Tag: JNU faculty

Delhi HC Raps JNU Admin for Denying Leave to Professor, Awards Compensation

The court said the rejection of Kumar’s application was “completely arbitrary” and expressed amazement at the university’s resistance to grant leave for a prestigious opportunity.

Kolkata: The Delhi high court on Tuesday came down heavily on the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) for denying professor of English, Udaya Kumar, an extra-ordinary leave (EOL) to join a fellowship programme at the prestigious Nantes Institute of Advanced Study, France.

A single bench of Justice Jyoti Singh of the Delhi high court set aside the JNU executive council’s (EC) order denying Kumar leave and directed the university to sanction it to the professor within three days. It also awarded Rs 20,000 in favour of the professor since he was “constrained to file the petition” due to the “illegal and arbitrary rejection” of his request. The professor was represented by lawyer Abhik Chimni.

Udaya Kumar, a redoubtable scholar and teacher at the Centre for English Studies (CES) at the School of Language, Literature and Cultural Studies, had, on January 21, 2020, applied for a nine-month EOL (without pay) to join a fellowship programme in France to be held from October 1, 2020, to June 30, 2021, at the Nantes Institute of Advanced Study. The Dean of the concerned school and the chairperson of the centre recommended the leave and forwarded the application to the Executive Council (EC).

The EC, in a meeting held on February 18, 2020, rejected the application. Kumar then sent multiple letters and emails to the vice-chancellor and registrar asking for reasons behind the rejection of his leave, stating that he met all criteria for availing the same. After numerous such communications from Kumar, the administration only conveyed to him that no reason was furnished by the EC. More letters and emails followed till July, but the JNU administration refused to cite the grounds on which Kumar was denied the EOL. It is then, that he was forced to move court challenging the EC order.

In its order, the high court said the rejection of Kumar’s application for grant of EOL “is completely arbitrary and against the provisions of the Ordinance of the University and contravenes Wednesbury’s Principles of reasonableness and fairness.” It also found the defence of the university “untenable in law”.

Also read: When a CV Selectively Determines Academic Excellence

The court added that it was a little amazed at the resistance of the university to grant the leave to Kumar as it would be a matter of great prestige for the university if a professor was offered a fellowship at a prestigious institute.

Kumar in his plea had said that he was eligible for the EOL according to all prescribed rules of the varsity. Besides, the chairperson of the centre and the Dean of the concerned school were of the opinion that the leave was justified and had recommended it only after ensuing that Kumar’s absence would not hamper regular academic activities at the CES in any way.

Not only that, Kumar had also pledged in an online faculty meeting on August 18 that he would continue to teach his course on Conceptual Structures in Language, Literature, Art and Culture online while being abroad and would duly complete course requirements.

Udaya Kumar told The Wire on Wednesday that he was heartened by the Delhi high court’s order. “Our university’s rules have rightly provided for leave for research and for taking up fellowships in reputed institutions, and these are to be administered in a transparent manner with academic considerations and sensitivity. I regard it as a matter of shame that I could not find a resolution to this issue within my university even after persistent attempts, and was left with no option but to seek legal remedies from the court,” he added. He was yet to receive the leave order from the university at the time of filing this story.

Jawaharlal Nehru University, Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, JNU VC, IIT Delhi, V Ramgopal Rao, JNU hostel fee hike, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad, ABVP, JNU violence, plagiarism, Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid, compulsory attendance, JNUSU, JNU Students' Union, JNUTA, JNU Teachers' Association,

JNU VC M. Jagadesh Kumar. Photo: Twitter

It is pertinent to mention here that as former chairperson of CES and as faculty member, Kumar has had many differences with the JNU administration over the last few years. Outside the JNU campus too, he has always taken a definitive stand on issues relating to students’ interest, and has seldom aligned himself with the political Right, which has desperately attempted to make inroads in JNU of late. Recently, he has vociferously opposed the arrest of his former colleague at DU, Hany Babu, by the NIA in the Elgar Parishad case.

The biggest flashpoint in his relationship with the JNU administration was the attendance issue. In December 2017, the university wanted to impose a mandatory 75% attendance on all students. While students erupted in protest, eight deans and chairpersons, including Udaya Kumar, were removed from their posts by the VC when they refused to implement the new rule. Six of them had moved the high court challenging the removal. The final verdict in the case Kavita Singh & Others V. JNU & Others is awaited, but Kumar and five others were reinstated by dint of an interim order.

Also read: How JNU VC Lost His Own Institution’s Trust

In the recent petition regarding the fellowship leave, Kumar’s counsel mentioned that the action of the university EC ‘is mala fide and has its genesis in the earlier litigation’ to which Kumar was a party. ‘It is on account of this litigation, which is still pending, that the Petitioner has been deprived of the benefit of EOL, which is his entitlement,’ the petition stated.

The larger JNU academic community has found it unfortunate that a teacher had to move court just to avail a leave he was entitled to.

Professor of linguistics at JNU Ayesha Kidwai thinks the leave application gave JNU administration an opportunity to be particularly vicious with Kumar. “But this is not a singular case. There are at least 125-150 faculty members in JNU who are all being victimised in separate ways. Udaya was punished because he stands for the collective opposition of JNU teachers to the destruction of JNU as a place of learning and as a place where the constitution guarantees education without discrimination on the basis of caste religion or gender. Udaya is an inspirational presence on the campus — courteous, reasoned, but firm. In every aspect of the discharge of his duties as a teacher, supervisor, member of academic bodies and chairperson, he does only what is fair, transparent and adhering to the highest academic standards,” she told The Wire.

Another senior professor, who didn’t want to be named, said, “In his former position of CES chairperson, Udaya had had frequent dealings with the administration and seen numerous instances of arbitrary and unwise decisions as well as starkly illegal ones. In such circumstances, there was no ethical option but to raise one’s voice.”

“As far as special leaves are concerned, such permissions have been denied to so many professors. In some cases, leave has been granted well after it was possible for them to go. And this has been done to faculty members who have never had clashes with the administration, but are just perceived as being unsympathetic,” the professor added.

