The Virus of Delegated Authoritarianism, or Why We Mustn’t Ignore JNU V-C’s Evasions

The patron-client relationship of the Union government with JNU is a reciprocal and cosy one.

In some academic and even non-academic public circles, it is widely believed that India’s premier central university, Jawaharlal Nehru University, was badly mired in controversy until the advent of its present vice-chancellor in February this year. Such a promise is sadly belied and is, in effect, in danger of being inverted if one goes by the words and proposed deeds of those at the helm of that university’s administration.

There is public assertion by the present V-C, repeatedly and egoistically stated by her, of being the first woman incumbent of that office and also that she is a proud JNUite having earned her postgraduate degrees at that university. One gets the unmistakable feeling that these are, according to her, not only necessary but sufficient credentials for being a deservedly excellent leader for this nationally and internationally reputed institution. What is more, in her self-assertion she takes credit for the fact that many government functionaries, bureaucrats and political leaders are ‘products’ of the university she now heads.

The V-C’s appropriation of the JNU through reflected glory doesn’t just end here; she strongly implies that her appointment by the Union government has been achieved by its consonance with the selfsame authorities’ stated goals of democracy and development (the first two D’s in her ‘Five D’ formula; interview in the Indian Express dated August 22, 2022). Furthermore, she has publicly expressed the view of having acceded willingly to a hierarchical structure in which JNU itself is bound in compliance with the authority of at least three governmental bodies, viz., the UGC, the education ministry and the home ministry.

Also read: JNU’s VC is Celebrating ‘Herstory’ With Men, a ‘Civilisation State’ With No Rights

The patron-client relationship of the Union government with JNU is reciprocal and a cosy one (sample the very recent invitation by the Ministry of Social Justice and Women Empowerment to the V-C, JNU, to deliver the B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Lecture). Two clear implications follow. One, the cherished ideal of university autonomy has gone for a six. Two, the head of an advanced academic institution assiduously apes the current ruling dispensation’s delegated tactic of (mis)appropriating and (pseudo) justifying as its own the legacy of achievement and sacrifice of its national luminaries.

Inside the JNU campus. Photo: Jahnavi Sen

The Indian novelist Amit Chaudhuri has justly remarked that we Indians have a penchant for extolling icons rather than their works. And, in this process of blind veneration, the thought and work of these icons gets warped and misshapen. The JNU V-C’s reported public statement that our gods (by which she means only the ‘Hindu Gods’) are not Brahmins and that there are Kshatriya, Shudra and even aboriginal gods, betrays her unwitting distortion of what she thinks are anthropological truths about caste and religion. Whosoever thought that Hindu gods were aligned with caste hierarchy? How abysmally ignorant – academically and scientifically – can be this understanding of anthropology and sociology.

Similarly about history at JNU. By placing the ‘iconic’ figures of historians Romila Thapar and Bipan Chandra in oppositional contrast to equally ‘iconic’ historians R.C. Majumdar, Nilakantha Shastri and Jadunath Sarkar, our learned V-C has inverted the relationship between the statues and their meanings. Does one need to iterate that in actual work of historical scholarship in JNU or in any other university, both these sets of scholars and many others are conjointly consulted?

Every citizen would agree that loose jargon and jumle-baazi should be avoided at all cost in the “epistemic community” (V-C’s own words) of a university. After all, what does sound methodology and analytical acuity of social science disciplines and the humanities teach us? So where does the repetition of formulaic platitudes like the ‘Five D’s’ (democracy, development, difference, dissent and diversity), ‘sabka saath, sabka vikas’, ‘vishwaguru’ etc. lead us in the milieu of a mainly postgraduate university excelling precisely in the social sciences and the humanities? Isn’t the JNU V-C eating her own words while using these formulae and at the same time objecting to CUET (Common University Entrance Test) and Multiple Choice Questions in admission to the postgraduate classes? And if one wishes to trace the origin of these hyper-rhetorical jumlas, every citizen of India knows where they come from!

What more can the citizenry expect when the helmsmen of a premier university of the country take to parroting such demagoguery? In sketching out the blueprint for sustaining the proclaimed high standards/academic rating of the university, the administrative authority does shadow boxing over finances, blowing hot and cold over the support and patronage of funding from the Centre. Real issues have been conveniently evaded, as when in the above cited interview with the V-C the interlocutors asked pointed questions: biases in faculty recruitment, related to it doubts about JNU being able to sustain its high academic ratings, and last but not the least, the fate of the hapless JNU student Umar Khalid incarcerated without trial for more than two years now. All this evasion is being done, as per the V-C’s own pronouncement, under the seal of ‘Indic’ legitimacy of JNU’s character.

