• This forum contains old posts that have been closed. New threads and replies may not be made here. Please navigate to the relevant forum to create a new thread or post a reply.
  • Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

It's Manufactured Controversy at IIT Madras

Status
Not open for further replies.
S

sarang

0
Recently I got a routine newsletter from IITM, alumni office. Out of 40000 odd students who passed out, only about 20000 are registered with alumni. The association wants its current members to contact their ex iitian friends and persuade them to become members.

A revealing article on the current media driven and dravidian politician blown incident in IITM. Link at the end for full article by Aditya reddy, an advocate of Madras High court.

****

"By describing IIT’s action as a ‘ban’ and ‘restriction of free speech’, some sections of the media have also contributed significantly in blowing this controversy out of proportion. It needs to be made very clear that nobody has been banned and nobody has been stopped from saying anything he/she wishes.The Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle (APSC) was approved as an “Independent Student Body” by IITM’s Dean of Students a little more than a year ago and such approval was conditional upon the group following the prescribed code of conduct. Incidentally, the Dean of Students, who has now taken the decision to withdraw the approval, apparently was also the Faculty Advisor of APSC.
The approval allows such groups to use IITM’s infrastructure to organise activities. It does not allow them to use IITM’s name or funds without the Dean’s permission. Therefore withdrawal of approval only means the group cannot use institutional facilities, including the internal email network to espouse its views. To put it simply, there is no ban on free speech.

"More importantly IITM has clarified that this de-recognition is only provisional and a final decision will only be taken by a representative body of students after giving the APSC an opportunity to justify itself. A clear conspectus of these events leading to withdrawal of APSC’s approval can be found on the website of IITM’s campus magazine The Fifth Estate.


"the Kerala High Court held that “once students are admitted to an educational institution they are bound by the code of conduct laid down by the educational institutions through the prospectus or college calendar and it is implicit that they should observe the code of conduct necessary for the proper administration and management of the institution…wisdom of laying down those restrictions cannot be challenged by the student after getting admitted to the educational institution. The right to admission not being absolute there could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence in education.”
The court went on to add that students have no right to organise or attend “meetings other than the official ones within the college campus and such a restriction would not violate Article 19(1)(a) or (c) of the Constitution of India.”

"The pamphlets and lectures circulated by APSC target specific communities. One pamphlet posted by APSC online accuses IITM of being “under brahmincal tyranny” and another calls for “fight towards liberating the mass from the clutches of Hinduism”. Should an institution willingly lend its resources for aiding the dissemination of such divisive thoughts?


The anonymous letter sent by IITM students to the Central government goes further than just accusing the APSC of spreading communal propaganda. It says the group was receiving funds and support from external organisations. In fact, one pamphlet circulated by APSC on social networking sites was actually published by the radical left wing outfit Revolutionary Students Youth Front. Was IITM not justified in taking a serious view of the matter?
A section of the media is trying to obfuscate the larger issue of campus discipline by referring to MHRD’s letter to IITM. It must be noted that the MHRD’s letter only calls for an explanation on the issues raised in the anonymous letter.
It's Manufactured Controversy at IIT Madras - The New Indian Express
 
It's Manufactured Controversy at IIT Madras

01st June 2015

IIT%20Madras.jpg



The controversy surrounding IIT Madras’s decision to ‘derecognize’ a student group is so unwarranted that nothing can explain its proportion but the intervention of vested political interests. Political leaders are fishing in troubled waters for short term gains and the students involved also seem to be making most of the publicity.


By describing IIT’s action as a ‘ban’ and ‘restriction of free speech’, some sections of the media have also contributed significantly in blowing this controversy out of proportion. It needs to be made very clear that nobody has been banned and nobody has been stopped from saying anything he/she wishes.


The Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle (APSC) was approved as an “Independent Student Body” by IITM’s Dean of Students a little more than a year ago and such approval was conditional upon the group following the prescribed code of conduct. Incidentally, the Dean of Students, who has now taken the decision to withdraw the approval, apparently was also the Faculty Advisor of APSC.


The approval allows such groups to use IITM’s infrastructure to organise activities. It does not allow them to use IITM’s name or funds without the Dean’s permission. Therefore withdrawal of approval only means the group cannot use institutional facilities, including the internal email network to espouse its views. To put it simply, there is no ban on free speech.


