Indian Universities and the need for Autonomy

Indian Universities and the need for Autonomy

What is a University? What purpose does it serve in a society?

A University is a social institution whose main purpose is the advancement of knowledge, skills and critical inquiry throughout the larger society, of which it is but a small part. It is supposed to be a space for intellectual creativity and innovations. A place where experts and young initiates, from diverse fields, come together to teach and learn, in every possible permutation.

It has the responsibility of creating new knowledge, either as a consequence of innovation and ingenuity; Or as a means of understanding things in a more comprehensive way, either by building on previously accumulated knowledge or even by shattering the established explanations and beliefs and putting new ones in place. This responsibility of a University is towards the whole society, it's advancement and it's welfare.

In an Industrialising society like present-day India, it serves the additional purpose of providing medical, legal, technical and vocational training in order to produce the professionals required to keep a society functional, in the least, and developing at most.

Now recall the constant discussions in the media and in civil society in general, on the sub-par performance of these institutions, their poor showing in world rankings, the negligent level of patents filed and research papers published by them, as well as the quality and quantity of it's successful alumni. Something seems to be going horribly wrong, doesn't it!

First of all let's try to understand our higher education sector a little better.

In India, Universities awarding their own degrees are classified into five types based on their management – Central University, State University, Private University, Institutions-deemed-to-be-a-University and Institute of National Importance. Colleges award degrees in the name of the university to which they are affiliated.

There are currently 750+ universities including 40+ central universities, 350 state-run universities, 200+ private universities and 100+ deemed-to-be universities. And at least 37,000 colleges are affiliated to these institutions (as per 2016 figures). Whereas, only 4.5% of the country's population is educated till the graduate level or above, as per 2011 census.

Institutions falling in different categories have different levels of autonomy, different funding sources and different reputations as centres of learning.

But what do all of them have in common?

They are all part of our out-dated, heavily-regulated, bureaucratised and mismanaged higher education system. They are the legacies of our State's general policy of neglecting our education system. I mean, the education system as a whole.

Moreover, there are 15 professional councils (like MCI and AICTE) that regulate the courses run by the colleges and universities. The University Grants Commission (UGC) acts as the over-arching regulatory body. All these regulatory and accreditation bodies exercise different levels of control over the universities, and hence, their faculties and most importantly, students and scholars. And the strongest safeguard these universities can have, is Autonomy.

Now, lets look at some of the reasons behind this dismal state of affairs.

The heavily-centralised nature of the sector;

The loopholes in the legislations and policies regarding this sector;

The level of autonomy granted to these institutions, or rather the lack of it;

The implementations of personal preferences, ideologies and even fancies, of sucessive administrations with regard to this sector, in matters ranging from the seemingly insignificant to the fundamentally important.

By no means is this an exhaustive list. But you get a fair idea of where the problems lie.

I, myself belong to one of the batches that were sadly, subjected to these fancies. Needless to say, we were considered as collateral damage in this botched attempt by the benevolent government in introducing an “innovative” solution to the problems in our higher education institutions. I am talking about the 'four year undergraduate program' better known as FYUP, that lasted just one academic year (2013-2014). Before that my fellow graduates of standard 12th also faced the change in admission criteria for the technical and engineering colleges throughout india, in the merging of AIEEE and IITJEE, and also, the change in the weightage of marks alloted to our CBSE board exam results and the merged entrance exam results.

What is the common theme throughout this article? If you were attentive enough, you might have noticed the word 'Autonomy' a few times.

What does autonomy mean in the context of a University?

Autonomy of a university means, the freedom to function independently, that is, without any interference from the government. In the present scenario, it means minimised role of the government in any of the academic roles and responsibilities of the University, any aspect of it's day-to-day administration and management, or even the ideological and intellectual debates happening on campuses.

Here, 'government' could be any of the following: the bureaucracy, the education department of the executive, or it's regulatory and accreditation authorities like MHRD, UGC, AICTE etc.

Going into a bit more detail, we can outline the academic and administrative spheres of autonomy.

