Chancellor Office Debate & a Vote for Personalisation without Privatisation | S Ramamurthy

Space of universities is facing a crisis of its own…. Earlier they suffered the problem of bureaucracy… now universities face three problems: powerful control of one group of people – the executive – sectarianism and communalism and the fact that all VCs appointed by the Centre are followers of a very narrow-minded philosophy —Prof Amartya Sen in an interview to Ravish Kumar on 10 February 2025.

In the summer of 2022, the Tamil Nadu Assembly passed two bills seeking to transfer the Governor’s power to select Vice Chancellors of State Universities, to the State government. To be remembered, by protocol, the Governor is the Chancellor of every government University in a State. There are 24 public universities in Tamil Nadu. The Governor is a Union government appointee, invariably harbouring affiliations with the ruling party at the Centre. Tamil Nadu’s Governor (appointed in 2021) is R N Ravi, a former policeman, who has earlier served as Governor of Nagaland and Meghalaya. In Tamil Nadu the practice has been that the Governor appoints the VC, from three names recommended to him. There is a great amount of secrecy as to who recommends these names to the Governor.

The 2022 Bill advocates that the State appoints a search-and-selection committee. This committee finds three suitable candidates and recommends them. The Governor has to choose the VC from these three candidates. The State government also wants the power to dismiss the VC, if it so wishes. Removal will be carried out based on inquiries by a retired High Court judge or a bureaucrat who has served at least as Chief Secretary, it says.

TO EMANCIPATE THE Vice Chancellorship from its constraints, the Chancellorship of universities will have to be depoliticised and de - governmentalised. The recent UGC draft regulation regarding the VC-Search-Committees vitiates the basic issue and attempts to polarise the conversation in favour of the Chancellor, holding multiple offices. This marginalisation of the State government only smacks of an authoritarian sway over the democratic functioning of the universities in general, and Higher Education in particular. The State Legislation offers the counter but ultimately leads back to the same vicious circle of power politics. For whom the bell will toll, nobody ever introspects on.

In Tamil Nadu, the ruling party is the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam (DMK) and the Governor appointed by the BJP-led government at the Centre is R N Ravi, at odds with the State government from the time he came to Tamil Nadu, in 2021, when the DMK won the assembly polls. In 2024, the DMK won 22 seats in parliament and holds all the 39 MP seats from Tamil Nadu in alliance. It is but natural that the debate as to whether the Governor or the Chief Minister should be the Chancellor of State-run universities in Tami Nadu is particularly bitter and unending.

The latest of these spells has been the one involving the inclusion of an UGC (University Grants Commission) nominee in the VC-search- committees of the universities in Tamil Nadu. In December end, Chancellor Ravi demanded dismissal of the government-instituted VC-search-committee for the Annamalai University. He said, it was a Supreme Court mandate that such a VC-search-panel include a member selected by the UGC chairman.
He also recommended that the State government okay the search-committees of Anna University, Bharathidasan University and Periyar University, which have members recommended by the Centre (or him) and accept their chosen VCs.

As a consequence of this tussle between the Chancellor and the State government, universities in Tamil Nadu remain torn in all directions with the push-and-the-pull affecting Vice Chancellors, Syndicate Members, academics, educational elites, media spokesmen and the others; all wasting away their creative energies. Especially confused are the common man and the student community.

The will to change and objectivity in the matter is missing in government universities.

Despite democratic opposition, the private universities have come to stay and have survived over the decades, but what concerns us is the fact that these universities have their own elites as Chancellors and some of them could top the all-India ranking. This striking reality must show the government universities their own way.

The inference here, however, is not a call for privatisation of the Chancellorship of public-funded universities, but a call for critical perception of the functional dynamics of a Chancellor. Chancellorship is the insignia of power. Empirical perception of reality leads to a call for change of perception about the position of Chancellor. The focus needs to change to the personality of a Chancellor and that of his or her authority and political neutrality and his secular credentials.

