Professor ABM Obaidul Islam from the Department of Physics has become the new Vice-Chancellor (VC) of Dhaka University. He is also known for having previously served as the central education secretary of the BNP and the central convener of the Sada Dal, BNP-aligned teachers’ organisation.
As educational institutions are mired in political conflict, questions naturally arise about whether a politically affiliated teacher is the right person for university leadership.
Professor Niaz Ahmed Khan, who took on the role of VC after the July mass uprising, served as the Vice-Chancellor of Dhaka University for about a year and a half before recently stepping down. In his farewell speech, he claimed that he had no political affiliations, stating unequivocally, "I can say without hesitation that I have no political affiliations. I request you politely to inform me if you ever find any proof of my political affiliations."
Professor Niaz Ahmed has stated that he did not favour any student organisation during his tenure as Vice-Chancellor. However, the BNP’s student organisation, Jatiyatabadi Chhatra Dal, has accused him of benefitting Islamic Chhatra Shibir on various occasions, including during the DUCSU elections.
Debates have ensued about the veracity of the allegations, but there has been no evidence to suggest that Professor Niaz held any position in Jamaat-e-Islami or was even a general member. Even during his time in office, he repeatedly insisted that he had no political ties. Hence, when debates arose, he was often given the "benefit of the doubt."
But can Professor ABM Obaidul Islam ever assert, either confidently or meekly, that he has no political affiliations? Without even observing his capacity to remain impartial, it can be surmised that numerous questions will arise about the neutrality of his work.
There is a concept known as ''conflict of interest,'' in which any decision, no matter how sound, can appear motivated and biased if such conflicts exist. Unfortunately, the BNP government appointing eight university vice-chancellors from within their own party has only fueled suspicions among the general public about the spread of partisan politics in universities.
By appointing all VCs from their own party, the BNP has created a ''conflict of interest'' in the educational arena. This model has been seen before—when the BNP was previously in power, it practiced this model, and the Awami League did the same during its tenure.
Therefore, the country's educational arena has always been run on a partisan basis. The student organisation affiliated with the ruling party has always been dominant, while others have suffered. After the election, people assumed that the new government of the new era would break away from this model.
There is no reason to expect different results from the same old model.
Education Minister ANM Ehsanul Haque has not denied that the appointment of vice-chancellors was made purely on political considerations. He has instead posed the question: is it a crime for someone to be involved in politics? Is it their disqualification? He believes it's not a disqualification.
The Education Minister stated, "We have reviewed every vice-chancellor on various metrics, including citations, quotations, Google searches, PhDs, postdocs, and MPhils—those who have performed well have been given responsibilities."
One might ask whether a more qualified candidate could have been found outside of BNP members if a broader search was conducted. His logic is flawed. Engaging in politics is certainly not a crime, but history in Bangladesh has repeatedly shown that it's not reasonable to appoint politically-affiliated individuals as VCs.
After the movement of 1969, the government at the time had to appoint a non-partisan individual like Justice Abu Sayeed Chowdhury as the Vice-Chancellor of Dhaka University to regain student trust. The trust in educational institutions hasn't fully returned after independence.
The Education Minister's claim that a review was conducted for every VC has its own set of questions. If a party quota is set first, leading to a small ''pool,'' then the selection will be restricted to that narrow pool. However, if you create a pool of all eligible candidates without quotas, and then evaluate and select, you’ll be choosing the nation's best candidate. The difference between these two evaluation methods is substantial.
Selecting a non-partisan vice-chancellor through an open process could have realised the long-held desire of students and the country's esteemed community. Will this aspiration remain unfulfilled in this country?
Our country's political leaders deliver high-minded rhetoric in civil gatherings as long as they're out of power. Once in power, they are either absent from civil assemblies or change their tune.
Filling positions solely with party members can, in various ways, backfire. When a party forms the government, it represents the entire nation's people. There is only one Prime Minister in the country, and Tarique Rahman, as the nation's Prime Minister, has equal responsibility for everyone. If the government declares or enacts a policy that only BNP-verified qualifications and education will be considered for positions, then where will others seek employment? This same question will arise for small and large jobs alike.
The quota movement began with this question during Sheikh Hasina’s tenure. She couldn't provide a satisfactory answer, and the rest is history. If the BNP doesn't keep all opportunities open for everyone from the start, they too will lose public trust.
It's not just in VC appointments; there has been a noticeable singular or unilateral preference in all BNP appointments thus far. New mayor appointments, reinstating police officers from 20 years ago, and reappointing officials from past BNP regimes are all reminiscent of past regimes of BNP and Awami League. However, these methods haven't brought benefits to the parties in the past, and it's predictable that they won't yield benefits now.
Newton's first formula of motion, known as the formula of inertia, states that an object in motion remains in motion in the same direction and speed unless acted upon by an unbalanced force. Our political parties continue to walk the same path repeatedly in the same direction. We've repeatedly seen that external forces have taken advantage of their inertia.
Why our politicians are unable to overcome this inertia and why they repeatedly follow the same wrong path can also be answered through Newton's formulas. This time, we hope the politicians will change their path and direction on their own.
*Saleh Uddin Ahmed is a teacher, writer, and political analyst.
Email: [email protected]
#The opinions are the writer's own.
*This article, originally published in Prothom Alo online edition, has been rewritten in English by Rabiul Islam.