This piece is written by a student of St Stephen’s College on condition to anonymity, given the history of students penalised for speaking against the administration.

Photo credits – Stephen’s Shall Rise Facebook Page

St Stephen’s College bid adieu to Valson Thampu around one year ago and welcomed their new Principal, John Varghese. Since then students claim that the college administration has grown more and more autocratic with each passing day. From imposing arbitrary rules on students to curb the limited freedom they enjoy on campus to suspending them for good-humoured pranks, the administration has clamped down on societies, by refusing to acknowledge extra-curricular activities (ECA) (except those held post 2pm), cancelling talks organised by a few specific societies at the last moment and insisting that no event be held during class hours, even prestigious, traditionally three-day-long events. Students have spoken about their experiences of the administration trying to obstruct the smooth functioning of their department and society activities through its extremely autocratic measures. Recently, the principal said in the first-year assembly that the only purpose of a student coming to St Stephen’s should be to study, and nothing else. The institutionalised misogyny that the administration actively encourages, as seen with the recent ANGA oath controversy, has also reached epic proportions.

On Friday, February 24, as the situation in North Campus remained tense due to alleged ABVP perpetuated violence in Ramjas and Maurice Nagar, students and faculty members got to know of a GBM (General Body Meeting) being convened the next day to decide on autonomy, “in principle”, for St Stephen’s.  They condemned the undue haste with which the meeting had been called and the high-handedness and autocratic nature of the administration in not consulting any of the stakeholders of the college–teachers, students and non-teaching staff. They immediately drafted a petition demanding that firstly, the GBM be postponed and secondly, informed consensus be arrived at by all the stakeholders of college after discussing extensively the pros and cons of autonomy. As a sign of respect, a few students took a copy of the petition to the Principal’s residence as soon as it was finalised, but were allegedly told to “get out”. The next day the petition with more than 500 signatures (in a college of about 1200) was presented to him and a silent protest held during the GBM, with people holding placards saying “Discussion before Decision”, “Stephen’s against autocracy” and “Puch toh lete(should have asked)”  among others. There was a moment of high drama when the University Representative of the GB demanded to be let in the meeting and said he hadn’t gotten any official notification of the meeting. He alleged that his signature acknowledging the notice had been forged. The Principal, on being asked, later stated that the college will ask UGC to conduct an enquiry into this. The meeting proceeded and the GB voted, by the majority, for autonomy ‘in principle.’ The events that followed have been described in the press release by the students of St. Stephen’s.  The faculty members also stand with their students and have released an official statement detailing their position.

On Monday afternoon, the Principal agreed to answer the questions of faculty and students, however, he was at best, patronising and at worst, disrespectful to them all, while ironically asking them to ‘maintain decorum.’ In a series of bizarre statements, he said he considered himself to be the students’ guardian, but refused to be their representative and take their concerns about autonomy to the GB. This rhetoric of being a ‘guardian’ further legitimises the taking away of freedoms of students, in their supposed best interests. Discriminatory, arbitrary, needlessly strict and sometimes hazardous(in cases of earthquakes and fires) hostel curfew rules for women residents and the absence of a  proper UGC approved sexual harassment complaints committee are just a few examples. He abruptly left after promising to call another GBM on Wednesday and defer the application till then, none of which ever happened. Following this, the teachers resigned from all administrative posts and students protested in a unique fashion by reclaiming the Andrews Court lawns. The Principal promptly sent word outlining his “Rules to protest” which included no posters/placards, no sloganeering and no drum-beating. He made no further communication with the student body, instead choosing to pontificate in first-year assemblies about the ‘merits’ of autonomy, despite the fact that quite a few of these ‘advantages’ had already been proven to be hollow claims by various faculty members and students.

One of the arguments of the college administration for this hasty and erroneous decision of sending an application for autonomy without any consensus was that other colleges are on their way towards autonomy too. However, recent statements by Hindu and SRCC clarify that they have made no such move. The quintessential character of the college may change significantly with the introduction of autonomy, which is why extensive research, debate and discussion in a free and democratic manner is needed before any conclusion can be reached. While the college does have problems that may be solved by becoming autonomous, having no checks and balances to the power of such an autocratic administration would only worsen the situation for teachers and students. Further, the unethical manner in which the administration is conducting itself right now needs to be condemned. There is a general consensus among students that the protest is not pro or against ‘autonomy’ at all. It is merely a strong demand for inclusion in this process that is bound to affect the academic culture, environment and legacy of their college.

Nandita Narian, a faculty member at St Stephen’s College told Newslaundry  “Permanent teachers holding 21 administrative posts have already resigned in protest and we are going to submit these resignations to the administration tomorrow”.