This interview is the second of a three-part series, conducted in collaboration with Vaanavil, the literary magazine of TNNLU. The third part of this series will be available on the Vaanavil website.

This interview was conducted by Aman Vasavada (Batch of 2021), Pallavi Khatri (Batch of 2022) and Lakshmi Nambiar (Batch of 2023).

Quirk: What are the things you would miss about Law School when you leave? Do you have any regrets, anything you’d like to say?

Prof. Elizabeth: When I leave now, the regret would be that I don’t have very close relationships with my colleagues. So when I’m leaving it’s like I can’t say I’m going to miss anybody in particular that I have worked with in all these years. This is excepting some of the admin faculty – Shanta, Padma I will miss, because they were there when I came to Law School, and we had a personal relationship over these years.

When it comes to students, in these twenty-eight years, I had very close friends in the first ten to twenty batches. People that I visit, people who visit me, people who call me up to talk about all the nonsense that was going on over the last six months… That was a horrible time for me in law school

You know, it’s not just the Vice-Chancellorship. I know my God is taking me to Trichy for a very specific purpose so I am really looking forward to it with no regrets at leaving NLS after 28 years.  That was really too long a time.

Q: Generally, over the past few years, it seems like Law School life has become stressful at certain points. So how do you like to destress in Law School?

E: For me, Law School wasn’t stressful. It’s had its challenges, but that’s part of it. It’s become stressful over the past ten years, probably from the beginning of CLAT, because the kind of students who come to Law School are not interested in an education, and come here simply because they think getting this degree will get them that job that gets them a lakh of rupees, without even understanding whether they’ll like the job or not. Some people come because they want to do law and save the world, but they’re exceptions. Evaluation has become a real bore.

I really admire the courage of the first five to ten batches and the courage of their parents for putting their wards in an institution which didn’t exist, but they wanted to see what it can do. I never ever grumbled about correcting their papers – everybody’s answer would be very different and you could see they enjoyed studying it. But slowly it didn’t matter what questions I’d ask, I ended up correcting hundreds of papers with the same stuff for every answer for generations. That’s when the boredom set in, correction becomes a drudgery rather than an exciting thing.

So that became stressful, together with the fact that we had we had leaders who had absolutely no desire to maintain academic standards. We were just giving in to every demand of students, which was ruining their future. I hear from alumni about the poor research and writing skills (of several current or recent students), and for me, it comes from that. Their understanding of law, that rigour of hard work, discipline, all that was completely going away. And as somebody who had been working here for so long, it was hard to find motivation, but I consider myself as having to answer God. So, I maintained my integrity and continued to work hard. Of course, travelling up and down to campus everyday was taking a toll on my peace of mind as well.

To de-stress, I don’t need to smoke or drink or do drugs to feel good. I don’t need to drink tea or coffee to get up in the morning and get through the day. By God’s grace, I don’t need any of these external stimulants. In the past, I could be really depressed, but going to class would be all the stimulant I needed – I’d come back on a high after a class. But other than that, fiction is my de-stressing source – getting into a completely different world, an imaginary world, a fictitious world where everything is good. I stopped reading all these great novels because they just add to your stress, because they all talk about how bad the world is. The reason why I read and re-read Georgette Heyer and Jane Austen is because in the fictitious world, everyone’s having fun, and that’s all I wanted at the end of the day so I could sleep peacefully.

Q: Ma’am, would you like to list certain factors that motivated you to take up this position and to leave NLS?

E: Uh, lots of them. But top of it is that I’ve reached a plateau in my career. I started as a research associate, and that was what I was called when I joined in 1991 and then became an Assistant Professor in 1995 and so on till about ten- twelve years ago or more I became a Professor.

In twenty-eight years of having taught in Law School, I have a great many ideas of what a Law School can be, and ought to be. They may not all be practical, but I have a vision. And I can’t do that as being just one member of a faculty team with no power to implement any of my suggestions or ideas.  My ideas themselves may not be welcome. People might think I am a dinosaur coming from a different time period. There has been little space for my ideas, my views in the last 10-15 years, I’ve seen that.

The vision is going to be the vision that I have, the dream that I had. NLS was based on a dream that (Prof.) Menon had. He of course drew from several people’s dreams, but he was a visionary who made this happen. If I am who I am today as a teacher today in Law School, it has a lot to do with the kind of vision that Menon had and instilled in us. And I hope to be that visionary for TNNLU. This is because, while there have been good people who’ve built the institution, I’m afraid that there is not much of an understanding of the vision that set up the National Law School type model. Therefore that is one thing I want to do.

Apart from that there is all the nonsense that has been going on here. I want out, I’m done with Law School. I can’t do this anymore. It’s taking a great deal more effort to come here every day to teach, to do the things that I have to do. And so I’m just darn tired. Maybe that was a mistake, that I stuck around for so long. But whatever the reason, I’m tired of Law School, of doing what I have to and not because I want to. And if it needs so much effort, then clearly it is not where I ought to be but whereas now I’m excited about where I’m going. And that’s three years that I have, ahead of me there, so I don’t get pulled down by the time that I have to spend there.

Q: Do you think your departure, and hence the change in the history course will leave a void in Law School? And if yes, is there any advice that you would give to your successor?

E: I don’t want to be too full of myself, I do believe no human being is indispensable. For all you know, someone much better will come in. I have brought in all the rigour that I could have brought, and I know that the standards that I set for myself are pretty high. But yes, there are certain things that I have done that my former students say made a huge difference (to their lives).

I’d say to whoever is coming in, don’t have a misplaced sense of niceness. Be firm, do your job and expect the best from the students. Because the moment you compromise on that, students will take your course lightly and you and your course will become irrelevant in Law School.

In terms of leaving a void, it would simply be the fact that there are some things I personally bring to my teaching and my way of functioning in Law School. There are many things that I have done, many roles that I have played in Law School. Only I can do that. Not because I’m some great person or some uniquely talented person, but because of my personality and the reasons that I am a teacher. I am who I am so those are things which only I bring in.

But that void that I leave, yes somebody else may not fill that void but they might do other things. I was speaking to (Prof.) Kunal (Ambasta)- hopefully some of the things that I have done, he will continue doing. But yeah, who I am is who I am and I guess in that sense none of us can be replaced, all of us are unique. But other things, it is for people to consciously do it. It is for the institution to realise what it is I have brought to the institution and to require that of people who come in. It doesn’t have to be the person who comes to teach history.

Q: You mentioned how you had these conflicting roles as someone who is approachable but at the same time very strict in class. How do you think that will translate with you being a VC at TNNLU? What do you envisage as your role there as compared to your role here? How accessible and involved will you be with the students there?

E: I don’t know how the students will be, I haven’t met them yet. I will meet them for the first time on Saturday (late January) as a group, and of course over time. Like I said, I’m consciously strict and distant in the classroom because I need discipline in the classroom. And I know from the way you all treat my colleagues who are not like that, that I can’t afford to let down my guard there. But, sometimes I can let down my guard because my reputation precedes me, therefore people do not take me for granted or try to take advantage of me. So when I go into TNNLU in terms of administration, I’ll be seen as someone who stands for certain values and that I’m honest, someone who has integrity of character and is firm but willing to listen.

I’m in a new institution, so I don’t believe that I need to go and pull the rug from under their feet and start building a new thing. I think even though it’s only six years old, that people before me have done certain things which are good. There may be things which I don’t think are right, in different spheres and I believe that slowly but steadily I can make those things happen. But for that to happen I need to take the students and faculty on board. Without their support there is nothing I can do. I believe firmly in a participatory democracy, where everybody is taking part.

Having said that, I do believe that young people have not yet attained the maturity to decide what is good and what is bad for the institution, in their personal lives also they are still learning. Therefore, while you listen to them, it doesn’t mean you can be guided by them. They cannot dictate the policies of the institution. As young people they may try and find shortcuts to what they think are the goals – which I can tell you are not the right things most of the time. So, I will listen and I will bring about change slowly. My entire idea is to be accessible, to be approachable but with the clarity that you can’t take me for granted.