Ravindra K. Jain retired as professor of sociology, Jawaharlal Nehru University.

‘Somebody From JNU Did This’: New JNU V-C Now Claims She Never Had a Twitter Account

Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit did not say how somebody from JNU would have known that she would eventually be appointed the institution’s V-C, thus enabling them to make a Twitter account ahead of time.

New Delhi: Newly appointed Jawaharlal Nehru University vice-chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit claimed in the aftermath of the controversy on her earlier tweets that she never had a Twitter account.

The Twitter account bearing her name – @SantishreeD – was deleted right after controversy erupted over posts made through, on the day when it was announced that she was to be the new JNU V-C.

Speaking to Indian Express, Pandit has claimed that “somebody internally from JNU has done this.”

“I didn’t have a Twitter account… It has been found out that it has been hacked and somebody internally from JNU has done this. The point is, many people are unhappy that I am the first woman V-C,” she said, adding that “reliable sources” had told her of the alleged involvement of JNU people.

She has not explained how somebody from JNU would have known that she would eventually be appointed the institution’s V-C, thus enabling them to make a Twitter account ahead of time. Also unexplained is why the account was deleted the moment the controversial tweets made headlines, if the purpose of the “hacker” was to malign her.

The new V-C’s claim was met with skepticism on social media as innocuous posts surfaced which drew on photographs that only she or her family would have had access to.

The Wire had reported on the now-deleted Twitter account, which had backed calls for genocide and attacks on students and farmers. Multiple tweets of the @SantishreeD corresponded to the rightwing style of social media posts, calling left-liberals “jihadists,” activists “mentally-ill jihadists,” Nathuram Godse’s action as emerging from the thinking that only Gandhi’s murder was a “solution” for a “united India,” referring to leftist activists of JNU as “Naxal Jihadists”, and so on.

Pandit also volunteered to Express that her daughter is a cyber-security engineer and closed her older Twitter account. This goes against her claim in the same interview that she “never had a Twitter account.”

“Six years ago, she closed it for me because she was applying for some jobs in the US and she told me, ‘Mom, you are not going to be on any social media sites’. I’m not at all active on social media,” she said.

Also read: Santishree Pandit’s Appointment as JNU VC Is Part of the BJP’s Majoritarian Project

Pandit said that she was being treated “badly” and “shabbily” by the press because – seemingly by appointing her – “Prime Minister Narendra Modi beat the Left in breaking a glass ceiling, which the Left did not do.”

“I’m a woman from the marginalised section and from the southern state of Tamil Nadu. Why did the Left not do it all these years? Seventy years they were in power. They couldn’t get to JNU? It is their adda,” she said.

Pandit also said that as a south Indian she believed that Rajendra Chola is the greatest emperor India has had and that more of the “Indian perspective” has to find space in history.

When Express asked her about the Savitribai Phule Pune University’s vigilance report to the ministry, stating that she had faced action after an inquiry found her guilty of not following rules while granting admission to Persons of India Origin students, Pandit alleged that her side of the story was unheard.

“Pune University played identity politics because I was a non-Maharashtrian who won the Management Council elections. Then it was a conspiracy to see that I don’t get any post. If really there was a case, why did the university not file an FIR against me?” she said, adding that this was done to harass her.

Pandit also sought to dissociate herself from the blame of grammatical errors in her first press release as V-C. She said a “lady from the previous V-C” took a shorthand dictation and a public relations officer said that she “will correct and put it up.”

‘Exhibition of Illiteracy’: Varun Gandhi Slams New JNU VC’s Press Release

The BJP MP criticised the Union government’s decision to appoint Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit as JNU VC, saying such “mediocre appointments serve to damage our human capital”.

New Delhi: BJP MP Varun Gandhi on Tuesday, February 8, criticised the Union government’s decision to appoint Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit as vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University, saying such “mediocre appointments serve to damage our human capital and our youth’s future”.

“With few higher education institutions on a par with global standards,” he said, “India needs to have right leaders to shape the journey for universities likely to succeed and, as such, appointing someone with little to offer in academic vision, credentials or even the ability to communicate, is a path to mediocrity and long-term illiteracy for our human capital”.

Gandhi shared on Twitter the press release put out by Pandit after she took over, and said this is an exhibition of “illiteracy”.

He said, “This press release from the new JNU VC is an exhibition of illiteracy, littered with grammatical mistakes (would strive vs will strive; students friendly vs student-friendly; excellences vs excellence). Such mediocre appointments serve to damage our human capital & our youth’s future.”

