Kerala Agricultural University (KAU) Vice-Chancellor B. Ashok has rebutted accusations of procedural irregularities concerning the decision to grant an honorary doctorate to NABARD chairman Shaji K.V.
He clarified that the recipient possesses three decades of expertise in agricultural development and rural banking across Kerala and other States. Additionally, he emphasised the recipient’s pivotal role in initiatives such as the bank-linkage programme for the Kudumbasree Mission and the collateral-free bank-credit scheme to set up Akshaya centres, among other contributions.
Dr. Ashok delved into the decision-making process, explaining that the proposal for the honorary degree was first introduced in the KAU Academic Council on May 13, subsequently gaining approval from the Executive Council on May 16, and the final endorsement from Chancellor Arif Mohammed Khan on May 20.
“As there are restrictions to the convening of the General Council to decide the matter due to the Code of Conduct in force in the State and as the convocation has to take place on the day duly assigned by the Chancellor (May 29), the matter was informed to the General Council that convened on May 25,” he stated in a press release.
Addressing doubts regarding the rationale behind the selection, Dr. Ashok highlighted the diverse backgrounds of past awardees, encompassing academic/research practitioners, civil servants, cooperative movement leaders, and development economists. He cited examples such as civil servant and former KAU Vice-Chancellor N. Kaleeswaran, agricultural scientist M.S. Swaminathan, ornithologist Salim Ali, dairy engineer Verghese Kurien, development economist K.N. Raj and agronomist P.K.R. Nair.
Past instances
While only Professor Swaminathan and Dr. Nair could be classified as scientists in agriculture science, the others hailed from different domains.
Moreover, Dr. Ashok referenced instances where previous NABARD chairpersons, Harsh Banwala and G.R. Chinthale, were conferred honorary doctorates by other universities.
He dismissed insinuations of the decision being swayed by community or political influences as “wholly presumptive, deliberately socially divisive and condemnable”, and aimed at tarnishing the professional reputation of both the awardee and the university.
