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.

Educated men or just college pass-outs

Strike announced by the Delhi University Teachers Association was immediately followed by yet another threatening letter shot from the office of the registrar at the behest of Prof. Pental. This exhibits their callous approach towards the whole issue of semesterisation and reveals their sheer indifference while ignoring the plight of the teachers of Delhi University who have been fighting what may ultimately turn out to be their last battle for their right of being involved in any decision-making process at a place hitherto considered as ‘their’ university. This university is unique in the sense that teachers have constitutionally been provided enough democratic space that allows their involvement in all decision-making processes so much so that all decisions are owned up by them. Teachers feel pride in owning up their decisions and that makes them responsible enough to share an unblemished record of having never violated the academic calendar of Delhi University. Delhi University has never seen any academic session getting delayed due to any teachers’ strike. In this university college teachers have hitherto been involved in framing rules, observing rules, framing syllabi, students’ elections, admissions, paper setting, evaluation and reevaluations, tabulation of results and moderations wherever required. This has helped teachers in making this place one of the most sought after as viewed by the school pass-outs. Owing to this democratic format the University has witnessed countless revision of courses and contrary to the belief of Mr. Pental the teachers themselves were instrumental in almost all of them. Prof. Pental and the Registrar who seems to have little knowledge of the past traditions and practices of this great university has cheeks to remind teachers of the best traditions of this institution!
The letter mentions that due to frequent strikes the examinations are now being rescheduled. It is just absurdly curious to note that the teachers have never given a call for strike demanding rescheduling of examinations? Who asked for rescheduling of examinations? Certainly not teachers as their demand of initiation of a proper discussion on the feasibility and desirability of the proposed course structure is well publicized and has been unambiguously communicated to the authorities. Prof. Pental and his team members have been claiming throughout that teachers are participating voluntarily in teaching the semester based courses barring a miniscule counted number of self proclaimed representatives and DUTA activists. Then why was rescheduling of the examinations done? If it was demanded by the students then prior to succumbing to their demands the teachers must have been taken into confidence in order to ensure that they use this rescheduling for covering up the syllabus. The process of rescheduling of examinations could have been meaningful only if the authorities would have attended to what they have ignorantly admitted in the process that teachers are striking work in support of the cause taken up by DUTA and are not willing to give up their right of being a part of any academic decision making process.
But it is now amply clear that the intention of the university and HRD ministry combine seems to be to humiliate teachers and force them to teach (even if they do that unwillingly) a course that teachers consider as undesirable. A half-cooked and ill-conceived structure where it is not clear as to how exactly the practical examinations are to be conducted or students are to be evaluated and how internal assessment marks are to be assigned, only Prof. Pental and Mr. Registrar have the vision of getting this implemented with the active support of the HRD ministry apparently acting under some greater plan. Let me correct Mr. Registrar that this is exactly what has never been our best tradition. I will remind him that in keeping with the best traditions of this great university Prof. Pental should have had by now left this university and others should have had initiated the process of involving teachers in the course revision. How an educated lot of well meaning teachers can own up a half-baked course that has forcibly been thrown upon them? How a set of humiliated teachers after losing their dignity by signing a bond under the threat of withholding their salary is expected to perform their duty of inculcating education with values to the students? What are they suppose to teach? How the teachers after having felt insulted can inspire students?
It seems they do not want teachers to produce confident and educated men capable of taking stands and instead they just want to have mere college pass-outs at their disposal who will be willing to go to any extent to earn their bread and butter.

Mandir Sabhi Banayenge

Yes Mr. Yechury (‘Not About Blind Faith’, October 12, 2010 issue of HT on page 12), justice is a pre-requisite for reconciliation but then why don’t you agree that justice has been done in ‘Ayodhya’ and it is time for reconciliation. You are right in asserting that justice can never be blind, in fact justice is divine and can only be done by keeping your eyes open. However, against your liking Mr. Yechury, when your eyes are open then it will not only view 10 years back (when a structure was demolished that was built 500 years ago) but much beyond that. We all understand why is ‘Ayodhya’ known for and we all know that it has never been identified with the structure that Babar had built up. ‘Ayodhya’ belongs to the pilgrims who identify ‘Ayodhya’ as birth place of Ram and not only to the locals who largely depend on the pilgrims’ activities. But the court order has correctly reminded the chanters of ‘mandir vahin banayenge’ that either ‘mandir sabhi banayenge’ or ‘mandir nahin banega’. The very fact that now a mandir can be made only if it is allowed by all the three owners only reaffirms our sense of secularism that India stands for. Unfortunately the court did not satisfy those pseudo-seculars who wanted Babri structure to be built at the same place. A mandir built by hindu-muslim combine will in fact lay the foundation of secularism that India understands. One must admit that the court decision is equally uncomfortable for all the parties involved in the suit but it shows a way ahead also to them. However the decision has come as a setback only for those who had wished to humiliate the majority and are now in no mood to leave any stone unturned in order to ensure that minority feels humiliated. This set of people will do everything to make sure that a brilliant court verdict of recent times is wasted despite all efforts of positive reconciliation.