centre but , if it is not to subjugating the object of social justice placed with the implementation of reservation , why the students who would have made it in general category were attempted to be included only in the quota by consciously given less marks ? General category is open to all . It means mark is the only criteria to get in to that category . The students from every section have the right to be included in the general category . Do the authorities practice the new form of institutional untouchability by blocking the eligible students belonging to deprived communities from occupying their place with the upper caste and upper class ? It is in no doubt opposite to the principles of reservation policy This particular centre stated that candidates are given marks on the basis of their performance in Viva to a query on what is the basis of deciding the Viva marks . A question was asked again through an RTI application that what was the mark split up ( like proposal , performance etc ) of the 2 marks which was given to a particular student . Making it clear that there is no such proper data being made or kept , the centre replied with a general statement saying consolidated marks are given to candidates which includes evaluation of proposal and performance in the Viva . Their failure to answer specifically on the performance of a particular student itself shows no minutes are made or no proper document is kept on the all process of Viva-voce . It makes any afterward enquiry or re-examination of the whole process absolutely impossible . To a question regarding the marks given by each and every member of the Viva panel , the reply was that as standard practice a consensus is evolved after discussion among members of the Viva panel . Do we need any other proof to pronounce this is a ‘ consensus ’ against the students coming from vulnerable backgrounds ? There is a section , majorly among the faculties in JNU who stands in favour of Viva-voce remaining with its high proportion . The argument they make is that the research aptitude must be tested before providing admission and for that Viva-voce is important with high priority . But many of them keep a conscious silence on the question how are they going to test the research aptitude and decide the mark . There is no official mechanism to be followed towards division of marks in the Viva . There is no norm that the questions must be based on the research proposal or be aimed at checking the research skills . For many , Viva-voce is an opportunity to identify the candidate ’ s social background and treat them accordingly , obviously not positively . Many candidates have faced cruel jocks and comments on their weak English speaking skill or their previous studies in non-elite institutions such as state universities . What does the ‘ performance ’ in Viva-voce means ? Is it a speech competition ? Even in the case of not being able to perform well in Vivavoce , can a student be judged as not competent enough to proceed with a research work ? Is it the capacity of articulation in flowing English or critical engagement with a research subject be evaluated ? Those faculties may agree upon the latter one , but they will definitely fail to cite the institutional mechanism for that . Prof . Sukhdev Thorat committee , constituted by JNU to look into the matter of discrimination in Vivavoce , submitted its report few years back . It demands to restructure the way Viva-voce conducts to a more friendly manner in which students , especially those belonging to marginalized sections will feel comfortable and confident . No action has been made even after this report was submitted . There may be an argument that a general statement cannot be made on discrimination with analyzing data from one out of around seventy streams . I reject this argument mainly on two grounds . For the sake of argument let us agree with those who say this one case is a genuine matter of caste discrimination and this may not be the case for other centres . If that is the case , can they assure punishment for those who are behind this act of blatant caste discrimination which must come under legal action ? If the answer is ‘ no ’, then this is in no ground an exceptional case and also normalized to the level of not being a matter of concern . Secondly , we do not actually have to look into the data of each department and see whether there is discrimination . That is the responsibility of the institution , which is the policy maker , to scrutiny it properly . What do we have to check is whether there is any loophole in favor of the perpetuators of caste discrimination . The case we study thoroughly announces it loudly , yes there is . So , it is possible , in the same or even more aggressive form , for such discrimination to happen easily in any other centre also . Though the University level data , collected through RTI , also shows the filtering of a particular section is not an exceptional case . Democracy can be appreciated with analyzing the positive outcomes . But it should not be defined in that way . If so , that will be late . It must be checked with its structure itself . Whatever I tried to produce here is nothing less than a structural / policy level gap . It needs to be dealt in that level itself . Democracy attains its height when it leaves no stone for those who want to subjugate it . So , what the time demands is nevertheless a structural change in policy level . This change needs to work out in multiple levels including timely and properly filling up of faculty posts reserved for under-privileged groups . In an unprecedented manner , JNU did not make the marks of Vivavoce public till almost the end of the first semester in this year , 2017-17 . Normally the University used to publish the marks of all the candidates , written and Vivavoce separately , after few weeks of whole admission process got over .
Theyyam 34