Hi Spadika, tell us a little bit about your time in Law School. What committees were you a part of, what kind of activities were you interested in, and what did you prioritise?
Law School, in hindsight, was a period of big transformation. I suppose it’s the same for all of us. In my first year, I tried my hand at debating, and was part of the Literary and Debating society. From my second year onwards, I became actively involved with LSC and IDIA- I also headed the IDIA chapter in my final 2 years. ‘Social work’ therefore ended up becoming a big part of my five years in law school. I became almost obsessed with the ideas of diversity and inclusion. One of the best uses of my time in fifth year was being part of the team that worked on the NLS Diversity Census. Apart from social impact related work, I was also interested in Intellectual Property law, so I ended up writing for SpicyIP and helped Professor Shamnad Basheer as a research assistant for a couple of his books and articles. I was also a part of Quirk in my final year, in the time it moved from the print edition to online. Shout out to your team – Quirk today continues to be my strongest link to law school! 🙂 I also dabbled with mooting, did a couple of moots and participated in the Jean Pictet competition that took place in France during my year.
As a consequence of juggling all these activities, maintaining a decent CGPA and not giving up on afternoon naps (EVER), I’d say the one thing I missed out on was involving myself more in the law school fests. I saw my friends form some of their strongest bonds and have some of their most memorable experiences over SF, Spiritus, etc. If I could go back and do law school all over again, that’s the one thing I would change.
It’s now been 2 years since you graduated law school. What have you been doing since then?
I was a Business Analyst at McKinsey and Company for 2 years, before the startup bug bit me- I now work at an early stage startup called Kaleidofin, that focuses on financial inclusion in the informal economy.
Was choosing an alternative career a difficult choice to make, given the importance of corp jobs especially around 4th year in Law School?
I was always conflicted about whether I wanted a corporate law career, or even a career in law at all. While I had loved my time in Law School, I didn’t catch a fancy for any legal career. In 4th year, I managed to escape the corp law peer pressure by doing an exchange program in Sweden. However, when I came back, I bit the bullet and did a corporate law internship. I also interviewed for the PPO, and when I did not receive one, I sat down and seriously thought about why I was half-heartedly pursuing something I knew I would not enjoy. I realised that while I loved Law School, I was a lot more passionate about social impact than about the law itself.
I then decided not to sit for Day 0 at all, because I knew that if I did sit, it would be too difficult to later turn down such a cushy, ‘prestigious’, well paying job. I think the best thing the NLS degree gives you is a safety net- I knew that if nothing else works out, I could go back and get a job at a smaller corporate law firm, or a litigation chamber. This gave me the freedom to hold out and soul search. When I heard that McKinsey was going to recruit, I spoke to a couple of seniors who worked there, and did a bit of research. McKinsey sounded perfect- two years of doing a variety of work to figure out what you really like. It’s also a great brand to be associated with, to transition out of law. I decided to apply, and was elated when I got the offer.
How do you feel about not working with the law per se, which is a concern many people in law school have about alternative careers?
An ‘alternate career’, especially consulting, especially at McKinsey, throws the field wide open. Over the past 2 years, I have learnt of career options that I had no idea existed back in Law School. You could say that as far as alternate careers go, I have it pretty easy thanks to having worked in consulting. But even if you don’t, if you have a bit of hustle, it can be really rewarding! One thing I’ve noticed about the typical law schoolite (who goes into litigation or a law firm) is that they are unlikely to make a single non-lawyer friend after entering law school. That’s quite limiting, if you think about it. An alternate career, even if just for a couple of years, can (re)open your eyes to the rest of the world. And thanks to the great Law School network- if you don’t like the non-law world, remember that you can always go back to law. 2 years in, I see vacancies in law firms pop up almost every week on the batch Whatsapp group.
Therefore, I do think that trying out a non-law job right out of law school is one of the least risky, and most rewarding things you can do.
That said, continuing on in a non-law path is not always easy, for one main reason. The NLS network is extremely powerful, but its influence is largely limited to the legal world. When you compare yourself to, say, someone from a top IIT, whose alumni occupy top spots in pretty much all spheres of business, it can feel a bit lonely to be off the legal track as a Law Schoolite. Most of your typical ‘studly’ role models from college lose relevance to your goals (or to help figure out your goals), and it can be difficult to find mentors who share the same background as you. You may find that you do not have as much of a safety net outside law school. This is why I think choosing a reputed firm like McKinsey will help a lot, as the McK-network has the potential to really take you places.
