This cover picture is from the NewStatesman.
This platform recently published an article detailing the results of a survey that intended to bring to light a variety of mental health concerns that were plaguing the student body amidst the current pandemic crisis. The ostensible agenda of this survey (and the article) was to demonstrate to the magazine’s readers the fact that students’ mental health had, in fact, been adversely affected by the crisis and, while not explicit, that the college administration had somewhat failed in addressing the student body’s needs with respect to the crisis. To the writers’ credit, they focused on a general need for greater mental health infrastructure rather than pinpointing any particular administrative shortcomings. However, this article perhaps represented the culmination of the widespread “grievance-airing” (to put it politely) that the student body has been indulging in since the start of the lockdown.
The (Misplaced) Idea of India
This first began with batch groups grumbling that conducting Zoom classes would be inequitable to the student body, due to disparities in access to stable internet connectivity. (Un)surprisingly enough, this woe-is-me attitude seemed to emanate not from those members of the community that were actually facing difficulties, but from the (usually left-liberal) elites of each batch. These well-meaning individuals took it upon themselves to champion the cause of their cohorts whom they assumed would be grateful to them for speaking out against this obvious injustice being meted out to the lesser, hinterland-dwelling simpletons. In their eagerness to virtue signal and score points in the Woke Olympics, these elites forgot to do one crucial thing – take the time out to talk to their peers, if not one-on-one, at least on the batch group, and figure out how this apparent “lack of internet access” was impacting people. And therein lies the hamartia of Law School’s elite.
If they had, they would have discovered that middle India, contrary to elitist conceptions (which seem to be an essentialist rehash of Orientalist constructions), is not a vast jungle teeming with tigers and elephants, where there is no electricity, water, or network connectivity. Most of our cohorts, author included, are not located in such far-flung locales so as to lack modern infrastructure altogether. Financial access to this infrastructure is surely limited, but this roadblock was quickly lifted by the administration when they offered to reimburse students for data packs. Despite this, we see that the experiences of the marginalised (who are invariably lower caste and class) are time and again co-opted by the elite in order to further their own agenda.
Confronting Privilege
Perceived queer, Dalit, and marginalised experiences appear to be routinely used as talking points in lengthy emails sent out to the administration detailing their apparent apathy towards students, while actual consultation and discussion leaves much to be desired. Here again, well-meaning elites dominate the discussion both on Facebook, on batch groups, and in student representative community space. Passing the mic seems to be something entirely alien to these elite tastemakers, who confidently pronounce to their batchmates what new intersectional issue they should be outraged about today.
The most vocal complainants about home confinement aren’t those students who are from Chitrakoot or Asarganj, whose families have overcome generations of socio-economic barriers to enable them to go to college, but the ones who have cushy, air-conditioned 4BHK homes in Malleshwaram, Nariman Point, or Green Park (sometimes all three!). These individuals write lengthy emails to the administration and to their batches, detailing the intense mental pressure they are under due to having to serve their grandmother 3 meals a day, where their maid would do it before. Woe is me. Of course, we are all cognizant of the different ways in which an individuals’ mental health can be affected, but at least consider not using marginalised communities’ experiences to guilt-trip the administration. Confront your own struggles and ask for leniency on that basis – don’t piggyback off on ours.
It is this tone-deafness of the elite that needs to change. We all know someone with those classic manifestations of privilege – upper caste (and invariably class), generations of parents have been educated at the best schools money can buy, doesn’t need to have a monthly budget, never eats in the mess (it’s just soooo oily, ugh!), goes clubbing only twice a month, but most importantly, never lets go of a chance to talk about how poor they are because they still use *gasp* wired earphones, or the fact that it is soooo unfair that the Aditya Birla Scholarship is only open to the top 20 ranks (“seriously, they should at least allow all us general students to apply ya”), or how they’re probably going to have to “settle” for Singapore for their exchange next year instead of Europe because they have family there.
Enough is enough.
If you’re going to fight for social justice, then begin by confronting the immense privilege you come from, rather than pretending like your experiences are the same as those of your batchmates.
Always the Victim, never an Agent: On Academic Rigour in Trim III
The college’s new Vice Chancellor has been reduced to a caricature by community meme pages and batch discussions – haha, aCaDeMiC rIgOuR, am I right? Public fora seem to be abuzz with outrage – how dare he ask us to fire on all cylinders amidst this pandemic? How dare he think of us as scamsters when we fought tooth and nail to get electives? Fair enough.
It’s also fair to scoff at this outrage when you see those same people posting their reviews of a new Netflix show every other day up until last-last day, when the tone of their social media shifts to “haha, I’m such a baller. I’m doing my projects at the last minute but can’t help but squeeze in a 3-hour binge sesh of The Office. LOL DAE?” And of course, that other breed of I’m-too-cool-for-this-class-and-any-other-class, who openly admit to logging into Zoom in the mornings and promptly going back to sleep. I digress – I’m not here to point fingers at individuals.
The point here is that there is a definite culture of academic apathy amongst Law School students – from the entitled attitude towards extensions, to the dismissal of certain teachers as ‘scams’, to the pride taken in writing projects at the last minute and in dodging plagiarism software. Taking umbrage at these comments and defending oneself through social media diatribes will not make the problem go away. The fact that so many scoffed at the Vice Chancellor’s comment that focusing on academics is a viable way to manage one’s external anxieties goes to show the utter lack of value that our community places on structured academic learning. And no, Isha (the Indian elite version of Karen), your Human Rights professor expecting students to read for class is not ironic. Maintaining a routine and a semblance of normalcy is often calming to individuals prone to anxiety (and who are, more often than not, queer/Dalit folx).
While the value that one places on academics is entirely a personal decision, the answer cannot be to structurally do away with rigour altogether. There will always be reasons to deviate from academic expectations – some argue that this pandemic can be existentially terrifying, causing one to procrastinate. After this, we’ve still got to deal with climate change, with institutional casteism, with the unsustainable inequalities of global capitalism. Reducing the workload – which, if we’re all being honest, is not unmanageable to begin with – is not the answer. Rather, calls for strengthening of mental infrastructure and for the creation of community spaces that value and preserve mental health are the way forward.
