Blog

CCS Imposition

CCS IMPLEMENTATION IN CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES – A DEATH BLOW TO ACADEMIC FREEDOM!

Monsoon has come and gone, and with that, we are faced with a brand new draconian imposition upon our universities. This time, it’s the Central Civil Service (CCS) Conduct Rules of 1964, which were amended in 2014. After an already rolled back (so far) attempt to impose the even more draconian ESMA on Delhi University, which would allow teachers to be imprisoned for going on strike, the MHRD is now hellbent on imposing CCS on Central Universities via the UGC-MHRD vide circular F No 22-9/2017(CU) of 1st May, 2018. The aforementioned circular instructed universities ‘such time that the concerned University formulates its Statutes, Ordinances, and Regulations, for service matters, the University should follow the Govt of India rules/orders as applicable to Central Govt. Civilian employees.’ This symbolizes the most extreme form of state control of universities, and is a declaration of an internal emergency in universities. Faculty members in older Central Universities such as JNU have opposed it vehemently, while some of the newer Central Universities have already adopted the same. (For a deeper look at the matter, please go here.)

Our past experience with mass public e-mail campaigns has shown that it is possible to make a dent on policy-making via public opinions, as we have successfully convinced the UGC to modify some aspects of the Draft Regulations of 2018 and managed to send enough feedback to the MHRD to stall the tabling of the HECI Bill as of now. It is your participation and your support that made this possible! Public opinion matters. OUR VOICES MATTER!

This time, we intend to email the Visitor of Central Universities – the President of India – with our concerns. For that, you need to follow the simple process mentioned below, in five easy steps:

STEP ONE:

Open your email client, COMPOSE a new email, and in the to field, paste:

presidentofindia@rb.nic.in

STEP TWO:

In the subject field, paste: APPEAL AGAINST CCS IMPOSITION IN CENTRAL UNIVERSITIES

STEP THREE:

Copy the following text (CTRL + C on Windows; COMMAND + C on MAC):

The Visitor, Central Universities
Hon’ble President of India

Respected Shri Kovind,

I write this appeal to you, regarding the May 1, 2018 circular F. No. 22-9/2017(CU) from UGC-MHRD to Central Universities. This letter instructs universities that ‘till such time that the concerned University formulates its Statutes, Ordinances, and Regulations, for service matters, the University should follow the Govt of India rules/orders as applicable to Central Govt. Civilian employees.’

Different Central Universities have responded to these instructions in two ways. The first has been to issue a circular mandating compliance with Central Civil Service (CCS) Rules 1965, the second has been to incorporate the conduct rules in university statutes on the grounds that this is mandated by the UGC.

This letter is to alert you, the Visitor of all Central Universities, about the dangers that an imposition of these rules present — for teachers’ academic work of teaching and research, their rights to privacy and political participation, their role and contribution to democratic processes and society, as well as the very idea of university autonomy.

Even a cursory examination of the CCS Rules will be enough to convince you that the rules are designed solely for those civil servants who execute and implement government policy. Teachers are not government servants by the definitions in the rules themselves, a fact that led the Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court, in Dr. Suchitra Mitra and Anr. v. Union of India (2015), to conclude that: “The professors of the university are neither members of a service nor do they hold a civil post under the union nor are they in the service of local or other authority. CCS(CCA) rules would, therefore, have no application to a central university.”

In particular, I would like to draw your attention to the adverse impact a number of clauses in the CCS Rules will have, if imposed on central university teachers.

i) Rules 8 and 9 will bring research and teaching to a grinding halt. Rule 8 (i) states that “No employee shall, except with the previous sanction of the University, own wholly or in part, or conduct, or participate in the editing or management of any newspaper or other periodical”. Rule 8 (ii) prohibits the publication of books and articles save for a purely scientific or literary character. Rule (9) makes it clear that all such intervention must not be of a nature that “has the effect of an adverse criticism of the Government” or embarrass relations with the Union or with any foreign government.

This rule has the effect of putting a blanket ban on freedom of speech and expression in the classroom, in research papers and articles, and in public life. In effect, they introduce censorship as a condition of service. Indian academics will not be able to engage in, and with, critiques of government policy, and will also not be able to fulfill their professional duties freely— editorships and membership of editorial boards are a matter of prestige in many disciplines, but teachers will not be allowed to accept them without prior sanction. Rule 9 will deprive teachers of the opportunity and moral obligation to inform and influence public opinion, an essential role of academia, and the chief way in which it can give back to society.

ii) Rule 5 bars all political participation and activity, beyond voting by the teacher and his family. For example, Rule 5(1) maintains that “no employee shall be a member of, or be otherwise associated with any political party or any organization which takes part in politics, nor shall he take part in, subscribe in aid of, or assist in any other manner, any political movement or activity”. Therefore, arguably no teacher can exercise the freedom to be a member of political party.

The application of this rule would mean that central university teachers must, in order to preserve their jobs, renounce principled subscription to political parties, any organization that takes part in politics, political movements or activities, and thus bars them from contesting elections. Not only will this entail a great loss to our democracy — over the last seven decades many academics have brought great lustre to our country’s political firmament — it makes sacrifice of fundamental rights under Article 19 a precondition for employment.

In university governance, this rule has the power to legitimise witch hunts, given that university administrators are appointed by the ruling party. It should also be kept in mind that for many backward sections, particularly SCs, STs, OBCs, employment in education provides the necessary social and economic capital for entry into public life. This rule therefore amounts to shunting out academics from the task of building cultures of constitutionalism and equality. The blanket caution against “any political movement or activity” would mean that teachers’ participation in mass rallies or collective mobilisations – even of the nature recently witnessed around the Nirbhaya rape case – might now constitute a breach of service rules and thus invite punishment.

iii) Rules 6 and 7 allow university administrations to define what is prejudicial and contrary to national interest, public order, decency or morality. Rule 6 states that “no employee, teaching or non-teaching, of the University shall join or continue to be a member of an association, the object or activities of which are prejudicial to the interests of the sovereignty and integrity of India, public order, decency or morality”. Rule 7 prohibits participation in any demonstration or strike for the same reasons.

The apprehension with this rule is that University administrations will be empowered to label any act as ‘misconduct’, based on subjective and partisan appreciation of these terms.

Universities are breeding grounds for social reform, where social change is incubated. However, armed with this rule, even a faculty member who is part of a women’s collective or who writes a joint representation against gender based discrimination could be treated as guilty of misconduct, in its being contrary to a conservative university administration’s ideas of morality or decency. The net result would be a chilling effect on free speech, and will deprive teachers of the means to alert the government and Parliament to violations of policies and laws by university administrations.

iv) Rule 10 bans teachers from giving any sort of public testimony and expert opinion in people’s tribunals, jan sunwais. Rule 10(1) states that “no employee shall except with the previous sanction of the University give evidence in connection with any inquiry conducted by any person, committee or authority”. Rule 10(2) makes it clear that even if sanction is obtained, it will be only for evidence or opinion that is not critical of the government. Rule 11 prohibits faculty from sharing unauthorized information with other colleagues and the public except when ordered to do so, or when the information is shared in good faith to discharge duties. Rule 12 prohibits faculty from raising funds, ask or accept subscriptions to funds or associate with fund raising in cash or kind for any object whatsoever.

These, and other clauses in the CCS rules, will allow for an official construal of the historical role that university academics have played in society, as concerned citizens and public intellectuals, as ‘misconduct. Universities are a part of society — speaking up and acting for justice, reform, democratisation, and change is the role that academics must play if they are to give back to the society that created a space for learning, critique and the imagination.

As Visitor of all Central Universities, I therefore appeal to you to not give your assent to any Ordinances, Statutes or Regulations made by any Central University which invokes these rules, directly or by implication, and to instruct the UGC-MHRD to withdraw its May 1, 2018 letter immediately. Your intervention will be a decisive one in safeguarding the autonomous character of higher education and the democratic rights of teachers in Central Universities

STEP FOUR:

PASTE the copied text in the body of your email (CTRL + V on Windows; COMMAND + V on MAC).

STEP FIVE:

Hit send, and you’re done!

HECI

HECI DRAFT BILL 2018 – THE WAY FORWARD

WHERE WE STAND NOW:

As the monsoon session of the Parliament progresses, the possibility of the HECI Draft Bill being tabled before our legislators becomes more and more imminent.

The proposed HECI, as you know, will replace the UGC. It is a means to increasing government control over colleges and universities across the country. It also paves the way for privatisation of higher education through graded autonomy, threats of defunding and closure. (See here for a detailed discussion of the same by multiple commentators).

Following the brief period of accepting suggestions and criticism from members of the general public, the MHRD has told the media that they are reconsidering various elements of the draft bill before putting it in front of the Parliament in the monsoon session.

While the MHRD’s attempt to engage with stakeholders and the general public is commendable, the possibility of the Bill being tabled at the moment means that it has been, yet again, pushed through without participation in detailed deliberation with educationists, teachers, students, and academic staff. It is our contention that such unseemly hurry in bringing forth what is a structural transformation in higher education in India can only lead to unforeseen consequences.

WHAT WE MUST DO NEXT:

Under the circumstances, we must request our legislators – especially members of the Opposition – to urgently engage with the MHRD on the matter, raise our concerns in the Parliament and demand that the Bill be immediately sent to the Standing Committee for wider consultation.


As our elected representatives in the highest decision-making forum of the nation, it is imperative that the Hon’ble Members of Parliament vehemently oppose the Bill on the floor of the House and ensure that the Draft Bill is sent to the Parliamentary Standing Committee for nation-wide debate and discussion.

