This article was downloaded by: [University of Cambridge]On: 14 October 2014, At: 01:37Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954Registered office: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Compare: A Journal of Comparativeand International EducationPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/ccom20

Autonomy and Authority in anIndian University: a study of theUniversity of BombayThomas Owen Eisemon aa McGill UniversityPublished online: 06 Jul 2006.

To cite this article: Thomas Owen Eisemon (1984) Autonomy and Authority in an IndianUniversity: a study of the University of Bombay, Compare: A Journal of Comparative andInternational Education, 14:1, 59-67, DOI: 10.1080/0305792840140105

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0305792840140105

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information(the “Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor& Francis, our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warrantieswhatsoever as to the accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of theContent. Any opinions and views expressed in this publication are the opinions andviews of the authors, and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. Theaccuracy of the Content should not be relied upon and should be independentlyverified with primary sources of information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liablefor any losses, actions, claims, proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages,and other liabilities whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly or indirectly inconnection with, in relation to or arising out of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes.Any substantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing, systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expresslyforbidden. Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Compare, Vol. 14, No. 1, 1984

Autonomy and Authority in an Indian University: a studyof the University of Bombay

THOMAS OWEN EISEMON, McGill University

Attention is drawn in this paper to the antecedents and consequences of the bureau-cratisation of academic life in Indian universities. Three institutions affiliated to,supervised or administered by the University of Bombay were studied in 1980;St Xavier's College, the Institute of Science and the Department of Mathematics.St Xavier's College was selected from among the undergraduate colleges affiliated tothe University. Like most affiliated colleges, it is managed privately, in this instanceby the Jesuit Order. Established in 1860, it is one of Bombay's oldest and most pres-tigious affiliated colleges. The Institute of Science is one of the University's oldestscientific institutions. Managed by the state government, it began instruction in 1924and since that time has concerned itself with postgraduate training and researchalthough until recently it offered courses at the BSc level as well. The third is the Uni-versity's Department of Mathematics which was formed in 1963 and a year later wasdesignated by the University Grants Commission (UGC) [1] to be a Centre ofAdvanced Study in this field. The Department offers studies only at the postgraduatelevel. The University's Department of Mathematics, the Zoology Department at theInstitute of Science and the Mathematics and Zoology Departments at St Xavier'sCollege illustrate the ways in which scientific training is organised at the Universityof Bombay and in many other Indian universities. The University comprises unitswhich mainly instruct at the postgraduate degree level; units which mainly teach atthe undergraduate level, and more rarely, those that do both.

The University of Bombay is one of more than 100 universities in India. Foundedin 1857, it is among India's oldest universities. The University of Bombay is a teach-ing/affiliating university. Instruction takes place in postgraduate departments and ingovernment colleges and colleges managed by private philanthropic agencies thatare affiliated to it. In 1977-78 there were 24 university departments; 43 institutionsrecognised to instruct students mainly for postgraduate degrees; and, 119 colleges,98 of which were managed by private educational trusts (University of Bombay,1979a). That year 143,490 students were registered in university degree programmesof whom 12,584 were studying at the postgraduate level (University of Bombay,1979a, pp. 133-134).

The establishment of universities at Bombay, Calcutta and Madras in the 1850smarked the beginning of a struggle between government, universities and the

59

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

01:

37 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

60 T. O. Eisemon

colleges for control of higher education. Government has enlarged its authority atthe expense of the universities. The universities exert greater influence over the col-leges that are affiliated to them. But the colleges enjoy the support of parochial, com-munal, caste and linguistic interests and their proliferation defied the intentions andingenuity of university and government. University and college teachers were casual-ties of this struggle. The university system developed a rigid hierarchical characterand academic life was increasingly bureaucratised in ways that perpetuated the olderpaternalistic traditions of collegiate education and prevented teaching from evolvinginto a profession.

