“System marginalizes indecisive people,” complain indecisive people.

October 19, 2018 | Mumbai | By: Aman Vasavada

NLS Inmates Review journalists stumbled upon three dazed inmates sitting on the footpath outside the Bombay High Court, their faces resplendent with the look of defeat. With a view to bring you some top class investigative journalism, we decided to find out why the inmates (anonymized upon request) were so depressed even when they were on their month-long parole away from Laa School. Their responses revealed a startling concern.

“So we just got to know that we have elective courses next trim”, said a third-year inmate. “Which means I need to make decisions again. Isn’t that reason enough to be depressed?”

Another whiny third year chimed in: “I gave up mooting and ADR to avoid moot offerings and ADR offerings, but how do I avoid elective offerings? By giving up Laa School? It feels like I am a ritualistic offering to the system – a sacrifice made for those who have their lives planned!”. The rant continued for another five minutes, highlighting how the indecisive class is institutionally marginalized, oppressed and othered by the system dominated by those who are privileged enough to make a choice.

The third third-year inmate to speak up to us was probably capable of making a few decisions but still looked just as sullen. This inmate was unhappy with the fact that elective professors restricted the number of students in their class and hence, their choice would be curtailed either by the much-feared FCFS system or by preference given to the fourth-years. The other two inmates, realizing that they were in fact doubly-oppressed, poked fun at their comrade for having ‘first-world problems’, but nevertheless showed solidarity after the third inmate declared emphatically: “I’d rather have no choice than be given the illusion of choice!”

Recent real-time studies conducted by us reveal rising depression levels in Tier-I cities in October. This correlates with similar sightings of miserable on-parole inmates recorded across these cities where they usually congregate to serve their parole internship requirements (firmal or judicial custody). Most notably, outside the Supreme Court in Delhi, five inmates were reportedly wailing in unison: “Freedom of choice includes the freedom to not make a choice”. We wonder if any civil liberties NGO will overhear them and take up their cause.

“The essence of policy lies in common human spaces. No matter how we differ, we all share common spaces within” – Aruna Roy

“Choice” was the big concern. I was arguing with our professor for alternatives in MPP fieldwork. We were all going to MKSS (Majdoor Kissan Shakti Sanghatan). I was perhaps the most consistent opponent to this idea. I did not want to go to arid and saline rural Rajasthan, but to the vibrant urban life of a metropolitan city. I believed that would be the best way to understand public policy, to know the intricacies of actors, ideas and institutions, to find what exactly fails when the implementation fails, to know how the government actually works, to build and be aware of perspective… I came across all of it, but only with MKSS. I am rather thankful for losing arguments and embracing this once in a lifetime opportunity. I am not saying it was all a rosy picture. I didn’t find MKSS perfect or my fieldwork completely successful. What I appreciate is the open space! This whole experience, if at all has changed anything, has made me a better listener. I am learning to see the hypocrisies within myself and around, I can critique some, can accept some and face the reality. I have become aware of possibility of a common human space, that I share with others. In this small discussion, I will make an attempt to share my personal reflections, not necessarily the experiences or learnings in any order. Perhaps, this might look fragmented, inadequately corroborated, may not make a good story, may be incomplete; but that’s not the point. 

One hall for men, other for women and common unisex washrooms was the first surprise living in SFD (School for Democracy) followed by ‘Shramadan’ (donation through physical labour) and hectic day ­long lectures. A lot of activities done here are based on certain principles or ideas. Let’s talk about Shramadan. There is no division of labour in SFD. All of us do all the work­ cleaning utensils, rooms, toilets, campus, cooking etc. Every day, your group is assigned one task and rotation makes sure that you do all sorts within a week. There is no division of labour. I didn’t like this initially. A lot of jobless people around could do it. We, if not SFD, would be happy to pay for it. What’s the point if you’re all tired throughout the day, can hardly concentrate in class or do something creative? It didn’t take long to realize that this whole exercise was about dignity of labour. I talk of equality, dignity; do I mean it? Wasn’t there shame and disgust in cleaning toilets? Did I value physical labour­ really equally­ as desk work? I probably didn’t. Working with my group, getting out of comfort zone and putting effort for community­ I think I got closer to reality. Shramadan­ however discomforting and tiring­ somewhat worked.