Aditya Rawat’s group initiative is a great start. While the issues with online group therapy sessions were detailed in the survey article, it is also important to create spaces by and for marginalised communities as well. Elites cannot be a part of this process – not because they don’t have the right intentions, but simply due to the fact that a vast majority of the Law School community does not feel connected to these urban elites. We do not feel comfortable airing our thoughts and our grievances within that bubble, where an opinion that does not fit in neatly within their world-view is immediately placed under intense scrutiny, and the person holding that opinion castigated. Many of us have generations of patriarchal, caste-dominated, anti-poor, and anti-minority ways of thinking inculcated in us. It takes time to undo these ways of thinking – but elite impositions of right and wrong will not help. Give the marginalised a space to articulate her thoughts. Listen to what she has to say.
Pass the Mic – and Leave the Room
On a more sober note, we’ve been quick to co-opt the institutional murder of a class X Dalit girl (apparently due to a lack of resources and access to online classes) for our own agenda against the Vice Chancellor, implicitly making the statement that many of our own cohorts are in the same situation and being denied empathy by the institution. To this, again, we need ask ourselves the question – are we all really in the same situation as that girl was in?
We see the usual suspects scrambling to think of potential catastrophes that could befall a student during the exam and are quick to vilify the administration for a perceived lack of empathy towards the same. Yet, somehow, the wider community is yet to hear of a single incident of actual laptop / network failure. True, this exam set-up required us all to proceed with caution and not leave submission to the last minute, given the tendency of laptops to start hanging exactly when you need them for time-sensitive tasks. However, it appears that the students who were running from pillar to post concerned about this situation are, unsurprisingly, not those who are actually getting through Law School on a scholarship-funded laptop, but those with the latest MacBook (pardon the crude simplification).
The Law School community, to me, has failed in its social justice goal when we have this repeated romanticizing of the lesser-privileged as nothing more than a victim, dealt an unfair hand by the administration. The fact is that even now, public discourse is dominated by the privileged rather than there being a real platform for the lesser privileged to discuss their situations and grievances.
What do the disabled have to say about this new model of learning and evaluation? How is our compatriot in Kashmir coping – has the admin been responsive? What do the people besieged by Cyclone Amphan need? While it is easy to draw conjecture (see a certain student’s widely shared SBA Noticeboard post) and assume the worst of their situations, the only real way for a community to grow is by listening, not assuming.
A previous article here attempted to draw attention to this, but was sadly dismissed by some as being woke posturing by other elites. Perhaps it is telling that we see discourse that threatens to be more progressive than status quo as merely posturing while anything less so is dismissed as regressive and not even worth a conversation. A lifetime of living (and arguing) online seems to have hardened us all – it seems the only thing that brings us progressives joy is to smugly comment on how someone else’s progressiveness lacks nuance (present company included).
It’s time, then, to not just to pass the mic and give the sub-altern a platform from which she can actually speak, but also to stop seeing the sub-altern as nothing more than a victim of the administration. Robbing her of her agency to express her actual thoughts and feelings about administrative decisions and their impact on her mental health will reduce her to a talking point, an agenda to be championed in the pursuit of Woke Olympic points, but will never actually empower her or make her feel heard and seen by the community. Adding a few progressive buzzwords to your Twitter bio doesn’t make you a champion – and neither does posting smug commentary about how deluded those other champagne socialists are. You are doing nothing to better the lives of the people in your community, so don’t delude yourself into thinking you are. Social media activism is a minuscule echo chamber – instead, let your praxis show how you care about the marginalised.
Give us the space to articulate our thoughts. Let us decide how administrative decisions affect us. Let us decide whether this “academic rigour” is too much for us. In short, let us exist. Not as talking points, not as agendas, but as real, living people with agency.
]]>
[Image Description: The doodle is in the form of a large hand with its middle finger raised to the third trimester. Above the hand are the words “IIIrd trim” and at the bottom is “2024” with an infinity symbol drawn over the 4. Inside the hand are various terms we’ve heard quite frequently this trim – “quarantine”, “protest?”, “rigour”, “mental health”, “usual suspects”, “ED/BT”, “examination guidelines”, “teacher autonomy”, “summary”, “more power 2 u”, “AASP”, “pedagogy”, “LMS”, “attendance (shortage)”, “cold call”, “falling academic standards”, “SBA”, “alienation”, “NIRF #1”, “Zoom”, “mic not working”, “creep”, “cohort”, “25 pages”, “online”, and “Raghav, note their names”. There are smaller doodles within the hand, such as a skull and crossbones with the word “field” written over it, flowers, coffee, emails, and the Whatsapp symbol.]
]]>May 22, 2020 | Quirk Team
Newspaper design by Mallika Sen (Batch of 2021)
“Major violation of basic structure”, says Stud Mooter
May 7, 2020 | Anmol Kohli
In a shocking turn of events, the Academic and Examination Regulations (AER) have been amended in light of the COVID-19 pandemic to grant emergency rule-making powers. These have been said to be a “necessary introduction” in order to maintain academic rigour in this unprecedented period of unimportant distractions at home.
Two key excerpts from the amendment read as follows —
- Everything correct is objective. All that happens is correct.
- No change will be allowed to the above changes under any circumstance.
Law Schoolites whose moot competitions have been cancelled — or made virtual, which is as good as cancellation because they don’t get to travel — are now busy interpreting this amendment as a violation of the “basic structure” of the AER.
Actions are being proposed under this new amendment. They include —
- Board Exam Study Trauma — Virtual inmates are to regularly receive PTSD flashbacks of 12th grade final exams. The same shall be achieved through mass hypnosis of the inmates into studying to the point of exhaustion and avoiding all familial distractions. This shall promote a spirit of uncompromising rigour in their online education.
- Luxurious Access to Wi-Fi — The university shall judge an inmate’s Wi-Fi access level depending on the time they spend on social media, Netflix, etc. The statistics for the same will be sent by the Chinese government through Zoom. Sufficient data for online classes shall be created by deleting all distracting apps, primarily news apps, which demoralise the inmates. The administration has assumed power under the amended provisions to moderate Facebook and Instagram content of inmates, an initiative that Mark Zuckerberg has apparently extended his full support to.
- Undivided Neural Interconnectedness — As just ensuring that virtual inmates login to class is not enough, efforts are being made to gauge their attentiveness as well. Being a sentient software, Zoom has learnt to incorporate the nervous system of inmates to ensure an interactive learning experience. This is done to ensure that students pay attention in class, just like they always did back on campus. Their brains will be “slightly nudged” back towards class whenever they think of some inconvenient and unnecessary thoughts.