HierarchalisationPatterns of Governance

The Bombay University Act of 1953 as amended to 1979 provides that the Universityshall be governed by a Senate having principal authority in financial and academicmatters. The Senate is composed of the senior administrative officers of the Univer-sity, representatives of the Maharashtra State Legislative Assembly and pertinentgovernment departments (for example, the State Board of Higher Secondary Educa-tion), delegates from the Bombay Municipal Corporation, the Registered TradeUnion of the University employees and other constituencies. Each of the Univer-sity's 'estates' have some representation on the Senate; college principals, heads ofUniversity departments, college teachers, students and support staff. Each of theinstitutions supervised by the University is represented as well. The representationaccorded the University's various institutions and 'estates' is in relation to their statusin the University rather than in proportion to their numbers. Five members of Senateare college principals representing a constituency of 119 (University of Bombay,1979b). Five times as many college and University teachers are elected to Senate.But relative to the size of their constituency, college teachers are less influential.Similarly, the deans of all the University faculties are members of the Senate,whereas only one of the heads of the 43 institutions recognised to supervise post-graduate studies is elected to the University's chief governing body. Significantly,Senate membership is weighted in favour of administrative officers and laymen.

The chief executive officer of the University is the Vice-Chancellor who isappointed for a three-year term by the Chancellor from among candidates proposedby an ad hoc committee, two of its three members must not be connected with theUniversity, its colleges and recognised institutions. Until 1953, the Vice-Chancellor-ship was a part-time position usually occupied by an eminent barrister or civil ser-vant. Since then Vice-Chancellors have been academics who have distinguishedthemselves in university or collegiate administration (Altbach, 1972, pp. 22-23). Thepowers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor are substantial. Though accountable to theCouncil and Senate, he may act without their advice under a provision giving him'emergency powers'. Disputes between the Vice-Chancellor and the Council inrespect to the exercise of the former's authority are referred to the Chancellor whosedecisions are final.

In brief, the present University Act gives considerable discretionary authority tothe Vice-Chancellor, Council and to the administrators of the University. Theacademic staff are poorly represented in the University's most influential governinginstitutions. The principal administrative officers and the Council, in turn, aredirectly accountable to government for their actions. There is government

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

01:

37 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy and Authority in an Indian University 61

representation at every level of the University's administration penetrating as far asthe Academic Council which is responsible for monitoring teaching, research andexaminations. The accountability of the Vice-Chancellor to government isemphasised by the procedures of his selection and the duration of his appointment,as well as by the powers of arbitration invested in the Chancellor. Thus, teaching staffare subordinated to University administration and both to government. The Univer-sity is not a self-governing community of scholars in any meaningful sense.

Segmentation and Integration within the University System

At the base of the University are the colleges and their teachers which provide under-graduate education (Chitnis, 1980). All college teachers are University lecturers.The qualifications required for the appointment of lecturers, their workloads andschedule of remuneration are prescribed by the University. The colleges differ intheir management (government or private) and in regard to the scope of programmesthey offer, but all are subject to University supervision of their finances and adminis-tration. Within the collegiate system the status of the institutions varies with theirselectivity in admissions. The colleges retain authority to admit students subject toUniversity regulations protecting candidates from disadvantaged classes and estab-lishing minimum qualifications for entry. The more selective colleges typically pos-sess better instructional facilities and provide better working conditions for staff(individual offices or at least desks and senior commons rooms; though not highersalaries or reduced teaching loads). In addition, such colleges are more apt to offerinnovative teaching programmes, part of the funding for which may be provided bythe University and/or the University Grants Commission.

The University teaching departments have the authority to appoint staff at the lec-turer level and above. The number of senior—reader, associate professor and pro-fessorial—positions is sanctioned in proportion to the size of the department. In thisrespect, departments are treated alike. Remuneration for academic posts is fixed asare the teaching responsibilities of staff. There are exceptions to this though. Univer-sity departments recognised by the University Grants Commission as Centres ofAdvanced Study or departments deemed to be eligible for special Centre assistancehave a higher proportion of sanctioned senior positions, lower teaching loads, betterlibrary and laboratory resources and more funds to support student research. (In1980-81 three departments were recognised as Centres of Advanced Studies;economics, chemical technology and mathematics.)

