Law school has ruined watching Bollywood movies for me. After doing 2 History and Sociology courses, I just cannot stand period dramas anymore. I need accuracy to detail, in costumes, gadgets, language, everything. I even demand accuracy in my villains. After Lagaan, this is the second movie where I wanted the Evil White Guy^TM to win. (Is it a coincidence that both starred Aamir Khan in the lead role?) I don’t know whether this is because I can no longer stand moral absolutism in fictional narratives or simply because that’s just how annoying the script was. It could also be because Lord Clive aka Lloyd Owen is a SNAAAACK. I haven’t crushed this hard on a British villain since Captain Andrew Russell in Lagaan. He’s played the Magnificent Bastard (1) to perfection.

Thugs of Hindostan, to give a Megha summary, is a story of how Aamir Khan grapples with his disorder of pathological lying. This is an exercise that I wish straight men would undertake more often-half of the problems of law school women would be solved. Unfortunately, it has little value as a storytelling exercise. In fact, the film has little in the way of a story, which is the basic minimum I demand from a Bollywood film, no matter how trashy it is in other respects. It could be argued there is a skeletal plot hanging in there somewhere like the threads of my sanity every time Shahid Kapoor uttered ‘Rajput’ during Padmaavat but it’s just too…flat to be taken seriously. Kind of like Katrina’s face in the movie.

Speaking of Katrina, the makers of the movie picked a very intelligent strategy in releasing one-minute teasers of both her item songs dance numbers so that hormonal lads can come flocking to the theaters and spend their parents’ hard earned money on the opportunity to objectify her for a sum total of 10 minutes. However, to give her credit, it is visible that she really did work extremely hard on both her item songs dance numbers. I have been attending Zumba + dance classes for 2 months but I will probably require 2 spinal surgeries and die an excruciatingly painful death before pulling off the jumps and twists she has done in the film.

The makers did another extremely intelligent thing by making sure that she only had 5 minutes of speaking time in the movie, but at crucial plot points, thus avoiding any criticism with respect to her acting abilities, while also ensuring that the film very narrowly passes the Lamp Test and the Bechdel Test. Unless she was just a special species of Magical Dancing Lamp who can flirt with men and harbor feelings of anti-colonialism. I mean you never know, Magical Dancing Lamps can do everything that women can you know. They also want equality.

The other female lead in the movie, apart from Katrina Kaif’s Abs, is Fatima Sheikh, the cutie from Chachi 420. She plays a Bollywood Warrior Princess^TM in the film. She is mentored in her journey from annoying 8-year-old tomboy with anger issues to annoying 18-year-old tomboy with anger issues by Amitabh Bachchan’s character who is the Worst Therapist Ever. He literally tells her at one point of the film, hey don’t let go of your anger babez, keep it inside you and nurse it forever so you can use its power to defeat the evil gora log. Mental illness crippling you in achieving life goals is such a 2018 millennial snowflake thing. Our Rajput ancestors knew better.

Anyway, Aamir Khan’s character keeps flirting with her throughout the film and in the end, one character even suggests that she has fallen in love with him. Thankfully they refrain from showing any physical intimacy between the two but seriously…she literally played your daughter in the last film you all did together. Katrina’s character pretends to be blissfully unaware of this and the film avoids any complicated love triangle BS. I suppose that’s unfair on my part though, how could Abs possibly be jealous of anyone, they’re just muscles after all.

Before I delve too much into Abs and Angry Princess’ love triangle, here’s what was promised in the title:

1. Watch Dhoom 3. I watched it before I watched The Prestige so I still enjoyed it. Besides c’mon I know everybody secretly enjoys Uday Chopra being a goof, that’s what the franchise runs on amirite?
2. Just kidding, watch The Prestige. You probably won’t enjoy movies again because every plot twist will look lame in comparison, but whatever Hugh Jackman heylooo
3. Also watch Baahubali, both films, back-to-back while you’re at it. The film has tried too hard, and too evidently, to copy the Baahubali Not that the latter doesn’t have its problems but seriously-Amitabh Bacchan’s Khudabaksh=Katappa. Aamir Khan=Mahendra Baahubali. Zaphira=Warrior Princess Avanthika. Even some of the choreography in Vashmalle was copied from Manohari. If all of this is sounding Greek and Latin to you, good. There is hope. The Maahishmati kingdom will come for you.
4. Ruminate on whether the Lamp Test and the Bechdel Test are real guarantees of how well-written a female character is if all you need is some intelligent writing to bypass both while objectifying the said female character at the same time.

