Another member of Nalanda University’s governing board has spoken up against government interference in the institution, saying that it had attempted to reconstitute the board without informing the previous one.
Sugata Bose, a historian, Member of Parliament from the Trinamool Congress, and member of the university's board, said that the government had written to foreign governments about reconstituting the board in December. The board found out about this only when it met on January 13 and 14 this year.
“It was most embarrassing for us to arrive and be told by our foreign guests from Japan, Singapore and China that their governments had been written to on December 8 and 9,” said Bose, in an interview with Scroll.in “These are the kind of government activities taking place in the affairs of the university, with scant respect to the university’s decisions.”
The statement comes shortly after economist Amartya Sen decided in a public letter addressed to the governing board on February 19 against applying to renew his term as Chancellor of Nalanda University, citing political interference.
Sen had alluded to the government’s move in his letter. He wrote, “In particular, the governing board was kept completely in the dark about an attempted unilateral move by the government to rapidly reconstitute the entire board, and to do this in violation of some parts of the Nalanda University Act (reflected especially in the letters that have already been sent out to foreign governments, departing from the provisions of the act as it now stands).”
Sen’s term as Chancellor ends in July. The governing board, in a meeting chaired for the purpose in Sen’s absence on January 13 and 14, had unanimously voted to extend his tenure. However, for almost an entire month, the government did not ratify the board’s decision, which Sen took as a snub.
The university, which was established by an act of Parliament in 2010, is intended to be an international hub of learning in South East Asia. The board has members from across Asia. After several years of lobbying to raise funds, constitute the governing board and draw in faculty, the university’s first academic term began only in September 2014, with a batch of 15 students.
Excerpts from the interview:
What do you think of Professor Sen’s letter?
As you may have seen, I have given my response to this already. I have said it is a sad day for the Nalanda dream. The Governing Board had decided at its meeting of January 13-14 that he (Sen) should have a second term as chancellor. It was communicated to the Visitor [ex-officio, the President of India] on January 15. The Ministry of External Affairs knew about it because they have a representative on the board. There was also a formal letter written by the board on January 20. As Sen has inferred, there is some difficulty from the perspective of the government.
We are meant to communicate our decisions to the Visitor. Unfortunately the government plays an intermediary role. The Visitor cannot sign any decisions until he gets the advice of the cabinet. Sen has raised a point of general concern that academic decision-making should be left to the board of a university, especially as this is an international university. In the past also, the government has placed its statutes on the Visitor. At one level, the board is supposed to communicate with the Visitor. This role of the government is very bad for this university’s autonomy and for universities in general.
How has the government interfered?
The government should have an enabling not interfering role. Naturally, governments provide funds. That happens in the United Kingdom and the United States, where research funding also comes from government. It doesn’t mean the government should interfere in the functioning of the university. And also, you know, quite apart from the Chancellorship issue, we discovered that the government had written letters to four or five foreign governments seeking to reconstitute the board. And nobody on the board knew. You might call it a lack of courtesy, but it is still in violation of the Nalanda University Act (2010).
How?
There is a bad clause in the act. Five foreign governments who have made highest contributions will be allowed to nominate members to the governing board.
We had said that the Act should be amended to remove this clause because it looks as if India is selling seats to highest bidder. In fact, an amendment was drafted, but not passed by the previous government. (A 2013 bill amending various clauses of the university is pending in the Rajya Sabha.)
Japan and Singapore have not yet made contributions to the university, so the government can’t write to them without violating the current act. Had the government informed us of their decision, we would have pointed out that they would first need to amend the act. But everybody is in the dark. The government does things without telling people. I believe they are backing off from changing the board, but this is the kind of thing they are doing. Professor Sen drew an inference, a legitimate one, that the government didn’t want him to continue.
[…]
So that’s where things stand. Unfortunately, the Ministry of External Affairs says it received minutes of the meeting on February 13. Now other items of the agenda took time to circulate, which most of us approved. That is not the point. This was a special meeting chaired by George Yeo for the Chancellorship. Minutes can be adopted and approved at the same meeting, so that [the part pertaining to Sen’s Chancellorship] was done, all wording was checked, and was communicated to the Ministry of External Affairs director immediately. The ball was in their court and still is.
Which countries did the government write to?
Japan, China, Singapore, Thailand and Australia. I happen to think these are the right countries to write to, but you can’t write to Japan and Singapore because Laos has made a contribution and Japan and Singapore have not. All they had to do was amend the act. It was most embarrassing for us to arrive and be told by our foreign guests from Japan, Singapore and China that their governments had been written to on December 8 and 9 [2014]. This is the kind of government activities taking place in the affairs of the university, with scant respect to the university’s decisions.
When is the board scheduled to be reconstituted?
At this point, I’m afraid there’s no strict deadline, although there ought to be a turnover over a period of time. The amendment had drafted a change – in addition to five governments, there should be five eminent academicians. The governing board would suggest names to the Visitor whereas now it is the government.
We need credible people for a university to command international prestige. The amendment needed to have gone through. As far as I can tell, the government can tell it has jumped the gun. It either needs to do things according to the existing act or change it.
On the Chancellorship question, the board meets twice a year. In January, it wasn’t clear if we would meet again before July, so we decided there should be clarity – because Sen was doing a lot of networking with international schools, we passed this resolution.