Since 1928 a number of institutions have been recognised by the University ofBombay for guiding postgraduate studies. In science, these institutions include theBhabha Atomic Research Centre, the Tata Institute for Fundamental Research, theHaffkine Institute and 12 other governmental, private or philanthropic researchinstitutes. In 1977-78 these research institutes supervised 96 of the 198 MSc and PhDstudents who received degrees by research that year (University of Bombay,1979a, appendix H). By comparison, the four University departments of science—mathematics, chemistry, applied chemistry and physics—supervised the work ofonly 21 students. The remainder were supervised by colleges with accreditedpostgraduate programmes (Grant Medical College, for example) and/or staffrecognised to guide postgraduate studies. In other words, the contribution of institu-tions (and staff) recognised for postgraduate instruction and supervision is verylarge.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

01:

37 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

62 T. O. Eisemon

Recognised research institutes are nominally subject to the inspection of the Uni-versity in regard to the appointment of staff, provision of laboratory and libraryfacilities and with respect to their management and financing. However the researchinstitutes function virtually autonomously. Postgraduate instruction and supervisionis a peripheral activity to these institutions which do not receive funds from the Uni-versity for their work. And because most of them do not participate in postgraduateinstruction but only the supervision of research, they are only subject to the Univer-sity requirement of external examination of theses and dissertations. Moreover, staffonce accredited for postgraduate supervision on the basis of their educational qualifi-cations, seniority and, in the case of doctoral supervisors, supervisory experience atthe Masters level, are rarely reviewed except in the unlikely event that an externalexaminer fails a student's thesis or dissertation.

The implications of this institutional division of labour in teaching and research areprofound. While there is some overlap in the responsibilities of different kinds ofinstitutions (a few affiliated colleges participate in postgraduate instruction, forexample), the three institutional strata are functionally separate. Co-ordination isachieved through University Boards of Study and Examination. It is the governingstructure of the University that facilitates integration of different dimensions ofacademic work. Undergraduate teaching, postgraduate teaching and supervisionand staff research for the most part occur in different institutions. The institutionalstrata are ordered hierarchically, an ordering that is attenuated by discrepancies inmaterial and professional privilege (Eisemon, 1974). Each is subordinated to a vary-ing extent to the University's institutions of governance, the Council and Senate.This subordination is most complete among the colleges. Recognised institutes, incontrast, enjoy great autonomy within the university framework.

Bureaucratisation

The traditions of subordination embedded in the organisation and governance of theUniversity of Bombay stunted the development of a self-governing academic com-munity and led to the bureaucratisation of academic work (Shils, 1969). The estab-lishment of a university system in 1857 proceeded from the view that collegiate edu-cation had failed India's needs. The criticisms of the collegiate system were both sub-stantive and political. The affiliating/examining university structure provided a sub-stantive and political remedy in the form of control over the instruction offered incolleges as well as a mechanism to restrict expansion. Blame for the low standardsand haphazard expansion of collegiate education was placed on their staff and man-agement. Concessions of autonomy and self-governance had to be won from thestate from the mid-nineteenth century onward. The centrality of the expansion ofhigher education first to aspirations for self-rule and later to the demands of com-munal, linguistic and caste groups for better educational opportunities has precludedsuch concessions.

Teaching is the professional preoccupation of university and college staff. What isto be taught is determined at the University of Bombay by Boards of Studies estab-lished for every subject or group of subjects described in the statutes as a course ofinstruction. The Boards consist of the head(s) of the University departments con-cerned, department heads of the colleges, college teachers and appointed specialists.The Boards prescribe topics to be covered and texts to be used by college teachers forundergraduate instruction. Boards of University Teaching and Research monitor

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

01:

37 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy and Authority in an Indian University 63

postgraduate instruction for each faculty in the University. The functions of theseBoards are somewhat more circumscribed than the Boards of Study in regard to thedetermination of programmes of instruction and research. The Boards of UniversityTeaching and Research do not, for instance, prescribe texts or lecture subjects. Theydo, however, exercise responsibility for academic matters normally entrusted todepartments or disciplinary groups in European and North American universitiessuch as approval of the subjects for research and the appointment of supervisors.

Undergraduate teaching is geared to preparation for examinations. Pressures areexerted on teachers not to deviate from the prescribed syllabus. Lectures are givenat dictation speed. Students' notes appear verbatim on examinations. Recitation ischaracteristic of external examinations as well as those administered on the basis ofclasswork. Students contesting the marks awarded by their class teachers assert thatthey have faithfully reproduced lecture notes, irrespective of whether they havemade any 'sense' of these notes on their own. Internal examinations, in consequence,offer little relief from the rigidities of instruction and evaluation resulting from exter-nal examination.