Professor of arts and aesthetics at JNU Kavita Singh, too, faced a similar ordeal in the past. She had applied for an extra-ordinary leave to join a fellowship at the Getty Research Institute in California followed by a distinguished visiting professorship at the department of art history at the University of the Andes in Bogota, Colombia. but the EC sat on her application for five months and then rejected it. When she reapplied, she met with a similar response. She then moved the high court and, in February, 2019, her leave was granted only after a court order.

On Wednesday, she told The Wire that discouraging a faculty member from taking up research opportunities was a mode of self-harm for a university.

Also read: Living Through JNU’s ‘Bloody Sunday’: A University in Grave Crisis

“The occasional break to take up a fellowship becomes a lifeline that keeps our research careers afloat. We get time to think and write. They can open entirely new possibilities for us and enhance the visibility of our work. Then there are the great benefits of being exposed to different perspectives and long-lasting connections that may benefit our academic pursuits. Every university will have provisions for faculty to go on sabbatical and to take up fellowships and visiting positions elsewhere for its own benefit. Apart from the loftier goal of supporting knowledge-creation, these also count towards the metrics by which universities are ranked,” Singh said.

Indradeep Bhattacharyya teaches literature and is a former journalist based in Kolkata.

Delhi High Court Stays JNU Inquiry Against Teachers for Participating in Protest

Justice Suresh Kait sought the JNU administration’s response in a plea filed the professors. 

New Delhi: The Delhi high court on Wednesday stayed the inquiry initiated by the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) against 45 of its faculty members for participating in a protest march in July last year.

Justice Suresh Kait sought the JNU administration’s response on the plea by the teachers challenging the charges brought against them by the university. The court listed the matter on October 10 for further hearing.

The teachers, represented by senior advocate Kapil Sibal, said they had sent individual responses to the showcause notices, stating that no misconduct or violation of rules had taken place, as alleged by the administration.

The petition, filed by 45 faculty members, said the charges issued against them relied on three grounds to implicate them in the alleged “mala fide inquiry”.

One of the grounds was that the CCS (Conduct) Rules prohibit government servants from resorting to or abetting strikes, coercion or physical duress in matters pertaining to service.

The petition, filed through advocates Abhik Chimni, Maanav Kumar and Nupur, also referred to a direction of the high court in its August 9, 2017 order which placed certain restrictions on locations of strikes/protests being organised by students.

It said the petitioners and JNU teachers in general are not governed by the CCS (Conduct) Rules.

It said the JNU Teachers’ Association (JNUTA), through its general body meeting held on July 24, 2018, had proposed to organise a protest on July 31, 2018.

Also read: Chargesheet Against JNU Teachers Will Have a ‘Chilling Effect on Free Speech’

On July 30, 2018, JNUTA issued a letter to the vice chancellor of the university stating that it had tried to raise several genuine issues of concern and decisions taken by JNU including repeated violations of the JNU Act, Statutes and Ordinances, autonomy, teachers’ biometric attendance, online examination, IPR (Intellectual Property) policy, proposed Higher Education Financing Agency (HEFA) loan.

However, despite its best efforts there had been no response, dialogue or communication whatsoever from the authorities and in light of this, the teachers organised the protest march on July 31, last year, it said.

“In addition to the fact that the petitioners are not governed by the CCS (Conduct) Rules, it is submitted that the very application of these rules and its accompanying penalties is highly prejudicial to them.”

“If they are subjected to the present enquiry under the CCS (Conduct) Rules, there will be a grave risk of the respondents (authorities) taking coercive steps against them including placing the petitioners under suspension during the pendency of the enquiry; reducing the pay-scale, grade or their post to a lower stage for a specified period…. compulsorily retirement, removal or dismissal from service,” the petition said.

It added that the teachers will suffer severe harm, both during the pendency of this process and as a result of the final penalties that may be imposed on them.

The plea has arrayed JNU, its vice chancellor and registrar as parties in the case.

JNU VC Sends Notice to 48 Teachers, Union Calls It ‘Vindictive Targeting’

The JNU Teachers’ Union has accused the vice-chancellor of violating the JNU Act and selectively targeting dissenting teachers.

New Delhi: Forty-eight teachers of the Jawaharlal Nehru University, many of whom are members of the teachers’ union, have been issued notices by vice-chancellor Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar for participating in a day-long strike on July 31 last year. The teachers have to submit a “written statement of defence” by August 7, failing which an ex-parte inquiry will be initiated.

According to a statement by the JNU Teachers’ Association (JNUTA), the charges have been framed “under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Services (Classification, Control, and Appeal), Rules 1965 and invokes sections of the CCS (Conduct) Rules 1964”. It also refers to directions of the Delhi high court prohibiting protests within 100 m of the administrative block.

Refuting both the charges, JNUTA argues that CCS rules should not be applicable to autonomous institutions like universities as it would come in the way of academic freedom. It also claims that the high court ruling is applicable only to students.

Also read: JNU – The Story of the Fall of a Great University

A UGC-MHRD circular dated May 1, 2018, said, “such time that the concerned university formulates its statutes, ordinances, and regulations, for service matters…the university should follow the govt. of India rules/orders as applicable to central govt. civilian employees”. Proceedings against these 48 teachers were initiated after this circular enabled the imposition of CCS in JNU.

A detailed critique of the imposition of CCS rules on universities can be found here.

This circular faced widespread resistance from both teachers and students last year. After prolonged protests on the issues, the then HRD minister Prakash Javadekar had tweeted that, “We have neither put any restrictions nor intend to put any restrictions on “Freedom of Speech” in JNU, Delhi University or any other University.” The JNUTA argues that it is the stated position of the human resource development ministry that the CCS is not applicable to teachers.

JNUTA also claims that protests in the university had “forced the JNU Vice-Chancellor to withdraw his plans to impose CCS Rules in the 276th meeting of the JNU Executive Council held on Oct 22, 2018”. The Indian Express reported on October 23 that the VC had also declared that no CCS Rules were incorporated in JNU ordinances. “The V-C has also confirmed that no CCS rules have been incorporated in JNU ordinances,” the newspaper quoted registrar Pramod Kumar as saying.

