People's
Democracy
(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of
India (Marxist) No. 01
January 05, 2003
(Weekly Organ of the Communist Party of
India (Marxist) |
Vol.
XXVII No. 01 January 05, 2003 |
Vijender
Sharma
ELECTIONS
to
the
Executive
Council
(EC)
and
Academic
Council
(AC)
of
the
University
of
Delhi
(DU)
took
place
on
December
20
in
the
backdrop
of
a
massive
policy
assault
on
higher
education
by
the
BJP-led
central
government.
Last
year,
the
University
Grants
Commission
(UGC)
directed
the
colleges
of
Delhi
University
not
to
fill
up
the
vacant
posts
of
teachers
without
its
approval.
The
teaching-learning
process
suffered
as
a
result,
and
only
ad
hoc
appointments
could
be
made
against
permanent
posts.
The
problem
was
further
accentuated
when
in
May
this
year
the
UGC
declared
35
per
cent
teaching
positions
as
surplus
and
directed
the
vice
chancellor
(VC)
to
amend
the
relevant
ordinance
of
the
university
to
increase
the
workload
on
teachers.
In
the
wake
of
strong
protests
by
the
teachers
under
the
leadership
of
Delhi
University
Teachers’
Association
(DUTA),
the
UGC
allowed
filling
up
of
only
80
per
cent
of
the
vacant
posts
temporarily;
the
rest
were
to
be
kept
vacant
till
the
settlement
of
the
workload
issue.
These
moves
created
panic
in
the
university,
as
over
a
thousand
ad
hoc
and
temporary
teachers
as
well
as
re-employed
senior
teachers
faced
retrenchment.
In
July
2002,
the
UGC
initiated
a
move
to
delink
the
Delhi
University’s
colleges
from
the
university
and
to
transfer
the
disbursement
of
funds
for
the
colleges
to
the
state
government
or
an
agency
designated
by
it.
This
move
was
based
on
the
ninth
report
of
the
Expenditure
Reforms
Commission
of
the
union
finance
ministry.
The
report
had
recommended
that
the
funding
of
recurring
expenditure
should
be
phased
out
or
at
least
limited,
over
a
period
of
time,
allowing
the
state
government
and
the
private
sector
a
greater
role
in
the
management
of
the
institutions
and
universities.
In
October
2002,
the
UGC
decided
to
sanction
teaching
posts
on
contract
for
a
period
of
three
to
five
years
and
approached
the
National
Institute
of
Educational
Planning
and
Administration
(NIEPA)
to
give
its
report
on
the
issue
within
six
months
after
consulting
the
concerned
people.
According
to
the
UGC,
the
permanent
nature
of
the
job
has
introduced
complacence
in
the
teaching
community.
It
has
led
to
“the
lack
of
accountability
and
spirit
of
professionalism
barring
a
few
exceptions.”
The
UGC
noted
that
in
most
countries,
the
teaching
jobs
were
on
contractual
basis
and
this
arrangement
was
working
very
fine
in
their
education
systems.
Therefore
it
was
proposed
that
“from
tenth
plan
onwards
whatever
teaching
posts
are
sanctioned
by
the
UGC
shall
be
sanctioned
on
contractual
basis.”
The
union
government
and
UGC
did
not
start
any
process
of
talks
with
the
federations
and
associations
of
teachers
on
their
long
pending
demands.
The
human
resource
development
(HRD)
minister
Dr
Murli
Manohar
Joshi
has
not
given
even
one-second
time
to
them
since
September
1998.
A
large
number
of
teachers
have
already
stagnated
at
the
top
of
their
pay
scale.
The
demand
for
the
restoration
of
professorship
in
colleges
and
the
introduction
of
the
third
promotion
became
most
urgent.
On
this
and
other
demands
---
like
all
service
and
promotional
benefits
with
effect
from
January
1,
1996,
parity
between
teachers
and
librarians,
conversion
from
contributory
provident
fund
to
general
provident
fund,
etc
---
the
government
has
refused
to
honour
its
commitments.
The
university
community
saw
these
attacks
as
part
of
the
government
policy
of
privatisation
and
commercialisation
of
higher
education.
It
saw
these
attacks
as
part
of
the
exercise
to
prepare
the
country
for
meeting
the
conditions
imposed
by
the
GATS
and
WTO,
and
the
requirements
of
the
private
providers
of
education.
It
saw
that
there
would
be
a
culture
of
no
permanent
appointments;
that
hiring
and
firing
as
it
exists
in
private
industries
would
be
the
norm;
salaries
would
be
at
the
whims
and
fancies
of
the
managements.
