Image Courtesy: The Hindu

In June 2017, it was reported that the government is planning to scrap the University Grants Commission (UGC) and the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE) and replace them with a common regulator which is being called Higher Education Empowerment Regulation Agency (HEERA).

On June 27, HRD Minister Prakash Javadekar announced that The Centre is set to replace the apex higher education regulator body University Grants Commission (UGC) with Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) by repealing the UGC Act, 1951.
 
“The proposed Higher Education Commission of India would focus solely on academic matters and monetary grants would be under the purview of the ministry, according to the draft. Presently, the University Grants Commission (UGC), which came into existence in 1953, provides financial assistance to eligible colleges. The new Act will be called the Higher Education Commission of India Act, 2018 (Repeal of University Grants Commission Act).

The HRD Ministry has asked educationists, general public and other stakeholders to give comments and suggestions before 5 pm on July 7 on the draft, which has been released on its website,” reported the Quint.
 
Ayesha Kidwai, a theoretical linguist and professor at JNU criticised the draft of Higher Education Commission of India (HECI) Draft Act, through a post on Facebook. It reads as follows:
 
A. COMPOSITION OF THE COMMISSION
1. Not only have teachers been given less than ten days to comment, teachers have been pushed out of the Commission entirely. Whereas the earlier UGC Act ensured a minimum of 4 teachers in the 12 member Council and that at least 6 were not officers of State/Central govts, the HEC is packed with:
a) 3 Secretaries of Government of India departments
b) 2 chairs of Councils — AICTE and NCTE
c) 2 chairs of accreditation bodies (must be NAAC and NIRF, but could it eventually become Times and QS?)
d) 2 VCs
e) One “doyen of industry” (doyen has been left undefined, but what is meant is, of course, crony capitalist extraordinaire.)
 
Only TWO professors in the 12. Whereas under the UGC Act, this could in principle have been up to 10, now it can only be maximum two. Keeping teachers out, keeps students out, as only teachers care about students, not administrators.
 
2. The Chairperson of the commission shall be a citizen “or an Overseas citizen of India”. Wow! Pardesi Chairs of a sufficiently saffron hue?
 
3. The HEC Act provides for Chairpersons and Members to declare the extent of their interest, “whether direct or indirect and whether pecuniary or otherwise, in any institution of research or higher educational institution or in any other professional or financial activity.” This information to be put on the website, upon entering the office, and self-recusal from meetings discussing that activity.
 
There is no disqualification for members who have a vested interest in moulding national educational policy for their own interests.
 
Yes, yes, this is a continuation of Messrs. Birla and Ambani writing reports on education, but it doesn’t make it right, does it? But it’s different too— it elevates conflict of interest to the status of a virtue. And brings every aspect of higher education under direct government control.
 
