After the ‘Interaction’ by the NAAC Assessment Team with the Students, Alumni, and Parents (although only the students were present, and a few alumni seem to have connected online?), I am reminded of this ritual my family would tell and make me do as a child: intlo emayna kavochu kani bayta vaallaki emi cheppodhu, vaallu attha mama vaallu ayna kuda (anything can happen in our home but you should not tell any outsider anything, even if it is your uncle and aunt)
The story of the Interaction with an external impartial body that is supposed to “assess” is a strange one. , One would expect the opening remarks by the teamto sound like “we want to know from you.” The opening remark, instead, was a shower of praise: “I don’t understand why you guys put yourself in the 2 (meaning Rank 2) category, you should be calling yourself 1” by the Chairman of the Team. What seemed like a prejudgement of the assessment they were supposed to conduct there at that time and ironical for its content, received unanimous applause from all the students present. A sense of pride in the air. We like being told we’re the greatest, don’t we?
Raising issues and condemning the administration in Open houses with the Vice Chancellor, emails against the Administration at multiple fronts, and day-to-day interactions with the Administration expressing frustration and discontent – all evaporated. The point is not that one must defame the University with some cruel intention to bring it down; who gets what out of it any way? The point is not, clearly, to report all unresolved issues to the Team as if they are a Grievance Redressal Mechanism: something the Team itself clarified in its (meaningful part of) opening remarks. What then is the point for us as students?
There is a Self-Study Report, running to 125 Pages, prepared by our own Administration. The Report introduces the institution, underlines its vision and mission, describes its strengths and weaknesses, deals with each scoring component individually, and concludes with a long missing criticality, though only nominally. Apart from a brief section on ‘welfare’ for the staff, only the last paragraph in the Conclusion gives a (honorary/real?) mention to our staff and workers: “Lastly, a residential university cannot survive without the ceaseless work of the non -teaching staff. Those contributions of invisible support from the administrative personnel in the offices, library, and the IT department as also all the ancillary staff in the hostels, mess, security, and the gardens has not found mention in the report. Yet these invisible presences make the visible possible”. The Administration certainly claimed to be doing a lot of things. Who is to say what an entity is doing or not for an assessment that would largely be made upon the entity’s statement itself?
We may be providing great ‘community support’ if they think we are. It could be for the welfare of its non-teaching staff by holding their allowances for long and employing library staff on a daily wage for 3 years now while claiming to have the best library. They can claim that “the methods of assessment used in the courses also enable peer learning. For example, the students write assignments in mandatory courses which have to be presented before the faculty member as well as group of fellow students to enable mutual discussion” while many students struggle with writing projects continuously and face anxieties that are seen as ills to be remedied and not products of social forces.
With no intervention to stop a culture (that’s not a product of just the Administration but the neoliberal market-society), the Administration can claim that “Students are encouraged to follow interest and aspire to be the best versions of themselves instead of being bogged down by mindless competition and peer pressure.” However, all is not lost and gloomy in simple straight terms. The Report also states that “the major revenue stream for the University remains the fees collected from the students. It is a challenge to ensure that students are not burdened with high fees while at the same time the University remains in good financial health. NALSAR takes its social justice commitments seriously until state governments begin to generously fund such institutes; its students would remain reliant on well-paying corporate jobs upon graduation. The challenge is thus to ensure that NALSAR’s education benefits the sectors for which it has been curated.”
The University at least recognizes that the students remain reliant on well-paying corporate jobs, while still claiming that it is doing its best to remedy the mindless competition, while curating courses that suit market demands, while paying only a little regard to knowledge creation in humanities (so much for our interdisciplinarity!), and while still boasting off co-curricular achievements that matter only for those well-paying corporate jobs. The emerging total picture is nowhere near straightforward or based on a singular fundamental contradiction. This case demonstrates how there are contours to everything that the University does, claims, boasts, and admits as challenges. The same applies more or less to the other cases. What then is the point for us as students?
II
Hardly anyone withheld their smiles about the superficial mega transformation the University has done infrastructurally before the Team’s arrival (an unknown rainwater harvesting pit in the middle of an often-used road for BH6 Residents did coexist with pathways that are flooded after a thirty-minute shower?). Everyone clearly knew what was being done for what reason, despite the same receiving least attention earlier. And yet, even in an Interaction that was supposed to be a forum for receiving suggestions from the student body, we clapped with our hands and banged our tables while the Team showered praise. After the opening that made the session seem hopeless, a few suggestions did follow, only for them to be peculiarly dismissed by the Team. Many remained silent willingly to not ruin University’s reputation or may have chosen to not waste words that will be of no consequence. To compensate for the students’ silence, the Team themselves was kind enough to suggest changes to the students. That has been the ordeal.
It is one thing that the Administration does something for the rating, it is quite another thing that students do it for their own reasons, and it is a wholly funny thing that the Team themselves boasts off our University: an institution they were supposed to assess (or they already have under/on/after the table with the administration and a few faculty). Indeed, there was little the students could have done in the Interaction. Maybe, indeed, there is (a) little the Team can do out of its own accord, except plan a group trip to Srisailam from Shamirpet that had to be cancelled because the Team was tired after experiencing Hyderabad traffic from the High Court to NALSAR. Maybe, (b), the Team’s efforts were to just follow a procedural mandate, no issues with that. Issue arises with the question I have asked twice above. Modifying the question, we now have to ask: What ought to be the point for us as students after experiencing all of this?
III
Our institution has plenty of stakeholders suggesting improvements, lamenting and not acting on the shortcomings, and acting but failing. Our institution, still, is one of the top blessed institutions. The fact that classes happen regularly sets our university apart from many Universities elsewhere. Before you charge me for setting a ridiculously low threshold for this, I wish to clarify that though institutions of special importance (like NLUs and IITs) are necessary as some matter of focused plan (if there can be one), pre-eminence cannot be arrogated to oneself. We exist in the space of not just NLUs but the whole space of public educational institutions. What thresholds we set has much to do with where we find ourselves and thus remains a contested question.
Since the above opinions could very well be wrong or disagreeable, I proceed further and concern myself only with this setting: whether we like it or not, understand or not, most of us reading this are already admitted students in this place (an institution of great importance, resource, and potential) and for that reason there are limitations with what we can do or not (just like how I had to consider and reconsider whether to write this or not in this form), and there are some institutional mandates we must concede to, respect, and bear,at least. But when was there a restriction on critical self-introspection? There seems to be none. If we hold NALSAR in a special place for ourselves and elsewhere, mustn’t NALSAR as an institution form a part of our “Self”?
This is the point for us as students: critical self-introspection. Distinguish between what is a limitation and what is a criticism. Start and be in the uncomfortable journey that cannot have a destination, of understanding underlying social structures that operate in NALSAR – a microcosm of (a part of) the society. Understand why the Administration is the way it is in terms of self-interests, bureaucratic structures, and politics, not merely as actions of good or bad and conservative or liberal VC or Registrar. Ask yourself who all constitute NALSAR. And the most important of it all, let us educate ourselves, and engage in action to the best of our energy!
If not, anticipate the NAAC ranking, be proud/“aree yaar” after the ranking is out, take all NALSAR can offer you, point out issues and complain, and offer nothing back to NALSAR or for the place/persons where NALSAR’s fruits are supposed to reach.
Because I have argued for the critical self-introspection on part of students, I will, undeterred by the possibility of the readers agreeing with me or not, provide a starter to end my essay with: What exactly is the place/persons where NALSAR’s fruits are supposed to reach?
Akhil Surya, IV Year, LLB