Questions have been raised about Smriti Irani's suitability as human resource development minister on the grounds that she is not even a graduate and, hence, not qualified enough for the post. Rajeev Chandrashekhar, an independent member of the Rajya Sabha, speaks to Manavi Kapur on whether academic qualifications make for competent ministers
What is the objection to Irani's appointment - that she lacks educational qualification or that she wasn't truthful in her affidavit?
There are two distinct issues. Whether she is educationally qualified to be an HRD minister is an argument that is doomed to fail. It's an established fact that knowledge and experience are not the same as educational degrees. When someone is given a responsibility, it needs to be measured on the basis of actual performance. Unless there are inherent conflicts of interest - like a minister who has business interests in the field of education - it should be left to a person's inherent ability to perform. We have had environment and telecommunication ministers who were highly qualified and they did a breathtakingly terrible job. Everyone who is educated need not be competent.
The second issue is of Irani's affidavit and the disclosure of her actual educational qualifications. That has to do with the integrity of the information provided by any candidate to the electorate. In my opinion, this is a legitimate issue for discussion and the law provides for action against such defaulters. If it is true, voters are well within their rights to seek criminal action.
How important is educational qualification for a ministerial post? Does it have a bearing on a ministry's performance?
In general, organisational dynamics for any organisation can be based on two models. One, you could have an inspirational, qualified leader with a team to take the goals forward. Or you could have a person with general management skills working with a capable, experienced team. You can have an excellent, world-class educationist at the helm of HRD with a regular bureaucracy under him. Or, as in this case, a person passionate about education and one who understands the needs of people working with a team capable of delivering the government's vision.
That only geniuses and visionaries can become competent ministers is not entirely true. Look at the last five years of the United Progressive Alliance government. There were too many people who positioned themselves as visionaries, but could not deliver on the promises they made. There needs to be a balance between vision and team-work. It isn't an either/or situation.
Is this debate then limited to Irani and the HRD ministry?
I don't think so. It started as a political debate but became a general discussion about whether or not our political leadership needs to be educated. Education is necessary, but not just in terms of degrees. Visions and ideas are also important. One may view it as an irony that a non-graduate is the minister for HRD, but it is not so. We are not talking about education only in the urban pockets of Delhi and Mumbai. There are large rural areas and communities that don't have access to education. To help this cause, you don't need a degree. Rather it has to do with empathy, being a mother and caring that people are educated and ensuring that as many children have access to education as possible. The HRD minister has to think of innovative ways to get access to places as remote as Kalahandi in Odisha, and you don't necessarily need to be a professor for that. We are now seeing a move away from the conventional models to a governance-centric one, which gives space to people who understand these issues and want to bring about change. I can say that I have learnt more about the country and life during my eight years in Parliament than I did with my doctorate degree.
Abraham Lincoln and Winston Churchill, both school dropouts, are being used as examples to back Irani's case. Is such a comparison relevant?
There are many successful people who did not have formal education. But you can't make this case for every person who doesn't have qualification. The argument should not be that Lincoln and Churchill were successful, but that I will be successful like Lincoln and Churchill if you give me six months. Formal education is not the only aspect, but not every dropout makes it big. If that were true, no child would go to school.
How do you explain the anomaly that while the percentage of educated legislators has gone up, the level of debate has slipped?
If you look at the early days of Parliament, especially in the 1950s, the debates were brilliant. The quality of debates today has gone down because when a government comes into a majority, debates stop mattering. This disregard for the opposition is what has brought debates down, not education.