B. POWERS OF THE HECI VS. THE UGC
1. HECI shall do much more, and worse than UGC could:
 
a. Specify learning outcomes — UGC couldn’t. University education cannot be oriented to some specified outcomes. UGC made some model syllabi as guides which was okay, but to say that students must learn X and Y by the first year is ridiculous, starting from BA is just rubbish.
b. Lay down standards of teaching/ assessment/research — UGC could, but it could only set MINIMUM standards. Now HECI gets to decide the whole caboodle. This has been JNU’s fight these last two years, namely that minimum isn’t maximum, and that institutional autonomy entails that we have to harmonise with UGC Regulations rather than adopt without modification.
c. Evaluate yearly academic performance of universities: UGC couldn’t. I just shudder to think what this evaluation will entail. Aadhar cards? Moral values?
d. Promote research “and coordinate with Government for the provision of adequate funding for research”: UGC also promoted research but because it had financial powers, a case could be made directly to the UGC. One more hurdle for funding has been created.
It’s also quite likely that the HECI won’t have funds of its own to promote research any more — so no major/minor research projects, post docs etc.
e. Put in place a robust accreditation system for evaluation of academic outcomes by various HEIs: UGC had no such role, and that’s why we had NAAC. This HECI measure is going to bring the NAAC into the UGC and allow the govt to tie up funding with NAAC scores. One can only imagine what a funding scarcity this will result in — the lower the NAAC grade, the lower the government funding and the more impossible the improvement. A terrible vicious cycle!
f. “Order closure of institutions which fail to adhere to minimum standards without affecting the student’s interest or fail to get accreditation within the specified period” — UGC had no such power and could at maximum withhold the grant. And here is the rub of accreditation, which is held to be an equal offence as not meeting standards.
g. Standards for grant of autonomy and Graded Autonomy— The UGC Act does not envisage a situation in which a state-funded HEI will be free of its overall guidance and financial control, and hence the need for this new HECI Act, which gives the UGC these powers.
h. Norms and processes for the establishment and winding up of a Higher Educational Institution — UGC could only advise on establishment if such advice was asked for. It could not order closure.
i. Norms and mechanisms to measure the effectiveness of programmes and employability of the graduates — UGC could not do any such thing. What criteria are to determine “effectiveness” and “employability”? There have to be jobs in the country for people to get employed, no?
j. Norms and processes for fixing of fees to make “education affordable for all” — The UGC Act had a very detailed section on fees (as well as subsequent regulations) on fees and a probation on donations, but all that is gone now and we are left with the vague quote above. Donations are no longer prohibited it seems.
k. The HECI shall also “discharge such other functions in relation to the promotion, coordination and maintenance of standards in higher education and research as the Central Government may subject to the provisions of this Act, prescribe.” The Central Government is directly going to tell us whether we can have PhDs or not, and what the content of our BAs and MAs will be!
 
The HECI has extraordinary powers, without any checks and balances, as it’s only a bunch of government appointees who will just be telling the government what it wants done. Individual universities have no power to demand consultation, inquiry, or even appeal against any of its decisions. The earlier UGC Act recognised that educational institutions are instituted for a number of social (incl. charitable) reasons and can, therefore, have many histories, shapes and forms, and all were needed in a country as under-educated as India and saw the job of the regulator as one of nudging them all through an ongoing process of consultation and fair opportunity for representation and correction. But this HECI Act sets up the regulator as a gatekeeper who manages the market and the tractability of the workforce it produces — the goal is to create an authority that has total control over the market, including the power to expel those that exact continued subsidy from the state. It guarantees the students and taxpayers NOTHING in terms of regulation of fees or quality of education. Compliance will demand being absolutely pliant.
 
C. AUTHORISATION AND PUTTING ALL UNIVERSITIES’ FUTURE AT RISK
The HECI Act states that no university established after this Act is passed can start awarding degrees unless it is authorised. Universities established before this will be considered authorised for THREE YEARS only. What these norms are to be will be notified by HECI from time to time, and failure to meet them can lead to authorisation being revoked. It’s also clear that authorisation is going to be given and maintained not only on the basis of what the university has at that particular point of time but contingent on achieving a set of goals over a decade. We can expect these goals to be about resource-generation etc., a burden that will surely be passed on as fees and a cutback in recruitment, and most likely all kinds of rubbishy short-term courses.
 
This means that compliance with the Central govt diktats will be essential from the word go, for both older and newer universities. Non-compliance will rest in at the very least financial penalties, and failure to pay up will lead to prosecution and possible imprisonment for the executive officers of the HEI!
 
D. BYE BYE EXISTING UNIVERSITIES
Just in case anyone is labouring under the apprehension that the real autonomy that individual university acts gives us will provide some protection, think again! The HECI Act will have an overriding effect. The UGC Act, the Architects and the Advocates Act will be repealed, although any regulations made under these Acts will continue to have an effect until new ones are notified by HECI. While the Bar Council and Architects Councils can at least set higher standards than HECI, Universities cannot do anything else other than what HECI dictates. And since HECI’s regulations “regulations relating to promoting quality and setting standards shall have prior approval of Central Government”, it’s the govt who will effectively run every single university in the country. (Wonder when the regulation removing reservations is being planned for—2020?)
 
Individual university acts have made our institutions distinctive and responsive to the needs of the areas they serve. For example, JNU’s admission policy, which gives grace marks to candidates disadvantaged in terms of caste, regional, and gender backwardness, flows from its Act. If the JNU Act is to effectively be finished off, fighting for these deprivation points is going to be impossible.
 