Sometimes, living in SFD with the community could be a funny task. Here, you do good work and expect that people will do good for you. Your self-interest is brought closer to community interest. The reason why I call this funny is twofold­ first, this altruism doesn’t work in your favour, second­ paradoxically, you start liking the concept of private property. Let’s take an example of washing plates after lunch. You wash your own plate and keep it in rack. You expect that you will get a clean plate next time. I know several people who never cleaned their plate carefully and enjoyed other clean plates next day, whereas those (like me!) cleaning it every day sometimes had hard luck finding one. So, you tend to believe in the concept of private property. You want to own the plate, you want the same every time, you want the same mattress every night, you want to claim ownership, but you can’t. So, what do you rely on? You then rely on the State. You want SFD to ensure that everyone washes their plate well. But, accountability doesn’t necessarily always work.

Although MKSS has every justifiable reason to advocate pro-poor policy, I could not understand certain practices. We cannot wear shorts on fieldwork, but we drop pants and poop in the open. We wilfully pollute. When there are toilets available in rich village houses, we don’t ask for their help. When there is a vehicle available, we don’t take lifts. Whenever there is some comfort, something that adds to our efficiency, we deliberately choose a more difficult way­ all in the name of experiencing reality. Is suffering ourselves so essential to understand the suffering? What’s the logical limit of ‘experiencing’? To answer this question, I quote one of our lecturers at SFD.

“If the world really needs to be only understood through experience, science would not exist. Social science won’t exist at all.” -­ Satish Deshpande

We are very different from the people living here. It is obvious that we will notice differences; there would be tremendous pressure on them to practice the ideal. Every small thing will create questions, expose hypocrisies or build a new perspective. I have observed that people who have joined MKSS­ barring a few exceptions­ are those who personally faced injustice. Unless you are denied basic facilities and deprived of what you deserve minimum, you probably would not enter the lifestyle of MKSS. They have been impoverished and are often indifferent to luxuries. Most of them are distant from conventional materialistic pleasures. They fight on principles, not just for benefits. They have compelling reasons to do so. So, I ask­ is it about being indifferent to pleasures indeed? Am I missing the point? I guess I am. Naurti Devi­ the courageous superwoman Sarpanch­ said something that clarifies­ this:

“I might have learnt, got literate. Not my education, but my courage and passion make me what I am. We (herself and many other activists and supporters) are in pain. So we understand the pain of others. Pain alone drives us to bring change.­”-Naurti Devi

There couldn’t be a better answer to why I am living here. SFD life is not perfect, not ideal. It is not meant to be. It is an attempt, a step to draw inspiration from their stories. I don’t need to be extremely uncomfortable, but this little lack of luxury­ which makes me at least work for myself with my community­ is a driver for the change. There is significant difference between feeling sympathetic to “them” and feeling what drives them and why. There are hypocrisies, but living here is a step forward.

I was born a Chitpavan Brahmin, supposedly the highest caste and sub-caste in our Maharashtrian community. Although financially weak, I enjoyed certain privileges because of social status. At the same time, I believed in equality and talked about it. It was always about ‘they should not be discriminated against’, ‘we are all equal’ stands. Elsewhere-ization of caste existed vividly. Living in Dalit Bastis, eating in Bunkar and Rajput houses, I heard stories. I witnessed the brutality and ruthlessness of the so-called upper caste, upper class. Feudal forces, lying with bureaucracy and political leadership, were cruel to the extent of using violence­ merely to stop a Dalit wedding, deny someone food or cut someone’s water supply. I often coated caste with its cultural aspect, but it is essentially a socio-political identity. Learning through their real-life experiences, I hope I not only believe in, but also try to practice equality. I have privileges and I should acknowledge them. If I do not discriminate, I need to not only avoid it in particular incidences, but also in thoughts, in assumptions and in relationships. I note what Satish Deshpande said in class­:

“Discrimination presupposes that you are not being discriminated on justifiable grounds. It is difficult to prove, as evidence is difficult. Discrimination is a relational concept. Discrimination presupposes social support based on popular prejudice. It is not some event observed just once, it is something in practice.”-­ Satish Deshpande

The other day, we were ‘taken’ to the MGNREGA site and given a task of digging around 40­ by 60 feet cubicle pit. Although for just four hours, we worked arduously. Working with axe and shovel, with dust and dirt, with sweat and blood, I felt ‘useless’ throughout. I don’t have the physical capability, manual skill or the spirit of working in community. It re­affirmed, rather asserted my beliefs towards dignity of labour, skill in physical work and decency in work. Unlike a typical office job, we developed a sense of compassion and belongingness naturally in the process. It was not competitive (however, we made it so) but an accommodative, collective work. We all felt the same pain, same level of belongingness. Perhaps, this is a reason why impoverished, neglected and exploited people come together more often than white-collar middle­ class. Tragedy brings people together and gives them strength to fight.

