulence in universities. The chancellors’ office never bothers about the fact that the administration might be right in blaming the unrest on political elements. The HEC does not bother itself about local issues not realising that that ruins the prospect of its policies. Its job is to send policies to universities; their implementation was never its priority. Teachers and students both muster up their resources; and depending on the nature of the issue, they spread the word to other universities and a non-issue becomes a serious issue. The result is that every other day, students take out processions under one or another pretext followed or preceded by teachers’ statements in the national press. A vicious cycle of protests, statements, and explanations begins.

The vested-interest elements protest about one thing, but potentially target another. And since most of the times, we, as a nation, cure symptoms rather than problems, the HEC and the university administration succumb to the pressure tactics of the duo. The noise and the dust settle down right there and then; the duo feels encouraged for the next battle. They get an inch as a result of their protests and nuisance value, and ask for a mile.

Maybe, the HEC did not mean for all this to happen. Its policies and programmes were devised perhaps in all sincerity, but in a rush, hoping that university teachers would welcome them and that higher education will be on the right track. It means right and wants to achieve what it aims at, but the way it goes about doing things is certainly faulty.

It failed to realise that it had to undo quite a lot before it could introduce something new in universities. Previously, it only had to worry about what already existed; now it also has to clean up the mess it added to universities. It has to swill out the mess that has been encouraging mediocrity for decades before the new policies in the universities take off and ensure academic excellence and quality research.

Despite the fact that the HEC toned down its policies in the light of dialogues and discussions with the Federation of all Pakistan Universities Academic Staff Associations (FAPUASA), some university teachers continue to resist the HEC’s policies. If history means anything, the HEC will once again roll back or at least tone down some of its policies.

Our universities and seats of higher learning are one of the last hopes if not the last. Perhaps we cannot afford to allow experimentation with universities.

Politics in universities is a serious problem; the longer we take to resolve it, the bigger it grows. In the struggle for survival, the existing organised junta will encourage formation of more groups and the involvement of political parties. We regret and resent the brain that drains but that alone will not do or we may involuntarily let our seats of higher learning go down the drain. It is time that our policy-makers take practical steps and show that they mean what they say. The HEC should come to terms with the implicit duality in its attitude towards its own policies; what is food for the goose should be food for the gander. Having its policies implemented in some universities and watching others defy its authority causes resentment of a serious nature. On the one hand, the HEC threatens universities with cessation of funds if they fail to follow its policies, but would not measure up to its own standard when some universities defy it.

On the face of it, the HEC does not want to meddle with the autonomy of universities, but would not let universities devise their own policies either. Chancellors’ offices should spare more time for university affairs. Policies that a chancellor approves of for one university in a province should be considered approved for all other universities; this would save both chancellors and universities a lot of time. Furthermore, it will certainly help with minimising the dirty politics of vested-interest elements.

The HEC, university administration, and the chancellors should approach provincial assemblies for bringing about changes in the Acts of universities to check and control professional mischief-mongers; there should be a bar on the number of times a teacher can be elected to statutory bodies of universities. They should be required to present their priorities before their respective constituencies prior to their election, and report their performance to their respective constituencies upon election to the statutory bodies. The eligibility of aspirants for the statutory bodies should be dependent on their academic achievements and publications; the professional commitment of teachers could be a safe gauge to determine their sincerity to university affairs. At present, there are members sitting in these bodies who are not even in the distant neighborhood of academics.

These are not the only steps that would optimise the performance of universities, but would certainly minimise the dirty role of teachers who thrive on their bullying tactics. The serious academics across the country should put forward proposals to fine-tune the Acts of universities and propose changes that could minimise the dirty politics messing up our seats of higher learning. It is time to resolve problems rather than suppress the symptoms of the problems.