What are the demands of a job in McKinsey? Do you think your education at law school has helped you with the job?
As a Business Analyst in McKinsey, you will work on different projects (called ‘studies’), each typically lasting 3-4 months. On each study, you will be part of a team working out of the client site, solving a business challenge they are facing. The challenges could be operational, like how to increase supply chain efficiency; or strategic, like what should be the 5 year plan of the company. Over my 2 years, I have worked out of an automotive plant, out of a government Ministry, spent a few months on the road in Tamil Nadu auditing loan applications, and out of a swanky corporate head office. Despite my atypical journey (I ended up spending >75% of my time in the financial services sector), I have tried my hand at a pretty crazy variety of work- something pretty much no other career than consulting can give you.
Work aside, McKinsey also pampers its new hires with a lot of opportunities for foreign travel. Even if you (like me) are not lucky enough to actually land a study abroad, you will have the chance to attend trainings and conferences in exotic locations, and people encourage you to take a few days off before/after to travel! The most interesting country that I did a work-sponsored trip to was Colombia. I am pretty sure that’s a corner of the world I would have never had a chance to visit otherwise. What’s more fantastic than the travel itself is the culture that enables it- the firm truly believes that happy people are the most productive.
My Law School knowledge did not help me in my job per se, other than enabling me to sound more knowledgeable about some topics (like Aadhaar, for example). However, the skill sets do come in use. Speed reading, critical analysis, structuring are things that we have been practicing for years. I think a big difference between law school training and engineering training is that Law School focuses on critical thinking, while engineering focuses on problem solving. I found it slightly challenging to shift to a problem-solving mindset initially, but in the long run, I think it’s a great combination to be comfortable with both– and consulting enables that.
What is the best / worst part of your job?
Consulting as a profession is structured in a way that true work/life balance is nearly impossible to achieve. Long work hours are the norm (although I would say it’s better than a Law Firm). The back and forth travel is exciting initially, but can wear you down over time. All that said, it’s a really exciting job- I have had multiple people tell me that my Instagram handle is super annoying thanks to all the travel- isn’t that the true sign of a life well-lived? 
What would be your piece of advice to someone looking to explore a career in consultancy?
A lot of Law Schoolites are hesitant about consulting because it’s unknown and everything about it seems alien. My advice is to embrace it. Nobody goes into consulting knowing what to expect- that’s part of the journey! The core skill you pick up is the ability to land in any situation and figure out what to do at lightning speed. There are enough examples of law schoolites who spent 2 years at Mckinsey, picked up these cool skills and went back to law (Arun Srikumar, founding partner at the law firm Keystone; Harini Vishwanathan, currently at Allen & Overy; Viraj Parikh and Vinodini Srinivasan, Associates at Keystone); there are also some great examples of people who charted interesting non-law career paths for themselves (Adithya Banavar, who does strategy at Spotify in New York, and Sarayu Natarajan who worked at an Impact Investing fund after McKinsey).A couple of people have also decided to stay on and climb the ladder at McKinsey itself- like Uttara and Divya Shenoy. The Business Analyst program used to be a 2 year program until a couple of years ago- now it’s a regular track, and everyone can choose to stay on after 2 years if they wish.
Do not fear that you will be left with no choices if you take up consulting after Law School- in fact, your problem will be that you will have too many choices. I had interviewed with venture capital funds, impact investing funds, and a philanthropic foundation before narrowing down on what I want to do.
Over the course of two years, I had found an area of interest in financial inclusion. This is something I would never have been exposed to had I taken up a legal job. I began scouring the space for opportunities, and once something clicked, I decided it was time to leave McKinsey. I now work closely with the founding team at Kaleidofin, helping underserved, low income communities gain access to financial services. I love being here, and am excited about what the future holds.
]]>This article was written by Siddharth Chauhan (Batch of 2008).
Any recent graduate of Law School needs no introduction to Siddharth or more fondly known as simply ‘Chauhan’. The 20 months when he taught at Law School left an indelible mark on each student he taught. Always giving his all to Law School, his legacy still remains strong to this date. Writing in January 2005 for the first issue of Quirk, this article by Chauhan strikes an astonishingly prescient tone.