“We need leaders, with the right values, and discipline – not those who cannot do basic due diligence on their first press release with regards to their appointment. A great institution like JNU needs empathy, sensitivity and careful steering, not a loudmouth, with little verbal control,” he added.

Also read: On Twitter, New JNU VC Has Supported Genocide Calls, Attacked Students, Farmers

“Academic credentials and past experience, not retweets, should be the criteria for selection,” he said, in an apparent reference to controversial tweets from her handle, which has now been deleted.

Meanwhile, the JNU teacher’s association has published a cautious note on the appointment, noting that it will present demands for ensuring a non-partisan administration and restoring teaching-learning activities as per statutes and ordinances of the university.

The Union government appointed Pandit as the vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University.

(With PTI inputs)

Santishree Pandit’s Appointment as JNU VC Is Part of the BJP’s Majoritarian Project

The development comes at a time when bigotry has really made its masterpiece. In the past week, Islamophobia and Hindu fanaticism have entered the most sensitive of spaces: classroom and funeral ground.

The appointment of Santishree D. Pandit as the vice-chancellor of Jawaharlal Nehru University seems to show that two essential credentials required to rise high in today’s India are a bigoted, hateful mind, and the unfailing alertness to add ‘Hon’ble’ before every mention of ‘Prime Minister’.

Over the last five years and a bit, Pandit’s predecessor M. Jagadesh Kumar had repeatedly come under criticism from various quarters for his ideological bias in favour of the political right. Now, with his replacement assuming office, those critics might wish Kumar continued for some more time – such is the atrocious nature of the present incumbent’s political and social views. But coming to that later.

The first thing Pandit did after assuming office was to issue a press release. The crowning glory of the horrendously drafted statement is the declaration that the university will now strive to implement the vision of ‘our Hon’ble Prime Minister’ and focus on ‘Indo-centric narratives.’ As a professor of political science, it should be no wonder that Pandit understands the ‘entire’ vision of the PM, but one really shudders to think what Indo-centric narratives may come to mean. Will there be a bovine research centre in front of the School of Arts and Aesthetics in the fashion of the one just set up at Hans Raj College? One only hopes they leave JNU’s famed nilgais alone. 

The language of the press release is grammatically and idiomatically so incorrect that it is better not to quote it. Almost every sentence is either convoluted or slipshod. But she was careful not to make the unforgivable mistake – at least in the eyes of the government – of not adding ‘Hon’ble’ on both the occasions she refers to the Vishwaguru

The JNU teachers’ association responded cautiously to the new VC’s appointment. Their press statement said the teaching community hoped the next five years would be ‘academically enabling for the diverse spectrum of opinions that a university like JNU produces.’ The academic fraternity of this country and the larger society now hold its breath to witness how the VC’s penchant for Indo-centric narratives gels with JNU’s culture of diverse opinions. 

Pandit’s appointment needs to be seen in context. It comes at a time when bigotry has really made its masterpiece. In the past week, Islamophobia and Hindu fanaticism have entered the most sensitive of spaces: classroom and funeral ground. In a college in Karanataka’s Udupi, Muslim girls were recently stopped from entering the building wearing a hijab or headscarf. The row then spread to Chikmagalur and then to the entire state with the government backing the ban on hijab, saying ‘“clothes which disturb equality, integrity and public law and order should not be worn”.

The controversy then took the ugliest possible turn when some students got pitted against each other. In the Udupi district, Hindu students took out a procession and came to class wearing saffron shawls. On Tuesday, a video clip emerged where a burqa-clad woman trying to enter a college could be seen being heckled and shouted at by a group of young boys wearing saffron shawls and shouting ‘Jai Shri Ram’.

Students of the Government Pre University Girls College in Udupi, who first raised the issue of discrimination for wearing headscarf at colleges, during the Muslim women’s pro-hijab protest in Udupi, on February 07, 2022. Photo: Special arrangement

Meanwhile, at the funeral of Lata Mangeshkar, Shah Rukh Khan’s act of blowing a prayer for the departed soul was given a communal twist by a prominent BJP leader from Haryana, who asked on social media if the superstar was “spitting”. The unthinkable depravity of the comment shocked netizens, with many of them explaining the ritual. But in a typical show of majoritarian power, the tweet has not yet been taken down.