Prof. Sugato Bose (TMC MP) and Dr. M. Thambidurai (Deputy Speaker) have already set the ball rolling by addressing the matter in question hour on 23 July, as per media reports. This is heartening, and we hope to take our e-mail engagement process a little further this time, engaging with our MPs and urging them to debate the matter, ensuring that the HECI Draft Bill is not pushed through in a rushed manner.

HOW WE WILL GO ABOUT IT:

We have drafted a letter addressed to the Hon’ble MPs, which we now intend to send forth in the following ways. This will requires roughly ten minutes of your time, but it might save the future of millions of Indian students.

STEP ONE:

1) This is a list of e-mail IDs of Opposition Members of the Parliament (LS and RS) who often play a major role in debates in the Parliament. Copy them all (or make changes as you wish, and if spam filters cause a problem then feel free to break it up in two emails):

office@rahulgandhi.in,
sugata.bose@sansad.nic.in,
m.kharge@sansad.nic.in,
manmohan@sansad.nic.in,
jetmlni@sansad.nic.in,
jyotiraditya.scindia@sansad.nic.in,
office.scindia@yahoo.com,
office@tharoor.in,
shashi.tharoor@nic.in,
amarsingh.rs@sansad.nic.in,
ambika@sansad.nic.in,
patelm@sansad.nic.in,
anandsharma@sansad.nic.in,
jairam@sansad.nic.in,
chidambaram@sansad.nic.in,
azadg@sansad.nic.in,
dintriv@gmail.com,
iamfarooq70@hotmail.com,
harsimratk.badal@sansad.nic.in,
mulayamsingh.yadav@sansad.nic.in,
asad.owaisi@sansad.nic.in,
yadavteju@gmail.com,
sudip_bandyopadhyay2006@yahoo.com,
abhishekbanerjee.mp@gmail.com,
kalyan.banerjee@sansad.nic.in,
ashokchavan009@gmail.com,
adhir@sansad.nic.in,
kakoli.dastidar@sansad.nic.in,
office@gauravgogoi.in,
vmoily@kar.nic.in,
saugatapolitics_roy@yahoo.co.in,
conradsangma@gmail.com,
dksuresh18@gmail.com,
kcvenugopal.org@gmail.com,
sushmita.dev@gmail.com,
office@deepender.in,
dp.tripathi@sansad.nic.in,
khmuniyappamp@gmail.com,
knshikarpur@gmail.com,
scindia1@gmail.com,
rajeevsataviyc@gmail.com,
meinya@sansad.nic.in,
suniljakhar@hotmail.com,
mamtaz.sanghamita@sansad.nic.in,
md.salim@sansad.nic.in,
mb.rajesh@sansad.nic.in,
dimpleyadav78@gmail.com,
dharamv.gandhi@sansad.nic.in,
bhagwantmann@gmail.com,
bhagwant.mann@sansad.nic.in,
cnthrissurmp@gmail.com,
nkprem07@gmail.com,
sushmita.dev@sansad.nic.in,
ranjeet.ranjan19@sansad.nic.in,
pl.punia@sansad.nic.in,
a.singhvi@sansad.nic.in,
kts.tulsi@sansad.nic.in,
ramgopal.yadav@sansad.nic.in,
rajeevgowda@gmail.com

2) Open your e-mail client. In the “to:” field, paste the list of mail IDs.

3) In the “subject:” field of your mail client, copy and paste: REQUEST TO OPPOSE HECI BILL 2018

4) Click here (alternate link to docx file here if paste.ee malfunctions). Copy the draft of the email, and paste it in the body of your email.

5) Press send.

STEP TWO

There is more! Once you are done with this e-mail, we need you to send ONE MORE EMAIL (volume matters!), this time to the MPs of your respective states. This is a list in progress, and we will keep updating this as and when we have them prepared. As of now, we have only managed to prepare lists of Opposition MPs’ emails for a few states, and translations of the letter are also on the way. If your language of choice is missing here, please bear with us while we try and get hold of more translations. If your state list is missing here, again, we are working on it.

Letter in Bangla for MPs in West Bengal

Letter in Hindi for MPs in Bihar, Jharkhand, Madhya Pradesh, Uttar Pradesh, Rajasthan, and Haryana

Letter in Malayalam for MPs in Kerala

Letter in Telugu for MPs in Andhra Pradesh and Telengana

Letter in Marathi for MPs in Maharashtra

Letter in Punjabi for MPs in Punjab

Letter in Gujarati for MPs in Gujarat

We are working very hard to produce a list of MPs for the rest of the states, as well as translations in other languages. As of now, we have a working list of MPs from Tamil Nadu, so we request you to kindly send them an email of the English language draft of the letter until we are able to obtain a Tamil translation of the same. Please go here and follow the steps listed to email MPs from Tamil Nadu.

WHAT MORE CAN BE DONE?

Keep talking about it. Keep sharing it. Keep tweeting at your MPs, since all of them have active social media profiles. In short, make noise!

 

Uncategorized

HECI Draft Bill 2018 Letter to MPs – English

1) Copy this list of Opposition MPs from Tamil Nadu in the “to” field of your email client:

a.arunmozhithevan@sansad.nic.in,
k.ashokkumar@sansad.nic.in,
rkm.bharathi@sansad.nic.in,
m.chandrakasi@sansad.nic.in,
cgopal777@gmail.com,
gopalnannilam@gmail.com,
eramgopal@gmail.com,
tiruttani.hari@gmail.com,
jayavardhanjayakumar@gmail.com,
parasuramanaiadmk@gmail.com,
k.kamaraj@sansad.nic.in,
p.kumar@sansad.nic.in,
vasanthi.m@sansad.nic.in,
mahendran.c@sansad.nic.in,
maragathamkmj@gmail.com,
rpmarutharajaa@gmail.com,
jjtnatterjee@gmail.com,
apnagarajan62@gmail.com,
r.parthipan@sansad.nic.in,
prabakarankrp79@gmail.com,
raajhaa7786@gmail.com,
mpvirudhunagar@gmail.com,
rajendran.s19@sansad.nic.in,
knramachandran.mp@gmail.com,
dranbu910@gmail.com,
sathyabama.vasu@gmail.com,
sr.vijayakumar@sansad.nic.in,
erodempselvakumarachinnayan@gmail.com,
vpselvam.salem@gmail.com,
senguttuvanb.adv@gmail.com,
senthil.admk.svg.ds@gmail.com,
aiadmkprs@gmail.com,
m.udhayakumar@sansad.nic.in,
v.elumalai@sansad.nic.in,
vanarojaadmka@gmail.com,
venkatesh.tg@sansad.nic.in,
p.venugopal@sansad.nic.in

2) Paste in the “to” field of your email client.

3) In the “subject” field, copy/paste: “REQUEST TO OPPOSE HECI DRAFT BILL 2018”

4) In the body of the mail, copy/paste the following:

Dear Member of the Parliament,

I am writing to request you to save universities and educational institutions in the country by opposing the introduction of the Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Bill 2018 in Parliament this monsoon session.

The Bill, which will simultaneously repeal the University Grants Commission (UGC) Act 1956, is being rushed through without any explanation as to why this must be done in a hurry. The UGC has been in existence since 1956, and dismantling it in less than three months is not advisable. There has also been no discussion with students, teachers and higher educational institutions, the major stakeholders in the education system. Nor have the States been given enough time to fully discuss the implications of this Bill.

The Bill has many shortcomings and will have a disastrous effect on the higher education system in our country. The Draft of the Bill was made public on 27 June 2018, and feedback was invited. In less than three weeks’ time, it attracted an overwhelming 7529 responses from the general public and concerned citizens – opposing a range of controversial provisions in the Bill. The fact that the Draft Bill provoked such massive discomfort from different sections of the society is proof of the need for wider discussion and consultation before introducing it in Parliament. The MHRD has acknowledged the bulk of feedback received on the issue, but then decided to steer clear of democratic processes. It has reportedly introduced some amendments in the Draft, and – with absolutely no information on the exact content and extent of the changes – it has decided to table the Bill in the monsoon session. The stakeholders who had urgently expressed their alarm about the Bill in such large numbers have been kept in the dark about the current version of the legislation. Further, the primary demand made by teachers, students and associations from across the country has been to withdraw the Bill altogether and retain the UGC. The government’s intentions therefore seem to completely ignore this public mandate against the spirit of the Bill.

Please see WEBLINK for all the criticisms the Bill has received in the public media as well as from national-level student and teacher organisations. (https://betteruniversities.in/2018/07/23/heci-draft-bill-2018-responses/)

Some of the most pressing concerns voiced have been:

1. The HECI Bill takes away the financial powers of the Commission, and the proposal is to make MHRD or another body responsible for disbursing grants. This will make the process of grant allocation more bureaucratic, arbitrary, and subject to political considerations, as HECI has no power to ensure that its recommendations are taken seriously and implemented. By separating the function of policy-making from the allocation of financial resources, the proposed Bill will use ‘public funding’ as a reward or punishment for institutional loyalties. It will also heighten hierarchies between different tiers of institutions (Central and state, general and professional, scientific and technical, research and vocational, metropolitan and rural, etc).

2. The composition of the HECI signals a takeover of higher education by the officials of the Central government. 10 of the 12 members of the Commission are either officers of the Central government or those appointed to various offices by it. Teachers are reduced to just two, which is absolutely unacceptable in a body that is to determine the standards and quality of higher education in the country. The composition of the commission does not also reflect the diversity of the country and gives no representation to marginalised groups like SCs, STs, OBCs, women, transpersons, persons with disabilities, and minorities.