Chancellor’s Authority and Personality

‘The Chancellor’ of a university has been universally perceived as a non-bureaucrat and an enlightened scholar of wisdom, a visionary to mediate national development with educational development. He shall preside over the affairs of the university and exercise constant vigil and shape the overall direction and destiny of the university or universities. He offers the link at the national and global level. He has to be a whole- time monitoring officer, maintaining personal contacts with the university/universities as a continuum. He shall have to be the philosopher, friend and guide. The reputation which a university enjoys must remain inseparably linked to the authority of the Chancellor.

During contemporary time, this authority of the Chancellors is low, largely due to the merger of Chancellorship with the Governorship, a political post. The politics arising from this vantage point puts the Governor and the Chief Minister at loggerheads. This merger of offices sidelines the rationale of the role of the Governor cum Chancellor in relation to the functioning of the university.

As such, the role of the Chancellor remains mostly confined to attending Convocations and affixing seal on the Statutes and Ordinances. This role has become a commonly accepted non-partisan role. That the authority of the Chancellor has become fossilised is obvious from the fact that the Chancellor’s nominees in the bureaucratised varsity syndicates are even more mechanical. They do not dynamically interact at the level of the syndicate or with the Chancellor himself. Ritualism prevails at all levels.

The Governor - Chief Minster polemics with reference to Chancellorship raises only a mute question since both are involved in conceiving the Chancellor office as political insignia of power. Both have no locus standi to hold the office of Chancellor as both of them are otherwise busily engaged. The transfer of power will not result in any positive affirmation. The need of the hour demands the appointment of ‘dedicated’ Chancellors without privatising or bureaucratising of the office.

Pioneer Commission Shows the Way

The Report of the University Education Commission (1948-49), popularly known as the Radhakrishnan Commission and published in 1950, has been uniquely comprehensive and enlightening in this matter. It has thrown light on almost all the issues in education with a visionary mission.

Notably, the Commission had laid stress on the type of constitution a university ought to have, which will promote its ‘freedom, efficiency and progress’. It had collected and deliberated on the points of essential concern, ‘when new universities are started and considered’ and also ‘by the existing universities as soon as conditions allow’. One of the crucial points of concern was the Office of the Chancellor. Suggesting that the Governor shall be the ‘Visitor’ of ‘all the universities in the State’, the Commission further observed:

‘Chancellor – the present position varies but in most provincial universities, the Governor of the Province is Ex-office Chancellor. This arrangement has worked well, especially in Provinces with only one university. Where there are several universities in one Province, the Governor himself may feel that he cannot give to all of them as much personal contact as is possible. This is a question which should be settled by each Province (or State) for itself.’
Remember, this was suggested in the 1950s, seventy years ago. Many Crucial Inferences are possible from the above observation:

Chancellorship shall be decided as a State subject under the Concurrent List;
Both the Governor and the State Government must jointly resolve the issue;
It shall be desirable that the Governor (or the Chief Minister or the Minister for High Education for that matter) is vested with the Chancellorship of one university only;

The need for change immediately arises where new universities are started, and the existing universities have to resolve the issue as soon as conditions allow;

The criteria for the resolution shall be the personal contact desirable;
Not the political contingency of the State or Federal Government that shall decide the issues but the desired ‘constitution’ of the university concerned, meant for its progress;

No resolution is possible in an atmosphere of the polemics of power. De-politicisation would promote the necessary smoothness of functioning between the two offices and promote elimination of polemic;

Legal resolution might favour one authority and subordinate the other, but the resultant will be a nullity: and Democratisation of the Chancellor choice shall make them apolitical and non-partisan and would promote the desired goals of freedom, efficiency and progress.

All these require many crucial measures which would help contribute to achieving the best possible constitution for the universities in any State.

The key to the Problem is: The ‘personal contact’ of the Chancellor with the University shall be desirable in resolving the issues. For the Radhakrishnan Commission, this was not only ‘desirable’ but ‘to be desired as much as possible’. This ‘personal contact’ factor witnessed in private universities across India cannot be alien to the public-funded universities. ‘Personalisation without privatisation’ could be realised if only we desired it.

