Rajesh Kochhar

The Tribune Chandigarh (Education) 26 August 20

Panjab University at crossroads

Rajesh Kochhar 

 
THE status of Panjab University is being animatedly discussed in official correspondences and newspaper columns. The debate reminds one of the 19th-century European fetishes for classification. First rigid categories were created and then realities were twisted out of shape to somehow fit into them.
It has been Panjab University’s luck to be governed by a legislation drawn up in haste. When the university was set up in 1947, the conditions were far from normal. The regulations of Panjab University, Lahore, which were based on the Indian Universities Act 1904, were simply copied and validated. Similarly, when the Punjab was divided, there arose a host of major problems that needed to be addressed. Panjab University was not one of them. Once again the extant regulations were revalidated with minimum possible tinkering—Vice-President as Chancellor in place of the state Governor.
The most important feature of the university is that it caters to the region as a whole. When young men and women, drawn from different cultural and social backgrounds, study together in a congenial atmosphere, their mindset becomes healthy and outlook broad, which in turn fashion their decisions and conduct when they later occupy the positions of responsibility. It should, however, be borne in mind that historically the university is older than its present campus. This important fact can be easily grasped from an examination of the terminology. The university has a post of Dean of University Instruction (DUI). The term was coined with reference to the pre-existing government post of Director of Public Instruction (DPI) who was assigned the task of looking after the colleges. The university instruction was thus seen as complementary to collegiate instruction. In fact, in the early years, the Vice-Chancellor himself doubled as DUI.
While conducting a debate, vocabulary should be chosen carefully. Sometimes, the use of terms that carry fixed connotations leads to unnecessary posturing. When we discuss the status of Panjab University, we must always keep in mind that there are two distinct issues involved: the basic character of the university and its finances. The basic character of the university is that of a state university because that is what it was when it was established. The affiliated colleges located in Punjab and Chandigarh look up to the University for the conduct of examinations, oversight, guidance and academic control. This arrangement has worked well so far. There is no pressing need to change it.
Globalisation has ushered in an era of knowledge economy. The job market today is far more demanding than ever before. At the same time, the cost of imparting skills has gone up because of technological advancements the world over. If the universities run by the government are forced to generate their own resources, they can do so only by catering to children whose parents are already well off and by offering only bookish courses. The universities may be tempted to lower their standards to draw in more students. They will be forced to bow to the fashions of the day and pander to the demands of the market rather than meet the requirements of the state. On the other hand, if the state is concerned about ensuring equitable development and meeting the nation’s manpower needs in industrial and government sectors , it must endow its universities sufficiently well, so that they can take a long-term view and plan accordingly.
Today, what Panjab University needs immediately is reworking of its financial arrangements. A high-powered committee should be appointed to apportion afresh the share of the Punjab government and the Cente. If the latter offers to foot the entire bill, the offer should be examined in depth. There can be no doubt that the university needs to be financially secured, so that it can worry about the next generation rather than the next fiscal year.

Hindustan Times New Delhi (Off track) 15 May 2008

Is studying science history?

Rajesh Kochhar

At the Indian Science Congress in Visakhapatnam in January, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh rightly proposed that 2008 be made the year of revitalisation of science education in the country. The decline of science in India is sad because at one time we were at the forefront of scientific enterprise. The quality of teachers was extremely good. After the Indian Civil Service (ICS), teaching was seen as the best option. C.V. Raman actually left the ICS to become a professor.

In the Nehruvian phase and later, there was tremendous excitement about science, technology and engineering. Science in India during this period fitted in with the nation’s desire to harness science for economic development and as an instrument of national prestige. Paradoxically, while globalisation has been made possible by major developments in science and technology elsewhere, science has lost ground in India.

There are two reasons for this: globalisation has transformed the nature of India’s economic growth and it has provided the middle-class with a pretext to decouple itself from the rest of the country. Throughout the world, science is a middle-class activity. But liberalisation has introduced the Indian middle-class to a consumerist lifestyle, which a science career here cannot support. If they want to pursue science, they go to the US. As it is, India does not offer much of an opportunity to conduct world-class science research.