Postgraduate teaching is somewhat less routinised. Postgraduate teachers havegreater responsibility for the content and assessment of student work. Nevertheless,the pernicious effects of the examining system are also apparent at the postgraduatelevel. Students embark on postgraduate study without demonstrating a capacity forindependent work. Masters programmes in the arts, sciences and professional fieldsdo not stipulate research experience. Masters programmes entail specialisationrather than a higher standard of scholarship dependent on individual initiative. Thatis necessary only at the doctoral level. Doctoral work, especially in the sciences, isthe joint responsibility of university departments, colleges and recognised institu-tions.

The routinisation of teaching and learning in Indian universities was the outcomeinitially of a desire to ensure, as Curzon put it, that material presented to studentswas "wholesome and adapted to (their) somewhat crude intelligence" (Basu, 1974,p. 29). Curzon intended, of course, that instruction be politically wholesome. In 1911the Governor of Bombay and Chancellor of the University, Sir George Clarke, prop-osed that English history should be eliminated as a compulsory subject for the BAexamination (Basu, 1974, p. 29). Clarke reasoned that English history taughtdangerous principles of emancipation. He was an advocate of scientific studies. Dur-ing his Chancellorship, plans were made for the establishment of a Royal Institute ofScience to provide training at the undergraduate and postgraduate levels and tofoster research in pure and applied scientific disciplines. (Interestingly, a statue ofthe controversial Chancellor in baronial robe remains in the foyer of the presentInstitute of Science while statues of less controversial colonial authorities have beenremoved from the university's premises and indeed from most public places.)Neither Clarke nor his successors understood that scientific inquiry could not flourishwhen academic work was routinised and subject to whimsical political inference.

PaternalismThe Idealisation of Academic Work

Max Weber in his writings on education postulated that schooling serves bureaucra-tic and charismatic purposes (Weber, 1947). He viewed the imparting of skills asa bureaucratic function, increasingly characteristic of education provided in industrial

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

01:

37 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

64 T. O. Eisemon

societies. In contrast, schooling in pre-industrial and hence pre-bureaucraticsocieties, served much broader purposes. Confucian education, according to Weber,sought to inculcate not only religious traditions but Confucian social outlooks andappropriate behaviours as well.

The ends of collegiate education centred on character development. Promotion ofthe collegiate system by colonial authorities and Indians alike had as its object thedevelopment of an educated class whose social outlook had been shaped by exposureto western and oriental intellectual traditions. Such charismatic intentions are sum-marised by Macaulay's desire to create "a class of persons Indian in blood and colourbut English in taste, in opinions, in morals and intellect" (Tickoo, 1980, p. 9). Onlyin the mid-nineteenth century did collegiate education acquire explicitly 'bureaucra-tic' purposes associated with providing training for colonial employment.

The charismatic functions of collegiate education were not extinguished by theintroduction of the university system in 1857. Colleges lost their instructionalautonomy, but this did not preclude emphasis on character development. The pro-grammes offered by the colleges were and remain only partly instructional in nature.Collegiate education is first of all, a social experience. Students are attracted to thebest colleges for the opportunities for social and intellectual development whichthese colleges afford. Recent studies of the collegiate preferences of students andtheir parents reveal the continuing importance of the non-academic programmesthat colleges offer and especially, the importance placed on supervision of a student'spersonal growth (Macia, 1981). It is no accident that in most Indian universities, themost selective prestigious colleges are those with religious managements includingmany like St Xavier's at the University of Bombay which are operated by Christianmissionary orders serving predominantly Hindu or Muslim student populations.

The academic culture of collegiate institutions is paternalistic. This is superficiallyevident, for instance, in the designation of college students as 'boys' and 'girls' (StXavier's College, 1980). Colleges function morally if not legally in locoparentis. Thelives of students in hostels, even postgraduate students, are regimented and closelysupervised. Colleges offer extensive extra-currricular programmes which are man-aged by individual staff. As at English public schools and North American privateacademies, great emphasis is placed on sports as an instrument of moral develop-ment.