Also read: Civil Service Rules Will Take Away Our Freedom to Dissent: JNU Faculty

Calling it “the latest in a chain of arbitrary disciplinary proceedings” against individual teachers, the JNUTA claims the goal of the notice is harassment and intimidation. The teachers’ union has expressed solidarity with teachers who it claims “have been selectively and vindictively targeted” by the JNU administration. They allege that this is a reaction to teachers raising their voices against the “misdeeds and mismanagement of the university”.

Last year’s strike, for which the notices have been served, was called in response to alleged violations of reservation policy in the university, “arbitrary removal and appointment” of chairpersons and deans, “harassment and selected targeting” of teachers and various other administrative and procedural issues. The teachers were demanding that the VC be sacked and now feel that the administration is being vindictive about it.

JNU VC M Jagadesh Kumar. Photo: PTI

Also read: ‘Feel Like Committing Suicide’: JNU Prof Alleges Harassment Due to Muslim Identity

Beyond such allegedly “arbitrary” action, imposing CCS rules in universities is bound to have a wider impact on free speech as it prohibits criticism of the government and its policies and restricts various activities considered integral to academic life. The rules bar a government official from “participating in any political activity, to strike work and also to publish anything without the permission of the government”. A detailed response from the JNU faculty on this can be read here.

In the past couple of years, there have been regular protests in JNU as neither the students’ union nor the teachers’ union has been satisfied with the way the VC Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar has been running the university. He is seen by many as a loyalist of the Central government who has been assigned the task of ‘depoliticising’ the university. In January this year, 49 MPs from different parties wrote to then HRD minister Prakash Javadekar demanding the removal of the JNU VC and demanded an inquiry against him.

Also read: Civil Service Rules Will Take Away Our Freedom to Dissent: JNU Faculty

The JNU Students’ Union has also expressed support and solidarity with the 48 teachers. “The chargesheet comes at a time when the JNU community is fighting against dictatorial policies of the JNU VC which are anti-student and anti-education. This is an attack on the university, on learning and teaching,” JNUSU president N. Sai Balaji told The Wire.

Atul Sood, JNUTA president, told The Wire that the teachers marched in protest because the administration wasn’t responding to the letters sent by them raising various issues of concern. He claims that it was a peaceful gathering and there was no disruption of any kind that deserves disciplinary action.

“It seems like the JNU administration doesn’t believe in responding to important stakeholders like teachers. We were seeking a response on why the university is not being run as per the JNU Act and received no response at all,” he added. He claims that an attempt is being made to paint teachers as troublemakers while it’s actually the administration that is flouting rules and regulations.

The Wire has emailed a questionnaire to the JNU VC. The story will be updated when there’s a response.

Delhi HC Restores JNU Academic, Executive Bodies’ Power to Approve Faculty Selection Panel

The order was passed in a case filed by the university’s faculty members, who said vice chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar had “collapsed” a democratic system.

New Delhi: In an interim order on the process of selecting faculty members at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), the Delhi high court restored the Academic Council (AC) and the Executive Council (EC)’s power to approve the members constituting the selection panel, including those recommended by vice chancellor (VC) M. Jagadesh Kumar.

Welcoming the ruling, faculty members of the JNU said the court has restored the process that was followed before 2017, calling it “democratic and by the rule of law”. They said in 2017, the VC “collapsed” this system by giving himself the “power to add names to the panel of experts and merely report these to the EC”.

Earlier system

Earlier, every school and centre at JNU could chalk out a list of academic experts in their respective fields. This was then, through the board, sent to the AC. Subsequently, the VC would pick three names from the list ratified by the AC as well as the EC.

“Those who prepared the list didn’t know who was going to be selected. It was a very democratic process” said Ranjani Mazumdar, professor of Cinema Studies at the School of Arts and Aesthetics.

The AC, as the faculty members say, not only consists of teachers from different Schools and Centres, but also external experts to ensure transparency. The external members were usually selected by the VC based on recommendations made by the schools, keeping disciplinary requirements in mind.

Also Read: JNU Students, Teachers Say VC Guilty of ‘Suppressing Dissent’ in Academic Council

The VC, Mazumdar says, started adding names to the database of experts unilaterally after amending the existing regulation in 2017. Kumar apparently got the names cleared by the EC, using those people to constitute selection committees and to make new faculty appointments. “He was manipulating the entire process. This was real corruption,” she said.

After the amendment, Ayesha Kidwai (professor at school of languages) says a lot of “questionable appointments” were made. This, she said, led to a reduction in the quality of teaching. Kidwai said Mohan Lal Chhipa, who was on one of the selection committees of experts to appoint an economics teacher, allegedly had no CV or any record on the internet.

“I could only find one book which has a paper written by him, but nothing beyond that. He is the vice chancellor at Atal Bihari Vajpayee Hindi University, Bhopal. I also found his name on a VHP organising committee list from Udaipur,” said Kidwai.

According to the Hindustan Times, in 2016, the VC introduced the vedas and writings of bygone-era mathematician Bhaskaracharya and sage scientist Acharya Kanad in the BTech curriculum to “promote Indian science and culture”.

Professor Kidwai added that a professor from Gurukul Kangri University who was demoted from his position was selected for a panel to appoint an assistant professor in the Centre for English Studies. Similarly, a professor of tourism was called to appoint a professor of ancient India, she said.

In 2018, at least two faculty members nominated by the VC and two newly recruited teachers were caught for producing plagiarised work, The Wire reported.

File photo of JNU vice chancellor M. Jagadeesh Kumar. Credit: PTI

Petitions filed

The teachers, therefore, decided to knock on the doors of the court. Mazumdar, along with Jayati Ghosh, Bishnupriya Dutt, C.P. Chandrashekhar, Ravi Srivastava, and G. Arunima, filed a petition two years ago, challenging the VC’s “tampering with the database of experts by unilaterally giving himself the power to add experts of his choosing”. Another petition was filed in 2017, after the EC amended a regulation that removed the role of the AC in approving the database of experts, challenging the amendment as well.

