Governor Arif Mohammed Khan has put the Kerala government on the defensive by opposing political interference in university affairs. In his bid to ensure harmonious ties with the government he had avoided public spats several times in the past. However, when it was realised enough is enough the Governor publicly expressed his disenchantment with the state of affairs in institutions of higher learning. The grounds for objection are ample as university bodies are under the grip of the Marxist party and campuses are taken over by its students' wing.
As the Marxist party leadership has assumed the direct 'responsibility' of the appointments of vice-chancellors and teachers, the functionaries of teachers' associations and its district-level party leaders are left with relatively lesser entities, such as the Board of Studies, to hold sway.
The Board of Studies, meant to finalise syllabi for various courses and to set guidelines, are now under the control of party acolytes in almost all universities in the State. The decisions of the Board of Studies in fact have a direct impact on the students.
Board of acolytes
The Board of Studies of Kannur University too is a sphere of influence of the Marxist party. Besides inducting party followers in large numbers into the Board, the Syndicate directly reconstituted the Board against the norms. Organisations owing allegiance to Opposition parties alleged that 68 ineligible members were included in the Board. Teachers who have not cleared the National Eligibility Test conducted by the University Grants Commission (UGC) also found their way into the Board.
Being a member of the Board of Studies does not bestow any significant financial benefits. The members are paid a sitting allowance of Rs 1,000 per meeting. The social status that comes with it has made many seek an inclusion into the Board.
Earlier, a member of the Chief Minister's personal staff was made a Board member, citing he was a teacher in Calicut University's Department of Philosophy. However, he was not a faculty member of this department when he was inducted into the Board of Studies. He resigned after his nomination raised an uproar.
Normally, the Syndicate used to recommend the names of potential Board members to the Governor, who approves their appointment. Contrary to the precedence, the Syndicate appointed the Board members first, and sent their list to the Governor.
The University Act and statute state only a teacher or a subject expert should be appointed to the Board of Studies. Since the statute does not define clearly the qualification or experience of teacher, a school teacher too could be appointed to the university's Board of Studies!
The role of a subject expert, too, is not clearly defined, nor does it have a specific criteria, thus the appointment of Board members can be done as the political masters wish.
The Universities Act merely states the Board members should be appointed in accordance with the statute. The statute has mandated the Chancellor to nominate the Board members. However, the Act, while describing the powers of the Syndicate, says it could nominate members to the Board of Studies.
This contradiction has helped the CPM in appointing its members to the Board of Studies of the Kannur University.
Influence matters, not seniority
Three teachers had conveyed their unwillingness in continuing in the Board of Studies of Calicut University after the chairpersons were nominated by superseding seniority and academic excellence. The protesting teachers were Board members of Education (PG), Commerce (PG) and Applied Chemistry.
The chairperson of the Board of Studies, Education, was appointed bypassing a senior professor. Applied Chemistry's Board appointed a person with 10 years less service than the senior professor. After the latter protested he was later appointed chairman after the retirement of the 'junior' chairman.
A teacher of History was appointed the chairman of the Board of Studies for Political Science, while the lone Professor in the Department of Women's Studies was excluded from the Board concerned. These two developments stirred a major controversy in the University of Calicut.
Even evaluation camps are compromised
Even answer paper evaluation camps can be held to serve students of interest to the authorities. Once several officials frowned at the Kannur University's 'magnanimity' to hold an evaluation camp for just three students of the 2018 batch of the Bachelor of Business Administration (MBA). After officials warned that the camp would compromise the secrecy of examination and lead to a major controversy, the university dropped the plan. Instead, the institution held a special camp where teachers evaluated all 400 answer sheets, including those of the three students.
The university's directive to upload the results online before the conclusion of the evaluation camp, too, had sparked controversy. The university, however, could not publish the result on due date, and the vice-chancellor initiated disciplinary action against five officials and shunted them out of the examination wing.
The Mahatma Gandhi University, too, was generous towards some students and allegedly 'gifted' more marks to some students by conducting an adalat so that they could obtain pass marks. A personal staff member of the then Minister of Higher Education had attended the adalat. As the meddling created an uproar the Syndicate convened a meeting and cancelled the degrees awarded. The meeting apparently ignored the fact that only the Governor, who is also the Chancellor, could cancel the degrees he had awarded.
The students approached the court against the Syndicate decision and won a favourable order. The university did not appeal the order due to obvious reasons.
SFI activists versus pro-CPM employees
The activists of the Students' Federation of India (SFI) are a law unto themselves on university campuses in Kerala. It is alleged they forced examiners based at the University of Calicut's Pareeksha Bhavan to alter marks in the last week of November. Their bid was opposed by pro-CPM employees but the latter was attacked by the SFI activists. Several people were injured in the clash.
An official statement said the clash broke out after the employees demanded the students to follow COVID-19 protocols. However, it is alleged that the SFI leaders were incensed by the employees' intervention that prevented the students' organisation's attempt to tweak marks.
A senior official had imposed strict restrictions at the Pareeksha Bhavan to prevent interference in the evaluation process. The official later told Syndicate members that the restrictions enraged the SFI, and the student activists arrived at the centre to target him.
The SFI, meanwhile, came up with a different version about the affray. The CPM's students wing said the violence started after an employee misbehaved and manhandled an activist, who visited the office to enquire about a student's certificate.
Incidentally, the answer sheets of second-year degree regular and supplementary candidates were sent for evaluation without false numbers this time. The clash between the students and employees broke out while the marklists of these students were being sorted.
Earlier, a Syndicate member had sought an appointment with the vice-chancellor to lodge a complaint with evidence to prove SFI leaders' involvement in manipulating the marks of the same exam. The appointment was never granted.
Pressure to raise internal marks
Powerful students' organisations with the backing of their political masters do all that they can so that marks could be secured easily with favourable norms rather than by studies. Political interest is behind a government move to replace the present theory and internal marks ratio of 80:20 with 50:50.
The 50:50 ratio, it has been alleged, would pave the way for helping student leaders and party acolytes by bestowing internal marks liberally. Internal assessment is done based on attendance, class tests and assignments. The present 80:20 ratio ensures that a student doesn't pass the exam even if s/he scores full marks in the internal assessment. The student will have to secure pass marks in theory papers also.
The plan to introduce a 50:50 marks regime was mooted at a meeting convened by the commission constituted to recommend reforms to improve the examination system in universities and higher education institutions. The associations of teachers and students reportedly backed the proposal at the meeting held in Thiruvananthapuram on December 10. Representatives of university employees, too, attended the meeting.
Pro-Congress employees' representatives opposed the proposal, raising concerns that the 50:50 ratio would lead to favouritism in exams, and could also become a tool to fail those who are out of favour.
Representatives of Left organisations did not attend the meeting, saying they did not get enough time to study the proposal. Indications are that the Left organisations are trying to give the commission their suggestions in writing by avoiding direct discussions.
This is the third part of a series on administration of universities in Kerala. Read other parts here:
Part 1: Kerala varsities venue of political games, these instances are just the tip of the iceberg
Part 2: Recruitment norms thrown to the wind as Kerala universities accommodate CPM acolytes
Tomorrow: Even as irregularities and sharing of posts and benefits have become the norm, what has been the status of educational and research works in the State's universities?
Prepared by: Renji Kuriakose, Unni K Warrier, Jayachandran Elankath, K Jayaprakash Babu, R Krishnaraj, Arun Ezhuthachan, M R Harikumar and Sajesh Karanattukara.
Compiled by: Nidhish Chandran