Fortunately, one of the good things for me is that I have never forgotten any part of the journey that it has taken to get me here – physically, personally and professionally. So I’m going to keep that in mind constantly. I have been a student so you know, I know what students think and want. I have been an ad-hoc faculty, so I know what exactly are the insecurities in being in that place. But I also know what I was through all these stages in life – so I know we can be better. So it’s that I am going to sort of call upon as I take charge. My plan is to listen and then act – and I’m not going to be compromising on any matters.

Q: Will you continue to teach there, ma’am?

E: I do hope I get time to teach, but I’m not sure. There is a history professor there, I’ll not interfere with his class but I might occasionally go into the class because he says he also starts off with Carr so I want to see what he is doing with Carr. Since I started teaching history at NLS, a lot of people have taken the syllabus I prepared in Law School.  I hope to be doing the stuff I do – feminist legal theory, violence against women, feminist jurisprudence – because those will be a lesser burden as electives. I hope to be doing it but I don’t know if my time and responsibility there will permit that.

Q: In the current socio-political context of our country, what do you think is the role that law schools have and how do you think this ties back to what you said, the vision that Professor Menon had starting out with the Law School?

E: I think a lot of people who have welcomed my appointment are people who feel that a person like me needs to be at the head of an institution to have a voice in the public there. So yeah, you can’t be silent these days. As a student of history, one does know that people don’t learn from the past, one does see patterns, and one can’t just sit back and do nothing. And yes, as people who head institutions there are certain roles we have to play. But standing up for what is right, isn’t hindered in that process.

Everybody has to take positions, but it doesn’t always have to be in an illegal or unconstitutional way. I think those are individual choices that will be determined by your values. I believe law schools have a huge role to play. You can’t sit back and pretend this doesn’t affect you. It does. For me, it is very real. It isn’t just talking about something because it is theoretically the nice, politically correct kind of thing to do. And if you’re not passionate about what is right, what is just, then we have no business being there.

The Supreme Court is going to look into whether constitutional values are supreme. I would say, yes, the constitutional values are supreme. Because they play the role of ushering in a new set of values in a country where there are diverse values. At the heart of religion is love, at the heart of religion is justice. But in practice, there is a great deal that has come in which is unjust, which is unfair, and which is not even right. The founders of all these religions will probably turn their backs on these religions because of the things that they practice. So are they subject to the tests of constitutional values? Of course they are. And as students of law, teachers of law, and institutions that are producing lawyers, it is the constitutional values they have to uphold. Anything that is in conflict with constitutional values has no place in an institution.

Q: What would be your yearbook quote?

E: The first thing that comes to mind is what the 2002 batch put on their T-shirt: “Been there, done that”, though, my quote would be “It is the journey through Law School that has brought me to where I am today”.

Q: If this interview were a project consultation for the topic “Prof. Elizabeth: End of an Era”, how would you rate our research questions? And anything you would like to add?

E: I think they were pretty good. All these questions are important and necessary and many former students have been asking me about them. There’s a lot more you could ask me about, but one day, I will write lots of books to answer it all.

But I’ll say what drives me is that I have to do my best for my God. He has done His best for me and I can’t fall short of it. This fits in neatly with the constitutional duty under Article 51A – for each of us to strive towards excellence. Why do we compromise? Why do we think we can’t be better than what we are? Some people are born brilliant but a lot of us like me are just plodders – we just work hard. And look at where my hard work has brought me. You can achieve anything with consistency and I wish people would see that.

I’ve heard people coming in on reservations just give up. Of course, they have the handicaps of language and of not going to a good school but I remember one such student who wrote such good answers that even through the handicaps I could see how sharp his mind was. We have a duty to ourselves and a duty to our country. If all of us saw this, can you imagine what Law School would look like? Instead of those shoddy projects, each of those research papers would be amazing policy papers available to change the way people think. And unless you change the way people think, nothing can happen by any number of laws. Excellence is something we all owe to the nation. You not only do your best not in beating people up because you think they’re non-conforming, but in contributing to make yourself, your institution, your nation and the world get better. If we don’t believe in that, I guess we should just allow Trump to start WWIII and die.

This interview is the first of a three-part series, conducted in collaboration with Vaanavil, the literary magazine of TNNLU. The third part of this series will be available on the Vaanavil website.

This interview was conducted by Aman Vasavada (Batch of 2021), Pallavi Khatri (Batch of 2022) and Lakshmi Nambiar (Batch of 2023).

Quirk: Congratulations on your appointment as Vice-Chancellor of TNNLU! Our first question to you is: who is your favourite historian and why?

Prof.Elizabeth: I value different historians for different things. (Romila) Thapar for her unfatigued approach to her study and her ability to stand up for what she writes, (R.S.) Sharma for being one of the best users of historical materialism to study the past, and (E.H.) Carr because he blew my mind. His book What is History? is what made me fall in love with history – no other book challenges stereotypes and status quo as this one does.

A. I value different historians for different things. (Romila) Thapar for her unfatigued approach to her study and her ability to stand up for what she writes, (R.S.) Sharma for being one of the best users of historical materialism to study the past, and (E.H.) Carr because he blew my mind. His book What is History? is what made me fall in love with history – no other book challenges stereotypes and status quo as this one does.
nn

Q: History in Law School was an eye-opener for all of us, largely due to your Marxist-Feminist approach. Has this philosophy of yours ever stirred up any problems, whether at church, or in Law School?

E: Personally, it has not troubled me. I’m a practising, believing Christian and that’s all the more reason Marxism appeals to me. I don’t see discomfort between believing in God, and analyzing the past through a Marxist perspective. Marxism is about social transformation, for the purpose of justice and God stands for justice.

Fortunately, Law School has given a great deal of autonomy to teachers, but occasionally yes, I have faced some trouble. I think the first challenge came when Prof. Mohan Gopal was the Vice-Chancellor. I wanted Mr. Ramachandra Guha to come and address the then second years on Gandhi and Prof. Gopal said “Why Guha? Why not LC Jain?” I told him I’m not teaching Gandhism, I’m teaching about Gandhi in the context of the national movement, and Guha knows so much more about him than I do. So I stood my ground, and of course he didn’t say or do anything after that. Another time he questioned me regarding my ideological position.  He said that he had heard that I was a Leftist.

Prof.M: “I’m told that you teach history from a leftist perspective”.
Prof.E: “Yes, I do! I find that the most suitable approach to the study of the past, very scientific, organised and systematic.”
Prof.M: “You shouldn’t be teaching from only one perspective then, you should be (teaching from) all perspectives.”
Prof.E: “If I did that, even a year wouldn’t be enough to complete one course. All of us have positions, and therefore I am using a Marxist perspective to teach history, and I don’t see a problem with that. I recommend the books of the other approaches and students are free to go and read them. It’s just not possible to teach from all perspectives.”

In terms of students, yes, not everybody who comes to Law School is interested in the non-law social sciences. A lot of teachers and students think law is not a social science, which is not right. I have had batches which have been very disinterested. In the last 28 years, some batches have made me question myself, “Have I lost the touch?” or “Am I not good enough anymore?” till the next batch comes along, like the current first years. I’m sad I’m leaving now, because that’s a really amazing batch (Batch of 2024). The batches that I taught before that, you know, the current fifth-year down, didn’t show as much interest. Not to say that there weren’t individuals in the batches who liked what I was doing, but as batches they didn’t seem to care. But it’s batches like the current first years which have restored faith in myself and what I am doing. So, yeah, those were some of the challenges I have faced because of the approach I use.

Q: Looking back, is there any advice you would like to give to your younger self before starting out?

E: When I entered Law School in ‘91, I was doing my Ph.D, with just a year to go to submit my thesis. I loved the History Department of Mangalore University, because there was no hierarchy, and I had made great friends there. I was very reluctant to leave but it seemed like I had no options, since there was no guarantee of a job there.

I resisted the urge to do legal history because I was in love with pure history. In ‘94, they asked me to head the Centre for Women and the Law. More and more I was being taken away from history. But, when I look back today, I realise that it was preparing me for now. If it wasn’t for my work at CWL, I wouldn’t have any kind of credibility for this position that they have offered me. One of my friends from an NLU told me that I am creating history right now, because I am not a professor of law. So when I look back, I wish that I had done my LL.B. more seriously. I did my LLB because I was heading the CWL, but I did it so reluctantly. I just scraped through – like some of you.  I actually passed a few of those courses through the supplementary exams.

