THE implementation committee on the 18th Constitutional Amendment is pre paring to devolve the edifice of HEC. The move is not something that comes as a surprise for those wellversed with the injunctions of the amendment and the policy directions of the government.
Quality control mecha nisms, uniformity of core values in curriculum, ongoing projects, prospective grants and funding from international bodies, support to faculty in research, development and extension activities, sustenance of progressive initiatives such as foreign faculty hiring programmes, collaborations and travel grants and many other outstanding works done by the commission are some of the reasons being outlined to retain the commission in its pristine form.
In contrast, the enhancement of provincial autonomy in accordance with the spirit of the constitution is probably the only preponderating narrative pitted to outweigh HEC supporters.
As is normally observed in such situations, the issue has been greatly politicised. Opposition parties can be observed levelling scathing criticism on the move. The HEC chairperson has also given several interviews to highlight the utility and importance of the commission. Groups of students, faculty members and staff of various institutions have raised slogans and conducted demonstrations on the streets. This is without doubt a vital matter which must be assessed objectively before a decision on it can is made.
Our various governments by now are known for their failure to handle transition management. Whether you look at the old example of devolving development authorities in 2001 or the privatisation of various utility corporations, each episode was marred with poor decision making attempts, lethargic responses to immediate demands and lack of clarity about the final destination.
It is feared that the devolution of HEC shall cause similar setbacks as there is no comprehensive blue print prepared to undertake the task. The fate of PhD scholars abroad, funding to research, internation al linkages, quality control mechanisms and even routine functions might also be affected.
Let’s play “what if” and imagine that the implementation committee moves ahead with its plan and higher education becomes a net provincial subject with the demise of HEC. If this scenario is applied, there shall be different types of responses from each province.
The Higher Education Department in Punjab is expected to adopt most of the programmes that were launched and run by the HEC. Khyber Pakhtunkhwa (KP) and Sindh are likely to create new administrative structures to perform the routine functions that were once the trademark of the erstwhile University Grants Commission. Not much progressive approach is likely to emerge beyond the disbursement of grants and the random adoption of educational schemes. A common denominator in the two provinces happens to be strong governors in KP by virtue of statutory powers and privileges while in Sindh due to political dispensation at work.
It is believed that governors/chancellors shall have a reasonable say in the state of affairs of university managements. It is however unclear as to what roles and objectives are formulated by each category of stakeholders.
So the best way forward is perhaps keeping an open mind and looking at our choices while consulting all the stakeholders. The implementation committee may consider constituting a special committee to discuss the matters with HEC officials, university vice chancellors and deans, provincial education departments and policy experts on higher education. An appropriate solution may be formulated for consensus implementation after fixing a realistic time frame. Haste, preconceptions, mutual distrusts and loss of objectivity must be avoided from the road map of this vital subsector of our national performance. ¦ The writer is professor and chairman, Department of Architecture and Planning, NED University, Karachi
0 comments:
Post a Comment