Sceptics argue that it’s a wilful move by the important man to become more elusive
August 18, 2018 | By: Aman Vasavada | Image by Mukta Joshi
Ganga’s foreman, Krishna Gowda Sir, is widely acknowledged as the humble little fellow who successfully duped parents into thinking that their spoilt and lazy lads have finally learnt to do their own laundry and clean their own rooms.
Obviously always in demand, his ringtone echoing in the passages is a fundamental feature of MHOR’s afternoon ambience, second only to the desperate yells of “Gowdaaa Sirr” from those who still don’t use Jio. Unsurprisingly, the adoption of the John Cena theme as his harbinger has become the talking point at MHOR dinner tables.
A very vocal faction of lazy Delhi boys speculate that the transition is a deliberate signal by Gowda Sir that he’s done with their shit and will henceforth be as elusive as John Cena – the WWE superstar with the motto “You Can’t See Me” who has been sighted even less frequently than some Ganga boys have been sighted in the 8:50 A.M. classroom.
If their theory holds true, the domestic lives of many will be crippled. “We are considering seeking project extensions for having to do our own laundry”, complained one of the boys, who refrained from naming himself.
All may not be lost, however, as another source claims that there is no hidden agenda behind the ringtone. “Everyone is overthinking this. I’ve seen Gowda Sir watching the Royal Rumble in the common room. He’s just expressing his fandom.”
Ominously, Gowda Sir was not available for comments.
As we go into press, GWC is investigating the claims and SDGM is on alert to counter any spontaneous violence triggered by the act of 40 irritable men waking up in the bunkers of Ganga to the John Cena theme blaring on Gowda Sir’s trusty Nokia, all because that one piece of shit on Cauvery’s top floor was too lazy to come all the way and call him.
]]>This article is written by Aditya Singh Chawla (Batch of 2017).
Some disclaimers before we proceed. These are insights based on observations during my time here. Though I don’t know how disciplinary committees have conducted themselves in the past, or how they’re going to in the future – this is more an assessment of the concept in itself. I also recognize that my perspective is limited to MHOR and SDGM, and that the DISCO-WHOR experience is different in many ways. However, while they may differ in their methods, both SDGM and DISCO in principle perform the same function (in fact, DISCO tends to be more hands-on in many ways). In that sense, when I say SDGM, I mean both entities.
It is widely perceived to be the case that we live in one of the more permissive and liberal campus environments. Being in a space that allows a high degree of freedom is in principle an amazing thing. We can explore, interact and relate to the people around us, (as well as ourselves) in whichever manner and setting we’d like. It allows us the essential opportunity to discover and develop our own norms and codes of conduct, within the freedom enjoyed. Arbitrary restraints only hinder this process of evolving as individuals and as a community. For an individual, it’s the process of determining your own precepts of restraint, those that come from within, when you could have chosen none. As a community, it’s determining standards of appropriate behaviour that allow us to coexist in our individual pursuits of those precepts.
As it stands, we exercise a high degree of control over this process, and what we do for leisure here is almost entirely our choice. But while most of us are far enough from any real parental influence, let’s admit that we are under the authority of the college administration. By virtue of being a residential campus, the college also has an interest in ensuring that we conform to a Code of law, order and behaviour that it has articulated (the “Principles of Conduct,” they’re called). That there is disagreement over the substantive content of such a code is clear — we’re constantly in willing violation of it. It’s effectively a dispute over defining what freedom should legitimately mean for students in this setting.
Let’s also admit that we have little control over the Code that is enforced. In this situation of no influence over a Code that is meant to govern our freedom, the question then is, whether the community’s conception of freedom, and the conception embodied by the Code can be harmonised. Take heart, because as that beautiful KT Thomas report put it, there are “rising instances of drug abuse, sex and drinking among students”.
Clearly, we’ve figured something out.
The curtailment of liberties by any Code of Conduct will be contingent on its method and mechanism of enforcement. In our case, the mechanism that determines the extent and degree to which the words of the Code tangibly affect behaviour, is actually an acknowledgement of their dissonance with the students’ perception of legitimate freedom.
SDGM is a recognition of the fact that the Code doesn’t truly reflect the community’s conception of freedom, in so far as it is a mechanism that can appeal to both.
For the college, it is a body that exists to enforce the Code that it has articulated. As a group within the student body, it is best placed to monitor and address violations of this code. For the student body, a student run entity such as SDGM, will always remain cognizant of the aforementioned dissonance between the norms of appropriate behaviour among students, and the Code the college would have us conform to. (The obvious example is that intoxicants are prohibited, but there is a general norm of ‘live and let live’ amongst the students.) Thus, SDGM’s operation can and should be informed by the appropriate balance it is capable of achieving between its two aspects.
