Academic Rejuvenation of AMU is a much talked agenda these days. But the piecemeal manner in which the objective is sought to be accomplished is hardly convincing. Rather, they are provocative in nature.

Most of the members are endorsing [or advocating for] the idea of placing lecturers in senior scale through Selection Committee, rather than through Screening Committee. Quite often it is suicidal to disagree with POWER/Feudal Lords, more so in AMU. Yet, I am raising my first question: why does EC need to revise this particular rule of the 5^th pay which is just about to expire. [Some of these members got their own promotion under the screening process]. The UGC and AMU ordinances are explicit about the criteria: Lecturers of 4 years of service if with Ph D, [or 5 years if M. Phil, or 6 years, if only M.A and UGC-JRF/NET] and an Orientation Course [besides Orientation those without Ph D should have done Subject Refresher Course as well] will be placed in senior scale. It is, therefore, absolutely futile to spend public money on the allowances of the experts of selection committees, besides inordinate delay in the placement.

The JMI, has therefore now adopted the policy of screening, replacing the selection committee for the purpose. Yet, much insistence on having selection committee, rather than screening, raises many doubts, therefore heightened angst among the lecturers. Will all the lecturers [promoted under screening process] surrender their promotion to get it through revised method

One EC member-elected [who has, presumably, already secured promotion through screening] self-admittedly refused to oppose the proposal of repealing the screening. He is particularly needed to come out clean on the issue. I also request our teacher-members of the EC to display their own list of academic publications on the AMU website, so that the whole world may know about their sincerity towards academic rejuvenation. What will happen when the selection committees are not held for long? Let their hidden motives of hounding and enslaving young lecturers be x-rayed by the world at large.

With these kinds of [moral and academic] credentials, the EC is probably wishing to evolve ‘point system’, based on the research publications and other accomplishments of the candidates appearing before the selection committee. [I do concede the fact that informally, rating of the publications in renowned journals must be considered by the experts of the Selection Committee, which is a standard/ ideal practice].

On the face of it, the proposal does appear to be quite nice. But the nitty-gritty is not being elaborated, so that an informed comprehensive debate may take place, certainly not by deferring the much awaited selection committees. Secondly, other central universities, the UGC, the Pay Committee Reports don’t suggest making it formal nor do they quantify it. How many of the EC members have submitted it as their proposal before the Sixth Pay Committee Report, which had kept an open demand before the academicians of the nation. Why did not they circulate their views about it?? If the office-bearers of the AMUTA or the members of EC are so concerned about it, let them show their own research publications. Please don’t count papers presented in the proceedings of the periodically held Congress/Association of the relevant subject. How many of them have published their researches in renowned refereed journals??   Your very own Saleemuddin Committee Report also does not talk about it. (Have its recommendations been accepted by AMU?)

Moreover, if at all the EC is really sincere about striking out the sterile academics, why does not it first throw out the illegally recruited/promoted teachers? In contrast, the EC is rather quicker in distributing its patronage to those who are examples of AMU’s disgrace. To give it ‘legitimacy’, the EC, has (mis)managed to shelve the Justice Mathew Report under the carpet of Inamdar Committee, which is not [allowed to?] submit its report. There are many other cases of illegal recruitments/promotions. In April 1998, two horribly ineligible candidates were recruited, and no police action is being initiated against the responsible officials, nor are the candidates being thrown out, rather, one of them has been given much quicker promotion, besides another favour. Compare it with the teachers of the F/O Engineering, who are waiting for selection committee since decades. The AMUTA, EC all are maintaining criminal silence on it. Does not it smell foul that in order to shelve a Justice’s Report, the EC constituted a committee under a person of much less stature than Justice Mathew? For many other purposes the EC prefers to institute a committee [and then forget about it], whereas for introducing ‘point system’, it doesn’t prefer to have a committee [which should not submit its report for long or should be shelved deep down the asthma breeding dust]???  It is disgusting that much expensive and advertised World Alumni Meet also preferred to remain silent on illegal recruitments/promotions and other irregularities including financial, only few of which have been exposed in the Justice Mathew Report.

Why doesn’t the EC propose to bring out journals edited & refereed by high stature academicians and printed/marketed by highly acclaimed publisher? [In Arts and Social Sciences we don’t have quantified ‘impact factor’ of journals]. At the moment, even our highly reputed Deptts. of History and Urdu don’t bring out such journal. Long before, I proposed to raise the Fikr o Nazar to become properly refereed journal but it did not invite any response from these votaries of academic rejuvenation. When JMI wished to upgrade its academics, it brought out two journals of the humanities /social sciences, both being published by the Cambridge University Press, each essay ‘confidentially/anonymously’ refereed by high stature academics and edited by even greater academician. No such attempt could be seen forthcoming, which further raises doubts about the sincerity of the intent of academic rejuvenation.

Am I blasphemous against these self-appointed custodians of academic rejuvenation?  

The proposed agitation of the teachers to start from November is an outcome of these anomalies on the part of the teacher-representatives and university administration. Sooner they revise their ill-conceived, erroneous [and perhaps malafide also] proposals, better it would be for AMU. Otherwise, the onus of the forthcoming ‘turbulence’ on the campus will fall squarely upon the EC. This teachers’ agitation will delay the semester exams and therefore the history will read guilty for these guardians of AMU.

Mohammad Sajjad,
Lecturer,
Centre of Advanced Study in History,
AMU, Aligarh