Do Our Engineering Institutes Really Need A Dose Of Humanities?

A routine matter dealt in a college with logic, prudence and common sense in line with the engineering practice, led to a vicious, high-decibel attack on IITM. I had dealt with the issue of culture of engineering institutions and how engineering practice is a fine balance between rigid discipline and acceptance of disruptive thoughts in contrast with the needs of liberal arts/humanities themed education.

There was an article in the Firstpost which took criticism to new heights and disparaging comments on engineering education were passed. The author felt that engineering education dehumanises students’ sensitivity to deal with social issues. He found the apolitical nature of IITs shocking and lamented that students aren’t sufficiently politicised as they focus only on their careers.

Nothing can be farther from the truth. The tenor of the article betrays the bias of the author. As I questioned in a previous post on this issue, has the author undergone the rigour of engineering education that he could’ve passed such sweeping comments?

Engineering and other mathematical studies depend on the self-discipline of treading the fine line of accepting norms and believing in disruption. Having said that, the engineering educationists and practitioners are acutely aware that this is the Anthropocene era defined by technology and not by geology.

Engineering for Change and similar such initiatives have taken practicing engineers and students to work in the remote corners of the world. Khan Academy is yet another trailblazer which brings education within the reach of people not well served educationally in the world. The belief of these spirited minds is to work with dispossessed communities, the forlorn and off-the-radar communities. On the shoulders of these practitioners lies the responsibility of value and employment creation. The liberals may not like the idea of education for employment and employment generation but they don’t seem tired of using the fruits of modern technology – whether using smartphones, the telecom networks, use of social media, living in modern apartments, using microwaves, air-fryers, enjoying air-con, e-markets, etc.

Whether critics like it or not, electronic and print media are also products of technology – let alone social media which owes its very existence to technology non-existent a couple of decades ago.

I quote the disconcerting observation made in Firstpost:

The ban also bespoke of the growing tendency to keep educational campuses free from progressive political ideas. Indian democracy is in serious need for committed fresh blood and new streams of thought. Unfortunately, students at learning places such as the IITs, tend to overlook socio-political issues outside their campuses and use their time only for furthering their careers. If at all they intervene in social issues, it usually happens in a piecemeal project-basis that is devoid of an overall political thought.

The class of people who hold such lofty albeit misplaced beliefs sadly never shoulder the responsibility to deliver employment (and all that which flows with it). Thus, sitting in an air-conditioned cafe sipping a coffee flavoured with ingredients flown from exotic locales of the world, commenting on the way engineering students feel or should feel is like criticising a branch of a tree on which you sit, dreaming to chop it.

If the engineering campuses by choice have kept themselves away from the brand of politics seen elsewhere in the country, it is to groom their pupils for the profession which shoulders the burden of modern civilisational order. It is not hard to find student groups engaged in social activities, having strong beliefs on developmental issues and economic paradigms – however,  their idiom of expression isn’t like that of campuses rooted in humanities education. Engineers have respected Aaron Swartz as he was not seen as an empty theorist, they have respected a Bill Gates and a Steve Jobs – none of whom were engineers but visionaries with substance who believed in changing the world. They respect and keenly listen to people who engage in the pursuit of responsible creation.

Regular dose of politics and violent language amply available in news channels provide heady cocktail to derail the young, impressionable minds from their chosen path. I dither if chemical or biotech engineers are given same political training as envisioned by the Firstpost author. The responsibility which professional engineers shoulder expects them to be apolitical. Such proponents in media forget that the biggest accelerator of social samrasta has been railway compartment and factory shop floors all over the world – clearly the products of modern technology.

The issue at hand has, at its root, posters with demeaning tenor for other faiths. I delineated the limits of reasonable restrictions placed on freedom of expression in my last article and submitted that the group’s conduct failed on all accounts. Unfortunately, the 9 pm anchors and several journalists made a fundamental error of treating a college as a courtroom invoking the principles which don’t readily apply to the education dispensing systems. Even in contracts, we mention prudent, standard or well accepted practice.

The issue of the institute acting under pressure of the MHRD as brought out loudly is also interesting. As I mentioned, all superior officers as a practice, pass on all complaints received (even anonymous if the substantive information is enclosed. The group wrongfully compared it to CVC’s guidelines). An accepted practice which I have come across in several campuses regarding dealing with student conduct has been till a complaint is received, the activity gets tolerated as a principle. I spoke to several professors of various engineering colleges on this – they maintained that we can’t expect young students to conform always – so latitude has to be given till others complain about it. In fact, one professor narrated an incident, where undergrad students approached him to permit access of boys in the girls’ hostel beyond existing timings – he readily agreed provided their parents too agreed and the proposal was dropped there itself! His argument was that he is responsible to their parents as well and that they entrusted their children to his care. Several leading campuses restrict even use of laptops in the first year, with restrictions melting away as they get senior.

To link the issue at hand with political leadership has been a poor way of drawing conclusions and associations, where none existed. If an institution finds a group of students engaging in activities which are offending to others, the institution has no other option but to step in and contain them. Educational institutions, unlike a usual social setup, always are in the state of flux and see churn of students as a fundamental part of their design (getting admitted in and passing out). Clearly, aspirants who struggle for years (with their families) to get into these colleges have the right to spend their time in a manner where they acquire the education they aspire for. This doesn’t mean that the institutions and students are not sensitive to the issues espoused by groups like APSC. However, the institution has the duty to protect the academic environment.

Further, to expect an academic institution to display the same legal rigour which a court of law exercises is grossly misplaced.

So, let us revisit the issue as the noise softens:

• What would MHRD or PMO or President’s Office do today if they get a complaint even if anonymous, with substantiated evidence? They would be duty bound to forward it.

• Did the student body in question transgress the reasonableness? Taking out the name of politicians out of the calculus, the posters did contain inflammatory material as reported by many students. What if similar posters again appear – what decision would again be taken?

• What is the raison d’etre of an engineering institution? Engineering practice is a profession, can it be treated using the yardstick derived from the liberal arts?

The kind of onslaught which was mounted on the institution was unprecedented. Possibly some day people demand same level of delivery and transparency from the institutions held as examples of campus freedom.

It may give these journalists and politicians the vicarious pleasure of having brought the IITM to its knees – but they did great disservice by pushing their line of argument without understanding demands of engineering education and proceeded on a premise that IITM was inherently in the wrong.