Degeneration of a university

Both academics and students alike are of the opinion that Aligarh Muslim University is turning into a ‘haven’ for the lumpens and powerbrokers, writes OSAMA MANZAR
N EVER before has Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) been subjected to the ignominy of allegations of criminal elements creeping into the campus or of financial irregularities, bung lings in admissions and examinations. Such charges, now being openly flaunted, are unprecedented in this 118-year-old university. Its own, both amongst academics and students, are saying that the campus is turning into a haven for ‘lumpens’ and powerbrokers. Worse, in the last three years, more than five murders have taken place in the heart of the campus: Manzar Shafi was murdered in Suleiman Hall, Hafez Contractor, in front of the university canteen, a schoolboy opposite the VC Lodge. Two, Sham shad and as if were allegedly shot by a police inspector on April 7 this year. The shooting followed the death of two students in a truck accident behind the Chemistry Department. Six weeks later, academician Dr Iqbal Khan was murdered in broad daylight on May 20 at 12.20 p.m., in front of the Arts Faculty.
In the long history of Sir Syed’s dreamland, a teacher was murdered for the first time. Ironically, Abul Hasan Sodium, Pro. Vice-Chancellor argues: “Can you name even a single university, which is free from outside elements?” (See interview). Whereas, a senior professor and an activist. K P Singh feels “None of the universities are free anti-social elements, The present administration has failed to check the free-wheeling of anti-social elements on the campus. “
There does appear to be a certain lack of moral authority, a pre-requisite for administering an institution like AMU for the top functionaries have got them-selves embroiled in accusations of inefficiency an are being blamed for a total collapse of management. A group of former office-bearers of the students body, AMUSU, have set up a Students Action Committee which has prepared a White Paper listing the irritants to peace in the campus particularly since the arrival of the present Vice-Chancellor M. N. Farooqi.
The charges include: Nurturing of lumpen elements by the university administration: widespread monetary corruption and financial irregularities: irregularities in admissions, examinations, attendance and appoint ments: abuse of emergency powers under section 19(3) of the AMU Act 1981: glossing over of mass indiscipline and victimization of those opposing the VC.
These charges have not been countered well enough to wipe out the suspicion they have caused. The VC could not be met despite repeated requests. An appointment was fixed once, but later cancelled. But, in an interview elsewhere the VC has countered some allegations and justified certain appointments and actions, being questioned by his critics. Yet the students, and quite a few staff members, openly talk of favouritism and coterie rule. They allege that some chosen onve been encouraged to act like ‘dadas’ of sulaiman Hall which is on the Anup Shah Road near a uusy marxet. Most students roam about in the area. Suleiman Hall is now regarded as the breeding ground of ‘dadas’ in general. The first incident that brought out violence in the open was an attack on the teaching staff on May 31 , 1992, when the AMU teaching staff association was holding a farewell treat or Prof Yahya, the outgoing PVC, who had resigned in protest against the policies of the VC. The attack was allegedly engineered by a few top administrators. Later on, the Justice Committee implicated One Khalid Masood former vice president of the union for the incident. But no action, it is said, has been taken so far. Syed Ali Hadi, another one accused of violence of which the proctor claimed to be a witness was readmitted. Why? By, whom? Activists hold it as an instance of subtle en couragement of the unruly.
IN the series of manhandling, in the last one year, some so-called students attacked, besides others Mr. Azam Beg, ex-president, AMUSU; Dr Ali Amir, ex-president AMUSU and a teacher in J. N. Medical College; and almost all former and present leaders of students in a general body meeting of AMUSU on April 12, 1993. The Vice-Chancellor has tried to gloss over this incident in another white paper, allege his detractors. He purportedly commented that “such a thing has been happening in the general body meetings earlier also and was nothing unusual”. Allegedly a number of FIRs against Khalid  Masood and associates are pending with the local police but many claim that the university authorities have been protecting them.
K. P. Singh, Chairman, Department of Hindi adds: “The University is being run not by teachers or students but a handful of anti-social elements for the first time in the history of AMU”. “However, enough is enough”, says Dr. Sarmar Hussein, ex-president AMUSU and convenor of the Students Action Committee. “Very soon we are going to take a very aggressive action against these lumpens and the authority protecting them.” Interestingly, to pacify the students agitate4 over the alleged run ofttfeir4escribed as ruffians, the Vice-Chancellor has from time to time suspended certain such elements. But most orders it is alleged have been revoked later. A staffer in the registrar’s office who preferred anonymity says. “Disciplinary actions are generally not taken against the ‘chosen ones’, the penal measures initiated under pressure in several cases were withdrawn, allege activists. They also complain of irregularities in admissions for various prestigious courses. They recall that it all started during the term of today Controller of Examinations and Admissions Mr. Moinuddin. But m most believes that it has assumed an alarming magnitude (Prof. Yahya ’s interview).
