[ad_1]
In August, the simmering feud between Kerala Governor Arif Mohammad Khan and the CPI(M)-led state government reached a boiling point. The government wants the governor to urgently repromulgate 11 ordinances notified on February 7; Khan said he would do so only after checking if “there is any urgency”. Amid the governance deadlock, the ordinances expired on August 8, forcing the government to hastily convene a special session of the assembly to introduce bills.
The most controversial of the dropped ordinances was the Kerala Lok Ayukta Amendment Ordinance, which curtailed the powers of the anti-corruption body and gave the government the ability to ignore its decisions. The opposition alleged that the ordinance was meant to shield Chief Minister Pinarayi Vijayan from pending appeals before the Lok Ayukta. Apparently, the government did not want a repeat of what happened to KT Jalil, the former higher education minister, who was forced to resign in April last year after the Lok Ayukta found him guilty of abuse of power in a case related to with irregularities in the appointment of his relative in a state corporation.
As the controversial ordinance expired, a bill restricting the Lok Ayukta’s powers with retrospective effect was introduced by the government in the special session of the assembly that began on August 22. The provisions of the bill sparked a war of words between the opposition and the government.
The scrapped ordinances prompted CPI(M) leaders to launch tirades against the governor. Khan is said to be an RSS agent who is carrying out the Union government’s plan to topple the state government.
However, the opposition parties do not accept it. “CPI(M) leaders always preach parliamentary democracy and the power of the legislature,” BJP state president K Surendran said. “But they issue all these regulations to protect their interests. By labeling the governor as an RSS-BJP man, they are trying to divert people’s attention.”
Interestingly, it is not the governor’s role as the constitutional head of government that has precipitated the current governance crisis; it is his repeated efforts to assert his rightful role as chancellor of universities. Khan had written a strongly worded letter to Vijayan last December, hinting that the government was undermining his authority as chancellor while making university appointments. He recommended that the chief minister amend the university laws to appoint himself as chancellor so that “universities are under the direct control of the government, [and] there will be no room for anyone to make allegations of political interference’.
Khan wrote the letter after the government forced him to extend the tenure of Prof. Gopinath Ravindran as the Vice-Chancellor of Kannur University. He had earlier publicly opposed the government’s decision to give four more years to Ravindran, saying the vice-chancellor had crossed the age limit of 60 years. “Higher education in Kerala is going to the dogs,” he said.
Vijayan wrote a series of letters to appease Khan, who had apparently extracted a promise from the chief minister that the government would no longer interfere with his powers as chancellor. Despite the assurances, however, the government appears determined to gain more influence over university appointments.
“The Sangh Parivar is trying to secretly push the Hindutva agenda everywhere,” Higher Education Minister R. Bindu told THE WEEK. “If they succeed in appointing their own people in key positions like that of vice-chancellor in the universities, it will affect Kerala.”
The government’s move appears to have provoked Khan into action. On August 5, he constituted a search committee to select a successor to Vice-President Mahadevan Pillai, whose term as Vice-Chancellor of the University of Kerala ends in October. The search committee usually consists of three members: nominees of the governor, the university grants committee, and the university senate. However, the committee that Khan notified now has only two members. The CPI(M)-dominated senate’s nominee — state planning board vice-chairman VK Ramachandran — refused to join the committee, apparently to buy time for the government to pass the University Acts Amendment Bill, expand the search committee and give the government more influence in the appointment of vice-chancellors.
Providing the governor with ammunition in this battle is the Campaign Committee to Save the University, an advocacy group advocating for reform of the state’s higher education sector. SUCC alleged that the recent selection of Priya Varghese, wife of CPI(M) leader and private secretary to Chief Minister KK Ragesh, as an associate professor at Kannur University was a clear case of favouritism. According to an RTI document obtained by the group, Varghese had the lowest research score among the six eligible candidates for the post, but she topped the provisional rank list prepared by the university after conducting interviews. The university claims Varghese was selected based on her interview performance. However, the governor postponed his appointment.
“The university is exploiting a loophole in the UGC rules which say that the examination result will be considered only for selection of candidates for interview and that the selection will be based only on the interview performance,” said RS Sasikumar, chairman of SUCC. “The interview process was rigged. Varghese did not have the required eight years of teaching experience to apply for the position. She obtained her doctorate (the main qualification for the position of associate professor) in 2019. Since then, she has worked as a teacher for only 20 days. Her experience as Director of Student Services at Kannur University (August 2019 to June 2021) and Assistant Director at Kerala Bhasha Institute (July 2021 to date) cannot be considered as teaching experience.”
However, Bindu said SUCC is driven by a political agenda. “Just because a person’s husband is a CPI(M) leader, can he not apply for a job? When a woman secures a position with her academic qualifications, people attribute it to her husband’s influence. It’s outrageous and painful,” she said.
On August 16, Ravindran wrote to the governor that there were no irregularities in the selection process. On the same day, the state cabinet approved the bill to amend the university laws. Khan hit back by announcing a “full investigation” into allegations of nepotism at all universities.
Shino P. Jose, member of Kannur University’s academic council, said Ravindran’s “arrogance” had worsened the controversy. “As Vice-Chancellor, Ravindran did not allow the council to vote on a single resolution. Things are run according to his whims and fancies. It was this attitude that made the dispute more personal,” he said.
Jose was one of the petitioners who moved the court against Ravindran’s apparently unilateral decision last year to reinstate the Kannur University Board of Studies. In March, the Kerala High Court quashed all appointments made by Ravindran.
“Only the chancellor has the power to reform the board and the VC has bypassed him to make the appointments,” Jose said. “Around 68 persons nominated by the VC did not even have the basic qualifications prescribed by the UGC. About 50 of them were from CPI(M) controlled self-financing colleges.”
The legal hurdle apparently did not stop Ravindran from asking the Governor to approve the same list of members. “The governor returned the list saying it was his right as chancellor to nominate members,” Jose said. “But the VC wanted to prove that his choice was right. So he sent the same list again, this time asking the governor to “nominate” the people on the list. It’s with the governor now.
George Punthottam, a senior advocate in the Kerala High Court who appears in cases related to university appointments, said vice-chancellors in Kerala universities were controlled by a cohort linked to the CPI(M). “Vice-chancellors show no backbone,” he said. “Most VCs in Kerala are outstanding academicians and scientists. But as administrators they are weak.”
[ad_2]
Source link