In all the noise and heat generated by APSC’s pungent views and controversial pamphlets one has failed to notice the basic premise of IITM’s action. The Dean is quoted to have given only one reason for the withdrawal of approval - “they (APSC) did not follow the guidelines for an Institute student body”.


It is believed that the APSC specifically violated two of the seven guidelines - ‘not informing the faculty advisor about their activities, or getting posters and other promotional material approved by him and using IITM’s name and logo on publicity material without adequate permission’.


IIT M’s official statement on the issue reads: “the student groups cannot use the name of IITM or its official entities for their activities without official permission. APSC has violated this particular rule.”

More importantly IITM has clarified that this de-recognition is only provisional and a final decision will only be taken by a representative body of students after giving the APSC an opportunity to justify itself. A clear conspectus of these events leading to withdrawal of APSC’s approval can be found on the website of IITM’s campus magazine The Fifth Estate.


It is amazing to see some sections of media and political leaders converting this simple matter of an educational institution enforcing campus discipline into a political war between ideologies. This is not only unfair to an institution that has always prided itself on progressive ideals but poses a serious threat to amity in campus life.


APSC members and sympathizers were all over TV channels fully exploiting the misplaced outrage against ‘violation of their freedom of speech and expression’, instead of caring to defend IITM’s charges on code of conduct violations. The veracity of their pamphlets’ contents and the justness of their views unnecessarily took centre stage.


If one were to look at the rights such a group of students are legally entitled to, it is amusing that there should be so much controversy surrounding this issue. In a famous case concerning the right of a student to take part in campus politics, the Kerala High Court held that “once students are admitted to an educational institution they are bound by the code of conduct laid down by the educational institutions through the prospectus or college calendar and it is implicit that they should observe the code of conduct necessary for the proper administration and management of the institution…wisdom of laying down those restrictions cannot be challenged by the student after getting admitted to the educational institution. The right to admission not being absolute there could be regulatory measures for ensuring educational standards and maintaining excellence in education.”



The court went on to add that students have no right to organise or attend “meetings other than the official ones within the college campus and such a restriction would not violate Article 19(1)(a) or (c) of the Constitution of India.”


The approval and the consequent right to use institutional facilities were therefore only privileges, which IITM gave to these groups. They cannot be claimed as a matter of right and certainly have nothing to with one’s freedom of speech and expression.


IITM’s actions should be seen strictly from the perspective of the institution’s right to enforce campus discipline. But the larger issue of whether students should be allowed to promote overtly casteist and communal views within campus should be seriously considered.


The pamphlets and lectures circulated by APSC target specific communities. One pamphlet posted by APSC online accuses IITM of being “under brahmincal tyranny” and another calls for “fight towards liberating the mass from the clutches of Hinduism”. Should an institution willingly lend its resources for aiding the dissemination of such divisive thoughts?


One IITM student has reacted to the whole controversy on his Facebook page by bringing to light the general disrepute, which APSC appears to have carried in campus: “They have been very notorious from the day of …inception. When other groups in the campus publicize their events adhering to the regulations…these guys like to call for road-side debate(s).”


The anonymous letter sent by IITM students to the Central government goes further than just accusing the APSC of spreading communal propaganda. It says the group was receiving funds and support from external organisations. In fact, one pamphlet circulated by APSC on social networking sites was actually published by the radical left wing outfit Revolutionary Students Youth Front. Was IITM not justified in taking a serious view of the matter?


A section of the media is trying to obfuscate the larger issue of campus discipline by referring to MHRD’s letter to IITM. It must be noted that the MHRD’s letter only calls for an explanation on the issues raised in the anonymous letter.


Even assuming IITM decided to take action only after the MHRD letter, how can that justify any violations committed by APSC in conducting its activities? Where is the need for political leaders to voice opinion on this issue? If it can be pointed out that there are other ideological groups on the campus that have also flouted norms like APSC and that IITM has not acted, then there may be a case of discrimination. Otherwise this should be treated entirely as an internal matter of IITM, which does not warrant any attention from outside.


(The author is an advocate practising in the Madras High Court)

It's Manufactured Controversy at IIT Madras - The New Indian Express
 
'How can dissent on government's policy be seen as spreading hatred?'

