The JNUTA finds the JNU registrar’s recent statement revealing for its ignorance of procedural propriety as well as the blatant falsehoods that have come to characterize this administration.
- First, it is not the JNU registrar who decides who represents the will of the JNU teachers. The number of signatories on the motions and dissent note in the AC meeting is a clear message in this regard.
- Second, in none of the minutes of previous AC meetings under this VC has dissent been recorded to fraudulent minutes, even when individually sent well in advance of the next AC. AC members wished therefore to record their dissent on the spot.
- Third, the dissent sought to be recorded was to agenda items already declared as passed, so signatures were not being collected “in the middle of the discussion.”
JNUTA emphasises that the dissent expressed in writing is to outright misrepresentation of decisions taken in the previous AC as well as this one. We would like the Registrar to explain which rule governing the conduct of any meetings says that dissent can be recorded only after the meeting, when the minutes are being framed? Which rule states that motions/dissent notes signed by more than one member cannot be accepted?
The JNUTA will not be diverted by such press releases, which amusingly speak of the Convention Centre auditorium as if it were Parliament (the statement refers to the “well”!). The very holding of AC meetings in this space reveals the authoritarian nature of this administration. Breaking with the decades old practice of holding AC meetings in a Seminar Room with a table around which all members sat and all members had a mike, this administration has shifted AC meetings to an auditorium in which seven men sit on the stage, each with a mike, while the members of the AC sit in the audience space, with two mikes controlled by the VC who decides to whom they will be given.
JNUTA has put all the resolutions that we wished to move in the public domain and it is for these that we shall continue to fight.
Finally, before the Registrar expresses outrage at individuals recording proceedings, he would do well to release the video recording of the previous meeting, illegally conducted without the permission of the AC members, and a copy of which has still not been given to JNUTA as promised when objection was raised to it.
Ayesha Kidwai Pradeep Shinde