All in all, the HECI Act will just sink higher education in this country. It’s really fitting that we should get this tohfa on the day that we commemorate the resistance against the Emergency because it shows us what the RSS was doing all along — watching and learning! Enforcing obedience in universities is just one of the effects of this Act, it will entrench a regulatory system that will just liquidate otherwise all the investments in education that the Indian people have made through their taxes. The HECI Act must be opposed tooth and nail — time for huge mobilisations if we want to survive this hell.

More pieces by unions are expected soon.

The post Dismantling the UGC with impunity appeared first on SabrangIndia.

The JNUTA will be bringing out detailed releases with regards to many of the ‘decisions’ taken in the EC on 30th June, but as even a summary list shows, there is an impunity borne of scant respect for rules and norms that is relentlessly targeting the JNU faculty and their rights and collective decisions. Shamefully, the JNU Registrar has failed to perform the duties prescribed by the Statutes once again. The letter written by 50 AC/EC members to the members of the EC about the M.Phil./PhD ordinances was not tabled, and once again, the minutes of the 143rd AC were placed before the EC without giving time to member’s of the AC to record their opinions. In fact, the Registrar admitted that the minutes of the 143rd AC were circulated just half an hour prior to the 268th EC meeting!

Some of the decisions taken in the 268th EC are as as below.

• Even as the EC did not approve of the relieving of Prof. Rajeev Kumar, SC&SS, there was a decision that the order would not be withdrawn; rather legal opinion would be sought. The JNUTA has already demanded the colleague’s reinstatement, because lien is the right of the employee and it is his choice which institution he wishes to pursue his career in. 
• The confirmation of two colleagues has been withheld on spurious grounds. In one case, a re-verification of a caste certificate is the pretext, when there is no valid ground for any suspicion. In the second case, the decisions of a Selection Committee and previous EC decisions from over four years ago is sought to be overturned, and the terms of the employee’s contract violated with impunity. The JNUTA takes a very serious view of both these decisions, not only for the torture and mental harassment they cause the individual colleagues, but of the scandalous precedent they set. Equally alarming is the subterfuge employed in bringing up the second case in the EC– there was not one hint in the agenda papers or in the papers tabled at the meeting that the intent was to attempt to terminate a colleague without any intimation to her. The JNUTA rejects the need for any enquiry on the matter. 
• Promotions of three colleagues have been withheld, all three from one of the intellectually most vibrant Centres of the university, on grounds that have remained formally unspecified. As per the recommendations made to the EC, and the letters the three colleagues received, were told to re-apply again in three months. As expected, this spurious ‘recommendation’ was not upheld in the EC as it is against the CAS rules; the three colleagues will now lose a year of seniority. JNU teachers representatives’ demand for the Selection Committee minutes were turned down, despite the fact that it is the statutory right of EC members to access these documents. Breaking from past norms whereby notes of dissent given in Selection Committees are tabled if requested, EC members were advised that one or two differing opinions cannot be accorded any weight. JNUTA rejects this majoritarian reasoning completely, as the import of a dissent note lies in the substantive point it raises, which may be strong enough in law/rule/propriety to inform the EC of corruption, discrimination, wrongful application of rules in a Selection Committee. Since neither the VC nor the Selection Committee is the appointing authority, all facts pertaining to an appointment must be placed before the body that is empowered to do so. 
• The VC’s tampering with the database of experts continues, despite the fact that the matter is sub judice. From what JNUTA has been able to glean, the VC has “finalised” (i.e. made illegal additions to the Panel of Experts for the following Centres/Schools over the past six months, based on what has been reported to the AC and/or EC: School of Arts & Aesthetics, School of Computer & Systems Sciences, Centre for Linguistics (twice), Centre for Political Studies, Special Centre for Nanoscience, Centre for the Study of Regional Development, Centre for Philosophy, Centre for Studies in Science Policy, School of Environmental Sciences. Despite requests to reveal the names of such additions were not acceded to, and instead a decision has purportedly been taken to add whatever names the VC dreams up to the database of experts permanently. The JNUTA  rejects this blatant violation of the Statutes, Ordinances, and the UGC Regulations 2010. It wishes to flag the seriousness of  this new EC decision very seriously, as this decision ensures that the VC can henceforth nominate only ‘his’ experts to Selection Committees. 
• To satisfy an external member’s inordinate interest in the names shortlisted for a position in a Centre in SSS, the EC has agreed to make available to him the three Screening Committees’ recommendations and CVs of all candidates who were called for interview. It has also decided to invite external ‘experts’ to enquire into this matter. This brazen vitiation of the screening process by rendering it open to manipulation by vested interests is not only condemnable, it also ignores the fact that each Centre’s shortlist is in fact already screened by the university IQAC. On the one hand, the minutes of Selection Committees are denied to EC members; but on the other hand, individual members are being allowed a free hand to pervert due process at will. 
• Archives managed and developed by the Centre’s/Schools, such as the Archives on Contemporary History of India, the P.C. Joshi Archives, are to be wrested away from Centres and handed over to the University Librarian. The JNUTA finds this move extremely regressive, as the construction and categorisation of these archives is the intellectual property of faculty and Centres who have built them, and it is under their guidance and control that these archives can continue to grow. 
• Unbeknownst to colleagues in the Centre of the Study of Social Systems, an ‘enquiry’ was conducted into clerical errors committed by the staff in entering marks into the award blank for the JNUEE 2016. Although the Vibha Tandon Committee that was designated by the VC to conduct the error has categorically stated that these errors are nothing beyond “human error”, the EC was actively misled, through the furnishing of falsified documents that a dismissed teacher was involved in correcting the scripts, that there needs to be a further action of “fixing responsibility”. JNUTA has already sharply condemned the reports in the media on this matter, and demands the JNU administration issue an official rejoinder forthwith and an enquiry into the leak ordered at once. 
• The JNUTA is shocked to learn that the University administration is  contemplating setting up a VC-nominated committee to function as the Internal Complaints Committee under the anti-Sexual Harassment Act 2013, effectively derecognising the GSCASH. Aside from the fact that the GSCASH is unequivocally and unambiguously designated at the JNU EC and the Court as the ICC for JNU, the JNUTA would like the EC to pause and reflect upon whether it  would really like to take this openly confrontational line with the JNU community. The GSCASH was won by collective action by the JNU community after two years of intense struggle, and all attempts to undermine this unique institution have been thwarted by the university community over the last 19 years. 
• The EC has once again gifted away JNU’s autonomy by resolving that henceforth only UGC rules for the counting of past service will be employed in JNU. If the information that there will be no retrospective application of these rules and that the JNU Ordinances in existence at the time will govern past cases, JNUTA fails to understand why one case will be referred to the UGC for “clarification” at all. 
• The witchhunt of JNU faculty for for their exercise of the right of freedom of speech and expression also continues. The Bidyut Chakrabarty headed committee (that JNUTA had objected to earlier) has already met five times. The JNUTA condemns this travesty of an enquiry and cautions the JNU administration that these moves to deny teachers their rights under the law of the land will be met with an appropriate response.