Barring some aberrations, the practice of SDGMs during my time here seem to reflect this. There has been a general policy of leniency towards those partaking and imbibing in the appropriate spaces. Intervention mostly occurs for repeated violations, blatant disregard of the code, or to address behaviour that the student body itself might take issue with (causing destruction, nuisance etc., intoxicated or not).
At the same time, extreme violations are referred to the authorities if they can’t be handled internally; first years are given a healthy dose of fear, along with perm being strictly enforced; raids at the behest of the wardens sometimes deprive us of our miscellaneous consumables (although no booty being found would seem quite suspicious).
This mixed approach is essential to the continued existence of SDGM, and the system that we’re beneciaries of. This is because signalling is an important aspect of these functions. The committee must consistently project to the administration that an appropriate degree of law and order is being maintained; it must also signal to the student body the real boundaries of our liberties, beyond which we strain the balance sought.
SDGM fails its function, if it acts in excess of the signals to be projected to the administration; it also fails if it falls short, in that a perceived failure to maintain order and discipline may make the administration consider direct intervention.
Controversy regarding how SDGM conducts its business surfaces fairly often, in our public fora as well as in private settings. Concerns regarding overreach, discretion and arbitrariness have been a common refrain. While there have been very grave instances of overreach (last year’s SF debacle comes to mind), some of the criticism levelled is misplaced, if it loses sight of the larger principle underlying the existence of such an entity.
At the same time, while discretion is essential to their function, it seems that these excesses tend to occur when members within the committee also lose sight of that principle.
It is thus essential to realise that the moral content of SDGM doesn’t come from the substantive rules they’re supposed to be enforcing, but by the very nature of being a student run body appointed to enforce a code we disagree with. It cannot be a conduit for people whose opinions may be in conformity with the code, but only a mechanism that sustains the environment in which we can coexist with our differing opinions and pursuits. In being a part of this community, we can only but allow each other that.
Dorian arrived in Law School from Osgoode Hall, Canada as part of an exchange program. This article of his was printed in the first edition of Quirk published in January 2005.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times. As the taxi approached the main gate of the National Law School of India University, Perv announced, ‘this is law school’. ‘Cool’ I thought. The place seemed smaller that I imagined but nice. The school was surrounded by such dense vegetation and certainly evoked an exotic feel. Having backpacked around North India on a budget, the university seemed like a nice place to live for a little while. Then I went inside.
While I had finally located my cubicle, I stared in disbelief. Like Bilbo Baggins standing unannounced in Gollum’s case, I stood in the glow of the afternoon light filtering through the cloudy window. On the desk and bed frame was a layer of dirt an inch thick. There were cob webs hanging from the ceiling. Through the dirt it appeared as if the walls were painted beige. The closet was just as filthy having been used for a few months. There was nothing to do but take out a rag and start scrubbing. The whole time I was whistling Paul Simon’s Homeward Bound.
When I entered the washroom I definitely wished I was homeward bound. The concrete door and chipped yellow tiles were uninspiring. However, it was the mildew covered walls of the shower stalls and the squat toilets that really made me reconsider my decision to come on exchange. How could I possibly study at a place where I don’t feel comfortable taking a crap or a bath? God of Small Things I need you now…
I had to remind myself of some of the reasons I came to India. This was supposed to be a wonderful opportunity to have a cross-cultural experience, see the country of my ancestors, do some interesting volunteer work with an NGO and maybe even meet a wife (I wasn’t serious about the last one but my friends seemed to think that I would come home married. If the girl with the dancing eyes hadn’t turned me down I probably would have). Looking back, I adjusted to many of the things that had so irritated me at the beginning of my trimester. I adjusted to the squat toilets and the showers. I never quite got over the concept of mandatory attendance but I did get used to the constant chorus of “yes maam’s” and “present sir’s” that would be sung at the beginning of each period.
And then there were the rules. These rules are of course enforced, in large part, by the security staff and students. I think the security guards are supposed to be like Athena looking out for the protection of Law School-ites; but they’re not as comforting. They seem to be more interested protecting students from themselves than from outsiders. They look lazy but if you approach the girls hostel I found out that they can get quite lively.
