DU scraps FYUP but why did UGC wake up about its ‘flaw’ so late?

DU had earlier sent a proposal to UGC on amending FYUP but commission rejected it

jasleen

Jasleen Kaur | June 27, 2014



The Delhi University has decided to roll back the controversial four-year undergraduate programme (FYUP). Giving in to the demand of the University Grant Commission (UGC) on Friday (June 27), the university accepted to roll back the course.

In a letter to the commission, the varsity said the admission process for 2014-15 academic session would start soon and will based on the three-year programme.

DU, though, did not give in easily. Earlier, it had sent a proposal to the UGC on amending the FYUP but the commission rejected it outright. 

The university’s much-discussed and maligned four-year undergraduate programme (FYUP), first introduced at an academic congress held in September 2012 and implemented in DU last year, had met its Waterloo with even less consultation and more speed than when it was introduced.

As the varsity decides to scrap the programme, the controversy around FYUP comes down. But it does bring the attention to several other questions. The focus has been now shifted from the pro- and anti-FYUP groups to a bigger stage – the fight between the university and the UGC. It has also triggered the debate over DU’s autonomy.

The four-year programme was passed through the academic and executive council of the university, the highest decision making bodies responsible for the maintenance of standards of instruction, education and examination with the university. Many stakeholders, including teachers and students, protest against the unconstitutional way of implementing the course. The UGC remains quiet and do not act. But suddenly, after the new government takeover, it feels the programme, already running for a year, is unconstitutional and illegal and it should be scrapped.

But if FYUP was that wrong, why did the UGC wake up to the discrepancies in the implementation suddenly – a good one year since its implementation?

Was it just to prove loyalty for the current ruling party, which, too, was in a hurry to deliver on its election promise of doing away with the four-year programme?

Does the UGC have any autonomy or it is acting as an extended arm of the HRD ministry?

Was it under the pressure from the minister to act?

Should it also not be responsible for the mess that has been created?

And will this not send a warning to other V-Cs – that they, too, have no autonomy to experiment or innovate?

Nandita Narayan, president of the Delhi University teachers’ association (DUTA), who has fought against the four-year course, blamed UGC equally for the “mess”. She told Governance Now: “It (UGC) kept quiet when we approached them last year – it failed to play its role. If it had acted at the right time, the whole mess would not have been created.”

Narayan also alleged that the UGC chairman, Ved Prakash, was “hand in glove” with the then minister, Kapil Sibal.

DU vice-chancellor Dinesh Singh had told the media last year that experience with corporate entities coming to DU for recruitment had highlighted pitfalls of the existing education system. He believed that with 11 foundation courses in subjects such as information technology, governance and citizenship, science and life, history and culture, as well as language papers, student would be able to acquire communication and analytical skills.

So if FYUP was actually a step towards bringing in reforms in the higher education sector – as Dinesh Singh and many other academics have pointed out – why did it prove to be a lost opportunity? Why did Singh upgrade the system apparently in a hurry and, even more apparently, without much of a plan?

Prof Sukhadeo Thorat, a former UGC chairman, also took the UGC to task – though softly, contending that while the commission has no business in meddling with DU’s affairs that are “constitutional” and “legal”, the protests and facts that emerged over the last one year might have prompted it to do so.

Thorat said: “If there is any difference of opinion on any policy related to education, it affects the nation as a whole. The UGC does not interfere in course content and it just specifies the degree. Under its rule, a graduation degree has to be a minimum of three years; there is no maximum limit defined. So there was nothing illegal about it (DU’s four-year programme).

“But in the last one year, a lot of issues were brought to their (UGC’s) notice and the commission felt it is not right to bring change in the national policy framework (10+2+3 education system) for just one central university.”

The action, however, “may have been delayed” on UGC’s part, he added.

Thorat also said the commission’s action to scrap FYUP will in no way harm Delhi University’s autonomy.

Upset with this whole controversy, former DU V-C, Singh’s predecessor Prof Deepak Pental, said the UGC’s decision has questioned the way in which “reforms” are brought in. According to him, implementation of the FYUP would have proved critical in the long run to improve the higher education sector.

“It (the vicious DU-UGC scrap) has become a political football (field) rather than looking at students’ interests,” Pental said. “The four-year course was first mooted by the knowledge commission and science academies. They said the whole world is doing it, so should we. But rather than bringing in a good curriculum in the interest of students we are making it an ego issue.”

Pental said there are several issues involved and there should have been more talks with academics before scrapping the programme. “Teachers are opposing (FYUP) because they want to continue working the way they have been. We are going back in time by scrapping this. Reform at the higher education sector is required at present.” 

Thorat, too, emphasised on the wider debate issue, saying any issue concerned with the education sector must be developed with consensus. But FYUP, which had a rough beginning and faced a lot of opposition, did not have any such consensus, he added.

Comments

 

Other News

Rs 1,514 crore already spent on cleaning Yamuna

 The major reason for high level of pollution in river Yamuna is inadequate flow due to over extraction of surface and ground water and discharge of untreated effluent, union minister Vijay Goel informed the Lok Sabha on Monday. He said the water resources ministry is supplementing the effor

No central government scheme to run endlessly

 Centrally sponsored schemes will now onwards run for a fixed period of time, thanks to a sunset date. An outcome review will also be carried out.   In public policy, a sunset clause means that it shall cease to have effect after a specific date, unless further legislative/a

What India needs to do to finally become a superpower

For the past 25 years, India has been rising in stature. It is continually called an upcoming superpower but has been unable to reach the promised status. India’s importance in the world is more due to its immense population and potential as a market than any objective assessment of development. Indi

Would keeping an army tank at JNU instil nationalism?

Would keeping an army tank at JNU instil nationalism?

Yogi in politics, TN industries shift base and, how to end the Maharaja’s misery

Everyone in Yogi Adityanath`s office declares that Yogi’s political career is founded on the work carried out from there, first when he was mahant of the influential temple, and then as an MP. Vijendra Singh, who works at the office, says “It’s because of these letters that Yogiji has n

A fifth of Rs 29 lakh crore are NPAs

Banks have advanced a staggering Rs 29,46,060 crore to the industrial sector, of which Rs 6.93 lakh crore are non-performing assets (NPAs).   Finance minister Arun Jaitley informed





Video

कश्मीर पर तीसरे पक्ष की मध्यस्थता स्वीकार नहीं - महबूबा

Current Issue

Opinion

Facebook    Twitter    Google Plus    Linkedin    Subscribe Newsletter

Twitter