| Delhi University, the reason for high scorers and bearer of higher cut offs, had its break-even point in 2013- a point that left parents reluctant, a point that made the syllabus amorphous and a point that saw innumerable students protesting. Four Year Undergraduate Programme (FYUP)- introduced by the DU-VC, backed by the University Grants Commission (UGC) – jolted everyone. While many sulked about an extra year and criticised it for being vague, the few high handed ones tried their best to make everyone understand how the new structure was completely compatible with the system of higher education abroad and how the two disciplines’ provision so benefitting.
After a year of the new system in place, when the course became comprehensive and the system coherent, the lives of DUites as well as the aspirants was sent for another toss. Rolling back of FYUP was equally contested and even more dramatic than its introduction, and set in all the fire that probably its initiation couldn’t. The whole process kept giving the country nail biting headlines- the UGC’s ultimatum, the DU-VC’s apparent resignation, the ambiguity about the FYUP batch and the B.tech students protesting against its dismissal. While the freshers played on this see-saw, I quit reading the newspaper, for it was a melancholy to see the FYUP batch wandering in no man’s land, to look at politicisation of education and to gasp at every student’s life dwindling in the despotic hands. Some stood straight-faced, some celebrated, some frowned, some accepted and some questioned. Amidst the potpourri of reactions, what more or less seemed like a favourable step prima facie, left still some questions unanswered.
First and foremost, why did the UGC turn against FYUP in a year while its backing drove the FYUP into force? How did the UGC enlighten itself about the incompatibility of FYUP with the 10+2+3 framework? Did the UGC actually find such major loopholes in the system that it had to scrap it?
If yes, then who will be held accountable to the students already enrolled in FYUP? Were these students subject to an experiment which failed to cater to the set goals? And if not, then isn’t it evident that UGC is just a puppet in the hands of the new government? Because the only thing that changed apart from the acceptance level in the students is the central government. What is more intriguing is the fact how making changes to the existing programme was more pragmatic than bouncing back to the discarded system. What is even more disturbing is how no thought was given to the batch of 2016 (now) before changing to the three year course. Compressing the course is really no way out. Doesn’t it seem like this batch is being so easily compromised for the fulfillment of some obvious motives?
The paradox in the whole purpose of the existence of DU leaves us perplexed.
If the university stands for the students, shouldn’t its means, end and intention be the welfare of the students? We wait now to see how the not-at-all-new new system works all over again. |