3. The regulatory provisions — grant of authorisation, graded autonomy, and ordering closure of institutions — of the Bill will install a heavily centralised regime that will lead to chaos, wastage of time and resources, greater job insecurity for teachers, massive fee hikes, and privatisation. This will cause students and their families great unrest and anxiety. Finally, the fact that the HECI Bill has been given overriding effect over all previous legislation will have serious consequences for the nation’s federal character.

4. With regards to the setting of standards for higher education, a ‘one size fits all’ model can never succeed. The diversity of this country, and the fact that higher education is still expanding to various sections of the society, demands a regulator that is socially responsive and geared towards social justice. The HECI Bill does not set such up such a flexible body geared to expansion of higher education, and the enhancement of equity and access to it.

5. The HECI Bill puts an end to the autonomy of institutions of higher education from the government control. Every regulation relating to standards made by the Commission has to have the prior approval of the Central government. This will encourage the use of regulations as a means to stifle freedom of speech, thought, and dissenting opinion in higher educational institutions. An atmosphere of forced obedience does not encourage meaningful improvements in society or in the state of knowledge.

I hope that you will consent to present my opinion before Parliament, and speak in the debate against the Bill. I request you to ask for the Bill to be referred to the Standing Committee so that teachers, students, and educationists are given enough opportunity to present their case.

5) Press SEND

Uncategorized

HECI Draft Bill 2018 Letter to MPs – Gujarati

1) Copy this list of Opposition MPs from Gujarat.

patelm@sansad.nic.in,
madhusudan.mistry@sansad.nic.in,
nj.rathwa@sansad.nic.in,
amee.yajnik@sansad.nic.in

2) Paste in the “to” field of your email client.

3) In the “subject” field, copy/paste: “REQUEST TO OPPOSE HECI DRAFT BILL 2018”

4) In the body of the text, copy/paste the following:

સંસદના પ્રિય સભ્ય

હું આ ચોમાસા સત્રમાં સંસદમાં ભારતના ઉચ્ચ શિક્ષણ કમિશન (એચઇસીઆઇ) બિલ 2018 ની રજૂઆતનો વિરોધ કરીને દેશમાં યુનિવર્સિટીઓ અને શૈક્ષણિક સંસ્થાઓને બચાવવા વિનંતી કરું છું.

બિલ, જે એક સાથે યુનિવર્સિટી ગ્રાન્ટ્સ કમિશન (યુજીસી) અધિનિયમ, 1956 રદ કરશે, તેને ઉતાવળમાં શા માટે આમાં કરવું જોઇએ તે અંગે કોઇ સમજૂતી વિના પસાર કરવામાં આવી રહ્યું છે. યુજીસી 1956 થી અસ્તિત્વમાં છે, અને ત્રણ મહિના કરતાં પણ ઓછા સમયમાં તેને ઉથલાવી શકાતી નથી. ત્યાં પણ વિદ્યાર્થીઓ, શિક્ષકો અને ઉચ્ચ શૈક્ષણિક સંસ્થાઓ સાથે કોઈ ચર્ચા નથી, શિક્ષણ તંત્રના મુખ્ય હિસ્સેદારો. આ બિલની અસરો અંગે સંપૂર્ણ ચર્ચા કરવા માટે રાજ્યોને પૂરતો સમય આપવામાં આવ્યો નથી.

આ બિલમાં ઘણી ખામીઓ છે અને આપણા દેશની ઉચ્ચ શિક્ષણ વ્યવસ્થા પર એક વિનાશક અસર પડશે. બિલનું ડ્રાફ્ટ 27 જૂન 2018 ના રોજ જાહેર કરવામાં આવ્યું હતું, અને પ્રતિસાદ આમંત્રિત કરવામાં આવ્યો હતો. ત્રણ સપ્તાહથી ઓછા સમયમાં, સામાન્ય જનતા અને સંબંધિત નાગરિકોના 7529 જેટલા પ્રત્યુત્તરોને આકર્ષ્યા હતા – બિલમાં વિવાદાસ્પદ જોગવાઈઓનો વિરોધ કર્યો. હકીકત એ છે કે ડ્રાફ્ટ બિલ દ્વારા સમાજના વિવિધ વિભાગોમાંથી આવા વિશાળ અગવડ ઉશ્કેરવામાં આવે છે તે સંસદમાં રજૂ કરતાં પહેલાં વ્યાપક ચર્ચા અને સલાહની જરૂર છે. એમએચઆરડીએ આ મુદ્દે પ્રાપ્ત થયેલા મોટાભાગના પ્રતિસાદ સ્વીકાર્યા છે, પરંતુ તે પછી લોકશાહી પ્રક્રિયાઓ દૂર કરવા માટે નિર્ણય કર્યો છે. તેણે ડ્રાફ્ટ્સમાં કેટલાક સુધારા રજૂ કર્યા છે અને ફેરફારોની ચોક્કસ સામગ્રી અને હદ પર સંપૂર્ણપણે કોઈ માહિતી નથી – તેણે મોનસૂન સત્રમાં બિલને ટેબલ કરવાનો નિર્ણય કર્યો છે. આ હિસ્સાધારકોએ આ બિલ વિશે અલાસ્કાને અશક્યપણે વ્યક્ત કર્યો હતો, જે કાયદાના વર્તમાન સંસ્કરણ વિશે અંધારામાં રાખવામાં આવ્યા છે. વધુમાં, દેશભરના શિક્ષકો, વિદ્યાર્થીઓ અને સંગઠનો દ્વારા કરવામાં આવેલી પ્રાથમિક માંગ બિલને એકસાથે પાછું ખેંચી લેવાનું અને યુજીસીને જાળવી રાખવાનો છે. તેથી સરકારના હેતુઓ બિલની ભાવના વિરુદ્ધ આ જાહેર હુકમને સંપૂર્ણપણે અવગણવા લાગે છે.

જાહેર મીડિયાની તેમજ નેશનલ-લેવલના શિક્ષક અને વિદ્યાર્થી સંગઠનો તરફથી મળેલ તમામ ટીકાઓ માટે નીચેનાં વેબલિંક્સને જુઓ.

https://betteruniversities.in/2018/07/23/heci-draft-bill-2018-media-coverage/
https://betteruniversities.in/2018/07/23/heci-draft-bill-2018-responses/

વિધેયક વિશેની સૌથી વધુ દલીલ કરાયેલી કેટલીક ચિંતાઓ આ મુજબ છે:

1. એચઇસીઆઇ બિલ દ્વારા કમિશનની નાણાકીય સત્તાઓ દૂર કરવામાં આવે છે, અને દરખાસ્ત એમએચઆરડી અથવા અન્ય સંસ્થાને ગ્રાન્ટ આપવાની કામગીરી માટે જવાબદાર છે. આ ગ્રાન્ટ ફાળવણીની પ્રક્રિયાને વધુ અમલદારશાહી, મનસ્વી અને રાજકીય વિચારણાઓના આધારે કરશે, કારણ કે એચઇસીઆઇ પાસે તેની ભલામણો ગંભીરતાપૂર્વક અને અમલ કરવામાં આવે તેની ખાતરી કરવા માટે કોઈ શક્તિ નથી. નાણાકીય સ્રોતોના ફાળવણીમાંથી નીતિ ઘડવાની કામગીરીને અલગ કરીને, પ્રસ્તાવિત બિલ ‘જાહેર ભંડોળ’ નો ઉપયોગ સંસ્થાકીય વફાદારી માટે પુરસ્કાર અથવા સજા તરીકે કરશે. તે સંસ્થાઓના વિવિધ સ્તરો (મધ્ય અને રાજ્ય, સામાન્ય અને વ્યાવસાયિક, વૈજ્ઞાનિક અને તકનિકી, સંશોધન અને વ્યાવસાયિક, મેટ્રોપોલિટન અને ગ્રામ્ય, વગેરે) વચ્ચે પદાનુક્રમ વધારશે.

2. એચઇસીઆઇ (HECI) ની રચના કેન્દ્ર સરકારના અધિકારીઓ દ્વારા ઉચ્ચ શિક્ષણનો ટેકઓવર દર્શાવે છે. કમિશનના 12 સભ્યોમાંથી 10 ક્યાં તો કેન્દ્ર સરકારના અધિકારીઓ છે અથવા તેના દ્વારા વિવિધ કચેરીઓમાં નિમણૂંક કરાયા છે. શિક્ષકોને માત્ર બે જ ઘટાડવામાં આવે છે, જે દેશના ઉચ્ચ શિક્ષણની ગુણવત્તા અને ગુણવત્તાને નક્કી કરવા માટે શરીરમાં એકદમ અસ્વીકાર્ય છે. કમિશનની રચના દેશની વિવિધતાને પણ પ્રતિબિંબિત કરતી નથી અને એસસી, એસટી, ઓબીસી, મહિલા, ટ્રાન્સપોર્ન્સ, વિકલાંગતા ધરાવતા લોકો અને લઘુમતીઓ જેવા હરીફ જૂથને કોઈ પ્રતિનિધિત્વ આપતું નથી.

3. નિયમનકારી જોગવાઈઓ – અધિકૃત મંજૂરી, ક્રમાંકિત સ્વાયત્તતા, અને સંસ્થાઓના બંધનો ક્રમ ઓર્ડર – એક ભારે કેન્દ્રિત શાસન સ્થાપિત કરશે જે અરાજકતા, સમય અને સંસાધનોનો બગાડ કરશે, શિક્ષકો માટે મોટી અસુરક્ષા, મોટી ફી વધતો અને ખાનગીકરણ . આનાથી વિદ્યાર્થીઓ અને તેમના પરિવારોને મહાન અશાંતિ અને ચિંતા થશે. છેવટે, હકીકત એ છે કે એચઇસીઆઇ બિલને અગાઉના તમામ કાયદા પર ઓવરરાઇડ કરતી અસર આપવામાં આવી છે તે દેશના ફેડરલ પાત્ર માટે ગંભીર પરિણામ હશે.

