A section of the academic community is upset over Governor-Chancellor Banwarilal Purohit renominating BJP State vice-president and SASTRA University professor P. Kanagasabapathi as Syndicate member of the Bharathiar University in Coimbatore. Mr. Kanagasabapathi was appointed vice-president of the BJP only recently and not during his first term as Chancellor’s nominee on the Syndicate.
On Friday, the Governor had nominated him and C A.. Vasuki, secretary and director, Kongunadu Arts and Science College to the Syndicate.
According to the Bharathiar University Act the Syndicate should have three members from among academic experts to be nominated by the Chancellor. Calling it unprecedented, Association of University Teachers (AUT) president N. Pasupathy said the nomination of a person holding a State-level post in a political party would send wrong signals to the academic community and pave way for the nominee to infuse his ideology.
Given his political position and status as a Governor-nominee in the Syndicate, it would be easy for the BJP leader to dominate the Syndicate meeting and bring about changes that suited his party’s ideology and none would dare challenge him, Mr. Pasupathy charged.
Former AUT office bearer Prof. Pichandy said while there was no question about Mr. Kanagasabapathi’s integrity, the Association’s objection was only on the ground that he held a prominent position in a party.
When the Central government was against politicisation of higher education, what was the need for the Governor to appoint a politician, he questioned.
“It would have been better had the Governor-Chancellor thought through his nomination,” he said and pointed out that the AUT had not objected to Mr. Kanagasabapathi’s nomination three years ago, as he held no party position then.
A college management representative said every stand that Mr. Kanagasabapathi would take in the Syndicate, even if it was unbiased, would come in for greater scrutiny.
When contacted, Prof. Kanagasabapathi said those objecting to his nomination cited only his political affiliation as a reason, as they could not complain about his impartiality or academic achievements. He claimed they were opposing his nomination because in the last three Syndicate meetings he had objected to various violations and placed dissent notes, all of which were open for public scrutiny. He alleged that a few vested interests in the university felt threatened because of his nomination.
