Are we very near to the end?

Decision to discontinue with our action programme of boycotting the classroom-teaching in response to a hope generated by the court wherein a process was initiated to open a channel of dialogue with the University authority by way of affidavits and rejoinders goes on to further highlight the consistency in our argument wherein we have repeatedly been stating that we had to resort to strike only because all channels of communications between the teachers and the University has arrogantly and conspiratorially been strangulated by the university officials. Teachers are fighting just for their say in an important academic matter and with a glimpse of a possibility of even a document-led-dialogue in the courts we have shown our willingness of negotiation and in the process have asserted our commitment for resolution of the impasse created entirely by the University authorities at the cost of career of students. Now Mr. Pental, who was behaving like 'khap panchayat'? Who thoght that he can promulgate rules single-handedly even if they are in violation to the existing well established rules and procedures? Unlike the projection made by our out-gone vice chancellor it was he who had got stuck with an idea and not the debate demanding teachers. Teachers are on record having never said no to reforms. This university is not the same that it used to be a few decades ago in terms of the way that the courses are now being run, in terms of the number of courses that exists now and also in terms of course content that the records will show up by itself. Many current books listed on the reading lists for almost all the courses will testify of our willingness to change for better. Remarkably nobody had to witness our resentment to any of these countless changes and this is precisely because all these reforms were done by the teachers themselves. Despite the innumerable changes in the course structure and its contents the implementation was never an issue as these changes were led by the majority of teachers in a department through proper discussion initiated in the committee of courses. Our main grudge is that this time we were not consulted on the issue and the absence of our opinion is being misused in provokingly projecting it as our reluctance for any change. Our apprehension about the desirability and feasibility of the semester system (that has undoubtedly been proved to be better in a limited environment of smaller applicability area but is arguably impractical in a University of the size as large as Delhi University) has never been addressed to our satisfaction.
Now we are in the courts just to fight the last leg of our battle and the irrefutable argument with which we convince others, plain logic to which we stick to and the sheer honesty present in our motives will again become the reason of a favourable court verdict, scheduled on November 15, that will mark the culmination of this principled fight as we have witnessed in all our earlier struggles.