Tag: kannur university

SC Sets Aside Reappointment of Kannur Uni VC, Cites Kerala Govt’s ‘Unwarranted Interference’

Justice Pardiwala read out a press release from the Raj Bhavan in court which said that the chief minister and higher education minister had initiated the reappointment process.

New Delhi: The Supreme Court on Thursday, November 30, set aside the reappointment of Gopinath Ravindran as the vice-chancellor of Kannur University, saying the Kerala government made “unwarranted interference” in the matter.

Ravindran was the first vice chancellor in the history of the state to be re-appointed.

According to The Hindu, the verdict was delivered by a bench led by Chief Justice of India D.Y. Chandrachud. The top court overturned the Kerala high court’s February 2022 decision which upheld the validity of a November 23, 2021 notification reappointing Ravindran.

In the judgment, authored by Justice J.B. Pardiwala, the Kerala government was accused of “unwarranted interference” in the reappointment process, which led to the chancellor (the state’s governor) abdicating/surrendering his statutory powers.

Justice Pardiwala read out a press release from the Raj Bhavan in court, according to The Hindu, which said that the chief minister and higher education minister had initiated the reappointment process.

According to the Indian Express, the Supreme Court declared, “The impugned judgement and the order passed by the high court dated February 23, 2022 is hereby set aside and as a consequence, the notification dated November 23, 2021 reappointing the respondent number 4 (Ravindran) as the vice chancellor of the Kannur University is hereby set aside.”

A Kerala high court division bench had on February 23, 2022 dismissed an appeal against a single-judge order upholding Ravindran’s re-appointment. It said the appointment was in accordance with the law and that he was not “an usurper to the post”.

The high court’s decision came in a quo warranto writ petition filed by a member of Kannur University’s senate another person is a member of the Academic Council (Management Studies), Kannur University. According to The Hindu, they claimed the reappointment was not based on the independent evaluation or consideration of the contributions of Ravindran but instead at the state government’s request.

The newspaper reported that the Supreme Court’s decision was welcomed by the Kerala Students Union (KSU), whose vice president P. Mohammad Shammas said it is a “blow to the arrogance of the Pinarayi Vijayan-led government”. He praised the judicial system as the “last hope” for the survival of the higher education sector.

Leaving Imphal Behind, Kuki Students Look to the Rest of India For Their Higher Studies

The Kuki Students’ Organisation wrote to multiple universities and chief ministers to help Kuki students continue with their studies in their respective state universities. So far, the Kannur and Delhi Universities have agreed to help them.

New Delhi: After months of waiting for Union home minister Amit Shah’s promise to formulate an online education plan within two days after June 1, Kuki students from Manipur’s hill areas have opted for admission in Kerala’s Kannur University.

According to information received from the Kuki Students’ Organisation (KSO), hundreds of students who were pursuing undergraduate, postgraduate, and PhD degrees in Imphal are now seeking help from universities in the rest of India.

Goulungmon Haokip, a student at LMS Law College, confirmed to The Wire that at least 30 students from Manipur University and Dhanamanjuri University have gained admission at Kannur University because they can’t access their universities in Imphal.

Speaking to The Wire, Goulongmon said, “We passed entrance exams to secure admissions in universities in Imphal, but we never expected it would end up like this.”

“Do you think the violence should stop, and both communities should start living together peacefully so that students’ lives can return to normal?” I asked.

“Peace is a distant solution. Even if things settle down and return to normal, there will still be trust issues from both sides. The divide between the Meiteis and the Kukis has deepened too much; now the only solution is separation,” said Goulungmon.

The KSO wrote to multiple universities and chief ministers to help Kuki students continue their studies in their respective state universities.

“We have sent letters to the chief ministers of Telangana, Kerala, Karnataka, Tamil Nadu and Andhra Pradesh. We have also reached out to multiple universities in different states. Not only has Kannur University decided to assist us, but Delhi University is also willing to accommodate PhD students from our community,” said Mimin Haokip, the information and publicity secretary of the KSO general headquarters.