How the rules are enforced by the Student Discipline and General Management I’ll never understand. SDGM truly completes the Big Brother effect described by George Orwell. Whatever you do, somebody is watching. It’s a wonder there isn’t a siren in the rooms that go off when someone masturbates. Were it feasible, it might have already been there. For all the Che Guevara t-shirts, I haven’t detected the hint of revolutionary zeal at NLSIU. There is a culture of complicity at the Law School that I have yet to comprehend. For a community that hasn’t mastered forming a line in the cafeteria it has mastered falling into line with respect to the rules. Fucked but fascinating.
I suppose the only thing lacking on my exchange was the romance and sexual encounters that are usually part of the American and European university experience. In A Picture of Dorian Grey, Oscar Wilde wrote that the way the way to a woman’s heart is through her eyes. I agree. I was told that foreign guys pick up a lot of girls based on their ‘exoticness’ and the fact that they have an accent.
Well, mine didn’t seem to do me much good at law school, so I’m not sure what’s to be said of the ‘accent theory’. Mind you, it probably didn’t help that I looked like the male version of Medusa with my wild hair. That alone may have been enough to turn some hearts to stone.
My law school experience is not a tale of two cities – experiences forever linked in time and space. I’ve found that law schools and law students are very similar no matter where you go. We are some of the most creative, detail oriented, ambitious people on the planet. Very likely some of the most miserable as well.•
What is the SDGM policy on student discipline this year and how is it different from earlier years?
Raghuveer Meena (Meena): Earlier, some SDGM conveners, after conducting show causes would go sympathise with the person concerned. Now we don’t. For example, if I caught Shikhar and told him he will be DARICed, I should not later go and tell him that it is all fine and he’ll get off. That is bad policy. This year, we have assigned good and bad cops within the committee.
Do you think that there should be a codification of SDGM’s powers and procedure of conducting raids?
Meena: I don’t support the codification of rules, else people will try to unfairly gain advantage. Also, rules rely upon interpretation as well. If we start reading the rules, people will get DARICed. At present, the third offence mandates a DARIC, but we don’t ever do that. We put such cases under miscellaneous, and take whatever action the committee as a whole thinks is appropriate.
Sikander Wankhede (Sikander): Ultimately ours is a small college. Everyone knows everyone by name and their personality. We wouldn’t like to screw another person’s life. Take the case of Shikhar, who said that he didn’t want to DARIC a batchmate of his, so we considered the case as unique and under the the miscellaneous category, imposed a fine and grounding.
Some of the hostel rules, like loitering, are ridiculous. Why have they not been gotten rid of?
Meena: We have tried to get rid of them but it hasn’t happened. We have made attempts to change our name from ‘Security’ to ‘Student,’ but the warden has told us that we will have to speak to the Registrar, for which we’ll have to obtain an appointment. Thereafter, consultations will need to be conducted with the VC and UGC, because whenever hostel rules are amended, they need to be put before the Executive Council. Ultimately, we have decided that these rules don’t matter as we don’t have to ever use them. There are a lot of silly rules, like one against trolling.
The fine for missing room check has been increased to Rs. 1000 from Rs. 150. What is the reason for that?
Meena: Rs. 150 was a fine for miscellaneous violations. Rs. 1000 was the fine for missing perm in the rules. This year we were told to implement these fines. There is no fine for room check, as the system of room check was created after the incident of murder happened.
We spoke to the warden and told him Rs.1000 is too much. We are changing it to Rs. 300, as we feel Rs. 150 is too insignificant to be taken seriously.
Rs. 1000 fines and grounding has always been in the rules. Gopika and I went through the previous ten years rules and it has always been there. We believe we have to determine fines and impose suspended punishments using our discretion.
Sikander: For codification we feel that it becomes a court of law. Decisions are appealed and defense and prosecution are brought forth, which I feel is not required in this college. You have mooting for these experiences. Making it a court of law is unnecessary. I didn’t like the idea of Aman Saxena making it that in his first year.
Doesn’t that prevent some sort of arbitrariness? Sometimes committees selectively enforce rules making the system unfair.
Meena: The deal is that you when you let someone off ten times, that person will not praise you or even recognise this fact, but when you put your foot down, he will approach the warden.
Moreover, if the timings of the raid are designated and the warden’s presence is made necessary, SDGM’s ability in conducting will be hampered. Also, the warden has his own life. He can’t always accompany us at 10 o’clock. Some sort of happy hours will come up.
What is your relationship with DISCO and do you think there should be parity in the rules? Could you also clarify the jurisdiction of both?
Meena: I must provide some context. There have been personal issues between conveners of SDGM and DISCO in the past, which have hampered their ability to work together.
