A few of the important submissions made in the Zero Hour and a summary of the dissent note on IDP in the AC by the DTF.

---

Amidst protest the University has adopted “Strategic Plan (2022-2047)”. It is ironic for a university to talk about Strategic Plan up to 2047 when it has failed to even frame coursework for the 7th and 8th semesters of the UGCF 2022. This has affected close to 80,000 students who took admission in 2022. Like lab rats, they have been pushed into an unseen alley. Unfortunately, this batch will also become victims of the new 1-year PG courses. As of today, the Departments are clueless about the framework of these 1-year PG courses. The University has also failed to develop any strategic plan to salvage from the deep crisis the 12 DU Colleges that are 100% funded by Delhi Government.

As our next leaflet, we bring to you a few of the important submissions made in the Zero Hour and a summary of the dissent note on IDP in the AC by the DTF.

---

Unresolved crisis in the 12 DU Colleges

Repeated stoppage of grants and underfunding of the 12 colleges fully funded by the Delhi Government has caused immense suffering of teachers and non-teaching employees of these colleges. It has severely undermined the academic and other activities in these colleges.

While the Minutes of the “Joint” AC-EC meeting held on 22 August 2024 recorded appreciation for the Shri Prakash Committee Report, it failed to highlight suffering of employees in the 12 DU colleges or record the sense of the House, which urged that the issue be resolved on priority basis.

Today, after nearly two months of that “Historic” meeting, we wish to ask the Vice Chancellor and his team to report all the steps taken towards resolving the issue amicably and/or our efforts towards the UGC 100% funding.

Unfortunately, the CHRONOLOGY points towards lack of seriousness and commitment in resolving the issue:

The relationship with the Delhi Government has for some time been acrimonious, which can only be understood as a power tussle over the governance of these colleges. While the Government has not met its financial obligation, the University of Delhi too has repeatedly failed to constitute regular Governing Bodies, thereby, denying the Government its statutory role in the governance of these colleges.

Today, the resolution of the crisis should be the top priority of the DU administration for the sake of its 12 DU colleges and employees. We request the Vice Chancellor to report the efforts taken by the University in this regard – if any meetings were set with the Delhi Gov, LG and MoE on the matter since the adoption of SPC Report in the EC of 15.12.2024 or since the Joint Mega meeting of 22.8.2024.

We wish to remind this August House that except from an elected member of the Court to the EC, who said that she would dissent any resolution which seeks 100% funding from the UGC, the Joint meeting of the two statutory bodies felt that it is important to move towards a resolution, which provides these colleges a parity with all other colleges in terms of their funding (95-100% funding from the UGC) and relief from the crisis.

We must persist with the Delhi Government to fulfil its financial obligations. However, we must earnestly strive to rework the existing funding arrangement through appeal to the Central Government and the UGC to fund these colleges functioning under a Central University. The University of Delhi has other Delhi Government maintained Colleges which are receiving 95% funding from the UGC.

Among the many issues raised during Zero Hour

Permanent appointments have taken place in DU Colleges after a long gap. Appointments were made in a select few colleges and departments in 2015. A large number of teachers have become permanent after serving for several years on ad-hoc basis. The UGC Regulation 2018 allows counting of past services only towards first promotion (from 10 AL to 11 AL). We appeal to the Vice Chancellor to impress upon the UGC to count entire past services towards promotions.

Similarly, the Study Leave Clause 8.2 (iii) stipulates that it can be granted to an entry level teacher after a minimum of three years of continuous service. Past services should be counted to grant this leave.

Temporary teachers should get their entire past service counted towards all benefits. Before becoming permanent, they have served their colleges for over 15 years or more against posts which were not filled on time. Their services should be treated as in continuation.

Unholy Love for Scopus Publications

In chasing the QS rankings, the University of Delhi has pushed for publications in Scopus indexed journals, which has done much damage to the institution and has demoralised faculty from across disciplines, as they find themselves ineligible for recruitment, promotion, re-employment or IoE grants even as they fulfil criteria set by the UGC Regulations 2018. This unacademic decision has created disparity amongst scholars of various streams. This policy seems to be tilted more towards disciplines where publishing in Scopus indexed journals has been a tradition for over a decade. Without any study of the impact of the policy, the IDP document (agenda item 8-2) attempts to make two publications in the Scopus journals compulsory for PhD submission. This too is a violation of the UGC Regulations on grant of Ph.D.