The entrance procedure for admission to NLSIU has been under the scanner on account of the consistent increase in the number of applicants each year. Some general criticisms offered are that the test inherently favours those with good English-medium schooling and that the high fee structure as well as requirements for ancillary spending create an ‘elitist’ profile of students. Another point made is that despite the provision of financial aid schemes, only the ‘well-off’ would have access to preparatory recourses. I do not intend to address these issues directly in this note. I propose a reform that might enable a slightly more diverse profile of incoming students. Though a common-entrance test for admission to NLSIU and the Law-schools that have subsequently followed its model, is not an exhaustive solution to the shortcomings in the admission procedure, it will, nevertheless be a step in the right direction.
The inclusion of institutions for the purpose of such a common-entrance exam, can be left to the discretion of an apex body comprising of members from the Bar Council of India or eminent academics. The modalities of designing and administering a common-entrance procedure can follow the example of similar tests conducted for engineering, medical and management institutions.
The primary motive for a consolidated entrance system is that it will bring about standardization across different institutions. It can work on the ‘rule of thumb’, that the applicant with better performance in test gets an earlier right of preference in respect of the seats available at the institution of his/her choice. Hence, the ‘brand name’ of the particular institute will be an important criterion and it will precipitate direct competition between various colleges.
The first benefit of implementing a common procedure is that it removes the need for individual spending on multiple admission forms, which as per current practice are highly prices and deter a substantial number of people from even applying for the preliminary process. A single application process will be convenient to applicants and also amount to a net saving of recourses spent in conducting the same. The criticism offered against this argument, is that separate entrance-tests also serve as income earning opportunities for institutions.
Second, a substantial number of high-school students are deterred from applying to individual institutions on account of regional considerations i.e. they are generally averse to the idea of moving to campuses in far-to locations. This tendency holds truer for prospective applicants who do not come from a legal background and are unsure of their long-term prospects with a law degree. A common test for several institutions will circumvent this trend.
The only argument against a common law-entrance exam that deserves attention is that of possible ‘brand-dilution’ or the disregarding of some distinct criteria demanded by individual institutions. It is true that in case of NLSIU, several people would feel that it enjoys a head-start over other five-year law courses in India in terms of recruitment prospects for students. This argument only proceeds on the idea of the need to maintain high standards in an institution – evaluated on how students perform through Law School and thereafter and not in the entrance-exam. On comparison of the test results for eminent law-schools like NALSAR, NUJS, NLU et al with the NLSIU list and it will be clear that the same individual applicant may not have performed consistently across the different tests. The entrance-tests are, therefore, not conclusive indicators of legal aptitude and for all the practical purposes there would be little to differentiate between the incoming batches in the top 4-5 law-schools. The argument for a common test is made to cover only the institutions following the NLSIU academic model in the short run. However, with more and more of the ‘old-school’ law departments in colleges and universities starting give-year programmes following the same structure, the coverage of the test can be widened on the conditions of an institution fulfilling clearly laid-down standards relating to administrative efficiency, quality of faculty and provision of infrastructure.
In the first trimester of Law School, I was crying on a friend’s shoulder in an autorickshaw, disappointed at my average performance in the university debate rounds. As somebody who believed myself to be a good debater, it was crushing to be shown my place in the university pool. My friend’s reaction though took me of guard. Concerned about me, and wanting to reassure me, he asked me why I kept feeling the need to prove I was good at extra-curricular activities. Was it because I had entered Law School through the SC quota, and I felt the need to prove I was as good as everyone else? He said, “Don’t worry, everyone already thinks you’re one of us. You don’t have to prove anything.” It was meant to restore my confidence. He was trying to be a good friend. It felt like a hard kick in the gut. My AIR had happened to be enough to qualify sans the quota as well. Therefore, I was not an usurper. The implication was that I ‘deserved’ to be at NLS. The implication was that others didn’t by virtue of getting in through the quota. That was my first real encounter with caste at Law School. That if your diction and pop culture qualified, you were one of us. It is one of the sharpest memories of my life. Not just what was said, but what was unsaid, and how it made me feel.
I am extremely aware of the position of privilege I enjoy. I went to an Anglican Christian school for three years which is among the top 5 in the country, was born to two highly educated parents, and have never faced economic hardship in my life. However, I am fully aware that skipping one generation, my ancestors weren’t allowed to sit inside a classroom, their shadows would pollute people if they walked past and that they worked with their hands and animal hide. I am aware that my mother belonging to an upper caste had to face tremendous social sanction and repercussions for marrying outside her caste twenty five years ago, a decision which many people in our generation still don’t have the courage to take. The caste system excluded people from the lower caste from gaining access to Sanskrit, Hindu education at top schools fifty years ago. Christian missionaries willingly took in everyone if you were willing to learn English and say ‘Amen.’ Then, English became the language of the market. My father went to a Christian school. And I benefitted in a twisted way from this discrimination. As somebody who sang in a Christian church choir as a child, I never fully understood how discrimination worked, until my grandmother read Ambedkar to me. And I didn’t appreciate its power till I met people in Law School.
