The story of the Pandit Deendayal Upadhyaya Institute of Archaeology raises a fundamental question about public spending and institutional efficiency in India’s higher education system.
Constructed at a cost of nearly Rs.289 crores over 25 acres of land, this institute was planned as a premier research and training institute in archaeology. It has an excellent infrastructure consisting of a 1000-seater auditorium, sophisticated labs, a museum, and large academic structures.
However, even on that scale it is said that the campus now only has 15 students and no permanent staff, with much of the buildings under-used.
A visit to the ground presented empty corridors, locked rooms and hardly any activity other than administrative work; a grim picture in sharp contrast to the objective of such a significant national investment.
They contend that the institute operates on a ‘non-conventional’ model of fieldwork rather than classroom learning, with visiting scholars providing the teaching. But this raises other questions: can a national level academic institute function in this manner in the absence of curriculum, regular faculty and academic activity?
More Read
The problem here is not lack of usage, but structure versus outcome. India is most often found with a lack of infrastructure in education, here it’s the inverse problem of infrastructure without usage.
Besides, with a less student intake (approximately 20 25 earlier to only 15 students), it indicates a decline of the level of academics.
This “ghost campus” is not isolated to one institute; it exposes a governance problemhow to convert the public handouts into value for the public.
More Read
An internal review has reportedly been initiated, but the larger question remains: who is accountable when ambition turns into underperformance?