In such a time, someone who supposedly uses words such as ‘love jihad’, ‘jihadi Islam’, ‘extremist Naxal groups’ (referring to JNU students), ‘Italian remote control’ (referring to Sonia Gandhi), ‘mentally ill jihadists’ (referring to civil rights activists), ‘partiality of the Left = Jihadi – Liberal oxymoron’ (whatever that means) in her social (media) discourse, is taking charge of the most liberal of academic spaces that this country can boast off. Rutgers University teacher Audrey Truschke succinctly expressed on Twitter what the possible outcome of this can be. “It is heart-wrenching to watch India’s Hindu nationalist rulers destroy the nation’s best universities. Such actions do not change the nature of academic knowledge. But they increasingly remove India from the playing field. It is a loss to us all,” she said. 

Immensely significant are the words of Alexander Kwapong in this connection. While assuming the charge of Ghana University VC in March 1966, Kwapong had ripped apart the previous government for subjecting educational institutions to merciless attacks and said:

“When it seemed that all of the several institutions of this country had fallen before the resistless advance of his totalitarian power, this institution appeared to be one of the few but most important bastions of freedom still left in the country… The academic freedom of this university is, after all, a microcosm… I wish to re-emphasise to the whole nation that the existence of this university as a centre of critical and independent thought is not a luxury but an essential necessity for the future well-being of a free and independent Ghana…”

Ghana, incidentally, scores an impressive 0.793 on a scale of 0-1 in the latest academic freedom index; India lags way behind at 0.352. 

JNU Vice Chancellor Jagadesh Kumar Appointed UGC Chairman

According to the Ministry of Education, Jagadesh Kumar has been appointed as the chairman of the higher education regulator for a period of five years.

New Delhi: JNU Vice-Chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar, whose tenure was marred by controversies, has been appointed as chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC).

According to the Ministry of Education, Kumar has been appointed as the chairman of the higher education regulator for a period of five years.

“The Central government has appointed M Jagadesh Kumar as UGC Chairman for a period of five years or till he attains the age of 65 years, whichever is the earliest,” a senior MoE official said.

The post of the UGC chairman fell vacant on December 7 after Professor D. P. Singh, who had taken charge in 2018, resigned upon turning 65. The post of the vice-chairman of the higher education regulator is also vacant.

Kumar is currently holding the charge as acting VC of the varsity after his five year term expired last year. The ministry is yet to appoint his successor at JNU.

From the sedition row of 2016 and lockdown of his office multiple times to then HRD minister getting stuck for over six hours at the venue of JNU’s convocation in 2019, Kumar’s tenure as the vice-chancellor of the university has been marred with controversies.

Kumar, who was made the vice chancellor in January 2016, had his first brush with controversy as the VC just a week after his appointment when students locked horns with the administration over holding of an event against the hanging of  Afzal Guru.

Widely regarded for his knowledge in electronic engineering and associated areas, Kumar obtained MS(EE) and PhD (EE) degrees from the Department of Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology (IIT) Madras.

He has previously worked as Assistant professor at IIT Kharagpur and Associate Professor at IIT Delhi.

(PTI)

Almost Half of All Central Universities Functioning Without a Regular Vice-Chancellor

Education ministry officials have said that the delay was because the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) had failed to approve the files of the shortlisted candidates.

New Delhi: Nearly half of the Central universities in the country are currently operating without a regular vice-chancellor, which has hampered their ability to recruit permanent teachers and implement the National Education Policy’s features, according to a report in The Telegraph.

Of the country’s 45 Central universities, 20 were functioning without a regular vice-chancellor, the report said. The 20 Central universities which are currently without any regular VCs include leading educational institutions like Banaras Hindu University, Delhi University and Jawaharlal Nehru University.

They also include North-Eastern Hill University (Shillong), Manipur University, Assam University (Silchar), Guru Ghasidas University (Chhattisgarh), Sagar University (Madhya Pradesh), two Sanskrit universities in Delhi, two Central universities each in Bihar and Jammu and Kashmir, and one Central university each in Jharkhand, Rajasthan, Haryana, Tamil Nadu, Himachal Pradesh and Nagaland.

For 12 of these universities, selection committees had conducted interviews and submitted the names of the shortlisted candidates for the posts of vice-chancellor four months ago, two education ministry officials in the know told the daily. For the other eight universities, the selection process was yet to commence.

The ministry officials also said that the delay was because the Prime Minister’s Office (PMO) had failed to approve the files of the shortlisted candidates.

Speaking on the condition of anonymity, a DU professor said that the government was suffering from “policy paralysis”. “They are so driven by ideology that they do not bother about higher education institutions,” the professor said.

However, a senior education ministry official said that legally, the PMO had no role to play in the appointment of VCs. “The ministry has to send the file (of shortlisted candidates) to the President, who is the Visitor of the central universities and makes the final selection,” the official said and added that it would usually take a week to issue the appointment letters then. “However,” the official said, “these days the files are sent to the PMO unofficially. The files are delayed there.”