Needless to say, virtual inmates are appalled by these amendments. However, many seem to be apathetic. “The world is about to end anyway, what’s the worst they can do?”, was the reply of one inmate. Another declined to comment, just saying, “Sorry, the student in me died this lockdown”.
Hopefully, more information about this issue will be made clear soon. Reportedly, the Student Academic Council will release the minutes of their meeting with the administration on this issue, in a press release by next trimester.
]]>This interview is the second of a three-part series, conducted in collaboration with Vaanavil, the literary magazine of TNNLU. The third part of this series will be available on the Vaanavil website.
This interview was conducted by Aman Vasavada (Batch of 2021), Pallavi Khatri (Batch of 2022) and Lakshmi Nambiar (Batch of 2023).
Quirk: What are the things you would miss about Law School when you leave? Do you have any regrets, anything you’d like to say?
Prof. Elizabeth: When I leave now, the regret would be that I don’t have very close relationships with my colleagues. So when I’m leaving it’s like I can’t say I’m going to miss anybody in particular that I have worked with in all these years. This is excepting some of the admin faculty – Shanta, Padma I will miss, because they were there when I came to Law School, and we had a personal relationship over these years.
When it comes to students, in these twenty-eight years, I had very close friends in the first ten to twenty batches. People that I visit, people who visit me, people who call me up to talk about all the nonsense that was going on over the last six months… That was a horrible time for me in law school
You know, it’s not just the Vice-Chancellorship. I know my God is taking me to Trichy for a very specific purpose so I am really looking forward to it with no regrets at leaving NLS after 28 years. That was really too long a time.
Q: Generally, over the past few years, it seems like Law School life has become stressful at certain points. So how do you like to destress in Law School?
E: For me, Law School wasn’t stressful. It’s had its challenges, but that’s part of it. It’s become stressful over the past ten years, probably from the beginning of CLAT, because the kind of students who come to Law School are not interested in an education, and come here simply because they think getting this degree will get them that job that gets them a lakh of rupees, without even understanding whether they’ll like the job or not. Some people come because they want to do law and save the world, but they’re exceptions. Evaluation has become a real bore.
I really admire the courage of the first five to ten batches and the courage of their parents for putting their wards in an institution which didn’t exist, but they wanted to see what it can do. I never ever grumbled about correcting their papers – everybody’s answer would be very different and you could see they enjoyed studying it. But slowly it didn’t matter what questions I’d ask, I ended up correcting hundreds of papers with the same stuff for every answer for generations. That’s when the boredom set in, correction becomes a drudgery rather than an exciting thing.
So that became stressful, together with the fact that we had we had leaders who had absolutely no desire to maintain academic standards. We were just giving in to every demand of students, which was ruining their future. I hear from alumni about the poor research and writing skills (of several current or recent students), and for me, it comes from that. Their understanding of law, that rigour of hard work, discipline, all that was completely going away. And as somebody who had been working here for so long, it was hard to find motivation, but I consider myself as having to answer God. So, I maintained my integrity and continued to work hard. Of course, travelling up and down to campus everyday was taking a toll on my peace of mind as well.
To de-stress, I don’t need to smoke or drink or do drugs to feel good. I don’t need to drink tea or coffee to get up in the morning and get through the day. By God’s grace, I don’t need any of these external stimulants. In the past, I could be really depressed, but going to class would be all the stimulant I needed – I’d come back on a high after a class. But other than that, fiction is my de-stressing source – getting into a completely different world, an imaginary world, a fictitious world where everything is good. I stopped reading all these great novels because they just add to your stress, because they all talk about how bad the world is. The reason why I read and re-read Georgette Heyer and Jane Austen is because in the fictitious world, everyone’s having fun, and that’s all I wanted at the end of the day so I could sleep peacefully.
Q: Ma’am, would you like to list certain factors that motivated you to take up this position and to leave NLS?
E: Uh, lots of them. But top of it is that I’ve reached a plateau in my career. I started as a research associate, and that was what I was called when I joined in 1991 and then became an Assistant Professor in 1995 and so on till about ten- twelve years ago or more I became a Professor.
In twenty-eight years of having taught in Law School, I have a great many ideas of what a Law School can be, and ought to be. They may not all be practical, but I have a vision. And I can’t do that as being just one member of a faculty team with no power to implement any of my suggestions or ideas. My ideas themselves may not be welcome. People might think I am a dinosaur coming from a different time period. There has been little space for my ideas, my views in the last 10-15 years, I’ve seen that.
The vision is going to be the vision that I have, the dream that I had. NLS was based on a dream that (Prof.) Menon had. He of course drew from several people’s dreams, but he was a visionary who made this happen. If I am who I am today as a teacher today in Law School, it has a lot to do with the kind of vision that Menon had and instilled in us. And I hope to be that visionary for TNNLU. This is because, while there have been good people who’ve built the institution, I’m afraid that there is not much of an understanding of the vision that set up the National Law School type model. Therefore that is one thing I want to do.
Apart from that there is all the nonsense that has been going on here. I want out, I’m done with Law School. I can’t do this anymore. It’s taking a great deal more effort to come here every day to teach, to do the things that I have to do. And so I’m just darn tired. Maybe that was a mistake, that I stuck around for so long. But whatever the reason, I’m tired of Law School, of doing what I have to and not because I want to. And if it needs so much effort, then clearly it is not where I ought to be but whereas now I’m excited about where I’m going. And that’s three years that I have, ahead of me there, so I don’t get pulled down by the time that I have to spend there.
Q: Do you think your departure, and hence the change in the history course will leave a void in Law School? And if yes, is there any advice that you would give to your successor?
E: I don’t want to be too full of myself, I do believe no human being is indispensable. For all you know, someone much better will come in. I have brought in all the rigour that I could have brought, and I know that the standards that I set for myself are pretty high. But yes, there are certain things that I have done that my former students say made a huge difference (to their lives).
I’d say to whoever is coming in, don’t have a misplaced sense of niceness. Be firm, do your job and expect the best from the students. Because the moment you compromise on that, students will take your course lightly and you and your course will become irrelevant in Law School.
