Apoorvanand is a literary and cultural critic, political commentator and professor at the Hindi Department, Faculty of Arts, University of Delhi. He has written this open letter to Delhi University vice-chancellor Yogesh Singh.
§
Dear Prof. Yogesh Singhji,
Hope this email finds you well.
This is not a letter I would like to write. I say this because it would appear, from the issue about which I am writing, that it is about myself. However, my sense of propriety compels me to overcome this reluctance and write to you to register my disappointment and also to protest the decision regarding the appointment of the head of the Department (HOD) of Hindi, which was made in complete disregard of the established principle of seniority. The principle of seniority is a convention in universities and has served well all these years, as it acts against arbitrariness. It also creates a sense of collegiality in the university, as teachers are not seen as competitors. Additionally, it saves the administration from allegations of favouritism and rewarding loyalists. However, the appointment of the head of the Department of Hindi deviates from this principle.
On March 10 at 6 pm, we were informed that our new head had joined. It was an odd hour. The position had been lying vacant for three days, as our previous head had departed to join as the vice-chancellor of the Mahatma Gandhi Antarrashtriya Hindi Vishwavidyalaya. The university could argue that it was taken by surprise by the sudden development, hence the gap. However, the university knew very well that the previous head was to retire at the end of this month. It was, therefore, expected that the university would be ready with the name of the person to succeed her.
That decision is not very difficult. It is almost a mechanical process, as usually, it is the person next in seniority who is given the responsibility of headship. The university statutes are clear:
- The Head of the Department shall be appointed by the Vice-Chancellor by observing, as far as possible, the principle of rotation. Such appointments shall be reported to the Executive Council.
- Notwithstanding anything contained in Clause 1, if for any reason it has not been possible to appoint a person as Head of the Department who is senior to the person (or persons) who has already served or is serving as Head of the Department, it shall be open to the Vice-Chancellor to appoint that person as Head of the Department whenever a vacancy next occurs, if he or she can otherwise be so appointed.
What was strange, however, in the case of this department, despite these clauses being in the statute book, was that for the last year, my colleagues were speculating about the person who would be selected by the university as the next head. There were names circulating, and my colleagues were trying to figure out who would find favour with the authorities. It was interesting that they were almost certain that the senior-most person after her would be bypassed.
My colleagues were right. The next senior person, in this case, myself, was superseded. The person next to me in line was made the HOD. It is good that even after taking three days, the uncertainty ended. It has at least put to rest the unhealthy gossip about who would win the favour of the authorities.
I must make it clear that I have nothing against the person appointed. She has been a colleague for the last 20 years. It is not about her. In fact when I called her after learning about her appointment she was gracious enough to accept that the appointment did not follow the principle of seniority. So this has nothing to do with her. However, it is certainly not a healthy precedent to set in such matters.
This arbitrary decision is certainly disturbing. Some of my colleagues called me to share their sense of unease. They wanted me to challenge the decision in a court of law. In the last 25 years, we have come across at least one incident in which this principle was violated, and the person affected got the decision overturned by the court.
I am personally not very comfortable with the idea of university matters being taken to court, especially when it looks like an individual complaint. It is not a good sight when courts chide universities and set aside their decisions. There have been scores of such occasions involving the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) and also some in which the University of Delhi has been the respondent. In JNU, the violation of the principle of seniority and of the statute book has almost become a norm. Heads of centres and deans have been appointed by superseding senior faculty members. Authorities deny leave, academic and special, to teachers. They are forced to move to court for justice. Students have to appeal to courts when penalised. In most cases, the universities are reprimanded. The courts ask universities to follow rules and regulations and not act arbitrarily and in a partisan manner.
The courts are also mechanical, as they want the affected party to approach them and not others. I told my colleagues that I did not think I was the only ‘party’ affected by this decision, they should be as affected as I am, and people from my and other departments should also feel affected. It is not only for me to protest, as it is about the violation of a principle – a principle that has served the university well.
Such stories sadly tell us that university authorities seem to have forgotten that they are meant to inculcate a sense of fairness and propriety in society. Also the quest for excellence and respect for merit. Unfortunately, in the last ten years the selection of teachers and other decisions tell the students and aspiring teachers that excellence in their fields of knowledge does not matter at all.
Apart from the values of fairness, excellence and merit, universities are also about the culture of collegiality, which society is not used to. It does not mean a community of like-minded people. It is about living in a world of differing ideas and the ability to deal with them in a civilised manner. It also tells society that institutions can be administered in a manner in which the authorities do not work only with ‘their people’ or loyalists but take the benefit of voices that might, in certain cases, differ from them. That is what makes the university authorities very different from other bosses.
Universities are not spaces where the ‘official ideology’ is propagated. University authorities are not the carriers and propagandists of the authoritative ideology of the state. They are bound only by the constitution. Universities do not create a band of loyalists. Universities teach us to challenge authorities of all kinds. When universities depart from such norms, they defeat the purpose of their own existence.
When university authorities violate norms, it creates a chilling effect in the community. Young teachers, especially, fear that they might be penalised for their independent opinions. They will discipline themselves and self-censor, even in classes. That would be the slow death of universities because what are they if not spaces where minds are free and without fear?
I hope you appreciate my concern, at the fag end of my teaching life in this university, regarding the well-being of the university.
Kindly accept my greetings for Holi.
With Regards,
Sincerely Yours,
Apoorvanand
Department of Hindi, University of Delhi
