Latest news with #pending
The Wire
2 days ago
- Politics
- The Wire
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.
Economic Times
3 days ago
- Politics
- Economic Times
Are Trump's policies undermining civil liberties & America's democratic values?
Agencies Donald Trump Singapore: Trump's increasingly authoritarian behaviour prompted sundry 'No Kings' marches across the US on his 79th birthday last Saturday. Many claim he's using brute force to suspend civil liberties by invoking spectres of foreign invasion and domestic revolution, threatening the future of the republic. Perhaps. Perhaps not. Riding a wave of popular, but divergent, angst focused on wage disparities, disproportionate foreign spending, profligate government inefficiency, aggressive diversity-based affirmative action, and inconsistent immigration policy enforcement, Trump sailed into office promising each constituency a swift resolution. A promise, however, is no guarantee of success. While many of these issues warranted serious scrutiny, plans drawn up by his administration offered little resolution. To stem the supposed tide of antisemitism in colleges, for instance, Marco Rubio has directed US embassies to stop processing new student visas, pending vetting of social media accounts to understand applicant sympathies with regard to Palestine. Setting concerns of legitimacy is unsustainable, since many US universities depend on foreign students to grow revenue and acquire global talent, for which there are no ready substitutes. Likewise, other acts of brinkmanship — negotiating the end of the Ukraine conflict, trying to repatriate jobs through threats of hiking import tariffs, setting up DOGE, defunding colleges for non-compliance, using ICE agents to deport citizens and residents without due process —have all proved to be disastrous. Consequently, like a snubbed bully, the Trump regime has now chosen to focus on two ostensibly soft targets: working-class migrants, and Iran. To curtail the first, Trump has augmented the remit of Department of Homeland Security under Kristi Noem, to include a daily target of 'capturing' 3,000 illegal aliens. This has drawn widespread opposition, first in LA, where the president called in National Guards, and then Marines, without consulting the governor of California, to deal with 'paid insurrectionists' and 'criminal invaders', who were fomenting 'anarchy'. This, however, like other Trumpspeak, errs on the side of pathological exaggeration. While there were some instances of violence and lawlessness, local law enforcement authorities were quickly able to bring things under control. Protests in other cities have likewise been peaceful, with citizens decrying methods of ICE, whose ruthless ways spared neither assembled army veterans, nor Californian senator Alex Padilla, who was led away in handcuffs from a press conference. And, yet, as Trump knows, if low-paid migrants were asked to leave the US, nobody would take their place. To placate the second, Trump promised to pacify crippling sanctions if Iran revoked its uranium-enrichment programme. But this ended in disaster, when Israel decided to thwart negotiations by bombing Iran's nuclear facilities and neutralising many of its generals and scientists, despite being warned by Trump not to do of berating Israel, Trump has now tried to make capital of a bad situation of his own devising by claiming he had given Iran 'chance after chance to make a deal', and that while there 'has already been great death and destruction, there is still time to make this slaughter… come to an end', urging Iran to accept terms before there was 'nothing left'. Iran promptly responded by firing missiles at Israel, in what looks like the start of a looming conflict. Rebuffed again, Trump has claimed he has forced both parties to negotiate peace, though neither party is willing to confirm such, Trump is only a diminutive parody of a dictator: at best, a reality TV despot. He lacks even the myopic vision and dogged stamina to see his hare-brained plans to fruition. Despite this, he may be extremely deleterious to America's future. For he is at heart an oligarch, whose principal aim is self-aggrandisement. His circus of illusory achievements is a public distraction. Indeed, in the imbroglio that constituted his first 5 months in office, the real losers were the American people. They have little to show for it except rising prices and a quarter-million jobless claims in each of the last two weeks. Only Trump and his cronies have benefited. Trump's earnings alone have grown to $1.6 bn on the back of his crypto, golf club and personal licensing all this, Republicans, who dominate Congress — many of whom baulk at what they consider presidential overreach and constitutional infringement — have been silent, either from false hope that things will miraculously improve, or in the belief that people should be allowed to flip the Senate and House in 2026, if they so desire. Perhaps. Perhaps years could fill an eternity of misadventures. And may be two years too late. Perhaps it's time for members of Congress to make a bipartisan effort