In terms of leaving a void, it would simply be the fact that there are some things I personally bring to my teaching and my way of functioning in Law School. There are many things that I have done, many roles that I have played in Law School. Only I can do that. Not because I’m some great person or some uniquely talented person, but because of my personality and the reasons that I am a teacher. I am who I am so those are things which only I bring in.
But that void that I leave, yes somebody else may not fill that void but they might do other things. I was speaking to (Prof.) Kunal (Ambasta)- hopefully some of the things that I have done, he will continue doing. But yeah, who I am is who I am and I guess in that sense none of us can be replaced, all of us are unique. But other things, it is for people to consciously do it. It is for the institution to realise what it is I have brought to the institution and to require that of people who come in. It doesn’t have to be the person who comes to teach history.
Q: You mentioned how you had these conflicting roles as someone who is approachable but at the same time very strict in class. How do you think that will translate with you being a VC at TNNLU? What do you envisage as your role there as compared to your role here? How accessible and involved will you be with the students there?
E: I don’t know how the students will be, I haven’t met them yet. I will meet them for the first time on Saturday (late January) as a group, and of course over time. Like I said, I’m consciously strict and distant in the classroom because I need discipline in the classroom. And I know from the way you all treat my colleagues who are not like that, that I can’t afford to let down my guard there. But, sometimes I can let down my guard because my reputation precedes me, therefore people do not take me for granted or try to take advantage of me. So when I go into TNNLU in terms of administration, I’ll be seen as someone who stands for certain values and that I’m honest, someone who has integrity of character and is firm but willing to listen.
I’m in a new institution, so I don’t believe that I need to go and pull the rug from under their feet and start building a new thing. I think even though it’s only six years old, that people before me have done certain things which are good. There may be things which I don’t think are right, in different spheres and I believe that slowly but steadily I can make those things happen. But for that to happen I need to take the students and faculty on board. Without their support there is nothing I can do. I believe firmly in a participatory democracy, where everybody is taking part.
Having said that, I do believe that young people have not yet attained the maturity to decide what is good and what is bad for the institution, in their personal lives also they are still learning. Therefore, while you listen to them, it doesn’t mean you can be guided by them. They cannot dictate the policies of the institution. As young people they may try and find shortcuts to what they think are the goals – which I can tell you are not the right things most of the time. So, I will listen and I will bring about change slowly. My entire idea is to be accessible, to be approachable but with the clarity that you can’t take me for granted.
Fortunately, one of the good things for me is that I have never forgotten any part of the journey that it has taken to get me here – physically, personally and professionally. So I’m going to keep that in mind constantly. I have been a student so you know, I know what students think and want. I have been an ad-hoc faculty, so I know what exactly are the insecurities in being in that place. But I also know what I was through all these stages in life – so I know we can be better. So it’s that I am going to sort of call upon as I take charge. My plan is to listen and then act – and I’m not going to be compromising on any matters.
Q: Will you continue to teach there, ma’am?
E: I do hope I get time to teach, but I’m not sure. There is a history professor there, I’ll not interfere with his class but I might occasionally go into the class because he says he also starts off with Carr so I want to see what he is doing with Carr. Since I started teaching history at NLS, a lot of people have taken the syllabus I prepared in Law School. I hope to be doing the stuff I do – feminist legal theory, violence against women, feminist jurisprudence – because those will be a lesser burden as electives. I hope to be doing it but I don’t know if my time and responsibility there will permit that.
Q: In the current socio-political context of our country, what do you think is the role that law schools have and how do you think this ties back to what you said, the vision that Professor Menon had starting out with the Law School?
E: I think a lot of people who have welcomed my appointment are people who feel that a person like me needs to be at the head of an institution to have a voice in the public there. So yeah, you can’t be silent these days. As a student of history, one does know that people don’t learn from the past, one does see patterns, and one can’t just sit back and do nothing. And yes, as people who head institutions there are certain roles we have to play. But standing up for what is right, isn’t hindered in that process.
Everybody has to take positions, but it doesn’t always have to be in an illegal or unconstitutional way. I think those are individual choices that will be determined by your values. I believe law schools have a huge role to play. You can’t sit back and pretend this doesn’t affect you. It does. For me, it is very real. It isn’t just talking about something because it is theoretically the nice, politically correct kind of thing to do. And if you’re not passionate about what is right, what is just, then we have no business being there.
The Supreme Court is going to look into whether constitutional values are supreme. I would say, yes, the constitutional values are supreme. Because they play the role of ushering in a new set of values in a country where there are diverse values. At the heart of religion is love, at the heart of religion is justice. But in practice, there is a great deal that has come in which is unjust, which is unfair, and which is not even right. The founders of all these religions will probably turn their backs on these religions because of the things that they practice. So are they subject to the tests of constitutional values? Of course they are. And as students of law, teachers of law, and institutions that are producing lawyers, it is the constitutional values they have to uphold. Anything that is in conflict with constitutional values has no place in an institution.
Q: What would be your yearbook quote?
E: The first thing that comes to mind is what the 2002 batch put on their T-shirt: “Been there, done that”, though, my quote would be “It is the journey through Law School that has brought me to where I am today”.
Q: If this interview were a project consultation for the topic “Prof. Elizabeth: End of an Era”, how would you rate our research questions? And anything you would like to add?
E: I think they were pretty good. All these questions are important and necessary and many former students have been asking me about them. There’s a lot more you could ask me about, but one day, I will write lots of books to answer it all.
But I’ll say what drives me is that I have to do my best for my God. He has done His best for me and I can’t fall short of it. This fits in neatly with the constitutional duty under Article 51A – for each of us to strive towards excellence. Why do we compromise? Why do we think we can’t be better than what we are? Some people are born brilliant but a lot of us like me are just plodders – we just work hard. And look at where my hard work has brought me. You can achieve anything with consistency and I wish people would see that.
I’ve heard people coming in on reservations just give up. Of course, they have the handicaps of language and of not going to a good school but I remember one such student who wrote such good answers that even through the handicaps I could see how sharp his mind was. We have a duty to ourselves and a duty to our country. If all of us saw this, can you imagine what Law School would look like? Instead of those shoddy projects, each of those research papers would be amazing policy papers available to change the way people think. And unless you change the way people think, nothing can happen by any number of laws. Excellence is something we all owe to the nation. You not only do your best not in beating people up because you think they’re non-conforming, but in contributing to make yourself, your institution, your nation and the world get better. If we don’t believe in that, I guess we should just allow Trump to start WWIII and die.