Universities should have enough academic autonomy so that the faculties decide what courses to offer, how the courses are to be designed, what it's syllabus should be, what the examination time-table should be like, etc. Whereas, administrative autonomy would mean that all the important administrative issues like the admissions of students, recruitment of Lecturers, Guest Lecturers, Professors, academic council and administrative council members, deans of colleges and even the Vice-Chancellor, the finances, grants, scholarships, internal committees on bullying, sexual harassment, racism etc., should be left to the university staff and faculty. The next progressive step would be the involvement of the students of the university in the aforementioned processes, either indirectly through a student council or union, or directly as part of a transparent and democratic exercise.

Granting autonomy to our Universities is a sure-shot way of adequately addressing many of the problems that are plaguing our higher education sector in general, and the reputed institutes of higher-learning that are somehow still performing their duties admirably, despite all the challenges discussed.

Some of the oldest institutes of higher-learning in the world, which would have played a similar role as modern universities, in the context of their times and societies, were established as back as 500-600 BCE in the Indian subcontinent, for instance, Taxila (or Takshashila), Nalanda and Vikramshila, to name a few. If we wish to honour their legacy and better yet, become world leaders in the domain of higher education and learning, we need to start with granting autonomy to our Universities.

Fate/Destiny vs Free Will

There is no Fate/Destiny.
It's Free Will, Probability and Proximity

We are born into this life and this life is all there is. This is it!
We are born because, once upon a time, a man's sperm fertilized a woman's egg to form an embryo which, during nine months developed into a human-infant.
Now, every single life is a chance occurrence. It is just one of the probable outcomes of a sperm reaching within the proximity of an egg. No, you and I weren't "meant to be" born, weren't "supposed to be" born. We are just probabilities that were realised.

So that brings me to the question, "What is Fate/Destiny?"
Fundamentally i see no difference between the two, conceptually. In my understanding, fate/destiny means, the path that a life will take and all the points along the path and in the end, the destination, are "meant to be/supposed to be". That our lives are pre-planned, even before we have our first thoughts.
So, who planned it? The obvious answer is an intelligent creator, that is God.
And it is here that the problem lies.
So that means we have no control over our actions or their consequences? We have no free will?
That we are mere actors playing our parts out of a script which is fixed and can't be changed by us? And no matter what we do, we will be what we are meant to be?
Now there is an interesting paradox i'd like to discuss here, very briefly.
Consider that you invent a time machine and then go back decades into the past and tell a scientist how to build a time machine. And so he builds one and you return to the present.
So, who invented it first?
You, since you came up with the idea originally or the scientist, since he built one years before you were born?
Similarly, suppose you are destined to become a sports legend and you do become one. Did you become one because no matter what actions you took throughout life, you were meant to be one or whatever "seemingly random" actions you took weren't really random and made you the legend that you ultimately became?
In order to prove which one is true and which one is false. In the case of time travel, we can't be sure since time travel is not possible right now and hence no one has traveled through time.
In the case of destiny, there is some proof of it being false in the fact that the decisions we make and the actions we take, in general, define how are life turns out, not including the "luck factor" -which depends on probability (likelihood of an event) and proximity (or distance from that event).
For example, if i don't study for an exam, i will fail it. And if i want to score really well, then i have to study hard. There are no two ways about it. The consequences depend on the actions i take. And i take the actions that i do, because i "will" to take them.
To a certain extent, i can't control what situations or different options come my way. But i have full control over my actions and decisions regarding those situations. Because I "will" my choices. I don't follow any intelligent design set aside for my life by some "God".

The Humans low in supply and high in demand

Don't question other peoples' beliefs if you don't want to be questioned about yours

*The content of this article is based on what i think and is by no means an exact analysis. But, the spirit of what i have said, is more or less true.*

More often than not, when a person is questioned about his or her beliefs, there are different ways in which he or she reacts and responds.
I will talk about the following topics:

• religion & spirituality
• culture & traditions
• morality & values, etc.

By no means is this an exact or exhaustive list. But the sheer quantity of different beliefs that exist in our society restricts me from talking about all of them.

When questioned about their beliefs and the reasons for their beliefs, people give various kinds of reactions and replies:

• Some people ignore or change the subject,
• Some people get defensive and then aggressive, and
• Hardly a few people debate the different viewpoints with an open mind.