Also read: Like it or Not, Faculty Shortages in Indian Universities Are Now Permanent

The Prime Minister’s Office vets the shortlisted candidates and sends the list back to the education ministry with its recommendation, following which, the ministry sends the file to the President along with a verbal communication about the government’s preferences.

As per procedure, the education ministry must set up a search cum-selection committee to find a successor at least six months before a vice chancellor’s term ends. The committee will then submit a ‘panel’ of around three names to the ministry for informal ‘vetting’ and ‘due diligence’. These are then sent ahead to the Visitor to all central universities, which is the office of the President of India, for approval, after which the final appointments are announced.

Last August, selection panels held interviews to shortlist VCs for Shri Lal Bahadur Shastri National Sanskrit University and the Central Sanskrit University in Delhi. However, since then, the files with the shortlisted candidates have been awaiting approval from the PMO, officials said.

In most of the 20 universities, the outgoing VCs had received extensions while in the rest, the senior-most professor had been appointed as the acting VC, a DU professor said.

“The VCs on extension and the acting VCs are hesitant to decide key issues such as the implementation of the NEP, for instance, starting inter-disciplinary courses and four-year undergraduate programmes, or discontinuing the MPhil courses,” the DU professor said and added that acting VCs were also hesitant to plan academic activities during the pandemic or decide on starting COVID-19 care centres on campuses or exempting students from paying fees for facilities that remain unused since the institutions are closed.

Additionally, interim VCs are not allowed to recruit any permanent teachers or employees as well.

Last week, the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) also urged President Ram Nath Kovind to “appoint full-time vice chancellors, thus filling in the vacancy or replacing the temporary vice chancellors in 21 central universities”.

The press release by the ABVP said that in Central universities in Rajasthan, Himachal Pradesh, Chhattisgarh and Meghalaya, the appointment of VCs had been pending for over a year. “In Manipur, the appointment has not been made even after the interviews concluded in August last year,” it said.

“Absence of a full-time vice chancellor for more than a year in some central universities is a matter of grave concern. The vice chancellor plays a major role in academic and administrative activities in the university,” national general secretary of the ABVP, Sushri Nidhi Tripathi, said.

Furthermore, the IITs at Bhubaneswar, Patna, Indore and Mandi have also been without regular directors for over a year. While a selection panel headed by education minister Ramesh Pokhriyal had last year interviewed candidates for IIT Bhubaneswar and IIT Patna, the PMO had not returned the files.

JNU Profs Allege ‘Gross’ Irregularities in New Hiring, Seek President’s Intervention

Seven candidates had been hired in October but the professors have alleged that none of them have the requisite experience and qualifications for their respective positions.

New Delhi: On November 23, eight professors of Jawaharlal Nehru University’s School of Physical Sciences wrote a letter to the president of India alleging irregularities in recent faculty recruitment at the department – especially that the vice-chancellor was admitting people of “questionable credentials”.

The eight professors are Sanjay Puri, S.S.W. Murthy, Subhasis Ghosh, Sankar Prasad Das, Subir Kumar Sarkar, Brijesh Kumar, Satyavrata Patnaik and Debashish Ghoshal. A copy of the letter is available to view here.

‘Gross violation of ethics’

The letter, addressed to President Ram Nath Kovind and copied to JNU vice-chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar and chancellor V.K. Saraswat, alleged “violations” in the recruitment process in October.

Seven candidates had been hired in the month but the professors have alleged that none of these people have the requisite experience and qualifications for their respective positions. In one case, the letter said, a candidate selected to be associate professor post hadn’t even been shortlisted by the selection committee, as is required.

The eight went on to request President Kovind to intervene in his capacity as visitor to the university. They also asked that “the appointments mentioned be kept in abeyance until all aspects of the conduct and outcome of the selection process (including whether the best available candidates were selected and whether the external subject experts on the selection committee were qualified to meaningfully judge the quality of research in the relevant areas of specialisation) are scrutinised by a committee of leading physicists and astrophysicists.”

On November 25, two days after the letter was sent to the president, it was forwarded to the university’s 290th Executive Council meeting.

According to the eight professors, Jagadesh Kumar has had trouble following the university’s hiring process since he took over as VC in 2016.

Before this incident, students and professors at the university had demanded Kumar’s resignation after a group of armed people affiliated with the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) roamed around campus with sticks and rods beating up students in January this year. There had been numerous allegations that Kumar had allowed the violence.