Democratise Selecting Chancellors

The democratisation of the process of selection of the Chancellors of the public-funded universities is the need of the hour. The Chancellor being selected, either by the Governor or Chief Minister, will not change the status quo of either of them being the Chancellor themselves. An alternate path shall not be the altered path. Both of them shall jointly appoint, ‘but not select’, the Chancellor. The Academics alone shall have this unique privilege. Let us think of an alternate path in four steps of a new format. This is a standard that can be adopted by all Indian States. One Office-One Man. In Tamil Nadu:

a. TANSCHE’s Role

The Tamil Nadu State Council for Higher Education (TANSCHE) shall be empowered to prepare and constantly update the list of eligible persons for Chancellorship in the State. This list shall be annotated with the profile of the personalities enlisted. The preparation and maintenance of the list shall have to be kept transparent and its updating a continuum.

b. Chancellor Search Committee (CSC)

A CSC shall be constituted for the concerned university as is the case prevalent now at the Bharathiyar, Bharathidasan, Periyar, and Thiruvalluvar Universities for the VC-Search-Committee. Such a committee shall include the nominee of the Syndicate, Senate and the State Government. The panel may be enlarged to include a nominee of the Governor too.

c. Collegium for Choosing a Chancellor

The Members of the Senate and Syndicate, all the Heads of the Departments of the concerned university and the officers of the university shall constitute the collegium for choosing the Chancellor.

d. Choice Procedure

The CSC will prepare a panel of ten personalities from the TANSCHE list.
The Collegium will ultimately choose one by progressive elimination in two or three stages of voting.

The Chief Minister and Governor shall jointly order the appointment of the Chanceller.

Politicisation of Chancellorship, a Bane

The Chancellor issue cannot be viewed in isolation from all the other components related issues of a university. Review or remedy must inevitably be overlapped by a holistic perception framework. For instance, the democratisation of the Chancellorship is integrally linked with the democratisation of the University as well as the Colleges affiliated to it. If the desired personal contact of the Chancellor is to materialise, it should distance the vested interests in an atmosphere of democratic praxis.

The office of university chancellorship, taken up by either the Governor or Chief Minister, marginalises the status of the Vice Chancellors. No frictionless interaction prevails but only master - servant relationship. The system alienates the Officers of the University from the Academic Governance to fringe-benefit servitude and bureaucratises them.

Advantage of Democratisation

For any university to radiate academic vibrancy, a democratic personalised governance is a must. The political authoritarian system nullifies the dignity of the Vice Chancellors, transforming them into ‘yes men’ of a dipole system, devastates all their creative energies and imposes only the survival ethics.
An independent authority of the university, who will not be dependent on any power and who will preside over the affairs of the university with personal contacts, will be invested as the Chancellor under an alternate system. The person so chosen will not be a bureaucrat or a nominee of any private agency. He shall command reputation among the academics with integrity and dignity. To achieve this, a holistic perception of the office of Chancellor is needed.

Universitisation

The universitisation of collegiate education was dear to the Radhakrishnan Commission. The Commission was in favour of concurrency, for it would defeat the stereotyped uniformity and ensure ‘local initiative and local interest’ in the creation and development of the universities. Hence the Commission had stated that the Government Colleges should ‘gradually become’ Constituent Colleges and that no Private College shall function without the cover of the Grand-in-Aid code.

Unfortunately, the first measure failed to click in Tamil Nadu because of missing of the ‘gradual’ count. The second has to remain on paper alone against the backdrop of the LPG mission (a process that hands over administrative duties to private individuals and gives them control of public finances and assets in the process of Liberalisation, Privatisation and Globalisation). On the contrary, a reverse process has commenced, erasing ‘Aided-College’ identity.

Only the ultimate vision of the Commission remains that the universities: ‘should be sensitive to enlightened public opinion, they should never let themselves be bullied or bribed into actions that they know to be educationally unsound, or worst still, motivated by nepotism, faction and corruption. The right public policy is to give a university the best possible Constitution and to leave it free from interference’.

Personal contact, sensitivity to public opinion, not being bullied or bribed into educationally-unsound actions, remaining uncorrupt and acquiring the best possible constitution – all these necessitate the democratisation of the Universities and Colleges and the universitisation of the democratised colleges. The Aided-College identity has to be preserved as the Commission insisted. The powers that be should internalise the Commission’s vision of shaping the ‘democratic future of a free people’.