(Somewhere in a script narration in a suburban Bombay film studio: Director-But Suraiyya cracks dick jokes! In 1806, mind you! I mean if that isn’t liberated, I really don’t know what these feminists want)

5. Watch Game of Thrones or Hunger Games or idk Cardcaptor Sakura or any show/movie about a Strong Female Lead with Anger Issues^TM which is relatively less annoying. Though to be honest, the entire trope has become annoying at this point.
6. Read up on the history of colonialism in India. Think about whether colonialism really brought our doom or were we doomed from the beginning. The film at various points hints at how Indians are Indians’ worst enemies but then chooses to return to the same old Hindustan v. Gora dynamic.
7. What is Hindustan really? Read up on nationalism(s) and the building of the nation-state. I mean heck, the characters in the film aren’t even fighting for Indian independence or the Indian flag, they’re fighting for some fictional principality. The movie should be called Thugs of Raunakpur. I was sniggering throughout the climax thinking wait for 1947 babes. They’re going to force you to join the Indian union, take away your privy purse, and then the fort whose azaadi you keep blabbing about is going to become a 5-star hotel to host destination weddings for the descendants of the goras you threw out 200 years earlier.
8. Read up on casteism in Hindu mythology. Thugs has a very interesting scene where the gora villain calls the freedom fighters personifications of Raavan, and sets an effigy of Raavan on fire with an arrow, metaphorically standing in for Ram. No, the movie is still lame as hell, still wouldn’t recommend watching it. Read Anand Neelakantan’s Asura. Read the story of Mahabali. Read about Persian mythology and how it’s the inverse of Hindu mythology. Read up on Eklavya and Karna. Burn a copy of the *beep* Smriti (not Irani) while you’re at it.
9. Basically, read. Just read and make your children read too so that when they grow up they don’t hoist the flag of Raunakpur and pronounce the glory of Akhand Raunakpur everywhere because like a certain Mr. Bhagat has commented who needs history when our countrymen have shitty Bollywood movies to teach them about it.
10. As a reward for the above, treat yourself to a viewing of Jo Jeeta Wahi Sikander or Andaz Apna Apna when both Aamir Khan and movie plots were cuter.

If you were already convinced the movie was tatti and had decided not to watch it, congratulations. For those of you whose parents are determined to make you waste your time in the post-Diwali weekend, show this review to them. There is still hope.

*Quirk regrets to inform that the author of this article has mysteriously disappeared. An unfinished draft of the article was found on her computer. While the circumstances of her disappearance are unknown, her friends and family suspect it is on account of State authorities having tapped her Whatsapp messages to her friends about the movie, where she very energetically discussed the thoughts of Aamir Khan’s character on Azaadi. According to Firangi Mullah, Azaad is not one person, but a soch, a thought, which can enable one to free themselves from the gulaami of their colonizers. She was also discussing how it is curious how the main characters of the film are Muslim and in that context the allegory of the villain Clive as Lord Ram perhaps makes sense. Ms. Mehta’s friend vociferously denied any knowledge of what she was babbling about and when asked for a quote simply said ‘The reason he keeps saying Azaad Azaad is because that’s his son’s name. It’s advance promotion because he’s already feeling insecure about how his son will compete with Taimur when both of them are launched, hence he wants to create an impression in audience’s minds already.’ We at Quirk wholeheartedly agree with this explanation and wish Ms. Mehta the best, wherever she is.*

References

1. https://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/MagnificentBastard

Disclaimer: This article is not meant to be an advertisement brochure to push people into the dark void of the capitalist rat race but is meant to bridge the informational gap that exists in law school given that we have no career counseling sessions and many of us don’t have the advantage of being friends with seniors or coming from law backgrounds, and therefore cannot seek advice. I hope this article will help all the Simrans and Rajs trying to figure out their life plans and simultaneously not lose their shit in La-School.

Let’s evaluate your average Simran (for the lack of any other generic Indian name; no reference to any specific Simran) at law school. Simran joined law school not having any great ambitions, but knowing very well that she has to become financially independent in about a decade or so lest her parents foist her off into an unwanted rishta (or Bauji’s business). Simran had never done anything great in school, and she figured law school would be the same way- as long as she had decent grades and worked hard, things would be fine.

