Nalanda University, an ambitious move to set up a contemporary university inspired by the glorious record of the ancient Buddhist university in Bihar, seems have lost its way even before it had begun to function in the manner it was intended to, as a centre of excellence of higher education with a pan-Asian vision. Nobel laureate and the most famous Indian public intellectual Amartya Sen has been functioning as chancellor of the university ever since it was set up through an Act of Parliament in 2010. He was part of the original Nalanda Mentor Group, which was transformed into the governing board, the highest level of administrative body in the university. The governing board chose Sen as the chancellor and the government of the day, that is the Manmohan Singh government of the United Progressive Alliance (UPA), had agreed to it. The tenure of the board of governors has been extended by an Order from the Ministry of External Affairs in November 2011 and in November 2012. In August 2013, the Nalanda University Amendment Bill was introduced in Rajya Sabha and it was referred to the committee connected with the MEA. The committee submitted its report in December, 2013.

COMMERCIAL BREAK
SCROLL TO CONTINUE READING

Sen’s letter reveals that President Pranab Mukherjee, who is the Visitor of the University, has not acted on the decision of the governing board, and he has expressed the view that the government was not in favour of him continuing as the chancellor. It is quite natural for the renowned economist to assume that the government does not want him to continue given his political views, which have been quite critical of the right-wing government of Prime Minister Narendra Modi and his Bharatiya Janata Party. It can be argued that the fledgling university with international aspirations would need a man like Sen at the helm, and whatever be his political views there is no questioning the fact that he would serve as a magnet to draw the best academicians from all over the world to Nalanda, and that he would also be an inspiring figure for the students who want to be part of the this unique project. But then it is a judgment call that the Modi government would have to take. It is quite possible that the government would want to exercise its right to choose, and look for another person as chancellor.

But the real issue seems to be the fact that the Indian government has not got its Nalanda act together. When it passed the Nalanda Act in 2010, it should have clarified the mentor group which had become the governing board will have to make way for one chosen under the Act. The parliamentary committee report reveals that the amendment Bill envisages an expansion of the governing board. For the last three years, an ad hoc arrangement has been in place and the amendment Bill is supposed to set it on a firmer footing. It is true that in India there is a tendency to get lost in the alleys and by-alleys of rules and sub-rules. The Modi  government is sure to take shelter behind the legal tangle. It would have been ideal if Nalanda University has functioned in an ideal manner where the best minds decided what is good for the institution. But here is a case of many governments, including representatives of the East Asia Summit, being involved in the working of the university. It is clear that a good idea is running aground again because confusion reigns on how to run Nalanda University.