A University That Punishes Dissent

The following is an open letter to JNU vice chancellor Santishree Dhulipudi Pandit (and if he cares to read it, ex-vice chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar).
§
Dear Professor Pandit,
After an agonising wait of five years for my gratuity illegally withheld by the JNU administration, the Hon'ble Delhi high court has ordered JNU to pay the amount with interest of 6%. Previous to this, I had approached the same court for the recovery of my leave encashment dues, which were also illegally withheld by JNU. The court then (2022) awarded 9% interest.
It is more than evident that JNU has acted illegally in withholding my dues (and those of other retired faculty). At the time of my retirement in January 2020, I received no written explanation for the same, despite many written and oral requests to the then-registrar Pramod Kumar. Finally, I was sent a letter on March 17, 2020, saying that I was refused leave encashment and gratuity pending an enquiry into misconduct (which incidentally had been stayed by the Hon'ble Delhi high court).
The previous communication I received was on July 24, 2019, when I was informed that under Rule 14 of the Central Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) (CCS/CCA) Rules, 1965, I would be subjected to an enquiry for 'misconduct'.
The charge was violating Rule 7 of the CCS/CCA rules. The enquiry was purportedly about a silent and peaceful march on July 31, 2018 taken out by about 200 JNU faculty around the campus, for about half an hour, without disrupting any academic or administrative duties. Less than 50 of us were singled out for the show cause, and later, chargesheet.
I referred to the service contract which I had signed when I joined JNU in September 2009. It speaks nowhere of CCS/CCA rules. It only says that I agree to 'Statutes, Ordinances, Regulation and rules for the time being in force in the University…'
Since the matter regarding the applicability of CCS/CCA rules to JNU faculty is still pending, let me acquaint you with a brief history of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Teachers' Association (JNUTA)'s struggle which began in February 2016, when Prof Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar had just been appointed as VC of JNU. This was no coincidence.
The JNUTA had decided, through a democratic and consultative process, following the turbulence on the campus, and the arrest of some of our students under Section 124a of the IPC, that it would oppose the attempts of the administration to challenge and alter the long-established traditions of debate, dialogue and discussion, including dissent, and norms and practices that recognised seniority in administrative duties. It planned to do this in a number of peaceful and constructive ways.
Also read | Chargesheets, Denied Pension, Leaves: JNU's Punitive Measures Against Dissenting Faculty
One of these was a month-long series of lectures on nationalism which was held at the steps of the administration in February and March 2016. The events were extremely well-attended, live- streamed and eventually became a book entitled What the Nation Really Needs to Know. Both the YouTube lectures and the book have received widespread attention and use; the book has sold well over 10,000 copies in addition to being translated into many different Indian languages.
I hasten to point out that this 'Teach In' was in addition to the classroom teaching, research, administrative work, etc which all JNU teachers continued without interruption. It was, in short, well in keeping with JNU faculty's commitment to innovative teaching and learning.
The JNUTA organised a series of other creative and educative events in many parts of the campus (following the Delhi high court order forbidding such actions by students within 100 metres of the administration building). These have continued over the years. None of these were disruptive, noisy or at the cost of the teaching/evaluation/administrative responsibilities of teachers.
Overall, the then-new JNU administration could not challenge the JNUTA academically or on any intellectual grounds. Its preferred mode was to seek the support of the judiciary, which has also largely failed.
The two cases referred to above clearly show that the JNU administration did not have a legal leg to stand on. None of its executive orders have stood legal scrutiny in case after case, whether it is related to the denial of sabbatical leave, denial of pensions or denial of NOCs to those who wished to travel abroad for fellowships.
But we have all learned that in 'New India/Naya Bharat', the process is the punishment, even when there is no wrongdoing.
The university soon received adverse publicity nationwide, and there was severe erosion of its carefully built-up academic reputation, which the JNU administration did nothing to rectify. Instead, teachers were maligned in multiple ways for opposing the rapid changes to long-established norms in the university.
For instance, chairpersons were appointed, no longer on the basis of seniority, which was the well-established norm, but in arbitrary fashion. Centre for Historical Studies faculty attempted in 2017 to persuade the newly appointed chair, who had superseded many other senior faculty (in direct violation of long-accepted norms) against accepting the responsibility. We failed. (Later, that out-of-turn appointment was reversed by the Hon'ble high court).