Also Read: What’s Behind the Manipur Violence and Why Stopping It Poses a Test For Modi

The KSO has submitted a list of students willing to enrol in the PhD programme at Delhi University. They are still awaiting a response.

The Wire also reached out to KSO’s education secretary, Thangmoi, and asked if the KSO had attempted to contact the home minister’s office and the chief minister’s office for assistance.

“Home minister Amit Shah and chief minister Biren Singh have lost the confidence of the Kuki community. Unless a separate administration is implemented in the hills, there will be no trust in the home minister and chief minister,” said Thangmoi.

When asked if they had reached out to universities in Imphal, the KSO said they hadn’t, as they feel Imphal is no more a safe place for the Kuki community.

Earlier, The Wire reported on NIT Manipur, where 50 students from the Kuki community were demanding online classes. They raised this issue with the dean, L. Herojit Singh, but received no response. The Wire contacted students at NIT Manipur again.

“After multiple complaints to the authorities, they arranged a few days of make-up online classes for us, while the rest continued with offline classes for the past few months before the examinations,” said Paul, an M.Tech engineering student.

Another student, Zemin, who is pursuing a B.Tech degree at NIT Manipur, said, “Only one teacher conducts online classes for us; the rest send us a few notes at the last minute before the examinations, and some we obtain from our friends at the college.”

Since May 3, violence has affected both the Meitei and Kuki communities, and thousands are now in relief camps as their houses got burnt in the ongoing violence in Manipur. From schools to farming and businesses, everything has got affected by the violence.

On June 1, home minister Amit Shah made several promises to the people of Manipur. One such promise was to formulate a plan for online education within two days. One hundred and thirteen days have passed since then, and students in the hill areas claim that no help has been provided by the Union government.

Kerala HC Asks Kannur University To Re-Examine Credentials of CM Secretary’s Wife

“Teaching experience can only be a real fact and not a fiction or an inference. It has to be actual and cannot be construed or inferred,” the court said.

Kochi: The Kerala high court on Thursday allowed a petition against the proposed appointment of the wife of chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan’s private secretary as a Malayalam associate professor at Kannur University.

Justice Devan Ramachandran said the candidate in question – Priya Varghese – did not have the relevant period of actual teaching experience as stipulated under the University Grants Commission (UGC) Regulations of 2018.

“Teaching experience can only be a real fact and not a fiction or an inference. It has to be actual and cannot be construed or inferred,” the court said and observed that some of the various spells of teaching experience claimed by Varghese “cannot find favour in law”.

It directed the competent authority to reconsider the credentials of Varghese and decide if she should be on the ranked list.

“On such enquiry being completed and the rank list being suitably modified, further action to make appointments can be taken,” the court said.

Varghese is the wife of K.K. Ragesh, who is the chief minister’s private secretary.

The order came on a plea filed by one Joseph Skaria who came second to Varghese in the university mark list.

Varghese had been proposed to be appointed as an associate professor in the Malayalam department by the varsity, which triggered a huge political row as she had the lowest research score but the highest in the interview round and was declared first in the selection process.

Governor Arif Mohammed Khan, in his capacity as chancellor of universities in the state, had stayed her appointment and alleged that Kannur University’s move to appoint her was “political”.

The Call to Ban Savarkar and Golwalkar from the Classroom Reflects Culture of Intolerance

The opposition to Kannur University including texts by Hindutva ideologues in its reading list tells us that engaging an intellectual, ideological or political opponent on the level of ideas is no longer acceptable.

The unseemly row over the inclusion of a few texts written by Hindutva ideologues Vinayak Damodar Savarkar, Madhavrao Sadashiv Golwalkar, Deendayal Upadhyaya and Balraj Madhok in the MA (Governance and Politics) syllabus of Kerala’s Kannur University is a reminder that all political forces are to blame for creating and fostering a culture of intolerance in the country.

One is not surprised to see that political parties covering the entire spectrum are arrayed against the university, which has a well-respected historian, Gopinath Ravindran, as its vice-chancellor. It’s rare to see the ruling and opposition parties singing the same tune, except when it comes to stifling things they do not agree with.