to restore values of the republic, lest the president be tempted to deploy regular troops to suppress the First Amendment. And for the people, inspired by the Second Amendment, to form a regulated militia to repel the same. Who knows? This is the United States of America, after all. (Disclaimer: The opinions expressed in this column are that of the writer. The facts and opinions expressed here do not reflect the views of Elevate your knowledge and leadership skills at a cost cheaper than your daily tea. Benchmarked with BSE 1000, this index fund will diversify your bets. But at a cost. Yet another battle over neem; this time it's a startup vs. Procter & Gamble For investors with ability to take a contrarian stand: 6 mid-cap stocks from different sectors with upside potential of over 26% return Buy, Sell or Hold: Motilal Oswal remains neutral on Tata Motors; Antique recommends Hold on Hindustan Zinc These 7 banking stocks can give more than 21% returns in 1 year, according to analysts
New Straits Times
3 days ago
- Business
- New Straits Times
Military-use rare earth issue remains unresolved
The renewed United States-China trade truce struck in London left a key area of export restrictions tied to national security untouched, an unresolved conflict that threatens a more comprehensive deal, said two people briefed on detailed outcomes of the talks. Beijing had not committed to grant export clearance for some specialised rare-earth magnets that US military suppliers need for fighter jets and missile systems, said the people. The US maintains export curbs on China's purchases of advanced artificial intelligence chips out of concern that they also have military applications. At talks in London last week, China's negotiators appeared to link progress in lifting export controls on military-use rare earth magnets with the longstanding US curbs on exports of the most advanced AI chips to China. That marked a new twist in trade talks that began with opioid trafficking, tariff rates and China's trade surplus, but have since shifted to focus on export controls. In addition, US officials also signalled they were looking to extend existing tariffs on China for a further 90 days beyond the Aug 10 deadline agreed in Geneva last month, suggesting a more permanent trade deal between the world's two largest economies was unlikely before then. President Donald Trump said last Wednesday the handshake deal reached in London between American and Chinese negotiators was a "great deal", adding, "we have everything we need, and we're going to do very well with it. And hopefully they are, too". But China's chokehold on the rare earth magnets needed for weapons systems remains a potential flashpoint. China dominates global production of rare earths and holds a virtual monopoly on refining and processing. A deal reached in Geneva last month to reduce bilateral tariffs from crushing triple-digit levels had faltered over Beijing's restrictions on critical minerals exports that took shape in April. At the London talks, China promised to fast-track approval of rare-earth export applications from non-military US manufacturers out of the tens of thousands currently pending, said one of the sources. Those licences will have a six-month term. Beijing also offered to set up a "green channel" for expediting licence approvals from trusted US companies. Initial signals were positive, with Chinese rare-earths magnet producer JL MAG Rare-Earth, saying it had obtained export licences that included the US, while China's Commerce Ministry confirmed it had approved some "compliant applications" for export licences. But China has not budged on specialised rare earths, including samarium, which are needed for military applications and are outside the fast-track agreed in London. Carmakers and other manufacturers largely need other rare earth magnets, including dysprosium and terbium. The rushed trade meeting in London followed a call last week between Trump and Chinese leader Xi Jinping. Trump said US tariffs would be set at 55 per cent for China, while China had agreed to 10 per cent for the US. Chinese analysts are pessimistic about the likelihood of further breakthroughs before the Aug 10 deadline. "Temporary mutual accommodation of some concerns is possible but the fundamental issue of the trade imbalance cannot be resolved within this timeframe, and possibly during Trump's remaining term," said Liu Weidong, a US-China expert at the Institute of American Studies, Chinese Academy of Social Sciences. An extension of the August deadline could allow the Trump administration more time to establish an alternative legal claim for setting higher tariffs on China in case Trump loses the ongoing legal challenge to the tariffs in US court, said one of the people with knowledge of the London talks. The unresolved issues underscore the difficulty the Trump administration faces in pushing its trade agenda with China because of Beijing's control of rare earths and its willingness to use that as leverage with Washington, said Ryan Hass, director of the John L. Thornton China Centre at the Brookings Institution.