'The problem is that we present a very strong critique of this government'
'The issues that we discuss are very important and define the way we live our lives'
'We have the same freedom to express ourselves, why do they want to curtail just our freedom?'
A member of IIT-Madras's Ambedkar-Periyar Study Circle, which has been derecognised for 'violating guidelines', speaks to S Saraswathi.


Embroiled in an ugly controversy, IIT Madras faced even more trouble over the weekend with several student bodies, political parties, social activists and left-wing groups coming out in support of the banned Ambedkar-Periyar Study Circle.
Even as hundreds of police officials swarmed the area surrounding the campus since early Saturday morning, several groups like the Democratic Youth Federation of India, the Radical Students' Youth Front and the Thanthai Periyar Dravida Kazhagam staged a protest outside the gates of the campus.
...............................................................
We resent the fact that the dean has derecognised our study circle without giving us an opportunity to represent ourselves.
The administration says that after the vacation they will take a step. We don't know what action they will take in the future.
But the point is, when they are allowed to speak their mind, we also have a right to question them. Why does the government want to stop that and why is the administration supporting them?
We believe that the action against the Ambedkar-Periyar Study Circle by the DoS, IIT-M, is undemocratic; hence, we are not accepting the institute's decision.
You keep repeating that yours is a very small organisation. Then why do you believe that the RSS or the government feels threatened by your opinions?
It could be the content that we are discussing in this group and not the number of members that make our group. It seems as if the present government is very keen to curtail all freedom of expression.
The whole issue got out of hand mainly because of the government's attitude; it is not our activities that caused such a huge outcry.
They wanted to do away with us quietly, but this decision seems to have backfired on them.
The whole issue has turned into an ugly controversy now. We did not believe that we would get such an overwhelming support from outside the institution.

'How can dissent on government's policy be seen as spreading hatred?' - Rediff.com India News
 
Last edited:
With increase in reservations % in elite institutions such anti national and subversive activities are the order of the day...Will NaMo stop reservations in premier institutions?
 
Something awry in IIT Madras: the full story | IndiaFactsIndiaFacts

Student activism and disruptive intellectualism inside IIT Madras is beginning to look dangerously like student rowdyism bordering on violence.

From the time when IIT Madras started the integrated five-year MA course in English, Development Studies and Economics in 2006, this premier institution of higher learning has been on a downward slope.

From a research and development institute which attracted the best brains in the country committed to learning and scholarship in the areas of science, technology and engineering, the institute has been dragged down to cater to the lowest common denominator which presently characterises the....faculty members of HSS(Department of Humanities and Social Sciences) and various student groups.

Whose bright idea was it to start such a course in an enginering institution?
 
Dear member,

This dangerously falls under discrimination. No wonder we are getting the same treatment from all other castes. I'd like to imagine myself to be non discriminating. Saying the whole issue started with introduction of MA undermines the opinion of students studying in other disciplines. And the term lowest common denominator is really bad in this content.
Naina_Marbus said:
Something awry in IIT Madras: the full story | IndiaFactsIndiaFacts
From the time when IIT Madras started the integrated five-year MA course in English, Development Studies and Economics in 2006, this premier institution of higher learning has been on a downward slope.

From a research and development institute which attracted the best brains in the country committed to learning and scholarship in the areas of science, technology and engineering, the institute has been dragged down to cater to the lowest common denominator which presently characterises the....faculty members of HSS(Department of Humanities and Social Sciences) and various student groups.

Whose bright idea was it to start such a course in an enginering institution?
Click to expand...
 
After reading the article I think I should get out of this discussion after all..... If what the article says is true then I don't know what to say.
 
P A Krishnan, an author whom I admire a lot, wrote this in Facebook. Without his permission, I have reproduced it below. It gives a different viewpoint, a leftist intellectual, deeply knowledgeable of Vaishnavism (his father was Pakshirajan, among the foremost scholar of Kamban, about 50 years ago i guess) and Krishnan knows as much about Kamban and Vaishnavism as the scholars of yore. that he is an agnostic is besides the point...


The IIT episode
The HRD Ministry’s action: When I was in the field of vigilance, I used to receive hundreds of anonymous complaints. Almost all of them were consigned to the waste paper basket or simply filed.

If the complaint had substance, which it very rarely had, we checked the veracity of it discretely. In no case did we send the complaint to the concerned head of the organization for his or her comments, as we were afraid that such an action would set in train events over which we would have no control and which eventually would harm the organization and, many times, innocent individuals.