4. ઉચ્ચ શિક્ષણ માટે ધોરણોની સુવિધાની સગવડ સાથે, ‘એક માપ બધાને બંધબેસે છે’ મોડલ ક્યારેય સફળ થઈ શકતો નથી. આ દેશની વિવિધતા, અને હકીકત એ છે કે ઉચ્ચ શિક્ષણ હજુ પણ સમાજના વિવિધ વિભાગોમાં વિસ્તરણ કરી રહ્યું છે, સામાજિક ન્યાયની તરફેણમાં એક સામાજિક નિયમનની માંગણી કરે છે. એચઇસીઆઇ બિલ આવા ઉચ્ચ શિક્ષણના વિસ્તરણ માટે આવા લવચીક સંસ્થાને ગોઠવેલું નથી, અને તેનાથી ઇક્વિટી અને તેની વિસ્તરણમાં વધારો.

5. એચઇસીઆઇ બિલ સરકારના નિયંત્રણમાંથી ઉચ્ચ શિક્ષણની સંસ્થાઓની સ્વાયત્તતાને સમાપ્ત કરે છે. કમિશન દ્વારા કરાયેલા ધોરણો સંબંધિત દરેક નિયમન કેન્દ્ર સરકારની પૂર્વ મંજૂરી હોવી જરૂરી છે. ઉચ્ચ શિક્ષણ સંસ્થાઓમાં વાણી-સ્વાતંત્ર્ય, વિચાર અને અસહમતિની અભિપ્રાયને રોકવા માટેના નિયમો તરીકે આ નિયમોનો ઉપયોગ કરવા પ્રોત્સાહિત કરશે. ફરજિયાત આજ્ઞાકારી વાતાવરણ સમાજમાં અથવા જ્ઞાનની સ્થિતિમાં અર્થપૂર્ણ સુધારાઓને પ્રોત્સાહિત કરતું નથી.

હું આશા રાખું છું કે તમે સંસદ સમક્ષ મારું અભિપ્રાય પ્રસ્તુત કરવા સંમત થશો, અને બિલ સામે ચર્ચામાં બોલો. હું તમને વિનંતિ કરું છું કે બિલને સ્ટેન્ડીંગ કમિટીમાં જણાવવું જોઈએ જેથી શિક્ષકો, વિદ્યાર્થીઓ અને શિક્ષણકારોને તેમનો કેસ રજૂ કરવાની પૂરતી તક આપવામાં આવે.

5) Press SEND

Uncategorized

HECI Draft Bill 2018 Letter to MPs – Punjabi

1) Copy this list of Opposition MPs from Punjab.

aujla786.gs@gmail.com,
harsimratk.badal@sansad.nic.in,
minister.fpi@gov.in,
chandumajra50@gmail.com,
santokhschaudhary@gmail.com,
dvgandhi@yahoo.com,
ss.ghubaya@sansad.nic.in,
harsinkha@gmail.com,
bhagwantmann@gmail.com,
ravneetbittu@gmail.com,
prof.sadhu.singh@gmail.com

2) Paste in the “to” field of your email client.

3) In the “subject” field, copy/paste: “REQUEST TO OPPOSE HECI DRAFT BILL 2018”

4) In the body of the text, copy/paste the following:

ਪਿਆਰੇ ਐੱਮ.ਪੀ (ਸੰਸਦ ਮੈਂਬਰ)

ਮੈਂ ਸੰਸਦ ਦੇ ਇਸ ਮੌਨਸੂਨ ਸੈਸ਼ਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਭਾਰਤ ਦੇ ਉੱਚ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ (ਐੱਚ.ਈ.ਸੀ.ਆਈ.) ਬਿਲ 2018 ਦੇ ਆਉਣ ਦਾ ਵਿਰੋਧ ਕਰਕੇ ਮੁਲਕ ਵਿੱਚ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਸਿਟੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਦਿਅਕ ਅਦਾਰਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਬਚਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਬੇਨਤੀ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਲਿਖ ਰਿਹਾ ਹਾਂ|
ਇਹ ਬਿਲ, ਜੋ ਯੂਨੀਵਰਸਿਟੀ ਗ੍ਰਾਂਟਸ ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ (ਯੂ.ਜੀ.ਸੀ.) ਐਕਟ 1956 ਨੂੰ ਇੱਕੋ ਸਮੇਂ ਰੱਦ ਕਰ ਦੇਵੇਗਾ, ਇਸਨੂੰ ਬਿਨਾਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਸਪੱਸ਼ਟੀਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਇੰਨੀ ਜਲਦਬਾਜ਼ੀ ਨਾਲ ਕਿਉਂ ਲਿਆਂਦਾ ਜਾ ਰਿਹਾ ਹੈ? ਯੂ.ਜੀ.ਸੀ. ਦੀ ਹੋਂਦ 1956 ਤੋਂ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਇਸਨੂੰ ਤਿੰਨ ਮਹੀਨਿਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਵੀ ਘੱਟ ਸਮੇਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਖ਼ਤਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਮੁਨਾਸਿਬ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ| ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਢਾਂਚੇ ਦੇ ਮੁੱਖ ਹਿੱਸੇਦਾਰਾਂ ਵਿਦਿਆਰਥੀਆਂ, ਅਧਿਆਪਕਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਉੱਚ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਅਦਾਰਿਆਂ ਨਾਲ ਵੀ ਇਸ ਬਾਰੇ ਕੋਈ ਚਰਚਾ ਨਹੀਂ ਕੀਤੀ ਗਈ| ਨਾ ਹੀ ਸੂਬਿਆਂ ਨੂੰ ਇਸ ਬਿਲ ਨਾਲ ਸੰਬੰਧਤ ਅਸਰ ਬਾਰੇ ਚੰਗੀ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਵਿਚਾਰ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਕਾਫ਼ੀ ਸਮਾਂ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ|

ਇਸ ਬਿਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੀਆਂ ਕਮੀਆਂ ਹਨ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਡੇ ਮੁਲਕ ਦੇ ਉੱਚ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਢਾਂਚੇ ‘ਤੇ ਇਸਦੇ ਤਬਾਹਕੂਨ ਅਸਰ ਹੋਣਗੇ| ਬਿਲ ਦਾ ਖਰੜਾ 27 ਜੂਨ 2018 ਨੂੰ ਜਨਤਕ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ, ਅਤੇ ਫੀਡਬੈਕ ਮੰਗਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਸੀ| ਤਿੰਨ ਹਫ਼ਤਿਆਂ ਤੋਂ ਵੀ ਘੱਟ ਸਮੇਂ ਵਿੱਚ, ਆਮ ਜਨਤਾ ਅਤੇ ਸੰਬੰਧਤ ਨਾਗਰਿਕਾਂ ਨੇ 7529 ਪ੍ਰਤਿਕ੍ਰਿਆਵਾਂ ਦਿੱਤੀਆਂ – ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੇ ਬਿਲ ਵਿੱਚ ਵਿਵਾਦਪੂਰਨ ਸਮੱਗਰੀ (ਪ੍ਰੋਵੀਜ਼ਨਜ਼) ਦਾ ਵਿਰੋਧ ਕੀਤਾ| ਇਹ ਤੱਥ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਬਿਲ ਦੇ ਖਰੜੇ ਨੇ ਸਮਾਜ ਦੇ ਵੱਖ-ਵੱਖ ਵਰਗਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਜਿਹੀ ਵੱਡੀ ਬੇਚੈਨੀ ਲਿਆ ਦਿੱਤੀ, ਇਸਨੂੰ ਸੰਸਦ ਵਿੱਚ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰਨ ਤੋਂ ਪਹਿਲਾਂ ਵਿਆਪਕ ਵਿਚਾਰ-ਵਟਾਂਦਰੇ ਅਤੇ ਸਲਾਹ-ਮਸ਼ਵਰੇ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਹੈ| | ਐੱਮ.ਐੱਚ.ਆਰ.ਡੀ. ਨੇ ਇਸ ਮੁੱਦੇ ‘ਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਾਪਤ ਹੋਈਆਂ ਬਹੁਤ ਸਾਰੀਆਂ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਕਿਰਿਆਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਪਰਵਾਨ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ, ਪਰ ਫਿਰ ਉਸ ਨੇ ਜਮਹੂਰੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆਵਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਇੱਕ ਪਾਸੇ ਰੱਖਣ ਦਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਕੀਤਾ| ਇਸ ਨੇ ਖਰੜੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਕੁਝ ਸੋਧਾਂ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਅਤੇ – ਤਬਦੀਲੀਆਂ ਦੇ ਅਸਲ ਤੱਤ ਅਤੇ ਹੱਦ ਬਾਰੇ ਮੂਲੋਂ ਕੋਈ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ – ਇਸ ਨੇ ਬਿਲ ਨੂੰ ਮੌਨਸੂਨ ਸੈਸ਼ਨ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੱਖਣ ਦਾ ਫੈਸਲਾ ਕੀਤਾ ਹੈ| ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਧਿਰਾਂ ਨੇ ਇਸ ਬਿਲ ਸੰਬੰਧੀ ਇੰਨੀ ਵੱਡੀ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਫੌਰੀ ਤੌਰ ‘ਤੇ ਚਿੰਤਾਵਾਂ ਜ਼ਾਹਰ ਕੀਤੀਆਂ ਹਨ, ਉਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਕਾਨੂੰਨ ਦੇ ਮੌਜੂਦਾ ਰੂਪ ਬਾਰੇ ਹਨੇਰੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਰੱਖਿਆ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ| ਇਸ ਤੋਂ ਅੱਗੇ, ਮੁਲਕ ਭਰ ਦੇ ਅਧਿਆਪਕਾਂ, ਵਿਦਿਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਸੰਗਠਨਾਂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਕੀਤੀ ਗਈ ਪਹਿਲੀ ਮੰਗ ਬਿਲ ਨੂੰ ਪੂਰੀ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਵਾਪਸ ਕਰਕੇ ਯੂ.ਜੀ.ਸੀ. ਨੂੰ ਬਰਕਰਾਰ ਰੱਖਣਾ ਹੈ| ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਇਰਾਦੇ ਬਿਲ ਦੇ ਖਿਲਾਫ਼ ਇਸ ਜਨਤਕ ਫਤਵੇ ਨੂੰ ਪੂਰੀ ਤਰਾਂ ਅਣਡਿੱਠ ਕਰਦੇ ਜਾਪਦੇ ਹਨ|