]]>This interview is the first of a three-part series, conducted in collaboration with Vaanavil, the literary magazine of TNNLU. The third part of this series will be available on the Vaanavil website.
This interview was conducted by Aman Vasavada (Batch of 2021), Pallavi Khatri (Batch of 2022) and Lakshmi Nambiar (Batch of 2023).
Quirk: Congratulations on your appointment as Vice-Chancellor of TNNLU! Our first question to you is: who is your favourite historian and why?
Prof.Elizabeth: I value different historians for different things. (Romila) Thapar for her unfatigued approach to her study and her ability to stand up for what she writes, (R.S.) Sharma for being one of the best users of historical materialism to study the past, and (E.H.) Carr because he blew my mind. His book What is History? is what made me fall in love with history – no other book challenges stereotypes and status quo as this one does.
A. I value different historians for different things. (Romila) Thapar for her unfatigued approach to her study and her ability to stand up for what she writes, (R.S.) Sharma for being one of the best users of historical materialism to study the past, and (E.H.) Carr because he blew my mind. His book What is History? is what made me fall in love with history – no other book challenges stereotypes and status quo as this one does.
nn
Q: History in Law School was an eye-opener for all of us, largely due to your Marxist-Feminist approach. Has this philosophy of yours ever stirred up any problems, whether at church, or in Law School?
E: Personally, it has not troubled me. I’m a practising, believing Christian and that’s all the more reason Marxism appeals to me. I don’t see discomfort between believing in God, and analyzing the past through a Marxist perspective. Marxism is about social transformation, for the purpose of justice and God stands for justice.
Fortunately, Law School has given a great deal of autonomy to teachers, but occasionally yes, I have faced some trouble. I think the first challenge came when Prof. Mohan Gopal was the Vice-Chancellor. I wanted Mr. Ramachandra Guha to come and address the then second years on Gandhi and Prof. Gopal said “Why Guha? Why not LC Jain?” I told him I’m not teaching Gandhism, I’m teaching about Gandhi in the context of the national movement, and Guha knows so much more about him than I do. So I stood my ground, and of course he didn’t say or do anything after that. Another time he questioned me regarding my ideological position. He said that he had heard that I was a Leftist.
Prof.M: “I’m told that you teach history from a leftist perspective”.
Prof.E: “Yes, I do! I find that the most suitable approach to the study of the past, very scientific, organised and systematic.”
Prof.M: “You shouldn’t be teaching from only one perspective then, you should be (teaching from) all perspectives.”
Prof.E: “If I did that, even a year wouldn’t be enough to complete one course. All of us have positions, and therefore I am using a Marxist perspective to teach history, and I don’t see a problem with that. I recommend the books of the other approaches and students are free to go and read them. It’s just not possible to teach from all perspectives.”
In terms of students, yes, not everybody who comes to Law School is interested in the non-law social sciences. A lot of teachers and students think law is not a social science, which is not right. I have had batches which have been very disinterested. In the last 28 years, some batches have made me question myself, “Have I lost the touch?” or “Am I not good enough anymore?” till the next batch comes along, like the current first years. I’m sad I’m leaving now, because that’s a really amazing batch (Batch of 2024). The batches that I taught before that, you know, the current fifth-year down, didn’t show as much interest. Not to say that there weren’t individuals in the batches who liked what I was doing, but as batches they didn’t seem to care. But it’s batches like the current first years which have restored faith in myself and what I am doing. So, yeah, those were some of the challenges I have faced because of the approach I use.
Q: Looking back, is there any advice you would like to give to your younger self before starting out?
E: When I entered Law School in ‘91, I was doing my Ph.D, with just a year to go to submit my thesis. I loved the History Department of Mangalore University, because there was no hierarchy, and I had made great friends there. I was very reluctant to leave but it seemed like I had no options, since there was no guarantee of a job there.
I resisted the urge to do legal history because I was in love with pure history. In ‘94, they asked me to head the Centre for Women and the Law. More and more I was being taken away from history. But, when I look back today, I realise that it was preparing me for now. If it wasn’t for my work at CWL, I wouldn’t have any kind of credibility for this position that they have offered me. One of my friends from an NLU told me that I am creating history right now, because I am not a professor of law. So when I look back, I wish that I had done my LL.B. more seriously. I did my LLB because I was heading the CWL, but I did it so reluctantly. I just scraped through – like some of you. I actually passed a few of those courses through the supplementary exams.
I remember going back to Mangalore and telling my Ph.D supervisor that “I really don’t like this and I have absolutely no time to do any research in history”. He said, “None of us are born to become a historian or something else – you got certain skills and capacities and you bring that to the study that you’re doing now and who knows where that’ll go. So, you need to stop wanting to be a pure historian.” I think that breakthrough came around 2010. I was doing history, I was doing feminism and I was doing law, so my interests in all three came together. They converged very well. And from there came my understanding of the law and the kind of courses I began to teach since then.
But I wasted a lot of time coming to terms with the fact that I was teaching history in a law school and therefore, resisting instead of learning. If I was to advise myself, I’d say “Hey, embrace this. It’s new, it’s different but history can become more meaningful and you can make a difference in the way you’re teaching by integrating all of them rather than resisting it and rebelling against it.”
Q: You spoke about how you have integrated a lot of feminism into your history. We were given to understand that History II in my batch became even more about feminist theory than it was in the previous years. Would you say that events occurring in Law School affect how you’re structuring your syllabus?
E: One thing is, I’m a person who needs change and Law School made it possible for me. Professor Menon was insistent that every trimester when we taught, it had to be a new and upgraded course. For a long time, I was just teaching from a Marxist perspective simply because I found the materialist conception of history meaningful.
In the early years I wanted to sensitize the students that entered Law School to communal issues. That informed my course structure for a long time – I focused on nationalism, colonialism and communalism. But I changed that the February of the year that Kanhaiya (Kumar) got elected in JNU and (Rohith) Vemula died in Hyderabad. That vacation, I came across the works of Sumit Sarkar and Uma Chakravarthy. Communalism, caste and gender all came together fantastically and I decided that History II will be from the perspective of gender and caste.
