Study Centres: A step towards commercial exploitation of AMU

All Aligs
ASAK
Apropos Ziauddin sahab’s article, as I expressed in my earlier letter that consequent upon the clarification from the Supreme Court the matter has been settled once and for all, and now the test has also been conducted successfully, therefore it is no use to keep on crying on spelt milk unnecessarily.
However, the issue of Study Centres is again raked up. Lots of debate has already been taken place about the proposal of Study Centres and their locations in Bihar or West Bengal and Kerala etc., the real tribute to the great Sayyed is that we need a Study Centre in each and every corner of muslim denominated pockets of the country, but my question is that should we do it at the cost of our self respect? In my opinion the role, position, and honour of Aligarh Muslim University would be put to stake if the proposal of Study Centres is accepted in its present form.
The alig community and the University authorities have always shown great wisdom, balance, and objectivity, and this is the strongest reason that my optimism has not deserted me and I am placing the entire issue before you as the sole judge and I invite the opinion in any form including criticism of each individual reader.

Study Centres: A step towards commercial exploitation of AMU

This story starts five and a half years ago when the former VC Mr. Naseem Ahmad agreed on establishing off campus on the proposal of the then CM of Madhya Pradesh Mr. Digvijay Singh as the Chief Guest in the Sir Sayyed’s Day function on October 17, 2002. Mr. Singh on July 21, 2003 also offered 100 Acres of land for this purpose to the Gharib Nawaz Fopundation (GNF) on the occasion of foundation stone laying ceremony by the Mr. Naseem Ahmad of its Institute in village Kurana near Bhopal. Mr. S.H. Khan the Secretary of GNF visited AMU and met with the VC etc on Sept 11, 2003 and then GNF on July 24, 2004 submitted its proposal of a second campus of AMU to Shri Arjun Singh, Union HRD Minister. The UGC on Jan 28, 2005 wrote a letter to GNF informing that it has asked AMU to submit a proposal. On March 13, 2005 the GNF again requested (read complained) Arjun Singh about the AMU off campus and requested him to “promulgate an ordinance in order to expedite the process as a first step in this direction” (copy to Mr. Naseem Ahmad, VC, AMU). The Under Secretary MHRD Mr. K.C. Nandwani wrote a letter to UGC on April 21, 2005 on the same line and then on August 28, 2006 Mr. R.D. Sahay, Dy. Secretary, MHRD, wrote to the VC, complaining about delay on it and suggested to establish the said Study Centre u/s 12(2) of the AMU Act.
The initial concept of Study Centres in minority-dominated areas is a very catchy idea, since it is a step towards fulfillment of Sir Sayyed’s dream of furtherance of education among Muslims. However, the moment the above details came to me, there was a surge of queries, doubts, apprehensions and uneasiness besieged my mind. The obvious questions cropped up are; why GNF submitted any proposal without any MOU with the AMU? How the former VC Mr. Naseem Ahmad gave his assurance without taking any consent from the authorities of the University? It is different that thanks God he did not approve it under section 19(3), since he has the dubious distinction of establishing a Research Institute under this notorious section. The most obnoxious action is the request of GNF to promulgate an ordinance, who is this GNF and what locus it did posses to ask such promulgation about us? If it is so enthusiastic about this, why it does not establish a deemed University on its own? And if they are so impatient and undisciplined now, what they will do in future? And see their impudence, letter asking for ordinance was marked to the then VC, and above all the insensibility of the then VC on it and on the arm twisting tactics of the MHRD.
The story does not end here, it has another episode also. On April 30, 2007, Shri Buddhadeb Bhattacharjee, CM of West Bengal requested the Prime Minister to establish a new campus of AMU at Murshidabad, at the same time on April 25, 2007 the Belgachia Education Trust (BET) also requested the PM to establish an institution in WB on the model of AMU. The MHRD on 3 rd May wrote to AMU to establish a centre u/s 12(2) of the AMU Act. The BET complained to PM on the basis of a news in the Akhbar-e-Mashriq that the Registrar AMU refused the proposal on account of no such provision in the AMU Act to open any branch outside UP. In response, the MHRD on 8 th June wrote, “I would also request you to apprise us of your comments on the above quoted statement attributed to you in Akhbar-e-Mashriq.” Not satisfied with it the MHRD on 13 th July repeated it, but on the complained of trust by Mosharref Husain, Secretary BET.
Look at the behaviour of the office bearer of Belgachia Education Trust, he complained to the PM about our Registrar. Let me ask the credentials of these trusts. No information is available on internet except the address of BET in yellow pages, yes, the website of GNF provides its board; consists of one Professor from DU, three policemen (IPS), two Sajjada Nashins, two builders, one College teacher, one retired College Principal and above all the uncle of actor Salman Khan.
The Chief Secretary of Kerala Mr. P.J. Thomas in his letter dated Nov 21, 2007 (much before the approval of Study Centres by the EC on Jan 17, 2008) communicated that Union Minister of State of HRD Mr. Fatmi had agreed to the proposal of an Off Campus of AMU with all courses. What propriety did Mr. Fatmi posses to give his agreement without any acceptance by University bodies?
Now, I have unfolded the whole behind the scene story. In principle the establishment of Study Centres in the minority dominated areas is a crisp idea, but the above details is a glaring reference to possibilities of exploitation of AMU by the corrupt practices of private academic institutions and to subvert its unique character and autonomy. Whatever the reason may be, a moment’s reflection will show that giving nod to this sensitive subject in such a cynical haste will have implications that go far far beyond the confines of academic expansion. It in fact be a tacit acceptance by the EC of the MHRD’s right to rule the University as its empire. It is a double edged sword, these Centres of the University would go beyond the close watch of the central authority of the University and the teachers by way of punishment transfers could be controlled for ever, which always stood tall (off course with the alumni) in defeating the agenda of the Congress in the past and BJP / RSS now. It is a pity that the University has not learnt any lesson from the misadventures of the past; be it tinkering with our Act in 1951, 1965, 1972 or CET and Mr. Naseem Ahmed is the only exception other than teachers and alumni who offered strong resistance to Common Entrance Test.
In the event of regular meetings by the present Vice-Chancellor, I will not prefer to ask the Vice-Chancellor about it, but I demand a clarification from each member of the Executive Council and I would prefer to start from the teachers in the EC under any capacity followed by the Court’s representative and then the officers of the University on this issue. I expect that each member should clarify by writing in the AMU network that how an item with such nasty details was approved in the EC. And in case of no suitable reply, the only conclusion is that the present representation in EC has created a unique breed of councilors; largely uninterested in the day to day affairs of the University without realizing the powers and domain of this highest executive authority (it is always a common demand to finish the meeting quickly to catch the train) and indecisiveness despite its quasi-judicial nature, always consider the role of the EC as a supervisory council and they sought its membership to wield influence and power. As a result, in the last two decades EC has produced a system more skilled in politics than at policies or performance. Thus, leaving the most important decisions in the hands of officers, they always not concentrate on good governance but on lowest common denominator of staying in office. And the EC members are fighting on paltry issues.
The way MHRD is handling this issue is inconsistent with the present government policies based on institutionalization of affirmative actions to overcome discrimination against minorities. The same has recently been corroborated by the UGC Chairman Prof. Sukhdeo Thorat and Mr. Paul Attewell in a study entitled “The legacy of social exclusions,” which include establishment of institute in minority-dominated areas. The XI th plan envisages a target Gross Enrolment Ratio (GER) of 15% by 2012 from existing level of 10% by establishing 30 new Universities.
Originally it is not our idea instead it is the brainchild of private organizations in connivance with MHRD; therefore it deserves rejection in its present form. We should rather demand just 5 of the proposed Universities in minority areas and AMU may be the focal point of it. There should be no truck with any private organization and the statues should be clear that each centre / campus/ university shall have separate and non-transferable legal provisions of staff and funding. I hope that the Vice-Chancellor and the authorities of the University will take cognizance.
Otherwise, it is a question of surrender or sacrifice, in Sarmad (RA) words, a Sufi saint whose philosophy was Wahdat-e-Deen:
Sarmad Gila Ikhtesar Mi Bayad Kard Yak Kar Az Ein Do Kaar Mi Bayad Kard.
Ya tan Be Raza-e-Dost Mi Bayad Daad Ya Jaan Barahash Nisar Mi Bayad.
(O Sarmad ! shorten your complaint of two choices take one
Either put your body to the will of friend or offer to sacrifice your soul.)
Anwar Khursheed
Former Member University Court and EC
AMU, Aligarh.