ਜਨਤਕ ਮੀਡੀਆ ਅਤੇ ਨਾਲ ਹੀ ਕੌਮੀ ਪੱਧਰ ਉੱਤੇ ਵਿਦਿਆਰਥੀ ਅਤੇ ਅਧਿਆਪਕਾਂ ਜਥੇਬੰਦੀਆਂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਬਿਲ ਦੀ ਕੀਤੀ ਆਲੋਚਨਾ ਨੂੰ ਪੜ੍ਹਨ ਲਈ ਕਿਰਪਾ ਕਰਕੇ ਵੈੱਬ ਲਿੰਕ ਦੇਖੋ|https://betteruniversities.in/2018/07/23/heci-draft-bill-2018-responses/

ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਵੱਧ ਜ਼ਰੂਰੀ ਸਵਾਲਾਂ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ ਕੁਝ ਕੁ ਸਵਾਲ ਇਸ ਤਰ੍ਹਾਂ ਹਨ:

1. ਐੱਚ.ਈ.ਸੀ.ਆਈ. (HECI) ਬਿਲ ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਦੀਆਂ ਵਿੱਤੀ ਤਾਕਤਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਦੂਰ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ, ਅਤੇ ਪ੍ਰਸਤਾਵ ਐੱਮ.ਐਚ.ਆਰ.ਡੀ. ਜਾਂ ਕਿਸੇ ਹੋਰ ਅਦਾਰੇ ਨੂੰ ਗਰਾਂਟ ਵੰਡਣ ਲਈ ਜ਼ਿੰਮੇਵਾਰ ਬਣਾਉਣਾ ਹੈ| ਇਸ ਨਾਲ ਗ੍ਰਾਂਟ ਦੀ ਵੰਡ ਦੀ ਪ੍ਰਕਿਰਿਆ ਹੋਰ ਨੌਕਰਸ਼ਾਹੀ, ਮਨਮਾਨੀ ਅਤੇ ਸਿਆਸੀ ਲਿਹਾਜ ਦੇ ਅਧੀਨ ਹੋਵੇਗੀ, ਕਿਉਂਕਿ ਐਚ.ਈ.ਸੀ.ਆਈ ਕੋਲ ਇਹ ਯਕੀਨੀ ਬਣਾਉਣ ਦੀ ਕੋਈ ਤਾਕਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੈ ਕਿ ਉਸ ਦੀਆਂ ਸਿਫਾਰਸ਼ਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਗੰਭੀਰਤਾ ਨਾਲ ਲਿਆ ਅਤੇ ਲਾਗੂ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ| ਵਿੱਤੀ ਸਾਧਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਵੰਡ ਤੋਂ ਨੀਤੀ-ਨਿਰਮਾਣ ਦੇ ਕੰਮ ਨੂੰ ਅਲੱਗ ਕਰਕੇ, ਪ੍ਰਸਤਾਵਿਤ ਬਿਲ ‘ਪਬਲਿਕ ਫੰਡਿੰਗ’ ਦੀ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਸੰਸਥਾਗਤ ਵਫ਼ਾਦਾਰੀ ਲਈ ਇਨਾਮ ਜਾਂ ਸਜ਼ਾ ਵਜੋਂ ਕਰੇਗਾ| ਇਹ ਅਦਾਰਿਆਂ ਦੀਆਂ ਵੱਖੋ-ਵੱਖਰੀਆਂ ਕਤਾਰਾਂ (ਕੇਂਦਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਸੂਬਾ, ਆਮ ਅਤੇ ਪੇਸ਼ੇਵਰਾਂ, ਵਿਗਿਆਨਕ ਅਤੇ ਤਕਨੀਕੀ, ਖੋਜ ਅਤੇ ਵਿਵਸਾਇਕ, ਮਹਾਨਗਰੀ ਅਤੇ ਪੇਂਡੂ, ਆਦਿ) ਵਿੱਚ ਦਰਜੇਬੰਦੀ ਨੂੰ ਵਧਾਵੇਗਾ|

2. ਐੱਚ.ਈ.ਸੀ.ਆਈ. (HECI) ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਕੇਂਦਰ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰੀਆਂ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਉੱਚ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਨੂੰ ਹਥਿਆਉਣ ਵੱਲ ਸੰਕੇਤ ਕਰਦੀ ਹੈ| ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਦੇ 12 ਮੈਂਬਰਾਂ ਵਿੱਚੋਂ 10 ਜਾਂ ਤਾਂ ਕੇਂਦਰ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦੇ ਅਧਿਕਾਰੀ ਹੋਣਗੇ ਜਾਂ ਜਿਨ੍ਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਵੱਖ-ਵੱਖ ਦਫ਼ਤਰਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਨਿਯੁਕਤ ਕੀਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ| ਅਧਿਆਪਕਾਂ ਦੀ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਨੂੰ ਸਿਰਫ਼ ਦੋ ਤੱਕ ਘਟਾ ਦਿੱਤਾ ਗਿਆ ਹੈ, ਜੋ ਅਜਿਹੇ ਕਿਸੇ ਵੀ ਅਦਾਰੇ ਵਿੱਚ ਬਿਲਕੁਲ ਨਾ-ਮੰਨਣਯੋਗ ਹੈ ਜੋ ਮੁਲਕ ਵਿੱਚ ਉੱਚ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਦੇ ਮਿਆਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਗੁਣਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਤੈਅ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ| ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਦੀ ਰਚਨਾ ਮੁਲਕ ਦੀ ਵਿਭਿੰਨਤਾ ਨੂੰ ਪ੍ਰਤੀਬਿੰਬਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਦੀ ਅਤੇ ਅਨੁਸੂਚਿਤ ਜਾਤੀਆਂ, ਅਨੁਸੂਚਿਤ ਜਨਜਾਤੀਆਂ, ਓ.ਬੀ.ਸੀ, ਔਰਤਾਂ, ਟ੍ਰਾਂਸਪਰਸਨਜ਼, ਅਪਾਹਜ ਵਿਅਕਤੀਆਂ, ਅਤੇ ਘੱਟ ਗਿਣਤੀ ਲੋਕਾਂ ਵਰਗੇ ਦੱਬੇ-ਕੁਚਲੇ ਸਮੂਹਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਕੋਈ ਨੁਮਾਇੰਦਗੀ ਨਹੀਂ ਦਿੰਦੀ|

3. ਨਿਯਮਕ/ ਰੈਗੂਲੇਟਰੀ ਪ੍ਰਬੰਧ – ਅਧਿਕਾਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਮਨਜ਼ੂਰੀ, ਗਰੇਡ ਦੀ ਖ਼ੁਦਮੁਖ਼ਤਿਆਰੀ, ਅਤੇ ਅਦਾਰਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਬੰਦ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਹੁਕਮ ਦੀ ਮਨਜ਼ੂਰੀ – ਬਿਲ ਇੱਕ ਬਹੁਤ ਜ਼ਿਆਦਾ ਕੇਂਦ੍ਰਿਤ ਹਕੂਮਤ ਨੂੰ ਸਥਾਪਤ ਕਰਨ ਵਾਲਾ ਹੈ, ਜਿਸ ਨਾਲ ਅਰਾਜਕਤਾ, ਸਮਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਾਧਨਾਂ ਦੀ ਬਰਬਾਦੀ, ਅਧਿਆਪਕਾਂ ਲਈ ਜ਼ਿਆਦਾ ਨੌਕਰੀ ਦੀ ਅਸੁਰੱਖਿਆ, ਵੱਡੇ ਪੱਧਰ ‘ਤੇ ਫ਼ੀਸਾਂ ਦੇ ਵਾਧੇ, ਅਤੇ ਨਿੱਜੀਕਰਨ ਵਧੇਗਾ| ਇਹ ਵਿਦਿਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਉਹਨਾਂ ਦੇ ਪਰਿਵਾਰਾਂ ਲਈ ਬਹੁਤ ਬੇਚੈਨੀ ਅਤੇ ਫ਼ਿਕਰ ਦਾ ਕਾਰਨ ਬਣੇਗਾ| ਅੰਤ ਵਿੱਚ, ਇਹ ਤੱਥ ਕਿ ਐੱਚ.ਈ.ਸੀ.ਆਈ. ਬਿਲ ਨੂੰ ਪਿਛਲੇ ਸਾਰੇ ਕਾਨੂੰਨਾਂ ਨਾਲੋਂ ਭਾਰੂ ਹੱਕ ਦਿੱਤੇ ਗਏ ਹਨ ਜਿਸਦੇ ਮੁਲਕ ਦੇ ਸੰਘੀ ਚਰਿੱਤਰ ਲਈ ਗੰਭੀਰ ਨਤੀਜੇ ਨਿਕਲਣਗੇ|