When recruitment was announced in March 2019 and 90 positions were advertised, JNU teachers moved an interim application asking the court’s urgent intervention to restore the crucial role of the schools and centres and the Academic Council.

The vice chancellor and the office of registrar, however, told the court that the Academic Council has no role to play in matters of recruitment.

JNU’s counsel Monika Arora argued  that the jurisdiction of the AC should only relate to matters pertaining to “education and examination” and not the selection of teachers.

Also Read: New JNU Appointees Caught in Plagiarism Charges

However, Justice C. Hari Shankar dismissed her argument saying, “I find it surprising that JNU is seeking to argue contrary to its own statutes.” He stated that the Clause(15)(3)(a) of the JNU Act gives the AC the power to take decisions over matters related to the recruitment of faculty members.

“It may be questionable whether it is all open to JNU to contend that matters relating to recruitment and faculty positions are outside the jurisdiction of the AC, when, by its own statues, specifically Clause 15(3)(a) thereof, JNU had itself conferred the said power on the AC,” he said.

The JNUTA, in their press release, said that the order “upheld the teachers’ viewpoint (through their counsel Mr Akhil Sibal and Mr Abhik Chimni).”

However, the teachers said they did not intend to limit the powers of the VC. “We are not seeking to constrain the powers of the VC, as defined in the JNU Act, in any way. We only argued that the subject experts in different fields must prepare the list, not others, as subject expertise rests with the schools/centres. A selection panel that comprises non-experts or experts with no credentials has an adverse impact on the quality of selections, and therefore the standards of instruction,” Kidwai added.

The high court order says that for the time being, it will not “interdict” the VC’s power to add or suggest names for the panel of experts. However, the names suggested by the VC would have to be mandatorily be approved by the AC and then passed onto the EC for approval. “It is only thereafter that the panel could operate,” the court said.

Kidwai, and other teachers praised the verdict, saying it took their grievances into account. “For us, the most important issue is not ideology, but the issue of academic quality,” Kidwai said.

The Delhi high court’s complete order is attached below.

DHC Order Panel of Expert by The Wire on Scribd

Teachers, Be Aware, Biometric is Here 

The act of teaching and research needs creativity. It needs freedom; it has no ‘fixed’ time.

No, as the ‘system’ asserts, as teachers we can no longer escape from work. Gone are the days of being ‘lazy’, ‘inefficient’ and ‘irresponsible’ because here is the biometric system of attendance – yet another gift of the surveillance machinery – that will compel us to work, and generate what the university as a ‘product’ needs: the cult of ‘efficiency’, the measurement of ‘performance’, and the meticulously designed social engineering of what the MBA graduates are fond of regarding as ‘time management’. 

The other day a student of mine teaching at a leading private university in Bengaluru told me: “Sir, you people are horrified because at JNU it is finally coming, but we are already experiencing it; we are used to it.” Yes, she is right. The system wants us to be used to everything it demands; and possibly, it is not far away when as teachers (even in this ‘radical’ university) we would begin to say that we are essentially immoral and irresponsible, and the biometric system is good because it forces us to work. This is the way the hegemony operates.

In this article I do not wish to be obsessed with my own university or its moment of darkness. Instead, with reflexivity enriched by criticality, I concentrate on two issues:

(a) Why is it that academic bureaucrats, policy-makers, techno-managers and even the larger society suspect us, and assume that we earn our salary without doing anything?;

(b) Is it really true that we give our best only when we are under surveillance? Or is it possible to unite creative freedom and engaged responsibility?

Genesis: negative stereotypes and wounded identities

You need not be a profound field worker to know, that as a society, we have already developed a set of stereotypes about teachers. First, we attach a negative gendered meaning to the vocation of school teaching; it is seen to be a ‘soft’ job which doesn’t require much talent, and it is good for women because men, in order to retain the patriarchal authority, have to enter the ‘hard’ domain of ‘true’ professionalism: techno-science and management, and bureaucracy and army.

Second, college/university teachers – particularly, those who are teaching liberal arts and social sciences, as the opinion goes, are not sufficiently talented; and unlike the professional faculty in the pampered IITS/IIMS, they are mere talkers, and do nothing substantial and relevant. No wonder, as the aspiring class laments, we have not yet produced our own Oxford or Harvard.

I know that the stereotypes are not absolutely unreal; possibly, living experiences, too, help to create these stereotypes. Yes, we have schools which, because of a faulty pattern of examination and evaluation, promote only rote learning; and creative experimentation is not supposed to characterise a teacher.

Also read: Rethinking the Idea of a Nation Requires New Sensibilities, Not Bookish Knowledge

She only does an 8 to 3 pm job, disseminates the ‘facts’ derived  from the badly written textbooks, retains ‘order’ in the classroom, exist primarily as a passive employee, and even takes part in the census work or the polio vaccination programme. With a routinised B.Ed degree, an average intelligence, and some sort of efficiency in ‘spoken English’, anyone, as society thinks, can become a teacher!

This is a vicious cycle. The more society degrades its teachers, the more they become crippled. It discourages bright, young minds to join the vocation. Eventually, they become what society feels they are. Hence, all sorts of NGOs and techno-managers have the inherent right to ‘educate’ these teachers, ‘discipline’ them, and make them ‘productive’. These days, ‘workshops’ or ‘skill development’ programmes at schools is good business. 

As we see the arrival of the techno-managerial elite guided by the neoliberal logic of corporatisation of education, the discourse of ‘efficiency’ becomes irresistible.

Likewise, many of our colleges and universities, are acting like factories for mass distribution of degrees and diplomas. At a time when nepotism, political interference and networking severely affect the recruitment of teachers (what else can you expect when see the VC of a university in Andhra Pradesh speaking of the prevalence of ‘test tube babies’ in the age of Mahabharata in the Indian Science Congress), corruption is normalised, and teachers, barring exceptions, do not necessarily generate positive vibrations. 

