In Indraprastha College, all five ad-hoc teachers in the Department of Sociology were fired and replaced despite them working hard in building the newly created department. Teachers alleged that the fresh appointees were underqualified and had political connections. According to a professor from the department, “The people of most of the recruits are – people without a single degree in sociology/without NET in Sociology, goons that had beaten up students and teachers in JNU, relatives of a cabinet minister, just MA pass, active RSS cadres and the list goes on…”
Similarly, in the Hindi Department of Satyawati College, six out of 11 ad-hoc teachers were displaced.
“Am I a slave, am I a machine or am I a human? What is my identity in this university? What have I been doing here for the past ten years?” These are the words of Dr. Shabana Azmi, an ad-hoc professor teaching at Delhi University. Dr. Azmi was speaking at the 2021 DUTA (Delhi University Teachers Association) Presidential Debate. She was running for the post of President as the candidate of the Ad-hoc Teacher’s Front. She was the first ad-hoc teacher to fight for the president’s post, raising her voice in support of the absorption of DU’s 4500 ad-hoc teachers into the permanent faculty.
A Tragic Death and Many Questions
Ad-hoc teachers who have been teaching in DU colleges for many years hoped their credentials would be preferred during the recent recruitment drive for permanent posts at DU. However, instead of getting absorbed, they got displaced from their positions and were left humiliated. University Professors told The Print that “about 75% of ad hoc teaching staff have thus far been displaced due to this [recruitment drive]”.
One such person who lost his job was Professor Samarveer Singh, who had been teaching Philosophy at Hindu College on an ad-hoc basis for the past 6 years. Prof. Samarveer’s interview lasted a mere few minutes, and his years of teaching experience were given no consideration. He was offered his ad-hoc position a few days later, but the offer was again revoked. Sadly, Prof. Samarveer Singh died by suicide on April 26. The Delhi University and Hindu College administration offered nothing beyond mere condolences. The student body of Hindu College continued with its Annual Fest, Mecca, not even bothering to remember one of their former professors.
From the opaque selection process, interviews that were a mere formality and candidates getting chosen due to their political affiliations, ad-hoc teachers like Prof Samarveer were left helpless. To understand the gross injustice done to ad-hoc teachers, we need to understand a bit about their origins.
Years of Injustice
The rise of ad-hoc hiring started around the 2010s. There were several reasons for this; firstly, about 3,600 new teaching posts were created in 2008 after the implementation of OBC reservation; secondly, the university delayed the final norms for the selection of teachers for many years; and lastly, the protests over the 13-point roster system and the pandemic caused colleges to push back the recruitment process.
This was also beneficial for colleges as they did not have to pay gratuity, medical allowances and increments to ad-hoc professors. Their salary remained at the basic pay scale regardless of the years of service. They were also not paid a salary in summer and winter breaks. Until very recently, ad-hoc professors did not even have the right to take maternity leave. This cost-cutting measure is also beneficial for universities when you take into account the fact that they regularly face budget shortfalls.
As per the 2008 resolution of the DU Executive Council, ad-hoc appointments would be made in case of a “sudden, unexpected and short vacancy”. Such appointments would be made only for 120 days. However, in real practice, colleges continued to hire ad-hoc professors as they deliberately kept the posts vacant. After every four months, they were given a one-day break and then re-hired again. As Dr. Shabana Azmi put it in her speech, “…It is a convenient structure for everybody. Where else would you find voiceless educated slaves..”
A Stab in the Back
As pressure built up, the government finally gave the green signal for filling up vacant permanent posts, and the recruitment drive started in September of last year. Ad-hoc professors who had been teaching at DU for the past 15 years were hopeful that they would be accommodated using a special provision. The absorption of the 4,500 odd ad-hoc teachers (data from DUTA electoral rolls) was a long-standing demand. They hoped that their years of sacrifice, loyalty, research and experience would be given importance. Instead, they were left out in the cold.
The Registrar of Delhi University stated in The Print, “There is no provision for absorption of ad-hocs. If we even considered it, it would be a violation of various articles in DU’s constitution,”. Surprisingly, the administration did not remember the provisions of DU’s constitution when they were taking the services of ad-hocs for many years. The decision for absorption required political will. The votes of some 4,500 ad-hoc teachers were not considered important when this regime set out to change the face of education.