While the Congress and the Indian Union Muslim League have alleged that the inclusion of these texts represents the “saffronisation of education”, Ravindran has explained that the writings of the Hindutva icons have been included “to enable students to develop a critical understanding about various strands of the Indian political thought”. He has also said that the syllabus is meant for post-graduate students and not for school children and that Jawaharlal Nehru University and Delhi University too had included these texts in their syllabus. Just as including Das Kapital in a course syllabus does not turn a university and its faculty and students into Marxists, it is absurd to equate the reading of Savarkar or Golwalkar with “saffronisation”.

Nevertheless, R. Bindu, Kerala’s higher education minister, has voiced serious concern over the inclusion of these texts and described the move as “dangerous”. Armed with an MPhil degree from JNU, she belongs to the CPI(M). Ravindran has sent a report to her and the university has appointed a two-member expert committee to take another look at the syllabus. Chief minister P. Vijayan has expressed alarm at the “glorification” of those who had turned their faces from the freedom struggle.

This is nothing but a culture of intolerance. In this culture, ideas are not countered by alternative and better ideas but are suppressed with the aim of eliminating them – using the coercive power of either the state or of powerful social and political groups or both. Ever since the Narendra Modi regime came to power, this culture has got a tremendous boost but the onus of creating a conducive atmosphere lies with all political parties. The alternative culture of engaging one’s intellectual, ideological or political opponent on the level of ideas has not been allowed to take roots.

Photo taken during the trial of the persons accused of participation and complicity in Mahatma Gandhi’s assassination in a Special Court in Red Fort, Delhi. The trial began on May 27, 1948. V.D. Savarkar, wearing a black cap, is seated in the last row, while Nathuram Godse and Narayan Apte are up front. Credit: Photo Division, GOI

This approach is alien to common sense, modern pedagogy and also India’s own tradition of philosophical, ideological and intellectual debate and argumentation which had well laid down rules of engagement. The earliest terms for these debates are brahmodya, as mentioned in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, and vada. Siddhartha, before he attained enlightenment and came to be known as the Buddha, engaged in vada with whomsoever he met. The great Sanskrit poet Ashvaghosha describes in detail in Buddhacharita how Magadh’s king Bimbisara questions the Buddha on every aspect of his doctrine. Shankaracharya’s shaastraartha with his philosophical opponents are well known. In a vada or shaastraartha a person would first state the philosophical or ideological position of his opponent clearly and cogently. This was known as Poorvapaksha. After making an authentic presentation of the opponents’ views, he or she would begin to offer counter-arguments to demolish the opposite viewpoint. It is obvious that a deep and thorough study of the opponent’s views was mandatory before one proceeded to argue one’s own case against them. And, how would one do this if the texts containing the opponent’s views are not available because they have been suppressed?

So, shaastraartha was meant to be a transparent public debate between two intellectual adversaries who were well versed in the views of the opponent. As the Upanishadic dialogues show, disciples freely questioned their gurus and these free discussions often resulted in achieving greater clarity on philosophical, metaphysical and theological issues. There is a well known Sanskrit saying: “Vade vade jaayate tatvabodhah (Truth is born out of interaction among different viewpoints)”. Al-Biruni, who described India of the 11th century, wrote that a unique trait of the Indians was they were engaged in discussing something or the other among themselves all the time. So, a spirit of enquiry distinguished Indians from others and argumentation was the norm in their day-to-day life. It was not viewed with suspicion and no lack of respect was attributed to it. We have accounts of the Mughal emperor Akbar inviting Jain scholars and Jesuit priests to his court for philosophical debates and discussions.

Against this historical background, it is very difficult to understand how a culture of intolerance for differing opinions and viewpoints grew so rapidly in modern India and succeeded in vitiating the intellectual atmosphere so thoroughly.