I remember going back to Mangalore and telling my Ph.D supervisor that “I really don’t like this and I have absolutely no time to do any research in history”. He said, “None of us are born to become a historian or something else – you got certain skills and capacities and you bring that to the study that you’re doing now and who knows where that’ll go. So, you need to stop wanting to be a pure historian.” I think that breakthrough came around 2010. I was doing history, I was doing feminism and I was doing law, so my interests in all three came together. They converged very well. And from there came my understanding of the law and the kind of courses I began to teach since then.

But I wasted a lot of time coming to terms with the fact that I was teaching history in a law school and therefore, resisting instead of learning. If I was to advise myself, I’d say “Hey, embrace this. It’s new, it’s different but history can become more meaningful and you can make a difference in the way you’re teaching by integrating all of them rather than resisting it and rebelling against it.”

Q: You spoke about how you have integrated a lot of feminism into your history. We were given to understand that History II in my batch became even more about feminist theory than it was in the previous years. Would you say that events occurring in Law School affect how you’re structuring your syllabus?

E: One thing is, I’m a person who needs change and Law School made it possible for me. Professor Menon was insistent that every trimester when we taught, it had to be a new and upgraded course. For a long time, I was just teaching from a Marxist perspective simply because I found the materialist conception of history meaningful.

In the early years I wanted to sensitize the students that entered Law School to communal issues. That informed my course structure for a long time – I focused on nationalism, colonialism and communalism. But I changed that the February of the year that Kanhaiya (Kumar) got elected in JNU and (Rohith) Vemula died in Hyderabad. That vacation, I came across the works of Sumit Sarkar and Uma Chakravarthy. Communalism, caste and gender all came together fantastically and I decided that History II will be from the perspective of gender and caste.

I think that it was in December of the same year when the AOW was formed in response to the sexism that systemically occurred in Law School. I was horrified, because I’ve been in Law School, I’ve headed the Centre for Women and Law, I’ve been the Sexual Harassment Policy Advisor, I do the Sexual Harassment Orientation every year for the first years and in an institution like that, how can there be so much sexism? Of course, there has always been sexual harassment, but it just seemed like it had escalated to another level.

So, what I did then, was decide to teach History II purely from a Feminist-Marxist perspective – not Marxist Feminism, but from a very definite Feminist perspective, alongside a Marxist perspective. It was a radical feminist perspective that I was employing, introducing them to feminist theories and methods. That would become the foundation from which they’d be looking at the past and hopefully their lives and the society they live in so as to enable the students to understand the issues relating to women’s status, sexual violence, sex discrimination etc.

Q. One of the common maxims passed on to juniors about your course is “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. It is an institution in itself, your course; when you enter first year History I is something that just occupies your mind. What do you have to say about this?

E: I was telling some of the alumni on Sunday when a few of them hosted a party for me, that I consciously, deliberately became strict. With the ‘97 batch, one of my favourite batches, because I was approachable and friendly, these four or five guys used to talk to me in class saying “Okay Ma’am, please let’s stop the class now” and so on.  Which obviously weakened my control over the whole class and was disruptive. So then I had to build this image of me being unapproachable and a tough taskmaster.

So, I’d distance myself when I was teaching the course, but I was always available for anyone who wanted any help. I have done rough drafts of projects and worked out whole question papers numerous times. And more importantly, I was always available for students if they had any kind of personal or emotional issues. Over the years I have been there for them because that’s the reason why I became a teacher, to be accessible to young people. Because, as a young person when I joined college, way back in 1977, I became just a number, the lecturers who I was. In school everybody knows you by name, they know you personally, they know your capacities and your weaknesses and you come into college and you’re just a number, nobody cares whether you are there or not. Those five years in college made me realise that it doesn’t have to be like that. Therefore, when I decided that I’m going to be a lecturer I decided I will be a lecturer that’s always accessible, available so that young people can come and talk whenever they want.

And in Law School, I know for the first 15-20 years I was like that when I stayed on campus. So while I was known to be a strict teacher people knew that they could come to me. But, in Law School, the overall culture has resulted in a growing gap between students and faculty. That’s been going on for a long time – more than fifteen years.

Initially Prof. Vijaykumar, Prof. Mallar, and I used to share the office downstairs. We’d have students come and engage with us on issues that they had taught in class in Consti or just come to talk. When I moved into a separate office I’d still have students come in on the way to the library (back when the library was where the accounts office now is). I could be doing the busiest thing, but if somebody walked into my office and said that they just dropped in for a chat I would just stop that, I would listen to them. I’ve done that through my twenty-eight years. Sometimes, I have regretted it, but then I say no, this is why I came into teaching so you can’t regret doing that.

So I have built relationships because of that. There are people who have invited me to their weddings, and I have travelled across the country and the world (one student even flew me to the Virgin Islands), going to different people’s weddings. And now  it has come to the point where today I don’t even know when somebody gets married.

But yeah, I wouldn’t stop being strict. I would say that a lot of the image of me that exists today has been consciously, deliberately built by students to badmouth me, to badmouth my course. But, I am glad that there have been students who despite it, have seen through it and come to me when they needed it.

I do think teachers have to be strict. Strictness doesn’t mean you’ve got to be unkind and I know that I have been rude, and that I have been unkind to a few people. And I have tried to change to a certain extent. But the problem is you know, we always take niceness for weakness and therefore I’m not very comfortable in letting down my guard altogether. But, outside class I’m happy to engage with students.

Q: Ma’am you spoke about falling academic standards at NLS and how over the years academic rigour has gone down, so what are your opinions on some of the new and proposed reforms brought by the college administration?

E: I haven’t looked at the AER changes, but just going by what Prof. Sudhir has been saying, I’m glad. Maybe he should have waited a little time before starting to do these things, but I think he’s on the right track altogether. Because, we’ve just gone so low academically. I’ve told him myself you have a really huge task because both faculty and students have had no one regulating what they’re doing.

Some of the faculty, of course, keep doing what they’re doing, irrespective of who has been the VC and whatever may be the kind of compromises with academics that have been done. But some of them who have not imbibed the Law School culture and why we do what we do, have compromised on these (academic standards). There are what, four or five of us who are reading projects and giving feedback? As an institution we have failed to conduct an orientation for incoming faculty to teach them why we do what we do. And therefore they do just whatever they know, the way they’ve been doing it.

For the students, yeah, I mean there has now been fifteen years of getting away with extensions and exemptions and all kinds of nonsense. Everyone says “We were allowed to do this, or that”. So yes, there will be a lot of resistance, but I am glad that Prof. Sudhir is doing what he is doing. He is a tough taskmaster – he is very hands on. It is a difficult task, but I think Law School needs it. These fifteen years have really pulled us back.

Q: Ma’am, your course of feminist legal theory and History II generally, has informed a lot of our mindsets and has definitely changed the way we think about gender and feminism. Further, your role as SHARIC advisor is also something that we will always be grateful for – it has certainly changed the way in which gender relations function on campus. What would be your parting advice to the Law School community so that we can ensure that we keep Law School a safe space and strive to make it an even safer space?

E: I think every individual – in terms of gender, caste, religious and cultural identities – has to always just think about how they would want to be treated. It is the way we think which informs the words which come out of our mouth and our actions. And saying sorry after you have said or done it, you can’t undo it, you can’t take it back and you have traumatised somebody.

I believe that people can change, and that people have changed. I know my courses have changed people with different ideologies. I know that I have had to question my own biases. But, as you grow older, you become more conservative than when you were younger. The challenge that the Batch of 2017 put to me when I was teaching them History-2 was this — A couple of women in the class used to wear really short shorts to the class, and I used to justify my attitude against it. They pointed out that the issue exists with me being uncomfortable with the clothes people are wearing rather than the clothes themselves. So I may still be uncomfortable with the clothes people wear, but I have no business talking about it. And I think if people can just realize that- we all can have opinions and that we don’t have to like the way others behave, the clothes they wear, or the ideas they hold, but that doesn’t mean we need to disrespect them for that. I think that if everyone can just determine that ‘I will respect everybody because I don’t want to be disrespected’, then this place can be so much better.