Today, we raise this issue in continuation of letters to the Vice Chancellor by elected DTF members on (i) increasing numbers of “Not Found Suitable” (NFS) cases in teaching posts of Reserved Categories in Delhi University (dated 14.8.2024) and (ii) Screening and promotion criteria adopted in violation of the UGC Regulations 2018 (dated 10.7.2024).

The UGC Regulations 2018 had clearly set out that papers published in peer reviewed journals would be considered valid for determining eligibility in promotions and appointment of teachers. However, the University of Delhi has sought to violate the UGC Regulations 2018 by stipulating that eligibility for appointments and promotions of teachers in its departments would only be determined on the basis of papers published in Scopus indexed journals or the UGC CARE list.

This violation raises a number of problems which we reiterate here.

1. The University of Delhi, like any other publicly funded central university, cannot violate the letter of the UGC Regulations
2. The Scopus index does not include journals of many disciplines including most Indian languages. Therefore, an insistence on papers published in Scopus indexed journals amounts to a violation of natural justice with respect to teachers and research scholars who belong to such disciplines, besides undermining future research in these areas. As per the UGC Regulations, teachers have published in peer-reviewed journals, refereed journals and UGC CARE List. The UGC Regulation 2018 treats publications in these journals with parity and the University should not deviate from the provisions of the Regulations.
3. The mere inclusion or absence of a journal in the Scopus index cannot be used as a definitive metric of the academic quality of the papers published in a journal. 
4. This illegal insistence on papers published in Scopus indexed or UGC CARE list amounts to a pointed demotivation of all teachers and research scholars who have been publishing their work in peer-reviewed and refereed journals as per the UGC Regulations 2018. The University of Delhi cannot thrive and progress if its teachers, already burdened by the current magnitude of teaching, supervision and academic administration and unsupported by adequate research funding, are not motivated.
5. This illegal eligibility condition reinforces existing conditions of exclusion of teachers and research scholars from reserved categories. Rather than explicitly revealing the elitist bias by declaring that no candidate from reserved categories has been found suitable in appointment interviews, there seems to be an attempt to disguise the exclusion process by weeding out these candidates at the screening stage itself. It must not be forgotten that this amounts to a stealthy subversion of the constitutional imperative of social justice.

It is interesting that while the University is ready to demoralise its own teachers for QS ranking, it is silent on an extremely meaningful marker of the QS ranking, which is taken as a measure of quality of teaching-learning processes and learning experiences. This marker is the student-teacher ratio. Recent Workload norms implemented by DU show a callous attitude towards this important factor. Similarly, implementation of EWS reservation without additional teachers, over admission through CUET in certain Departments and Colleges, and implementation of UGCF 2022 without additional hands are all crimes against students’ learning experience.

Universities across the world have been created with different mandates. As a public funded university, the mandate of University of Delhi is to provide quality subsidised education. Academic excellence has to be redefined in terms of the country’s needs for science and technology in the international context and supported by adequate public funding.

Lens	Weighting	Indicator	Weighting
Research and Discovery	50%	Academic Reputation Citations per Faculty	30% 20%
Employability and Outcomes	20%	Employer Reputation Employment Outcomes	15% 5%
Global Engagement	15%	International Faculty Ratio International Research Network International Student Diversity International Student Ratio	5% 5% 0% 5%
Learning Experience	10%	Faculty Student Ratio	10%
Sustainability	5%	Sustainability	5%

We demand a roll back of all deviations in the screening and promotion criteria from the UGC Regulations 2018. While the University can motivate teachers to publish in Scopus journals, it cannot adversely impact or punish them.

On Institutional Development Plan

(This is the summary of a comprehensive Dissent Note submitted in the Academic Council. Because of the protest in the AC, the university administration placed a somewhat sanitized version in the Executive Council)

The IDP raises critical concerns about the institution’s autonomy, educational quality, and commitment to social justice. It will significantly alter the university’s character, shifting it from a publicly funded institution focused on regular education to one driven by market forces and political influences. : The IDP advocates for a corporate-driven model of education that could divert the university from its public service mission.

Funding Shift: The IDP aims to make Delhi University “independent” of public funding, eventually leading to commercialization and privatization.

Commercialization Measures: The plan proposes increasing student fees, implementing CSR obligations, organizing events, and establishing partnerships with industry entities.

Financial Diversification: The IDP seeks collaboration with international organizations, alumni contributions, investment in R&D and IP, and renting out laboratories.

Funding and Collaboration: Expectation to secure external funding and industry partnerships, which can be difficult for non-commercial fields or research not aligned with industry interests.