At best, we would forward it to the concerned organization for such action as deemed fit. Thus the act of the HRD Ministry is devoid of logic and common sense. If IIT was considered autonomous, the government should have simply forwarded the complaint to the Institute for such action as deemed fit.

The very fact that it was sent for comments makes it amply clear that the HRD Ministry had retained the choice of taking further action on receipt of comments and this makes short work of the claim that the Ministry considered the autonomy of the IIT sacred. There is little doubt that Government was interested to know what was happening in the IIT Madras. There is nothing wrong with this curiosity, but sledge -hammer tactics are not likely to be of any help in satiating such curiosities.


The IIT’s action: It is very clear that the IIT chose to act only because the HRD Ministry showed interest in this case. It is incredibly stupid that it ordered a temporary de-recognition of the Study Circle. All it had to do was call for an explanation from the circle for its supposed violation of the regulations. It was idle to pretend that not doing so would have caused disruption among the students, especially since the Institute was (and is) in the midst of a summer vacation and not many students were (and are) in the campus. It is clear that IIT’s action was a command performance.


The Circle’s action: The IIT action may be stupid, but it is a downright lie to say that the IIT has banned the circle. The circle should have first explained in writing to the Institute as to why they should not be de-recognized. The very fact that it screamed murder goes to show that its agenda is different.


The Political parties’ action: IIT’s action may be stupid, but it is well within its right to act the way it did. There is nothing illegal in it. Every institution has to enforce the discipline inside the campus and it has the freedom to choose any legal method to do it. If the Congress Party and the Left think that by taking up such useless issues people will return to them, they are grievously wrong.

Freedom of speech is of course a necessity but an educational institution is well within its rights to impose reasonable restrictions on it. Thus admonishing IIT Madras on its stupidity is one thing, but to cry foul that freedom of speech is in peril is quite another. The TV debates on the issue were as usual abominable. One luminary went on to say that IIT students made a beeline to NASA to devise missiles that would be fired in the direction of India and thus they were all anti-national! If the same logic is applied, all those who support Periyar should be deemed anti-National, as Periyar sought separation of Tamil Nadu from India

.
The content of the pamphlet: There is no doubt that the content of the pamphlet was incendiary. It is not correct to take refuge under the claim that what was in the pamphlet was what Ambedkar said. We will do well to remember that Ambedkar also said this:
(What)” is noticeable is the adoption by the Muslims of the gangster's method in politics. The riots are a sufficient indication that gangsterism has become a settled part of their strategy in politics.”


“Islam can never allow a true Muslim to adopt India as his motherland and regard a Hindu as his kith and kin.”
Will the political parties support freedom of speech if another set of students print these utterings and distribute them within the institution?


Congress and the left parties have lost their marbles and they are unable to think clearly. I am a proud leftist, but I am convinced such mindless support to divisive elements will only drive ordinary people into the arms of the BJP.


Let me make it clear. If the utterances of Ambedkar on Hinduism or Islam are culled out and distributed in public, the consequences will be severe. No political party worth its salt will do it. The political parties think a closed space like IIT Chennai is different and it is safe for them to pretend within that space that freedom of speech is sacrosanct and incendiary material will not invite retaliation. This is opportunism at its worst and it is unlikely to pay any dividends. On the other hand, retaliation by the fanatics on the other side of the fence might make the IIT a battlefield.


The Students of the IIT: It is no accident that nobody speaks about the students of the IIT (other than the ones who wrote the pamphlet) and what they think of this episode. If the political parties are honest (which they usually are not, I concede), they must demand that it should be left to the students of the Institute to decide what is good or bad for them. Let them demand that a poll be held among the students asking them whether they deem these study circles useful or a hindrance.

Only those study circles which are accepted by the majority of the students should be allowed to distribute pamphlets or stick posters in the open. Other study circles could function in closed loops, with interested persons participating in their activities. This is just one suggestion. There could be several others which might address the issue of maintaining the campus discipline intact while not gagging the students.


But are we really interested in the students?
 