The ABVP is a national students’ organisation connected to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh.

JNU VC M Jagadesh Kumar. Photo: PTI

Politically motivated

One of the letter’s authors said on condition of anonymity that Kumar’s activities at the university aren’t episodic but part of a larger scheme.

“Since the VC is from a science background, we thought he wouldn’t have wanted the science department to suffer academically, but it turned out to be false,” he told The Wire. “There is a larger design … controlled from elsewhere to target JNU further” – an allusion to the government’s repeated attempts to malign the university, starting with the 2016 ‘sedition’ row.

He also said recruitments at the university have been politically motivated and are in truth a way to populate the university with people who will toe the Bharatiya Janata Party government’s line and not ask questions.

He added that one of the experts in the selection committee, the director of the Inter University Accelerator Centre, is under investigation for plagiarism charges. In interviews to the Mathematics department, the following week, a professor of electrical engineering from IIT Kharagpur was called in as an expert, he said.

Moushumi Basu, secretary of the JNU Teachers’ Association, concurred, adding that a considerable number of people who had been recruited to teaching positions in the last few years have had ties with the ABVP.

She also echoed the unnamed professor’s belief – that Kumar’s actions together amount to an attempt to dismantle the university’s basic structure.

Kumar didn’t respond to requests for comment from The Wire. This article will be updated as and when he replies.

Basu said the Teachers’ Association plans to bring out a larger report after the new problem has been resolved. “This is the first time the school [of physical sciences] has spoken out, which is a very big thing,” Basu added. “We will definitely take it forward in a more consolidated manner – maybe a public enquiry.”

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.

A Modest Proposal for a New Legal Framework for Bharatiya Citizenry

No one should be surprised if, not long from now, an Order along the following lines were to be promulgated:

A Supplement to the Constitution, Being a २०-Point Legal Framework for the New Idea of India which was Ushered in in २०१४ and has Since been Assiduously Cultivated

[Note:

(a) The Articles of this Supplement have been numbered in Devanagari script, to avenge millennia of Graeco-Roman theft of Indian numerals.

(b) This Supplement has twenty points because if the Congress could have a Twenty-Point Programme, so can we.]

Arising from which, and Whereas and Hereunto and in Witness Whereof, from this day forth,  the citizens of India shall be governed by the following twenty rules:

१. You are for us or against the nation.

२. The punishment for treason is death.

३.१. All universities in the country shall henceforth be brought within the purview and control of the Ministry of Human Resources Development (HRD) through a centralized Meta-University, to be called the Nationalistic National School of Nationalism (NNSN).

३.२. The HRD Minister will be the Emeritus Vice-Chancellor and Supreme Principal of the NNSN, while the Home Minister will be its Emeritus Chancellor and the Prime Minister its Emeritus Presiding Deity.

३.३. Bachelor’s, Master’s and Doctoral degrees in Nationalism can be purchased upon payment of appropriate compensation which will be used to contain the fiscal deficit.

३.४. It may be noted that the Meta-University will not take responsibility for students who crack their own skulls.

४.१. The Students’ Union of the Meta-University will be elected by strictly democratic means.

४.२. The only Union that may contest the election is the student wing of the Nationalistic National Party of Nationalism.

५. The Students’ Union will report all students guilty of anti-national activities (such as having an opinion on this or that) to the Supreme Principal who will immediately charge all such students with treason, find them guilty as charged, and punish them accordingly.

६. The Supreme Principal will, as a principle of universal kindness, refer to every anti-national student as a ‘child’.

७. It will be construed as an anti-national activity (or inactivity) if you are not moved to tears by the Supreme Principal’s affecting reference to the treacherous student as a ‘child’ even as the Supreme Principal is making arrangements with the Apex Court to pass terminal sentence upon the misguided treasonist.

८. The right of dissent is universal and unrestricted, bearing in mind that dissent is treasonable and liable to be punished in a manner that will occasion satisfaction to the collective conscience of the nation.

९. Since most persons of a Particular Religion are Indians or Non-Resident Indians, it follows from Vedic logic that all Indians are Persons of a Particular Religion.

१०. Following from §९ and §१, it follows that all Indians who are not Persons of a Particular Religion are not Indians, and therefore not for us, and therefore anti-nationals, and therefore liable, according to §२, to be dealt with accordingly.

११. Following from §९ and §१०, it follows that India is now, and for the first time, a secular state.

१२. It follows, following from §९ and §१०, or from some other §, that a horse’s leg may be broken upon payment of a fine of Rs. ५०, but a Cow may not be touched. This is because a Cow is not a horse.

