Lok
Shikshak Manch strongly condemns the remarks denigrating Trade Unions
and people's right to protest and democratic struggles made by the
Vice-Chancellor of DU in his Presiding comments on the occasion of the
75th Foundation Day Lecture of CIE, Department of Education, at the
Delhi University on 19th December. Not only were these statements
totally uncalled for in the context of the contents of the Lecture which
had been delivered and on which his role called upon him to comment,
they were also made in rather casual, indecorous and sweeping terms. His
calumnious allegations against Trade Unions and belittling of people's
democratic right to protest and agitate peacefully were not only
unbecoming of the stature of his office but were also unfounded in facts
and contrary to the letter and spirit of the very Constitution under
whose guiding light we are supposed to be celebrating the 75th
anniversary of Independence. It is inconceivable that, whether as
students or teachers or workers or citizens or merely as humans, we
would have come to share the rights, liberty, equality and justice that
we do, though increasingly precariously, enjoy, without the struggles
and sacrifices of people who came together, unionised and challenged the
status-quo before us. A look at our increasingly perilous working
conditions as teachers or challenging circumstances as students is sure
to reveal the connection between the crisis facing us and the weakening of unions and protests rather than their culpability, as alleged by the Vice-Chancellor. Interestingly
Indeed, to rail against Trade Unions and democratic agitations is not only a disparagement of the history of struggles waged by students, employees and working classes all over the world, it also insults the anti-colonial national freedom struggle and the proud legacy of movements against caste oppression, ableism, racism, sexism and patriarchy which derived, and continue to derive, their strength and success precisely from the coming together of the oppressed in the form of organisations and unions. Such a 'pedagogic' attack against unions also shows that not only are the ruling classes acutely aware of the challenge which such unity of the oppressed poses to their interests and hegemonic control, but they are in fact afraid that the latter may realise this fact and actualise it by organising themselves and forming strong unions. The fulmination against Trade Unions and democratic agitations cannot be divorced from the fulsome praise showered in the same address on private industry and the attempt to set it up as an ideal or a benchmark before Universities and scholars who were painted as dull and inefficient. Not only is this a caricature of the University's character, it can also be seen as an attempt to advance the agenda and interests of an industry which survives and thrives on private profit, as against the knowledge-generating, intellectual and critical public role of higher education institutions. Though DU has already been designated as an Institute of Eminence, a categorisation with grave financial and academic implications, we can only further wonder and stand guard as to what the Vice-Chancellor's remarks portend for our University and its institutions.
It was unfortunate that while some in the audience could express their dissent with the Vice-Chancellor's disparaging and demoralising statements through murmurs and symbolic acts, the nature of the program, again in contradiction to the democratic spirit which needs to be nurtured in such academic spaces, didn't allow for any dialogue with the speakers which might have led to the expression of disagreements, raising of questions and engagement with the propositions advanced from the dais. As a teachers' collective with a long and loving association with CIE in particular and DU in general, we are appalled by the degradation of academic events and attempts to turn them into means of vilification and flattery. If left unchallenged, this propagandist culture threatens to subvert the values of democracy itself by enculturing young minds into a mockery of education. We can only imagine the message which was being conveyed and its implications for the way his office treats and intends to treat elected bodies such as DUTA, DUSU and DUCKU, not to speak of other particularly affiliated organisations trying to actively engage with the University administration and resist its anti-education, anti-student and anti-teacher moves.