After India’s independence, our government contemplated for the first time through the National Education Policy (NEP)-2020 and placed priority on research in higher educational institutions. While doing so, it has rightly admitted the fact that academic research is an important and integral part of the higher education system in most knowledge societies. To reverse the current trend and to bring back the lost glory of higher education in research, the NEP envisages a very significant roadmap and aims to develop research capabilities among the faculty members and facilitate the development of research culture in the state universities and other public institutions. However, while looking at research-related policies at our state level, these are topsy-turvy to the spirit of NEP-2020.
In this part of the federation, our bureaucrats and policymakers, who have most often not been in academic research, hypothetically believe that research isn’t an important yardstick in evaluating higher education so much so that it doesn’t even deserve adequate weightage while looking at appointments in higher educational institutions. This is clearly proven by the recent myopic developments wherein a PhD degree holder who was hitherto allotted 30 points for shortlisting to the interview of assistant professorship post is being recommended to allot only 05 points for his/her entire doctorate degree plus publications, conferences, workshops and teaching experiences in aggregate. I want to ask these office bearers, Isn’t it shear injustice to the scholars who work 24×7 with consistency and dedication for 5-7 years altogether for a PhD degree or in that case would this allocation of mere 05 marks to a doctorate degree equivalent to 05 MCQ’S promote research culture or demote it in our higher seats of learning. After all, why would a candidate go for research, if attempting mere 05 objective questions would fetch him the same points. Are you working in tandem with NEP or gluttoning it’s true spirit.
Secondly, being the victims of the circumstances, it also becomes our moral and ethical responsibility to bring to your notice that the way your policies are degrading the value and weightage of nationally reputed exams like NET and JRF here in Jammu and Kashmir is immensely vague and worth criticizing. You must know that when the postgraduates of the entire country sit in a national-level competition conducted by NTA or CSIR, only the top 15 percent qualify for NET and from that 15 percent, the upper half, that is top 7.5 percent qualify for JRF. After qualifying in such a tough competition at national level, does it sound logical or irrational to test these already qualified candidates again through a state-level entrance where post graduate pass-outs (with freshly mugged up knowledge), JRF candidates (already declared eligible through National Level Test) and doctorate degree holders (already detached from exams but involved in more higher objectives of contributing through research) will be evaluated equally like any Tom, dick and harry and made to prove their eligibility through an entrance exam again.
Here, a simple question that I would like to ask our policymakers or those who have qualified UPSC or JKAS five years before is that incase you are made to write the same exam now, would you be able to even qualify it’s preliminary part? The answer would be a big No in most of cases merely because when we get detached from something, our knowledge, as well as ability to prove ourselves for the same, diminishes with time. Same is applicable with PhD scholars who get detached from studies years ago and involve in research for years altogether. Isn’t it unfair to compel them to write the same exam with the fresh pass-outs from universities and check their worth? Likewise, I ask the men at the helm, incase you qualify UPSC and are made to prove your worth by again qualifying JKAS, would that be logical and praiseworthy or illogical and unsound? You know the answer much better but still recommend compelling those students who have already qualified NET/JRF to prove their eligibility through a lower-level exam again.
This is not only illogical but also making fun of their intelligence and already proven capability. The third point that we want to bring to the limelight is that nobody takes pains at the helm in devising or adopting standard norms like that of UGC at our state level for the unknown reasons. Is it necessary to change rules every year while appointing assistant professors for higher seats of learning? Don’t you think that notifying certain criteria and changing it midway when almost 90 per cent of the process is completed proves your professional inefficiency?
Above all, in a welfare society, government is for its people and not against their wishes. Are we living in a democracy or dictatorship where you can make or break any rule as and on-demand without any checks and balances. The PhD scholars of your state request your noble selves not to at least bring the already eligible and shortlisted candidates under the radar of the “recommendations in making” for their appointment or if you are adamant on bringing in a new setup of rules, please implement that for future recruitments. Besides, it will be a welcome step to respect the recent decision of Honorable Supreme Court regarding the “Principle governing changing the rules of game”
wherein it has categorically stated that this rule would not have any application when the change is with respect to the selection process but not the qualification or eligibility. In other words, after the advertisement is made followed by an application by a candidate with further progress, a rule cannot be brought in, disqualifying him to participate in the selection process. It is only in such cases, the principle aforesaid will have an application or else it will hamper the power of the employer to recruit a person suitable for a job.
This kind gesture will not only bring a ray of hope to the candidates who are already shortlisted and at the margin of overage but also develop a sense of trust on the government which will act as a milestone of commitment and corruption-free governance in future. Let’s not make our policies biased and arbitrary. Let’s not be in haste while deciding upon the career of thousands of scholars. Let’s give academic merit and research a chance to breathe without suffocation. Let’s serve to be the facilitators and not the obstacle creators for our people.
Author is a freelancer. He can be reached at alig.rafi8@gmail.com
Discussion about this post