Beyond physical pain, this was more of a learning experience for me. MGNREGA workers are one of the exploited workers we came across. Unlike any other work I have heard of, their work is measured dually­ task completion as well as time commitment. They hardly get full payment, have to do intense physical work, lack any insurance or medical aid, are given absolutely zero facilities at workplace and have no decision making power in the use of technology. Well, I understand that MGNREGA is not an employment generation program, but more of a short-term solution to the crisis. Yet, if this government run program exploits them so much, doesn’t it legitimize private contractors to follow the same? Isn’t the government legitimizing the brutality of an employer who pays no more than minimum possible wage? Talking of minimum wages, I have noticed that some of worst policy problems here are also with definitions. Wage, poverty level, compensation, pension, relief, grant­ all are measured in absolute terms. Most of the figures are not inflation proof and hold no value in today’s times. Isn’t it more desirable as well as practicable to define them in ratio? If we have pay commission and dearness allowances to revise salary of government employees, why can’t we take realistic stand on transfer payments as well? Although MGNREGA is not creating assets, although it suffers from corrupt practices etc., it is unjust to take it off without assuring an equivalent alternative­ through state policy or market. Poor people working on MGNREGA are not there for side income, but for survival. Even when we say labour may get paid better in industry or as migrated labour, it is untrue. If they do, we won’t see private players crying over the paltry amount government spends on MGNREGA. Unlike private or PPP entities, the state has ultimate responsibility and is accountable to people. People are not mere beneficiaries of these policies, but they own the resources. State is in the business of facilitating this ownership in a just fashion. That is why, state must ensure basic right to food, healthcare and work to life.

Through various lectures and the ideas being imposed at SFD, there is substantial reason to believe that MKSS and SFD are pro-poor organizations. There is a conspiracy theory that these kind of fieldworks are attempts to brainwash us. It was very popular for some time and looked very attractive. Again, Aruna Roy clarified and I agree with her­

“The right-wing, pro-capitalist agenda is anyway prevalent. We are doing a conscious attempt to show you the other side. We may sound left sympathizing, but we are essentially pro-poor. MKSS and SFD are not stubborn close­ minded groups, but they are making consistent effort towards equality and egalitarianism. It is all about being open-minded!”-­ Aruna Roy

I appreciate this clarity. I have seen the so called pro-capitalist ones as well. I have not seen same level of clarity, honesty and humility in any right-wing agent. Even if SFD tells you only one side, it is worth it. Satish Deshpande, Kamla Bhasin, Vrinda Grover and many such eminent speakers have enriched this journey remarkably. I learn to take pride and say confidently that I believe in and mean equality. I can say that I am a feminist. As speakers like Prabhat Patnaik, Aruna Roy make us aware of the other side­ which is equally justifiable­ I tend to believe that there is hardly any correct or wrong, right or left position. Labelling is bad and destructive. The real social and political positions are nuanced, so is the public policy.

Well, I have crossed the 2000 word limit for personal reflections. I have not written a comprehensive essay or a story. I did not want to write one. It’s a long journey and there is so much more to write, so many experiences and so much of learning. For the little space, I just remember something Satish Deshpande told us, that was written on back of a new rickshaw. It says a lot about the process of development and learning.

जल मत, किश्तोमे आयी हूँ ! : Don’t be jealous, I came in installments!

This article is not about how to write a good project, nor is it about how to scam it well. Instead, this article is about how to make sure that project writing becomes an ‘activity’ in law school, beyond a mere ‘course component’. 68 exams, 37 projects, 4 internships, and a few conventional law school competitions later, I have realised that the best way to learn and understand law is to write about it. Though a lot of ink has been spent on why academic writing is important, this analysis can be left to some other piece on some other day. However, this article proceeds with the assumptions that project writing per se (not necessarily in the current format) is an important activity, so much so that we need to actively promote it. In the first part of the piece, I explore the seemingly obvious reasons for the failure of the current incentive structure. In the second part, I argue for generating some incentives (and subsequently, culture) from within the student community, instead of waiting for systemic reforms (apologies for sounding like a research methodology at this point). Obviously, many things can be done from the side of the administration and faculty to make project writing more meaningful. However, in this piece, I am only concerned with what we (the students) can do.

Project Writing as a Course Component: Why our Incentive Structures are Broken

Arguably, project writing lies at the heart of academics at NLS. Projects, by design, are actually meant to be the part of our coursework that allows us at least a modicum of autonomy and an opportunity to be creative. One can make innovative arguments, and use projects as a means to getting a grasp on some interesting ideas. In some cases, one can even choose their own project topic for a given course. Then why are projects that should ideally be the most exciting part of our coursework still such a burden for most? I believe, the reason lies in broken incentive structures, and consequently, a lost culture of academic writing.

Better Projects, Better Marks?

