Chandigarh, April 15
Almost two decades after the so-called democratisation experiment that provided for rotation of headship and decision-making through a system of committees involving virtually all members of the Departmental faculty, teachers of Panjab University are now sharply polarised over the effectiveness of the scheme.
While a group of Senators had moved a resolution that the process of rotation of headship among professors, readers and senior lecturers be restricted to professors alone, sources state that more than 300 teachers have signed a resolution opposing this move.
In the December meeting of the university Senate, a resolution for the review of this scheme was moved by Prof S.L.Sharma, Prof Bhuvan Chandel, Prof M.R. Aggarwal, Prof Santosh Sharma, Prof S.M. Handa, Prof R. D. Anand and Prof Satya P. Gautam. However, many other Senators insisted that this resolution be withdrawn. In view of impending revolt, the item was deferred to a later date. In March, the same resolution came up for discussion after which, the Vice-Chancellor formed a committee to look into the matter.
In the meantime, a group of young PU faculty members started a signature campaign, stating that the present system of rotation be retained. Those who signed the document today informed that as many as 300 signatures had been collected.
Dr Neerja Sood, Reader and former Chairperson, Department of Hindi, says, ‘‘It would be very selfish on my part if I were to become a professor and say that only professors will be getting a turn at headship. This system of rotation had been attained after much struggle and all that is now being waste.’’
There are others who differ. Dr M Rajivlochan, ex-secretary, PUTA and member of the Faculty of Arts, says, “The departments would benefit if the headship is confined to professors alone since they have the adequate stature and wisdom to provide the necessary academic leadership”
Then there are some who feel the system will not be both unfair and unviable. Dr Guneeta, Reader and Chairperson of the French Department, says, ‘‘At least for the foreign languages departments, it will amount to a crisis. We do not have enough professors, so who is going to head the department? Personally, I feel that if one is found good enough academically to teach, postgraduate classes, one can prove to be efficient administrator also. Even lecturers should be allowed to head a department, especially when there is always the option to say no to headship available.’’
Dr Satya Pal Gautam states that the resolution does not restrict the rotation of chairmanship only among professors but provides for rotation up to the level of readers, wherever the number of professors in a department is very small.
Dr Panda of the department of Central Asian Studies stated that although he comes from a university where headship was confined to professors, in PU the process might not be tenable.
Dr Geeta Manaktala, Reader and former Chairperson, Philosophy Department, also stated that although a certain aptitude was required to be a good administrator, that did not mean that only professors can have it and lecturers cannot. We have never had any difficulty in administering the department and if one is junior and is the chairperson, there are always the seniors to guide. ’’
Prof Inder Mohan Joshi of the Department of Chemistry stated that the matter under discussion was a complete non-issue and although there was a need to review certain aspects of the matter, the system was started in the 1980s with a valid rationale behind it. There has been no serious instance since then where a department got into problems being headed by a non-professor, so why the need to change the system?’’ he questioned.
