Dr Deshmukh: A VC has a stature; your University had a John Matthai

There have been vice chancellors of universities like Dr DS Reddy of Osmania University who fought, with teachers and students aiding him, for the institutions autonomy. He went to court and won against the interference of the Andhra Pradesh government. And there have been vice chancellors like Parimal Trivedi of Gujarat University who thought nothing of touching a chief minister’s feet, in  this case, Narendra Modi’s, in public.  That is a wide band. Unfortunately, the likes of Reddy of the 1960s are hardly remembered. Now we have the  University of Mumbai’s newly appointed VC, Dr Sanjay Deshmukh visiting a politician, Raj Thackeray who is not even in power to offer any benediction, and then saying he would be calling on the Shiv Sena chief, Uddhav Thackeray too for “there is no reason I should not meet anyone”. The drift this good man is missing in the criticism at his bloomer is not “meeting anyone” but how, where, and what for. [caption id=“attachment_2111647” align=“alignleft” width=“380”] File photo of Mumbai University.[/caption] Mumbai University and its vice chancellor could do without any controversy especially because the past five years under Rajan Welukar whom Deshmukh replaced. The university had nothing but the inexcusable glitches in even the conduct of examinations. It cannot be that one accepts bad food from a reputed kitchen simply because it is reputed. Besides, there were questions over Welukar’s eligibility and probably spent more time with his lawyers than running the university during his term. A vice chancellor of any university draws his pay and derives his powers from the various Acts that govern such institutions in the respective states. He is, however, not to see himself as an employee of the government, much less of the politicians who, directly or indirectly, or even clandestinely help them secure such posts. But when he sheds the grace and stature of the office by even one thoughtless act, the damage is done to the university. It takes a long time to recover. The expectation was that Deshmukh would work to raise the stature of the university long eroded. His academic brilliance achieved early in his career was cited as one reason why the Mumbai University could hope for a retrieval of its past academic glory. At this moment, its reputation is in tatters and the academic world had pinned some hopes on him. Now, the same community is rightly upset for he justified his visit to Raj Thackeray, the Maharashtra Navnirman Sena chief, for “inputs” to improve the university. Thackeray may be anything, but he is not an educationist. A VC is a top position in academia. It is ever unlikely that no one who can or has something to offer to the university for its Improvement would decline an invitation to visit the vice chancellor. Deshmukh should try a Ratan Tata or an Azim Premji or a Narayan Murthy and see the result; they would come at their cost and discuss issues of concern and even extend help. Theirs would not be photo-op visits, as Deshmukh’s to the Thackeray’s appears to have been. Mumbai University has had sterling VCs and one of them was Dr John Matthai. In a recent speech, the university’s chronicler, Aroon Tikekar had noted how Matthai had “declared that it was for the universities in the country to assert themselves against governmental interventions and maintain their dignity and autonomy”. Ironically, Tikekar was delivering the institution’s Foundation Day lecture in the presence of Dr Deshmukh. The message apparently has not gone home. Preserving the university’s “academic freedom, and maintain its dignity and honour” was so important to him that he disliked having to interact with the ministers of the then Bombay State while his “responsibility” was only towards the Chancellor. He disliked running between the Chancellor (Governor of the state) and the ministers on issues concerning the university. He wanted “this system to be stopped” across the country. The governor as chancellor but former avatar, he is guided by ministers, which implies political interference. Matthai, as Tikekar narrated, was able even to force Jawaharlal Nehru to decline an honorary fellowship from an institution under the university’s jurisdiction because neither the giver nor the recipient had consulted the university. In the exchange of letter with the prime minister, Matthai had mentioned the “opportunist class that unfortunately find their way into every academic society and I set my face firmly against it”. We know how senate elections see politicians active. Deviating from current political norms, Maharashtra’s Education Minister, Vinod Tawde advised Deshmukh such visits “is not necessary”. Inputs, he said, can be gathered “without visiting the corridors of powers”.  When Tawde, after taking office as minister eight months ago had helpfully asked VCs to refrain from visiting government offices or politicians, Deshmukh’s socialising with politicians is difficult to explain. It is fortunate Tawde said that, and would stick to that standard but is unfortunate that an academic had to be told that by a politician. Apparently VCs in the past have been visiting the power corridors, belittling their office.  When appointments of VCs, despite the present method of using search committees, is not without political patronage, peppered by caste, regional considerations and the VCs feel beholden for that favour. Those who get there by merit need not bother about the politicians. I spoke to Dr Sudarshan Iyengar, three-term VC of Gujarat Vidyapeeth (not to be mistaken for Gujarat University stewarded by the feet-touching Trivedi) who objects to the servility of persons of eminence. The office they hold has stature and needs grace. He never visited any government office nor attended even the UGC Budget Meetings because the “Registrar would do for that”. Deshmukhs and Trivedi’s are a factor of general weakening of institutional fibre. Reverence has been replaced by material standards as a measure of a leader.