First, perhaps, is the absent correlation between quality of projects and the marks awarded, the most tangible of all benefits to us. Most of the teachers mark us within a defined band – so, the difference between an excellent project and a below-average project only translates into a difference of a few marks. For many of us, getting those extra marks is not worth the effort required to make an excellent projects. Even if those marks are relevant for some, they are often fooled by the randomness in marking of projects. Many teachers mark projects without even glancing through them, judging you based on your ability to sound impressive for five minutes. Sometimes it’s plain favoritism. Therefore, the most obvious of the incentives, i.e., ‘more marks’ has clearly failed to be a good incentive.

So why should we still think projects are worth sweating over? Because, there may be other incentives beyond your course. Let’s explore the other incentives that may motivate some of us to write good projects.

Personal Satisfaction

One such incentive can be personal satisfaction. Writing good projects improves your research and writing skills. These skills may be relevant to you in the long-term. In the short term, it only gives you personal satisfaction. What does ‘personal satisfaction’ mean here?

For many of us, there is a loss of confidence in our intelligence over time, if we don’t satisfy ourselves of our capacity to produce good work. Sustained progression of courses where project making is a painful, uninspiring process and coursework which is sub-par often blot out inspiration to produce something we can be proud of. And without it, we have limited avenues to enhance our legal thinking, research and writing skills (our soon to be bread and butter). This mixture of growth, actual learning, and confidence is what I mean by personal satisfaction.

So, can the sinking boat of legal writing survive on this incentive? I believe not. Incentives like this are very personal, and may not work with a majority of students. If we believe that project-writing has to sustain successfully at an institutional level, it is probably not a good idea to rely on this essentially personal incentive.

A Pat on the Back

For many of us, there is another very important incentive – honest appreciation by the professor. Let’s call it ‘appreciation incentive’. However, central to generating these opinions/appreciation, lies a basic requirement – for appreciating a paper, one has to read it. Unfortunately, 45 compulsory courses and 37 projects later, I won’t even exhaust ten fingers to count the number of teachers who actually read my projects. For the subjects where we are aware that teachers actually read and care about the projects, this ‘appreciation’ incentive clearly worked for me, as well as a significant number of my batchmates. Several of them outdid themselves, put in honest hours at the library, and made projects they were excited to present and defend before these handful of teachers who read them and engaged with them.

For some other subjects, I relied on a mixture of ‘personal satisfaction’ incentive and ‘more marks’ incentive. For the ones left, I couldn’t care much. This is the story of another broken incentive.

Getting Published

There can be another important incentive – that of getting published. It is not only one of the most coveted things you can have on your CV, but will also be something which will permanently contribute to the literature on that issue. Ideally, at least this incentive should work with a large number of students, but it doesn’t. There are, again, obvious reasons for the failure of this incentive. In an environment where every second day the Lawctopus feed gives you a list of 10 scam journals, publishing per se doesn’t seem to be a difficult task. But, publishing worth achievement requires much more than writing a good project. There are very few good journals at national level. Most of these journals are either annual or bi-annual, so they automatically limit the number of slots. Further, the effort required for an international journal is way more than what is required even for an excellent project. Finally, the selection of an article for publishing is also hurdled by a bunch of random factors like the relevance of topic, your position, etc. Due to sheer lack of opportunities and due to the amount of hard work that is required, publishing does not work as a strong enough incentive for a large section of students.

Therefore, my conclusion at this point is that though the aforementioned incentives at play may work with certain individuals, they are not sufficient to promote project writing at the institutional level.

So, what do we do?

What do we talk about when we talk about legal writing as an ‘activity’

Simply put, an activity, as opposed to course component, is something that does not form part of curriculum. Hence, the primary incentives that make students involve themselves in activities are external to curriculum. Barring a few exceptions, we have largely excelled at such activities at NLS. According to me, at least in part, these successes can be attributed to them being activities, that is, their incentives are beyond curriculum.

Moot courts can prove to be a good comparison.They are also academic in nature, most of the major moots requiring as much or probably more hard work than a good project would require. What can be the reason that students at law school are continuously striving towards producing high quality moot memorials (without their exemption marks really dependent on the quality of arguments in the memorial), and not projects?

Arguably, it may be because some may find researching for moot courts more intellectually stimulating than projects. But that is not universally true. Unlike in moot courts, where the issues are already identified for you in most cases, a good academic argument requires you to also identify the issues yourself. This act of problematising a seemingly simple legal provision or principle is often more challenging and interesting for some individuals than working on a given set of problems. Therefore, the importance given to moot court as an activity over legal writing in law school is not merely due to characteristics inherent to mooting, but because of an institutional predisposition to consider and promote it as a highly valuable activity.