However, Simran’s naivety was shattered because she soon realized that everybody was roughly equally smart, and equally eager to get their hands on the ‘package’. It’s not that she really wanted the job- but she didn’t want to be stuck in the cold while everyone else was rolling in the green- and more importantly, she really wanted to try living life on her own terms as opposed to staying at home and accepting the proposal of her second cousin Kuljeet. So she took up everything she could in the past four years- she did Jessup, she was Convenor of 2 committees, she had the grades, but she didn’t do anything path-breaking outside of that.

Now she’s sitting outside the Training Centre and waiting for interviews to begin. Sitting next to her is Raj, who has okay grades, has done a few extra-curricular activities, and quite a few internships but has never mooted or been the member of any committee. He is known as one of the most outgoing and creative students in their batch, has done extensive social work and is the captain of the football team. Raj keeps telling everybody that he’s here just for the kicks and that these kind of jobs are overrated, except deep down inside he knows that’s elitist bull. He’s the first graduate in his family; he has two siblings to send to college and parents on the verge of retirement. He could really use the ‘package’ right now-except now he feels his entire law school life was a waste just because he doesn’t have the magic 6-point-something number in his resume.

You might think you know who’s going to hit the jackpot at the end of this: but do you really?

A lot of the choices we make, and our ability to make them, depend upon the amount of effort we put in in our five years in law school. There are a plethora of options available, but only so much you can humanly do within a trimester system without having a nervous breakdown. How do you allocate your time? More importantly, is all of it- the tears you cried over not getting an A+, the hours you spent over reams of commentaries while your friends were at NYP, and the *beep* work you did because nobody else in the committee was willing to- even going to be worth it? Or should you have just spent all that time doing the things you actually liked but with no employment value- napping, reading the news, watching more YouTube videos, etc.?

This article attempts to decode one of the most important questions after R+L=J and ‘Is the Internet Working in the Library?’- what exactly is CV value? What is it composed of? Does it even exist? If it does, does it really make a difference? Apart from exploring the value of all the conventional things- CGPA, mooting, committees, etc.; the article will also look at the importance of things outside of CV value- and the one secret ingredient that might surprise you all.

What’s your GPA?

While it’s easy to accuse people of ‘CV-whoring’, it certainly is the first step to your dream job. According to Navneet Hrishikeshan, (Director of Service Providers Legal, Asia-Pacific and Japan, and in-house counsel for CISCO), “Your resume won’t get you the job, but it acts as a foot in the door.” At the moment, he is personally going through numerous resumes to select a member of the legal team for CISCO. He quips, “Firms hire based on attitude. However if you have 72 resumes to go through, the little things help in eliminating people. So it should not be lazily written.”

So what’s going to be the first thing that catches the recruiter’s eye? It’s obviously going to be your CGPA right? Priyanka Madan (Batch of 2015, Trainee-Solicitor at Herbert Smith Freehills, London) states “While I agree that CGPA is not everything, I still think it’s is a very important component of your CV, simply because it’s the first thing anyone will look at. More traditional firms/colleges will also give it the most importance, and if you’re using your CV to get an academic role, there really isn’t any other way for the selection committee to judge your potential. I would always advice students to keep their CGPA in mind, and take academics at law school seriously. Obviously, this is easier said than done. Some courses will kill your will to live, forget CGPA upkeep.”

Chetan Nagendra (Partner, AZB) agrees: “CGPA, mooting and extra-curricular activities are particularly important for the first decade of a legal career, when younger lawyers (and recruiters) tend to rely more on the individual strength of a CV in determining a hire.” However, he adds, “Later on, individual reputations in the market have more of an impact on the career path of lawyers. A high CGPA is a good indication of a bright lawyer, but is no guarantee for a successful career in the law. That often boils down to traits such as hard work, smartness, confidence and eliciting the support of others.”

Vaibhav Ganjiwale (Corporate Law Professor at NALSAR, formerly Amarchand Mangaldas) warns about the disadvantage of focusing on one’s GPA to the exclusion of everything else. “If you do lots of moots, debates, conferences, and organize conferences, this means you are taking initiative, you’re pushing yourself, you’re learning. It’s a good thing. If it adds to your CV and you ultimately get a job, then that’s good for you. This exposure gives you a different level of confidence. I’m actually not worried too much about such kids. What I’m worried about is those who think that GPA is the only thing.