A Rigged Game
This government has been adamant about marking its footprint in the field of education. Vice Chancellors, deans, and professors are appointed only if they have connections to the “right” ideology. The dangerous plot to recruit politically affiliated teachers at DU is executed perfectly through the interview process.
In the selection of professors, the 2016 rules gave 50% weightage for academic records and research, 20 per cent for interviews and 30 per cent for domain knowledge and teaching skills. However, the rules were changed in 2018 to give 100% weightage to interviews by selection committees. This means two things: one, that an ad-hoc teacher with years of experience is treated the same as a NET-qualified MA student. Secondly, because an interview is the sole criterion, this means that “recommendations” and “contacts” come into play.
Teachers told Frontline that there were political considerations into who gets appointed to the selection committees. Ashok Kumar, a teacher who lost his job, told the TOI that “Questions were asked by people who did not understand the discipline.” Prof. Maya John of Mary and Jesus College stated, “In the majority of these interviews, it has been felt that merit and past experience do not count and that it is rather non-merit factors like nepotism, cronyism, favouritism that are at play.”
I talked to a PhD scholar who applied for various permanent posts at DU. She told me, “On average, there are 600-700 applicants to go through in 2-3 days. The maximum time I ever got was 5 minutes. They ask basic questions about your PhD, your teaching experience and then a random question about their college’s second-semester syllabus. Everybody knows the whole thing is a sham. We go there to waste our time”.
How would you feel if your professor was selected on the basis of a 2-3 minute interview? As students, we deserve the best education we can get in one of the top universities in the country. Can we achieve that by ignoring professors who have published peer-reviewed research and instead hire inexperienced people?
Another applicant said, “The college sent us an email for the interview at 11:50 pm and told us to report the next morning. It is clear the outcome is already fixed. Unless you have contacts, you have no chance at all”. Several applicants I talked to admitted that they have tried to find influential contacts in the ruling party to secure a seat. One of the applicants, Nikhil, contacted a local BJP leader in Delhi, who directed him to a BJP MP from Gujarat. Since they were from the same caste, his application was easily recommended.
Caste loyalties play a big role in who gets appointed. Caste dynamics mean that influential people ensure that the selected candidate is “one of them”. By successfully getting you appointed, a politician also ensures that they can take favours from you in the future.
RSS-affiliated organisations and various competing factions also play a big role in who gets appointed. Student politics is the first point of contact for many of these politically active applicants. They gain access to lifelong political connections which they can make use of at the right time. However, you do not have to be a dedicated and lifelong RSS admirer to get these recommendations. Many teachers sensing the headwinds have “changed” their ideology post-2014. To get the recommendation, they now maintain a clean social media profile and delete any posts critical of the Sangh or the government.
An Uncertain Future
For teachers coming from simple backgrounds, it is not easy to make such “networks” and “connections”. They do not have the influence or money to secure contacts in high places. Years of research, thus, go down the drain. Professors who had given their prime years to a college now find themselves unemployed in their 40s. Some are unable to pay their EMI, some are heartbroken to see their academic reputation ruined, and most are hopeless and left empty. A government undertaking a political project to stamp its ideology on educational institutions has pushed aside any candidates who are qualified and meritorious.
Prof. Samarveer’s suicide exposed the systemic rot prevalent in Delhi University. He was the victim of a system where your “contact” determines your outcome, not your years of experience. Is this the model of education we are working towards? Millions of students dream of getting admission into the prestigious Delhi University. It is considered to be the pinnacle of a middle-class person’s hopes and dreams.
Would you like to study in a university where your ad-hoc professors teach in an environment of insecurity? Would you send your kid to a university where their professors get displaced despite having relevant experience?
The question of “Why should anyone care about ad-hoc professors?” is related not just to the plight of ad-hoc professors but to our society’s future as well. If we let Delhi University reduce to a corrupt institution, are we accepting that we do not need quality academic research and affordable education? Our silence means that we are throwing the future of thousands of students away? Is this the type of society we want to build?
This story has been written as part of the My City Writers’ Training Program.
Featured image is for representational purposes only.