The leftists, christians forum and Tamil atheists join together to malign Hinduism. That is their only purpose. It has to be resisted. People must be informed of their dubious designs.
 
hi

there is always impression that TAMBRAMS ARE OCCUPIED IN IITM....everybody wants demoralize the tambrams like these

controversaries and marginilize the bjp....ABVP IS VERY STRONG IN DELHI UNIVERSITY ,,, BUT LEDTISTS ARE VERY

STRONG IN JNU......LIKE THESE PROBLEMS NEVER HAPPEN NORTHERN IITs....
 
The hit job will soon hit IISC, bangaluru. Already a unverified bogus article in DNA has thrown anti hindu issues and as usual from sources not willing to reveal themselves.

IITM issue has died down, the media has done its done its stone throwing and scooted. Since truth will slowly cone out from well meaning students and staff, we have to wait alittle more time to learn whole truth and nothing but truth.
 
Something awry in IIT Madras: the full story

This article deals in detail what is happening in IITM, that have made it another JNU. Read the full article to understand the issues, agenda, money power, political interference, religious activism and anti hindu/india activities.
******

Something awry in IIT Madras: the full story | IndiaFactsIndiaFacts

Student activism and disruptive intellectualism inside IIT Madras is beginning to look dangerously like student rowdyism bordering on violence.
Radha Rajan
Distortion & Appropriation | 02-06-2015

[FONT=&quot]And the rot is in the Department of Humanities and SocialSciences(HSS).[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Fromthe time Dr.Ananth as Director, IIT Madras started the integrated five-year MAcourse in English, Development Studies and Economics in 2006, this premierinstitution of higher learning has been on a downward slope. From a researchand development institute which attracted the best brains in the countrycommitted to learning and scholarship in the areas of science, technology andengineering, the institute has been dragged down tocater to the lowest common denominator which presently characterises the Marxist/Christian/Dravidianpolitics-driven faculty members of HSS and various student groups.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Student activism and disruptive intellectualism inside IITMadras is beginning to look dangerously like student rowdyism bordering onviolence generally associated with the Madras Law College, Nandanam ArtsCollege or Presidency College. The ideological affiliations of several membersof the faculty of the Department of Humanities and Social Sciences, thepolitical ideology of speakers invited to speak from various forums, the topicschosen for lectures and debates, the ‘kiss and love’ protest in November 2014and now the orchestrated protests fuelled and egged on by 24-hour English newschannels against the ban on the [/FONT][FONT=&quot]vicious andpublicly anti-Hindu student group Ambedkar-Periyar Study Circle (APSC)[/FONT] areall the outwardly visible lesions of the cancer that has now afflicted thisonce world-class education institution. It would not be overstating to say theprestige of IIT Madras and its intellectual climate have been seriouslyjeopardised by this cancer.
[FONT=&quot]Modi sarkar must seize the events leading up to thede-recognition of APSC by Dean of Students (DoST) as an opportunity to take ahard look at why IIT Madras was persuaded/pressured by UPA II to introduce thefive year integrated course in Economics, English and Development Studies in2006. The Modi Government must scrutinise the syllabus of these courses and theteaching staff who have been recruited as faculty members into HSS because thecourse content, the ideological affiliations of the faculty and the kind ofstudents admitted to these courses best demonstrate the intent behind startingthe integrated M.A courses. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot] [/FONT]
 
By reservations, our government has made IIT equivalent to Law college or Arts college. Current central government should work to bring some change to what earlier government did and clear Kapil Saibal's mess.
 
The RSS mouthpiece Organiser said that "pet projects of Aryan invasion, inciting hatred, breaking democratic norms of discourse for political gains and then misrepresenting facts through media is the ultra-Communist strategy, which is perfectly used in this case. Mentors like Arundhati Roy can happily use these forums to propagate anti-India ideology."

The magazine said Indians, irrespective of their caste and religion, have a common heritage and "instead of following the path of divisive ideologies they need to establish a process of dialogue to create an atmosphere of social harmony and learn to march together as a nation."
Another cover story "Poisoning student politics" in the Organiser said this strategy of injecting "divisive" thinking among students can prove dangerous not only for the respective organisations but all for student politics too.
It charged that "hatred and disorder was the message in the student issue raised where misrepresentation of facts were used as convenient tools."
"The soul of student organisation is questioning the government policies, if they are not in the interest of the nation and fight against the administrative tyranny. When these two tools themselves are used for petty political gains, it can be self-destructive to the politics," it said.
In case of Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle controversy, it alleged the issue of disciplinary action by the IIT Madras was turned into curbing of freedom of speech and expression by the Centre.
"Rather than raising the question of caste eradication from all spheres of social life, misrepresenting reformers for spreading hatred is poisonous for the student politics," it said.
Attacking Gandhi, it said the top leader of a party "preaching them disorder and misrepresenting the facts of a nationalist organisation like RSS is another dangerous ploy."