I think that it was in December of the same year when the AOW was formed in response to the sexism that systemically occurred in Law School. I was horrified, because I’ve been in Law School, I’ve headed the Centre for Women and Law, I’ve been the Sexual Harassment Policy Advisor, I do the Sexual Harassment Orientation every year for the first years and in an institution like that, how can there be so much sexism? Of course, there has always been sexual harassment, but it just seemed like it had escalated to another level.
So, what I did then, was decide to teach History II purely from a Feminist-Marxist perspective – not Marxist Feminism, but from a very definite Feminist perspective, alongside a Marxist perspective. It was a radical feminist perspective that I was employing, introducing them to feminist theories and methods. That would become the foundation from which they’d be looking at the past and hopefully their lives and the society they live in so as to enable the students to understand the issues relating to women’s status, sexual violence, sex discrimination etc.
Q. One of the common maxims passed on to juniors about your course is “what doesn’t kill you makes you stronger”. It is an institution in itself, your course; when you enter first year History I is something that just occupies your mind. What do you have to say about this?
E: I was telling some of the alumni on Sunday when a few of them hosted a party for me, that I consciously, deliberately became strict. With the ‘97 batch, one of my favourite batches, because I was approachable and friendly, these four or five guys used to talk to me in class saying “Okay Ma’am, please let’s stop the class now” and so on. Which obviously weakened my control over the whole class and was disruptive. So then I had to build this image of me being unapproachable and a tough taskmaster.
So, I’d distance myself when I was teaching the course, but I was always available for anyone who wanted any help. I have done rough drafts of projects and worked out whole question papers numerous times. And more importantly, I was always available for students if they had any kind of personal or emotional issues. Over the years I have been there for them because that’s the reason why I became a teacher, to be accessible to young people. Because, as a young person when I joined college, way back in 1977, I became just a number, the lecturers who I was. In school everybody knows you by name, they know you personally, they know your capacities and your weaknesses and you come into college and you’re just a number, nobody cares whether you are there or not. Those five years in college made me realise that it doesn’t have to be like that. Therefore, when I decided that I’m going to be a lecturer I decided I will be a lecturer that’s always accessible, available so that young people can come and talk whenever they want.
And in Law School, I know for the first 15-20 years I was like that when I stayed on campus. So while I was known to be a strict teacher people knew that they could come to me. But, in Law School, the overall culture has resulted in a growing gap between students and faculty. That’s been going on for a long time – more than fifteen years.
Initially Prof. Vijaykumar, Prof. Mallar, and I used to share the office downstairs. We’d have students come and engage with us on issues that they had taught in class in Consti or just come to talk. When I moved into a separate office I’d still have students come in on the way to the library (back when the library was where the accounts office now is). I could be doing the busiest thing, but if somebody walked into my office and said that they just dropped in for a chat I would just stop that, I would listen to them. I’ve done that through my twenty-eight years. Sometimes, I have regretted it, but then I say no, this is why I came into teaching so you can’t regret doing that.
So I have built relationships because of that. There are people who have invited me to their weddings, and I have travelled across the country and the world (one student even flew me to the Virgin Islands), going to different people’s weddings. And now it has come to the point where today I don’t even know when somebody gets married.
But yeah, I wouldn’t stop being strict. I would say that a lot of the image of me that exists today has been consciously, deliberately built by students to badmouth me, to badmouth my course. But, I am glad that there have been students who despite it, have seen through it and come to me when they needed it.
I do think teachers have to be strict. Strictness doesn’t mean you’ve got to be unkind and I know that I have been rude, and that I have been unkind to a few people. And I have tried to change to a certain extent. But the problem is you know, we always take niceness for weakness and therefore I’m not very comfortable in letting down my guard altogether. But, outside class I’m happy to engage with students.
Q: Ma’am you spoke about falling academic standards at NLS and how over the years academic rigour has gone down, so what are your opinions on some of the new and proposed reforms brought by the college administration?
E: I haven’t looked at the AER changes, but just going by what Prof. Sudhir has been saying, I’m glad. Maybe he should have waited a little time before starting to do these things, but I think he’s on the right track altogether. Because, we’ve just gone so low academically. I’ve told him myself you have a really huge task because both faculty and students have had no one regulating what they’re doing.
Some of the faculty, of course, keep doing what they’re doing, irrespective of who has been the VC and whatever may be the kind of compromises with academics that have been done. But some of them who have not imbibed the Law School culture and why we do what we do, have compromised on these (academic standards). There are what, four or five of us who are reading projects and giving feedback? As an institution we have failed to conduct an orientation for incoming faculty to teach them why we do what we do. And therefore they do just whatever they know, the way they’ve been doing it.
For the students, yeah, I mean there has now been fifteen years of getting away with extensions and exemptions and all kinds of nonsense. Everyone says “We were allowed to do this, or that”. So yes, there will be a lot of resistance, but I am glad that Prof. Sudhir is doing what he is doing. He is a tough taskmaster – he is very hands on. It is a difficult task, but I think Law School needs it. These fifteen years have really pulled us back.
Q: Ma’am, your course of feminist legal theory and History II generally, has informed a lot of our mindsets and has definitely changed the way we think about gender and feminism. Further, your role as SHARIC advisor is also something that we will always be grateful for – it has certainly changed the way in which gender relations function on campus. What would be your parting advice to the Law School community so that we can ensure that we keep Law School a safe space and strive to make it an even safer space?
E: I think every individual – in terms of gender, caste, religious and cultural identities – has to always just think about how they would want to be treated. It is the way we think which informs the words which come out of our mouth and our actions. And saying sorry after you have said or done it, you can’t undo it, you can’t take it back and you have traumatised somebody.
I believe that people can change, and that people have changed. I know my courses have changed people with different ideologies. I know that I have had to question my own biases. But, as you grow older, you become more conservative than when you were younger. The challenge that the Batch of 2017 put to me when I was teaching them History-2 was this — A couple of women in the class used to wear really short shorts to the class, and I used to justify my attitude against it. They pointed out that the issue exists with me being uncomfortable with the clothes people are wearing rather than the clothes themselves. So I may still be uncomfortable with the clothes people wear, but I have no business talking about it. And I think if people can just realize that- we all can have opinions and that we don’t have to like the way others behave, the clothes they wear, or the ideas they hold, but that doesn’t mean we need to disrespect them for that. I think that if everyone can just determine that ‘I will respect everybody because I don’t want to be disrespected’, then this place can be so much better.