I used to be proud of the fact that the NLS Campus used to be a safe space, and then, when that changed, it made me feel unhappy that I failed to do what I ought to have done to make this place a safe place. For years I used to proudly proclaim it was a safe space, because even if one sexual harassment case emerged, we came down on it – there was zero tolerance. But now people don’t even complain – there are people who have gone public saying that they have done these things, but not even one complaint has come. I mean how can something like that happen. It’s not like no one wants to, but there’s all that social pressure. So what kind of people are these, that think that this kind of behaviour is okay.

That just means we don’t really think people deserve to be treated well. Why do we think that? How can we think something like that and then claim that we are human beings who are training to be lawyers to fight for other people’s rights?

So that’s why, it’s so much hypocrisy- a big protest about CAA and all that. Hello! Respect the people here! That’s even what feminism preaches. It’s an ideology, it’s a theory. That ideology can’t result in destroying human beings. Because I’m a feminist doesn’t mean I go around bashing people. Yeah, I try to change people’s minds, but I can’t turn around and say, “Oh, she’s so horrible, because she doesn’t believe in equality between women and men,” because we need to keep in mind that we’re dealing with human beings. We talk about animal rights but if we can’t respect human beings, you can’t be fighting for animal rights. If you can’t love the people that are like you, how can you love things that are completely different from you? That’s just hypocrisy.

If NLS can once again become a safe space, I’d be proud of that.

When did you first meet Professor Madhava Menon?

I met Prof. Madhava Menon at a conference on legal aid in Bombay University. At the time, I was the Principal of GR Kare College of Law in Margao, Goa. I had heard that he was starting a Law School and so I asked him whether advertisement would come in the newspapers, for teachers. He did not give me a positive answer. Ultimately, I found the advertisement in Journal of Indian Law Institute – one of my students handed over that advertisement to me. After that I applied for the post and an interview was held on 30^th January 1988 in New Delhi, where I met him for the second time.

How did the interview go?

Interview went okay – it was not good or anything like that. One or two questions I could not answer. but I had given him a detailed report on the curriculum of National Law School.

What was your impression of Prof. Menon?

The first time I met him was only for 20-30 minutes, during the interview. I told him I wanted the job because I wanted to leave administration and focus on academia – he said I would have to do both, if I got to serve in the National Law School. As a person, of course, he is a well-know professor, an accomplished administrator, all of that is true. But the most important thing is that he led administration and academics by example – whatever he advised, first he did it in his life. Leadership by example, not by merely telling or giving advice.

Professor, we’ve heard that Prof. Menon’s conception of the Law School was based on Harvard. How true was this?

See, the point is that it wasn’t Harvard or anything like that. At this point of time legal education was given a step-motherly treatment as a part-time, evening college. Further, the examinations were more about cramming and less about analysis. So, entire legal education was in disarray, except for a few good ones here and there. He wanted legal education to be full-time, he wanted it to be professionally conducted, and with that view in mind he started the Law School. Our evaluation process is continuous – learning, teaching and testing together. And that is why that five marks of attendance was introduced – so that students would attend regularly. The system took your research abilities into account with your projects, and your communication ability is made proper by vivas. And with examinations, memory, case law and analysis was taken care of. That was the way he envisioned the trimester system. And by the end of the fifth year you would have made 60 projects, given 60 vivas. Even someone who was not able to speak at the time of admission – I remember a Sudanese student in the first batch, I don’t remember his name but he was roll number 54 or something, he was not able to speak – now at the end of the fifth year he spoke fluently – that’s because of the system.

What were his contributions?

He was the one who must be credited with the conceptualisation of the five-year system. Further, he made legal education interdisciplinary in character and context. When we were students it was only law in the text – no moot court or debating. But this is not sufficient – law in the text, law in the context, and law in action – that was the point of Law School, that was what he made it.

Professor Menon had four Es in his mind –

• Economy – we didn’t have enough money. Bar Council did give us some money, Govt of Karnataka gave us some money – but there were about nine teachers to start out with, salary to be paid, for teachers and administrative staff – we didn’t have enough money. He was very economical. He used to live in Dollars Colony, but then he left that house and came and lived here – it was not a very good building at that time. He wanted to save that money, so he gave those two houses on rent.
• Efficiency – with minimum number of staff, you must do maximum. Originally, we had nine teachers and only 4 subjects – and this was fine in the first two years. But as we developed courses we had to make sure it was efficient
• Ethics – we must be ethical. If I give grace to one student, I must give grace to a similarly situated student.
• If you join the above three – it leads to Excellence. In the very first trim, we had the Bar Council of India Moot Court – National Law Moot Court. Prof. Joga Rao was in charge of training the team; Prof. Venkata Rao taught international law at Vishakapatnam, so when our team reached the final they contacted Venkata Rao who told him what had to be done, how everything should be answered, and we got the prize.

How was he as a teacher? What was his relationship with the students?

He taught Legal Methods at the time, for the first year, along with Prof. NS Gopalakrishnan. He was very dedicated to his job. I remember this one time, the Vice Chancellor of Bangalore University was coming to visit him. But he said he would take the class, and he would not leave the class.

He was very involved with his students. Whenever there was a problem, he had a meeting – what is known as Wednesdays – with faculty. It was a cabinet-like meeting. In that meeting if any problem is there with regards to discipline, or any suggestions brought forth in respect of students we would discuss it. We would give our opinion, but once a decision is taken, we would not question it – we would stand by it together.

When students asked for changes in the system, how did he handle it? What would he think of the student reforms that are being pushed for, like removing the attendance requirement?

For handling it he would have appointed one committee of teachers – who would be asked to submit a report. This would be discussed in the faculty meeting. Then we would call the students, explain to them what we are doing and for what reasons – and the students would be convinced. For example, if some students had a problem with the attendance, he would ask them to compensate for it in some way – like working in the library.

He would have nothing against the proposal – but he would have looked at the object of these reforms and the impact it would have on the standards of education. He would agree for a balanced decision considering all of these things. He would’ve asked how it impacts education? And he’d ask for you to keep this in mind in order to balance the change. And this balance depends on the leadership – whoever is coming here as the Vice-Chancellor needs to look into this balance, that is what is the most important.

We ask for everyone to take a moment and think of the kind of Law School this paints a picture of. To us, it is a Law School that was built on dedication and effort, where Prof. Madhava Menon led by example. To us, it is a Law School where both the students and faculty came together to ensure that it survived and was brought to glory on economy, efficiency and ethics, towards excellence. We ask for everyone to take a moment and think of the future we want for Law School, as we stand on this threshold.

All responses are Prof. Mitra’s own opinion.

This interview was conducted by Lakshmi Nambiar (Batch of 2023) and Apoorva Nangia (Batch of 2023).

When were you the Vice-Chancellor of NLSIU?

At the time it was not called Vice-Chancellor, it was called Director. It was at my time that the UGC said that Directors are also Vice-Chancellors. I became Director in 1997 and remained in office till 2000.

What was the process for appointing the Vice-Chancellor at the time of your appointment?

The procedure was simple – there was a Search Committee. The Search Committee had to search all over India, find the tallest person, and recommend three names to the Executive Council (EC). The EC would then propose one name to the Chancellor (at that time known as Visitor), the Chief Justice of India.

In the middle of March in 1997, Prof. Madhava Menon, my predecessor and Founder Director of NLSIU, called me and told me that my name had been proposed for the post of Director (Vice-Chancellor) of NLSIU. So my name was given by the EC, Prof. Menon carried it to the Chancellor, got the clearance, and the letter of appointment was given by Prof. Menon to me. By the end of March, within about two weeks perhaps, I received a letter – it was a matter of few days – my appointment had been accepted by the Chancellor, the CJI, and I was appointed.

In the case that the Chancellor didn’t accept the EC’s recommendation, he could refer it back and if they reiterate the same name, he is obliged to appoint. However, there was no occasion like that as the EC would not re-propose the same candidate if the CJI rejected it in the first instance.

Was there a process of accepting applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor?

No, it was the Search Committee. Actually, Vice-Chancellors during that time, from time immemorial, were appointed by Search Committees, not selected from a pool of candidates who applied for the post. Now, everybody appoints, or everybody demands that “I am also qualified to be VC” – but I never demanded, I never applied, neither did Prof. Menon. Vice-Chancellors are honourable persons, so they must be tall enough, people must recognise them. Then the Search Committee proposed three names, and that’s how I was appointed. Prof. Menon took the decision of the EC to the Chancellor, there must have been a file, he must have signed yes, and Prof. Menon drafted the letter of appointment and gave it to me.