Traditionally teachers have occupied a social position held in high esteem. Todayteachers often complain that their status has fallen; that they are not accorded therespect which they once received. Explanations given for this tend to focus on theincreasing lack of dedication and preoccupation with material concerns amongteachers. Perhaps more than in other countries, teaching in India is idealised as a wayof life as well as an occupation. It is expected that teachers be morally and intellectu-ally inspirational. The attachments formed between teachers and their students arealmost familial; and the association is enduring.

Colleges and university departments recruit staff mainly from among theirgraduates. Professors sponsor their former students for vacant positions. It is notuncommon for entire departments to consist of the former students of a senior pro-fessor. Throughout his career, the former student will exhibit fidelity to his/her pro-fessor. The relationship of junior to senior staff initiated as student to teacher isseldom transformed and academics who take up positions in departments where theyhave not studied often encounter serious difficulty unless they are professionallyadopted by a senior member of staff.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

01:

37 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy and Authority in an Indian University 65

Leadership

Leadership in Indian universities is usually provided by a single senior academichaving a paternalistic relationship to his/her junior colleagues. Robert Anderson'sbiographies of Meghnad Saha and Homi Bhabha, two of India's most influentialscientists of this century, offer many insights into the role of leadership in scientificinstitutions (Anderson, 1975). Saha's career is the most interesting to us since he car-ried out all of his scientific work in universities. Saha began his academic career in1916 at Science College during Asutosh Mukherjee's Vice-Chancellorship.(Mukherjee, in fact, appointed Saha as a lecturer in the Department of Mathematics,causing difficulties with the head of that department.) Saha left Science College fordoctoral studies in London and Berlin in 1919. When he returned to India two yearslater Saha had developed a theory of thermal ionisation. At the age of 28 he wasappointed as professor of physics at Allahabad University where he established aphysics laboratory and recruited postgraduate students and junior staff, many ofwhom later occupied important positions in India's scientific community. One ofSaha's postgraduate students, D. S. Kothari, became chairman of the UniversityGrants Commission. Another was later appointed Director of the National PhysicalLaboratory.

Saha was an important influence on the lives of his students and colleagues. Some-times this influence was exercised in ways that would seem very heavy-handed and toexceed the obligations imposed in a professional relationship between teacher andformer student. Kothari, for instance, was prevented by Saha from competing forentry into the Indian Civil Service. At the time Kothari served as a demonstrator inSaha's department. Normally Kothari would have continued in the department, butafter completing his postgraduate research abroad he left Allahabad for Delhi Uni-versity. This was fortunate for when Saha rejoined Science College in 1938, thephysics programme at Allahabad collapsed.

Saha was named to the chair in physics at Science College and, in addition, headeda laboratory there. With the support of his friend Subhas Chandra Bose, and alsowith Nehru's help, Saha raised funds to equip the laboratory for research in nuclearphysics. As at Allahabad, he put together a strong research team consisting for themost part of present and former students. In 1948 Saha founded the Institute for Nuc-lear Physics which was affiliated to the University. He was its Honorary Director forlife. As Saha became more and more involved with the affairs of the Institute, theDepartment of Physics, indeed Science College itself, lapsed into the "malaise of theUniversity and of Bengal" (Anderson, 1975, p. 59). Saha's new institute, accordingto one of its members, was run like a "small family". After Saha turned from scienceto politics in 1951, he could give little attention to the affairs of his institute. Eventu-ally the management of the Institute slipped beyond his control. After his death in1956, the Institute's fortunes suffered. "Saha operated", Anderson wrote in this con-nection, "in a world of science organizers who were engaged in a kind of competitivenon-co-operation" (Anderson, 1975, p. 95). "Single institutions", he observed,"were prone to division by faction and schizmogenesis'." This is particularly true ofuniversities. Homi Bhabha's accomplishments as a science organiser—he estab-lished the Tata Institute of Fundamental Research, the Atomic Energy Commissionand other scientific institutions—were more enduring largely because Bhabhaworked outside the university system.

The necessity of strong leadership emphasises the fragility of intellectual life in

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

01:

37 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

66 T. O. Eisemon

universities. The hierarchical traditions of the university system are a source of dis-content and foster ambitions unrestrained by institutional interests or professionalconventions. The routinisation of scholarly work ensures that discontent and ambi-tions are focused on matters of little academic consequence. In conflict situations,collegiality requires reinforcement from an inspirational figure.