What makes it a highly valuable activity? Apart from the fact that you learn a new area of law and the CV value (which the humble academic paper can also deliver), other factors such as immediate peer appreciation, travelling, etc truly make it a valued activity. This immediate peer appreciation goes a long way in creating a culture where moot memorials are not seen as mere replacement of projects. Therefore, though there is a curricular incentive with moot courts, i.e., project marks, our attitude towards moot courts is not that of ‘course component’, but that of an ‘activity’.

The challenge that lies ahead of us, as students, is – can we, as a student body, make academic writing a thriving activity at NLS?

The erstwhile Student Advocate

Before we explore what we can do, it’s important to know what used to exist. What we know now as ‘NLSIR’ was earlier known as Student Advocate. In its early days, it did not comprise of articles by area experts, but articles by students at NLS. Therefore, getting your article selected for Student Advocate and subsequent publication used to be a ‘thing’. It not only got you published but also got you some immediate peer appreciation. However, Student Advocate later became a leading law review of the country. It was no longer restricted to students at NLS. With its transformation into a law review, it ceased to provide a viable avenue of publishing to current students at NLS.

SBA Working Paper Series

Therefore, while we are no longer have Student Advocate, there is probably a need to fill that void. Starting an SBA Working Paper Series, either under the SBA or by relevant committees/research centers, that provides students with an avenue to publish their projects can be one such solution. It may also incentivize students to write better projects, so that they can get published in the next series of Student Working Papers. In fact, after every trimester, it should be one thing that students look out for. Apart from the purpose of promoting project writing, it can also serve another purpose beneficial to our institution – that of contribution of knowledge to outside world.

Students produce knowledge by writing good projects, but once those projects are marked,they often turn into paper waste. Some of these projects contain very valuable research that may be relevant for people looking for such knowledge, may it be for research, for policy or for something else. The SBA Working Paper series is a good way of ensuring that the knowledge that is produced within the confines of project writing is also managed properly. As compared to IIMs and IITs, the studies by whom are continuously reported about and published publicly, NLS as an institution produces little knowledge for the public. We have the benefit of being the best law school of the country (isn’t that what the rankings say?). Good research work by the students on any area of law has to be taken seriously by outsiders. SBA Working Paper Series can be one such way where the knowledge produced within the boundaries of NLS is thrown out in public. This further incentivizes the students to work on their projects with the incentive of being published in mind.

Culture of Academic Writing

While the incentives definitely play an important role in promoting an activity, we need to generate a culture of academic writing. Generating such a culture will require us to take multiple steps – such as seniors organizing legal writing sessions for juniors (like we have debate training sessions) and having paper discussion groups, wherein one can discuss her paper with her peers (part of what PLDG currently seeks to do). Above all, it is important for younger batches to not treat project writing just as a course component that has to completed for those 35 marks, but start taking them as lessons for learning legal writing.
Perhaps, we all agree that glass house libraries and classes in law school do not equip us with everything that a professional lawyer requires, may it be in litigation, corporate job, teaching or policy work. To be fair, we don’t even expect such training from law schools. However, the bare minimum that law school environment successfully does, or at least is supposed to do, is to teach us to research and write well. Through the system of written project assignments, law schools aim at achieving that purpose.

The author would like to thank Sharwari Pandit and Akshat Agarwal for their inputs and discussions without which this article would not be possible. 

One of the strangest things about stock markets is that a rumor about the price of shares often sets in motion a set of actions which ensure that the rumor comes true. A similar thing is happening in Law School where the constant presence of the “falling standards” discourse breeds perceptions and attitudes among the student body, which will inevitably result in actual falling standards. This article explores how this perception creates an environment that ensures that the falling standards doctrine will become a self fulfilling prophecy. It does not comment on whether Law School is experiencing falling standards but only argues that as long as the student body blindly perceives it to be true, the day is not far when it becomes true.

We are introduced to this idea in our first week of college by both faculty and seniors, who constantly barrage us with stories of the glorious past of Law School, all the while alluding that we are no longer what we used to be. They view the past with nostalgia-goggles that inevitably make the present look pale in comparison. The idea that we can never match the standards of those in the past haunts us throughout Law School and while it sometimes encourages us to work hard, this widespread perpetuation and subsequent acceptance of this idea has a pernicious effect on the attitudes of Law Schoolites. First, any achievement by Law School or Law Schoolites (Students and Faculty) is not given the credit it deserves. For instance, when our Legal Services Clinic won the prestigious MacJannet Prize, which is a testament of the exceptional impact it has had on the local community, the most prominent discussion on LSC at the beginning of the year was still about how it gets the most junior co-opt applications every year.

