Leading Delhi University undergraduate curriculum review case is a blow to academic freedom and thought
NS Delhi University authorities’ decision to remove texts by Dalit writers Bama Faustina Susairaji, sukirtharani And Mahasweta Devi The academic community from undergraduate courses in English literature should be concerned with the reasons given and the manner in which this was done.
Consultant Curriculum Drafting
These writings were part of various papers in the graduate program. The curriculum was drafted and unanimously approved through a lengthy process of consultation with graduate program teachers. There was also no dissenting note from any of the faculty members. Established criteria require courses to be supported by the Academic Council, which includes teachers from all subjects and is the university’s highest body for academic matters. Generally, the council respects the academic decision of the department concerned. But Delhi University has created another layer of an oversight committee to look into the syllabus approved by the department before putting it up for discussion by the Academic Council. It consists of nominees of officers. Needless to say that this is an unnecessary arrangement as there is another Standing Committee of the Academic Council to look into any objections to the courses.
It is this committee that ignored and rejected the collective academic knowledge of the English Department and arbitrarily removed these texts. And the members of the Academic Council supported the decision of the Inspection Committee, ignoring the opposition of their colleagues in the English Department. They are well aware that these articles must have been selected after lengthy debate and discussion among the faculty members teaching these courses. There are some departments that take this task seriously and there are others who do not care about the rigor of the process. The English department can’t be blamed, at least for the lack of rigor.
This insensitivity of the Academic Council to intellectual labor by their colleagues in the English Department is indicative of the lack of collegium in the apex body. It is disturbing that the majority of the members of this body, most of whom are Vice-Chancellors and ex-officio members, choose to follow the wishes of the authority. This is not his role. They discharge their responsibility by not engaging in academic arguments and merely following the line of the authorities.
FYUP Rollback Case
It should also be noted that the same Academic Council also took an important decision to start the Four Year Undergraduate Program (FYUP) without any discussion. The casual approach of the Academic Council in such a matter explains why it did not care about this ‘small’ issue of three texts. When the Academic Council approved FYUP in 2012 and then withdrew it at the behest of the government in 2014, we saw the same protests. The Academic Council showed no shame in taking back the historic and revolutionary step of just two years ago! I remember asking the then head of my department why he had voted for FYUP and he told me without hesitation that it was the ‘people above’ to think and not their concerns.
We, as teachers, need to introspect about this inner, moral weakness for which only we are responsible. We create those bodies, be it departmental committees or faculty bodies or academic councils. We are the ones who fail the students and the university by not playing our part as members of these important committees. We sacrifice our freedom of thought for the comfort of being ‘on the right’.
mentor approach
Rejecting criticism of the censoring of the curriculum, the university said, “The University subscribes to the view that the literary material forming part of the lesson in a language course of study should contain material that does not hurt the sentiments of an individual and is inclusive.” Yes. To paint a true picture of our society in nature, both past and present. Such an inclusive approach is important for young minds who literally imbibe the teaching-learning that emerges from the curriculum. Hence, the curriculum The content reflects the idea of inclusivity, diversity and harmony.”
On the one hand the conservationist attitude towards young minds needs to be reiterated that the role of the Department of Literature is precisely this: to understand how emotions and feelings are formed, to examine the claim of a feeling being universal, the question of whether Can ‘subalterns’ speak’, not only to themselves but to others, and why is the question of representation and voice important? It is not enough to have space for the sympathetic and nationalist voice of Subramaniam Bharti. Equally important is the space for the vocal voices of Bama and Sukirtharani. The chairman of the committee is free not to look at things on the basis of caste, but he is not free to erase the reality of castes. The removal of Draupadi and the rejection of any text by Mahasweta Devi reveals the political bias of the committee. The story depicts the resistance of a tribal woman who, despite being ravaged by security forces, confronts the ‘nation’ with body nudity. Obviously, this has put the country’s claim to shame.
it’s disappointing
The English Department of the University of Delhi was one of the first to diversify and Indianize its curriculum by opening up writing to languages. In the process, it discovered many Indias that were silent, who were claiming this India, and exposed its students to them. It is sad that now this process is being reversed and that too by those who have no academic authority to do so. Even more depressing is the fact that when this genocide happens the university’s larger academic community watches it silently.
Apoorvanand is a teacher and writer
.