We welcome your comments at
letters@scroll.in.
Sugata Bose, a historian, Member of Parliament from the Trinamool Congress, and member of the university's board, said that the government had written to foreign governments about reconstituting the board in December. The board found out about this only when it met on January 13 and 14 this year.
“It was most embarrassing for us to arrive and be told by our foreign guests from Japan, Singapore and China that their governments had been written to on December 8 and 9,” said Bose, in an interview with Scroll.in “These are the kind of government activities taking place in the affairs of the university, with scant respect to the university’s decisions.”
The statement comes shortly after economist Amartya Sen decided in a public letter addressed to the governing board on February 19 against applying to renew his term as Chancellor of Nalanda University, citing political interference.
Sen had alluded to the government’s move in his letter. He wrote, “In particular, the governing board was kept completely in the dark about an attempted unilateral move by the government to rapidly reconstitute the entire board, and to do this in violation of some parts of the Nalanda University Act (reflected especially in the letters that have already been sent out to foreign governments, departing from the provisions of the act as it now stands).”
Sen’s term as Chancellor ends in July. The governing board, in a meeting chaired for the purpose in Sen’s absence on January 13 and 14, had unanimously voted to extend his tenure. However, for almost an entire month, the government did not ratify the board’s decision, which Sen took as a snub.
The university, which was established by an act of Parliament in 2010, is intended to be an international hub of learning in South East Asia. The board has members from across Asia. After several years of lobbying to raise funds, constitute the governing board and draw in faculty, the university’s first academic term began only in September 2014, with a batch of 15 students.
Excerpts from the interview:
What do you think of Professor Sen’s letter?
As you may have seen, I have given my response to this already. I have said it is a sad day for the Nalanda dream. The Governing Board had decided at its meeting of January 13-14 that he (Sen) should have a second term as chancellor. It was communicated to the Visitor [ex-officio, the President of India] on January 15. The Ministry of External Affairs knew about it because they have a representative on the board. There was also a formal letter written by the board on January 20. As Sen has inferred, there is some difficulty from the perspective of the government.
We are meant to communicate our decisions to the Visitor. Unfortunately the government plays an intermediary role. The Visitor cannot sign any decisions until he gets the advice of the cabinet. Sen has raised a point of general concern that academic decision-making should be left to the board of a university, especially as this is an international university. In the past also, the government has placed its statutes on the Visitor. At one level, the board is supposed to communicate with the Visitor. This role of the government is very bad for this university’s autonomy and for universities in general.
How has the government interfered?
The government should have an enabling not interfering role. Naturally, governments provide funds. That happens in the United Kingdom and the United States, where research funding also comes from government. It doesn’t mean the government should interfere in the functioning of the university. And also, you know, quite apart from the Chancellorship issue, we discovered that the government had written letters to four or five foreign governments seeking to reconstitute the board. And nobody on the board knew. You might call it a lack of courtesy, but it is still in violation of the Nalanda University Act (2010).
How?
There is a bad clause in the act. Five foreign governments who have made highest contributions will be allowed to nominate members to the governing board.
We had said that the Act should be amended to remove this clause because it looks as if India is selling seats to highest bidder. In fact, an amendment was drafted, but not passed by the previous government. (A 2013 bill amending various clauses of the university is pending in the Rajya Sabha.)
Japan and Singapore have not yet made contributions to the university, so the government can’t write to them without violating the current act. Had the government informed us of their decision, we would have pointed out that they would first need to amend the act. But everybody is in the dark. The government does things without telling people. I believe they are backing off from changing the board, but this is the kind of thing they are doing. Professor Sen drew an inference, a legitimate one, that the government didn’t want him to continue.
[…]
So that’s where things stand. Unfortunately, the Ministry of External Affairs says it received minutes of the meeting on February 13. Now other items of the agenda took time to circulate, which most of us approved. That is not the point. This was a special meeting chaired by George Yeo for the Chancellorship. Minutes can be adopted and approved at the same meeting, so that [the part pertaining to Sen’s Chancellorship] was done, all wording was checked, and was communicated to the Ministry of External Affairs director immediately. The ball was in their court and still is.
Which countries did the government write to?
Japan, China, Singapore, Thailand and Australia. I happen to think these are the right countries to write to, but you can’t write to Japan and Singapore because Laos has made a contribution and Japan and Singapore have not. All they had to do was amend the act. It was most embarrassing for us to arrive and be told by our foreign guests from Japan, Singapore and China that their governments had been written to on December 8 and 9 [2014]. This is the kind of government activities taking place in the affairs of the university, with scant respect to the university’s decisions.
When is the board scheduled to be reconstituted?
At this point, I’m afraid there’s no strict deadline, although there ought to be a turnover over a period of time. The amendment had drafted a change – in addition to five governments, there should be five eminent academicians. The governing board would suggest names to the Visitor whereas now it is the government.
We need credible people for a university to command international prestige. The amendment needed to have gone through. As far as I can tell, the government can tell it has jumped the gun. It either needs to do things according to the existing act or change it.
On the Chancellorship question, the board meets twice a year. In January, it wasn’t clear if we would meet again before July, so we decided there should be clarity – because Sen was doing a lot of networking with international schools, we passed this resolution.