In other news, EC also appears to have accepted the JNU administration’s proposal to erect “a statue of suitable height and size” on a “proper elevated platform” of Swami Vivek ananda. JNUTA would be delighted if this would bring about a spiritual commitment in the current JNU administration’s towards building a society in which truth prevails. But if the series of decisions that the 268th EC has taken, marked by  libel, discrimination, illegality, and injustice against the teaching community, are any indication, it is unlikely that this statue will have the desired effect.

(Ayesha Kidwai, President, JNUTA & Pradeep Shinde, Secretary)
 

The post How the Executive Council is Functioning at JNU: The 267th Meeting & Attacks on Faculty appeared first on SabrangIndia.

 

First of all, JNU has no exclusively M.Phil. intake at all. It either admits students to an integrated M.Phil./PhD or a Direct PhD programme. As per the 142nd Academic Council, the approved intake for the M.Phil./PhD programme for 2017-18 is 1072. Everybody in the combined M.Phil./PhD programme will enter at the M.Phil. level, this figure of 1072 is much less than the 1345 (sum up Row 1) allowed by the UGC Regulations 2016.

The conclusion: THE NUMBER OF JNU STUDENTS IN M.PHIL. DO NOT EXCEED THE BOUNDS DEFINED BY THE UGC REGULATIONS 2016.

