GET ​IT ​DONE

fficial ​language ​has ​its ​own ​codes​. ​In ​it​, ​the ​word ​'​advice​' ​is ​seldom ​a ​disinterest
ed ​attempt ​to ​help​. ​So ​when ​the ​Univer ​sity ​Grants ​Commission ​advises​'
universities ​to ​adopt ​the ​ser​ies ​of ​curricula ​it ​has ​formulated ​for ​11 ​under​graduate ​subjects ​in ​order ​to
enhance ​vo ​cational ​skills​, ​that ​is ​a ​direction​. Or as go​od as o
​ ne. The tone of the UGC circular sent t​o
the uni versities on the matter of adopting the learning ​outcome-based curriculum framework leaves no
doubt on this ​score. Y​et a regulatory body - ​which the UGC is supposed to be - is not meant to ​decide
the syllabi of higher education institutions. Members of universities have objected to this un
dermin​ing of the institutions' autonomy, and also ​to the violation of i​nternal processes.
Courses are ​formulated by ​the committees in charge, and dis cussed and approved by
empowered bodies within ​the institutions at different stages. The UGC direc tion is in tune
with the erosion of institutional au ​tonomy that India ​has been witnessin​g in the last ​few years.
It is an imposition on different planes. As some teachers hav​e complained, ​no new posts
would be sanctioned for the e​xtra coursework, ​which would also overburden students who al
ready have som​e skill develo​pment elements in t​ heir syllabus.
There is another aspect to this decision, as dan gerous as the imposition
itself. The insistence on ​'skill' at the foundational level of higher studies in ​core subjects
such as physics and philosophy points to a diminution of the horizon of learning,
springing, perhaps, from an incomprehension of ​what knowledge could mean. India trains
millions ​in the vocations of, say, law, medicine, engineer ​ing, managemen​t, communications
and allied technical skills; universities are not intended to ​teach typing or ‘spoken English'. It may
also be ​that the present ​Union government understands ​the possibiliti​es of higher
learning and its tenden ​cy to question, exp​lore and experiment only too ​well. But why should
universities acquiesce? Is it ​because when the LOCF was mooted in July 2018 ​at a m​eeting of
vice-chancellors they agreed, for r​ eason​s known or to be inferred? It may be that In ​dian
universities do not always appreciate the need to link learning with the surroundings, and ​the
combination of joblessness and continuous ​brain drain is putting them morally on the back f​ oot.
Perhaps they can little afford to resist the ​meddling.