Why do certain people react in a particular way?

• Some of the people who ignore it, feel it is a personal matter and they don't need to discuss it with, let alone justify their beliefs to, anyone. Therefore, they never get into discussions about it. All I request of them is that they don't question other peoples' beliefs if they themselves don't want to be questioned about theirs.
• Others that ignore or deflect, think that beliefs aren't meant to be questioned or challenged because they think that questioning their beliefs is as good as disrespecting or abandoning them. They believe blindly, without being critical. All I request of them is to think that, till the end of 16th century A.D. the earth was thought to be at the centre of the solar system and the universe.
• Those who become defensive, are also blind followers. According to them, there is only one correct viewpoint and that is their own. When confronted with the loopholes, inconsistencies and fallacies of their beliefs, exposed through common sense and logical arguments, they turn aggressive. Because that is the only way they see fit to react. Most of them denounce our logic and common sense as false and flawed. All I request of them is to be a little open-minded and accommodating of other people's arguments.
• Those who debate or discuss with an open mind are the ones who think that they could be partially or completely wrong and that others might have some valid arguments. They are those who enter a discussion without any beliefs "set-in-stone". All I request of them is to patiently convince people from the above 3 categories instead of being arrogant.

What do their reactions or replies say about them?

Those who are close-minded, reluctant or even fanatics, are either any or all of the following:

• "Emotionally insecure" about themselves and their beliefs and that is why they feel that way, even if they don't admit it to others or especially to themselves.
• "Intellectually inferior", to those whose beliefs they subscribe to and follow blindly. 
• "Psychologically weak", as they want so bad, to believe in something they're accustomed familiar to that they cannot bear to think that they might be wrong.

Those who are open-minded and think critically are

The Humans low in supply and high in demand!

It's the little things.

If the purpose of this article still eludes you, here is the summary.

Summary:-  Don't simply believe what you've been told to believe, without any actual reflection and investigation on your own part. That is what it means "to KNOW, not believe".
If you do have a set of beliefs, respect other peoples' beliefs. And don't question other peoples' beliefs if you don't want to be questioned about yours. If you think someone else's beliefs are detrimental to the progress and development of the rest of the society, enter a discussion with an open mind and the possibility that your arguments or beliefs could be partially or completely wrong and that the other person might have some valid arguments too. Try your best to convince that person with truth and reason, instead of being arrogant and forcing your opinions on him/her.
Thank you.

The need of the hour is INNOVATION. No more monkey see, monkey do.

Monkey saw, Monkey did
Time to INNOVATE

Let's go back 6 million years, around the time when the first hominid/hominid-like species learnt how to walk on two feet. For argument's sake, lets believe that one of them walked on two legs before anyone else. 

Monkey see, Monkey do.

Now, if "monkey would've seen and not done"

we might not have been alive today. That would've been the beginning and the end of our evolution. 

What i'm trying to convey is, humans like other animals have behaved as a species i.e, similar behavior of every individual in a species. And that has had tremendous survival advantages.

When it comes to high performance, the majority is always wrong.

But that isn't necessary anymore, because we as a species have survived the threat from all the other animals.

Which brings me to my next point.

The need of the hour is INNOVATION. No more monkey see, monkey do. So start thinking in your own innovative, creative, unique way and stop following the herd!
Now, what does innovation mean?
I think it means the ability to think of a solution, in a completely new way; Or to ask questions in a way different than before; Or when the questions are the same but "The answers have changed!".

As  Paul Rulkens tells us in the following TEDx talk, "we think within well defined boundaries". "Within the framework" of our respective industry, school, society etc.

"Only 3% of people are able to achieve extra-ordinary results" in their respective fields.

What are these 3% doing differently? 

They are willing to think outside the "very small box" that is considered the norm of their fields, and think in their own way.
So break out of the norms\framework of your respective field, whatever it may be, break out of that "very small box" and "go to the happy place where cool innovation happens!"

All quoted ("...") words/ phrases are spoken by Paul Rulkens in the following TEDx talk.