The problem is that some students, because they do very well in academics, start looking down upon those who don’t, since the will decide in their heads that the other things are not important. The problem is that some of the people around are just working on their GPAs from their very first year, aiming for a law firm. Please don’t do that. The first three years are going for NGOs, trying to get different colors, as many as possible. Just GPA building is not the answer.”

The ‘X’(tracurricular) Factor

The importance given to mooting in law schools- with there being a ‘Mooting Premier League’ may lead impressionable juniors to thing that it is the sine qua non of one’s law school life. Experience suggests otherwise. Arun Sri Kumar (Partner, Keystone Partners; formerly Indus Law and McKinsey), who has judged the University Selections this time, candidly states that he never mooted in his five years in law school, though he enjoys it as a judge. “The ten people in my batch who became litigators never mooted, and those who did either went onto further studies or are doing firm jobs.” However, according to Mr. Nagendra, “Mooting is meant to provide confidence to a young lawyer in advocacy and learning the art of persuasion- invaluable skills whether for trial or corporate lawyers.”

Pinka says, “I don’t think they (moots/debates/ADR etc.) have any special value. At least that’s the case with UK firms, because we work with trainees who have never studied law, and wouldn’t even know what a moot is (lucky them!). So long as you have some extra-curricular activities on your CV, be they the overrated mooting/debating, or the ones that actually need a lot of talent and dedication but we steadfastly ignore like drama, music, dance, writing, quizzing, sports, it’ll set you apart and add individuality and character to your CV.

I’m conscious that this isn’t the case with national firms, where seniors from law schools are often on the recruitment committees, so they may very well favour applicants who have done prestigious moots they recognize the names of. Even generally the legal community in India seems to hold certain moots/debates in high regard. But I don’t think the situation is such that everything on your CV will be meaningless if you haven’t done Jessup. It’s more a slight advantage, as opposed to a guaranteed dealmaker. You can always have other stuff on your CV that makes you stand out nevertheless, sans moots and debates.”

However, there’s no denying that extra-curriculars, in general, are important. Pinka continues, “This is what makes your CV. People looking to give you a job/a spot in their university want to know how you will fit in with their community and your extra-curricular record will generally give a fair indication of this. Students also need to know that there is a lot more to work life than just work, and any extra skills you can bring to the table are appreciated. If your grades are as good as the next person’s, the fact that you can speak in front of people without hesitation, or have an almost perfect 3-point shot may make all the difference. Participation in committees shows “team values”, “collaborative thinking” and “spirit of cooperation” and other such nonsense that you find on most applications/Statements of Purpose.”

This ties in with what Mr. Kamal Stephens, who is Head of University Relations at CISCO, has to say: “Firms are looking for team spirit, co-operation and other such skills. Sports can be really important in showing team player abilities.’ However, one has to keep in mind that the relative importance given to extra-curriculars will also depend upon the kind of job one is applying for.”

Mr. Sri Kumar explains, “For traditional law firm jobs all these things lose significance as they are hiring in large numbers- a supply-demand gap exists. However for niche jobs such as UK law firm jobs, McKinsey and scholarships, things such as committee work matter as they are looking for specific kinds of achievements, leadership attributes, and a specific kind of personality.’

Work Hard, Socialize Harder

While all of this might sound like a case of ‘been there, done that’; a more holistic view will show that what really matters is not so much what you do inside law school but outside of it.  Internships not only give you an opportunity to test various career options and whether they suit you, but they also give you an opportunity to network. Talking about networking, it turns out that the relationships built with seniors in law school might just be useful for a lot of things other than just free booze. Mr. Sri Kumar says “Typically recruitment comes down to internships. If you have law school seniors at CAM who have a good opinion of you, you can get a job even if you don’t have a good GPA. They are not looking at your CV in the abstract.” His own firm hires on the basis of internships.

For career options such as litigation, internships might matter a lot more than the rest of your CV. Mr. Sri Kumar quips, “For a litigation job, CV does not matter at all. The litigating bar is very blasé about CV and is more interested in your ability to handle crisis and to think on your feet. Some people will ask you to intern first so that they can see you up close in action.”