4. ਉੱਚ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਲਈ ਮਾਪਦੰਡ ਸਥਾਪਤ ਕਰਨ ਦੇ ਸਬੰਧ ਵਿੱਚ, ‘ਸਾਰਿਆਂ ਲਈ ਇੱਕ ਆਕਾਰ ਸਭ ਤੋਂ ਵਧੀਆ’ ਵਾਲਾ ਮਾਡਲ ਕਦੇ ਵੀ ਕਾਮਯਾਬ ਨਹੀਂ ਹੋ ਸਕਦਾ| ਇਸ ਮੁਲਕ ਦੀ ਵਿਭਿੰਨਤਾ, ਅਤੇ ਇਹ ਤੱਥ ਕਿ ਉੱਚ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਹਾਲੇ ਵੀ ਸਮਾਜ ਦੇ ਵੱਖ-ਵੱਖ ਵਰਗਾਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਫੈਲ ਰਹੀ ਹੈ, ਇੱਕ ਨਿਯਮਕ/ ਰੈਗੂਲੇਟਰੀ ਦੀ ਮੰਗ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ ਜਿਸਦੀ ਕੋਈ ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਜਵਾਬਦੇਹੀ ਅਤੇ ਸਮਾਜਿਕ ਨਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਲਈ ਤਿਆਰ ਹੋਵੇ| ਐੱਚ.ਈ.ਸੀ.ਆਈ. ਬਿਲ ਉੱਚ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਦੇ ਫੈਲਾਅ ਅਤੇ ਨਿਆਂ ਦੇ ਵਾਧੇ ਅਤੇ ਪਹੁੰਚ ਨੂੰ ਵਧਾਉਣ ਲਈ ਅਜਿਹੀ ਲਚਕਦਾਰ ਸੰਸਥਾ ਨੂੰ ਨਹੀਂ ਬਣਾਉਂਦਾ|

5. ਐੱਚ.ਈ.ਸੀ.ਆਈ. ਬਿਲ ਉੱਚ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਦੇ ਅਦਾਰਿਆਂ ਦੀ ਖੁਦਮੁਖਤਿਆਰੀ ਨੂੰ ਖ਼ਤਮ ਕਰਨਾ ਹੈ| ਕਮਿਸ਼ਨ ਦੁਆਰਾ ਬਣਾਏ ਗਏ ਮਿਆਰਾਂ ਨਾਲ ਜੁੜੇ ਹਰੇਕ ਨਿਯਮ ਨੂੰ ਕੇਂਦਰ ਸਰਕਾਰ ਦੀ ਅਗਾਉਂ ਪ੍ਰਵਾਨਗੀ ਲੈਣ ਦੀ ਜ਼ਰੂਰਤ ਪਵੇਗੀ| ਇਹ ਉੱਚ ਸਿੱਖਿਆ ਦੇ ਅਦਾਰਿਆਂ ਵਿੱਚ ਭਾਸ਼ਣਾਂ, ਵਿਚਾਰਾਂ ਅਤੇ ਵੱਖਰੇ ਵਿਚਾਰਾਂ ਦੀ ਆਜ਼ਾਦੀ ਨੂੰ ਰੋਕਣ ਦੇ ਸਾਧਨ ਵਜੋਂ ਨਿਯਮਾਂ ਦੀ ਵਰਤੋਂ ਨੂੰ ਉਤਸ਼ਾਹਿਤ ਕਰੇਗਾ| ਜ਼ਬਰਦਸਤੀ ਆਗਿਆਕਾਰੀ ਦਾ ਮਾਹੌਲ ਸਮਾਜ ਵਿੱਚ ਜਾਂ ਜਾਣਕਾਰੀ ਵਿੱਚ ਅਰਥਪੂਰਨ ਸੁਧਾਰਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਉਤਸ਼ਾਹਿਤ ਨਹੀਂ ਕਰਦਾ ਹੈ|

ਮੈਂ ਉਮੀਦ ਕਰਦਾ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਮੇਰੀ ਰਾਏ ਸੰਸਦ ਦੇ ਸਾਹਮਣੇ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰਨ ਲਈ ਸਹਿਮਤ ਹੋਵੋਗੇ, ਅਤੇ ਬਿਲ ਦੇ ਖਿਲਾਫ਼ ਬਹਿਸ ਵਿੱਚ ਬੋਲੋਗੇ| ਮੈਂ ਤੁਹਾਨੂੰ ਬੇਨਤੀ ਕਰਦਾ ਹਾਂ ਕਿ ਤੁਸੀਂ ਬਿਲ ਨੂੰ ਸਥਾਈ ਕਮੇਟੀ ਕੋਲ ਭੇਜਣ ‘ਤੇ ਜ਼ੋਰ ਦਿਓ ਤਾਂ ਜੋ ਅਧਿਆਪਕਾਂ, ਵਿਦਿਆਰਥੀਆਂ ਅਤੇ ਸਿੱਖਿਅਕਾਂ ਨੂੰ ਆਪਣੇ ਕੇਸ ਪੇਸ਼ ਕਰਨ ਦਾ ਮੌਕਾ ਮਿਲ ਸਕੇ|

5) Press SEND.

Uncategorized

HECI Draft Bill 2018 Letter to MPs – Marathi

1) Copy this list of Opposition MPs from Maharashtra.

sc.barne@sansad.nic.in,
appabarne@gmail.com,
gb.pundlikrao@sansad.nic.in,
udayanrajebhonsle@gmail.com,
ashokchavan009@gmail.com,
prof.ravi@sansad.nic.in,
geete@sansad.nic.in,
nashikmphg@gmail.com,
jadhavprataprao25@gmail.com,
jadhav.sanjay@sansad.nic.in,
cbkhaire@gmail.com,
gajanan.kirtikar@yahoo.com,
lokhandempshirdi@gmail.com,
dhananjaymahadik@hotmail.com,
Shivratna.akluj@gmail.com,
vinayakbraut@gmail.com,
rajeevsatav@gmail.com,
arvindsawantg@gmail.com,
rahul.shewale2014@gmail.com,
shrikantshinde87@yahoo.in,
supriyassule@gmail.com

2) Paste in the “to” field of your email client.

3) In the “subject” field, copy/paste: “REQUEST TO OPPOSE HECI DRAFT BILL 2018”

4) In the body of the text, copy/paste the following:

माननीय लोकसभा सदस्य,

विद्यापीठ अनुदान आयोग किंवा ‘युनिव्हर्सिटी ग्रॅण्ट्स कमिशन’ (यूजीसी) निरसित करून त्या जागी उच्च शिक्षण आयोग स्थापण्याचे केंद्र सरकारने प्रस्तावित केले आहे, आपल्या देशातील विद्यापीठे आणि शैक्षणिक संस्था वाचवण्यासाठी आपण ह्या उच्च शिक्षण आयोग विधेयकाचा २०१८ च्या पावसाळी अधिवेशनात विरोध करावा अशी विनंती करणारे हे निवेदन मी तुम्हाला सदर करू सादर करू इच्छिते.

ह्या विधेयकाद्वारे १९५६ च्या कायद्यानुसार अस्तित्वात आलेला विद्यापीठ अनुदान आयोग किंवा ‘युनिव्हर्सिटी ग्रॅण्ट्स कमिशन’ (यूजीसी) निरसित करून बासनात गुंडाळून ठेवला जाईल. हे विधेयक अत्यंत घिसाडघाईने सादर केले जात असून, इतक्या घाईचे प्रयोजन काय ह्याबाबत कोणतेही स्पष्टीकरण दिले गेलेले नाही.

१९५६ पासून विद्यापीठ अनुदान आयोग अस्तित्वात आहे. तीन महिन्यांच्या आत त्याचे विघटन करणे निश्चितच हितावह नाही. विद्यार्थी, शिक्षक, प्राध्यापक आणि उच्च शिक्षण संस्था ह्या शैक्षणिक क्षेत्रातील मुख्य भागधारकांना विश्वासात न घेता तसेच, ह्या कायद्याचे सर्वव्यापी दूरगामी परिणाम काय होतील ह्यावर राज्यस्तरीय चर्चा घडण्याआधीच हा निर्णय घेतला गेला आहे.

ह्या कायद्यात अनेक त्रुटी आहेत आणि देशातील उच्च शिक्षण क्षेत्रासाठी हा कायदा मारक ठरणार आहे. २७ जूनला ह्या विधेयकाचा मसुदा प्रसिद्ध केला गेला आणि प्रत्याभरण व प्रतिक्रिया मागवण्यात आल्या. तीन आठवड्यांच्या आतच ७५२९ इतक्या प्रचंड संख्येने विचारशील, जाणकार जनतेच्या प्रतिक्रिया येऊन धडकल्या – ह्या कायद्यामधील अनेक परस्परविरोधी तरतुदींना त्यांनी हरकत घेतली.
ह्या विधेयकानं समाजाच्या विविध स्तरांत इतका असंतोष माजवला. हा कायदा संसदेत सदर होण्याआधी ह्याबाबत मूलभूत आणि व्यापक चर्चा होणे गरजेचे आहे हे सिद्ध होण्यासाठी इतका पुरावा पुरेसा आहे.