Furthermore, as we see the arrival of the techno-managerial elite guided by the neoliberal logic of corporatisation of education, the discourse of ‘efficiency’ becomes irresistible. It suspects ‘inefficient’ teachers; it dislikes ’empty ideas’; it wants tangible, solid, efficient ‘products’; and it needs to measure everything –the number of hours spent teaching, papers published in the journals with the high ‘impact factor’,  ‘skills’ teachers disseminates in the allotted time, and the ‘ranking’ they assure.

In other words, the administrative/managerial logic is like this: Be harsh. Discipline these teachers. Make them work. Demand constant performance from them. Establish absolute visibility over everything they do!

Surveillance and the celebration of mediocrity 

Is it, therefore, surprising that the biometric system of attendance becomes the natural choice: the logical consequence of a culture filled with what Michel Foucault would have regarded as the ‘micro physics of power’ assuring constant observation, hierarchisation and normalisation? Yes, it is smooth, technologically convenient and efficient.

If private universities have already introduced it, why should ‘politically disturbed’ public universities remain free from it? Don’t bother even if the leading universities in the world do not have it. As the UGC officials would argue, we are Indians; we are irresponsible; and hence, as some of our loyal vice-chancellors insist, we must be subject to surveillance. 

However, let us ask the question: Does it necessarily assure good performance by teachers? This requires a deep understanding of the act of teaching and research. It needs creativity. It needs freedom. And it has no ‘fixed’ time. Even though you attend the 9 am class, deliver a lecture, it is not merely about one hour. Beneath a good lecture lies background research and reading which often take place at odd hours.

Furthermore, even if you are instructed to sit in your chamber from 9 am to 5 pm, it does, by no means, indicate that you are really growing, thinking and evolving. Perhaps, had you been able to attend a conference, visit a library or just watch a Mrinal Sen film (do all these registrars and vice-chancellors manage to watch good films, and read enchanting books?), you have enriched yourself as a teacher/thinker/researcher. 

Also read: Amid Political Interference and Obsession With Ranking, Our Academic Culture is in Serious Trouble

No, techno-managers and stubborn, non-reflexive vice-chancellors are incapable of understanding this nuanced art of teaching. Hence, there are moments when I fear that the consequences of the biometric system of attendance would be disastrous. Yes, like factory workers ,we would enter the campus at 9 am; and then, after mechanically completing the teaching process, we would order samosa and pakoda, look at some official files, wait for the lunch break; we would gossip, and see the rise and fall of the sharemarket.

Or, if the vice-chancellor wants, we would love to reduce ourselves into the role of data-providers: the attendance registrar of students, the projects applied for, the selfies taken at the moment of attending the surgical day celebration, and the bills for the money we have sent in zeroxing the course outline and the reading list. Yes, we would become ‘punctual’ and ‘efficient’. Let creativity diminish, and mediocrity prevail.

But, is it possible to resist this notorious practice of surveillance: a conspiracy against emancipatory education? My feeling is that most of us have already lost it. There could be two reasons:

First, we do not want to protest because the experience of an act of resistance is not like reading a paper at an ‘international’ conference; it means ‘risks’; and, as the deeply internalised middle class self-whispers, it is not a good idea.

Second, we are not very sure about our own moral and pedagogic strength – whether we are truly capable of living with creative freedom, and giving our best to our universities. We are not sure, whether through the art of self-discipline, we can unite responsibility and freedom. 

With chronic self-doubt, how can we resist a system that is against the creative spirit of teaching and research?

Avijit Pathak is a professor of sociology at JNU.

After Giving Prof Johri Clean Chit in #MeToo Case, JNU ICC Says He May Need Protection

The IIC gave Johri a clean chit saying he posed “no threat,” and that instead it was Johri and his family who faced a threat from the complainants, along with other students on campus. 

New Delhi: After JNU professor Atul Johri, against whom at least eight women filed FIRs accusing him of sexual harassment under Sections 354 and 509 of the IPC, was given a clean chit in July 2018, the university’s Internal Complaints Committee (IIC) has recommended that if need be, his family be provided adequate security against students who “gheraoed his house and threatened his family”.

Atul Johri. Credit: jnu.ac.in

Atul Johri. Credit: jnu.ac.in

On March 21, 2018, Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) professor Atul Johri was arrested over allegations of sexual harassment by eight women. After the allegations surfaced, the case was transfered to the Delhi high court, which directed JNU to investigate them.

In its report dated July 23, 2018, the IIC gave Johri a clean chit, saying he posed “no threat” to the complainants, and that instead it was Johri and his family who faced a threat from the complainants, along with other students on campus.

The report also noted that Johri and his wife previously maintained cordial relations with the complainants and that the accusations were ultimately made with ulterior motives in mind. While it stated the allegations against the defendant were proved wrong, the fact that none of the complainants appeared before the committee left out “certain ingredients” which could not be ascertained.

According to the Indian Express, the report says:

“[The] committee has observed that contrary to the apprehension of the complainants, it is complainants and their witnesses who, in association with other student leaders of JNU, have threatened the defendant, his family and his current student/research trainee”

The report was signed by six members, including ICC presiding officer Vibha Tandon, according to the Indian Express.

The Delhi high court had directed the ICC to examine all the material on record, and furnish a report before the court. The JNU ICC did so in August 2018 and now the matter is listed for hearing on January 25.

Also read: JNU’s #MeToo Moment Is About Confronting Two Years’ Worth of Administrative Failures

The ICC report also concluded Johri was not a threat to the witnesses or anyone on campus, or in a position to influence any evidence. Therefore, it states, there are no grounds for his removal from the JNU campus or to suspend him.

The report also recommends the appointment of female faculty members to visit the hostels to discuss the issues with female students and submit their recommendations in order to make the “academic atmosphere better and to avoid any such incidents in the future.”

Advocate Vrinda Grover, counsel for the complainants, said “The report is totally perverse and the complainants will challenge it before the high court. The report is to protect Atul Johri.”

