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