Recently, when a girl was caught by SDGM on the New Acad terrace in violation of some rules, we had a separate show cause for her in the acad in the presence of DISCO members. This has been the practice since the sutta thing happened two years ago. In that incident, a guy smoking handed a cigarette to a girl and said SDGM did not have jurisdiction. That case forced us to create jurisdiction for SDGM in these special circumstances. Another time, a guy was show caused by DISCO for drinking at some quad party. Thus, there is overlapping jurisdiction. Gopika and I took the initiative and both reduced the fine to Rs.150. The committees get along this year. Recently, in an incident when we had to show cause our own batchmates both committees worked closely together. We think there should be parity in the punishments imposed.
Can you comment on the problems that the student body had with SDGM last year, such as the incident in which a first year faced harassment?
Sikander: I’ll explain the incident. We were taking their room checks but the first years were highly irregular. Some 10-12 people were missing it every day. This was never the case with other batches. We were shocked at this. Then we heard that some of them gone out for drinks before their Torts exam and got beaten black and blue. One day, Sarthak Gupta and I went and told them the realities and that they should not cross limits. One boy started laughing. He was laughing at me as a SDGM member and as a senior, which caused me to take offence. How can one do that? I asked him to shut up but he started laughing again, in front of the entire batch in the quad. I asked him to go outside Himalaya. This SF thing was happening and the student body was sending mails about moral policing and bashing SDGM on the college mail. So I was already pissed, we do work, don’t even get paid for it and get flak from the entire college for it. There were jokes being made about ‘undesirable mass gatherings.’ My junior members told me that he had written something about that. It was that morning that a student was robbed at knife point between Gate 3 to 1. So I was pissed that such things are happening, and I lambasted everyone. Just a week to prior to this, I had seen some first years on Surya terrace. We would write our local guardian’s name in perm letters in first year. These people were writing going to a movie, going for dinner to McD etc. How could they do this? This wasn’t allowed.
But why not?
Meena: I don’t have a problem, but the warden has a problem with it. It’s a policy that be strict with first years. Don’t go for a movie or anything at night. We suggest them to go with a senior for their safety. Why do you have to go for a show at 10 o’clock? That is the reason why the warden wants to maintain records, and when we tell first years that LG is the only place, we actually think they should write that. In first trimester, you are getting a hang of this place, how this place works, what it is about, what Nagarbhavi is like and the environment of the town. In later years, you can go to Pondicherry or Coorg or anywhere. That is fine with us, but not initially.
So do you think room check should be limited only to first trimester or second and third? Because by third trimester I think it’s largely unnecessary.
Meena: See the purpose of room check is not just safety but also to ensure that daily interaction with SDGM. That is it. It’s a basic thing we do to let people know that you shouldn’t break any rule. If they see the SDGM member shouting at one of their batch mates, they will have second thoughts about breaking rules.
Sikander: It’s not redundant. We have to keep them on campus after 8, because if they are found at Surya terrace at 10PM, anything can happen. And such things have happened in the past. We gave a similar orientation to the MPP first years, and some of them got drunk and there was a big fiasco over there which we came to know about later. Seniors in this college have been helpful to juniors in every way. They take them out, teach them how to drink, and give important life gyan. It is also important that you learn when and where to maintain silence. Essentially, you cannot be cool everywhere. The localities do not like you.
So you mentioned that you always face pressure from two ends, the students and the warden. How do you navigate this conflict?
Meena: The moment we join SDGM, we are taught two things. Sartaj told me that the people who don’t get disciplined by their parents will not be disciplined by us. And forget that people will love you for this work. We never think that if I’m raiding, people will love me and say ‘yes, please come raid my room’. It will always be ‘why the hell is he in my room?’. This is the nature of our committee. When I ask most people who don’t drink or smoke on campus why they didn’t join SDGM, they say that they fear their batchmates won’t be on good terms with them.
Sikander: I’ll tell you a very important thing in this regard. Last year, during a PFL match, there was a tiff between a spectator and a player. SDGM was asked to take action on this issue and I was completely against that. I won’t take suo moto action as SDGM. In the future, it will backfire, if we take suo moto action today. If we do this in a football match, later some idealistic guy will question why I’m not show causing drunk people in a Quad party. The coke is spiked. We know that well.
What if I’m smoking on the terrace, and my batch mate knows and comes there and then complains to you. Would you have complained about the batch mate if he went to the terrace if you’re not on SDGM? If they’re not making a ruckus or causing a problem.
Meena: Let him smoke.
Sikander: I don’t have any problem.
How do you think that in the past four years, the culture inside SDGM has changed? You’ve alluded to it.