Humans have gone Ape shit

Humans have gone Ape-shit

Where did Humans come from?

1. The Earth is about 4500 million years old.
2. Geologically speaking, the vast history of the Earth is divided into five eras. The present era is the Caenozoic(or Cenozoic) Era which started about 70 million years ago. To put things into perspective, the extinction of dinosaurs happened 66 million years ago.
3. Tree Apes - the common ancestors to chimpanzees, gorillas and humans, lived around 10 million years ago. (lived in trees)
4. Ramapithecus - the most well known common ancestor to modern apes and humans, lived more than 8 million years ago. (walked on two feet)
5. Earliest homo sapiens (Modern Humans) lived on around 40,000 years ago(~38,000 BCE)
6. Earliest human civilisation existed around 3,500 BCE.
7. Industrial revolution begins in the 18th century AD ( steam engine invented in 1,712 AD).

What have we done to the Earth?

As far back in human history as one looks, it is evident that humans used resources abundant on the earth.

Initially. we used all the resources at our disposal for our sustenance and development. But the population was very less. Moreover, the nature and the magnitude of the activities humans indulged in didn't put a strain on the environment.

But as the saying goes, "The road to hell is paved with good intentions." And that's exactly what happened. We kept using the conventional resources. It was during the "Industrial Revolution"(see 7.), when the use of natural resources transformed overnight (with respect to 1,2,3,4,5 or 6.) into exploitation.

From Wood- to Coal- to Nuclear-powered 

Even the nature of natural resources in demand changed gradually; from trees for fuel before Industrial Revolution, to coal as a major source of fuel for transportation and manufacturing in factories. And as the steam engine-powered train kept using increasing amounts of coal every successive moment, the speed of the train kept increasing and the rate of exploration and exploitation kept increasing with it. But that wasn't enough for us. It wasn't enough for us that from travelling on the backs of horses, camels, elephants and horse-drawn carriages and wind-powered sailing boats; we started using steam-engine trains, steam-powered ships and eventually, individual automobiles.

I say "us" here because you and I wouldn't have done anything different. These are just the inherent dangers that came with the awesome innovations of the human mind.

Fast forward to the 20th century; the thundering fast train of the 18th-19th century had given way to roaring race cars, faster than sound airplanes, lightning fast rockets & missiles.
From the fire-wood of pre-industrial times to the coal-steam of the industrial revolution, the petrol-,diesel-powered automobiles, ships, trains and airplanes, further to the nuclear-powered submarines.

What have we done to our humanity?

From the bow, arrow and the sword to the gunpowder firearms to the TNT and dynamite bombs to the atom bomb and the nuclear bomb

From exploiting every resource available to us, to polluting every stretch of land, water and air. 

From endangering every other species on earth, by us humans. We began exploiting our fellow humans.

As the speed and modes of travel increased, the world increasingly became a smaller, more connected place. And as we came in touch with civilisations in other parts of the world hitherto unknown or unseen. Some humans began the exploitation of other fellow humans.

The rich overlords of the industrialised nation-states, who had become rich by subjugating, suppressing, tyrannizing, oppressing, dominating, exploiting, persecuting and enslaving their fellow countrymen for temporary, individual profits; they sailed across the oceans of the world and enslaved whole countries, whole continents. Millions of enslaved, powerless, "backward" people were colonised by the "Modern","Developed" Imperialist-overlords for "the colony's development".

(To be continued ...)

Indian (Comedy) Spring

A great time for Indian comedians.

There are a couple of comedians which have had an awesome impact on me. In decreasing order, these are George Carlin, Bill Maher, Ricky Gervais and most recently, Dave Chappelle. All of these "Comic critics of society" have the ability to make people laugh and at the same time, question the present state of affairs (the status quo). And most importantly, they make their audience think about all kinds of subjects; ranging from the common experiences that bring us all closer, to the so-called "uncomfortable and the taboo topics". In my view, comedy as a medium, has an extra-ordinary potential to transform the present society into a rational, intelligent, caring and peaceful one.
I think this because it can bring about change especially in a narrow-minded, conservative person one joke, one line at a time. Making that individual question his/her preconceived notions and beliefs subliminally, while they're busy laughing or getting offended.