ASAK,
At least I don’t expect such a reply from Arif ul Islam Bhai, he has sidetracked the entire issue perhaps in an apprehension that it is against the present Vice-Chancellor. Let me clarify that the present VC has already clarified that every proposal is that of the University and its people and not his personal one. However, if a wrong decision is taken than it will hound the present VC forever. I reiterate that the idea of study centres is a good idea but there should be no involvement of any private organization or trust etc. and it will ultimately be in the interest of the University as well as Prof. P.K. Abdul Azis, who no doubt has good intentions. The letters of the MHRD, office bearers of Gharib Nawaz Foundation, Belgachia Educational Trust, expression of MHRD to open centres under section 12 (2) of AMU Act, demand of Gharib Nawaz Foundation to promulgate an ordinance in this regard and still approving it in the EC, if this is not impudence and insensitivity and playing with the self respect for few pennies, then in what category you would place it? Moreover how would you stop MHRD if it would allocate funds and ask you to open a study centre in a branch any where in the country of Bharat Shiksha Parishad (a frontal organization of RSS) under section 12 (2)?
I have not mentioned any thing about the game of politics of principal political groups of the campus, every one knows that on the garb of test centres the entire tussle is to grab the VC, and this is not something new. I have also not used the term “rebellion”; the problem is that without going into the details of my article you have drawn self-conclusions. It is similar to the unfortunate fact that the General body of the AMUTA rejected the proposal of test centres and PG entrance test and accepted the proposal of Study centres without even a glimpse of item no. 20 approved by the EC in its meeting on Jan 17, 2008. It is a sad reflection on part of the Association of the teachers that except Mr. Jamshed Siddiqui and me no one bothers to go through the details before favour or opposition to these important issues.
Arif Bhai requisitioned a meeting of the General Body of AMUTA on two items; first in favour of Study Centres and second in opposition to Methew’s Commission, without knowing any thing about these, he has neither seen the approved item of EC on Study Centres nor the enquiry report of Justice Mathew’s, this only exhibits that his priorities are misplaced.

Jo Dekh Sakte Hain Unki Zuban Pe Taale Hain
Jo Bolte Hain Who Andhe Hain Kya Kiya Jaye.

Anwar Khursheed [akhursheed_alig@yahoo.co.in]
B.Sc. Engg Civil (1983)
AMU, Aligarh.
(The writer is a senior faculty member of AMU and presently on Study Leave at IIT-Roorkee)