Dear NLSIU community, I am afraid that this latest notification comes across as a disproportionate and potentially counterproductive measure.

Prof. Nagaraj had suggested the advancement of the permission time from 12:30 am to 9 pm in the faculty meeting that was held on November 8, 2012 i.e. a few days before the emergency meeting of the Executive Council on November 11, 2012. Yesterday's notification indicates that the decision to implement this change is in pursuance of the deliberations in the Executive Council. Therefore, it would be safe to assume that both Prof. Venkata Rao and Prof. Nagaraj can point to the minutes of the said meeting in order to defend this notification. However, the issue is far more complex than that. In the faculty meeting, many of us had expressed our reservations about advancing the time for restricting the movement of students. At a very preliminary level, this measure has no rigorous causal link with the physical safety of students in general. While students have been and can be advised to avoid dangerous areas in the vicinity of the campus, imposing such blanket restrictions is an unduly paternalistic move. There have been numerous instances of sexual harassment and physical abuse of NLSIU staff and students in broad daylight. These problems cannot be eradicated with a simplistic measure such as constraining the movement of students after 9 pm. In fact such restrictions are likely to result in more students choosing to stay off-campus in the future, thereby escalating the risks to their physical safety. As the word gets out, it may also affect our attractiveness for prospective applicants, exchange students and visiting scholars among others. It is also quite foreseeable that not allowing students to enter after 9 pm may result in numerous instances where students can be left stranded in the vicinity. In addition to these practical concerns, there is a larger question of the symbolism inherent in the institution's response. Given that these restrictions are clearly a knee-jerk response to a crime committed against one of our students, we are indirectly engaging in victim-blaming rather than addressing the root of the problem. Another cause for worry is the opacity with which such a decision has been made. With all due respect, the members of the Executive Council are not wellinformed of the ground realities of this institution. The constantly floating composition of these bodies and the relative detachment of their members is explicitly intended to ensure independent oversight over the affairs of the institution. However, they ought not to intervene in the day-to-day management of the institution. The role of the governing bodies is to make surgical interventions in case of a sustained pattern of institutional failure. Being an autonomous institution, the onus is on ourselves to keep our own house in order. In matters such as these, the leaders of the institution should have held meaningful consultations with all stakeholders, namely faculty, current students, parents and alumni before issuing such a notification. At the very least, the ViceChancellor and the Registrar could have explained their respective point of view

in an open meeting for the NLS community. It is very easy to selectively ask a few individuals for their opinions and make sweeping decisions that have adverse consequences for the immediate stakeholders. I am afraid that this is exactly what seems to have happened in this instance. I do realise that being in a temporary teaching position, whatever I say can be summarily brushed aside by the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and the senior faculty members. The larger point worth examining at the moment is the gradual erosion of democratic practices within the NLSIU administration and faculty members. Educational institutions are not expected to be democracies in the strict sense, since the relationship between teachers and students is akin to that of trusteeship. However, there are certain norms of consultation and deliberation that should be followed among the faculty members as well as the administrative staff, irrespective of claims of seniority or past experience. The last few years have witnessed the non-continuance of weekly faculty meetings (the recent one being an exception) and an unprecedented centralisation of decision-making both with respect to academic and administrative matters. I am not qualified to comment on administrative matters such as construction and fund-raising but I do have serious objections to the way in which the academic programs are being handled. I have already expressed my opposition to the untrammeled interference with evaluation through the Grievance Redressal Mechanism contemplated in the rules for the undergraduate program. The manner in which this provision has been interpreted and enforced over the last two academic years is a direct assault on teacher autonomy and thereby violative of the structural features of NLSIU. While there is no principled opposition to the inclusion of such a remedial power, the nature of these interventions has severely distorted the incentives for students and teachers alike to apply themselves to their expected roles. Given the absence of regular faculty meetings on academic issues (the Undergraduate Council has not met even once in the current academic year), there has been no forum to question the interpretation and enforcement of the said rule. Likewise, there seems to have been no vertical or horizontal check on teaching standards for quite a while. Several courses have more or less collapsed since they have either been allocated to instructors with no previous background in the respective fields or poorly-performing instructors have been allowed to continue in their roles on account of extraneous factors. In some cases, instructors have a selfaggrandized view of their own teaching capabilities whereas their actual performance is far below what students expect in an institution such as NLSIU. The most surprising factor is that the recommendations of administrative staff are often given more weightage in decisions about subject-allocation as opposed to the views of faculty members who are directly engaged in teaching. I can of course go on with a laundry-list of complaints, but that would detract from the issues at hand. The main point is that unless we revive the channels for deliberation that had been developed in the past, we will continue to make suboptimal and potentially harmful decisions.

I appeal to the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar among others to prioritize the school's long-term interests. We are of course very fortunate that the school has received UGC assistance for expanding the physical infrastructure and our leaders deserve their share of credit for the same. However, an institution such as ours has gained prestige for its academic rigour and the stimulus for selfexploration that it provides to its students. At the moment, both of these features appear to be in jeopardy. Regards, Sidharth Chauhan