Was there any involvement of the Registrar in the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor during your time?

No.

There was no question of the Registrar anywhere – the Vice-Chancellor was the one who would carry the file to the Chancellor, get it signed and approved, and issue the letter of appointment to the selected candidate for the post of Vice-Chancellor.

At the time if the EC did not approve of any of the three names put forth by the Search Committee, what would happen in such a case?

It is not a written law, but it is a common law principle, that the Chancellor may refer back to the Executive Council to reconsider. And he is such a tall person, if he refers back, the EC will deliberate. But for the Executive Council to reject all three names proposed by the Search Committee, would be dishonouring the Search Committee.

How did you conduct the process, when your successor was to be appointed?

When my successor was to be appointed, in the year 2000, a Search Committee was constituted which submitted three names – at that time people started lobbying for others. But lobbying was not there at the time of my appointment. The Chief Justice at the time referred the decision back to be considered – formally or informally, I am not sure. But there was a controversy – there was a debate in the Executive Council itself between the two candidates.

I became a kind of tennis ball in the middle of this, so I safely abstained. At that time, what happened was after waiting for some time, I felt it was not right for me to abstain. I went to the Chief Justice, as there was a time within which this had to be done – but the decision between the two people was left to the Chief Justice. There was no decision that could be made by the Executive Council.

Despite external factors, the matter was resolved quickly. Without my asking the Chief Justice to make the decision, there might have been a stalemate. A stalemate would have been problematic, because I might have been asked to continue. The law is that until the next person joins, the current Vice-Chancellor has to continue.

Under what conditions could a Search Committee’s recommendations be rejected?

What was done in the case of another university, the Search Committee put forth three names – one of which was a “super name”. But, Chief Justice, without looking at that list directly appointed somebody else. It was not the Executive Council, but the Chief Justice which set aside the Search Committee’s recommendations. Obviously, there are danger signals. But whatever the Chief Justice has to do, Chief Justice should do it even if he doesn’t like Krishnaswamy. I don’t know how much difference Krishnaswamy will bring to the National Law School. But, he is a very good choice, a brilliant boy, our student – he is a Rhodes scholar even. I would be very proud if he was to become the Vice-Chancellor – all the National Law School teachers ought to be proud.

What do you think about the student’s efforts to ensure completion of the process?

I am disturbed about the delay, and something should be done at the earliest to ensure completion of the process. And it is obvious that students are also disturbed. But it is not good sitting over there and making a strike – because it attracts the newspaper and it is a wrong coverage in a wrong way. Those who are employers take this kind of attitude very seriously when they recruit. It is not a healthy sign. You need to handle the newspaper coverage properly – they haven’t depicted the students in the best light.

But the procedure of VC appointment is very simple – a simple procedure for simple people – not to be made complex. I do not know where all the complexities, and the involvement of other people comes in. And why the Chief Justice is not signing it yet, I am not sure – there is a file, the resolution is given, the resolution must have been drafted by the EC, that out of the three names we recommend this person, and this resolution must be taken by the Vice-Chancellor and given to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice would not talk to anyone less than the Vice-Chancellor. It is as simple as this – Prof. Menon did that, I also did that, but it isn’t happening currently – so that means it is not in their priority list.

This interview was conducted by Prannv Dhawan (Batch of 2022), Vignesh Ramakrishnan (Batch of 2022), Spoorthi Cotha (Batch of 2020), and Mukta Joshi (Batch of 2019).

Q: What are your plans for politics, do you plan to contest again?

IS: No more contesting again. I felt very disheartened after the elections. I will not be entering politics. When the PRJA was formed, it was so different from the other parties. I feel that although it was formed in my name, the ideologies are just so far away from my thoughts. Even the campaign, it became no different from the other political parties. Regardless of what happens to it, I think I dissociate myself from that.

Q: What is your opinion on Indian democracy?

IS: In India, democracy exists only in name. There is no real democracy. Elections do happen, but they are tainted by corruption, money and so on. Leaders are elected on the basis of money and muscle power. These leaders are not our democratic leaders.

Q: What motivated you to take such a drastic decision (the hunger strike) in life?

IS: I used to go on a bicycle, trying to reach out to every nook and corner of our state – so many atrocities (especially the) torture of a rickshaw puller by the army moved me. That thrashing motivated me to do something and I took this crucial decision.

Q: Was there any specific incident?

IS: It was after the Malom Massacre (in the year) 2000. My mind was always occupied with the vulnerable state we citizens were in. The massacre was an incident. It was basically meeting with the gang rape victim and the torture victim. That was gruesome as the army inserted rods and his intestines were damaged. That gruesome incident shocked me to the core. He could not even stand erect. Those graphic details just forced (me) to fight against this impunity of the armed forces. The helplessness of my people and their frustration was the tipping point of my outrage.

Q: How do you think conflicts affect women specifically?

IS: One incident in West Manipur, the combing operation involved gang rape of women in front of her children. These harsh examples show the nature of burden women face. I just wondered if that ever happened to me. That realization forced me to take action. My socialization had evolved me into a person who took challenges up. I do not wish to take up labels of feminist as my action is as a humanist against these grave crimes against humanity. As a conscientious human being, I oppose such draconian laws in a democratic republic. Laws are meant to serve people, but it is harming us. I always had this realization of suffering that the hunger strike would entail. I don’t wish to compartmentalize it (as) men, women and child.

Q: How do you view our justice system and the legal system after having a 16-year long tumultuous relationship with it?

IS: The justice system is toothless. The army major Ajay Chaudhary was arrested for having drugs worth crores once. In a few days, he was bailed out. Justice system didn’t bring army to book for its atrocities. Mere transfers and promotions continued even as perpetrators continued to commit crimes. They were rather bestowed with gallantry awards. (With regard to the legal system,) just revisiting the root of the AFSPA, which is the colonial past. Though the colonial past is over, the AFSPA still applies in full force in an independent country, on its own people. Maybe looking at the ICC to bring these people to justice and International law to solve the problems.

DC: I have some small things to add. The first time I met her was because of a kind magistrate. He was promoted out but the nasty ones stayed. A Tamil scribe came and took up our cause and got small concessions. The National Human Rights Commission intervened after a former Chief Justice of India was insulted by a junior policeman when he was investigating. The NHRC judgment criticized them. The government lawyer brought up the Assam Prison Manual in the high court. The humanitarian allowance of 20 minutes meeting every two weeks was allowed. The judge allowed us to meet with her in court. At the court she is free. Such small acts of humanity were done. They finally let her have a computer after lot of safeguards.

Q: How was the attitude of judges in Delhi? Were they sympathetic to the cause?

DC: Akash Jain was the main man. He was very sensitive and kind. Once, I had a letter from her asking me to come. He was there, trying to figure out how I could get representation. Unfortunately it was the HRA that let everyone down. They had an opportunity to have a show-trial in Delhi. You ask any Manipuri, they’ll tell you the same. They said bring down Dr. Sen, get him to talk about WHO recommendations, on what Doctors should do, when there are hunger strikers. Medha Patkar was also someone who was very kind about the entire thing. So, I just want to say, if you’re a prosecutor or a Magistrate, you can do your job and still be a decent human to people. All that matters is how you ensure that you do both.

Q: What do you think is a lawyer’s role with regard to conflict resolution?

IS: In Manipur also, a lot of young lawyers, intern in the courts, sit and watch the trials, but they rarely have any enthusiasm regarding the AFSPA issues, all the atrocities that’s been going on for the past 60 long years. If they have some enthusiasm regarding the entire thing and a little more dedication, they can do a lot, I think. By using their influence to convince people to join the right side, by showing unity at the right time, they instil that sense of commitment into people.

Q: What, in your opinion, has been the most legitimate criticism of your struggle? How would you respond to that?

IS: With my conscience, as long as I felt what I was doing was right, I felt I didn’t have to bother with others’ criticism. I just had to carry on with my struggle regardless of what others said.

Q: What would be your messages for students and law students, especially?

