What is ailing the South Asian University and how to save it

The diseases plaguing the South Asian University have now threatened the very education being provided at the institution.

—

THE South Asian University (SAU), arguably the only saving grace of the 37-years-old South Asian Association for Regional Cooperation (SAARC), has been a shining light of international legal education in the South Asian region.

The institution has five departments, including a faculty of mathematics and computer science (FMCS), a faculty of life sciences and biotechnology (FLSB), a faculty of economics (FE), a faculty of social sciences (FSS) and a faculty of legal studies (FLS). It is planning to start eight more postgraduate faculties.

Each year, the departments under these faculties admit 30 students— 15 Indians and 15 belonging to the other seven member nations of the SAARC. Over the years, the SAU has contributed to the development of the South Asian region and has been widely recognised for its contribution.

Also read: Why students of National Law Universities are protesting

However, over the last couple of years, since the retirement of Professor Kavita A. Sharma as president of the university, the institution has failed to appoint a permanent president. This has led to lack of accountability among the people who have occupied the position on an ad hoc basis since then, giving rise to many problems.

Stipend issues

Over the past couple of years, there have been numerous students' protests over things as basic as food. Recently, PhD candidates of the university protested for a hike in the stipend they get. 

Currently, the SAU provides ₹25,000 as monthly stipend. The students have demanded that it should be increased to ₹30,000. Considering the cost of living in a city like New Delhi, ₹30,000 is the bare minimum students of an international university like the SAU should be paid.

Last September, the administration decided to reduce the stipend it gives to master's students without proper reasons. When the students protested against it, the administration decided to suspend a few of the protesting students without even giving them a fair hearing.

Also read: The plight of not- so- 'national' National Law Universities

The administration became so heartless that when one of the suspended students was admitted to an intensive care unit (ICU) due to health problems related to the protests, the administration did not even visit him at the hospital.

Sexual harassment complaints

During the September protest, the students also demanded student representation in some of the committees like the gender sensitisation and sexual harassment committees. These requests, too, were ignored. An LLM student who was part of these protests was rusticated from the university. Her subsequent complaint of sexual harassment hasn't been acted upon. 

Vendetta against the professors

During the protest, which was peaceful, the administration decided to call the police to the campus. A few of the faculty members then wrote a letter to the administration condemning this action. Within the next couple of days, five students were suspended, rusticated or expelled.

A few professors then highlighted the violation of natural justice principles in the suspension or rustication process of the students. In retaliation, four of the faculty members were issued show cause notices and asked to appear before a panel for inquiry.

When they did so, they were asked to answer around 250 questions, by hand, within a span of three–four hours. They obviously sought extension, which was denied. Now, a few days ago, all four professors have been suspended with immediate effect.

What is ironic (and comical and illegal) is that the professor who was accused of sexual harassment was (and is) in the panel which has issued the suspension notice. Meanwhile, no action has been taken against the sexual harassment complaint which was made against him. 

Probably no action will ever be taken now that the complainant has been rusticated from the university.

Indian government's stance

On December 7, 2022, member of Parliament (MP) Syed Nasir Hussain asked the following question of the external affairs minister Dr S. Jaishankar regarding the SAU. 

"Will the minister of external affairs be pleased to state: 

(a) whether there is an ongoing protest at the South Asian University (SAU) by students due to arbitrary new policy regarding the scholarship, freeships and other issues; 

(b) the reason for making scholarships non-transferable when previously everyone used to get scholarships and freeships; 

(c) whether SAU is not receiving funding, if so, the reasons therefor; 

(d) whether [the] government understands that by not giving freeships and scholarships the future of students has been jeopardised; and 

(e) the steps taken by [the] government to ensure that no one at the SAU drops out due to financial barriers?" 

In his reply, Jaishankar said that the SAU is not under the direct jurisdiction of the government of India. He further added that part of the problem is that some of the member countries have not made the payment that they were required to, so the university is going through a period of extreme financial stress.

He also noted that there are issues of management and academic freedom. He concluded that whatever influence and counsel they can give to the institute to sort any problems in an amicable and non-stressful way, certainly they would do so.

Also read: "Institutions of Eminence" or "Institutions of Exclusion"?

While this looks like a safe answer, the government has not shied away from interfering in similar cases. Take the example of cricket; while terrorism (and by extension Pakistan) has remained a non-stated reason for the SAARC not having a summit since 2014, the Asian Cricket Council (ACC) has been functioning properly. 

In fact, the son of the Indian home minister was elected as president of the ACC in 2021, and in March this year, his term was extended till 2024. It is noteworthy that all the eight members of the SAARC are also members of the ACC.

Similarly, while the 50-overs cricket world cup is an 'international' event, organised by the International Cricket Council (ICC), the government has given clearance to host matches to be played by Pakistan, in India. Why then, it is not willing to indulge itself in the affairs of the SAU, especially when it is paying 50 percent of the expenses and the university's premises have been constructed from its money. 

Even if the government is not willing to directly interfere in the affairs of the SAU, looking at the scenario, it can at least actively lobby for conduction of the next SAARC summit where SAU-related affairs must be discussed. 

What is the way forward?

The university has been without a permanent president for the last four years. All the key functionaries of the university are 'acting' and Indian. But appointing a permanent person to these positions will not solve any issues.

The people who are currently holding the positions can very well be appointed on a permanent basis. So, while permanency will give a sense of certainty, it will not solve the problems. The SAARC summit needs to take place urgently. It will ensure that the affairs of the SAU are regularly discussed with member countries. 

Also read: Reimagining the National Law Universities as truly being national

The procedures for in-house resolution of disputes, (if they exist) need overhauling. There needs to be accountability for actions— be it arbitrarily suspending or expelling students without following due process or be it suspending professors who call out such arbitrariness.

The hands-off approach of the Indian government, or for that matter any other government, is unfortunate. If they want to save the institution, they need to act urgently.

If the reduction in stipends is a result of non-payment of dues by the member countries, then one way forward would be to reduce the stipend of students from that particular country. This will ensure that those students can then raise grievances with their respective governments. The finger-pointing by the government of India regarding non-payment by some member countries will not solve the issue, since, as far as the SAU is concerned, all the eight members of the SAARC are equal stakeholders.