Also read: JNU Professor Arrested in Sexual Harassment Case, Gets Bail

Johri’s lawyer, Amit Anand Tiwari, said that since he has already been given a clean chit by the ICC, they will request the high court to discount its earlier directive so that Johri can resume his administrative post.

Johri was arrested after three hours of questioning at the Vasant Kunj police station three days after the allegations surfaced. He was subsequently  produced before duty magistrate Ritu Singh.

In order to get bail, Johri, who was from the department of Life Sciences, was directed to furnish a bond of Rs 30,000 for each of the eight FIRs registered against him. Johri moved the bail plea, saying sending him to prison would ruin his career.

Mandatory Attendance Will Establish ‘Regime of Surveillance’: JNUTA Report

The teachers’ association surveyed 75 premier global institutions, finding the regulation to be “antithetical to the idea of a University”.

A report released by the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) found that the administration’s directive for faculty members to mark their attendance daily will restrict academic freedom and will “lead to the destruction of research”.

The JNUTA, released a report on January 4, 2019, attacked the administration’s decision. It revealed that except for one university in Malaysia, such a rule does not exist in 75 premier and highly ranked universities abroad. It stated that university professors from different countries unequivocally “expressed shock and outrage at the new attendance policy instituted by the JNU administration.”

Also Read: Delegation of MPs to Meet With HRD, Demand Removal of JNU’s Vice Chancellor

The administration made it mandatory for the faculty to mark daily attendance on July 13, 2018 at the 146th Academic Council meeting. The JNUTA said that it was forcefully imposed “without any consultation in the statutory bodies of the University”.

The JNUTA wrote several letters to the administration seeking why the decision was taken, but got no response. On December 2, 2018, the JNUTA observed a day-long hunger strike against the move, but the administration declined their request and instead decided to link the faculty’s attendance with the disbursal of their salary.

After several failed attempts, the teachers’ association decided to conduct a survey of 75 universities in 21 countries, only to find that it is not a global practice and is “antithetical to the idea of a University”.

The survey covered 32 European universities, 27 from the USA and Canada and 16 from other countries. Out of these, only the University of Malay, Kuala Lumpur (Malaysia) has compulsory daily attendance for its faculty. The JNUTA spoke with professors from different universities abroad, who called the new attendance policy a means to “establish a regime of surveillance” which will eventually lead to “total destruction of research”.

The announcement that JNU would be launching a School of Engineering was controversial in itself. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

The JNUTA claimed the directive will lead to the destruction of research. Credit: Wikimedia Commons

Means of surveillance

The introduction of daily attendance has been dubbed as a method to improve academic accountability in the unviersity, but the survey found it as a mechanism to exercise surveillance in the university and “further degrade the quality of research and teaching”.

The report quoted Barbara Harriss-White (formerly at Oxford University) as saying, “The academic has a professional vocation. My understanding of the definition of a profession is the self-governing practice of complex skills. To be under such surveillance is anathema to the academic profession.”

Also Read: I Was Forced to Quit JNU After Being Denied Salary for Ten Months

Similarly, professor John Harriss at Simon Fraser University, Canada said, “What counts is that faculty members teach their classes and do their research, and most academicians monitor themselves in relation to high professional standards. What counts for students is that they should do their work – complete their assignments/experiments/other assessed activities – satisfactorily. Absolutely no need for recording attendance except for purposes of surveillance.”

Prof Ha-Joon Chang, from the University of Canada, also decried the policy, saying South Korean universities, even under military dictatorship, did not have such laws. She added, “India’s certainly leapfrogging ahead of the technologically more advanced countries in building a surveillance society.”

Destruction of research

However, many scholars and professors have supported the new attendance policy. Amita Singh of Centre for Study of Law and Governance told the Times of India, “The decision would bring greater accountability on part of the teachers as many of them do not attend offices and are busy with other work.”

The JNUTA’s report, on the contrary, states that academic work is not restricted to university spaces and entails field visits, surveys and international exposure.

Professor Javed Majeed, from King’s College, told the survey, “Since research and teaching are the core activities in academe and the work for these are done to a very large extent in libraries and elsewhere, marking daily attendance at an institution actually undermines these key activities. It will impact negatively on the quality of research and teaching, and therefore also negatively on students.”

Jens Lerche, from SOAS, London, told the JNUTA that the attendance policy is “a grave attack on academic freedom; and an appalling and counterproductive move. Unless, of course, the idea is to dispense with academic freedom and ultimately with the academics.”

Furthermore, professor Mukulika Banerjee from the London School of Economics said, “Marking attendance may satisfy marking the physical presence of faculty members, but it doesn’t ensure high quality teaching or esteem of the university. In my university (LSE) it is routine for faculty members to be present on campus only about 3 days in a week and only during teaching terms. And even this is entirely flexible, as long as all teaching duties are fulfilled.”

Prof. Kavita Singh speaks at JNUTA’s Aakrosh Dharna Credit: Samim Asgor Ali

Misuse of biometric system

The JNU administration plans to introduce a biometric system for marking daily attendance. it claims the system is only to ensure security, not to limit academic freedom.

The JNUTA report says in the University of the Witwatersrand in South Africa, the biometric system is used “due to fact of rising violence of campus” and “not to limit academic freedom”.

Michelle Williams, a professor from the university, said the system is not for academic purposes. She states, “The justification for the security upgrade [biometrics] was a rise in crime on campus despite our access control system. Many people criticised the installation of biometric and argued that it could be used to monitor and control academics, but it has not been used for this purpose and we’ve been assured it will not be.”

Also Read: JNU Faculty Members Criticise ‘Extreme Penalties’ Recommended Against PhD Scholar

Furthermore, the biometric system entails monitoring costs and other associated finances. This, the JNUTA claims, explains the administration’s alleged cutting down on academic expenditure.

Highlighting the expenses, Robert Jenkins from the City University of New York says, “Enforcing daily attendance at university is likely to create perverse incentives, increase costs of monitoring, and reduce overall positive impacts.”