Another example is the Space Law Conference organised by Prof. Kumar Abhijeet (a Law Schoolite) that took place on campus earlier this trimester. It was attended by luminaries of the space industry and culminated in the pivotal Bangalore Declaration, the basis for the first Indian national space law. It was a significant moment in Indian space history where Law School played the central role and was featured on the front page of Economic Times and Scroll. The only place where it found no mention: Law School.

These illustrations showcase the blatant disregard among Law Schoolites towards the activities and achievements of its students who have worked hard to give back to the community and garner international recognition for NLS (‘raising standards’ if you will). Had these events or achievements taken place in our beloved NLUD or NALSAR, they would have been hailed as milestones heralding their unstoppable path to fame and greatness. However to our esteemed student body, professors and distinguished alumni, this is not registered as progress or achievement that takes Law School forward and is considered to be of no consequence. Instead, all we do is collectively cry about how LeGala hasn’t happened for many years.

On the flip-side, if anything goes wrong in college, it is met with excessive negativity and the standard line about falling standards. People fail to constructively engage with any problem or offer any solutions. When any alternate explanations to a perceived failure are proffered, it is blatantly ignored and dismissed as part of the uncontrollable falling standards of the institution. For instance, when a few of the current first years sent out mass emails for projects two days before Last Last Day everyone was quick to squawk about falling standards (“degeneration of academic standards”). However, no substantial effort was made to understand why this happened and how it could be solved.

Or, for instance, many seniors view the decline of the posts on 19(1)(a), or the erosion of Quad culture as a symbol of irreversible institutional decay, the irrational cloud through which this is seen precludes any scope for any explanation for the same. Thus, the decline of discourse on 19(1)(a) is construed as being a drop in the standard of critical thought in the student body, instead of acknowledging the rise of other forums, like Email and Facebook, where similar discussions now take place.

This brings us to the focal point of this article. Achievements of Law School get repeatedly ignored while the problems and shortcomings are harped upon ad nauseum, creating a scenario where we tend to live in past glory and forget that we still owe it to ourselves and the college to continue the legacy and not abandon it as rats would a sinking ship.

This environment has deleterious effects on the way student body functions and quashes hope in incoming batches of Law School, forcing them to have the same defeatist acceptance of falling standards.

The problem begins when new students enter Law School. For most first years, getting into Law School is one of the highlights of their life. They enter college with the drive and determination to make something out of their lives.  They enter a vibrant environment of mixed debates every night, football practices at 6AM, play readings and guest lectures. Yet as the trimester goes by, a switch seems to be flicked and this exuberance and optimism often turns into jaded cynicism. The apathy among several seniors, rooted in an acceptance of falling standards as inevitable, undoubtedly has a role to play in this phenomenon.

For example, if you visit the library early on in the trimester for your project, you are met with groans of disapproval and offered gems like, “why are you working so hard? Your teacher won’t even read it!”  In class you are given sermons of comparisons to seniors who were much better than you can ever be.

It is delusional to imagine that this causes people to strive to prove everyone wrong. What really happens is that this first year batch is more likely to use white quotes and live up to its perceived uselessness. They question their choice and their decision to come to what they thought to be the best Law School in the country and their drive and determination is negatively affected. Maybe they don’t put as much effort as they would have, not just because they don’t need to anymore, but also because according to them NLS is no longer the hub and temple of intellectual activity that it used to be in the 90s. In a situation where nothing is expected of you, and you are constantly told you will never be good enough, your motivation dries up leaving open a valve of cynism behind. Thus, if a first year sees scamming projects as the norm, she is likely to send out an email to ugstudents in the hope of a readymade template. The more likely she is to believe that you can pass college by barely working, the greater the chance that she would do just that.

If this is continued, over the years there is a definite chance that Law School is slowly engulfed by this sense of complacency. In the face of upcoming universities it is entirely possible that Law School does lose the name that has been built over the years and becomes the GLC of this century. And just like that, falling standards will become a reality because the doctrine was fed to every subsequent batch, creating a vicious self-perpetuating cycle of falling standards.

Constant harping on falling standards can only worsen existing problems, have a chilling effect on initiative taking, and ultimately cause the stock of NLSIU to collapse in the long run.•

The finals of the Women’s Kabbadi competition at Spiritus is underway at the SAI Complex in Bangalore University with hosts NLSIU lining up in red against local rivals CMR Law College.  The crowd is composed mainly of Law Schoolites, who have come out in force to cheer their team on in the finals of one of many sports on offer at Spiritus 2015, NLS’ annual Sports fest for Law Universities around the country. The girl in red: Shraddha Chaudhary, the Convener of this year’s edition of Spiritus.