Instead, as punishment, 12 or 13 of us were asked to appear before an enquiry committee at the Equal Opportunity Office in JNU in 2017/2018, ostensibly for having been discriminatory towards the chair. To date, the report of this committee and its findings have not been made public or shared with all those who repeatedly appeared before the committee, and also submitted explanations in writing. Clearly, there was nothing at all to substantiate these charges. The only goal was harassment.
Such mental and psychic harassment continued on many fronts even as the 'dilution' of, and assault on, JNU's original mandate and formidable reputation as an institution of higher learning continued.
The academic standing of this premier institution in social sciences and humanities, international relations, languages, and life and physical sciences was undermined in multiple ways. Despite all data indicating a steep fall in enrollments in engineering studies nationwide, Prof Jagadesh Kumar began an undergraduate engineering programme with neither faculty nor buildings. Likewise, a Management Studies Centre was established, once more without teachers and buildings, and student enrolments begun.
Both of these efforts basically encashed JNU's carefully built-up brand value in social sciences and the humanities, while undermining it as an institution of higher learning.
Finally, on January 5, 2020, having failed to academically or legally dent the formidable spirit of the JNU teaching and learning community, a physical attack, using an unruly armed brigade of 150 storm troopers, was launched on the JNU campus, at which many students and faculty were injured. Although CCTV cameras revealed the identity of the attackers, they were allowed to leave unscathed.
To this day, five years later, neither the JNU administration nor the Delhi police have submitted their reports on what happened on that fateful day.
We were hopeful that a new vice chancellor, and especially one who has had the privilege of studying in JNU, such as yourself, would restore the intellectual ethos, ethical values and uniquely forged civility that had been systematically undermined under Prof Jagadesh Kumar. You have gone on public record several times praising the achievements of this university.
But, alas, you have not lived up to these expectations, and the dismantling of the institution has continued apace, as you have remained steadfastly loyal to your political masters.
Also read: Political Intolerance and Declining Academic Freedom in India
Prof Pandit, let me conclude with a few personal details. When I retired in January 2020, there was no one to teach the compulsory Capitalism and Colonialism course which I had co-taught with pleasure for a decade. I agreed, in February 2020, to deliver the lectures for the first half of this course. For this, I never asked for, nor was given, any remuneration (and not even a cup of tea was forthcoming from the then-chair of the department!)
Thereafter, five of my PhD students remained in my supervision and in continuous touch, and I saw them through their doctoral degrees until their vivas were held (the last was in 2023).
In other words, in the best spirit of an earlier JNU ethos, I did not abandon my students even when the institution I had loyally served was abandoning me.
The harassment of currently employed faculty who were issued the chargesheet continues, in the form of promotions denied, and the denial of administrative responsibility, withholding permission for leave, etc. Here, again, the JNU administration is bound to lose legally, but the long-drawn-out process is itself the punishment.
I have concluded, given the steadfast adherence to illegality by your administration and the previous one, that such recklessness arises from a complete lack of accountability on your part. It is, after all, the taxpayer's money that has to compensate the JNU teachers, such as myself, who were denied their retirement rights in time.
I am painfully reminded of the senseless and illiterate noise regarding JNU students and their 'exploitation' of the low fee structure that was aggressively generated after 2016, in articles, WhatsApp messages and TV channels alike. The JNU administration did nothing to counter such relentless calumny.
Where are those guardians of taxpayers' money now when lakhs of rupees are being paid out by JNU/the state, for interest on dues which should have been paid a long time ago and for lawyers' fees? Why have those who so long and loudly demanded 'accountability' from students now fallen silent about lakhs of rupees spent on cases which were a tactic to delay, not win?
I am suggesting, Prof Pandit, that it will set a very good example and high standard for institutional and personal ethics, if you and Prof Jagadesh Kumar put your money where your mouth is. You should jointly agree to compensate the University – and the Indian state, and the beleaguered tax payer – for the lakhs of rupees in interest that have been paid to each of us for these illegally delayed retirement dues and lawyers' fees on both sides.
That will usher in the 'Naya Bharat' that we so desperately need.
Janaki NairProfessor of History (retd)JNU
Janaki Nair taught at the Centre for Historical Studies, JNU.
The Wire is now on WhatsApp. Follow our channel for sharp analysis and opinions on the latest developments.