I used to be proud of the fact that the NLS Campus used to be a safe space, and then, when that changed, it made me feel unhappy that I failed to do what I ought to have done to make this place a safe place. For years I used to proudly proclaim it was a safe space, because even if one sexual harassment case emerged, we came down on it – there was zero tolerance. But now people don’t even complain – there are people who have gone public saying that they have done these things, but not even one complaint has come. I mean how can something like that happen. It’s not like no one wants to, but there’s all that social pressure. So what kind of people are these, that think that this kind of behaviour is okay.
That just means we don’t really think people deserve to be treated well. Why do we think that? How can we think something like that and then claim that we are human beings who are training to be lawyers to fight for other people’s rights?
So that’s why, it’s so much hypocrisy- a big protest about CAA and all that. Hello! Respect the people here! That’s even what feminism preaches. It’s an ideology, it’s a theory. That ideology can’t result in destroying human beings. Because I’m a feminist doesn’t mean I go around bashing people. Yeah, I try to change people’s minds, but I can’t turn around and say, “Oh, she’s so horrible, because she doesn’t believe in equality between women and men,” because we need to keep in mind that we’re dealing with human beings. We talk about animal rights but if we can’t respect human beings, you can’t be fighting for animal rights. If you can’t love the people that are like you, how can you love things that are completely different from you? That’s just hypocrisy.
If NLS can once again become a safe space, I’d be proud of that.
]]>“The hostel bathroom smells better”, laments student
January 17, 2020 | Aman Vasavada
Several reports of the putrid stench of bird poop in the areas surrounding the academic block of Nagarbhavi Laa School have finally prompted the administration to take action. This morning, NLS authorities declared the region as the Acad Exclusion Region (“AER”), cordoning off the academic block and its surrounding regions with leftover SF barricades to prevent inmates from any accidental exposure the noxious fumes. The birds have been identified as egrets and they have been already been struck off the NRC. Efforts are underway in the AER to capture them, book them for Swachh Bharat violations, and send them to the new detention centre near Bangalore. The white carpet of egret poop has reportedly destroyed local ecosystems, killed all the grass around the acad, and forced the departure of some professors from NLS to greener pastures, literally.
Scientists from the Atomic Minerals Directorate for Exploration & Research [yes, that thing opposite Gate 2 – open your eyes] inspected the AER earlier today with dosimeters and recorded radiation levels of 4000 roentgens per hour. This makes it the smelliest disaster in human history since the Great Stink of London in 1858, surpassing even the Mexican Wave Incident of 2016 where 10 third years came for evening class after a Taco Bell lunch and let it rip simultaneously during attendance to conceal voice-changes in proxies.
NLS Inmates Review is still investigating why these egrets have shifted base from the bridge behind Narmada to the Acad Block region, and why their numbers have skyrocketed to putrefying levels. The Environment Group blames climate change for the migration. That angry WHOR resident who routinely sends “Loud Music: Please Shut Up” mails is convinced that the effective ban on quad parties has led to a rise in room parties in WHOR, prompting the disturbed birds to move to the quieter acad treetops.
Conspiracists claim it is an inside job, orchestrated by the administration in furtherance of their restrictive acad policies. They believe that the bird excretion overdose was an excuse to declare the acad as the AER and barricade it completely from the inmates. Our Asia-Pacific correspondent Jyotsna Vilva cites the Singapore model of converting poop to electricity, hailing this shitshow as a possible first step in yet another cost-cutting electricity policy. Another faction points to the abnormal spike in the stench levels this weekend, suggesting that it is a deliberate move to block out NALSAR and NUJS trilateral visitors from entering our acad and discovering our trophy-less acad walls.
LawSoc perceives larger forces at play. A member commented: “First they came for the acad. Next they’ll come for the library. Then they’ll come for the hostels. Finally, they’ll come for you. Wake up. Just like the pigeons sitting on the CCTV cameras in the acad, these birds are government agents. They’re clandestinely clamping down on dissent by blocking off our common spaces, disrupting our protests and distracting us from the larger issues plaguing the nation. Section 144 didn’t stop us so they sent 144 egrets instead!” Our USA correspondent V Sreedharan reports that this could be a US Air Force exercise in preparation for World War III, testing the carpet-bombing strategies of its new, nuclear-capable birds.
However, there is a bright side to this repulsive whitewashing. Attendance marks have been cancelled with immediate effect, due to the inaccessibility of the AER. Funds are being diverted from FAP corpus towards finally completing construction of the new acad. SNHP too is cashing in on this crisis, making it a case study for the next APPC, themed “Expelling Egrets without Regrets: Best Practices”. Australia is sending specialists to study the possibility of using egret carpet-bombing to douse bushfires. Inmates also wanted Australia to send OzzyMan to campus to review the tragedy, but NLS did not want to pay for his flight tickets.
At the time of publishing this, the casualties of this olfactory apocalypse stand at 2 puppies, 1 acre of grass, the will to live of about 348 students and counting. Quirk is distributing pollution masks tomorrow on a need-based policy. Priority will be given to non-Delhi inmates who are not adapted to surviving toxic AQI levels.
]]>#ANewSmartphoneForANewEra
Do check outs its features! [Powered by Quirk]
(A Quirk visual piece)
India’s Brightest: Bioluminescence part of NLS’ mandatory physical activities
Campus to disconnect all artificial lights to support the programme
Nagarbhavi | November 11, 2019 | By: V Sreedharan, Batch of 2024
NLS Inmates Review can confirm that a ground-breaking training program to teach students bioluminescence – to help them emit their own light – has been added to the mandatory fitness routine that first, second and third years are subjected to, in order to tackle the darkness that the Laa College campus is experiencing as of late. Late on Sunday night, while inmates were busy photocopying material for their FA, a portal was opened on EdChemy, where an entry for Bioluminescence was added, in a bid to continue to produce the brightest lawyers in the country.
To shed light on the conundrum, a bioluminescence expert from SAI has been employed to overlook the training program, scheduled to be held on the weekends just before bedtime (from 5 am to 7 am).