The JNU administration’s decision to impose daily attendance through a biometric system will likely restrict the faculty members to the university spaces, having an adverse effect on the students and the overall stature of one of India’s highly-ranked universities.

JNU Faculty Members Criticise ‘Extreme Penalties’ Recommended Against PhD Scholar

The university’s ICC found the scholar’s sexual harassment complaint ‘frivolous’ and recommended she be debarred. The faculty members said the move was meant to serve as a deterrent from filing such complaints.

New Delhi: Faculty members of the Jawaharlal Nehru University expressed their shock at the “extreme penalties” recommended against a PhD student whose complaint of sexual harassment against her guide was deemed “frivolous” by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC).

On December 13, media reports said that the ICC report wanted the scholar to be completely debarred from entering the campus. The university’s vice-chancellor is yet to take a final call on the report. The academic council may put the scholar’s degree on hold until proceedings are complete.

While the faculty members said they were not privy to either the details of the complaint or the justification the ICC has for arriving at this conclusion, they said the “severity of the penalties imposed” were extremely troubling.

Also Read: Jawaharlal Nehru University – We are Dying, Mr. Vice-Chancellor

“The ICC has recommended that the student be debarred, her degree withheld, and that she can never study or be given employment in JNU in future. Moreover, the student is prohibited from entering the campus for any academic or personal purpose; and has to be escorted by security guards to depose in any enquiry proceedings,” the statement reads.

“To destroy a woman student’s career by simply declaring her to be a liar without following the first principle of feminist due process is totally unacceptable. The adoption of such draconian punishments to women students is clearly meant to serve as a deterrent to all women against filing sexual harassment complaints in future,” the faculty members added.

Reiterating the “strong protest” about the dismantling of GSCASH and the current working of the ICC, the statement notes that gender discrimination on campus had increased. “The ICC has produced a hostile work environment in JNU and this is unacceptable,” they said.

The complete statement has been reproduced below.

§

We, the undersigned faculty at the Jawaharlal Nehru University express our shock and outrage at the extreme penalties recommended against a doctoral student for bringing a sexual harassment complaint against her teacher.

According to a report in the Indian Express (dated 13 December 2018), JNU’s Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) has decided to punish a student for allegedly filing a ‘false’ sexual harassment complaint against a teacher in what it has deemed to be a ‘frivolous’ complaint.

While we are not privy to either the details of the complaint or the justification the ICC has for arriving at this conclusion — rather than simply the failure to substantiate a complaint—we find the severity of the penalties imposed extremely troubling.

The ICC has recommended that the student be debarred, her degree withheld, and that she can never study or be given employment in JNU in future. Moreover, the student is prohibited from entering the campus for any academic or personal purpose; and has to be escorted by security guards to depose in any enquiry proceedings. Further, she was advised not to travel abroad pending enquiry; nor has her degree been awarded yet, foreclosing her ability to move on to other academic venues. Further, the student’s future career opportunities are thwarted by the recommendation to deny a character certificate or No Objection certificate by the University.

Never have such stringent penalties to our recollection, been imposed in JNU against any perpetrator found guilty of sexual harassment in JNU, let alone against complainants. These outrageous recommendations are disproportionate to any findings of the ICC of a complaint being without merit. Such a finding does not legitimise the withdrawal of a degree, travel ban, or out of bounds order for the complainant. They are also contrary to the law. When an ICC finds a complaint to be manifestly false then it is required by law to establish malicious intent and this too requires the adoption of a fair procedure to the complainant.

To destroy a woman student’s career by simply declaring her to be a liar without following the first principle of feminist due process is totally unacceptable. The adoption of such draconian punishments to women students is clearly meant to serve as a deterrent to all women against filing sexual harassment complaints in future.

This is just one case that has been reported in the media. But there is a larger disturbing background, which is the way in which the ICC has re-opened and re-tried on-going cases of GSCASH. This process has established that the ICC has little understanding of how to approach cases of sexual harassment. Many students have reported feeling intimidated by the manner in which enquiries are conducted. Many students have withdrawn their cases from the ICC due to fear of intimidation and harassment. Others fear that their testimonies of harassment may be treated as false complaints.

Instead of working together with JNU students and teachers to create a gender-just workplace, the administration destroyed the existing GSCASH and has installed in its place a committee that is full of nominated members close to the administration. The ICC is not autonomous nor is it committed to providing fair and just procedure to women.

The undersigned faculty reiterate their strong protest about the dismantling of GSCASH; the current working of the ICC and the increased gender discrimination on campus. The ICC has produced a hostile work environment in JNU and this is unacceptable.

Ameet Parameswaran, Archana Prasad, Avinash Kumar, Ayesha Kidwai, Bishnupriya Dutt, Brahm Prakash, Chirashree Dasgupta, Chitra Harshvardhan, G Arunima, Ira Bhaskar, Jayati Ghosh, Kamal Chenoy, Kavita Singh, Kumkum Roy, Lata Singh, Madhu Sahni, Manidipa Sen, Moushumi Basu, Navaneetha Mokkil, Nilika Mehrotra, Nivedita Menon, Parnal Chirmuley, Pradip K. Datta, Pratiksha Baxi, Rama Baru, Ramila Bisht, Ranjani Mazumdar, Riddhi Shah, Rohit Azad, Shambhavi Prakash, Sucharita Sen, Sucheta Mahajan, Supriya Verma, Urmimala Sarkar, V Sujatha, Veena Hariharan, Vikas Bajpai, Vikas Rawal, Anuradha Chenoy and Mohan Rao.

JNU’s #MeToo Moment Is About Confronting Two Years’ Worth of Administrative Failures

JNU’s administration is under fire for failing to suspend a professor who has been accused of sexual harassment by nine women.

It’s been a few months since dozens of women accused Harvey Weinstein of sexual harassment and assault, effectively ending his career and also starting a global movement to hold perpetrators responsible for their actions. Several other men have since found themselves in the spotlight for all the wrong reasons, but despite massive support online, most Indian circles have remained mum about the state of their own affairs. Now, months after an anonymously sourced list of Indian academics accused of sexual misdemeanours went public, Jawaharlal Nehru University is caught in the middle of its own ‘Me Too’ moment.

