Virtually every important person in any field in Nepal has a degree from Tribhuvan University (TU), which has been serving the nation since 1961. The university has produced countless professionals and qualified manpower upon whom the very survival of the country depends. The political leaders must look at the aging university as a great asset. Loving TU is equivalent to loving the country since it still educates more than 90% of the students aspiring for higher education in Nepal.

But do the likes of vice-chancellors, rectors and registrars love the university equally? Probably not. If they had, the state of teacher management would certainly have been better. Nor would one see an unnecessarily large number of non-teaching employees at TU, which is bigger than teaching staff. It is evident that pro-chancellors and chancellors have given due attention to qualitative development of the university. One can find that many contractual and part-time teachers, temporary and wage-based workers are appointed on political recommendation.

The rampant politics prevalent in TU is the result of these teachers and workers. Those who either do not want to teach or are incapable of teaching are at the forefront of political activities in the university. On top of this, political leaders employ hundreds of party cadres each year without slightest concern for TU’s scant resources. At the time of ousting of vice-chancellors, there have been instances of contractual appointments handed out to over a hundred teachers in a single campus. And people have started to lose their faith in TU even as hundreds of teachers are promoted through TU Service Commissions.

It was hoped that the advent of Loktantra would usher in some positive changes in TU. But any such hope was soon dashed after the arrival of Loktantra. Political leaders failed to appoint VC for 14 months and the rector and registrar for 16 months. Although the Chancellor has the right to make appointments in these positions based on recommendations of a committee formed under the chairmanship of the pro-chancellor, the process has not been able to function properly. It is noteworthy that the VC was appointed only after the pro-chancellor (the minister for education) threatened to resign from his post.

The process of appointment of rector and registrar has been nothing but farcical. When the PM and TU Chancellor refused to appoint the recommended people, the TU VC had to amend university rules in order to make temporary appointments. The appointees showed their greed by not politely declining the offer of temporary positions. They could have saved their reputation by refusing to accept those positions . How can a temporary authority make permanent decisions? How can they function in academic council, executive committee and senate? Besides, the question of validity in their decisions will always be raised.

Moreover, these authorities were

appointed against a recent amendment in TU Act. This is the reason why TU’s

well-wishers had to go to court. The Supreme Court has already issued a stay order to the newly appointed rector and registrar not to carry out their duties. What insult to the rector and the registrar of such a reputed university of Nepal? The political leaders, the chancellor, the pro-chancellor and the vice-chancellor should all learn lessons from this episode.

They have to swear not to politicise the university . People in a position to influence decision-making do not seem bothered about the quality of leadership in academic institutions and quality of education in the country. Had they been more serious, the five-decade-old university would have kept pace with other internationally recognised universities around the globe.

It is the responsibility of all political parties to keep from intervening in academic matters. Rather, they can assist and/or facilitate academic activities run by the universities through non-political means. They should let higher education institutions run in an academic atmosphere.

The solution to this problem as well as one regarding appointment of top-level authorities of other universities should also be sought. The chancellor should be an independent and nationally recognised educationist. The system of pro-chancellor should be abolished. University senates should be a place for academic discourse to upgrade the quality of higher education. At the same time, representation of political parties in the senate should be kept to a minimum.

The senate should have a right to appoint top level university authorities from within the highly qualified and nationally recognised working personalities within the university. A retired academician can be a chancellor but not the VC or rector. The other alternative would be to create a Board of Trustees and to give it full autonomy. Only then can the sanctity of university as a place of learning, rather than a political battlefield, be established.

Dr. Wagley is Dean, School of Education, KU