Chicago Tribune
3 days ago
- Politics
- Chicago Tribune
Press groups sue Los Angeles police over use of force against journalists during protests
LOS ANGELES — A coalition of press rights organizations is seeking a court order to stop the 'continuing abuse' of journalists by the Los Angeles Police Department during protests over President Trump's immigration crackdown. The federal lawsuit, filed Monday by the Los Angeles Press Club and investigative reporting network Status Coup, seeks to 'force the LAPD to respect the constitutional and statutory rights of journalists engaged in reporting on these protests and inevitable protests to come.' The suit cites multiple instances of officers firing foam projectiles at members of the media and otherwise flouting state laws that restrict the use of so-called less-lethal weapons in crowd control situations and protect journalists covering the unrest. Those measures were passed in the wake of the 2020 protests over the killing of George Floyd by police in Minneapolis when journalists were detained and injured by the LAPD while covering the unrest. The recent suit filed in the Central District of California describes journalists being shot with less-lethal police rounds, tear-gassed and detained without cause. Carol Sobel, a longtime civil rights attorney who represents the plaintiffs, said LAPD officers have also been blocking journalists from areas where they had a right to be, in violation of the department's own rules and Senate Bill 98, a state law that prohibits law enforcement from interfering with or obstructing journalists from covering such events. 'You have people holding up their press credentials saying, 'I'm press,' and they still got shot,' she said. 'The Legislature spent all this time limiting how use of force can occur in a crowd control situation, and they just all ignored it. Apart from journalists, scores of protesters allege LAPD projectiles left them with severe bruises, lacerations and serious injuries. The Police Department said Monday that it doesn't comment on pending litigation. A message for the Los Angeles city attorney's office, which represents the LAPD in most civil suits, went unreturned. Sobel filed a similar action in the wake of the LAPD's response to the 2020 protests on behalf of Black Lives Matter-L.A. and others who contended that LAPD caused scores of injuries by firing hard-foam projectiles. A federal judge later issued an injunction restricting the department's use of 40-millimeter and 37-millimeter hard-foam projectile launchers to officers who are properly trained to use them. Under the restrictions, which remain in place with the court case pending, police can target individuals with 40-millimeter rounds 'only when the officer reasonably believes that a suspect is violently resisting arrest or poses an immediate threat of violence or physical harm.' Officers are also barred from targeting people in the head, torso and groin areas. The city has paid out millions of dollars in settlements and jury awards related to lawsuits brought by reporters and demonstrators in 2020 who were injured. On Monday, the LAPD announced an internal review of a June 10 incident in which a 30-year-old man suffered a broken finger during a confrontation with officers of the vaunted Metropolitan Division. According to the department's account, the Metro officers had been deployed to contend with an 'unruly' crowd on Alameda Street and Temple Street and said that Daniel Robert Bill and several other demonstrators refused to leave the area and instead challenged officers. During a confrontation, several officers swung their batons and fired less-lethal munitions at Bill 'to no effect' and then 'used a team takedown' before arresting him. After his arrest, Bill was taken to an area hospital, where he underwent surgery to repair a broken finger on his left hand. The department's Force Investigation Division will review the case, as it does all incidents in which someone is seriously injured or killed while in policy custody. Department leaders have in the past argued that officers need less-lethal weapons to restore order, particularly when faced with large crowds with individuals throwing bottles and rocks. The department's handling of the recent protests is expected to be addressed at Tuesday's meeting of the LAPD Police Commission, the department's civilian policy-making body. The body reviewed complaints of excessive force against the department stemming from the 2020 protests but has not staked a public position about the continued use of the 40-millimeter projectiles and other crowd control measures.
Time of India
4 days ago
- Politics
- Time of India
Nat'l Lok Adalat on July 12 in Pkl, Kalka
Panchkula : Postponed earlier, the National Lok Adalat will now be held on July 12 at the district courts complex in Sector 1 here and the Kalka subdivisional court. Aparna Bhardwaj, chief judicial magistrate-cum-secretary, DLSA (Panchkula), said, "To facilitate the smooth conduct of the lok adalat and to guide the public, para legal volunteers will be stationed at help desks set up at the district courts complex here as well as at the mini secretariat (DC office building). The volunteers will assist litigants and visitors by providing information about the National Lok Adalat and help in identifying eligible cases for settlement." In the run-up to the lok adalat, the para legal volunteers and panel advocates will carry out awareness drives through legal literacy camps and legal aid clinics. tnn During these events, they will educate the public about the benefits of the lok adalat system, how it provides quick and cost-free justice, and the types of cases that can be settled through compromise or mutual consent. Screens will continuously display information about the lok adalat date, venue, and case types being taken up, encouraging public participation and early dispute resolution. Bhardwaj said all types of cases will be considered during the lok adalat, including pre-litigation and pending matters. For any queries regarding the National Lok Adalat or legal aid services, members of the public are encouraged to visit the office of DLSA at the district courts complex here, or call the helpline number 0172-2585566. They can also contact the Nalsa helpline 15100 for free assistance.