The decision to switch off lights in the campus was welcomed by the Finance Ministry after the sale of flashlights and night vision goggles rocketed to an all-time high in the Nagarbhavi area. The Faculty of Economics was quick to add a livemint article about the sale’s impact on the GDP of the country, to the Economics II LMS moodle for week 3. The Ministry had earlier expressed disapproval at the new administration’s decision to fire staff members, which doubled the nation’s unemployment figures overnight to miserable levels (the number of jobless people who took part in the Google Pay Diwali stamps offer, a testament to this fact).
Economists had also forecasted a rise in the price of vitamin A supplements, as students waited outside the Apollo Pharmacy in long queues in the days following November 8th 2016 2019 (which reminded an MHOR resident of Sunday night mess food). Those who stayed past 7:30 p.m. attempted to jump over Gate 0 and found themselves in hot water (6 to 9, morning and evening only).
While the rise in prices of certain products that improved eyesight was predicted, the surprising fall in the price of sandalwood soap has left plenty of economists scratching their heads. Yes, even Abhijit Banerjee.
The student body meanwhile, has expressed concern at having been kept in the dark about the past few cost-cutting measures of the current administration.
]]>
All responses are Prof. Mitra’s own opinion.
This interview was conducted by Lakshmi Nambiar (Batch of 2023) and Apoorva Nangia (Batch of 2023).
When were you the Vice-Chancellor of NLSIU?
At the time it was not called Vice-Chancellor, it was called Director. It was at my time that the UGC said that Directors are also Vice-Chancellors. I became Director in 1997 and remained in office till 2000.
What was the process for appointing the Vice-Chancellor at the time of your appointment?
The procedure was simple – there was a Search Committee. The Search Committee had to search all over India, find the tallest person, and recommend three names to the Executive Council (EC). The EC would then propose one name to the Chancellor (at that time known as Visitor), the Chief Justice of India.
In the middle of March in 1997, Prof. Madhava Menon, my predecessor and Founder Director of NLSIU, called me and told me that my name had been proposed for the post of Director (Vice-Chancellor) of NLSIU. So my name was given by the EC, Prof. Menon carried it to the Chancellor, got the clearance, and the letter of appointment was given by Prof. Menon to me. By the end of March, within about two weeks perhaps, I received a letter – it was a matter of few days – my appointment had been accepted by the Chancellor, the CJI, and I was appointed.
In the case that the Chancellor didn’t accept the EC’s recommendation, he could refer it back and if they reiterate the same name, he is obliged to appoint. However, there was no occasion like that as the EC would not re-propose the same candidate if the CJI rejected it in the first instance.
Was there a process of accepting applications for the post of Vice-Chancellor?
No, it was the Search Committee. Actually, Vice-Chancellors during that time, from time immemorial, were appointed by Search Committees, not selected from a pool of candidates who applied for the post. Now, everybody appoints, or everybody demands that “I am also qualified to be VC” – but I never demanded, I never applied, neither did Prof. Menon. Vice-Chancellors are honourable persons, so they must be tall enough, people must recognise them. Then the Search Committee proposed three names, and that’s how I was appointed. Prof. Menon took the decision of the EC to the Chancellor, there must have been a file, he must have signed yes, and Prof. Menon drafted the letter of appointment and gave it to me.
Was there any involvement of the Registrar in the appointment of the Vice-Chancellor during your time?
No.
There was no question of the Registrar anywhere – the Vice-Chancellor was the one who would carry the file to the Chancellor, get it signed and approved, and issue the letter of appointment to the selected candidate for the post of Vice-Chancellor.
At the time if the EC did not approve of any of the three names put forth by the Search Committee, what would happen in such a case?
It is not a written law, but it is a common law principle, that the Chancellor may refer back to the Executive Council to reconsider. And he is such a tall person, if he refers back, the EC will deliberate. But for the Executive Council to reject all three names proposed by the Search Committee, would be dishonouring the Search Committee.
How did you conduct the process, when your successor was to be appointed?
When my successor was to be appointed, in the year 2000, a Search Committee was constituted which submitted three names – at that time people started lobbying for others. But lobbying was not there at the time of my appointment. The Chief Justice at the time referred the decision back to be considered – formally or informally, I am not sure. But there was a controversy – there was a debate in the Executive Council itself between the two candidates.
I became a kind of tennis ball in the middle of this, so I safely abstained. At that time, what happened was after waiting for some time, I felt it was not right for me to abstain. I went to the Chief Justice, as there was a time within which this had to be done – but the decision between the two people was left to the Chief Justice. There was no decision that could be made by the Executive Council.
Despite external factors, the matter was resolved quickly. Without my asking the Chief Justice to make the decision, there might have been a stalemate. A stalemate would have been problematic, because I might have been asked to continue. The law is that until the next person joins, the current Vice-Chancellor has to continue.
Under what conditions could a Search Committee’s recommendations be rejected?
What was done in the case of another university, the Search Committee put forth three names – one of which was a “super name”. But, Chief Justice, without looking at that list directly appointed somebody else. It was not the Executive Council, but the Chief Justice which set aside the Search Committee’s recommendations. Obviously, there are danger signals. But whatever the Chief Justice has to do, Chief Justice should do it even if he doesn’t like Krishnaswamy. I don’t know how much difference Krishnaswamy will bring to the National Law School. But, he is a very good choice, a brilliant boy, our student – he is a Rhodes scholar even. I would be very proud if he was to become the Vice-Chancellor – all the National Law School teachers ought to be proud.
What do you think about the student’s efforts to ensure completion of the process?
I am disturbed about the delay, and something should be done at the earliest to ensure completion of the process. And it is obvious that students are also disturbed. But it is not good sitting over there and making a strike – because it attracts the newspaper and it is a wrong coverage in a wrong way. Those who are employers take this kind of attitude very seriously when they recruit. It is not a healthy sign. You need to handle the newspaper coverage properly – they haven’t depicted the students in the best light.
But the procedure of VC appointment is very simple – a simple procedure for simple people – not to be made complex. I do not know where all the complexities, and the involvement of other people comes in. And why the Chief Justice is not signing it yet, I am not sure – there is a file, the resolution is given, the resolution must have been drafted by the EC, that out of the three names we recommend this person, and this resolution must be taken by the Vice-Chancellor and given to the Chief Justice. The Chief Justice would not talk to anyone less than the Vice-Chancellor. It is as simple as this – Prof. Menon did that, I also did that, but it isn’t happening currently – so that means it is not in their priority list.
]]>