Pinka also agrees, that “work experience and recommendations are a big plus. Besides showing your interest and capabilities, it also indicates to the recruiter the options you have explored. This is why it’s important not just to list out work ex, but also explain the skills you picked up from each place of work, and how you will apply them to your future job. For international firms, experiences that show that you are comfortable with different cultures and international interaction are important. Knowing multiple languages is a big plus. Always think of these things from the point of view of the employer and their company specifically. Don’t CV-dump, but picking out 1-2 meaningful examples that highlight your personality/skills will set your CV apart.”

While she doesn’t think that networking with seniors directly helps you get the job, she says “It’ll definitely make your life easier after you do get the job. It’ll also be helpful when you are going through the application process and you need a fresh pair of eyes to go through your application.” Mr. Hrishikeshan also recommends getting a mix of internships- at least one law firm, litigation and company internship respectively. His own internship with Hindustan Unilever in fifth year proved to be extremely useful as he got exposure to how being part of an in-house legal team works, (quite rare amongst the usual mix of law school internships) and eventually went onto pursue his career as an in-house counsel.

Mr. Stephens emphasizes that networking will result in having jobs referred to you by people, and that it is important to find a mentor in the initial stages of one’s career. Mr. Hrishikeshan adds his own personal anecdote in this regard of how quite a few times he has got jobs, in spite of not having an official interview, by socializing with people and having them call back later about available options. It does seem to be about ‘being at the right place, at the right time.’

However, as Mr. Sri Kumar points out “Now you have a challenge because you also have people from NUJS and NALSAR on the recruitment team. For instance, an Amarchand tax team will have three associates from every campus. In this situation, the partners will look at CVs as everyone may recommend different persons. In the end, it comes down to internal discussions.”

The Secret Ingredient: TBY

By now, you might be thinking “I’m in a bigger conundrum than when I first started out!” The prima facie picture does seem to be that you have to do a mish-mash of everything if you want to get that cushy London job or unattainable Ivy League scholarship. Before you consider turning your life into a potpourri, interestingly enough, the key to the perfect CV might just be- as irritatingly clichéd as it sounds…To Be Yourself.

Padmini Baruah (Batch of 2016, Business Analyst at McKinsey and Co.) is emphatic that “I never mooted, never ran after too many committees, wasn’t the top ten of my class also. I think I just did whatever I did to have fun, and did work that struck me as meaningful. That said, it can’t be denied that my nature as a whole is easygoing and playful, and McKinsey likes that.” Though she does say that “Herbert Smith was not too amused when I sat for their test. Like they didn’t like my profile, but then I didn’t like their test or their working style so I wasn’t disappointed or anything.” Mr. Sri Kumar also recommends not building a CV blindly but “doing things that you are passionate about and see if it leads to a career path.”

Mr. Hrishikeshan is another espouser of the ‘Do What You Love’ philosophy. In his time, he says “Everyone wanted to work with Arthur Anderson, which was a very well-paying tax practice. But eventually it turned out to be too boring.” He personally worked as in-house at a FMCG company before joining WIPRO at half the salary. “I didn’t want to look at Weights and Measures Act again.” He recommends experimentation. “It’s easier to do it in the first few years of your career. After that, you have a family, you have kids to send to school, you’re less likely to take risks.”

The clinching factor, even if one does manage to conjure up the magical perfect CV, might just be your appearance and manner on the day of the interview. “It’s not like they really care,” Mr. Hrishikeshan says, “but they have very few tools to eliminate (from amongst all the CVs). So it helps to be clean shaven and not wear torn jeans.” Pinka also suggests, “Always helps to shower and have clean clothes that smell nice for your interviews. Not compulsory, of course.”

Point Being…?

Again, another clichéd and oft-repeated dialogue, but your CV really will not be the end of your life. It will certainly be of immense help in having the opportunity to go to the places you want and the things that you do. So before you throw away your books, you will have to study hard and do other things as well. However the crucial factor is that these have to be things you feel passionate about. Moreover, attitude matters. At the end of the day firms, universities or even senior lawyers are not looking for particular CVs as much as particular kinds of people. So even if you don’t have a 7.0 CGPA, have never been the Convenor of a Committee, played any kind of sport or musical instrument, never mooted or done any public speaking activity- here’s the good news: you can still make it. Even if you have done all of these things, you will need a lot of hard work and tenacity to ultimately become successful- and even then it won’t be any guarantee of  becoming a self-actualized human being.