At least nine women have filed FIRs against Professor Atul Johri from the School of Life Sciences accusing him of sexual harassment under Sections 354 and 509 of the Indian Penal Code. However, over two days after the complaints were lodged, Johri is not yet in police custody and has not been suspended by JNU’s administration – which has sparked off a series of protests all over the university’s campus.

It all started on Thursday night when a student who had been missing from campus for a few days, returned and withdrew from her PhD programme, citing Johri’s inappropriate behaviour as the reason. In just a few hours, six other women had come forward with allegations against the same man. Accompanied by several students, including JNU students’ union’s former vice president Shehla Rashid, the women managed to lodge an FIR at the Vasant Kunj police station after several hours of arguing with police personnel. By Saturday afternoon, the number of FIRs had risen to nine.

On Friday, students gathered outside the Administration Block to present officials with a letter demanding Johri’s immediate suspension. As Geeta Kumari, JNU students’ union president, pointed out to The Wire, it is part of due process to suspend the accused to prevent them from exercising any influence on the university’s investigation into the accusations. However, in this case, JNU’s vice chancellor and three rectors decided to talk to Johri’s accusers in a closed room where they did not allow anyone else to accompany the students.

Professor Ayesha Kidwai explained that the law – under which JNU’s new internal complaints committee (ICC) was formed – allows both the accusers and accused to have supporters accompany them. It’s a formal recognition of the support systems that women in such situations often employ anyway. Kidwai asked, “Is it appropriate for the VC to call these women for a meeting who are right now at the mercy of the accused? Or is it his responsibility to reassure them?”

Faculty, including Kidwai, have also released a public statement, which says, “We demand that Prof. Johri be immediately removed from all these positions, as the allegations against him bring great disrepute to the university.” The letter also refers to Johri as “the Vice-Chancellor’s favourite nominee on several committees” and points out that he holds multiple positions of power on campus, including director of the university’s Internal Quality Assurance Cell, director of the Human Resource Development Cell and being a warden.

One of the main lessons to come out of the Weinstein movement is that power can be an effective silencer of women. This may not be new information, but it is newly potent, given the moment we’re in and the administrative silence that followed Raya Sarkar’s list a few months ago. Power defines relationships and sets precedents for who can say and do what – and who can’t complain about it. Internal institutions like JNU’s Internal Complaints Committees, then, are tasked with not only delivering justice in cases brought to them, but ensuring that they seem like a fair and accessible option for students in the first place.

By going straight to the Vasant Kunj police station, JNU’s students have made their preferences – and expectations from JNU’s administration – very clear.

From 1999 until last year, gender and sexual harassment concerns went through the Gender Sensitisation Committee against Sexual Harassment, or as its better known, GSCASH. This independent body was replaced with a new one last year – the Internal Complaints Committee. The ICC is mostly made up of administration-appointed staff and three student elected representatives. Although the GSCASH was technically disbanded last year, JNU students contested elections for the post of student representatives anyway and, in a way, have kept the body alive despite its formal dissolution. Last night’s protestors were also seen with posters that demanded the body’s formal return.

JNU’s faculty too have acknowledged the ICC’s apparent trust problem. Their statement reads, “We support the complainants’ exercise of their rights to approach the police, but rue the fact that the illegal and immoral dissolution of GSCASH has resulted in a situation in which no aggrieved person seems to have any faith in the delivery of justice within the institution on matters of sexual harassment.” The same letter also notes that this is the second instance of students filing police reports for sexual harassment and bypassing the ICC because “complainants do not have faith in the autonomy, impartiality, and commitment to complete confidentiality of the JNU ICC”.

The student body’s diminishing faith in the administration isn’t restricted to the ICC either. Agnes Linko, who’s pursuing an MA in Arts and Aesthetics, told The Wire that the current rash of protests is the result of resentment that’s been brewing for two years now. “We can’t take it anymore,” she said.

She was referring to the long list of problems that have cropped up on campus in the last two years, the most recent one being the enforcement of compulsory attendance which has lead to widespread protests of its own. In fact, as students demanded Johri’s suspension in one part of JNU, other students were staging a lockdown at the Centre for Historical Studies. Protestors wanted to present newly-appointed dean Umesh Kadam with a letter requesting him to reject the position. As the students sat in front of the door of Kadam’s new office to prevent him from entering, female university guards started to push their way through the students. When the students lay down to continue protesting, videos show the guards stepping on students to make their way to the door.

Late on Friday night, the students from the School of Arts and Aesthetics released a statement announcing their intention to go on strike with support from JNUSU and the Jawaharlal Nehru University teachers’ association (JNUTA), to draw attention to the “autocratic measures” introduced by the new administration, especially vice chancellor Mamidala Jagdesh Kumar, since 2016.

The letter lists six examples of such measures, starting from the dissolution of GSCASH, imposition of compulsory attendance and Najeeb Ahmed’s disappearance to issues with the implementation of reservation policies and a 200% hike in mess fees. The final point – the one which triggered protests this week – is the administration’s abrupt, late-night dismissal of the deans and heads from seven centres and schools because they did not agree with the new attendance policy. Their replacements don’t seem to fit the qualifications required for their newly-appointed roles, giving students another reason to question the administration’s motives.

The open letter continues, “In view of the extensive damage done to this University- to its agendas of gender-just and socially inclusive education and its culture of academic excellence, the consistent failures of this administration to honour democratic procedures, and its grave lapses- moral and legal, with regard to the JNU community, we demand the resignation of this Vice-Chancellor.”

Although the administration issued a statement saying Johri has resigned from his administrative posts, students marched to demand his suspension from teaching roles (where he still holds power over students) and also demanded the VC’s resignation, citing all the reasons in the previous letter.

Students and teachers plan to go on a four-day hunger strike starting Monday, March 19, to not only demand Johri’s suspension but also the vice chancellor’s resignation. After two years of increasing animosity, JNU’s Weinstein moment may just be the final straw on the administration’s back.