At the outset I want to say that of all the things I am grateful for, having studied at NLS is among the highest. I had the opportunity to study under some amazing professors, develop useful skills, and forge friendships that will last forever. It taught me to question everything and express myself unabashedly. The place will always be a part of who I am which is why I feel that it is important that I am able to critique it with as much honesty as possible. Anything else would do the institute disservice.
As the supposedly top Law School in the country, an institute which has produced some fantastic human rights lawyers, and created an amazing vision to improve the quality of legal representation in India, as a student body at large, we’re a disproportionately apolitical bunch. Yes, the Law and Society Committee and the Legal Services Clinic and now IDIA have always gone out of their way to ensure that questions of inclusion, diversity, religion and politics are brought to the mainstream but there’s always an alternative vibe to it. I was particularly impressed by LawSoc’s activity for incoming freshers about recognising their privilege. We say that NLS allows everyone a space to pursue what they want. Yes, the spaces exist. However which spaces are the most crowded provide an interesting insight into our conscience. We need to stop pretending that people go to Allen and Overy partner talks and a screening of Jai Bhim in similar numbers. We are content to politicise mess coupons, but turn a blind eye to who is picking up our trash.
One of my immediate seniors was unpopular because he would keep discussing questions of caste on 19(1)(A), on ugstudents, and through his committee. I know several people who thought his activism was shrill, and unnecessary because caste was not an issue that affected NLS. Of course, NLS was that temple of education which honours merit over anything else; of students who got in on merit and worked hard to win the moots, debates, scholarships and jobs. So on several occasions, I have witnessed certain classmates emanate a “what else do you expect?” schadenfreude-like attitude when people who got in on the quotas have failed courses, lost years. As if, that is what happens when you don’t deserve to be here. That never happened when somebody who from the general category fell behind or failed courses. A junior, who was unaware of my caste status, once vociferously told me once that the best way to reign in NLS’ falling standards was to abolish the quota system, those people are bringing us down, that’s why our India Today ranking was in jeopardy. Another junior tried to explain to his classmates how we should advocate positive eugenics because let’s face it certain castes were just more intelligent and capable than others. An extremely successful senior told people over the mess table how she would “never date somebody who was an SC.”
To be fair, I haven’t encountered a single instant wherein any member of the faculty or administration has even exerted the tiniest of micro-aggressions towards students belonging to any of the backward classes, and in that, NLS might be a free space. However, as a student body, I don’t think we’re as guiltless as we would like to believe in our Chetta debates on organic change. The first instance when I felt that students were genuinely squirming about their privilege and thinking about caste was during P. Sainath’s single credit course on development, dissent and the media. His classes, I believe, genuinely forced people to think about law and society outside the sanitized and academic distance we are used to. One of the juniors did insist to Mr. Sainath in earnest after class that the caste system was useful as it helped organise society. But, P. Sainath is a celebrated, sophisticated English journalist who is listened to. Would people still have been willing to listen if the same questions had been asked by a Dalit journalist with vernacular experiences? It’s something to think about.
The advocates of meritocracy across the world have a very identical criticism of affirmative action. This is true for many white US students I have spoken to regarding African-American representation at US universities. They will always point out how certain people who have availed of the reservation system are extremely rich, drive around in fancy cars and don’t need the quota at all and that the criterion for affirmative action should be financial alone. We know there’s a very similar attitude at NLS as well. Pointing out individual examples as though caste has ceased to exist and it’s just another scam being pulled by the powerful. I agree that lack of opportunity due to dearth of funds from your primary schooling immediately excludes you from access to higher education and a chance to better your economic prospects. However, reducing it to this discussion assumes that one can buy themselves out of caste. That might be a gift of a capitalist economy which cares about your output and contribution to the economy over your lineage. However, the manner in which caste pervades our personal lives, the people who we make friends with, the people we marry, the people we idolise or give recognition to. Much of our lean-in feminism focusing on climbing the corporate ladder, does so while standing on the shoulders of domestic help from lower castes, perpetuating the same system of oppression with no attempts at reconciling these contradictions.