There
would
be
no
academic
freedom
and
the
managements’
views
on
the
socio-political
issues
would
have
to
be
implemented
by
the
teachers.
The
university
community
understood
that
such
a
scenario
would
gravely
affect
the
teaching-learning
process,
and
the
society
at
large
would
suffer
because
only
such
students
would
be
able
to
join
the
institutions
of
higher
education
as
would
be
able
to
pay
the
full
cost
of
education.
Coupled
with
these
attacks,
the
teachers
witnessed
the
Sangh
Parivar’s
systematic
attempts,
through
the
HRD
ministry,
to
displace
the
liberal,
humane,
creative,
scientific
and
rational
content
of
education
by
obscurantist
beliefs
and
unquestioned
faith,
a
blatantly
communal
interpretation
and
manipulation
of
materials
of
study,
and
changes
in
the
school
syllabi.
The
teachers
also
witnessed
the
UGC’s
diktat
to
the
university
to
implement
the
syllabi
prepared
by
it.
This
was
in
complete
violation
of
the
principle
of
university
autonomy.
The
UGC’s
insistence
was
on
the
introduction
of
courses
like
karmakand
and
Vedic
astrology
as
part
of
the
Sangh
Parivar’s
agenda.
It
was
against
all
these
moves
that
DUTA,
led
by
the
Democratic
Teachers’
Front
(DTF),
launched
a
struggle.
In
September
this
year
the
DUTA
launched
a
weeklong
strike,
coupled
with
mass
action.
This
was
followed
first
by
a
mass
relay
hunger
strike
and
then
an
indefinite
hunger
strike
by
the
DUTA
president
and
others.
The
struggle
dealt
a
heavy
blow
to
the
HRD
ministry
and
UGC.
The
success
of
this
struggle
became
possible
due
to
the
unprecedented
mass
participation
of
teachers.
On
October
1,
the
Academic
Council
of
the
university
had
to
adopt
a
resolution
after
more
than
ten
hours
of
debate,
by
which
the
UGC’s
design
to
downsize
the
university
and
to
retrench
35
per
cent
of
the
teachers
was
foiled.
The
ad
hoc
and
temporary
teachers
and
senior
re-employed
teachers
thus
heaved
a
sigh
of
relief.
As
teachers’
representatives
on
the
Executive
Council
and
Academic
Council,
the
DTF
members
played
an
important
role
in
defeating
the
designs
of
the
HRD
ministry
and
UGC
to
downsize
the
university,
force
the
university
to
implement
the
UGC’s
new
syllabi
and
impose
courses
like
karmakand
and
Vedic
astrology.
They
also
took
up
university
level
issues
in
right
earnest
and
helped
solve
the
grievances
of
individual
teachers.
This
was
the
background
in
which
elections
to
the
DU’s
Executive
Council
and
Academic
Council
were
held.
During
the
course
of
the
campaign,
the
BJP-led
National
Democratic
Teachers’
Front
(NDTF)
and
another
group
called
Academics
for
Action
and
Development
(AAD)
tried
their
best
to
belittle
the
government
attacks
on
higher
education
and
demean
the
success
of
the
DUTA’s
struggle.
However,
the
teachers
of
Delhi
University
and
its
colleges
well
realised
the
dangers
ahead
and
this
realisation,
coupled
with
the
fighting
capacity
of
the
Democratic
Teachers’
Front
(DTF),
rebuffed
both
these
groups.
Two
teacher
representatives
are
elected
as
members
of
the
Executive
Council,
the
highest
decision
making
body
of
the
university,
and
26
teachers
are
elected
to
the
Academic
Council,
the
highest
academic
body
of
the
university,
through
a
system
of
preferential
voting.
The
DTF
candidate
for
the
EC
was
elected
with
highest
number
of
votes
in
the
first
count
itself,
while
the
BJP
candidate
was
about
600
hundred
votes
behind
the
DTF
candidate,
stood
third
and
lost.
The
second
position
went
to
the
AAD
whose
candidate
won
on
the
basis
of
second
preference
votes.
All
the
four
candidates
fielded
by
the
DTF
for
the
Academic
Council
won.
This
is
a
massive
victory
of
the
DTF.
In
the
last
election,
the
BJP’s
candidate
had
stood
second
in
the
first
count;
this
time
he
was
relegated
to
the
third
position.
Through
these
elections,
the
teachers
of
Delhi
University
have
thus
said
an
emphatic
no
to
the
government
policy
on
higher
education
and
expressed
their
resolve
to
carry
forward
the
struggle.