So go ahead. You can choose to sleep in instead of signing up for Univ Rounds. Alternatively, you can do the international moots you’ve always dreamed of- but not because you want to make Partner at A&O but because you actually enjoy that field of law (and traveling on college money is always a plus!). But whatever it is you ultimately do- it will be your own initiative and drive getting you ahead more than any piece of paper ever can.

This article has been written by Megha Mehta and Radhika Goyal (Batch of 2019).

There are stupid rules and then there are Law School Exam Rules. Going to the Exam Department and reasoning with them is surely one of the most traumatic experiences a Law School student has to face. However, we have the capability of changing this. The Academic Council meetings are less than a month away and the SBA has called for an open meeting to discuss proposed amendments to the exam rules. It is extremely important that everyone turns up for the meeting informed, because these proposed amendments, dealing with matters of attendance, exemptions, carries, marks, repeat exams, seminar courses, etc, have the potential to affect every single one of us.

We understand that you might be too busy to read the document sent by the SBA in detail which is why we have prepared a concise summary with pros and cons of the proposed amendments to enable you to understand them and their consequences. This is so that you can make an informed choice with regard to whether you want these changes or not, and propose suggestions if any. It is our earnest request that you go through this document and turn up for the open meeting. Let’s stop the trending of #InstitutionalApathy and #ChaltaHai on the Law School feed.

We’ll deal with the good news first: (Assuming the proposals get passed…)

1. Attendance requirements will be reduced from 75% to 70% in consonance with the BCI rules. (Which means you get an extra weekend at Gokarna.) Further, in accordance with the reduced attendance requirements, you will be able to miss up to 8 hours without losing 1 mark (90% attendance = 5 marks. 89%-85%-4 marks, and so on).
2. Students with an attendance shortage in a subject only have to attend the number of hours required to reach the 70% criteria (e.g. Assuming that the minimum attendance requirement for a course is 40 hours and you attended only 36 hours. Instead of having to sit for 40 hours of the same torture next year, you will only have to compensate for the 4 hours you missed out on).
3. Students will have an option to submit a short assignment of 5 marks in lieu of their total attendance.  This means you only have to attend up to 70% of the classes and you can still get upto 5 marks on the basis of your assignment.  (Caveat: You need to choose the courses you want to make an assignment for within the first week of the trimester. This will be a problem for instance if you have new professors.)
4. Medical Make-up will now be accepted (Caveat: Go through page 4 of the document for the detailed procedural requirements needed to avail the same).
5. You will now be eligible to get condonation above 65% on extra-curricular and exceptional grounds over and above the current medical condonation.
6. You will now be able to submit your project in soft copy till 11:59 pm on the submission date, thus eliminating the need to run like Aishwarya Rai in Devdas at 5 pm. Also we save the planet! (Caveat: If your course teacher requires a hard-copy submission by 5 pm they can specially ask for the same. Don’t give up on your running skills yet).
7. You can get an extension for an event which is held 6 days before or after a project submission date. Events now include all competitions outside campus, such as moots, debates etc.
8. The next time your moot-mate goes missing, you will be able to get them show-caused and ensure that they don’t get to avail of an exemption (One more thing to put on your Has Anybody Seen My Moot-Mate FB status).
9. Your CR’s will finally get a say in those horrible examination time-tables.
10. You will be able to get your projects re-evaluated in case you receive less than 17 marks out of 35 marks.
11. You will be able to take an FA if your competition falls within 3 days (for negotiation or client counseling competitions) or 6 days (for moot court competitions) within the commencement or the conclusion of your mid-terms or end-terms or repeat exams. The UGC will also have the discretion to grant an FA if the clash is more than 3 or 6 days respectively.