Second, as per the 142nd Academic Council, the approved intake for the Direct PhD programme for 2017-18 is 178, a figure which is just a fraction of the 3894 students allowed by the UGC Regulations 2016.
Assuming that every year, 1072 students from M.Phil. get added as well to the PhD programme from the previous year’s integrated M.Phil./PhD programme as well, the fact is that every year just 1250 students start working for the PhD degree, i.e. just a third of the 3894 PhD scholars allowed each year.

The conclusion: THE NUMBER OF JNU STUDENTS IN PHD DO NOT EXCEED THE BOUNDS DEFINED BY THE UGC REGULATIONS 2016.

The only argument for reducing intake is therefore the caps on research students that were first introduced by the UGC 2009 Regulations and then repeated in 2016, whereby a Professor can guide a maximum of 8 PhDs and 3 MPhils, an Associate Professor can guide 6 PhDs and 2 M.Phils, and an Assistant Professor, 4 PhDs and 1 M.Phil. In a combined M.Phil./PhD integrated programme, it makes sense then to look at the PhD data in the table rather than the MPhil.

And what does one see there?

NO VIOLATION OF THE UGC REGULATIONS AT ALL (look at the first two rows in the PhD section): ALL THREE CATEGORIES IN JNU HAVE SIGNIFICANTLY LESS NUMBER THAN THE MAXIMUM NUMBER OF SCHOLARS IN EACH. For example, where Assistant Professors as a group could have 636 students, JNU’s data indicates that they are only 534 PhD students enrolled.

With the case for an intake reduction disappearing, enter the VC as Robin Hood, trailing behind a shifting goalpost. The issue is no longer the UGC Regulations 2016 but how there must be an ‘equitable distribution’ of students. This is highly problematic:

Well, first of all, students are not LADDOOS to be distributed amongst the devotees. Students are as actively involved in the choice of supervisor as faculty are, and their decision about supervisors is guided by area of specialisation and topic of research. IS THE GOAL OF THIS REDISTRIBUTION TO ELIMINATE THE STUDENT’S RIGHT TO HAVE A SAY IN THE MATTER?

Second, in a faculty member’s career in the institution, there can be periods in which there are only a few research scholars or even working with her for a variety of reasons — such as engagement in her own research (e.g., writing a book, doing a research project), the demands of university administration, and other factors. CONSIDERATION OF DATA FOR JUST A YEAR OR TWO IS SIMPLY MISLEADING.

Third, should a university administration not be happy that in general, the university faculty, and particularly its professors, are so willing to shoulder the responsibility of research supervision? And SINCE SUPERVISORS ARE FORMALLY ASSIGNED TO STUDENTS BY CENTRES/SCHOOLS/SPECIAL CENTRES, WHERE IS THE QUESTION OF US ‘GRABBING’ STUDENTS?

Last year, in February, JNU teachers were called anti-nationals, living off the taxes paid by the toiling masses. This year, we are being accused of anti-national again – but this time, for working too hard!

Ayesha Kidwai is Professor at JNU and President, JNU Teachers’ Association

Courtesy: kafila.online
 

The post JNU VC misleads media on research vacancies: Ayesha Kidwai appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Ayesha Kidwai is Professor, Centre for Lingustics, School of Language, Literature and Culture Studies, JNU.

Courtesy: Kafila.online
 

The post How do the new UGC regulations affect prospective students applying to JNU? Ayesha Kidwai appeared first on SabrangIndia.

Despite the searing heat and failing health of many – including Chintu Kumari, Umar Khalid and Kanhaiya Kumar – the declaration by the Vice Chancellor of JNU that a hunger strike is an “unlawful activity” has only fuelled the strikers’ determination. Although over a hundred teachers met the Vice Chancellor and his team (as he likes to call them) in a bid to break the deadlock, no progress has been made because the JNU administration seems to believe that the fight here is one about the quantum of punishment.

Such is the chasm that separates the current JNU administration’s understanding of what the law is and what justice actually demands that the law has become something of a fugitive in JNU these past few months. The extremely obstinate, vengeful and motivated enquiry proceedings anddisciplinary action over the February 9 event have so perverted university procedures and institutions that the entire JNU administration now faces a crisis of credibility.