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Learn with AIFact CheckingText to SpeechAI Summary

Related Articles

Time of India

7 hours ago

• Time of India

Shops in Ludh yet to put up signboards in Punjabi

Ludhiana: It's been more than two years since the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments (First Amendment) Rules, 2023 made it mandatory for shops and commercial establishments to have signboards in Gurmukhi Punjabi positioned "prominently" before any other language and occupying more space, most of them are yet to comply with it. On Feb 21, 2023, CM Bhagwant Singh Mann approved the amendment to the Punjab Shops and Commercial Establishments Rules, making it must for all businesses to display signboards in Punjabi. The amendment, which inserted new rules 23 and 24, allowed businesses to use other languages, in addition to Punjabi. A time of six months had been given to comply with the new regulations. Failure to comply would invite a fine of Rs 1,000 and a subsequent fine of Rs 2,000. But many prominent hotels and businesses near Bhai Wala Chowk, Aarti Chowk and likewise several businesses and commercial establishments are yet to have the Gurmukhi versions of their names on their signboards. Though many MNCs, banks, etc., have put up such signboards, they are not sticking to the rules. In most cases, the Gurmukhi versions are written in much smaller fonts or sometimes in the corner of the name boards, which is a violation of the rules. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like What She Did Mid-Air Left Passengers Speechless medalmerit Learn More Undo Mahinder Singh Sekhon, coordinator, Punjabi Bhasha Parsar Bhaichara, said, "The rules are not being enforced in true spirit. Since the fine amount in Punjab is quite low, that is why the approach towards implementation of these rules is also too lax." District language officer Sandeep Sharma said they are ensuring that all govt buildings have the names in Punjabi displayed prominently. When asked, assistant labour commissioner Sarbjot Singh Sidhu too said it is being ensured that all new establishments have their name boards in Punjabi. "Majority of the bigger showrooms or MNCs have their names in Punjabi. Whenever a licence is given, it is part of the checklist to ensure that the names are in Punjabi. Whenever we receive any complaint regarding this, we educate and sensitise them so that they update the names in Gurmukhi as per rules. It is a shared responsibility of other departments, including ours, the language and GST departments as well," he added.

News18

16 hours ago

• News18

As PM Modi Raises Deep Fake Menace, Govt Steps Up Fight Against AI Misinformation

