Amartya Sen’s Role in Nalanda University’s Turbulent Revival: A Critical Analysis

Paromita Das

GG News Bureau

New Delhi, 27 June. The new Nalanda University (NU) campus at Rajgir, Nalanda, was inaugurated by Prime Minister Narendra Modi on June 19, 2024. However, this ambitious endeavor faced numerous challenges, some of which have been attributed to the involvement of renowned economist and Nobel laureate, Amartya Sen. Here is an analysis of the key issues and controversies that nearly crippled Nalanda University’s revival during his tenure.

Background of Nalanda University’s Revival

Former President Dr. A P J Abdul Kalam proposed the notion of restoring the old NU in 2006 with the aim of restoring its historical legacy. The university aimed to become a hub for intellectual exchange, reflecting the rich academic traditions of its predecessor. Nitish Kumar seized the opportunity swiftly, giving the university land on a war footing.

On June 28, 2007, the Manmohan Singh administration subsequently formed the “Nalanda Mentor Group (NMG).” Among other things, it was charged with providing the framework and structure for international cooperation and partnerships as well as governance. Amartya Sen was appointed as the first Chancellor of the revived university, bringing global attention and prestige to the project.

But Sen’s credibility and motivations were permanently tarnished by the events of the following nine years. Dr. Abdul Kalam chastised him after the Comptroller and Auditor General of India (CAG) brought attention to his antics, expenditures, and appointments.

Centralized Decision-Making

One of the primary criticisms against Amartya Sen’s tenure as Chancellor was his centralized approach to decision-making. Critics argue that Sen exercised excessive control over university affairs, limiting the autonomy of other administrative bodies and faculty members. This centralization led to delays in decision-making and implementation, affecting the university’s growth and functioning.

Financial Mismanagement

Under Sen’s leadership, there were allegations of mismanagement and inefficient allocation of resources. Critics claim that funds were not used optimally, with significant amounts being spent on non-essential aspects such as lavish administrative facilities, rather than on core academic and infrastructural needs. This misallocation strained the university’s budget and hindered its development.

Fundraising efforts under Sen were also deemed inadequate. Despite his global stature, the university struggled to secure sufficient financial support from international and domestic sources. This shortfall impacted the university’s ability to attract top faculty, develop infrastructure, and establish a robust academic program.

Lack of clear academic vision

Another major issue was the lack of a clear and coherent academic vision for the university. Sen’s broad and often abstract ideas about the university’s academic direction did not translate into a concrete, actionable curriculum. This ambiguity left faculty and students uncertain about the university’s academic objectives and standards.

Section 7 of the 2010 Nalanda University Act

Section 8(2) of the statute gives NMG, chaired by Sen, the authority to nominate GB in the event that this fails to happen. Sen. NMG was initially intended to serve in this capacity for a year, but amendments to the act in 2011, 2012, and 2013 extended this period successively. Actually, the 2013 amendment eliminated the deadline for NMG, allowing Sen.

Removal of NMG’s time frame

Between 2010 and 2016, Sen led NMG made important decisions that included the introduction of posts in NU, rules and regulations, and statutes. According to the CAG report, in February 2009, Sen proposed Gopa Sabharwal, Ramchandra Guha, and Pratap Bhanu Mehta for the position of Rector. The issue stems from the absence of these recommendations in NMG’s terms of reference (TOR).

The same NMG recommended Gopa Sabharwal for vice-chancellor in August 2010 (against TOR). It even included a generous monthly pay proposal of Rs 3.50 lakhs and other benefits. On October 8, 2010, MEA decided to pay Rs 2 lakhs plus allowances, and Sabharwal became a vice-chancellor.

In March 2012, about a year and a half after her appointment, India’s President, who is a guest at the institution, verified her appointment as vice-chancellor, avoiding the TOR dilemma. The date of her confirmation was also shifted from October 8, 2010, to November 25, 2010, the day the Nalanda University Act went into effect.

Retrospectively, Sabharwal’s confirmation date was altered

As part of its role as governing board, NMG raised Sabharwal’s pay to Rs 3.5 lakhs in February 2011. In October, Sabharwal received a pay cut to Rs 2.5 lakhs. “Arrigidly increasing the approved salary resulted in excess payment of Rs 37 lakhs to the VC between March 2011 and February 2016,” according to the CAG.

Anjana Sharma was also named by NMG as an officer on special duty (OSD) for university development under Sen. As usual, the statute enacted to create NU made no mention of this kind of position.

Anjana Sharma’s appointment was erratic

Sen advocated giving her an annual salary of Rs 2 lakhs for a non-statutory and non-constitutional office. Sabharwal and Sharma were both granted the advantage of having their income tax liabilities reimbursed. According to CAG, the university had to pay Rs 57.4 lakhs for it. It cost Rs 57.40 lakh to reimburse.

Additionally, CAG disagreed with the methods being used to build schools. “The university failed to establish schools in time and could not start the construction of university campus work,” according to the CAG report. The endowment committee was deemed ineffectual by the study as well.

Conclusion

Amartya Sen’s tenure as Chancellor of Nalanda University was marked by a mix of high expectations and significant challenges. While his global reputation brought attention to the project, his leadership style, administrative decisions, and political entanglements nearly crippled the university’s revival. The revival of  Nalanda University under Sen highlights the complexities involved in resurrecting an ancient institution in the modern era. It underscores the importance of balanced leadership, transparent administration, clear academic planning, and the ability to navigate political and bureaucratic landscapes effectively.