Indian higher education is undergoing a silent transformation, with a growing trend of the same individuals continuing as vice-chancellors at different universities without returning to teaching or research between appointments. Although regulations do not prohibit this practice, continuous tenures as vice-chancellor and prolonged absence from teaching and research raise questions about the credibility of such academic leadership, especially in relation to the changing aspirations of students in the classroom. The moot point concerns the efficacy of university leadership, as a university is not a corporation and a vice-chancellor is not its CEO. Undoubtedly, academic authority emanates from an individual’s engagement with knowledge creation, rather than expertise gained through perpetual administration. Prolonged detachment from teaching and research risks imposing stereotyped leadership on a university and undermining its academic soul.
Originally, university leadership was conceived as primus inter pares, that is, first among equals, with a custodial role and a fixed tenure, after which the incumbent would return to teaching or research. A fixed-term appointment safeguards the vice-chancellor against political, bureaucratic and other undue pressures while taking difficult academic and administrative decisions and protecting the university’s autonomy. However, the temptation to continue in vice-chancellorial roles often encourages individuals to accommodate and compromise, while the focus on broad acceptability may gradually overshadow a firm commitment to academic and ethical values. The continued appointment as vice-chancellors of individuals distanced from academic pursuits defeats the purpose of drawing on senior professors’ intellectual credibility and the respect they command among their peers. Over time, the perception of this position as largely administrative, similar to that of a career bureaucrat, becomes entrenched. Such an understanding is inappropriate for a role intended to provide enriching academic leadership. University leaders are expected to retain their standing in teaching and research so that they can command respect and lead the academic community, rather than merely administer the institution.
Unlike in earlier times, there are now several instances of revolving-door appointments of vice-chancellors in the country. The academic alienation of anyone continuously serving as vice-chancellor has various implications. Undoubtedly, a person who continually serves in this role becomes more confident, authoritative and experienced in heading a university. However, an academic leader who spends years handling administrative affairs without returning to teaching between consecutive vice-chancellorial tenures is bound to lose touch with core academic and research pursuits. These include contemporary classroom and laboratory issues, curricula, changing student aspirations and challenges, research priorities, campus life and evolving scholarship. This disconnection risks making leadership more focused on compliance than scholarship. The continued appointment of academics as vice-chancellors, without an intervening return to their professorial duties, may also be perceived as a reward for alignment with those in power rather than merit, calling their academic legitimacy into question.
The rotation of a limited number of individuals at the helm, moving from one university to another as vice-chancellors, also results in stereotyped approaches to institutional functioning and transformation. It stifles fresh thinking and restricts opportunities for other academically accomplished individuals willing to contribute to universities’ betterment in different ways. Denying opportunities to equally talented academics who lack influential networks crushes their aspirations, demotivates those willing to take risks, reduces their participation in debate and dissent, and inhibits alternative perspectives and innovation. Such consequences are detrimental to higher education in the long run.
Indisputably, this model of the career vice-chancellor suits those proficient in managing power and networks rather than those committed to strengthening academic quality, academic integrity and university autonomy. It consequently deprives the entire university ecosystem of access to a wider range of genuine academic leaders.
The University Grants Commission, the higher education regulator, has prescribed minimum standards for appointments to various university posts, including that of vice-chancellor. However, no provision prescribes a cooling-off period requiring an individual to return to academic duties. Nor is there any limit on continuously serving as vice-chancellor across universities. A vice-chancellor’s prolonged absence from knowledge creation, teaching and research nevertheless detaches leadership from scholarship and the creation and transmission of knowledge. This separation may gradually hollow out the university’s academic character.
Universities thrive on renewed, intellectually engaged leadership, rather than administrative proficiency alone. The practice of retaining a set of individuals as perpetual vice-chancellors without their returning to teaching or research between multiple tenures therefore calls for widespread debate, as it appears to prioritise managerial convenience over academic conscience. Why should there not be a cooling-off period comprising at least two semesters of teaching or one year of research before taking up the next assignment as vice-chancellor of any university?
The government, regulatory bodies and academia at large must consider correcting this imbalance so that leadership positions become available to a wider range of professors whose fresh thinking can nurture universities morally and ethically. Appointing new vice-chancellors with strong academic credentials gives them legitimacy, while making their approach to institutional leadership less predictable. This renewal is also essential to enable universities to function fearlessly as free spaces that uphold academic freedom and pluralism, while maintaining autonomy and credibility in accordance with their prescribed mandates.
Uncompromising, ethical institutional leadership focused on academic quality is possible only when individuals have no interest in securing future opportunities of a similar nature. Universities must be recognised as academic establishments that need a constant flow of fresh ideas and activities aimed at strengthening teaching, learning, assessment and research. Their leadership cannot assume a bureaucratic character through the continued appointment of career vice-chancellors. For a better intellectual future and renewed vigour in university teaching and research, it is imperative to consider the consequences of academically detached vice-chancellors following a professionalised, corporate career path and remaining in such offices for prolonged periods.
Onkar Singh is former vice-chancellor, Veer Madho Singh Bhandari Uttarakhand Technical University, Dehradun, and was founder vice-chancellor, Madan Mohan Malaviya University of Technology, Gorakhpur