Hey Nandini Dean!

The Dean seems to be entirely confused thoroughly throughout her sermonising article (Hey Ramayana! Hindustan Times issue dated 11.11.2011 http://www.hindustantimes.com/ViewsEditorialSectionPage/ColumnsOthers/Hey-Ramayana/Article1-767465.aspx#.TrwCegXCRjw.facebook ).

She ends with her argument “true, teachers often betray their profession, a fact which their unions must address. Absenteeism and nepotism are major problems. Quotas are required because left to themselves, few people actively implement affirmative action.” But surprisingly concludes with an entirely opposite proposition “yet, the solution is not more discipline, but more autonomy.” Is it just because she has an idea that a particular department can think ‘logically’ in this case? I found it difficult to comprehend that at one place she places her understanding of the Academic Council (that has only teachers/professors/academicians as members) with her comments “everyone claims to be an expert of social sciences, even if they have no idea of the craft that goes into the simplest looking text” but at the same time she wants us to entrust the exercise of framing syllabus on a smaller set of these teachers that constitutes a department. Now if teachers are such a lot who behave so illogically (according to her only) when they are present in a larger number in the Academic Council then I have all reasons for questioning her intelligence as she wants to trust either a smaller set of these academicians in a particular department or the even smaller four member expert-committee formed by still lesser number of teachers! Her political agenda is left unveiled since she hints only at the “clear political agenda behind the removal of this particular text” but conveniently ignores the obvious political agenda behind initially inserting it into the syllabus. Yes, in her words, the public pays a university not to encourage narrow thinking of a few individuals who decide to hurt sensibilities in the name of academic freedom but to make young people sensible to others’ sensibilities.