I am not qualified or intelligent enough to come up with a solution to our dilemma when it comes to representation in higher education. As campuses across the country begin to finally have conversations about caste following the horrific suicide of Rohith Vemula, a tragedy we all must take blame for as a system, it could be a moment for our alma mater to reflect seriously or it could be another missed opportunity like hundreds before it. The point of this piece is to highlight, from my personal observation that caste pervades the NLS student body more than we are willing to admit. First, by our silences and lack of engagement with the issue of caste within NLS and outside it, because this engagement offers no rewards or connections which can be vetted on your master CV. Second, because through our casual comments on meritocracy and hard work, we try to delegitimize and demoralise the presence of a section of the student body which is also legally entitled to the same educational experience as everyone else. •
]]>
The alumni is the pride of any institution. Our college has been around for almost 30 years and it’s only recently that a formal NLS Alumni Association has been set up. Needless to say, we at Quirk are very excited and hopeful about the endless possiblities that lie ahead.
Quirk: Could you tell us a bit about yourself ?
NLS Alumni Assiciation: The initial and interim Governing Board of the NLSIU Alumni Association hail from the first five batches of NLSIU and board members are: Dayan Krishnan (Class of 1993), Senior Advocate based at Delhi, Rahul Matthan (Class of 1994), co-founder & Partner of Trilegal based at Bangalore, Umakanth Varottil (Class of 1995), Professor at National University of Singapore, Pramod Rao (Class of 1996), General Counsel of Citibank India based in Mumbai, and Siddharth Raja (Class of 1997), co-founder of Samvad Partners, based at Bangalore.
Why did you decide to start the Alumni Association?
The decision to either restart the old Alumni Association or start afresh was taken at the NLSIU Silver Jubilee event and among the decisions taken was to constitute an Interim Committee to examine a few items, and place them for the consideration of the wider alumni body. Given the wide prevalence of social media –LinkedIn and FaceBook – the NLSIU Alumni were brought together on those social media platforms for ease of communication and interaction, and indeed to consider, comment and provide feedback on the work of the Interim Committee. The email database as available from the alumni directory created for the NLSIU Silver jubilee event was also harnessed.
The establishment of the NLSIU Alumni Association was made possible by interested alums and most crucially, the members of the Interim Committee constituted for the same. The Committee members were: T. Srinivas Murthy (Class of 1995), Pramod Rao (Class of 1996), Nithya Nandan (Class of 1998), Smitha Murthy (Class of 1999) and Kunal Ambasta (Class of 2010).
Our college has seen 23 batches graduate but it’s only recently that this AA has taken form. Why now?
This is actually our second attempt at having an Alumni Association – there had been an Alumni Association set up in late 90s, which turned moribund for a variety of reasons. The key difference one could say between then and now is the presence of social media platforms that provide ease of connectivity, link people together and have the ability to nurture the bonds among alumni. The new Alumni Association hopes to build itself with these platforms as key building blocks.
We realise that the future of AA will be decided by the elect- ed trustees, but where do you imagine it to be headed in the next few years?
Bearing in mind that the constitutional document of the Alumni Association envisages trustees / governing board members elected by ordinary members who would steer the Alumni Association and hence be responsible for the direction and deliverables, one can speak with broad generalities: Being relevant to the community, alums, to the students currently at NLS and nally to NLSIU – our alma mater – will be key to the future of the Alumni Association.
The constitutional document of the Alumni Association envisages a variety of activities that can be undertaken and also envisages Regional or City Chapters (and indeed on social media, we have alums in various cities within India and in various parts of the world already electronically linked).
The activities that further the connectedness and contribution to, by and among alums, NLS students and NLSIU will hence dene the future of the Alumni Association.
What drove you to initiate this process? Why do you care so much about this initiative?
There’s a shared journey that every Law Schoolite has undertaken – at a residential / hostel based 5 year education (with very many honourable day scholars) – one tends to know or atleast have an opportunity to know about 9 batches, and this builds deep bonds and connectedness.
The friendships (or rivalries) built then and thereafter professionally, as time goes by, or when one learns of the accomplishments of the folks who have had this common/shared journey, are indeed a source of pride and joy.
Finally, then, is the belongingness or nostalgia, reconnecting with folks one knew who may have got dispersed around the world, and nally, a spirit of contributing back – whether to community, alums, students or the institution. These are few of the drivers many of us have in wanting to see the formal Alumni Association come through and be around.
How has the response from alums been so far? (As per expectations, below expectations, above expectations). How do you think, it will evolve?
