The government’s decision in April to channel public university research funding through the University Grants Commission (UGC) has since triggered an intense debate. Supporters defend the move as a step towards greater transparency, accountability, and coordination, while critics warn that it will undermine university autonomy. Both concerns deserve serious attention. However, both sides have focused almost exclusively on the machinery of research funding, thereby obscuring a more fundamental question. The issue is not simply who will distribute research grants but what this decision changes in the relationship between political authority and the production of knowledge.
This is overlooked because research funding is usually treated exclusively as a financial matter, though in practice it is not. Every funding system creates a hierarchy of dependence. When a central body gains the power to evaluate proposals, set research priorities, authorise projects, or stall approvals, it rewrites the rules of how knowledge is produced. In the end, it is about establishing who has leverage over researchers. What appears to be administrative is therefore also an epistemic reform. In other words, it changes not only the flow of money but also the ecology within which public knowledge is generated.
This is precisely why the current debate has become trapped in the wrong vocabulary. The government speaks the language of accountability. Academics, particularly those at public universities, respond with the language of autonomy. Accountability tells us whether public money is spent responsibly, whereas autonomy tells us who exercises institutional authority. Neither asks the question: what institutional conditions actually make independent knowledge possible?
That question comes first because knowledge is unlike any other public good. Governments cannot command an original idea in the way they can order roads to be built, taxes to be collected and regulations to be enforced. Knowledge, by contrast, often emerges by questioning precisely those assumptions that political authority, administrative routine or public consensus already regards as settled. A society that expects universities to produce reliable knowledge must therefore safeguard the conditions under which disagreement with power remains institutionally possible.
This is why universities cannot be understood merely as a branch of public administration. Their defining responsibility is not implementation but inquiry. Universities exist to examine whether prevailing decisions, assumptions and accepted truths withstand critical scrutiny. Their legitimacy therefore rests upon disciplined intellectual independence, which is not a privilege claimed by academics. Rather, it is a public good because every society eventually depends upon knowledge that someone had the freedom to pursue before anyone knew where the evidence would lead.
UGC has argued that research funded by taxpayers should be administered through a more transparent and accountable system. That concern is entirely legitimate. Admittedly, Bangladesh’s universities have not been free of weak research proposals, uneven standards, duplication, or inadequate financial oversight. Public accountability is therefore not an obstacle to good research; it is one of its necessary conditions.
But accountability answers only one question: whether public resources are being used responsibly. It does not answer another, equally important question: whether the institutional environment strengthens or weakens the conditions necessary for epistemic independence, upon which the production of reliable knowledge depends. A research system may become increasingly accountable while simultaneously becoming more institutionally dependent.
This distinction becomes particularly significant in light of Bangladesh’s non-ideal institutional and epistemic environment. In theory, centralised funding does not have to mean the end of independent scholarship. Many developed democracies, such as the US, the UK, and Australia, distribute research grants through national funding agencies. However, institutional arrangements cannot be evaluated independently of the political contexts in which they operate. Systems that function within long-established traditions of institutional independence, characterised by university autonomy, competitive peer review, procedural transparency, and strong safeguards against political interference, cannot simply be transplanted into environments shaped by different political realities.
In Bangladesh, appointments to the leadership of public universities and the UGC are, in practice, made by the executive, and the executive rarely appoints individuals it does not want in those positions. Whatever the competence, integrity, or academic distinction of those appointed, the institutional architecture already places the principal centres of university governance under the state’s sway. This is precisely why the issue is not the motives of particular officeholders but the structure within which they exercise authority. Institutional design should never depend on assumptions about individual virtue. The more important question is whether successive reforms are gradually consolidating authority over the institutions entrusted with the production of public knowledge.
Every expansion of administrative authority appears reasonable when examined in isolation. Each reform is defended on grounds of efficiency, accountability, or consistency. Their significance lies in the cumulative direction they move the institutional order. Institutions rarely forfeit their epistemic independence in a single act. More often, they adapt gradually and almost imperceptibly to the institutional structures they increasingly depend on, until that dependence comes to seem perfectly normal, a pattern that Bangladesh’s universities had already exhibited to a considerable extent even before this latest decision to channel research funding through the UGC.
The present controversy should therefore not be reduced to a dispute over budgets or bureaucratic procedure. It is not simply about who controls research funds, but about how the relationship between the state and the university is being reshaped through the further concentration of administrative authority over universities. It forces Bangladesh to confront a much deeper question: does the state regard universities primarily as administrative organisations whose activities require closer coordination? Or does it recognise them as epistemic institutions whose value lies precisely in their capacity to produce reliable knowledge that no government, however well-intentioned, can administratively prescribe?
A society may successfully centralise research funding. It may even improve financial accountability in doing so. However, if achieving financial accountability destroys the freedom to think and research independently, we will have merely traded a bureaucratic problem for an intellectual one—a dangerous exchange in Bangladesh’s already vulnerable academic landscape.
That is why the current debate is about far more than the UGC or the administration of research funds. It is about whether Bangladesh is fortifying or further attenuating the institutional conditions upon which independent knowledge ultimately depends.
Dr Kazi A S M Nurul Huda is associate professor of philosophy at the University of Dhaka and Zuzana Simoniova Cmelikova Visiting International Scholar in Leadership and Ethics at the University of Richmond’s Jepson School of Leadership Studies.
Views expressed in this article are the author's own.
Follow The Daily Star Opinion on Facebook for the latest opinions, commentaries, and analyses by experts and professionals. To contribute your article or letter to The Daily Star Opinion, see our guidelines for submission.
