An Old Boy of considerable seniority wrote recently that "nothing ignites nostalgia among AMU [Aligarh Muslim University] alumni the way the Tarana does," adding that "I doubt if any other educational institution on earth has an anthem that can equal the lyrical quality of the AMU Tarana." I subscribe to this personally. I also cannot erase from my mind the intellectually accommodating ambience of the campus in the mid and late fifties, the architectural magnificence of the University mosque, of the buildings around the Strachey Hall, and above all the captivating image of the university cricket ground. The nostalgia is overpowering.
Convocations are occasions to acknowledge intellectual excellence and achievement. This is that rare, fleeting, moment in life when the individual can afford to steer clear of peer pressure, pursue one's convictions, sail into the unknown and chart unconventional paths. Many famous names in AMU's past did just that.
More From This Section
The uniqueness of this institution is evident. It is a university, a place where men and women gather to seek knowledge in all its manifestations. They do so because, as Ibn Khaldun would have said, "the pasture of stupidity is unwholesome for mankind" and "the evil of falsehood is to be fought with enlightened speculation"; hence the need both for critical insight, and for lifting the veil of ignorance. There is another aspect of uniqueness evident to all. It is Muslim, meaning by it an inheritor not only of the sum total of human knowledge but also particularly of the segment bequeathed by the civilisation of Islam.
A third characteristic, taken for granted and yet worthy of mention, is location. It is in India, one of the cradles of human knowledge whose inputs into, and interaction with, the world of Islam enriched both. Nor can the location-specific ethos developed at Aligarh for over a century and more be ignored; it may be emulated but cannot be duplicated. An institution of higher learning and a cultural entity is not easily given to being a commercial or philanthropic franchise.
Thus, the challenge emanating from being posited, notionally, on a tripod was demanding at all times. In different stages of the University's history its responses to these were fairly reflective of its intellectual capacity and its commitment to the values and objectives it had prescribed for itself. The record, to my mind, is a mixed one.
Today, the challenge has acquired greater intensity. The imperatives of the 21st century would sustain and accelerate the pattern, perhaps add new dimensions to them. The question that I pose to myself, and to all of you, is a simple one: is the AMU prepared and equipped to respond meaningfully, in thought and deed, to these challenges?
Universities are not a modern novelty. They emerged whenever human thought processes evolved to the point of asking questions that go beyond primary needs of human existence. They are expected to offer a depth and breadth of vision not available in the rush of every day life. A university is a place that not only produces knowledge but also produces doubt, a place that is "creative and unruly, home to polyphony of voices". It also has a practical objective: to impart skills to get a job or a better job, to improve prospects in life. For the latter reason, their concerns and curricula have to respond in good measure to the requirements of the age.
Two decades earlier the historian Paul Kennedy penned a volume entitled Preparing for the Twenty-First Century and concluded that three elements would be critical to the effort: (i) the role of education, (ii) the place of women and (iii) the need for political leadership.
I begin with education. The shortfalls are evident. Despite educational attainment by segments of society, the base line of literacy at the dawn of freedom in 1947 was 12 per cent. It reached 74 per cent in 2011 and is still below the global average of 84 per cent. Inscribing the Right to Education as a fundamental rights, and the Right to Education Act of 2009, has certainly enhanced enrolment but is yet to translate itself into quality education. As a result, school-leavers often do not have the capacity to imbibe college and university learning. Nor have they benefited yet from the new schemes of "vocationalisation" of secondary education. This also holds true for areas of technical and professional education.
Consequently, and in order to accommodate the less prepared, undergraduate teaching often begins at sub-standard levels. Its impact is pervasive. Mediocrity thus, prevails, with both the teachers and the taught wallowing in it. This is to be contrasted with the levels of educational requirement in the 21st century. Two ingredients of it are critical: the first relates to globalisation of standards and the second to the up-gradation of skills.
Why have we come to such a pass? One reason is the conversion of our universities into degree-awarding machines for the benefit of youth who do not receive sufficient guidance on career options at the school leaving stage and, therefore, drift through a degree course aimlessly. The other reason, linked to the first, is the lack of focus on quality teaching, on evoking the interest of the students in subjects of their choice, in encouraging them explore its dimensions and in inculcating the habit of thinking for themselves. Learning by rote from made-easy books, and focusing on "model" answers to standard questions that examiners set mechanically year after year, thus becomes the hall mark of an average student. Little or no effort is made by the teacher to induce critical and innovative thinking. The curiosity latent in every young mind is not awakened.
If the student is the innocent victim of this scheme of things, the teacher often is an accomplice.
Edited excerpts from Vice-President Hamid Ansari's address at the 61st convocation of the Aligarh Muslim University, March 29, 2014 at Aligarh