Now for the ones we aren’t too sure about (Once again assuming they get passed…)

1. Attendance carries will be counted with subject caries for the purposes of getting a year loss. Right now if I have 3 subject carries and 1 attendance shortage I am still not going to get a year loss, but this will potentially change for the worse if the proposed amendment is passed. In the current scenario, getting two attendance shortages does not usually mean a year loss (despite what the rules say).
2. The amended rules propose to introduce an abstract submission of 500 words for all subjects within the first four weeks, on which a “preliminary presentation” of 8 marks will be conducted (assuming attendance marks are scrapped altogether). Final viva marks will be conducted for 12 marks which means that 20 marks will be in the hands of the concerned course professor (who probably hates you). Alternative opinion: This might just incentivize people to start preliminary research for their projects well in advance.
3. Students will be able to submit projects within 9 weeks from the commencement of the trimester (for III, IV, V years) and within 3 weeks from the mid-term examinations (for I and II years). This obviously makes the project submission schedule very flexible. You can manage your project submissions and other activities as per your convenience. However, here are some practical concerns: For many students, there might be no incentive to complete or submit projects before the final week, similar to what happens with studying for exams when end-terms are suddenly introduced. While we may think that we will be able to submit it within good time, the lack of a deadline can take away from the sense of urgency that incentivizes project writing. Especially for first year students, not having a specific time-line may deprive them of the opportunity to learn how to manage their time. Further this will create scheduling problems for teachers, as well as for students who might potentially have to attend 4 vivas in the last week before end terms. While this might already be happening with certain professors currently, the chances of such a situation happening increase under the new rule.
4. The restriction against inter-change of projects submissions persists even under the proposed amendments, which is a big source of inconvenience for many students. Exceptions can be made only in the case of carry over students and exemptions, and that too if the concerned course teacher agrees. We feel interchange should be allowed as a general rule. For instance if M wants to do Univs this year and she has an Evidence or History submission in her second half, it would be better for her academic performance if she could submit in the first half without any issue.

Electives In IV Year

The other important aspect of this proposal is the revamp of the course structure from 4^th year onwards. This in our opinion, especially as recently disillusioned 3^rd year students, is a very important move and can go a long way in ensuring that we don’t waste the next two years of our lives, studying courses that go nowhere. The proposal aims at introducing electives by 4^th year, (in consonance with what all other law schools are already doing) to ensure that we have a choice to get professors and courses that actually interest us. While the idea is extremely welcome, we believe you should still pay attention to the details.

In brief, students must get 20 credits in IV year and 44 credits in V year. (20 hour elective courses = 2 credits while 40 hours = 4 credits). The ordinary structure of division would be 4 credits in IV year I trimester and the rest in IV year III trimester. You will be allowed to choose from 8 elective courses per trimester. Do keep in mind that the deadline for written submissions for these courses is the last day of the trimester with no scope for late submissions. The detailed marking scheme has been provided in Rule VII on page 19.

Further, the single credit courses you complete at any time can be set off against these mandatory credits. The detailed grading system (calculation of CGPA) can be found under the heading ‘Proposed amendment to Rule VI’ on page 20. In order to pass IV year students will need 32 out of 48 credits (5×4 elective courses + 7×4 mandatory courses). Finally it has also been proposed to add that “A student shall pass the 44 mandatory courses and pass elective courses (or a combination of elective courses and one credit courses) amounting to 64 credits, with a minimum CGPA of 3.00 within a maximum period of 8 years to be awarded the B.A. LL.B (Hons.) Degree.”

We hoped this helped. Once again, please turn up for the meeting and voice your concerns. Of course, these views are completely personal and you are not bound to agree with our opinions. Just make sure yours doesn’t get left out. If we have misinterpreted any proposal please let us know. (And of course: Don’t Panic!)

One morning, if you were to summon the courage to wake up early (or if you were to involuntarily wake up after a late night alcohol binge), and stand in front of your mirror and tilt it at an angle so that the first rays of sunlight hit your reflection, you might happen to see a gaping hole in the center of your chest. It won’t be a perfect circle, but a mass of raw, gaping tissue, as if somebody had clawed their way through your sternum. You would be shocked that you were still alive. This hole had begun innocently enough, as a discolored bruise. One day you noticed it had assumed the texture of a scratch. Two mornings earlier it was an incised wound, and you were seriously considering going to the doctor. Now you look at yourself and expect to faint, but somehow you’re still standing and everything around you is just as ordinary as ever.

The doctor at the hospital doesn’t think anything’s wrong. Your blood pressure, temperature, all vital stats came normal. You repeatedly point to your chest and he gives a slight leery glance, adjusts his spectacles and says, “Really dear, there’s nothing there. The X Rays don’t show anything. Maybe you should take some rest. It will be alright, eventually.” So you put down your hole to an early morning hallucination because really, if you were that hurt you would have bled to death by now.