A major reason for the decline in Indian science research and scholarship is that the catchment area of education has stopped expanding. That’s why the education system must bring under its fold the children of illiterate parents. India’s high-growth rate is being driven by the services sector. The West is outsourcing petty jobs to us; in return, we are outsourcing scholars to the West. If the Indian economy doesn’t need science, there can’t be much of a future for science in India.

It is not possible to sustain science as a purely cultural activity over an extended period of time. The purpose of science is to create wealth and the purpose of this wealth is to support science. Unless such a symbiotic relationship is be established, both science and society will suffer.

Rajesh Kochhar is former Director, National Institute of Science, Technology and Development Studies.

Chandigarh ( Education) 10 June 2008

Challenges for creative minds
Rajesh Kochhar

Human beings are endowed with intellect and imagination. Our social and intellectual leadership is also constantly exhorting young people to become innovative. However, we should make a clear distinction between invention and innovation. An invention is the manifestation of a creative mind and is capable of standing on its own even in isolation. It becomes an innovation when it is incorporated into the mainstream and combined with existing knowledge in such a manner that future developments are influenced by this incorporation.

About three years ago, I met a girl student who was doing M. Sc. in life sciences. For her dissertation, she had identified an extract from a plant that had birth control properties. Was she planning to obtain a patent? No. The reason: her guide was very keen to publish a joint paper in an international journal for her own career advancement.

Recently, a doctoral student from Lucknow identified ingredients from a common weed which could be used to store post-harvest grains. Did he realise the significance of his discovery? Yes. Did he plan to file for a patent? No. His guide as well as well-wishers felt that his chances of getting employment would increase, if he published a research paper instead.

Thus, it is meaningless to ask youngsters to be innovative; instead we should be asking ourselves whether we are creating an innovative system or not. If a student or a young scientist comes up with a new idea, do we have a mechanism in place that will beneficially exploit the new idea and reward him? Regrettably, the answer must be an emphatic “no”.

As a society, culture and nation we have attributes that are anti-innovation. We are afraid to take risks and are scared of failures. We are mortified at the thought of being disowned by our peers if we outshine them. We do not want to be thrown out of the group, rather we want to be recognised as marginally superior in the same group. We can’t bring ourselves to say publicly in a loud and clear voice that the horse should rank higher than the ass. We are happy to leave the task of judging to those people who we consider are more powerful than us or culturally and racially superior to us.

It is creditable for the British that they conferred a knighthood on C. V. Raman even before he got the Nobel Prize. On the contrary, India decided to bestow the Bharat Ratna award on Satyajit Ray when he had already received all conceivable honours from across the world. The national honour in fact was dispatched in an indecent haste, so that it reached him before his last breadth.

Today, we are busy patting ourselves on the back that many famous foreign companies have opened their R & D centres in the country. The unadvertised fact remains that these centres are more for partial development than original research. The fact is that the patents are owned by the parent companies, even if Indian names are listed as authors. We are happy to see ourselves as employees rather than as entrepreneurs. We seem to be so content with wages that we do not covet royalties.

The CSIR has instituted invention awards for schoolchildren. My own suspicion is that many of the submitted projects are prepared not by the students themselves but by their elders. What would the award-winning students like to do next? Their answer was revealing—they wanted seats reserved for them in government engineering colleges.

Admittedly, things are changing, even if slowly. India is probably globally far more ambitious now than ever before. Yes, but what are the state institutions doing to advance this culture?

I remember a cartoon showing a mountaineering institute atop a high peak. The institute declared: “We do not offer any courses. Any one who can reach here gets the degree.” We are one better. We create all sorts of obstacles to demoralise and debilitate. Any one who achieves in spite of us is then honoured and felicitated.

Asking fellow human beings to be creative is an insult to human intellect. Our task should be asking ourselves whether we have created a system which can encourage, recognise, and most importantly, benefit from their inventiveness.