एम एच आर डी ने ह्या विषयावरच्या अमाप प्रतिक्रियांची दखल घेतली पण नंतर लोकशाहीचा मार्ग अवलंबन करणे टाळले. असे समजते की एम एच आर डी ने मसुद्यात काही महत्वाचे बदल केले असून ह्या बदलांच्या अंतर्गत समाविष्ट असलेले विषय आणि त्यांची व्याप्ती ह्याबद्दल काहीही माहिती न देता पावसाळी अधिवेशनात हे विधेयक सादर करण्याचे ठरवण्यात आले आहे.

उच्च शिक्षण क्षेत्रातील भागधारकांनी फार मोठ्या संख्येने धोक्याची घंटी वाजवली होती, त्या सर्वांनाच मसुद्यातील सुधारित मजकुराबद्दल अनभिज्ञ ठेवण्यात आले. देशभरातील शिक्षक, विद्यार्थी आणि शैक्षणिक संघटनांनी एकच मूलभूत मागणी केली – हे विधेयक सर्वथा मागे घेण्यात यावे आणि विद्यापीठ अनुदान आयोग ह्या सक्रीय राहावा.
ह्या विधेयकावर लोकमाध्यमांतून आणि देशपातळीवर विद्यार्थी आणि शिक्षक संघटनांकडून झालेली टीका खालील दुव्यावर वाचता येईल:

https://betteruniversities.in/2018/07/23/heci-draft-bill-2018-media-coverage/

https://betteruniversities.in/2018/07/23/heci-draft-bill-2018-responses/

ह्या कायद्यातील खालील मुद्दे खास चर्चेत राहिले:

1. HECI कायद्यानुसार आयोगाचे ’चे ‘ग्रॅण्ट्स’ म्हणजे निधी देण्याचे कार्यच काढून घेऊन, ती जबाबदारी केंद्रीय मनुष्यबळ विकास मंत्रालयाकडे (MHRD) किंवा अन्य विभागाकडे ते सोपवण्यात येणार आहे. ह्यामुळे अनुदान देण्याची प्रक्रिया अजूनच कागदी घोडे नाचविणारी आणि सरकारी यंत्रणेच्या अमलाखाली जिकिरीची व अनियंत्रित होईल आणि त्यात काही अंशी राजकारणातील हितसंबंध येतील व राजकीय हिशेबांच्या दावणीला ती जुंपली जाईल ते वेगळेच. HECI ने सुचविलेली नावे विचारात घेतली गेली की नाही, तसेच त्यांच्या सूचना अमलात आणल्या जातील की नाही, हे सुनिश्चित करण्याचा कोणताही अधिकार HECI ला दिला गेलेला नाही. धोरणे ठरवण्याची जबाबदारी आणि अनुदान देण्याची आर्थिक स्वायत्तता ही कामे परस्परांपासून वेगळी करणारा हा कायदा “सार्वजनिक निधी” चा वापर संस्थांशी निगडीत असलेल्या निष्ठेसाठी बक्षीस किंवा दंड म्हणून करू पाहील. संस्थांच्या वेगवेगळ्या पातळ्यांमध्ये अधिकारांच्या श्रेणी आणि सत्तेचे पदानुक्रम ह्यांची जाणीव जास्तच बलशाली होत जाईल (केंद्र आणि राज्य, सामान्य आणि व्यावसायिक, शास्त्रीय आणि तांत्रिक, संशोधन आणि प्रत्यक्ष व्यवसायात्मक, शहरी आणि ग्रामीण वगैरे)

2..
HECI च्या रचनेनुसार उच्च शिक्षण प्रशासन सर्वथा केंद्र सरकारच्या अंतर्गत कार्यरत असलेल्या अधिकारी गणांच्या हातात असणार आहे. आयोगाच्या बारापैकी दहा सदस्य हे केंद्र सरकारच्या संस्थांमधील अधिकारी किंवा केंद्र सरकारद्वारा इतरत्र नेमणूक करण्यात आलेल्या व्यक्ती असतील. शिक्षकवर्गाचे केवळ दोन प्रतिनिधी आयोगात समाविष्ट असतील. देशातील उच्च शिक्षणाचा स्तर आणि गुणवत्ता ठरवणाऱ्या समितीत शिक्षणक्षेत्रातील फक्त दोन व्यक्तींचा अंतर्भाव अजिबात स्वीकार्य नाही. ह्या आयोगाची संरचना देशातील विविधतेला न्याय देत नाहीच, पण वंचित गटांची – अनुसूचित जाती, अनुसूचित जमाती, इतर मागासवर्गीय जाती, अल्पसंख्याक आणि महिला व उभयलिंगी तसेच दिव्यांग ह्यांची दूरान्वयानेही दखल घेत नाही.

3. ह्या कायद्यातील धोरणात्मक व नियमनात्मक तरतुदीमुळे – उदा. विशिष्ट अधिकारांचे प्रदान, स्तरनियंत्रित स्वायत्तता आणि काही संस्थां कायमस्वरूपी बंद करण्याचे आदेश – एककेंद्री संरचना निर्माण होऊन एक प्रकारचा गोंधळ माजेल, वेळ आणि साधनसंपत्तीचा अनाठायी व्यय होईल. शिक्षणक्षेत्रातील नोकरदारांवर, शिक्षकांच्या नोकरीवर गदा येईल किंवा असुरक्षितता वाढेल, शिक्षणशुल्क वाढेल आणि खाजगीकरणही वाढेल. विद्यार्थी आणि त्यांचे कुटुंबीय ह्या परिस्थितीमुळे निराश होतील. आधीच्या सर्व कायद्यांना धाब्यावर बसवून HECI कायदा मानगुटीवर बसवला गेला तर ते भारतीय संघराज्याच्या प्रतिमेला मारक ठरेल.

4.
उच्च शिक्षणासाठी गुणवत्तेचे निकष ठरवताना “सर्वांसाठी एकच नियम” हा आदर्श लागू होत नाही. ह्या देशातील विविधता आणि उच्च शिक्षणाचा विविध सामाजिक स्तरांतून होणारा विस्तार हे लक्षात घेता, येथे एक अशी नियंत्रक प्रणाली हवी, जी सामाजिक चित्राचा साकल्याने विचार करेल आणि सामाजिक न्यायाच्या दिशेने पाऊल उचलेल. HECI कायदा अशा लवचिक कण्याचा नसल्याने उच्च शिक्षणाचा विस्तार आणि प्रसार तसेच समान शिक्षण आणि (उच्च शिक्षणाच्या प्रवाहात) सर्वाना संधी मिळावी, सर्वाचे समावेशन व्हावे, ‘सर्वाना परवडण्याजोगे शिक्षण मिळावे ह्यासाठी ह्या कायद्याचा हातभार लागणे दुरापास्त आहे.

5.
विद्यापीठे आणि उच्च शिक्षण संस्था यांच्या स्वायत्ततेचा प्रश्नही नव्या विधेयकामुळे उपस्थित होतो.स्वायत्तता खरोखरच सरकारी हस्तक्षेपापासून मुक्त राहू शकेल का? प्रस्तावित कायद्याने, प्रत्येक शिक्षणसंस्थेला ‘शैक्षणिक कामकाजाच्या गुणवत्तेबद्दल, प्रमाणांसाठी नव्या आयोगाकडून ‘अनुज्ञप्ती घेणे बंधनकारक’ करण्यात आलेले आहे. ह्यामुळे ही नियमावली उच्च शिक्षण संस्थामधून अभिव्यक्ती स्वातंत्र्याची, विचारस्वातंत्र्याची गळचेपी करण्यासाठी वापरली जाऊ शकते, ह्यातून वैचारिक मतभेद होऊ शकतात. कुठल्याही तऱ्हेची आज्ञाधारक वृत्ती निव्वळ दडपशाहीने निर्माण करू गेल्यास समाजात किंवा ज्ञानसंपादनाच्या क्षेत्रात अर्थपूर्ण दूरगामी बदल होणे शक्य नसते.
तुम्ही माझे हे विवेचन संसदेसमोर मांडाल आणि ह्या कायद्याच्या विरोधी भूमिका घेऊन बोलाल अशी मला आशा वाटते. शिक्षक, विद्यार्थी आणि शिक्षणतज्ज्ञ ह्या सर्वांना आपापली भूमिका मांडण्याची समान संधी मिळावी म्हणून हे विधेयक स्थायी समितीकडे वर्ग करण्यात यावे अशी मागणी तुम्ही कृपया करावी ही विनंती.

5) Press SEND

Uncategorized

HECI Draft Bill 2018 Letter to MPs – Telugu

1) Copy this list of Opposition MPs from Andhra Pradesh and Telengana. You can simply pick your state, or email MPs of both states.

Andhra Pradesh

butta.renuka@sansad.nic.in,
jayadev.galla@sansad.nic.in,
kesineni.srinivas@sansad.nic.in,
kothapalligeetha@gmail.com,
muralimohan.maganti@sansad.nic.in,
maganttibabu@gmail.com,
malaydri@gmail.com,
pandularavi@gmail.com,
nimmalakristappa@gmail.com,
agajapathiraju.p@sansad.nic.in,
rammnk9@gmail.com,
knro12699@gmail.com,
rsrdelhi11@gmail.com,
ms.rao19@sansad.nic.in,
jcdr.tdp@gmail.com,
spyreddymp@hotmail.com,
narasimham@sansad.nic.in,
thotanarasimhammp@gmail.com

Telengana

vkumar.boianapalli@sansad.nic.in,
nageshgodam@gmail.com,
drbnarsaiah@yahoo.com,
gutha.loksabha@gmail.com,
asrnaik9@gmail.com,
asad.owaisi@sansad.nic.in,
pasunooridayakar@gmail.com,
bbpatil7777@gmail.com,
chmallareddy999@gmail.com,
kvishweshwar.reddy@sansad.nic.in,
psrysrcp@gmail.com,
nandiyellaiah@yahoo.co.in

2) Paste in the “to” field of your email client.

