There is a story about, I think, Bavaria — The King was angry with a farmer, and said something to the effect that his assets will be confiscated. The farmer, undaunted, replied “There is still Independent judiciary in this country”. Autonomy of certain institutions is absolutely essential, and, scholarly institutions certainly need their autonomy. Here is D Balasubramanian in The Hindu on the issue.
I am not aware of the details of the exact nature of the controversy. However, Dr. Balasubramanian’s article is more accusing in tone than giving out the details of the issue — what was the ostensible reason (if any) for the dismissal of Dr. Venugopal? Though Dr Balasubramanian says this,
but is it not true in the present instance that 40 years of medical experience and over 25 years of cardiac research were rubbished by power and authority resting on an accident of ministerial portfolio, which may come and go?,
he does not elaborate whether the decision to sack him is related to any issue related to medical experience and cardiac research, since that would have strengthened his case — as of now, with due apologies to Dr Balasubramanian, the entire article reads in the I-am-a-professional-supporting-my-colleague-who-is-wronged tone.
Having said this, I think the following conclusion is unquestionable:
Unless non-government money flows in good measure, the autonomy of academic and research institutions would take a long time coming in India. Without that, how do we live up to the role the world expects of us?
which, again, in a way, endorses my earlier suggestion that government should stop funding nano research related to technological issues (except where it concerns military applications), and that scientists should be able to convince industry to fund them instead of approaching the government.
July 13, 2006 at 2:51 am
@Guru: I completely agree with you..it is even more painful to know that according to documents available with The Telegraph, Venugopal was appointed director in 2003 at the age of 61 for five years while 62 is the retirement age.
n July 2003, when the director’s slot fell vacant, Sushma Swaraj, the then health minister in the Atal Bihari Vajpayee government, had 25 senior faculty members to choose from. She picked Venugopal and a formal order was issued on July 3, three days before he turned 61.
Sushma did not show such flexibility while making another appointment — that of K.K Talwar as director of the Postgraduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER) in Chandigarh.
Hurts!!! we live in a country full of partialty..and then we have learned people like Dr Balasubramanian talking ..cmon how hard is it accept that its time now..
July 13, 2006 at 8:27 am
Even I am not very aware of the background of this issue but Dr. Venugopal seems to have a good amount of support from the institution or is it just media generated?
His retirement age aside, what prompted such scrutiny was the apparent interference of the government. Even then the decision is taken by the board of members and not by the Minister himself I presume.
July 18, 2006 at 10:37 pm
[...] Here is the Frontline story about the AIIMS imbroglio, which, in my opinion, is more fair-minded. From the story, at least one thing is clear — the issue is more about politics than about the competence of Dr. Venugopal as a doctor, and, I guess Dr. Balasubramanian’s emphasis on institutional autonomy is misplaced — see this earlier post on the issue. If it is about autonomy, at least for the sake of completeness of story (and fairness of discussion), Dr. Balasubramanian should have noted the controversy surrounding his appointment itself. Having said this, let me emphasise that I am great fan of Dr. Balasubramanian and his writing — there are a host of articles of his which I thoroughly enjoyed — just that in this case, he is terribly off the mark, which is a pity [...]