Sikander: I have seen two sides of the coin. In my third year with Vishav, and in my fourth year, with Aditya Rathore. They were completely different. And now we are sticking to how it was when Vishav was there (Quirk team edit: We had earlier mentioned how Vishav had told Shikhar that SDGM was harsh on first years because they would start drinking and smoking eventually anyway, but would do so in their first year itself if the committee was lenient. The policy for senior batches was no-nuisance one). Or Sartaj, or Vagish. Zero tolerance policy can not work anywhere. We didn’t understand Aditya Rathore’s actions at last years Strawberry Fields. Why would he do that? Locking a terrace! It’s SF man. Jim Morrison also used to smoke up. I engaged with Aditya on this but he said that SDGM will stop this. I told him it doesn’t work like this.
What do you think the future is headed with this batch of junior members.
Meena: Next year, we are really doubtful. We both won’t be there. And Amber also won’t be there. Now there is only one senior member who is Tarun Rathore. And then there are all Shikhar’s batch mates.
Sikander: I can say that SDGM is quite in safe hands. Utkarsh and Jeydev are working well. They also have enough experience. They have been on the committee for two years. We have chosen the committee members personally after discussions with the warden, and we feel that we are all on the same page. And the committee members work as a team.
Meena: Right now the committee is in such a way that if Sikander will propose something, the entire committee will be in favor. They respect his experience.
Just for curiosity, do you guys take a vote? How do you decide on things?
Meena: Yes.
What do you do with all the alcohol that you confiscate?
Sikander: We drain it.
So last year that GBM happened and there was a vote to remove you. What did you do when you found out about this?
Sikander: I was present for the first two hours of the GBM but I had left for my hostel by the time this issue came up. Some of my friends told me that my name had come up, that I had fucked around with a junior and all that shit. But I was like chill, it’s okay, this happens with SDGM. Not a big deal. Then a mountain was made out of a mole hill, which was not required. Shrishti told one of her batchmates that Sikandar had agreed to all this. I never did. They took silence as assent.
So they never approached you after the allegations?
Sikander: No. No one approached me. Not a single person.
Meena: The warden asked the SBA if they had any evidence or anything.
Sikander: This happened later on. I wasn’t even told about the vote being taken for my removal or that there was resolution to remove me.
So the only thing that College/Ugstudents knew about the entire incident was the mail about your removal?
Sikander: Yes.
Meena: So SDGM never comes under the SBA. We are constituted directly under the warden. They can’t pass a resolution against an SDGM member.
Sikander: As they don’t have the power to appoint me, how can they remove me?
It was just supposed to be persuasive, right?
Sikander: At least you should give me a chance. Principles of natural justice were infringed over here. I was not given a fair chance. I don’t like saying these things as I don’t treat these matters like a court of law. I got to know about the vote for my removal when I was in class. I was like what the fuck has happened suddenly. I knew that I was going to lose. SDGM is not popular with people. And some girl brought some feminist perspective that SDGM is against girls as well. Girls on the house voted against me.
Meena: There is a false perception that there are people on the committee who judge if girls drink or smoke.
I guess it came with the idea that girls should leave the field early and all that.
Sikander: I personally feel that I was not given a chance and was not asked about what had happened. On the day of voting, the minutes of the meeting were sent by Vansh Gupta who accused me of drinking, and he didn’t even know me. I had never touched alcohol till then. So the voting happened and I got a 100 votes for me staying, without any sort of campaigning, because of the the people in my hostel and others who know me. After all of this had happened, at the end of the trimester I was asked for an apology from the SBA. I was informed by the warden that he had asked the SBA to submit evidence against me to him. In the interim, I was not to be appointed to a post in SDGM.
Meena: You’ll remember that Gopika was appointed as convener much before us, and Anil was assigned as convener before this, just because of the sheer stupidity of the SBA office bearers.
Sikander: And the warden till the end asked them to submit in writing why they were against me and why they did not want me to be part of the committee. His stance was that, “If you give me a valid reason, I’ll chuck him out of the committee.”
Meena: They didn’t reply to the mail.
The perception we had was that the admin wasn’t keen on removal because they weren’t bound by SBA resolutions. What you’re telling us is that SBA office bearers didn’t fulfil the burden of proof.
Sikander: One more interesting thing. I went to Anuja Ma’am’s room (the warden then) to ask her about this matter. She told me that she had no idea about this. She was very surprised to hear it. Also, Prashanth Sir was not on on campus and were equally unaware of this matter. The SBA office bearers told to the entire college about keeping the wardens in the loop, and how they wanted action against SDGM. Nothing was done on their end about this.
]]>