IS: Apart from looking at things from a purely professional standpoint, also holding on to your belief systems and using the profession to try and bring about a change in society. The law is ours. In a democratic society, the government is the servant and we are the rulers. In a good democracy, the supreme power lies with the people. It depends upon you and your mindset, every reaction to what we get from others, depends upon our behaviour. Don’t just study without learning practical implementation. We don’t care enough for the environment. Students need to study and learn with a sense of purpose.

Q : How did you get into the feminist movement, especially in college?

KK : I was in St. Xavier’s College, Bombay for my B.A. and I wasn’t really part of any organized movement at that point, but that was 1990-93, the time when the right wing Hindutva groups were ascendant in Bombay. You had the Bombay riots and all of that. At that time, I remember feeling very agitated about the violence against minorities and also against the increasingly shrill and aggressive messages being given out by those groups to women, especially Hindu women about how a ‘good bharatiya naari’ should behave. So that was something that was on my mind.

After that, when I came to JNU for my M.A., there was a sharp contention on campus between the Hindu right wing groups and Leftist organizations and I was attracted to the All India Students Association that had a lot of women leaders in it. It also was, at that time, one of the Leftist organizations that was quite openly feminist in its articulation. At that time, other Leftist groups didn’t define themselves in those terms. That was my entry point.

Q : In our college, women are sometimes criticized for calling out sexist comments publicly. What are your views on calling out sexist comments and jokes made in private? (One defence that people usually use is that you cannot call out their sexist comment because they made it in the course of a private conversation)

KK : It’s such a strange thing, isn’t it. The whole issue about things you can do in private that shouldn’t be  brought into scrutiny, is something that’s not just said about sexist comments. It’s said about every single thing that the women’s movement has ever raised. Everything from cruelty as defined under dowry law, or domestic violence law, it was said that, ‘Well, it’s in the private domain, it’s between us, it’s in the family and you’re not supposed to call it out.’ ‘Who the hell are you to call it out?’ ‘Parivaar todte ho’, you’re breaking the family.

I think this is an extension of that, but it’s happening by people who wouldn’t like to think of themselves as conservative people. Right now, I would say very gently to anyone who does that: Look, it always hurts to be called out and nobody wants to be shown that mirror and say “I’m that sexist guy.” No one wants to do that. It happens to women also. You have women shaming other women using stuff about their character or their sexual conduct or behaviour. I’ve seen it happen even in women’s groups. When that is called out, or pointed out, people don’t like it. They say ‘lightly bola’ or something like that.

I think it is high time we do gently say that, look people aren’t going to shut up and suck it up. And they are going to call it out because we know by now what the content of jokes are. Sure, jokes are light hearted things. Nobody is trying to ban anything but the point is that jokes are political and what we laugh at, and why, tells a lot about who we are and what we believe in. So if we are laughing at people for the way their bodies are, or if we are laughing at people based on their community’s characteristics, or we are laughing at women, or making stereotypes about gender and so on, that is saying something about our real beliefs. Which is why we are laughing. So the real and the joke are related. They are joined at the hip! Nobody’s asking anybody to be solemn, the point is that there can be feminist jokes, surely. Why is it that you might not find a feminist joke that funny, right? Somebody who finds a sexist joke funny might not find a feminist joke particularly funny, which is at their expense.

The idea is that we’re calling you out, not to say you can’t say that or we won’t let you say it but to say that it says something about what you are. And we have the right to do that. It’s then up to you to think, well, if I don’t want to be that person, then I should stop making that kind of a comment.

Q : What do you think about other communities, like men, trans people etc. within feminism?

KK : I think this shouldn’t be a matter of debate at all. Absolutely, they are part of the feminist movement and the movement should have them. It’s not like we are the owners of the feminist movement and we can decide who we let in the door or don’t. Basically anyone who is oppressed by patriarchy, fighting it and critiquing it, should be part of the feminist movement. In fact, even where straight, heterosexual men are concerned, even they can feel the burden of patriarchy. Even though they enjoy certain privileges, they can also be critics of patriarchy. They can also realize that with the privilege also comes things that demean them in a way because they are asked to be custodians of an extremely repressive regime of patriarchy. Therefore, they can be part of the feminist movement.

Having said that, the need for specific women’s groups, for specific trans groups, groups where people with specific identities can talk to each other is there. But I don’t think there’s a problem with saying that the feminist movement is not only comprised of women’s groups.

Q : Feminist movements are often accused of causing polarization between men and women. What do you think about that?

KK : I find that an amusing accusation because it’s exactly like those who say that caste based reservation is causing casteism. You have to say that that stuff has happened before we were born! The fact that women are treated like women, you know most women would love to be not reminded of their gender at every turn.  You can barely take a breath free from the gender identity that is shoved in your face and forced on you in a dozen ways every day. The point is that it is in those circumstances that women speak up and fight against discrimination. I don’t see how that speaking up and demanding equality is being called a pull for polarization. Asking for equality and parity is the opposite of polarization. The whole point is that polarization exists because all the entitlement and privilege lies on one pole and all the ‘remember your place’ happens at the other pole. So I think that to fight that is to do the very opposite of polarizing. Why should anybody feel that it is polarizing, unless they also feel invested in patriarchy? Because one is fighting patriarchy, one is not fighting men! Feminist historians like Gerda Lerner have actually mapped this out: that patriarchy has survived not only because men have imposed it on women, but also because patriarchy has managed to make women bear some of the burdens of keeping the patriarchy going by handing out partial rewards. There’s a scheme of rewards and punishments that is happening. We all know that and we’re fighting against that all the time. We fight against that in ourselves as women all the time. Therefore, it’s a fight against patriarchy, we can all do it together and nobody needs to be polarized against anybody except against the patriarchy.

Q : What do you think of sexism amongst leftists, and men who identify as feminists but behave like misogynists?

KK : (laughs) The bro-cialists! They require to be called out really ruthlessly because your progressive position of politics means that you have to be vocal and articulate about feminist issues. But if you think that means explaining to everyone else what feminism is supposed to be and not really respecting the fact that those who don’t bear the privileges that you do might actually have a better sense of what it means to be a feminist. That kind of patronizing or mansplaining needs to be called out. That doesn’t mean that men have to shut up around women, that’s not the point anyone of us is making. The point is that the double standards that you hold if you’re unable to be democratic in your functioning, and unable to critique your own privilege then all that feminism and leftism is only  window-dressing; it’s not going deep enough if you’re not able to recognize your own privilege and recognize that you shouldn’t be speaking for others and imposing your ideas on others or, and much worse than all this, actually doing in your life what you critique publicly.

Q : How do you deal with online trolls?

KK : All of us have our own separate methods. One inevitably ignores a lot of them but, on the other hand, I don’t really believe in always being silent about it, so I look for the ones I think of as the ‘useful’ ones, the ones who are really quite brilliantly exposing what they stand for – their ‘mann ki baat’ is right up there. So when they are obviously defending the Prime Minister or the BJP or RSS or men’s rights their words on social media are so revealing of what their real thoughts are. For instance, I’ll tell you, I can’t resist sharing this with the wide world, when somebody used some kind of 1950s-60s kind of vocabulary and says ‘kaali kaluti’ to me, and I’m like : Do people really think that? That it’s acceptable to tell the world that you think it’s bad to be black or dark. Okay, let’s have a good laugh at your expense. Or even that you think, continuously harping on about people’s bodies…  it seems a little, you know, Freudian revelations of frustrations. So, some of those you should share, have a good laugh over, and also expose what the person is doing.

I don’t generally go to the police and all except in very rare circumstances and my experience with that has not been good. One has only so much energy in life.  There’s a common question I’m asked every time I out a troll publicly, asking me why I haven’t gone to the police – it’s almost aggressive. That’s even from friends. Then you have to say that if I were to go to the police for every troll I would be doing nothing else. It’s those many, in thousands. So not all women are going to go to the police, let them choose what they would like to do. I’m not saying everybody’s response would be like mine; there will be others who strictly won’t engage, won’t feed the troll and I respect that. 

Q : Any advice or tips for feminist movements on campus?