We are quite heartened by the response but it would also be right to say that it can be much, much more. e evolution lies in the sense of belongingness, activities that are relevant (to the community / alums / students / NLS) being undertaken and seen through. The challenge lies of course in proving that it’s for real and that it’s relevant.
We are very excited about the inaugural alumni day. What are your expectations from the event?
We are also very, very excited! The opportunity to meet faculty, staff and students and to hear back from all of you (and perhaps share some of our own experiences/journeys) and indeed relive some of our student life (whether with quizzes or football or basketball or a cultural evening) are all things being looked forward to. Gathering what’s relevant for the Alumni Association vis-aÌ€-vis the institution, faculty, staff and students will also be enabled by this maiden initiative.
What can we expect in the near term from the alumni association?
The Alumni Association’s partnership with the SBA (and various committees such as SIPLA and the ECell) has already yielded a revamped Alumni page, an Internship Policy, Single Credit courses policy, Collaboration of Alums and Students for Entrepreneurship Studies / Support project, and a workgroup focused on establishing a framework for alum support of student activities and of course the inaugural Alumni Day. These and many more relevant collaborations can be expected going forward as well. Among alumni themselves, a set of social gatherings and interactions have happened in Bangalore, Chennai, NCR, Mumbai in the last couple of years.
What role do you think the college administration should play going ahead in the Alumni Association?
This would be more relevant for the college administration to determine. However, from the alumni perspective, having an Alumni oce that coordinates the enrollment and alumni activities would be welcome though either the SBA or the Alumni Association itself can foster the same.
Taken from NLS’ perspective, an enhanced interaction of the alumni and the administration and faculty can yield many benefits and also serve to aid the grading of the university by UGC which has made Alumni interactions a component of university evaluation.
How has Law School changed since you last saw it?
Certainly – the campus & the academic block has only grown and expanded, in a very functional and yet aesthetically pleasing manner.
At the time of your graduation, how did you envision NLS to be in the future years? Did it turn like how you imagined it to be?
As an internationally recognized & socially relevant center of excellence for legal education – providing legally qualified professionals for all aspects of society, and in many respects it is indeed that.
What is your view on ‘falling standards of NLS’?
The question cannot be fairly answered at this stage especially by alumni hailing from oh so far back! The fact is that we don’t know whether standards have risen or fallen, or indeed whether the curriculum or method of instruction are delivering the intended education. Are we happy to collaborate for a review & bring our professional experiences to bear – that answer is an unqualied yes!
Professor Sarasu Esther Thomas, well known for her incredibly popular Family Law course, has the unique distinction of doing her LLB, LLM and PhD from NLS. Beneath her soft spoken demeanour she hides a biting sense of humor which has largely contributed to the success of the Facebook page, ‘Heard in Law School’. Quirk Team felt there would be no one better to provide an insight to the life and times of Law School.
Law School has gone through many changes since you’ve been here. What strikes you as most peculiar between now and then?
Probably the first is the campus, because we moved from Central College to here. The others include growth of research centers which we did not have in the old campus. We had only CWL and LSC (which at that time was a research center). And the third is the more recent one, being the way a lot of decisions are made. Earlier, it would be the entire community deciding. Even for a fee hike, you’d have the students, the teachers, the administration. Everyone would be a part of that discussion. Now that system is not there. These might not be the biggest but these are the three that come to mind.
Why did you choose to pursue your LLM and PhD here after your LLB? Especially since most LLBs here choose to go outside not just Law School but the country as well.
The thing is we needed teachers at that time. And though I did get admission elsewhere, Prof Menon felt that it was better that I stayed and studied here. Because we were really shorthanded at that time. So I was doing my LLM and teaching simultaneously. I assisted Prof. Pillai in Corporate Law and taught Family Law. I was also the warden and faculty advisor to the SBA. I was also the internship coordinator. I would be working till 1:30 every night. (laughs)
Why did you decide to pick up teaching rather than the usual law school path of going to a firm, and why did choose to teach Family Law in particular?
Actually I liked Family Law and Corporate Law, to be very frank. So I started teaching both of them. But I always found Family Law more interesting, because Corporate Law didn’t re- ally change from year to year. And Family Law was challenging to teach. Part of it was codified, part of it was uncodified. That was the challenging part.