१३. Eating beef is an anti-national activity.

१४. Suspected beef-eating is equivalent to beef-eating.

१५. It follows from §१३ and §१४, and by suitable application of a Theorem of Aryabhatta’s, that suspected beef-eaters are traitors who will be dealt with with iron rods or other appropriate instruments of patriotism.

१६. It is an act of nationalism for mobs in Gwalior to attack a Professor who has no place in the four-fold caste classification of a Particular Religion, and for mobs in Delhi to burn a copy of the Constitution of India.

१७. It follows from §१६ and the principle of non-discrimination that it is an act of nationalism for mobs anywhere in India to attack a Professor who has no place in the four-fold caste classification of a Particular Religion, and for mobs anywhere in India to burn a copy of the Constitution of India.

१८. It follows from §१७ or something else that it is anti-national to burn a copy of Manusmriti.

१९. Since it is important to respect both the Constitution of India (when it is not being burnt) and Manusmriti (especially when it is being burnt), it follows that the practice of manual scavenging is wrong, from which it follows that it would be anti-national to say so.

२०

२०.१. Similar rules will apply pari passu, ad hoc, ex post facto, and mutatis mutandis.

२०.२. §२०.१ supra should convince sceptics that we know the law as well as anyone else.

२०.३. Indeed, better than anyone else: ne plus ultra.

२०.४. Also, inter se, in loco parentis, id est, et cetera.

२०.५. Just watch your step and be a nice nationalist and you won’t have any trouble.

२०.६. At least, not much, beyond the usual minor discomforts of demonetisation, GST, recession, unemployment, poverty, inequality, drought, floods, Pakistan, 4-day Test Matches, and the price of onions.

卐 卐 卐

The author is an economist who lives and works in Chennai.

Rethinking Education in the Age of Totalitarian Politics

The time has come to reinvent our classroom transactions and move towards the spirit of liberating education.

In these ruthlessly violent times – particularly, when like many other universities, our own university too is in turmoil – I have realised that as a teacher, I can no longer come back to the classroom and pretend that everything, as the administration wants us to believe, is ‘normal’.

I can longer just accomplish my ‘professional’ duty – covering the syllabus, giving my students all sorts of routinised assignments, and eventually grading and hierarchising them.

With the psychic wound all of us are inflicted with (just think of the traumatic moment – the police firing teargas shells inside the Jamia Milia Islamia library, or goons with rods and weapons breaking the head of a professor inside the Jawaharlal Nehru University campus), the meaning of the transaction of ideas in the classroom has acquired a new dimension.

We can heal ourselves only through the practice of liberating education – the education that opens our eyes to see the rising authoritarianism makes it possible to comprehend the psychology of violence through which it haunts us, and enables us to experience the culture of learning as a reflexive process of self-transformation. This is like relating the ‘texts’ we decipher in the classroom to the politico-ethical practice we engage in to create a better world.

Also read: It’s Time to Tell Amit Shah and Narendra Modi, ‘Hum Sab JNU’

Yes, it is an exceedingly difficult task. With the rise of totalitarian politics, what emerges is some sort of linear thinking: the normalisation of the ‘one-dimensional’ mind. And hence, all liberating ideas are suspected, or castigated as inherently ‘anarchic’ and ‘anti-national’. Yet, if we dare to see education as a therapeutic art of resistance and liberation, it is important to redefine ourselves – the very meaning of being a teacher or a student in these troubled times.

Beyond the fragmentation of specialisation

Yes, as teachers, we sharpen our specialisation, we write research papers and academic books, and we disseminate bodies of academic knowledge in our classrooms. Yet, there is something more we ought to do if we really hear the call of the vocation – it is about seeing ourselves as awakened citizens carrying the lamp of truth. This means that we begin to appreciate the art of teaching as the cultivation of ‘soul force’ or inner conscience.

No, this politico-ethical practice need not diminish the rigour of academics. Ironically, there are teachers who seek to retain some sort of abstracted ‘objectivism’ or ‘value-neutrality’. In the name of ‘specialisation’, quite often they fragment their consciousness. No wonder, it is possible to find, say, professors of molecular biology or nuclear physics who would seldom come out of their insulated labs, take a position, raise their voice even when the storm outside, or societal violence, enters the corridors of the university.