Spiritus is just one of the many events that the student body conducts throughout the year. A major part of the undergraduate population is involved in the running of events, as members of the organising committee, as volunteers or as participants. Events have come to be the most prominent creative expression of the NLS student body and contribute to student life at law school in a variety of ways.

Creating Something New

Some events have pioneered the wider field in which they exist. Take the NLS Debate, organised by the Literary and Debating Society (‘LnD’). At its inception in 2002, there was no culture of Parliamentary Debate in India. The first edition saw less than 15 teams participate. However the persistent efforts of the vibrant debating community at NLS in getting other universities to take up the activity saw the tournament explode in subsequent years to become one of India’s most coveted titles that regularly sees close to 50 teams from some of India’s best debating institutions. “Now there is a Parliamentary Debate Tournament in every corner of the country but it was NLS-D that set the standards for how a debate tournament is organised in the country and it holds a special place in the hearts of all NLS Debaters – giving us a chance to share the joy we find in the activity with people across the subcontinent” says Nayan Banerjee, Convener of LnD 2013-2014 and current SBA President.

Another example is that of Strawberry Fields, Law School’s annual music show held on the field next to Gate 4 (now the Vikram Singh Sports Enclave). It initially started off as ‘Lawcommotion’, held in the Acad Quad as a part of Law School’s erstwhile cultural fest LeGala, but has since spawned into a beast of its own might. Attracting India’s best upcoming amateur bands since 1996, Strawberry Fields is credited as the launch-pad for some of India’s most prominent bands like Motherjane and Space Behind the Yellow Room. It can legitimately claim to have played a significant role in the growth of India’s now thriving music scene.

A Dose of Life

Many colleges in India don’t support the organisation of events or when they do simply do not trust students enough to allow them control over the key logistics and management of an event. This is usually rooted in the Indian belief that the main purpose of university is pure academia and that all extra-curricular activities are just distractions. This manifests itself in undesirable ways. For example, at the Vellore Institute of Technology, the financial freedom of societies organising events is greatly restricted, whereby the societies don’t get a chance to financially budget for their own event, instead are allocated a discretionary amount of money to conduct something that usually results in underfunding and administration control over how the content of events will shape up. Christ University while generously funding its events, displays administrative interference, controls appointment of student committees and uses administration tools like permissions and attendance to effectively control final decision making in all matters pertaining to the event. A conversation with any student of an average university in India will tell you the deep problems associated with university administration and the ability of students to independently manage events.

Fortunately, the NLS administration does not subscribe to this mentality and allows its students to manage everything about the event, from budgeting and sponsorship to management of logistics like ensuring accommodation for participants, transport to the venue and infrastructure at event locations.

The management and coordination of these various functions can contribute greatly in the process of creating smarter and competent students and complement academic growth. “Events like Spiritus are essential for wholesome development. They teach you very real, very essential life lessons that will probably help you more in the world than classroom teaching”, says Shraddha.

Sarthak Gupta, Convener of the Law and Technology Committee (‘LTech’) that organised 2015 Edition of Consilience, which hosted a seminal conference on Net Neutrality just at the time the issue was burning hot in the mindspace of Indian Internet users believes that the skills he learnt in organising Consilience “will come in handy not just for the remainder of [his] life in Law School, but for the professional life [he] wishes to lead beyond it as well”,

Part of the learning experience comes from the fact that events throw up various inadvertent and unavoidable challenges. Strawberry Fields, for example, now faces immense competition to get sponsorship, participation and audience due to competition from the the vibrant english music scene in the country. “The show started when there were few listeners of rock music and even fewer avenues for Indian bands to perform. That situation has changed significantly in the past 18 years. People can walk into any pub or music festival to listen to semi-professional and professional bands”, says Gautham Rao Polusany, Convener of Strawberry Fields 2013.

Strawberry Fields has a huge legacy and brand name to fall back upon and will ultimately continue despite the competition. Other events like Consilience don’t enjoy this guarantee. As of two years ago, Consilience was dead, had not occurred for 2 years and the Law and Technology Committee was seen in campus as somewhat of a joke (a popular joke going around Law School used to be- “Go to Ltech when your laptop is spoilt, they will fix it for you”). Its subsequent revival was challenging due to the paucity of passed-down wisdom that other more established committees like EMC and LnD have. As Shivam Singla, Convener of LTech in 2013-2014 puts it. “When we initiated its revival in Jasraj’s year, none of us had any experience in organising a conference and to be frank, little exposure to the field. Consilience had not happened for two years – we had few networks, spoiled relationships, and inadequate mentorship.” But Ltech has managed to pull out of this and successfully revive Consilience, showing promise of a sustainable future for the event. “Since its revival, three consecutive successful editions of Consilience have happened and hopefully the event will continue to be seen as a regular fixture on the NLS calendar just like Spiritus or NLS-D are today”, says Shivam.