The rot began in the early years of independence. In 1949, Amrit Rai brought out a special number of Hans, a literary journal founded by his father Munshi Premchand in 1930, focusing on the repression of protests by the Central as well as state governments. This Anti-Repression Special Number was promptly proscribed by the Congress government.

Later, many a book was banned. The most shocking case was that of Salman Rushdie’s novel The Satanic Verses, which was banned within nine days of its release in the UK in 1988 by the Rajiv Gandhi government. India was the first country in the world to have banned it, much before even Pakistan. And, a suave, sophisticated and intellectually-inclined leader such as Syed Shahabuddin, who belonged to the Janata Party in those days and was in the forefront of those demanding a ban, did not feel an iota of embarrassment in admitting that he had not read the book!

Also Read: What Hindutva Really Is and Why It’s Risky to Debate It

In May 2012, both Houses of parliament witnessed several adjournments forced by several parties including the Bahujan Samaj Party, Samajwadi Party, Rashtriya Janata Dal, Republican Party of India, Communist Party of India and the AIADMK over the inclusion in NCERT textbooks of a cartoon drawn by Shankar showing Jawaharlal Nehru and B.R. Ambedkar. They found it offensive and BSP chief Mayawati demanded criminal proceedings against the editors. The CPI’s D. Raja also condemned the cartoon. Two of the editors immediately resigned.

Under Kapil Sibal’s watch as the Union human resource development minister, Delhi University removed A.K. Ramanujan’s celebrated essay titled ‘300 Ramayanas’ from its syllabus because saffron organisations had demanded it. Now, the same university has removed the writings of Mahashweta Devi and Tamil writers Bama and Sukirtharani because saffron elements do not find them palatable. But the Congress seems to have no problem with that, as we do not see any agitation on the issue by the party or its student wing NSUI.

Kuldeep Kumar is a senior journalist who writes on politics and culture.

At History Congress, Irfan Habib Leads Dissent Against Kerala Governor’s Defence of CAA

While Arif Mohammed Khan accused the historian of ‘heckling’ him, those present at the event say the latter was merely registering his protest.

Trivandrum: When Arif Mohammed Khan, the governor of Kerala, arrived at Kannur University to inaugurate the 80th edition of the Indian History Congress, he had the text of his speech with him, which he put aside for an extempore response to some of the earlier speakers, including CPI(M)’s K.K. Ragesh. The Rajya Sabha MP and another speaker, Biju Kandakkai, who is a member of the university syndicate, had referred to contemporary political developments, including the protests against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act (CAA) across the country.

Ragesh’s speech caught the attention of the governor as he was speaking in English, unlike the other dignitaries on the stage.

“When he heard Ragesh referring to contemporary issues, the governor asked for a pen and pad to take notes of his speech,” says Kandakkai, a former central committee member of the Democratic Youth Federation of India (DYFI).

After Dr Amiya Kumar Bagchi, the newly elected chair of the Indian History Congress concluded his address, Khan started his speech. (Bagchi was allowed to speak for 30 minutes and Khan for 31 minutes, as the governor should be given more time than any other guests as per the protocol.)

The governor did not read the written text but opted to go extempore to respond to the earlier speakers. At one moment, he personally addressed Ragesh, telling him that it was a rebuttal of his comments.

When the governor touched upon the subject of the CAA and defended the Centre, some participants started raising their voices in protest. When he said the house is open for discussion, two women delegates who were research fellows in the JNU, raised placards saying ‘this house (India) is not open for any discussions’. Even though the governor was heard saying that they have the right to protest democratically, the security officers tried to eject them.

A press release issued by the Aligarh Society of History and Archaeology, whose office bearers were present at the venue, says the protestors were “surrounded by the police who tried to enter into a physical scuffle and tried to take the two girls into custody”. It praises Ragesh for his “timely intervention”. “Soon a host of researchers from JNU, AMU, DU and Jamia were detained. Fortunately, they were all released within an hour. An attempt was also made to detain a senior professor from Aligarh,” the press release says.