The irony is that even some professors of social sciences prefer to isolate ‘theories’ from the lived reality. It is like saying that you keep teaching Marx, Gandhi and Ambedkar with ‘textual rigour’, but never utter a single word about the rising authoritarianism in our society. In a way, this silence – even though legitimised in the name of ‘neutrality’ – is an escape from one’s engaged responsibility

I am not saying that a teacher has to be necessarily an ‘activist’. But then, beyond the ‘apolitical/professional’ teacher and the ‘ideologically charged /activist’ teacher lies yet another possibility – a dialogic teacher filled with the poetry of inner conscience, and experiencing the pursuit of knowledge or research not merely as a cognitive skill, but also as an act of awakening.

Also read: An Open Letter to Parents Bringing up Children in the Time of the CAA-NRC Protests

We live in an age that has already desensitised us. While the psychology of fear (something implicit in the practice of totalitarian politics) robs us of our voices, the culture of narcissism – yet, another consequence of the phenomenon of neoliberal utilitarianism or consumerism – insulates us from any project of collective struggle. And even as teachers, many of us behave no less differently than an average ‘consumer’: playing our ‘official’ roles with docile bodies and minds, watching toxic television channels, and entertaining a myth that somehow we are ‘safe’. The problem exists only in the distant Kashmir Valley, or among a bunch of ‘urban naxals’!

It cannot go on like this. As teachers, we have to reinvent ourselves. We ought to emerge as inspirers and communicators.  If teachers disappear, a university would be reduced into something like a factory or army barracks for manufacturing either ‘disciplined nationalists’ or ‘ideal consumers’.

Questioning the conventional idea of a ‘good’ student

What does it mean to be a student in our times? Well, it is repeatedly said that they should not engage in politics; they should only study, and think of their careers. While the market-driven discourse seeks to reduce education into a mere technical ‘skill’ dissociated from all politico-ethical and socio-philosophical questions, the aspiring middle class further promotes the commodification of education.

Hence, a ‘good’ student is often seen to be one who sees politics as a ‘diversion’, remains insulated from people’s struggle and resistance, and only ‘studies’ for a lucrative career. A ‘good’ student is linear in thinking, ‘focused’ as far as ambitions are concerned, and loves the ‘system’. Is it what Sunil Gavaskar meant when the other day he urged the students not to come to the streets, and like ‘ideal’ boys and girls enter the sanitised classrooms, and only ‘study’?

Also read: The Attacks on Universities Represent an Agenda to Eliminate Safe Spaces

However, what is promising is that in recent times we are witnessing the arrival of yet another kind of students who defy this ‘goodness’, come out of their comfort zones, see themselves beyond ‘placement and salary package’, raise critical questions, and refuse to be fooled by the state’s ideological apparatus. These students are emerging from JNU and Jamia, Jadavpur University and Aligarh Muslim University, and even from the ‘apolitical’ IITs and IIMs.

The coercive apparatus of the state has not yet succeeded in demoralising them. And they are protesting against the discriminatory character of the Citizenship Amendment Bill; they are reminding us of the intensity of damage the ruling regime has already caused to the spirit of public universities: the philosophy of inclusion and justice, the epistemology of pluralism ,and the logic of persuasion or art of listening.

In this awakened studentship I see a new possibility. First, I see a promising language of resistance filled with critical thinking, creative consciousness and aesthetic imagination. They are rediscovering the ideals that the emergent authoritarianism seeks to repress: the visions of Paulo Freire and Rabindranath Tagore, and M.K. Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar. The values of the constitution, the spirit of religious diversity and cultural pluralism, and the aspirations for peace and harmony are rediscovered once again.

Second, I see a new orientation to the pursuit of knowledge. They are conveying a powerful message. There is no ‘sanitised’ classroom; and the ‘texts’ they study have to be examined in the streets through a quest for collective emancipation. In their practice, I have begun to see Gandhi’s satyagrahis hugging Gramsci’s organic intellectuals.

Also read: Why the University and Its Questions Worry the State

Well, given the kind of administrators (or the deputies of the ruling regime) who run our universities, it is quite obvious that the Establishment would abhor the birth of this new studentship. The goons would be allowed to enter our universities and cause terror, the police would move around our campuses, the noisy anchors of the ‘nationalist’ television channels would further spread the idea of the ‘tukde tukde gang’; and all sorts of disciplinary actions would be taken against the ‘handful’ of ‘misdirected’ students.

However, to refer to the specificity of the JNU, we would be bombarded by the ‘circulars’, and the university administration would direct us to give our consent to the ‘normalcy’ it has restored.

The question is whether as teachers we would succeed in debunking this ‘normalcy’, work with these awakened students, walk together, reinvent our classroom transactions, and move towards the spirit of liberating education.

Only then is it possible to have the real rigour in academics.

Avijit Pathak is a Professor of Sociology at JNU.