Summary

The Indian university system was established in the 1850s in order to control expan-sion of higher education (Ashby, 1966). The universities' controlling function wasexpressed in the power to affiliate colleges and to examine students. Attempts to con-trol the growth of higher education from the mid-nineteenth century onwards gaveit a hierarchical character and contributed to the routinisation of Indian academiclife.

Reform of the university system was the subject of a series of governmentinquiries, the most important of which was initiated by Curzon in 1902 (the Educa-tion Commission, 1964-66). Invariably, these inquiries started from the premise thatthe weaknesses were most evident in the inability of universities to control theiraffiliated colleges and that this situation would be remedied through provisions formore state supervision of universities and through a tightening of the affiliatingarrangements (Government of India, 1966). In matters ranging from the selection ofcolleagues for professorial appointments to determining the organisation and con-tent of academic programmes, ultimate responsibility was vested in institutionsof collective governance (university councils and senates) in which professorialinterests were poorly represented. Responsibility even in such matters as the assess-ment of examination papers was vested not in individual staff but in administrativestructures which were subject to external interference.

Hierarchicalism and bureaucratisation have reinforced a tradition of paternalismdeeply embedded in universities and in Indian society, generally. By stricture andconvention, department heads, deans and others in an administrative capacity exer-cise considerable influence over the work of those in subordinate ranks. Relation-ships between superior and subordinate academic ranks are paternalistic rather thanbureaucratic. The obligations of leadership are not circumscribed by formal, care-fully delineated responsibilities associated with the functioning of academic institu-tions. They are much more encompassing. In the absence of a professional ethosguiding academic behaviour, the quality of administrative leadership assumes animportance in Indian colleges and universities that is seldom encountered elsewhere.Without strong leadership of a paternalistic nature, departments, faculties andinstitutions flounder. Paternalistic leadership provides protection against externalinterference. It also prevents the internal 'competitive non-co-operation' that oftendestroys academic institutions.

Correspondence: Professor Thomas O. Eisemon, Department of Administrationand Policy Studies in Education, McGill University, 3700 McTavish, Montreal,Quebec, Canada H3A 1Y2.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

01:

37 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014

Autonomy and Authority in an Indian University 67

NOTE

[1] The University Grants Commission was established in 1956 for the purpose of monitoring the expan-sion and initiating reform of the university system. It provides support to universities operated by thecentral government (centre) and development grants to university and postgraduate institutionsfinanced by the states.

REFERENCES

ALTBACH, P. (1972) The University in Transition (Bombay, Sindhu).ANDERSON, R. S. (1975) Building Scientific Institutions in India: Sana and Bhabha (Montreal, McGill

University Centre for Developing Area Studies).ASHBY, E. (1966) Universities, British Indian, African (Cambridge, MA, Harvard University Press).BASU, A. (1974) The Growth of Education and Political Development in India, 1898-1920 (Delhi, Oxford

University Press).CHITNIS, S. (1980) The Indian academic: an elite in the midst of scarcity, Annals, AAPSS, 448,

pp. 139-150.EISEMON, T. (1974) US Educated Engineering Faculty in India (Bombay, Popular Prakashan).GOVERNMENT OF INDIA (1966) Report of the Education Commission 1964-66 (New Delhi).MACIA, J. (1980) Survey of students and parents of students attending St. Xavier's College, mimeo

(Bombay, Tata Institute of Social Sciences).ST XAVIER'S COLLEGE (1980) Handbook 1980-81 (Bombay, St Xavier's College).SHILS, E. (1969) The academic profession in India, Minerva, 27, pp. 345-372.TICKOO, C. (1980) Indian Universities: a historical comparative perspective (Bombay, Orient Longman).UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY (1979a) Annual Report for the Year 1977-78 (Bombay, University Press).UNIVERSITY OF BOMBAY (1979b) Maharashtra Act No. XXII of 1974 (as amended, up to 26th January, 1979)

(Bombay University Press).WEBER, M. (1947) The Theory and Structure of Social and Economic Organizations, trans. A. M. HENDERSON

& T. PARSONS, with an editorial introduction by Parsons, pp. 358-363.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f C

ambr

idge

] at

01:

37 1

4 O

ctob

er 2

014