I had never thought of teaching when I was in Law School. But I remember when I was in my third year, some of my teachers, that is Prof. Menon, who was director at that time, Prof. Mitra, Prof. Vijaykumar, and a few others actually asked me together. They called me to the faculty room. All of them were there. So first I thought I had done something wrong. And then they asked me if I would consider teaching. But at that time I wanted to give the civil services one shot because I had promised my grandparents. So I said I’ll do that as soon as I write the exam. So once I did give it a shot, I came back and spoke to Dr. Menon, and he said come back and teach. So I joined back. It was in the third year that I actually thought about it. They said that I would make a very good teacher so why don’t I consider it. So then I did.
So the teachers were actively encouraging people to take up teaching?
I think so. I think they really wanted to have teachers to come or former students to come and teach. They approached two others but I don’t think they took up teaching. I’m not sure.
What is your favorite part of teaching here at Law School?
It would be taking class, I think. Especially when the class is in a good mood. I think the part I hate the most is the evaluation. Which any teacher will tell you, I think. But, apart from teaching, I also enjoy the research that we do and working on research issues, finding funding and all. It is very challenging.
We’ve always heard that student-faculty interaction used to be very different in the past. How has it changed over the years? Has it changed over the years?
Actually, Law School was so far away from everything else that we didn’t have any choice but to interact with each other, I think. But we had many events on campus and the events were always well-attended. So even if there was dinner in the hostel, everyone would come. Or when there was a dandiya celebration, even Prof. Menon used to dance and do the dandiya. You don’t see those things happening now. We also used to probably talk more, but that’s not as important now because people are so much more connected to their school friends and everyone else that there are too many people for them to be in touch with. So yeah, we were more close in many ways, I think, which does not happen now, which I don’t think is necessarily a bad thing. It’s just reflective of the way that the world is today. We used to go on picnics together and fun stuff like that.
When did this shift start happening? When did it start happening that college events like Univ Week had only students?
I think it was gradual. Because earlier Univ Week used to be not just the students and teachers but also the administrative staff, their families, the teachers’ families, students’ families that were in Bangalore. It was more like a family thing. And I think it started changing because it kept being scheduled later and later. When I was the SBA Faculty Advisor I insisted that it be in the afternoon, or evening so that administrative staff could attend but I don’t know how it is now. And also we sent out the invitation well in advance so that people could plan. Now it’s like the day before, if you’re lucky. Or sometimes the day of the dinner, and we don’t even check the mail so regularly so we miss it. And the way that it used to be handled was we had more events on that day than committee reports so it made it more interesting. Sometimes the team which won things would be asked to perform again so it was a really fun event. The best of the year kind of a thing. Which does not happen now, I think. It’s more of committee reports, and I’m sure they’re interesting to the committees, but it’s very boring for everyone else. The only fun events are things like quad parties which we didn’t have.
You didn’t have quad parties then?
We didn’t have quad parties, but we had hostel parties. Combined parties in the hostel. Things like that. In the mess. Not in the rooms. That was never allowed. But yeah. Even the New Year Party used to be on campus, obviously without alcohol and everything. We didn’t have fifth years taking us to a farmhouse. We had a university party so everyone would come. Teachers would also come for that.
Currently, in Law School, mooting seems to be the prime activity people do. The most important things are mooting and debating. Was that always the case?
When I joined, you could join any committee you wanted because there was no limit and I remember the largest number of people from my batch opted to join the Legal Services Clinic. Two of us opted to join MCS and MCS then was all of four people. I was a good mooter. But I stopped after the third year. So people said I wouldn’t get the medal and all but I didn’t really care. But the thing is that we put in a lot of effort to popularize mooting at that point of time, which is why it is popular and sometimes I’m not sure if we did the right thing. I mean, I was enthusiastic about mooting, so I thought everyone else should be as well. But it wasn’t such a big deal. I mean, it was very hard to get people to moot and compete and get teams to go. But we did well in the first few moots, so that’s what made a difference, I think.
Were a lot of the hostel rules ever enforced? Because there are some that were clearly never enforced. Was there ever a time when stuff like loitering, or people not being allowed to leave their hostels after 8 pm enforced?