3) In the “subject” field, copy/paste: “REQUEST TO OPPOSE HECI DRAFT BILL 2018”

4) In the body of the text, copy/paste the following:

ప్రియమైన శాసనసభ సభ్యులకు,

మీకు సవినయముగా విన్నవించునది ఏమనగా HECI Billను శాసనసభ వర్షాకాల సమావేశంలో ప్రవేశపెట్టకుండా తిరస్కరించి విశ్వవిద్యాలయాలను మరియు విద్యావ్యవస్థను రక్షించ వలసిందిగా మనవి. సదరు బిల్లులో ఏకకాలంలో UGC Act 1956 యొక్క ఉపసంహరణ కూడా ప్రతిపాదించ బడుతుంది. ఈ ప్రక్రియ ఏ కారణంచేత ఇంత త్వరగా అమలు చేయడానికి ప్రయత్నాలు జరుగుతున్నాయో తెలియలేదు. UGC 1956 నుండి ఉనికిలో ఉన్న వ్యవస్థ. అటువంటి గొప్ప సంస్థను 3 నెలల్లోనే ఉపసంహరించడం అనేది అభిలషణీయం కాదు.

ఇంతే కాకుండా విద్యార్థులతో కానీ ఉపాధ్యాయులతో కానీ విద్యాసంస్థలతో కానీ ఎటువంటి సంప్రదింపులు జరపకుండానే ఈ నిర్ణయాలు తీసుకోవడం జరిగింది. విద్యా వ్యవస్థలో ప్రధాన భాగస్వామ్యులైన వీరితో చర్చించకుండా అటువంటి నిర్ణయం తీసుకోవడం గమనార్హం . అంతేకాకుండా ఈ విషయమై దీని ద్వారా కలిగే పరిణామాల గురించి పూర్తిగా చర్చలు జరిపే అవకాశం ఇవ్వకపోవడం విచారించదగ్గ విషయం.

ఈ బిల్లులోని అనేక లోపాలు మన దేశంలోని ఉన్నత విద్యా వ్యవస్థలపై విపరీతమైన ప్రభావాలకు దారి తీస్తుంది . ఈ బిల్లుకు సంబంధించిన డ్రాఫ్ట్ 27 జూన్ 2018న ప్రజా నిర్ణయం కొరకు విడుదల చేయబడింది . మూడు వారాలు కూడా గడవకముందే సాధారణ ప్రజానీకం మరియు సంబంధిత పౌరుల నుండి ఆ బిల్లులోని వివాదాస్పద అంశాలను గురించి అత్యధికంగా ౭౫౨౯ సంఖ్యలో స్పందనను చవిచూసింది. సమాజంలోని భిన్న వర్గాల నుండి వచ్చిన ఇటువంటి ప్రతిస్పందనే శాసనసభలో ఈ బిల్లును ప్రవేశపెట్టడానికి ముందు ఈ అంశంపై సరియైన సంప్రదింపులు, తగిన చర్చల అవసరం ఎంతగా ఉందో చెప్పడానికి నిదర్శనం. ఇన్ని స్పందనలు వచ్చినప్పటికి, ప్రజాభిప్రాయానికి ప్రజాస్వామ్య పద్ధతులకి వ్యతిరేకంగా ఈ బిల్లును ప్రవేశపెట్టడానికే నిర్ణయించడం జరిగింది. ఈ డ్రాఫ్ట్ లో కొన్ని సవరణలను ప్రవేశపెట్టారు. ఇందులోని విషయాలను కానీ మార్పుల విస్తృతిని గాని ఖచ్చితంగా తెలియ చేయకుండానే బిల్లును వర్షాకాల సమావేశంలో ప్రవేశపెట్టాలని నిర్ణయించారు. అంత పెద్ద సంఖ్యలో తమ వ్యతిరేకతను తెలిపినవారికి మార్పుల గురించి కనీస సమాచారం కూడా తెలియజేయలేదు. అంతేకాకుండా, దేశ వ్యాప్తంగా ఉపాధ్యాయ మరియు విద్యార్థి సంఘాలు ఈ బిల్లు యొక్క రద్దు మరియు UGCని కొనసాగించాలని కోరాయి. కానీ ఇందుకు విరుద్ధంగా ప్రభుత్వం ప్రజాభిప్రాయానికి వ్యతిరేకంగా నడుస్తున్నట్లు అనిపిస్తుంది.

జాతీయస్థాయి ఉపాధ్యాయ మరియు విద్యా సంఘాల నుండి ఈ బిల్లు అందుకున్న విమర్శలకు weblinks చూడండి:

https://betteruniversities.in/2018/07/23/heci-draft-bill-2018-media-coverage/

https://betteruniversities.in/2018/07/23/heci-draft-bill-2018-responses/

1. ఈ బిల్లు వల్ల వల్ల UGC నిధులు విడుదల చేసే అవకాశం కోల్పోతుంది. అంతేకాక MHRD లేదా మరేదైనా సంస్థకు ఈ అధికారం వెళ్తుంది. ఈ విధంగా పని కష్టతరమవుతుంది. దీనిద్వారా ప్రణాళికా తయారీ ఒకరి చేతిలో, నిధుల మంజూరు మరో చేతిలో ఉంచబడుతుంది. దీని ద్వారావివిధ సంస్థల మధ్య సమన్వయ కొరవడి, వ్యత్యాసం పెరుగుతుంది.
2. HECI ద్వారా ఉన్నత విద్యా వ్యవస్థను కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వం ఆధీనంలోకి తీసుకోవడం జరుగుతుంది. కమిషన్ లోని 12 మందిలో పది మంది కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వ అధికారులు లేదా కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వంచే నియమించబడిన వారే. మనదేశంలోని విద్యా వ్యవస్థని శాసించే ఇటువంటి బిల్లులో కేవలం ఇద్దరు వ్యక్తులకు ఉపాధ్యాయుల స్థానం పరిమితమవ్వడం భావ్యం కాదు. ఇంతేకాకుండా ఈ కమిషన్లో స్త్రీలు గానీ దివ్యాంగులు గాని ట్రాన్స్ జెండర్ వ్యక్తులుగాని, SC ST OBC వంటి దిగువ జాతి వర్గాలకు చెందిన వారికి ఈ కమిషన్లో స్థానం కల్పించలేదు.
3. విద్యాసంస్థల గుర్తింపులో అటానమీ వివిధ స్థాయిలో ఉంటుంది. ఇంతేకాకుండా విద్యాసంస్థలను పూర్తిగా మూసి వేసే అధికారం కూడా ఉండడం మూలాన నియంతృత్వం వస్తుంది. దీనివలన వ్యవస్థలో గందరగోళం ఏర్పడటమే కాకుండా వనరులు మరియు విలువైన సమయం వృధా చేయబడుతుంది. ఉపాధ్యాయులకు ఉద్యోగ భద్రత ఉండదు. ఫీజుల పెంపు మరియు ప్రైవేటీకరణకు అవకాశం ఉంది. విద్యార్థులు మరియు వారి కుటుంబాలలో అశాంతి నెలకొంటుంది. దీనివల్ల ఇంతకు మునుపు చేసినటువంటి చట్టాలు అన్ని వ్యర్థం అవుతాయి.
4. HECI నాణ్యతా ప్రమాణాల పేరుతో అందరికీ ఒకే లాంటి విద్య తగదు. One size fits all రూపము ఇక్కడ వర్తించదు. విజయం సాధించలేదు. దేశంలోని వైవిద్యం, భిన్న వర్గాల కు విద్యావ్యవస్థ విస్తరణ, కొన్ని వర్గాలకు ఇప్పుడిప్పుడే ఉన్నత విద్య అందుబాటులోకి రావడం వల్ల న్యాయం మరియు సామాజిక స్పృహ ఉన్న కమిటీ అవసరం ఎంతో ఉంది. HECI బిల్లు మూలాన వెనుకబడిన వర్గాలకు ఉన్నతవిద్య విస్తరణ జరగదు.
5. HECI బిల్లు మూలానా ఉన్నత విద్యా సంస్థలకు autonomy ఉండదు. మరియు కేంద్ర ప్రభుత్వం నియంతృత్వంలోకి వెళ్లి పోతుంది. ఉన్నత విద్యకు సంబంధించిన నాణ్యతా ప్రమాణాలలో చేసే మార్పులను కమిషన్ కంటే ముందే ప్రభుత్వం యొక్క ఆమోదాన్ని పొందాలి. దీనివలన ఉన్నత విద్యా సంస్థల యొక్క వాక్ స్వేచ్ఛ, ఆలోచనా స్వేచ్ఛ, భావ స్వేచ్ఛలకి ఆటంకం కలుగుతుంది. బలవంతపు విధేయత వాతావరణం నెలకొంటుంది. ఇది సమాజంలోని ఎటువంటి అర్థవంతమైన మెరుగుదలకు సహకరించదు.

మా అభిప్రాయాన్ని గౌరవించి మీరు శాసనసభలో ఈ బిల్లును వ్యతిరేకిస్తూ వాదించగలరని మనవి. అంతేకాకుండా కమిటీ ద్వారా ఉపాధ్యాయులు, విద్యార్థులు, విద్యావేత్తలకు వారి అభిప్రాయాన్ని వ్యక్త పరిచే అవకాశం కల్పించగలరు.

5) Press SEND