by Himanshi Sharma
~
September 23, 2014.
9:00 a.m.
A group of 50 odd students sat down in front of the HoD office, Department of English, demanding a response to their complaint. Some of them were holding freshly hand-made A4 sized slogan sheets, still others were busy preparing more. Sketch pens and markers smoothly coloured the sheets as the others patiently waited. By 9:30 a.m., more students had started arriving and the corridors began to swell with people as the office staff made their way through the crowd. Nothing like a protest had ever taken place in the department before.
Around 250 students had gathered at the protest site by 10:00 a.m. as the office frantically called Professor Sumanyu Satpathy, the Head of Department. The offer to talk on phone was politely but forcefully declined by the students. Gradually, students grew restless with the silence. Those on the front started raising slogans and the crowd took them up. A small march was taken out in the faculty building which concluded as the students settled down where they had originally begun. The demands were then reiterated by a senior student, and an update given to those who were still unaware of the latest developments. 15 minutes later, Prof. Satpathy arrived on the scene, head bent, and eyes on the floor. Without making any eye contact he entered straight into the office. He was given a smooth entry; this was a dharna, not a gherao. A quick meeting took place between the senior faculty and the HoD after which the students were informed that a student-HOD meeting would take place in Room 17.
As the crowd made its way downstairs, the deliberations had already begun. Nobody wanted anybody to screw up. Repeated reiterations of the demand for a GBM took place on the way and the faculty waited for a couple of minutes outside as the students inside the classroom made sure that the only demand made in the ensuing meeting would be for a GBM and all other issues shall only be discussed at that official, documented forum.
***
The mock-meeting ended in mini-lectures on social and political structures by the senior faculty members and one line interventions between them by the HOD. But the moment that the demand for a GBM took a real, threatening form as the students unanimously demanded for the GBM and refused to compromise on the refusal for a proper dialogue, he panicked and what he did would perhaps be recorded and remembered as the biggest let down in the department. In front of 250 students and six teachers, all trying to negotiate through arguments and counter-arguments, he walked out. I repeat, our esteemed HOD, Prof. Sumanyu Satpathy walked out on a group of people trying to solve an issue through peaceful dialogue, just 20 minutes into a meeting that HE had called in the first place. Most of us were so shocked that we were rendered immobile by the immensity of the gesture. The authoritarianism, the stark apathy, the inability to lead or take decisions, was far too apparent than had ever been seen.
A few students later witnessed him chiding the only professor who supported the GBM, for “inciting and encouraging” the students. Contrast this lack of internal democracy within the department with the decisions made within the students’ body which uploaded, edited, corrected, revised the draft of the primary complaint as many as 8 times before it was sent out, to make sure that not one sentence could go against the general demands or stray in directions other than academic.
On the spot, and within minutes of the walk-out, the students started a signature campaign for a proper GBM to be held on Thursday. 200 signatures were already on paper within two hours. A group of students meanwhile made their way to the South Campus to get more signatures. By 5 p.m., a petition had already been filed with the HoD requesting him to hold a GBM in the interest of all parties involved. The next day, the demand was refused in an official notice issued by him. Why the head of department would refuse a peaceful dialogue with his students is beyond me.
***
There are of course larger questions. Why has a formal enquiry into the matter not been instituted? Was it being delayed this whole time because he thought that the autumn break would dilute the concern? Why have these teachers (two of three) not appeared in the faculty since the complaint? Why have they not issued clarifications/answers/apologies on their own? Why is Prof. Satpathy protecting them? Dr. Anju Gurawa, who did take a “class” after the complaint, seemed to have come for the mere purpose of humiliating the students for having dared to speak. In reply to one student’s request to speak louder because she was not audible enough, she replied and I quote, “It is better that you don’t hear me”. It is one thing to feel bad about being complained against but it is totally different when you come to take a class with the sole purpose of vengeance. Twice she insinuated that the students were recording her lecture (which they were not) and asked them if any of them were journalists disguised as students. It was not only unprofessional but also uncalled for. May I also add that most of the students who had given their numbers to her for academic purposes received messages as late as 2 a.m. in the morning, urging them to join a protest, under the banner of a political group called SAEIG, against a professor who allegedly abused the said teacher’s husband on a social media forum? This misuse of personal numbers of the students is a breach of the student-teach trust, if indeed it can be traced back to her. I must add that currently it is just a conjecture on the part of the students who received these messages and they have no substantial proof to substantiate these allegations.
***
We had tried our best to keep the letter crisp and to the point because we did not believe that we could be brushed aside as a pack of liars. In the hindsight, I personally believe that we should have made sure that we reported each little detail that any of us remembered that was at least factually incorrect in the letter, and there was no dearth of these gems, so freely were they showered on us (“Fielding and Lawrence were contemporaries”, “The (sic) Mira’s death (sic) in 1921”, “marriage and family are important for women” and such other sweeping statements). May be that would have convinced them more. But then we were a bunch of idealists who could never fathom that they could be refused a GBM. We thought that raising these things in an official meeting would be a more proper and dignified course of action. Thank you Prof. Satpathy for proving us wrong and introducing us to the big, bad world. We’ve truly grown up in these last few days. For instance, we woke up and dug deeper into the allegations made against the letter. The most popular line used against us was, why were the college students happy with these teachers and only in the faculty have they so been “victimised”? Turns out, one of the teachers is an M. Phil drop out, so she actually has no experience of having taught in college. Please note that some of the senior faculty has as much as 10 years of college experience. The other taught in Bharti College and I would really want people to find out more about her on their own from her ex-students. Reporting it here would make me look vicious even to the most liberal eye.
***
Did the appointment committee even look at the academic credentials of the candidates? Were the principals of the colleges where these teachers last taught ever contacted? How did people with extremely poor language skills end up teaching M.A. students? Was it because somebody assumed they would not question the authority as the existing teachers had been doing especially in the English department? Are there threads of connection between Dr Rochelle Pinto’s resignation, Professor Ashley Tellis’ dismissal from JMC, and these new appointments?
I wonder if there is something more to the story that is far more dangerous for a mere Masters student to be exposed to.
~
Picture by: Tina Das