“I should stop thinking about teaching now. I must now start looking for some other profession.”
I sensed a deep sense of disappointment and frustration in the voice as I heard these words from one of the best students I have taught in the last 15 years. He is currently teaching in a college on a temporary basis, as an ad-hoc teacher. He is respected in his field of study and research. He is widely published and is frequently invited to international conferences. For many people like me, he is the go-to person for any questions related to his area of research. Let us call him Puneet.
Fresh appointments of teachers have been made by the postgraduate department of the subject Puneet teaches. He also appeared in the interview. He was very satisfied with the way the interview progressed. But when the list of successful candidates was released, his name was not there. That the department could not or did not want to select one of the best candidates came as no surprise to anyone. Puneet was also not surprised but he definitely felt humiliated. Recruitment of teachers in different subjects is ongoing in Delhi University’s colleges too. Puneet has gone for several interviews but he has not been selected anywhere.
This is the story of many candidates like Puneet. The non-selection of qualified candidates has become a rule. So much so that if there are some exceptions among, qualified candidates feel embarrassed to say they were selected! Some institutes are the exceptions that only prove the rule.
Selection on the basis of merit or excellence is now almost impossible in universities, especially in central ones. If you do not have patrons in any faction of the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), then you should not even think about applying. There are other ways too, but you should have the fortune of having the backing of either one of the experts or the head of the institute. Not everyone has this luck. Some people like Puneet only have merit. But merit and excellence are not conditions sufficient for selection.
Many who have not been ideologically or organisationally associated with the RSS have migrated to the Sangh over the past eight years. Many are conflicted but feel there is no other way for them to be selected as teachers. But there are many more who are not able to compromise.
We are told that candidates now delete traces of their activity on social media. If any of their comments or posts are found to be critical of the government or the Sangh, then it is held as evidence against them. Newcomers to the RSS have to work hard to prove their loyalty. From organising programmes for Sangh pracharaks to collecting gurudakshina, to be seen in the company of the RSS pracharaks. Even after doing all this, she remains a suspect as she joined the brotherhood only after 2014. Her credentials will always remain doubtful.
Candidates have pointed out that they often come across the same ‘expert’ in every interview. Is there a shortage of experts that the same person is called again and again? But experts, in the eyes of the authorities, are determined by their will to sign on the dotted lines without batting an eye.
Candidates have also told me that experts deliberately insult candidates in interviews. They find ways to break the confidence of the candidate. But when the interview is good, it does not mean that they will be selected. The interview board laughs, pats the back of the candidate, and congratulates her that she had a good interview. But it is entertainment at the expense of the candidate. Gradually, the candidate and the expert become acquainted with each other. There is a kind of impudence in both: the expert dismisses merit and excellence everywhere, and excellence keeps encountering the expert everywhere to remind him that it is still alive. Experts are not embarrassed because their job is not to select worthy candidates – it is to bury the very idea of excellence.
One must remember that vice-chancellors (VC) and principals are also being selected on this basis. It is foolish to expect them to respect quality or excellence. If merit or superiority were the basis of selection, then they would not have been there. A mediocre person will only appoint someone inferior. Mediocrity is afraid of excellence and feels insecure in its presence. So the selection of Puneet is almost impossible now. Excellence is now a criterion for disqualification.
Recently, I was talking to the VC of a private university. He was very satisfied with the selection of more than 25 excellent scholars as faculty members. I cannot recall any conversation like this with the VC of any central university. Can any of them say with a clear conscience that they have made excellent appointments? Or are they happy to show their report cards to their masters, either in the government or the RSS, to seek the next appointment for themselves?
But the death of excellence is no longer limited to universities in India. It applies to almost every field. Why is it that Ravish Kumar cannot find work anywhere? Can any university offer a teaching job to Pratap Bhanu Mehta?
Why this aversion to excellence? Because excellence also means independence. Raghuveer Sahay had written long ago that in this country, people are scared of an independent mind. An independent mind is seen with pity, suspicion and at times contempt. One who is excellent cannot be so without being independent. But now, the insistence on both means losing material security for yourself.
It is often argued that appointments have always been influenced by ideological motivations. Leftists have also done this, some people point out. The only difference between today and those times is that earlier, even a person who did not comply with leftist ideology but was an excellent candidate was able to get patronage. Now, that is impossible.
The hatred towards excellence has gradually deepened over the past decade or so. Jawaharlal Nehru University is an example of this. Earlier, VCs used to say that they aim to emulate JNU. Now, they say that they would not allow their institute to turn into JNU in any manner. Over the past eight years, with the annihilation of merit, the character of JNU itself has changed for the worse.
When teachers with non-academic commitments are appointed in place of qualified, meritorious scholars dedicated to their fields of knowledge, it is not only an injustice to the likes of Puneet but also to the students of the coming decades. Alas! The youth who are knocking at the gates of these institutions because of their record of excellence do not know that all they will get are the ruins of that glorious history.
(Apoorvanand teaches at Delhi University. Courtesy: The Wire.)