All in all, I love comedians. I am constantly searching for comedians i haven't heard or seen.
As i was applauding the witty sarcasm and satire of those american and british comedians, suddenly i started thinking of Indian comedians and Indian satire. That's when i came across 'Aisi Taisi Democracy'. A comedy troupe that performs live all across India. This is the only substantial video of their performance available on youtube. It is AMAZING. Please check it out!
And follow them on social media to get updates about their latest performances.


(from the left: Varun Grover, Rahul Ram & Sanjay Rajoura)

A group which can be called a pioneer in bringing satire comedy through the internet to millions of Indians  and others in the world, 'All India Bakchod(AIB)' is more of an organisation of comedians now. With scores of  awesome videos on youtube, one of favorites is the following one. Please check out more of their videos on youtube, follow them on social media. Regardless, this video is a priceless piece of satire on the ability of Indians to take offence on anything. Enjoy.



A contemporary comedy group, now a franchise, 'The Viral Fever(TVF)' has a plethora of comedy and drama videos and web-series available on youtube and their website. This video is an amazing video which reveals the scope of freedom of speech and expression in film making constrained by censorship. Watch this Qtiyapa right now.



Then, as i was searching for "something better", i came across something that changed the way i viewed comedy in India in more ways than one. 'I am offended' is an amazing documentary on the comic scene in India and all the shit Indian comedians have to deal with. It features some awesome artists, a few of whom are: Atul Khatri, 'Jai Hind!', 'Aisi Taisi Democracy', 'East India Comedy(EIC)', 'Shitzengiggles(SnG)' and Vir Das, just to name a few.
I wouldn't be writing this article if i hadn't come across this EYE OPENER of a documentary.
Enjoy this "First Look" and watch the full version on youtube.

And here is Atul Khatri doing what he does best. And he is one of the best comedians in India at present. Enjoy this sneak peak.



And, the time is perfect for all of them to make it big because of the innumerable sources with a potential for comedy and satire.
For instance, our popular English news channels, most of our Hindi news channels, Bollywood movies, Indian TV serials/soaps, Commercial advertisements , the hilariously unrealistic South Indian movies, our politicians and the outrageous, shocking things they say, just to name a few.

So the bottom line, as i mentioned before, It's a great time for Indian Comedians!

Thinking: Both Conscious & Critical

Thinking: Both Conscious & Critical

"I think therefore I am" 

is not just a great phrase. In it, lies the truth about human existence. To think is to exist. And to not think is not possible as long as one is alive i.e., existing.

So, when exactly are we thinking?

Everyone thinks, all the time.

Conscious Thinking vs Auto-pilot Thinking

As Paul Rulkens mentions in his TEDx Talk at Maastricht, "The purpose of all thinking is not to think."; And anyone familiar with meditation knows what he means. Bu here, thinking is of two kinds.

1. In the normal state of the mind, the incessant and turbulent flow of all kinds of random thoughts called "Auto-pilot Thinking".
2. In the focused state of the mind, when one actually thinks about a particular object, or what I like to call "Conscious Thinking".

Okay, so most of the time our minds are on Auto-pilot. But when we think about a particular thing (object), we become conscious of our thinking process and can then focus (for the most part :P) on that thing.

What is Critical Thinking?

Consider this example: Till 1543 AD, almost everyone on earth thought that the earth was at the centre of the solar system and the universe. Until Nicolaus Copernicus published his books and removed earth from the center, in 1543 AD. Even after that, most people didn't believe his theories because the Roman Catholic Church considered them heretical (against their religion). So it was believed as a fact, just by a few people who had heard/read about it; instead of becoming a commonly known fact, which happened decades, if not more than a century, later.
In this example, Copernicus didn't believe what everyone else thought to be true. He thought in a critical and innovative way and ended up revolutionising our knowledge about the universe.
Whereas, a majority of the people didn't think critically and blindly, unquestioningly believed in other people's beliefs and missed out on understanding the universe, in a critical manner and seeing it for what it actually was. Maybe, one of them could've discovered gravity, decades before Isaac Newton!