A former student leader and presently a court member Waseem Ahmed wrote in his letter to the VC., “Some senior plained that, when the serious matter of apparent bungling in the coding of 10+2 class results was raised, instead of probing into the matter, the university tried to hush up the matter.”
As a matter of fact the ‘merit list’ prepared by the comnuter in order of merit could be shown to any body in previous regimes. it is now a ‘top secret’ between the Controller and the VC Allegedly no master list is now being prepared If it is so it gives the Controller and VC discretion to admit according to their discretion. Last year when the president AMUSU demanded the disclosure of the mater list, to know, how the cut off percentage was raised from 69 per cent (90-91) to 79.6 per cent the authorities claimed that the list was a sacred document. To calm agitated students, the Vice-Chancellor and the Controller, reportedly admitted 800 students in one day-November 9, 1992 Thus 2,300 students were admitted in class XI as against the prescribed quota of l, 300 in clouding a number of nominations by the VC.
The allegations also persist about a few being party to bribery for admissions. No wonder, Prof. Yahya, ex-PVC said: “In the last year’s ‘admission mela’, somewhere in between I lost track of truly real last date for admission”. Interestingly, the. Vice-Chancellor, when asked whether the parallel body led by ex-vice-president, AMUSU, Khalid Masood, enjoys his sympathy and whether nominees of Masood did not have any barrier to jump for the admission, he replied: “That’s way, Mr. Azam Beg, ex-president AMUSU, would be a happier person as his candidates who have got admission were more in number than anyone else’s.”
The recently concluded Executive Council meeting besides constituting a four member committee, “on the suggestion and proposal of the proctor to review and look into the general law and order situation, to find out the fault in the present system and suggest the remedy and result for improving the descipline in the university, has also decided to institute an inquiry into the alleged misuse of funds by the university authorities”, says A. K. Kazi, the Registrar. The funds, meant for promotion of religious academic and cultural pursuits of Indian Muslims are being raised by the University’s allied organization known as “AMU Duty Society” from within India and abroad. Prof. Abul Hasan Siddique, PVC, is the ‘keeper’ of the Duty Society and runs it, single-handedly.
The society is believed to have assets worth half a crore rupees, which have allegedly been misused. Says Prof. Sodium, “Duty Society was 1889 under the ‘Societies Ragistration Act’ and since it is a voluntary organization it, should not be discussed in the Executive. Council, He addad “University is beneficent of the society but the university administration has nothing to do with the ‘Duty Society’.
THE allegation of another financial irregularity affects Ms Najma Akhtar, the Controller who it is said was paid Rs.12.8 lakh. She, pleaded ignorance before an Enquiry Committee set up by the AMU court, the highest decision making body, vide item No.23, in the meeting held on 27.04.91. The committee submitted its report to the Vice- Chancellor on 4.1.92 with the observation that the controller: “... refrained from going any further... and did not cooperate with the committee...”. The committee further investigated, “In fact... claims amounting to Rs.3,20,912 were prepared, and utilisation certificate... was signed by Ms Najma, then Dy. Controller, and countersigned by the VC., Prof. M. N. Farooqi, twice or thrice on the basis of the same claim”. Thus, recommends, the committee, “It required investigation by an appropriate agency which has more powers to elicit information and whose work is not impeded by such restrictions as were obtained in the present case - say the CBI”. Amazingly, the report is yet to be placed before the Executive Council or the Court despite repeated demands from the members.
Strangely, however, Prof. Sodium’s services were terminated twice for staying abroad beyond the sanctioned leave, where he had proceeded on employment. An enquiry committee was set up by the Executive Committee, which observed, “Prof. Sodium took up assignments for a period longer than the period of his authorized leave. It was clear to him from the very beginning that he may not be able to complete his stipulated contract. He did not inform the university about this. However, he returned to Alisarh on 22.1.83. The grounds he had given for extending leave therefore are not convincing. 
In spite of all this, Prof. Sodium was appointed PVC on 1.6.92 by the VC using his emergent powers under section 19(3) of the AMU Act 1981, allegedly’ to pre-empt the decision of the EC, in which five notes of dissent were put up.
One can feel today that everyone on the campus, whether they may be in the management, or teachers and students, are all engaged in proving or disproving allegations.
The objective of Sir Syed has been relegated to the ‘back- ground. Aligarh Muslim. University versity needs someone who can translate his dreams into reality.