KK: I shouldn’t presume to advise like that, but I would just say that if you all meet regularly and think about what are the things you could take up beyond what is just happening at the campus, other stuff like talks and stuff that is going on or small campaigns that people undertake. Otherwise, frankly the smartest and best ideas are coming from young people on campuses that I would never have dreamt of. There are really, really interesting movements that people have waged, so I don’t feel like I’m in a position to advise you because you are likely to come up with better and smarter stuff. I would just say that sometimes what happens when you are in a campus situation (where you remain in a bubble, it happens to all of us when we’re in a campus because the arguments on campus tend to bound our vision a little bit) we don’t have to win all those arguments only.  You don’t have to organize to try and win that one argument whatever it is, like sexist jokes. Rather one can be a little broader, wider, talk about other things as well. Which is always good, because then other people for whom, that particular one issue may not have resonated with  then there may be lots of other stuff on which they’re willing to think over and come around.

Prof. T.S Somashekhar has got the unique distinction of giving law school students more sleepless nights than any moot or project ever could. His dry wit, sarcastic comments and raw intellect ensure Economics I and II never get boring. We at Quirk decided to interview the man himself to find out what goes on in his ever calculating mind…

What would say is your favourite part about being who you are and doing what you do? Because you are one of the few people who actually get to do what they love.

I love the surprising places that poetry takes me. And I love the surprising people that I get introduced to through poetry. There are so many people I’ve met because they found poetry in their lives and I found poetry in mine, and somehow our lives have just connected. And these are folks I would never have otherwise been able to find, and I love that.

We couldn’t help but notice how it’s a majority of women who’ve attended this workshop. We were wondering if that’s common across the board for the other workshops you’ve conducted or in the spoken word poetry scene in general?

That’s so interesting. In the States I think it’s actually more male-dominated. There’s more male spoken word poets or at least (laughs) they are a louder presence, shall we say. But I think I’ve found that in Asia, I mean it isn’t a blanket statement, there are a lot of different countries in Asia (laughs), but in my experience here I have found that there are a lot of women who respond to this art form because it’s an opportunity to write ourselves out of the margin and reclaim narratives that maybe haven’t been written for us or people who have tried to write for us, instead of letting us speak for ourselves. I think there is something particularly powerful about that. So I am not surprised that there are a lot of women here. I think it’s awesome.

So it’s not just because women are more angsty?

(Laughs) It could be that too, but I think even that is powerful, right? The fact that instead of sitting at home with those feelings you are attempting to put them into words and share them with other people is a powerful choice. No matter what their feelings are.

You’ve been to India a couple of times before, right? What’s your favourite part about it?

India is a big place. (laughs) This is my first time in Bangalore, though, which I’m really excited about. So what’s my favorite part? Does food count? (laughs) I could probably eat Indian food every single day and be happy for my whole life. But my answer would be the colours. There’s so much color in India, that there isn’t anywhere else. And I yearn for it when I leave, and as soon as I get back here I’m thrilled to find it again. Simple things right, like cars. In the States, the cars are only black and grey and dark blue and maybe, red. And here there is every color on the streets around me. Obviously women’s dresses and Saris. That colour is so powerful in terms of altering my mood, I think. So I love that.

What is one wish you have for the coming year? For yourself, for the world, for anything?

Those are different categories. For the world, I really hope that the US does not fuck up this elections. (laughs) We all hope. That’s a big hope. I hope that this event, the NYPS, is just the beginning and I hope that it exposes to a lot of young artists to this art form, who haven’t maybe found it yet. Or who have and didn’t know that there is a community that existed for them. And I hope that when I return next year, or the year after that, that this event is even bigger and stronger with more diversity of voices, which I think there is definitely room for.

If you have one line only, which you can share with someone who is starting out as a writer, or someone who wants to write, what would it be?

Don’t be afraid of writing bad poems. You have to write bad poems in order to figure out how to write better poems. The worse thing that people do is that they write one bad poem and they go, uh-oh, I guess I’m not good at this. I should just quit. It doesn’t work that way. I write bad poems every day. So don’t be afraid of that.

India has some really good educational institutions, say IISc or NLS, but they do not feature as significantly as other universities of the world. Moreover, ground-breaking solutions to world’s biggest problems are not emerging from our country. What do you believe is the cause?

The process of changing higher education has to start with changing our primary and secondary education. The reason we don’t have higher education institutions that have made world shattering discoveries in any field is simply because we do not help our children apply what they learn in the classroom to first understand the nature around them, and then to design solutions that make life better. Now, for example, why do you think the sun looks red when it is setting?

It has to be with dust particles … refraction …

You’re almost there. When refraction happens, red is the longest wavelength.

Yes, It has to do with scattering, right? And when it scatters, when the sun is setting, it travels the longest path through the atmosphere – and red has the longest wavelength. But the point I was making is, we don’t ask children this. For example, when you go to the moon, say in the afternoon, what will you see there? Do you see a bright sky, a dark sky, what would you see?

There is no atmosphere, so you’ll see the normal dark sky.

Because there is no atmosphere, there is no scattering, therefore it looks like there is night, but the sun is still there. It’s very bright. But the point I’m making is simply this – we do not teach children these concepts in this way. If we want that India discovers and creates an institution in the top thirty or twenty in the world, first the quality of the students has to improve. It’s not the fault of the students – they’re bright! But they’ve been taught all along to learn by rote. They’re not given the opportunity to question. That is where the work has to start. It cannot be done at IITs, or NLSIU, or IISc. It has to be done at primary and secondary schools.

In foreign universities, especially in the United States, university students play a large part in influencing policy. How do you think we can improve that in India with our existing institutions?

It requires our bureaucracy to become more open-minded. The biggest bottleneck we have right now is our bureaucracy. You see … politicians come and go – they also face elections once in five years so to some extent they feel they are accountable. Therefore, they can be convinced. But bureaucrats are there all the time. And the Indian babu is the most rigid one. It’s the most fixed-mindset one. So therefore, if we all sat down and said how do we make sure that every one of our MPs has a research arm wherein bright students like you can go and find employment or can even do internship and look at one issue of public policy … that is the way. But unfortunately … you see, we wanted to provide research grants to MPs for hiring people like you. Unfortunately, the government was against it. They said you can’t do this, it’s not right. Only when we become open-minded, when we are willing to learn from people who have done work in these fields, is when we will improve. The best thing to do is to allow youngsters freedom.

Do you think one of the biggest challenges India faces today is ‘brain-drain’? You have lots of great minds coming out of Indian universities but American universities poach them all because they’re given better opportunities.

I don’t think you should use the word ‘poached’. It’s not the right thing. See, as a citizen of India, you are entitled to a passport. You can decide to go to any country you want. You can live wherever you want. You can study wherever you want. I used to be the Chairman of the Rhodes selection committee for five years. Every year we selected one student from this campus. There were so many people who applied! No one is putting pressure on them to apply. No one is poaching. Youngsters find that going to Oxford is a great privilege, studying there is a great privilege. It provides great opportunities. The solution for us is to make our institutions as famous as Oxford. Then automatically, children will stay here. Why will they want to go?

Since you’re in the technology sector, a huge debate is happening right now regarding net neutrality and it ties into the issue of how we get internet access for the next billion people in the world. A lot of people say that Facebook’s idea of Free Basics should be encouraged because at least they’re trying to do something, while others disagree because they think it will principally change the structure of the Internet. What is your view on this?

I think net neutrality is very very important. The impact and the power of internet is access to information from a wide variety of sources. In some cases, competing sources. So therefore, any mechanism that may even remotely slow down that process or create obstacles for that process should be opposed. Therefore, I think net neutrality is very important for a country like India. The day you say, “anyway these people don’t have access, so let’s give them some access” … it’s a kind of elitism.

That is also the accusation against people who support net neutrality, that they are elitist.

You see, it’s like good values. You have to be honest. What is elitist about being honest? What is elitist about everyone having reasonably fast good access to internet?

What is the number one reform that India needs right now?

