A recent notification of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) administration directing students to maintain a minimum of 75 per cent attendance, also called compulsory attendance, has created resentment among some student groups and teacher organisations.
Most of us may not agree with this kind of vigilantism by any administration, but with the increase in unwarranted activities on campuses being carried forth by some students in the last few years, we need to find ways to deal with them, especially when a huge amount of taxpayers’ money is being spent on their education.
To understand this, let’s go to the beginning of the 2018, when protests and incidences of violence gripped Maharashtra. And the most shocking fact that surfaced was that the movement was led by none other than Umar Khalid, a PhD student from JNU. A large number of students from JNU, Mumbai University and other elite institutions attended this movement.
Sometimes the pretext of this agitation was so frivolous that it points to a larger conspiracy. For instance a simple notification from Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change, dated May 25, 2017, banning the sale and purchase of cattle from animal markets for slaughter resulted in huge protests from student groups. Beef parties were organised, as a mark of protest, by some students of IIT Madras.
Why not a pork or a meat partyIJ It merely reflects the intention to hurt sentiments of people belonging to a particular religion.
The Kerala High Court while responding to the petitioner who wanted a stay on this notification, reportedly expressed surprise at the Madras High Court’s stay order on the same. The court said, “If people had read the notification properly, there would not have been protests”.
If these protests are analysed in the light of observation made by the Kerala High Court, it is hard to believe that the protesting students from an institution as reputed as IIT Madras were not aware about the notification’s content.
Doesn’t it make us contemplate what is going wrong with our top institutions, which have turned into battlefields, especially in the last three and half years under the Modi GovernmentIJ
If we try to analyse the educational profile of agitating students of HCU, JNU, JU, Ramjas, BHU, IIT-Madras, etc, we find some very interesting observations. First, most of these incidents are occurring in institutions which are known for humanities and social sciences. Second, even in the institutions known for sciences, such protests are mostly triggered by students belonging to social sciences. Third, even among students of social sciences, protesting students mainly belong to PhD courses, while the other junior students get involved in such activities under the influence of their seniors. Is it a coincidence that such protests rarely involve students from management, law, architecture, finance, engineering, medical and other science streamsIJ
Nevertheless, it does not mean that all students pursuing social sciences are involved.
It is a known secret that the syllabus design and content writing for social sciences and humanities was undertaken by scholars who are mostly attached to the leftist ideology since Independence. The left ideology’s primary objective is to distract young minds from a particular religion and eulogise a particular political ideology.
Since science is absolute and procedural, there isn’t any scope for the propagation of leftist ideology. It is only the humanities or social sciences students who can be influenced through the suggested reading materials which inherently have abundant subjectivity. Another step in this direction has been to disseminate this ideology through introduction of these courses in institutions of higher repute, especially in science and technology, as these had subscribed to the leftist ideology.
With this intent, PhD in humanities and social sciences was introduced in IITs, mostly in the late 70s or early 80s. The introduction of Masters programme in humanities and social sciences in IITs in early 90s was another step in this direction to yield the desired results.
It is worth noting that during the early 80s and 90s, the Congress regained power after facing their first and second electoral defeats respectively post-Independence.
The deliberate introduction of these courses was to alter the demography of these institutions so as to propagate the leftist ideology. If the intention is to give interdisciplinary approach to students, why hasn’t there been any attempt to introduce science subjects in specialised institutions of management (IIMs), law (NlUs), economics (IGIDR, ISI), language (MGAHV, IFlU, MANUU), etc.
The question is why target such highly reputed institutions rather than establishing new ones. Since the voice of a scholar is heard on the basis of his association with a reputed institution; thus a voice from IIT would be given higher significance than a similar one from a newly established Central university. It is humanly impossible to correctly guess the academic background of students during a telecast of protest driven by them. Exploiting this undue advantage, PhD students from humanities and social sciences are protesting and rendering this as a voice of IIT.
IITs are reputed technological institutions in which students are admitted at bachelor’s level based on an intense and gruelling competitive exam. While in the case of PhD, admissions are generally made on the basis of research proposal and interviews. Both the stages of admission process are highly subjective and leave a lot of scope to admit students following interviewers’ ideology. Interestingly, all MPhil/PhD scholars of Central universities are supported by a monthly scholarship up to six years.
It is also a general practice that a PhD applicant is required to speak to a professor from the university wherein he seeks an admission. Subsequently, the same professor unofficially defends the proposal for admission in the interview. Similar admission process is followed in the case of postdoctoral fellowship (PDF, hereafter) also. Unsurprisingly, PDF were also boosted in the tenure of the UPA Government. Interestingly PDF, provided by UGC is tenable for 5 years, which is highest across the globe.
The effective amount spent on each PDF varies between Rs 50,000 to Rs 2 lakh per month (in the case of employed scholars, their whole salary is protected). Despite huge spending by the exchequer, there is no evidence of quality research in the country; a statement expressed by none other than NR Narayana Murthy, a noted industrialist. And many other committees have felt the same. The procedure of awarding PDF is also very subjective.
Ideologically driven curriculum in social sciences and humanities, non-transparent way of selection of faculty, high subjectivity in the admission process especially in PhD/PDF programmes and undesirable long duration of these programmes is a modus operandi to exploit young minds for nurturing a particular ideology using Government resources. Highly subsidised education that is being provided in the top academic institutions is to nurture logic, objective research, sensitivity, empathy, and respect for diverse faith, healthy criticism and non-violent ways to protest.
Taxpayers’ money is not being spent on these institutions to create social unrest, hurting sentiment of any religion, anti-social activities, questioning integrity of the country, favouring enemy nation, romanticise terrorism and misguide young generations to stand against the nation.
How can we expect an objective and unbiased research from the students belonging to a particular political ideology during the period of their studyIJ This rot in our academic institutions will be carried to other important pillars of democracy i.e media, bureaucracy, judiciary, teaching and many other institutions, when these people get employed in future.
This is high time that our policy makers reviewed the situations in academic institutions; otherwise a larger number of similar protests will be witnessed in the course.
(The writer is Assistant Professor of Economics at Delhi University)
