The Ambedkar Periyar study circle row once again drives home the
point that the parivaar are least suited to govern this diverse country and are sure to wreak havoc.
By stupidly inducing the IIT authorities to ban the study circle, they have allowed all kinds of dubious
characters to jump into the arena, saber-rattling and worse. The students’
stridency will go up multifold now, polarizing the campus further.
Some right-wingers write anonymously to The Human Resources
Development (HRD) ministry, complaining of the activities of the circle, and the ministry very solicitously forwards
the letter to the Madras IIT authorities, who promptly crack down, setting off
furious protests.
Whether they have enough sense to revoke the ban or not, tension
in the student community will most certainly be exacerbated.
Now, let us face it, Brahmins have a stranglehold on the
upper echelons of the administration.
Many of them might have made it big by sheer dint of merit, but over the
years they did begin to operate as a clique.
Observers say the 27 per cent reservation was the first jarring
note – in that the Brahmins wielding power didn’t appreciate the move and did their best to
stall it, by claiming autonomous status, but on the student admission front they had to
give in.
Indeed the Dalit quota itself remains unfilled in many IITs on the ground the aspirants don’t fulfill certain
minimum conditions.
IITs everywhere do offer
what is called a preparatory courses to help Dalit students prepare, even that doesn’t
help much. How effectively preparatory courses are run is also a moot point.
Students find it very stressful, many opt out
and seats go abegging .
Navayana editor Anand, cited in the First Post piece, is a
rabble-rouser and whatever he writes should be take in with shovelsful of salt,
still there is a distinct pattern of discrimination against Dalits in IITs.
Even if the benefit of doubt can be given to the authorities
on the issue of admission of Dalit students, in the case of faculty
appointments, they do stall endlessly and make a mockery of reservations.
Take the case of Prof Vasantha Kandasamy
https://mat.iitm.ac.in/home/wbv/public_html/Press,%20Links.htm
She had to face a lot of problems before being accorded
justice
But the CBI inquiry never came about: http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/chennai/hc-stays-cbi-probe-into-iitmadras-appointments/arti
It was Vasantha Kandasamy who led the crusade against the
Brahmin hegemony. Am not competent to comment on her academic credentials, but the fact remains she
has been discriminated against and successive administrations have done their
bit to humiliate her.
Most agree that it was during the stewardship of M S Ananth the caste spat turned ugly and the
right-
And this Ananth’s own credentials are dubious.
But he managed to have first order reversed, appealing to a
division bench.
There has been a spate of articles in the media on the
unhappy scenario: https://oomai.wordpress.com/2006/05/18/dalits-bcs-suffer-under-brahminical-dictatorship-in-iit-madras/
Nothing was ever done to remedy the ills plaguing the
prestigious institution even during the UPA time. It has become worse since.
If Periyar-Ambedkar circle was vitiating what was this man
doing in the halloed precincts?
And what is Vande Mataram circle doing there?
Did not Bhakts seek to heckle Teesta Setalvad and see this
malicious piece against her
And this happened in Kharagpur: https://youtu.be/akggWtLMui0
A
semi-official take of the study circle issue: http://www.t5eiitm.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/05/11393130_925796720844639_6415538406934770993_n.jpg
But
those behind the circle have repudiated strongly: The Fifth
Estate (official news
body of IITM) has written an article regarding the incident in IITM on de-recognition
of APSC. The article has several factual mistakes and offers a completely
biased view.
1. The article states, "The DoSt, however, was clear about
the reason for derecognizing APSC. Being the Faculty Advisor for the student
body, he mentioned that they violated the Institute’s guidelines". It also
has a photo of the guidelines. (attached here)
First, Dean (Students) is not our faculty advisor.
Second, according to the SAC Speaker, that particular guidelines was not approved by Students' Affairs Council, IITM and is invalid. (attached screenshot of the mail from Speaker_SAC).
First, Dean (Students) is not our faculty advisor.
Second, according to the SAC Speaker, that particular guidelines was not approved by Students' Affairs Council, IITM and is invalid. (attached screenshot of the mail from Speaker_SAC).
2. It says, " the Dean pointed out
that they had used IITM’s name and logo on publicity material without adequate
permission" and provides a link to APSC poster (poster attached here).
Since, the guidelines are invalid, the accusation regarding "usage of IITM name" is also invalid.
Moreover, the event on the poster was on 10th October 2014. But mail from Dean (Students) regarding usage of IITM logo arrived only on 22/11/2014
Since, the guidelines are invalid, the accusation regarding "usage of IITM name" is also invalid.
Moreover, the event on the poster was on 10th October 2014. But mail from Dean (Students) regarding usage of IITM logo arrived only on 22/11/2014
3.
The article says, "Some of these activities antagonised a section of
students, who anonymously sent a letter of complaint to MHRD complaining
against the activities of APSC after their recent alleged involvement in the
distribution (it was shared via their Facebook profile) of pamphlets titled,
“Manu Dharma Reign’s IIT Madras” at the Main Gate of IITM on 13th May."
First, APSC was not involved in
distribution of that poster/pamphlet. We clarified this to the T5E
correspondent. But even after that, it was written as it is, deliberately.
Second, there is a logical flaw in this.
The complaint to MHRD was sent on 29/4/2014. But the above mentioned poster was
shared on APSC page on 13/5/2014. How could this poster have been the reason
behind that complaint?
Clearly the right-wingers are taking a lot of liberty with
facts. So why should not the demagogues pay back in their own coin?
Am stressing the emergence of the strident Ambedkar-Periyar
circle and the strong language they might use should be seen in such a
background, not in isolation.
If you can have a godman or a Gurumurthy hold forth why not
a Teesta or a Periyar circle? If you are going to vegetarianize the canteen, why
wont the non-vegetarians object? If you wont honour reservations in letter and
spirit, why would not some denounce the Brahmin/upper caste hegemony?
Modi, an expert on action-reaction theory, should know
better than allowing his Yale doctorate to further stoke the embers.
With Kanimozhis and
others jumping into the bandwagon of protest now, the study circle
could widen and their members could turn ever more virulent.
Suit case culture is certainly corrosive, but tridents are most
destructive.