Perhaps the biggest challenge however is dealing with the various people that make the event happen: from dealing with participants from multiple contingents at NLSD and Spiritus, to managing referee needs, to assuaging impatient food stall proprietors and dealing with the various infrastructure, hospitality and transport heads that ensure the logistics of an event run smoothly. People are complicated. While on one hand you have a supportive administration and cooperative committee members, on the other you have difficult people such as external vendors, even students within the student community who, as Shraddha aptly puts it “simply like to watch the world burn”.

Finally, there are the challenges of logistics and managing various crises that inevitably come about when multiple things are happening at the same time. These range from minor crises like a bus driver who decided to head home in the middle of an event to major ones like a sponsor backing out at the last minute. Students rise up to these challenges in running events in ingenious ways. In 2011, a major crisis unfolded when during Strawberry Fields, a large fire started raging at the edge of the University Field. It was located behind a scrub of bushes and so was only visible when it had grown quite big. There was dry scrub all around and there was a huge chance that the fire would spread, leading to not only the cancellation of the show but also danger to the people around. Instead of panicking, all students who were present on the field rushed to help douse the raging flames. Since there was no fire-truck nearby, buckets were procured from the nearby boys hostel and the hose near the entrance of the field was switched on. The next hour was an exercise in single-minded determination, with students from first year to fifth, of all shapes and sizes carrying heavy buckets of water over a distance of a quarter of a kilometer, pouring it on the fire and rushing back again to refill the bucket. Eventually students organised themselves in a chain of sorts, reducing the distance a student had to walk with a bucket and increasing speed and efficiency of water delivery to the fire site.

A Lesson in Emotion

Events also have a lasting emotional impact on the people involved in making them come to life. An organising team member has to plan in advance, with constant meetings and frantic telephone calls to sponsors, to hectic late nights ensuring flexes are tied up and all registration has been facilitated, Its hard, incessant work but it all becomes worth it when it pays off in success.  “The incredible feeling on that final night when the headliner is playing, are things that will stay with me long after I graduate”, reminisces Vishakh Ranjit, Convener of Strawberry Fields 2014.

For the incoming first years, volunteering (or forced-volunteering as some put it) at an event provides them the first glimpse of the crazy law school life lying ahead of them. Transferring mattresses at 6AM in the morning, tying flexes at 2AM in the night, picking up participants and dignitaries from the airport, all this while having classes, project and exams on their could be the best possible preparation for the years ahead. Additionally, events also constitute one of the major platform for senior-junior bonding, with multiple opportunities for first years to get to know and interact (positively, of course) with seniors they have not met before. It may be emotionally traumatising in the short term. But in the long term the first year has made friends for life.

And in addition to everything else, events no doubt provide liveliness to campus and make one appreciate the wider social life present outside the academic activities.  Parth Singh, Joint Convener of Spiritus 2013, known for his frank and outspoken views among the student community, puts it quite aptly, “You learn to appreciate passion better sitting on the field listening to bands from around the country the whole day or sitting at the basketball court screaming your throat hoarse in the third quarter of an NLS v. SOEL match, even though they have no tangible material incentive. You are sitting there watching it because you’re passionate. Passion for cheering on your college, seeing players give it their all, coming from random places around the country to play because they are passionate about the sport. In a time of cynicism, where the term CV-whoring is being bandied about with increasing frequency, it is refreshing to be reminded that passion still exists and the great value it can add to make one’s Law School life better.”

Back on the Kabbadi Court, the next round has begun and Shraddha is back in the opponent’s half, playing the same game of cat and mouse, moving closer to the second end line. The crowd cheers louder. Shraddha makes a quick motion and manages to touch one of the scarlet shirted girls. Dust flies up the air as she moves towards her own end zone. A few girls in scarlet have caught her arm and are attempting to pull her down. Relentless, she moves ever closer to the halfway line. The crowd chants get louder. The scarlet girls finally bring her down 1 foot away from the half line. Dust flies up again. A whistle blows. The crowd erupts louder than before. Shraddha’s left hand is beyond  the white halfway line. 5 points for Law School. That is one unassailable lead. The crowd chants become the loudest they have been in the match. NLS is going to win the women’s Kabaddi gold.  Some of the crowd makes its way to the nearby Football Field where the NLS Men’s Football team is about to begin its quarter-final match. There is already a crowd there,“Law School… Law School…”.