Editor,
Though I do not subscribe to the idea of anonymity, I have to do so because though people in NEHU claim to be enlightened scholars, yet they fall easy prey to the temptation of suppressing others’ views, proof being the justification and counter-justification; the denouncement and counter-denouncement expressed in the media. Each one claims to be right while the rest are wrong. In a university with potential for excellence, people become easy targets if they choose to be different. Prof. H Srikanth has thrown much insight on the problem circling NEHU, and also that all is not well with the JAC. Taking a centrist stage or a third front, Prof. Srikanth’s critical analysis is acceptable to both. He however, did not deal with the centre of contention, HASA. He did not clarify why HASA should or should not be given to NEHU employees and whether the MHRD or the JAC is right. Or whether HASA should be retained or done away with. His superfluous criticism circles around the problem but skirts the bull’s eye and does not provide a solution. After all, the professor is also another person claiming HASA.
The allegations and counter-allegations about a lot of things in NEHU except HASA are right to a great extent. The JAC allegations about corruptions by the VCs are correct. Despite being an academic institution with people who write great articles criticizing politicians and bureaucrats, NEHU has become a place where corruption and scams occur rampantly on a daily basis. The JAC perhaps runs short in its demands.
It has failed to include the engineers and people in charge of construction who earn huge amounts by conniving with contractors and others. Even different departments too are not free from corruption. So why point a finger at others when the rest three point at the self. Ideally speaking a judicial enquiry (which we all know will not easily happen) as demanded by the JAC is a must. Perhaps even the members of the JAC themselves will be caught in the net.
The JAC too needs self-retrospection. The allegation that their members are not doing their work as entrusted to them is right in many departments as well as the administration. As reported, many teachers do not qualify to teach. Students do not understand their teaching.
Worse still, some do not teach at all. There are some departments who have many teaching faculty but not a single student. Further, most office staff behave very rudely with students when they approach them for official work. They will not lift a finger without harassing the students. Most employees in NEHU behave as if they are made to work without pay. They play games in their computers or chit-chat among themselves and when students approach them for some work, they grudgingly say they are too busy. These are some issues; many more are reported, and more cannot be included in this short writing. Yet the NEHUNSA president has no shame to defend his colleagues. I would like to ask Prof. Srikanth to tell us whether the NEHU employees deserve HASA. Or should they be ashamed for spoiling the reputation of the University by fighting for it?
Both the VCs and the authority on one hand and the JAC on the other have no shame at all for ruining the University’s reputation. They are the blood sucking parasites who greedily feed on with no regards for the source of life. They should be aware that the students and the public are observing and condemning their every move that has brought down the reputation of the University. But the students do not have much to say for even the NEHUSU which is supposed to stand for the interest of students has connived with the JAC to fight for theirs. It is unfair to stick on to HASA when the work culture is poor and the salaries they draw are not commensurate to their performance.
Yours etc.,
Name withheld on request
NEHU
Why blame JAC?
Editor,
In the write up ‘Whither NEHU ? ’ (ST, July 11, 2013) Prof. Srikanth has misinformed the NEHU community and the general public on the activities correlating with JAC. On behalf of JAC, I would like to clarify various facts on JAC for his familiarity and information to all. Prof Srikanth attempts to defame JAC for his personal vested interests and motives. He should be aware that at present in addition to JAC in NEHU there are different bodies/forums such as NEHUTA, NEHUNSA, NEHUSU and JCF (Joint Consultative Forum- arising from NEHUTA, NEHUNSA and NEHUSU, as per UGC guide lines) which have been constitutionally working. Linking JAC for any activity and report related with NEHU, without substantiating the same is not acceptable. As far as HASA related issues are concerned, NEHUTA and NEHUNSA have authorized the JAC, to take all necessary measures to protect the payment of HASA as per duly approved Ordinance which has been assented by the President of India. JAC did not call for boycotting the Academic Council meeting scheduled for May 31, 2013. Why did Prof Srikanth not mention that till the date of Academic Council, the then VC, Prof. A.N. Rai did not accept the agreement between him and the JAC which was reached two weeks before the Academic Council meeting? Realising that the then VC was trying to stop payment of HASA in order to please MHRD/UGC and because of his intransigence of bringing the HASA issue in the Academic Council against the agreement, JAC appealed for non-cooperation in the interest of NEHU community. Prof Srikanth knows that the then VC, Prof A.N. Rai had already assured MHRD about 5 months before the Academic Council to amend the HASA related ordinance through Academic Council. Further, the name of any person in the search committee for the next Vice-Chancellor of NEHU was never proposed by JAC. Prof Srikanth must substantiate his foolish statements about the proposed name in the search committee by JAC? Further, the demand for an enquiry into allegations of corruption against previous two VCs submitted to the Union Minister of HRD, Dr. Pallam Raju, was not by JAC. If Srikanth is not aware about the facts he should not mislead the NEHU community and public. Ignorance is not an excuse for wrongdoing. As these activities/decisions mentioned above were not part of JAC, the point raised by him on the need for prior discussion/approval in respective general body meetings does not arise. Constructive criticism and opinion on facts is always welcome, but, false criticism with the intention of defaming JAC for petty populism is unwarranted. On ST poll survey and public opinion, Prof. Srikanth as political scientist and election analyst should be in better position to understand the significance of such opinion polls.
Yours etc.,
Prof. S.B. Prasad
Spokesperson, JAC
NEHU