Financial Impact on Students: Rising fees, diminished financial aid, and increased student debt would lead to higher dropout rates. Students from reserved categories and economically weaker backgrounds and female students would be severely affected.

Digital Learning Concerns: Expanding digital and hybrid learning, including MOOCs, risks degrading classroom education and can disadvantage youth without access to quality digital resources.

External Involvement Risks: Involving external non-university-affiliated individuals in all statutory decision making bodies could cause conflicts of interest and compromise the university’s academic autonomy through corporate capture.

Focus on Indian Knowledge Systems: The IDP’s emphasis on IKS opens the following: Scope for Bias – The inclusion of IKS could promote ideological biases aligned with the RSS-BJP narrative; Loss of Balanced Perspectives – The focus on IKS without a balanced presentation of other global perspectives and of dissident Indian currents reflects an ideological slant.

Publication Requirements: Mandatory publication in Scopus-indexed journals for PhD ignores resource constraints, lengthy review processes, and the reality that for many subjects such journals do not exists.

Quality Assessments: Emphasis on periodic audits and quality assessments of research, including administrative and potentially social audits, which could lead to extra-academic control.

Impact on Research Quality: Such extra-academic control by corporate interests and ruling dispensations could negatively impact research quality.

Digital Divide Impact: Digitalization in the admission process could exclude students from disadvantaged backgrounds or remote areas due to limited internet access and digital literacy.

Standardized Testing Bias: The reliance on standardized testing, when conducted in a limited number of languages, may disadvantage students from marginalized regions whose primary language is not catered for. The centralized admission process might not adequately recognize educational variations across states and regions, thereby, disadvantaging students from states with regional boards or localized curricula.

Accessibility Concerns: The IDP’s centralized, digitalized admissions process may lack accessibility provisions, posing challenges for students with disabilities.

Course Demand and Social Development: Education should be viewed as a means and an objective of social development, with course demand influenced by social, economic, and political factors. The government should implement policies to shape course demand and availability, such as increasing the number of courses teaching all Indian languages in colleges.

Academic Priorities: The undue prioritization of interdisciplinary courses pose a challenge to maintenance of the quality of DU’s Honours courses.

Research Collaboration: The IDP emphasizes partnerships with private corporations and industrial sectors to promote research and entrepreneurship, including the establishment of a ‘Research and Development Park’.

Concerns about Corporate Influence: There are concerns about the potential for undue influence from corporate entities on the university’s research priorities and academic programs.

Negative Impacts of Industry Collaboration: May lead to a narrowing of academic focus, prioritizing commercial interests over critical inquiry and long-term social development. Disciplines may be reshaped to align with short-term industry goals, potentially compromising their foundational objectives.

Impact on Research Priorities: Industry collaborations may prioritize fields with immediate commercial value, threatening decreased funding for research on social issues and the humanities. It may also lead to self-defeating neglect of research in fundamental sciences.

Research Integrity: Collaborations with industries with vested interests in specific research outcomes could compromise research integrity and lead to biased results, undermining the objectivity and evidence-based nature of research.

Public Health: Industry collaborations might skew research priorities toward profitable treatments rather than addressing public health needs, potentially neglecting essential research areas like infectious diseases or mental health.

Curriculum Concerns: Partnerships with technology companies could prioritize product development over open scientific inquiry and focus on proprietary platforms, undermining foundational principles and interdisciplinary thinking.

Administrative Provisions: The Integrated Development Plan (IDP) includes provisions like lateral entry into administration and linking teacher promotion to student feedback, which could solidify corporate control and undermine the teaching-learning process.

Leadership Selection: The IDP’s plan to identify potential leaders from the faculty lacks clear criteria and tasks, raising concerns about likely nepotism and the replacement of the current rotating headship system.

Surveillance Concerns: The IDP document’s proposal for increased surveillance, including CCTV cameras and drone deployment, raises concerns about the erosion of a university’s democratic and free environment.

Feedback Mechanism: The IDP document suggests a centralized portal for feedback from various stakeholders, but the university’s disregard for feedback on significant policy matters such as UGCF 2022 is a matter of concern.

IDP’s Lack of Alignment with Core Values: The IDP fails to reference the Indian Constitution and its fundamental principles, including secularism, socialism, and the scientific temper.

IDP’s Lack of Inclusivity: The IDP lacks appropriate discussion of the challenges faced by students and teachers from socially and educationally disadvantaged backgrounds.