Nobel Prize-winning economist Amartya Sen has announced that he will not be returning for a further term as chancellor of Nalanda University. The announcement provoked considerable controversy, as Professor Sen suggested that the government was notably unenthusiastic about extending his tenure. Nalanda University is an unusual project. Although a central university, its nodal ministry is the ministry of external affairs and not the ministry of human resources development (HRD). This is because it has been established under the supervision of the East Asia Summit; the governing body has representation from Japan, China, Singapore and Thailand. The intent was, clearly, to use the Buddhist heritage of Nalanda to attract funding and talent from East Asia. There is little question that, in theory, this is an excellent idea. However, the implementation on the ground has been sadly delayed. The university started operation only in 2014 in temporary premises, although the original mentor group for the university was established in 2007. There may have been understandable reasons for this delay, but Professor Sen would have done well to address them, as well, in his letter.
Still, there is little reason to suppose that the government's intent was to increase efficiency of the Nalanda University project rather than to remove - or, more accurately, no longer employ - an avowed critic. The university's vice-chancellor, whose appointment has long been controversial, remains in place - when, surely, the implementation of the plans is far more her bailiwick than it is the chancellor's, and so the burden of accountability should have fallen first on her. Professor Sen's warning against the politicisation of appointments in higher education is, thus, timely. Yet it is important to note that previous governments have hardly been above reproach in this respect. Congress and Third Front governments have behaved just like Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) governments in giving appointments to fellow travellers. Unfortunately for the BJP, for various reasons they have a smaller pool of qualified sympathisers, and, thus, the costs of politicisation can become more visible.
In general, this controversy is a good moment for the government to step back and realise that it is in a superb position to reverse the decades-old slide towards politicisation of such positions. Given its unchallenged mandate, there is little reason for it to play petty politics at this level. It would have hurt it little to allow Professor Sen to continue. Now, at least, his replacement should be someone of, if not comparable, at least respectable status - and ideally apolitical. And that should be the spark for an attempt to depoliticise even other central universities. This will require major institutional reform. Fortunately, it is known - several committees have studied the problem - what needs to be done. First, instead of a University Grants Commission, have a body independent of the HRD ministry that serves as the funnel for public funds to universities. And then examine how chancellors and vice-chancellors are appointed - essentially, by a transparent search process, as is the global best practice. Professional search consultants should be hired by the governing body of a university and given parameters for the senior hire, and their recommendation should be acted upon. These two steps will go far towards ending the rot of politicisation.
