Democratic call on semester irks Delhi University Vice Chancellor

It was assured by Delhi University’s new vice- chancellor, Dinesh Singh, that he would not interfere in the democratic process of introducing semester system this year. But contradicting his word, Singh’s team is coming down hard on the History and Sociology departments that democratically rejected the proposed change.

So, even as the university administration announces its success in having the semester- based syllabi of 11 disciplines approved by the Faculty of Arts, it has “directed” the heads of the above mentioned departments to fall in line with the rest.

Similarly, the departments of English and Germanic and Romance Studies have been ordered to call a meeting of their Committee of Courses (syllabus making body) to approve the introduction of semester system. Both have not begun their syllabus revision.

DU had introduced the semester system in 13 undergraduate science programmes in 2010 and wants to do the same in the remaining arts, social science and commerce programmes this time on the logic that a university cannot run in “ dual mode”. But this plan suffered a setback when the Undergraduate Committee of Courses (the syllabus-making body) of History and Sociology shot down the proposal to implement semester system this year on March 9 and March 10, respectively, citing time constraints.

An angry missive shot off by the DU registrar to the heads of History and Sociology states: “ The University has taken note of your letter with a sense of dismay and alarm… The argument forwarded in the UG Committee of Courses resolution that there is lack of time for semesterisation is untenable.” “ There seems to be a disregard and defiance of the decisions taken by the supreme statutory authorities (Academic and Executive Council) of the university,” the letter further states.

Both departments have now been “ directed to immediately convene a meeting of the Committee of Courses” to implement the semester system. They have further been ordered to clearly mention the names of those who vote for or against the implementation.

The heads of the two departments were not available for comment despite repeated attempts. But the teachers in the department and across colleges were vociferous in their opposition of the university order.