I would say that if there is one reform that is so important for India, it is to completely liberalize education. Just as in 1991, we did economic liberalization leading to the resurgence of the Indian industry. Allow private universities. Allow foreign universities. Allow any professor to come and teach here. Allow any instructor to go wherever they want. Let the market decide! See I’ll tell you before 1991, I used to ask a lot of my friends who were in the ’67 batch of IAS – now they’ve all retired – why don’t we have current account convertibility? They would say, “No no no, this would be a very bad step. People will stash money and that’s why we’re not allowing it.” But in 1991, in a matter of one week, thanks to Narsimha Rao, we introduced current account convertibility. Today we have 350 billion dollars in foreign exchange, at that time we had 1.5 billion. Unfortunately, even though we have seen the positive impacts of economic liberalization, we have still not passed that on to our education system. What medium you want to  study, or want your child to study – that should be left to you.  You know what the result is – we have deprived the poor the access to good education. We have deliberately kept them down.

Recently in NLS, there has been an interest in starting up. What do you think an institution like NLS can do to promote this entrepreneurial spirit?

University is all about education. Education is all about learning to learn, right? Whatever helps you to learn the power of entrepreneurship – there’s nothing wrong. For example, if you take a couple of electives on finance, on strategy, on choosing an idea, validating it – that would be good. Why not? Something like an Entrepreneurship I and II. If you don’t like it, don’t take it. That’s the beauty of an elective, right? It would act as an enabler.

Sadly, electives find no place in NLS to this date. But given that the new year has just begun, what would be your one wish for India to happen in 2016?

I think every expert, every thinker has provided data to show that having GST will make life simpler for business people, for governments, for consumers … for everybody. I hope that this will be passed in 2016. You know, UK came to a point similar to this in 1974. 41 years ago. I was working in France at that time. They just did it, 3 months … finished.

Are there any aspects of the student body that you particularly appreciate?

I appreciate not any aspect, but many aspects of the student body. The debating culture that Badrinarayanan Seetharaman (Batch of 2013) started is marvellous. He started it four years ago and now look at the metamorphosis that we have witnessed. Anil Sebastian Pulickel and Aniruddha Basu are God-sent. They are like the Sachin Tendulkar and Rahul Dravid of debating. The idea of debating has caught on and it has come to stay. The way NLS debates is something to be proud of. When I walk back daily and see students preparing for debates, it is a visual splendor. I used to be a student and it used to be hectic even without all the gadgets of today. How you find that extra minute for everything is amazing. I always believe it is only a busy person who finds time. If somebody says he doesn’t have time it means he doesn’t know how to organize his time and it is just what we call bahana or excuse. The SBA initiative where senior students mentor the juniors is something extraordinary. This culture of when a first year joins and in the first fifteen days we make them feel at home and part of the family of National Law School is in my opinion the unique practice of our college. That’s the aspect I like the most.

What is your short term vision and long term vision for Law School?

I always say a vision requires revision because we are in a world where today’s knowledge is tomorrow’s ignorance. The pace at which things are moving is amazing and therefore my only vision is to live up to the ever increasing and ever demanding expectations of the stakeholders, including my students. The expectations of parents, judges, jurists is something that has to be seen to be believed and my vision in the short term and long term is to firmly put NLS at the top place, where it deserves to be.

In the long term, a juxtaposition of science, technology and law is the need. Just to illustrate, you can’t study technology or engineering in isolation without having knowledge of law. Now there is DNA profiling and genetic engineering. Therefore NLS in the next decade would be focusing on the interplay of law, science and technology. The second priority is restoring the confidence level of people in the various institutions which our society has so assiduously built. When I look at the scenario I ask myself if there is a crisis of confidence in our institutions, like our electoral democracy, judicial system etc. The answer to how to restore it seems to be to focus on good governance. That’s the reason we have started the MPP course. This is my long term vision for the college, because people tell me if anyone can do it, it is only NLS and with all humility,  I feel proud of this institution.

What are the daily challenges you encounter in running your office?

Every challenge is an opportunity for me. Therefore I don’t feel like I’m encountering any challenges at all. Even when students come to me I always feel every student has a problem, but the student itself is not the problem. It all depends on how you look at it. Even if students come to me at 11PM in the night, I welcome them with a smile because I want them to go back with a smile. So every challenge is an opportunity. A school teacher of mine taught me one fundamental dictum of Winston Churchill: A successful person is one who finds an opportunity in a calamity and an unsuccessful person is one who sees a calamity in an opportunity.

I don’t really find any daily challenge in my job. If you join a job you like, you never work at all. Look at the way you people work for twenty five hours a day for Spiritus and Admit One, and at 9AM you are back in the class even when your body metabolism orders you to rest. This shows you have the spirit and I try to imbibe values like that. The only challenge is to keep NLS on the highest pedestal. If angels fall, it makes news, and NLS is of angelic proportions. No doubt about it.

Some sections within the NLS community believe that NLS has been experiencing falling standards, both in terms of students and faculty. What is your opinion on the same?

I completely disagree with it.  First, let me focus on students. The top ranking students come to NLS out of the 40,000 seekers. And these students are amazingly talented. Maybe this is my ego but year after year I find that standards are going up. But perhaps expectations are going up and greater the expectations greater the disappointment. Second, we have some of the best faculty at NLS. There are some faculty members who have been associated with Law School right from the day of it’s baptism. Like the founding fathers of constitutions they are the founding fathers of NLS. Show me one law school where you have in succession three Chief Justice’s of India working as faculty members. Marc Galanter said that NLS is in the danger of becoming victim of its own success. It all depends on how you look at it and therefore I don’t subscribe to the view that standards are falling.

In light of some really good colleges in the recent years do you believe that NLS would continue to maintain its foremost position? 

There are many good institutions now and I think the presence of such institutions is very good. It prevents us from becoming complacent. I also think that an achievement becomes meaningless once you achieve it. An institution like NLS cannot bank on its past. The moment you try to bank on the past you become fossilized, anachronistic, and out of circulation. The healthy competition we have from other institutions always motivates us to be above them. My final statement in this regard is that NLS is imitated by many but bettered by none. It is like a pole star, it will continue to be a pole star.

Our college is a highly liberated and open campus, but at this moment there is a raging discussion happening within the student body about how, in some some cases, the attitude of college administration, more particularly the college guards and our mess/disciplinary committees, is highly sexist. Were you aware about this and what is your opinion on this?

I was not aware about this. We have to understand that NLS is part of a larger society. I have seen many institutions, and comparatively, our college is very liberal. I also believe that a raging discussion is a positive sign. The word sexist does not exist in my lexicon. As far as guards are concerned, whenever there has been a complaint regarding their attitudes, action has been taken immediately. Our college is a small place, where everyone knows each other and speaks without any prejudices. Law School is a place where liberty, in the holistic sense of the term, is granted and that’s its brand value. If there is any problem, my office is always open. There is no iron curtain and no ungodly hour. My dictum has always been passion for what I do and compassion for whom I do. Students are welcome to come anytime and meet me regarding any issue.

It would be wrong to assume that everything is perfect. That would indeed make Marc Galanter’s statement true. At a very basic level, what problems would you identify as existing problems in NLS?

I believe that perfection is always an ideal. If you think everything is perfect then unwittingly complacency will seep in. Sometimes I ask myself, are we really coping with expectations and demands of the course curriculum and delivery system in classroom? Are we responding to the bigger things students aspire towards? I’m always cognizant of this fact and it keeps me on my toes. If we fail to meet the expectations of student community, then something is wrong with us and not the students. I also want students to remember one thing. Please always remember standard of life is more important that standard of living.

Sometimes students get frustrated at institutions in our college but feel they shouldn’t raise their voice for they are afraid. A previous edition of Quirk from 2005 carries an article by a foreign exchange student from Osgoode Law School wherein he says that he felt no revolutionary zeal at NLS. What would is your message to such students?

There is a similar debate raging all over the country. Have students lost their revolutionary zeal and have they also started believing that change will come through evolution and not through revolution? Everyone says our defiant spirit of the 70s and 90s is no longer found. I respectfully disagree. Today students are not prepared to settle for even the second best and they only want the best. We were never this aspirational, we were content with what we were getting. I think their revolutionary zeal is not patently manifested but latent and if one understands the body language of the students, they will be able to see the fire and spark in them.

I also think students in NLS do not have any problem with raising their voice against issues. They may not raise their voice collectively, but individually my students openly discuss with me performance of different stakeholders. I always give them a free hand because I approach any issue with an open mind. Many times in the past they have raised their voice and I have done my best to solve their problems.