Never in Nepal’s history had the government prioritised quality of education. Neither has it been a priority in basic education nor can any laudable example be traced in higher education. Before the implementation of multi-university concept, the monopoly of Tribhuvan University was one of the reasons behind this. Bar a few exceptional cases, the appointment of vice-chancellors and other high-level authorities in TU were purely based on nepotism. The intellectuals and students in higher education have always been overruled by sub-standard authorities.

On one hand, the government appoints authorities on political basis and on the other, the same people making these appointments lecture about non-politicisation of education sector. During Panchayat regime, the palace monopolised higher education sector by appointing non-educationists as TU vice-chancellors. The repercussions can be seen in low competitiveness of its graduates to hold steady jobs.

After the restoration of democracy in 1990, people expected unbiased educational appointments in the universities. However, nothing changed. Political encroachment has crippled the higher education sector and made education worthless. The lack of visionary leadership of the politically appointed VCs, rectors, registrars, deans, executive directors, campus chiefs and other major administrative positions turned TU into a mini-cabinet rather than creating a student-friendly institution.

Divided political views among professionals, students and administrative staff led to degradation of the quality of education year by year. The authorities allowed professionals and administrative staff to establish as many trade unions as they wished. The result is a lethargic condition of TU which holds about 90 per cent students of higher education in the country. The disease of appointing political activists has spread to other independently run universities which too have been turned into mini-cabinets.

Look at what has happened after a year’s vacancy of top university positions. The monopoly of the four major political parties has rendered the functioning of universities worse. All four universities - Tribhuvan, Pokhara, Purbanchal and Nepal Sanskrit - have been turned into mini-cabinets by appointment of VCs on purely political basis. Even if the education minister has succeeded in appointing VCs in these universities, he has utterly failed to save the temples of education from political contamination. He could at least have appointed TU vice-chancellor from among the independent non-political cadres in order to show both his and UML’s courage to embrace change.

This further shows infringement of the minister’s autonomy by the affiliated political party. Similarly, the selection committee including the minister himself could have suggested the names of the VCs from among competent professionals within the universities rather than appointing outsiders. Moreover, the parties seemed reluctant to let the second generation lead the country. They could have recommended energetic professionals, as is the need of the time, rather than appointing the retired ones. Is it not a crime on the part of the government not even to learn from the mistakes of neighbouring countries regarding such appointments? How can they talk about human resources development when capable intellectuals with leadership qualities are left far behind. They are frustrated and, in some ways, the government is motivating them to employ their brains abroad. This is an example of extreme inefficiency in education sector. Unless and until the government allows the universities to appoint their own VCs, the condition of higher education in this country will only worsen. Universities should be autonomous in appointing the VCs through their senates and without any intrusion of the government. Why should the PM and education minister act as chancellor and pro-chancellor? Why cannot a renowned academician be a chancellor?

The university benefits more from a prominent academician as chancellor rather than the PM. The same applies in the case of pro-chancellor. If the current pro-chancellor of all universities, Pradip Nepal, is willing to give this country a jump-start in education, he should dare to amend the existing university Acts as soon as possible and let each university exercise its full autonomy. Moreover, a code of conduct for university students as well as teachers is equally important. If teachers fail to adhere to the code of conduct, how can they expect discipline from their students? This has been a serious problem in TU and to some extent in other universities as well.

It is high time we changed for the better and not just for the sake of change. Let us all join hands in reforming higher education by making higher education institutions politically free, academically-oriented and student-friendly. Anyway, congratulations again to the mini-cabinets!

Dr Wagley is Dean, School of Education, KU