Objects that can’t Object

‘Let the rule of law prevail’ – is this true only for teachers who reacted with only a seven-day strike in installments during a period beginning from 16th July to 30th October, in response to a barrage of letters hurled from the registrar’s office aimed at humiliating teachers who had engaged themselves in saving their dignity and also what they perceive as soul of the higher (non-professional) education. Are we required to shed our right to participate in a process that decides what and how to teach, under the threat of salary cuts? Are we being told that university rules are not that are written in the rule-book but it is the orders of those whom they consider to be the ‘authorities’?
The only mistake the teachers made was that they felt they are part of the education system itself and not mere external instruments for helping just another system, controlled by others, to function. Mr. Justice, teachers were the ones who wanted only the rule of law to prevail and not the University ‘officials’ (not defined as ‘authorities’ in our rule-book), who kept on issuing illegal orders. We are covinced that our University officials can think of destroying this temple of learning by using this as a ladder for achieving personal gains in their life outside the university but we would always like to preserve this and feel pride in considering this to be our sole duty.
We can never imagine of a teacher ‘Dronacharya’ advising Draupadi to have first abided by the orders of ‘Duryodhan’; to have cooperated with 'Duhshasan' in helping him execute the orders by allowing him to make her sit on Duryodhan’s lap after shedding her clothes, before filing a suit and waited for ‘Dhritrashtra’ to have termed the order eventually as illegal. Lots of lives lost in 'Mahabhrata Yuddha' could have been saved had she let the then rule of law to prevail. History has not forgiven Dronacharya for even being a mute witness to a blatant immoral and highly unpardonable act of his 'authorities'. Can our court suggest that a member of ‘Haryana Lawn Tennis Association’, Ruchitra Gehrotra, should have followed the orders of her authority, the founding president of the association, Mr. SPS Rathore? She should have cooperated in her molestation as she had no right to deprive India of many winning medals in the sport? She could have gone to the court afterwards to know whether SPS Rathore’s advances were legal or not as no one else has a right to know or interpret the law.
I am just hoping that these queries will be answered in the final verdict to be delivered on December 13. Only the final verdict will hint whether the teachers made a mistake of not approaching the courts or not. In this era of privatisation, are we supposed to behave as mere objects that cannot object?