Vice Chancellor of Personal Acquaintance

The Radhakrishnan Commission was highly critical of appointing a prominent man in his leisure time with some or nil academic interest. The Governors importing their friends from elsewhere or the Chief Ministers making stop-gap arrangements to accommodate the ‘left out’ politicians, and the Search-Committees remaining as passive spectators are all well-known practices today. The resultant scenario projects the Vice Chancellors as tragi-comic characters.

The Commission had stressed two crucial factors for shaping the policy of appointing the Vice Chancellors. These two factors are the ‘intimate acquaintance with the details of administration’; and ‘intimate acquaintance with the personnel of the University’. This is a basic people management principle. The aliens as Vice Chancellors ultimately realise the significance of these two criteria, usually at the fag end of their tenure or even after their exit. It is not quite surprising that the Vice Chancellors suddenly become vociferous spokesmen of the academic cause, only after their retirement. Personnel management has been a causality under the tenure of many contemporary Vice Chancellors of many Universities.

The ‘intimate acquaintance’ criterion is crucial. The ‘Personal Contact’ criterion depends on the democratic structure of the concerned university, but the ‘intimate acquaintance’ criterion stresses on the localisation of the choice for each and every university. This localisation need not necessarily focus on the concerned University alone; but should mean the choice of an academic of any university in the State, commanding reputation. Here again democratisation necessitates the collective choice of the Vice Chancellor by the academics and administrators of the concerned university.

The Present Conflict

The recent conflicts in Tamil Nadu centering around the Offices of the Governor and Chief Minister are mostly confined to the exercise of authority as Chancellor and the ‘appointing right’ over the Vice Chancellors of universities. Politicised verbal disputes include taking sides with either of them. The prescriptions of the Radhakrishnan Commission can definitely break the stalemate. No Central Legislature is needed. The issue could be amicably settled by the two offices concerned, should they drop their claims to authority over the university with the self-realisation that none of them could do justice to the Office of Chancellor against the backdrop of the many universities of the State. Clearing the way for the universities to achieve ‘freedom, efficiency and progress’ through the depoliticisation of the Office of the Chancellor has become a historical necessity.

The Vice Chancellors of recent times are, on the one hand, mere toys at the hands of the Government bureaucrats dominating the Syndicate, the market forces storming the universities and the political power struggles between Raj Bhawan and the Secretariat fanning endless friction. On the other hand, the clever among them could cunningly use the cleavage and explore the heyday of huge profit without the fear of a Judgement Day. To emancipate the Vice Chancellorship from these constraints, the Chancellorship shall have to be depoliticized.The academic praxis need to l lead the way.

The prevailing polemic between the Governor and Chief Minister politicises an academic issue and projects the political agenda of State Autonomy vis-a-vis Central Authoritarianism. With the fossilised Chancellorship, the chain reaction commences to wreck the dynamic functioning of all these university at all levels. History demands that the powers that be give up the reliance on the colonial legacy and disengage themselves from the illusory polemic of rules and precedence. Higher Education needs to be decolonised and emancipated from the graded degradation being precipitated by the politicised or governmentalised Chancellorship.

Given the status quo in the structural dynamic of the higher education system, neither the inclusion of the UGC nominee, nor even that of the United Nations, will alter the situation significantly. Will the authorities in higher education see the writing on the wall?

The recent UGC draft regulation regarding the VC-Search-Committees vitiates the basic issue and attempts to polarise the conversation ialectic in favour of the Chancellor. This marginalisation of the State Government only smacks of an authoritarian sway over the democratic functioning of the universities in general and Higher Education in particular. The State Legislation offers the counter but ultimately leads to preserve the vicious circle of power politics. For whom the bell will toll, nobody ever introspects on.

The Governor vis a vis State Chief Minister tiff has ultimately been turned into a central authoritarianist vis a vis State autonomy and unfortunately, the academics have fallen a prey to this discourse without attempting to resolve it democratically and academically. Why should they defend the State Government, leaving aside their own democratic authority?

(Author is Prof S Ramamurthy, former Member of Syndicate of the Bharathidasan University, Tirchy and of its VC-Search- Committee. He is a retired faculty of TBM Lutheran College, Porayar, Mayiladurai District.
Email: profsramamurthy[at]gmail.com)

[Edited by Papri Sri Raman]