The UPA Government allowed the Nalanda University project, funded by the Indian taxpayers' money, to become the Nobel laureate’s pocket borough. The NDA regime is easing him out but Amartya Sen must answer for the many administrative discrepancies of his tenure

For Mr Amartya Sen, to pine for a second term as the Chancellor of Nalanda University betrays the profound flaws of the ambitious project he was appointed to implement. Mr Sen presumes he has the right to lead the project in perpetuity, as much as Ms Sonia Gandhi leads the Congress, Mr Mulayam Singh the Samajwadi Party, or Mr M Karunanidhi the Dravida Munnetra Kazhagam. And he is not totally wrong! Since the Nalanda University Act, 2010 was being legislated, this author has dubbed the University as a ‘friends and associates’ project in these columns of The Pioneer.

The UPA Government allowed Nalanda University to be Mr Sen’s pocket borough project, funded by the Indian taxpayers’ money. But should the NDA Government allow him a safe exit by simply easing out the aged economistIJ Or should he be held accountable for wasting public fundsIJ

The two Comptroller and Auditor General audits undertaken as per Clause 32 (1) of the Nalanda University Act, 2010, nailed irregularities in the appointment of a Vice Chancellor, who was offered a exorbitant salary, with Mr Sen’s final approval. This was in violation of the General Financial Rules. For example, the Indian public footed the bill for the Vice Chancellor’s unnecessary foreign travels, including a trip to Honolulu. The NDA should act on these audit reports, which the UPA shied away from tabling in Parliament.

Mr Sen used his stature and standing to escape scrutiny and to dodge accountability. Even after three years, the renowned economist could not submit a project report on Nalanda University, which he was supposed to file in nine months. But Mr Sen found the time to do a thorough unauthorised recommendation and appointment of Ms Gopa Sabharwal as the Vice Chancellor of Nalanda University. This was done without any selection process — simply at the whim of Mr Sen.

The UPA Government did not embarrass the Nobel laureate since he was former Prime Minister Manmohan Singh’s personal friend. But the NDA  mustn’t let him off the hook. Being a Nobel laureate does not give Mr Sen immunity against wrongdoing. The Government is obliged to wield the danda as per the dictates of dandaniti (rule of law). The NDA especially must not be perceived as nursing a UPA-era scam.

In 2011, Bangladesh (a country that Mr Sen often visits and eulogises), asked its only Nobel laureate, 71-year old Mohammed Yunus, to step down from the post of Managing Director, Grameen Bank as he had overshot the retirement age (65 years) fixed for executives of private banks by six years. Grameen Bank, the micro-finance institution, was Mr Yunus’ brainchild and that benefitted millions of Bangladeshis. If Mr Yunus could be forced to retire as per the law, why not Mr Sen, whose Nalanda University seems to have benefitted none but a few private individuals favoured by himIJ

The Nalanda University Act, 2010 is largely based on the Central Universities Act, 2009. But while the Statutes of the Central Universities Act, say that the Chancellor shall hold the office for five years only and shall not be eligible for re-appointment, the Nalanda University Statutes, 2012 states that the Chancellor shall be eligible for re-appointment. The same distinction applies to the Vice Chancellor of Nalanda University as well.

This was a clever ploy to retain the power by Mr Sen and Mr Sabharwal for years together. While the Statutes under Central Universities Act, 2010 were set in the Second Schedule and passed by Parliament, the Nalanda University Statutes were approved between the University’s governing board and the Union Government without parliamentary reference.

The Nalanda University Statutes is deliberately silent on the process of recruitment of faculty. There is no system for formation of selection committees described in the details on the Central Universities Act. This implies that governing board led by Mr Sen can appoint anybody at will; and pay them fantastic salaries.

Mr Sen & Co had no business to stay on this long in the first place. They were appointed (curiously without any official/gazette notification) as the Nalanda Mentor Group with a set terms of terms for a period of nine months in July 2007. Their work should have been over with the submission of a detailed project report. But as nine months rolled into three years, Mr Sen and his friends failed to produce any project report.

Ultimately, as a face saver, the minutes of their meetings in Singapore, Tokyo, Washington, DC, and New Delhi were compiled into an executive report by the Ministry of External Affairs. The NMG was transformed into the Nalanda University governing board and rehabilitated to power.

As per Clause 8(2) of the Nalanda University Act, 2010, this interim board should have been in power for a year or till a regular governing board (as described in Clause 7) was constituted, whichever is earlier. But since the constitution of a regular governing board was tied to donations received from the Economic Asia Summit (and hardly anybody was coming forward), it could not be constituted till date.

Through repeated extensions (last one was an indefinite extension), the governing board has been kept alive. But this facility does not extend to Mr Sen since he chose to become the Chancellor of Nalanda University, instead of simply remaining the governing body chairperson. By July, Mr Sen would have survived for eight years in the Nalanda University project in what was originally a nine months contract.

While Mr Sen may be pining for a second coming as Chancellor, his appointment is the first place appears to be legally untenable. The minutes of the third governing board meeting held in Beijing (October 14-15, 2011) tell how Mr Sen was nominated as the Chancellor. The Nalanda University Statutes, 2012 (defining how Chancellor and Vice Chancellor should be appointed) were notified on March 31, 2012. But Mr Sen was recommended as Chancellor by the governing board prior to that. Moreover, Mr Sen was nominated as the Chancellor by the same governing board which he was leading. Thankfully, Mr Sen had the courtesy of not being present in the room at the time of the appointment.