Arif Mohammad Khan. Photo: PTI

Charged atompshere

By then, the atmosphere was charged. Participants, students and professors began chanting slogans against the governor’s “political remarks”. According to some delegates, Khan quoted Maulana Azad, saying “the Partition took the dirt away but some potholes were left behind, where water has collected and now it is stinking.” He told the protestors, “You are causing a foul smell. Maulana Azad had said this for you.”

This is when noted historian, professor Irfan Habib stood up and asked him to “quote Nathuram Godse” rather than Maulana Azad or Gandhi.

The Aligarh Society of History and Archaeology’s press release also details what happened on the stage immediately after the governor quoted Maulana Azad. It says:

“As the protests commenced, Professor Irfan Habib who was on the dais in the capacity of being the outgoing President of the IHC, got up from his seat and proceeded to the VC Kannur University, Professor Gopinath Ravindran to request him to stop what was happening and request the governor to refrain from turning IHC into his political arena and making remarks of the nature he was indulging in. As soon as Professor Habib went there, the ADC and the security officer of the Governor pushed him and tried to stop him. The Governor too started accusing Habib of trying to stop him from speaking.”

Kandakkai, who was present on the stage at the time, seconded this account. “Professor Habib did not heckle or physically prevent the governor from delivering the speech, but he was registering his protest,” he said.

On the other hand, the governor’s office took to Twitter to condemn Habib. In a series of tweets, he said that his speech was “interrupted on stage and from the audience”. He also accused professor Habib of trying to “physically stop him” from speaking. He claimed to have responded to points made by previous speakers as “a person duty bound to defend and protect the Constitution”.

Even though the governor did not say that he was manhandled or heckled, initial reports on electronic media ran amok with stories of professor Habib “challenging” the governor.

Speaking to the media, the historian said he does not “care what Arif Mohammed Khan says” about him. “I have known him from my days in Aligarh. But what concerns me is the action of the police, that too under a communist government,” he added, referring the detention of the protestors.

“The Governor was delivering a political speech at the history congress. I was also on the stage along with other dignitaries, Irfan Habib just asked the governor to quote Godse instead of misquoting Maulana Azad,” CPI(M) MP Ragesh, told a television channel.

Khan is not the first high profile public office holder to face protests in Kerala. Earlier this month, black flags were waved at Manipur governor Najma Heptulla by protesting youth organisations. BJP and NDA leaders including Karnataka chief minister B.S. Yeddiyurappa and Union minister V. Muraleedharan were also shown black flags as part of the ongoing protests.

BJP takes opportunity to criticise government

The BJP’s Kerala unit took the opportunity to condemn the state government, alleging that it was a “conspiracy hatched by the ruling party”. BJP leaders took up the matter at the all-party meeting convened by chief minister Pinarayi Vijayan to discuss the CAA, before boycotting it.

The saffron party claimed that the disruption represented a “complete compromise” of the governor’s security and accused the organisers of contravening protocol. According to them, professor Habib was not supposed to be on stage with Khan. But the organisers of the Congress refuted this charge, stating that as the outgoing president, Habib had every right to be on the dais. “The handing over of the charge to the new president was on the agenda, but the detailed procedure of it was not printed on the schedule card,” said Biju Kandakkai.

The Raj Bhavan, however, has asked the state police chief for a detailed report on the incident. It is learnt that Khan has specifically asked whether there were any intelligence inputs of a possible protest, which was ignored by the district police. He has also summoned the chief secretary to express his displeasure over the turn of events.

After protests against the CAA erupted across the country, Khan has been at loggerheads with all parties in the state except the BJP. He had expressed his displeasure at political parties marching to the Raj Bhavan, even in wee hours. There were post-midnight protests on several days after the Bill was passed in parliament.

The ruling CPI(M) has come down heavily on the governor. “The governor is undermining all good precedences with his political overtures,” said the party’s state secretary Kodiyeri Blakrishnan in a Facebook post. “If he wants to be in the thick of things of politics, let him relinquish the post and do it,” he added.

The Congress-led UDF opposition alliance boycotted the governor’s programmes, including the inaugural function of the India History Congress.