Last Updated: The government has launched a multi-pronged strategy combining legal enforcement, regulatory measures, and technological innovation to ensure a secure digital environment Prime Minister Narendra Modi, during his recent three-nation trip, said the world cannot ignore the threats of technology, including the misuse of deep fake, even as he lauded the advancement of technology. Back home, a full-scale effort is underway to mitigate the challenge of AI misinformation. The Union government has launched a multi-pronged strategy combining legal enforcement, regulatory measures, and technological innovation to ensure a secure and trustworthy digital environment. At the heart of this initiative lies the Information Technology Act, 2000, which, along with the IT (Intermediary Guidelines and Digital Media Ethics Code) Rules, 2021, forms the legal foundation to tackle cybercrimes, including deep fakes. The IT Act penalises a range of offences such as identity theft, impersonation, privacy violations, transmission of obscene material, and cyberterrorism—irrespective of whether the content is human-generated or AI-created. Under the 2021 IT Rules, digital platforms and intermediaries, including social media companies, are legally required to act swiftly against unlawful content. This includes misinformation, impersonation, obscene visuals, gender-based harassment, and content that can mislead or deceive users. These platforms are also obligated to incorporate explicit content restrictions in their terms of service and ensure rapid redressal of user grievances. The government has also directed platforms to exercise caution when deploying AI models, LLMs (Large Language Models), and generative AI tools. Platforms must ensure such technologies are not used to spread unlawful, biased, or politically disruptive content. Furthermore, content generated through unverified AI tools must be appropriately labelled to indicate its potential unreliability. To bolster user protection, the Grievance Appellate Committees (GACs) have been established under the IT Rules, 2021. These committees offer users the option to file appeals at if dissatisfied with how digital platforms handle complaints, including those related to deep fakes. Meanwhile, with the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita (BNS), 2023, set to come into force from July 1, 2024, legal backing for tackling deep fakes will be further reinforced. Sections like 111 (organised cybercrime), 318 (cheating), 319 (impersonation), and 336 (forgery) are directly applicable to deep fake-related offences. At the enforcement level, the Ministry of Home Affairs' Indian Cybercrime Coordination Centre (I4C) provides a comprehensive support system for law enforcement agencies (LEAs) across states. Citizens can report cybercrimes through the National Cybercrime Reporting Portal ( or by calling the dedicated helpline 1930. In terms of innovation, the government has funded two key projects: Fake Speech Detection Using Deep Learning Design and Development of Software for Detecting Deepfake Videos and Images. The latter has led to the creation of 'FakeCheck", a prototype tool capable of detecting deep fakes without needing internet connectivity. The tool is currently being tested by select LEAs. Further, under the IndiaAI Mission, the government has invited expressions of interest from academia, start-ups, and industry players to develop responsible AI frameworks, watermarking tools, and deep fake detection technologies. So far, 38 proposals on watermarking and 100 on deep fake detection tools have been submitted. 'As the digital landscape evolves rapidly, the government maintains that enforcement remains a state subject. Citizens are encouraged to report violations either through or the national helpline 1093, ensuring swift legal action wherever necessary," the Ministry of Information and Technology has been saying. To ensure an inclusive and informed approach, a high-level committee comprising stakeholders from government, academia, and industry has been constituted to address the broader implications and solutions related to deep fakes. First Published: June 21, 2025, 15:14 IST

Business Standard

a day ago

• Business Standard

EPFO warns zonal and regional offices over delay in relieving transfers

The Employees' Provident Fund Organisation (EPFO) has asked its regional and zonal offices to relieve officials promptly upon their transfer, warning that failure to comply will attract 'severe' disciplinary action. In a letter sent to all regional and zonal offices on Thursday, EPFO Chief Commissioner Ramesh Krishnamurthi expressed concern that non-compliance with transfer orders constitutes a 'serious' breach of discipline and undermines the authority of the Head Office. 'It has come to notice that certain zonal and regional offices have repeatedly failed to comply with the explicit orders of the Head Office regarding timely relieving of officials upon their transfer or reallocation. This constitutes a serious breach of discipline and undermines the authority of the Head Office,' the letter stated. The non-compliance with transfer orders hampers the smooth functioning of the social security organisation, as offices are forced to operate with reduced manpower. 'Be unequivocally warned that any future instance of failure to promptly relieve the transferred officers as per Head Office orders will result in stringent disciplinary action against the officer in charge under the provisions of the Central Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1964,' the letter further read. EPFO currently has 283 offices, including 21 zonal offices, 138 regional offices, 117 district offices, and its headquarters in Delhi. 'Any deviation, without specific approval from the Head Office, will be treated as wilful insubordination, inviting severe consequences,' the letter concluded.