RSS sees 'Red' in campuses; justifies IIT-Madras ban - Rediff.com India News
 
At this rate of incidents , if let uncontrolled soon we will see a Law college situation in IIT M.
Alwan
 
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (IIT-M) today reinstated recognition of a student group, whose de-recogition had triggered a controversy, and appointed a professor as its faculty advisor, bringing an end to the more than a week-long standoff.

The re-instatement of recognition to Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle (APSC) and appoinment of Professor Miland Brahme as Advisor came after a meeting between the Dean of Students and representatives of APSC held today, ending the confrontation that had left the campus in turmoil.

"The Dean of Students reinstated the recognition of APSC as an independent student body, and after consultation with the APSC representatives, recommended Professor Milind Brahme as the Faculty Advisor," an official release from IIT-M said.

"Professor Brahme has consented to advise APSC as required in the guidelines for independent student bodies," it said.

IIT-M found itself at the centre of a controversy after it recently derecognised APSC, many of whose members are Dalits, following a complaint that it was critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Union HRD Minster Smriti Irani also came under fire from political parties including Congress and students' bodies for the action against the APSC.

IIT-Madras reinstates recognition of APSC
 
Indian Institute of Technology, Madras (IIT-M) today reinstated recognition of a student group, whose de-recogition had triggered a controversy, and appointed a professor as its faculty advisor, bringing an end to the more than a week-long standoff.

The re-instatement of recognition to Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle (APSC) and appoinment of Professor Miland Brahme as Advisor came after a meeting between the Dean of Students and representatives of APSC held today, ending the confrontation that had left the campus in turmoil.

"The Dean of Students reinstated the recognition of APSC as an independent student body, and after consultation with the APSC representatives, recommended Professor Milind Brahme as the Faculty Advisor," an official release from IIT-M said.

"Professor Brahme has consented to advise APSC as required in the guidelines for independent student bodies," it said.
If it was manufactured, why this appeasement by the management? There is no smoke without a fire.

IIT-M found itself at the centre of a controversy after it recently derecognised APSC, many of whose members are Dalits, following a complaint that it was critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Union HRD Minster Smriti Irani also came under fire from political parties including Congress and students' bodies for the action against the APSC.
IIT-Madras reinstates recognition of APSC
 
Apsc has been given a reprieve. If they repeat their anti Hindu brahmin acts again, counter measures are ready. Majority of current students and alumni will ensure that. Apsc has agreed to abide by all the rules.
 
Terming the IIT-Madras report on de-recognition of a students' group as "incomplete", the National Commission for Scheduled Castes (NCSC) today sought an additional report from the institution even as its director appeared before it for a hearing over the controversy.

"They have given me a report in writing. I have asked for clarifications on why there was knee-jerk reaction on the part of IIT-Madras on a simple letter asking for comments from the Ministry and why straightway de-recognition of APSC (Ambedkar- Periyar Study Circle) was issued, which was wrong," NCSC Chairman P L Punia told reporters after the hearing here.

He said that an additional report has been sought as today's report was incomplete, which does not reveal the reasons behind why action was initiated against APSC.
"It is an incomplete report. It does not mention why action was taken against APSC at the first place," he said.

IIT-M Director Bhaskar Ramamurthi, the Joint Secretary from the Department of Higher Education under the Ministry of HRD Praveen Kumar were present in the meeting, which was convened a day after IIT-Madras revoked its de-recognition on the student group which was critical of Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Welcoming the move to restore the recognition to APSC, Punia said justice has been done to the study circle.

"They have restored the registration of APSC. And this is a welcome step. In fact, the injustice done to APSC was undone and justice was done to APSC, I welcome this," he said, adding that IIT students have the right for intellectual exercise of criticising parties, government or policies.

Punia said that the Commission has fixed a date for another hearing over the issue.
Meanwhile, IIT-M Director Ramamurthi said recognition of APSC has been restored but was tight-lipped about the hearing.