Common thread
Like any other institution, it is of course not the case that JNU has always acted fairly. On July 6 2012, the High Court of Delhi, in its judgement on Ms Flora Gupta 2012 vs. Jawaharlal Nehru University & Ors. set aside both the enquiry report of March 7, 2008, and an Office Order dated August 5, 2008, that had declared the JNU campus out of bounds for Ms Gupta and debarred her admission in any programme of the University for the same period.

This setting aside of an enquiry report and of a Vice Chancellor’s disciplinary action against a student was a rare decision by the High Court, as normally, courts order infirmities in procedure to be rectified by the university enquiry committee itself. And if the Court finds that the enquiry has failed to establish the culpability of the individual concerned, it usually orders further investigation to achieve this. In this case, however, the High Court did not adopt either of these two routes, because the university enquiry had so fully failed to establish the case against Ms Flora Gupta (as the 34-page-order painstakingly detailed), that in asking the JNU to do a proper enquiry would amount to punishing her well beyond the debarment for five years imposed upon her. Therefore, out of concern for the plaintiff, the High Court ordered JNU to immediately grant her admission to the PhD programme in Biotechnology.

The enquiry in the Flora Gupta case was on the allegation that the two students, Flora Gupta and Gargi Roy, had obtained prior access to the question paper of the PhD in Biotechnology entrance examination through her supervisor, Prof Uttam Pati, and therefore had topped the entrance examination. In substance, the case bears no resemblance to the controversial High Level Enquiry Committee enquiry and punishments meted out on April 25 to 21 current and former students over the event “Poetry Reading – A Country Without a Post Office’’ on February 9, 2016.

Nevertheless, the two cases are yoked together by a common thread of impunity and utter disregard for established procedures of enquiry, guarantee of principles of natural justice, and a reasonable, proportionate disciplinary action, which transparently and logically follows from the substantiated findings of an enquiry committee. For example, both in the 2008 case involving Flora Gupta as well as in the 2016 case involving the 21 students, those punished were not given any formal explanation (statements or documents, et cetera) about the reason why the Vice Chancellor decided to appoint a special Enquiry Committee. In both cases, the statements of witnesses and the documents relied on by the two enquiry committees were not supplied to those charged, nor was cross-examination allowed, and despite repeated requests, including under the Right to Information law, neither parties were given the full enquiry report.

Most importantly, however, in both cases, the evidence relied upon for charging the students was completely compromised: the current High Level Enquiry Committee has relied on video evidence that has been shown by the Delhi Metropolitan Magistrate’s Inquiry to be “doctored”, and oral testimony shown to be “tutored” (namely in the case of the JNU security guards). In the Flora Gupta case, the “evidence” the One-Man Enquiry Committee relied upon was Gupta’s “confession”, which was dismissed by the Court as having been extracted under duress by the faculty of the School, which incidentally also included Prof Rakesh Bhatnagar, the Chair of the current Enquiry Committee.

In the 2008 case, Prof Rakesh Bhatnagar, along with Prof Aparna Dixit, had been alleged to have dictated the confessional statement to Gupta and another woman student. In fact, Gupta was made to submit four distinct versions of her confessional statement under threats of defamation, until the two faculty members were satisfied with the result. All this happened in the presence of her supervisor, Prof Uttam Pati,who later testified to the fact that Bhatnagar had indeed dictated the confessions. Although Pati himself was left under something of a cloud in the judgement, with the Court failing to understand why no enquiry was ever initiated against him for a leak of the question paper, the choice of Bhatnagar to head the Enquiry Committee now was surprising, to say the least. Appointing someone whose unethical and improper conduct had led to a vitiated enquiry in the past, and a huge embarrassment to the university in the High Court, can not simply be a colossal error of judgement, but would appear instead to be a calculated decision.

An eyewash
Considering the manner in which the proceedings have been conducted, the only conclusion worth making is that the enquiry had already decided to punish a specific set of students and its proceedings were just an eyewash. Why else would an enquiry committee not respond to nearly 60 letters written by at least 20 students? Why would it fail to provide them with a copy of the complaint and the material and testimonial evidence against them so that they could be rebutted? How could students present any evidence in their defence when they did knot know what they were charged with? Rather than these being mere procedural lapses, these are proof of the Enquiry Committee’s – and the JNU administration’s – prejudice against the students it has charged.

