Letter to NLSIU Communtiy by Sidharth

7/29/2019 Letter to NLSIU Communtiy by Sidharth

1/3

Dear NLSIU community,

I am afraid that this latest notification comes across as a disproportionate and

potentially counterproductive measure. Prof. Nagaraj had suggested the

advancement of the permission time from 12:30 am to 9 pm in the facultymeeting that was held on November 8, 2012 i.e. a few days before the

emergency meeting of the Executive Council on November 11, 2012. Yesterday's

notification indicates that the decision to implement this change is in pursuance

of the deliberations in the Executive Council. Therefore, it would be safe to

assume that both Prof. Venkata Rao and Prof. Nagaraj can point to the minutes

of the said meeting in order to defend this notification. However, the issue is far

more complex than that.

In the faculty meeting, many of us had expressed our reservations about

advancing the time for restricting the movement of students. At a verypreliminary level, this measure has no rigorous causal link with the physical

safety of students in general. While students have been and can be advised to

avoid dangerous areas in the vicinity of the campus, imposing such blanket

restrictions is an unduly paternalistic move. There have been numerous

instances of sexual harassment and physical abuse of NLSIU staff and students in

broad daylight. These problems cannot be eradicated with a simplistic measure

such as constraining the movement of students after 9 pm. In fact such

restrictions are likely to result in more students choosing to stay off-campus in

the future, thereby escalating the risks to their physical safety. As the word gets

out, it may also affect our attractiveness for prospective applicants, exchangestudents and visiting scholars among others. It is also quite foreseeable that not

allowing students to enter after 9 pm may result in numerous instances where

students can be left stranded in the vicinity. In addition to these practical

concerns, there is a larger question of the symbolism inherent in the institution's

response. Given that these restrictions are clearly a knee-jerk response to a

crime committed against one of our students, we are indirectly engaging in

victim-blaming rather than addressing the root of the problem.

Another cause for worry is the opacity with which such a decision has been

made. With all due respect, the members of the Executive Council are not well-informed of the ground realities of this institution. The constantly floating

composition of these bodies and the relative detachment of their members is

explicitly intended to ensure independent oversight over the affairs of the

institution. However, they ought not to intervene in the day-to-day management

of the institution. The role of the governing bodies is to make surgical

interventions in case of a sustained pattern of institutional failure. Being an

autonomous institution, the onus is on ourselves to keep our own house in order.

In matters such as these, the leaders of the institution should have held

meaningful consultations with all stakeholders, namely faculty, current students,

parents and alumni before issuing such a notification. At the very least, the Vice-

Chancellor and the Registrar could have explained their respective point of view


2/3

in an open meeting for the NLS community. It is very easy to selectively ask a

few individuals for their opinions and make sweeping decisions that have

adverse consequences for the immediate stakeholders. I am afraid that this is

exactly what seems to have happened in this instance.

I do realise that being in a temporary teaching position, whatever I say can be

summarily brushed aside by the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and the senior

faculty members. The larger point worth examining at the moment is the gradual

erosion of democratic practices within the NLSIU administration and faculty

members. Educational institutions are not expected to be democracies in the

strict sense, since the relationship between teachers and students is akin to that

of trusteeship. However, there are certain norms of consultation and deliberation

that should be followed among the faculty members as well as the administrative

staff, irrespective of claims of seniority or past experience. The last few years

have witnessed the non-continuance of weekly faculty meetings (the recent one

being an exception) and an unprecedented centralisation of decision-makingboth with respect to academic and administrative matters.

I am not qualified to comment on administrative matters such as construction

and fund-raising but I do have serious objections to the way in which the

academic programs are being handled. I have already expressed my opposition

to the untrammeled interference with evaluation through the Grievance

Redressal Mechanism contemplated in the rules for the undergraduate program.

The manner in which this provision has been interpreted and enforced over the

last two academic years is a direct assault on teacher autonomy and thereby

violative of the structural features of NLSIU. While there is no principledopposition to the inclusion of such a remedial power, the nature of these

interventions has severely distorted the incentives for students and teachers

alike to apply themselves to their expected roles. Given the absence of regular

faculty meetings on academic issues (the Undergraduate Council has not met

even once in the current academic year), there has been no forum to question

the interpretation and enforcement of the said rule. Likewise, there seems to

have been no vertical or horizontal check on teaching standards for quite a

while. Several courses have more or less collapsed since they have either been

allocated to instructors with no previous background in the respective fields or

poorly-performing instructors have been allowed to continue in their roles onaccount of extraneous factors. In some cases, instructors have a self-

aggrandized view of their own teaching capabilities whereas their actual

performance is far below what students expect in an institution such as NLSIU.

The most surprising factor is that the recommendations of administrative staff

are often given more weightage in decisions about subject-allocation as opposed

to the views of faculty members who are directly engaged in teaching. I can of

course go on with a laundry-list of complaints, but that would detract from the

issues at hand. The main point is that unless we revive the channels for

deliberation that had been developed in the past, we will continue to make

suboptimal and potentially harmful decisions.


3/3

I appeal to the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar among others to prioritize the

school's long-term interests. We are of course very fortunate that the school has

received UGC assistance for expanding the physical infrastructure and our

leaders deserve their share of credit for the same. However, an institution such

as ours has gained prestige for its academic rigour and the stimulus for self-

exploration that it provides to its students. At the moment, both of these

features appear to be in jeopardy.

Regards,

Sidharth Chauhan

Documents

Letter to NLSIU Communtiy by Sidharth