For a long time we had just one hostel for the girls, I remember, and at night they used to lock the door. Because you should remember where Nagarbhavi was, in the middle of nowhere. So at night the door was locked and you could not leave even if you wanted to. Room check used to be in the rooms, going and seeing if all the students were there and it used to be carried on for everyone and not just first years. Because there was a concern about safety. It would also happen in the boys’ hostel but I’m not sure if they followed rules with the same rigor. Some committees did, and some didn’t. Of course there were people who would find ways out. That always happens. But I do remember that a bus used to come early in the morning and if we wanted to go, the hostel gate was closed so we used to just jump over the gate. And when Dr. Menon found out he was really angry. He came and blasted all the girls. But the thing is even though he did that we still used to jump over the gate. See, you had to catch the bus. So a lot of people did that. It was the bus that would go to the city. There was one at 6 in the morning and the next was at 8:30 or later than that, actually. On the weekends. And there were no autos here, not even at the circle. And the buses weren’t very frequent.
Is there anything in Nagarbhavi right now that was there back then when you were studying here? Or is everything new?
I think Surya was there. And Amma’s was there opposite the gate. There was a person who used to run a chaat stall, but now he is there at the circle. He has a shop there now, and his cart is inside the shop. These people were there.
How did Seniors interact with juniors? Was there “positive interaction”?
They didn’t do anything. All the men tried to hit on all the women, which hasn’t changed. And things don’t change that much that drastically. The seniors were always very nice. We were told at our interviews that ragging doesn’t happen. The parents weren’t really worried about ragging. We did have a Talent Night kind of a thing, for the first years where everyone was forced to do something, regardless of if they had talent or not. We did not really have any positive interaction as we call it today.
What do you think of the expectations students have from college now that is has become famous and very well known?
You all have a better Family Law course, I can tell you that. (laughs) But it’s true. Now there are higher expectations of the students, that’s right. And the thing is that the teachers now are teaching fewer courses. Earlier, some of them would teach two courses, or a group of three would teach two or three courses. That must have been hard for them. So definitely the expectations are different.
Do you see a difference in how students generally conduct themselves?
They are the same. I don’t think there’s any difference between then and now. I’ve been a student, so I know how people have fudged projects and everything. So it’s not something new that the present generation of students has discovered, as I keep telling my colleagues. Nor is romance new. So that’s the whole problem. Anything you look at, whether it’s drugs or sex or romance or whatever, I think earlier batches have been there, done that. So there’s really nothing new that you are doing. Sorry to say this.
That’s really good to know because we’re constantly told that we are a weird sort of generation.
That’s a judgement for other generations to make, right? My class was a small one. We had some 55 people and there are 9 couples who married each other in that batch. 18 people out of 55 who married each other and are still married. That couldn’t have happened without romance on campus.
Do you identify with the notion that people say that the stan- dards of academics and research in Law School have reduced over the years?
I wouldn’t say it has reduced over the years but what has happened is that one thing we as teachers try to ensure is quality control. But the fact is that people have found ways of managing the system, getting grades which they don’t deserve. There’s this whole perception among teachers that people will go and get re-evaluations or whatever is available to them to change the marks and that may not be correct in every case. All your rules which allow students to write old examinations again to get better grades is ridiculous. So anyone who can afford to pay and has some time off can work and get grades for something which the class finished some four years back.
But I think all these things started because students were having problems like I’m sure re-evaluation started because certain teachers were seen to be biased.
I have no problem with re-evaluation. The problem is when the person who is evaluating must be properly told what it is about. My papers are open book papers. The evaluators are not told it’s open
book. They are just sent the papers and the key. I don’t know if they’re informed that is is open book, or even if they understand what it means. I’ll have a higher standard. So there is a perception and I don’t think it’s only among teachers, but also alumni, which has led to this. Definitely the academic standards have fallen. There is no doubt about it. But that has happened only in the last few years. I don’t think it has been a constant.
Would you say the blame lies entirely with the students?
No, I don’t think so. But of course if they can get an advantage for it you can’t blame them. But they ought to have the maturity to say no, one shouldn’t do this because it’s affecting the institution. Which we have not been able to do.
If there was a message you could give to students entering Law School, as an alumnus, not a professor, or as someone who has experienced student life here.
Oh god don’t make do this. I’d always tell students to work very hard, and not get stuck with watching movies on Shush or reading junk, but to interact with people and take part in as many activities as they can, because it’s just the only chance that they will get.
As the warden, what is your principle on rule enforcement?
The student body is not a body anymore. In the sense that you all don’t really come together to do anything. It’s all either delegated to your representatives or most people don’t care. Earlier, people did. If anyone needed some fundraiser done, everyone would come together. There was no question of not having quorum at GBMs. Now you can’t have quorums at GBMs. There will be no political participation by students at any level. And also in terms of personal interaction. If somebody’s sick, hardly anyone goes to the hospital to see them.