"It (APSC) has been re-recognised. What I have told the (NCSC) Chairman is the property of the Commission. I cannot reveal (anything)," Ramamurthi said.
IIT-M director appears before NCSC, asked to give fresh report
 
The decision of the Indian Institute of Technology, Madras, to restore recognition for the Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle (APSC) organised by a group of students, brings to an end an unseemly episode that was threatening to politicise the campus and distract from its academic focus. The restoration was on a technicality — the meeting of the study circle that supposedly violated the guidelines for student groups was held on April 14, four days before the institute publicised the guidelines on its website. But after hours of discussion with representatives of the study circle, the IIT-M management also agreed to look into issues raised by the APSC with regard to uniform application of the guidelines for independent student bodies. While some of the requests for modification of the guidelines would be implemented by the Office of the Dean (Students), the others would be taken up for consideration by the Student Affairs Council, the Board of Students and the Senate in due course “as per established procedure”. That the management did not stand on prestige after members of the APSC campaigned against the withdrawal of recognition as an issue of freedom of expression is a good sign, and the student representatives would do well to drop their demand for an unconditional apology. The withdrawal of recognition was a mistake. With that mistake corrected, matters must now be allowed to rest.
A mistake is rectified - The Hindu
 
The media and the secular brigade has conveniently brushed the virulent anti hindu, anti brahmin speeches, posters, handouts and posture brazenly adopted by the student body. Student leader emails say that the guidelines were circulated in feb, but the web site was updated in april. Hope the background activities and truth will emerge soon, and the outcome of the survey done among students after the derecognition. Engineering/science stream students are as usual keeping quiet, and the left/christian dominated humanities students ar making all the noise and get media attention.
 
IITM - What is a student body?

This internal document of IITM is accessible google document, hence open to public.

******

What is a student body?
All student bodies are classified in the following manner :
1) Student Affairs Council (SAC) -approved Student Bodies (Ex – Disaster Management Committee)
a) Such bodies shall report to a Student Secretary of IIT Madras
b) Such bodies shall be provided monetary and infrastructural support from IIT Madras, at the discretion of Dean(Students) and as per the annual budget approved by the SAC and the DoSt.
c) Such bodies shall have a well-defined constitution and team-structure
d) The constitution, team-structure and list of members of such bodies shall be available at all times, with the respective Student Secretary and the Faculty Advisor, the Secretary reports to.

2) Institute Recognized Independent Body ( Ex – Vivekananda Study Circle)
a) Such bodies need not report to any Student Secretaries of IIT Madras
b) Such bodies cannot use the name of IIT Madras, or any of its official entities , in any capacity, to publicize their activities or garner support without official permission.
c) In general, a faculty advisor from among the IITM permanent faculty members shall be identified by the DoSt in consultation with the group. The faculty advisor shall take responsibility for the group’s activities.
d) Such bodies would not, generally, be provided any monetary support from IIT Madras. Requests for support, if any, from IIT Madras shall be routed through the Faculty Advisor.
e) The Faculty Advisor will inform of the events and activities of the body to the Dean(Students) from time to time.
f) They shall have clearly-defined objective(s) and a comprehensive list of members, both of which shall be submitted to the Dean(Students) through the Faculty Advisor.
g) Any addition/deletion/modification to the objective(s)/membership should be intimated to the Dean (Students) through the Faculty Advisor and the Speaker, Student Affairs Council at the beginning of every semester.

3) Direct Institute-approved Student Bodies
a) Such bodies are directly formed by a Faculty Advisor approved by the Institute administration.
b) Such bodies shall be provided monetary and infrastructural support from IIT Madras, at the discretion of Dean(Students).
c) Such bodies shall have a well-defined constitution and team-structure
d) The constitution, team-structure and list of members of such bodies shall be available at all times with the Faculty Advisor who reports to the Dean (Students).

Other bodies that aren’t covered under the above three definitions are completely independent bodies which are not recognized by the institute. Ex – Wolf club formed independently by students interested in playing wolf. Students are free to form these bodies and pursue their activities in campus as long as they don’t violate India’s Laws or Constitution. They cannot use IIT Madras’ name or logo in any of their activities without prior permission from the Dean (Students).
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Share this page

Share this page

Latest posts

Latest ads

Follow us on Social Media

Back
Top