A JNU alumna asks some uncomfortable questions to those opposing compulsory attendance
Protesters in JNU are back in the news with a flurry of articles to protect "academic freedom" in the university. While social media is abuzz with anti-VC rants, there is a deliberate attempt to portray the JNU administration as anti-student, anti-teacher and anti-academics that is trying to destroy the academic culture of JNU.
This time around, the fuss is about compulsory classroom attendance. There is an attempt to create a favourable perception for the protesters through the astute use of both conventional and non-conventional media. Obviously, the "academic-media" friendship is a great help.
For an outsider faced with a barrage of articles in media, it would seem that the issue is about "academic freedom", "non-voluntarism", "imposition of factory culture", "destruction of an institution".
The argument is being presented in a manner implying that the JNU is the first institution, where such a rule is being applied. Obviously, there is a vicious attempt to obfuscate the issue.
In the context of obfuscation of facts, it is very important to be clear about the facts in the first place. From the perspective of attendance, there are four categories of students in the university - bachelors, masters, MPhil and PhD - doing their coursework along with MPhil and PhD students who have finished their coursework.
Those opposing and writing opinion pieces are against the very idea of compulsory attendance. Most of the arguments are constructed around the virtues of voluntarism and need for excellence. Even the JNU students union has rejected the idea of attendance "in toto".
For BA and MA students, the concept of compulsory attendance is being practiced in almost all universities in India. These universities include the best in India, including the University of Delhi, Panjab University, Jamia Millia Islamia, Banaras Hindu University and many other central and state universities.
Interestingly, with the system of attendance in place, these universities are doing well. And in many rankings some of these rank above JNU. And despite enjoying "full academic freedom", JNU is yet to find a respectable place in global rankings. Therefore, any argument which links voluntarism with academic excellence, and compulsory attendance with academic mediocrity is flawed.
For all categories of students, the attendance is in conformity with the rules made by the UGC. This rule is now being implemented in many universities in India. Interestingly, the system of attendance is implicitly mentioned in the JNU ordinance itself. Above all, since JNU receives funding from the UGC, it will have to follow the UGC guidelines, today or tomorrow.
Now let us raise some uncomfortable questions for the protesting students and professors. In the past several decades, many professors from JNU have been appointed as vice-chancellors, deans and on other important administrative positions in other universities. Many JNU professors went on to hold top positions in institutions across India. The question is, when they were in decision-making roles, what did they do to stop the practice of attendance in those universities?
When they were heads of the UGC and other institutions, what was their position on compulsory attendance?
In 2014, there was a movement in Presidency University/College of Kolkata against attendance rule. What was the position of the UGC head (who was also from JNU) at the time? What was the stand of some of the presidency faculty, who are from JNU? Interestingly, in academic spaces outside JNU, they accept the compulsory attendance and implement it without any hesitation. Now the question arises; do they feel that there should be only one university in India with "academic freedom" and rest of the academic spaces are inferior. Or in Marxist terminology, JNU students are "academic bourgeois" while other universities are populated by the "academic proletariat".
The students are protesting vigorously against the attendance system in JNU. Interestingly, many students also teach as faculties in University of Delhi and Ambedkar University. They follow the university rules in their respective universities. And they mark the compulsory attendance of the students in their colleges too. Now, if the revolutionaries of JNU are against the concept of attendance, what has stopped them from protesting against their respective employers? Why do they become so compliant and meek, when they themselves become part of the system which makes attendance compulsory.
Interestingly, student organisations of all hue and colour are opposing this move in JNU. All student organisations active in JNU are linked to one or the other political group. At the same time they have an all-India character. The question for these student organisations is why are they only opposing this in JNU? Why was there no poster, no pamphlet, no opinion piece, no Twitter/Facebook post by them about other universities?
Why student organisations are not able to convince their political masters to stop the practice of compulsory attendance in the states where they are in government? It is imperative for the academic community within JNU and outside to not obfuscate the issue by portraying this in black and white.
Let us debate it without vilifying anyone, without finding the "agents" and "spies". In the midst of overarching allegations and subverted narratives, it is also important to ask the right questions. The first question is - are we against the concept of compulsory attendance itself? Second, do we think that compulsory attendance in principle is harmful for academic institutions everywhere (including state universities)?
If yes, then the question is why were they silent until now. Is the sudden outburst against mandatory attendance not hypocritical? Does it not reek of ulterior motives? Given the ruckus created by the protesters in JNU at regular intervals, the attendance protest seems to be another attempt to target the VC of JNU. Interestingly, when the incumbent VC refused to bow down to the "academic bourgeois" of JNU, this section of elite started using all the means available to defame and denigrate him. If the attendance system is so bad then all the VCs and head of academic institutions should be removed.
And all the VCs and heads from past should be put under scanner. Otherwise, merely targeting the incumbent VC is unfair. Let us do away with the system of attendance. Let us celebrate voluntarism in academics. But this should not be confined to one academic space. There should not be an "academic proletariat" and "academic bourgeois".
First, let the JNU community get rid of its elitist mindset, let them think of themselves as equal to students and teachers across different universities. Only then we can have a healthy debate about the issue of compulsory attendance in India at all levels of higher education.