As a consequence of this dedication to a predetermined outcome, the charges against many students have swung wildly from the first punitive order of suspension to the show-cause notice to the final order of punishment. For example, Aishwariya Adhikari and Shweta Raj were two of the eight students suspended on February 12, 2016, for what they were informed were any of four misdemeanours: misrepresenting the nature of the event of February 9, forcibly organising it despite withdrawal of permission, creating a law and order situation in JNU, and shouting anti-constitutional slogans and/or making derogatory remarks about the nation.

In the show-cause notice, both were told that they had been found guilty of committing “[a]ny other act which may be considered by the VC or any other competent authority to be an act of violation of discipline and conduct”, and were asked to explain why action should not be taken against them. In other words, it was a show-cause notice that couldn’t be responded to with a substantive defence. In the final order, both Aishwarya and Shweta have been found guilty of “shouting objectionable slogans in wrongfully organised event”. Note the move from “unconstitutional” to “objectionable”, thereby shifting all evaluation to the great Indian terrain of “hurt sentiments”. This, taken together with the fact that Aishwariya is not even mentioned in the Enquiry Committee report (a fact which she pointed out in her reply to the show-cause notice) suggests an overweening will to punish rather than one to fix accountability for an event that went out of hand as a result of a verbal clash between two groups of students
Like Aishwariya, other students’ replies to the show-cause notices have not been taken into account. Even completely plausible explanations such as why a wrong hostel address ended up on the permission form have not been accepted, and in many cases, an entirely new charge has been added. For example, amongst many others, Reyaz ul Haque, whose name was not even mentioned in the Enquiry Committee, has been accused of rousing “caste and communal feelings” for lending his name to a poster announcing the cultural evening as a protest against the “Brahmanical collective conscience” that led to the execution of Afzal Guru and Maqbool Bhatt. (Interestingly, this charge has not been applied to any of the students recorded by the Committee report as shouting slogans like “Duudh mango to khiir denge, Kashmir maango to chiir denge!” – if you ask for milk, we will give you khir or milk pudding but if you ask for Kashmir, we’ll cut you up).

Test of prejudice
Anirban Bhattacharya, Umar Khalid, JNU Students Union Joint Secretary Rama Naga and former JNUSU President Ashutosh Kumar have been penalised for “addressing a gathering consisting of outsiders at Ganga Dhaba”, and somewhat ludicrously, of being part of the procession from Sabarmati Dhaba to Ganga Dhaba during which objectionable slogans were shouted (by 10-15 outsiders).

Charges like these do not even flow from the extremely flawed Committee report, but have been framed post-hoc, in a frantic scrabble around the disciplinary rules to find a misdemeanour to be applied to signing on a poster – or responding to a slogan about Azadi. A similar lack of rationality inflects the severity of the punishments that have been meted out to all the 21 students: exorbitant fines, the failure to pay which shall attract dire consequences, and the completely unwarranted rustication of Umar and Anirban.

Indeed, Anirban is the worst sufferer of them all, as although his punishment will let him submit his PhD in a six-day window in July, he has been declared out of bounds of the JNU campus for five years. This was the identical punishment given to Flora Gupta by JNU, and despite the fact that this extremely harsh penalty did not stand the test of the law, it has been repeated.

In setting aside the punishment in Flora Gupta’s case, the High Court used the “the test of prejudice” as its keystone – that is, whether the person had received a fair hearing, considering all things. If the persons being proceeded against have asked for their rights and been denied, then there is no need for any further proof of prejudice.

For the JNU students union and its teachers association, it is this test of prejudice that the JNU administration and its high level enquiry committee has failed spectacularly. A mere amendment of the quantum of punishment cannot – and should not – be the means by which this gross miscarriage of justice is naturalised as the means by which disciplinary action and justice is delivered on our university campuses.

Ayesha Kidwai is a Professor of Linguistics at JNU.

Article first appeared on: Scroll.in

The post The JNU administration now faces a crisis of credibility: Ayesha Kidwai appeared first on SabrangIndia.