You carry on with the motions, going to class, going to lunch, going out with friends, going to bed, repeat, ad nauseum. You consciously avoid looking at the hole when you dress in the morning, but its presence haunts you in the form of a dull, throbbing pain which refuses to subside. You watch your favourite music videos, read your favourite books, binge-eat, crack the same stupid jokes you do in every conversation. Nobody notices your wound. It occurs to you that maybe some supernatural spirit crept into your bedroom at night and ripped out your heart, replacing it with some imposter organ. Blood doesn’t flows in your veins anymore. It has been replaced by a bitter, corrosive poison. You cannot summon the energy to do anything, not even cry. The melancholy of not being able to share your predicament has been replaced by a strange listlessness that makes you want to sleep all the time.

This time, the doctor sends you to a ‘specialist’, one who claims to know all about such holes. He personally thinks it is hogwash, but suggests you give it a try. The specialist scientifically explains the different types of holes she has encountered over the years-splinters left by heartbreaks, cracks from years of abuse, valleys carved out by professional failure. “I haven’t experienced any of these,” you say numbly. Your own voice sounds alien to you now, so do your body and your mannerisms.

“Try yoga,” she says helpfully, with the all too bright smile of someone who knows she has a lost case on her hands, but tries anyway. “Or exercise. I have some books you can read-”

“Tried all of that. Thanks.”

“Well darling, you can’t be like this forever, you know, it isn’t normal.”

“I know,” you say helplessly.

“Well I have these, err, toffees, they are really good,” she says, her eyes flashing.

“Thanks.”

“Don’t worry these things happen. It will be alright, eventually.”

So you take her toffees, and they taste okay enough, and they dull your senses even more and make you want to sleep all the time, but you’re like ‘whatever, she said it would help patch up the hole.’ Instead it only widens, so now you can see all the blood vessels inside, and how they’ve been corrupted.

When you tell your mother, she expresses disbelief at first, and then advises you to go to a priest. “This is all because of the absence of God,” she says wisely, a bit too wisely. “Turn to prayer, and it will be alright, eventually.” You say thanks and put down the phone. You are old enough and smart enough to know how your predecessors had turned to religion or communism or art or fanaticism, that most people with holes end up becoming radicals or revolutionaries of some sort, and those who can’t turn to other, different kinds of toffees to solve their problems.

You often surmise why is it that in a world with billions of people, you had to be the only one with this ailment. Are you some kind of Chosen One? You know that isn’t true though, there have been people before you, and people after you, and many of them have gone on to become successful professionals, artists, doctors, businessmen and criminals. You watch their documentaries, watch at how they laugh and talk about how it’s all okay now, how they’ve managed to assimilate with the crowd, and wonder how is it that they can lie so convincingly.

You know that this is an epidemic spreading across the students of the world, and that while it cuts across barriers of caste, class, religion and gender, it affects some communities more than it does others. You think back upon your past and wonder if it was always there in you, even as a child, this inability to reconcile yourself with the world and the people who inhabit it. You read about a boy who loved science and stars and nature, and wonder why his words resonate with you so much. When you tell your friends, they will laugh and say, “You’re so silly yaar, you worry about such silly things.” Your spouse pats your head comfortingly and says, “It’s the office stress, I know it. Let’s go on a trip to Switzerland. My friend told me about this amazing offer-”

Needles knit up your lips, a curtain of nonchalance drapes your eyes, and just like that a mask is constructed. The corruption is finally complete. Your entire body is now hollow. Your in-laws will express their approval at your transformation and say, “See we knew, having children would solve it. Things always become alright, eventually.”

Years from now on, activists will politicize your hole and journalists will write tell-all articles about it and reams of medical opinion will be published on the diagnosis of holes and how proper treatment could have saved you. Strangers on Facebook will make your hole their public property, as if they had always known it was there and had lived with it, in fact, were best friends with it. Those who claimed to be closest to you will express confusion and distaste and sorrow and say, “Well, we had no idea they were that sick! They never said anything! They were always so hale and hearty, not even a common cold. I swear to god, right up till that day-they were-”

Right up till that day, you will see it in the mirror, that abyss inside you. You will shrug and walk out, with a last glance at your reflection. It doesn’t matter, you tell yourself, before closing the door. It will be alright, eventually.