Delhi University : Undermining Democratic Rights

NK SINGH

The agitation of the Delhi University teachers (Delhi University: 'Storm in a Tea Cup', September 2, 1972) has come to a bizarre end. The teachers are happy that the government has decided not to touch their pay packets nor to disturb their social status in any obvious way. The price for this, however, has been a further undermining of democratic rights.

The teachers and their union, the Delhi University Teachers Association, claim that they have won out as the old statutes, relating to the controversial college councils, have technically lapsed and as the new ones are to be framed only after "a thorough probe with teachers". 

In other words, the councils cannot be imposed here and now. On the other hand, the university authorities, too, claim victory and point out that the teachers' original demand for scrapping the college councils has not been accepted and that the varsity can form them if it chooses to do so at a later stage. 

Yet the biggest victory of the establishment consists in the fact that the Delhi University (Amendment) Act, thoroughly undemocratic as it is, will force come into leading to the emergence of a power monolith on the campus.

No doubt, the situation was very critical in August. The normal functioning of the entire University had come to a standstill, and there were demonstrations and strikes by teachers agitating against the Presidential Ordinance (of June 23) on Delhi University which was to be subsequently (on September 1) passed in the form of an Act by Parliament.

Meanwhile, several factors contributed to the softening of attitudes on both sides, leading eventually to the not-so-secret compromise. The authorities' volte-face was based on political calculations. 

The JS-supported Vidyarthi Parishad candidate had won the presidency of the DU Students Union, and the authorities feared a violent turn in the agitation which, compared to the non-violent methods followed by the teachers, might have had far-reaching consequences. 

The DU Teachers Association, too, bowed to similar anxieties. In the later phase of the agitation, Jan Sangh had emerged strong enough to threaten the take-over of leadership from the CPM-inclined President of the DUTA. 

The DUTA, which is a trade-union body without any definite political commitment and spans various shades of opinion ranging from Jan Sangh to the CPM, was ill-equipped to take care of the new situation. 

This character of DUTA is reflected in the fact that the present DUTA leadership had worked in close cooperation with the Vice-Chancellor throughout 1971. 

As a teacher commented, although Kumaresh Chakravarty had won the DUTA presidentship on the slogan of 'democratisation' (indeed, all the four contestants, including the JS candidate, had made democratisation their platform), more recently. he had turned to talk about 'decentralisation' rather than 'democratisation'.

He had even circulated a note favouring the idea of 'zonal councils-which would have meant 'defederalisation' of the University, to which the teachers were so opposed. It was in the face of stiff resistance from the teachers that the note was subsequently withdrawn. 

Similarly, it was a sub-committee of nine, including the DUTA President, that had recommended, earlier this year, the setting up of college councils. Indeed, the DUTA leadership was generally so close to the University administration that, during this period, the Planning Officer of the varsity presided over the meetings of the DUTA Executive Committee.

It was as a result of such collaboration that one of the DUTA activists, who had earlier been rejected for Readership, was appointed Professor by the tactful VC. 

Such tacit collaboration could not be kept a secret once the DUTA leadership began to insist on a package deal of reforms which included the takeover of all colleges by the varsity and the establishment of a single college council to manage them; the reforms were suggested by a committee, popularly called 'mini parliament', which consisted of 32 members including six DUTA representatives.

It is therefore alleged that it was based on an understanding with the DUTA leadership that the VC recommended the setting up of college councils before the start of the next session. 

The Education Ministry obliged, through an ordinance; and the varsity took immediate action, appointing chairmen of college councils and framing statutes for the purpose. 

During this period the DUTA President's presence was nowhere evident and even as late as July 7 when he held a press conference, he did not condemn the college council idea.

It was the general mass of teachers, fearing a danger to their social status and economic security, which forced DUTA into action against the Ordinance and the proposed Bill. 

A progressive teacher of a local college summed up in these words the fears of the handful who are worried about the consequences of democratisation: "Has not the Jan Sangh emerged more powerful out of the movement? Some people are talking of having outwitted the Sangh by withdrawing the strike, but where was the need to outwit the JS which was a nonentity so far as the teachers were concerned? In September 1970, the JS was routed in the Academic Council Elections. In September 1971, Kumaresh won with a thumping majority against the JS candidate. Now in September 1972, the JS is stronger than ever. It was the only party to gain... And the most deplorable aspect is that, when the proposed comprehensive legislation for all the central universities comes in the parliament, the teachers remain scattered and frequented and there will be nobody to offer resistance."

ECONOMIC AND POLITICAL WEEKLY

14 October,1972