An NLUJA Blogger Takes On all the Pro-College Commenters of the 8 Reasons Post

NOTE: This is a reader’s blog, published on an ‘as is’ basis and may not reflect the view-point of Lawctopus.

Discussions on NLUJA have always been acrimonious! From various agitations which the outside world never came to know to the post entitled National Law University, Assam NLUJAA: 8 Reasons Why You Should NOT Go There, NLUJAA was bound to be shamed one day because of the attitude of the administration and more so because of the attitude of the students.

Let me try to analyse the recent spate of heated debate on NLUJA. But before the analysis I must accept one thing –  Sukanya Gogoi is right to say that instead of anonymously defaming his/her own college, the person must have stood up for whatever injustice he feels he has faced. All of us would have definitely backed him up! (sarcasm)

Ranging from Subhro Sengupta of the HNLU to most of the students of NLUJA, all have started defending the university. Few will venture to go against the University openly because of the fear of victimization.

Sengupta’s opinion places reliance on his visit to NLUJA and the amazing hospitality he received at the hands of the Moot Court Committee. But he misses out one point, that they were the students of NLUJA (the Moot Committee) who were responsible for his memorable stay. Even then these people had to listen to tons from the administration.

Sengupta, being economical with the truth, writes “I don’t understand why the students are ready to place the blame, yet not ready to take action against it or even create a culture. No one will create a culture – everyone would love to criticize.”

I would pray to Sengupta to please enquire once before trying to malign the students who have almost faced suspensions each time they raised their voice!

Then writes Sukanya Gogoi, “The only real fact is that there are people who will always complain, no matter what!” The statement reflects her pro-administration stand! She goes on to cast aspersions on the character of the person who has written the post.

Gogoi, panicking, then tries to bulldoze the person’s character by pointing out that “someone who has not learnt to respect the very basis of his/her knowledge.”

Next she launches an offensive. She reduces the entire discussion to a personal level by questioning the competence of the person who has made an attempt to judge the teachers (who have more degrees than the person who has authored the post). I am sure that on a couple of occasions even Gogoi has marked (on a scale of 10) interviewees who had come to take demo classes for us.

Writes Gogoi, “If they do deserve higher standards of teaching, why are they not studying in Oxford and Harvard and complaining about the things running here.” Let us examine how badly the statement is premised:

(1) Had I been able to afford the fees, I surely would have secured a place at Harvard or Oxford.

(2) Education is a service! I have already paid my fees based on the promise the University made. Rendering a service, and being an expert in Consumer Law (as the entire university proudly is) the services they render is a deficient service within the meaning of the Consumer Protection Act.

(3) In case one decides to withdraw his/her admission at the end of one year, how much money would be refunded by the university? (30,000 rupees security deposit only). How much money would be down the drains? Approximately six (6) times or in some cases seven (7) times the security deposit.

(4) Money is not as big an issue! I am willing to forget the money and take admissions afresh at Harvard if either the university or Gogoi is capable of returning to me my precious time wasted in this university.

(5) What about people who have taken loans? Will they be able to return the same? Gogoi is a rich girl and she hardly can understand what problems do lower income group families face.

These are just five of the numerous arguments against Gogoi’s one sentence.

Next important scholar whose views can’t be overlooked – Sucheta Ray! Ray is a journalist. She writes, “But, one of the main reasons is that most of these ‘courageous’ people chicken out the moment it is necessary for them to speak directly to the authorities”.  We’d like to ask her, has she never chickened out in her dealings with the administration?

And the rebellious Mita Rajmohan has suddenly changes sides! The editor definitely has not achieved any lifetime achievement after doing this! But he definitely has done some good to all of you.  He is “not here to improve the quality of the 900 law colleges”, but he definitely is here to contribute his bit!

He has definitely made an impact in NLUJA. The Registrar is at least now beginning to speak to a few students (other than his favourite chamber visitors).

Finally, the always outrageous and outspoken Aditya Singh and Falakyar Askari have suddenly kept mum. The silence speaks a lot! I fear that they have joined hands with the administration.

(I did not consider the statements of other students of NLUJA because I did not find them worth considering. Sorry for the same.)

NOTE: This is a reader’s blog, published on an ‘as is’ basis and may not reflect the view-point of Lawctopus. 

Get Lawctopus in Your Email.

Join 58,000+ young lawyers!


Add a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Join 67,000+ law students and young lawyers!Email Newsletter

Get a bundle of opportunities that we share only with our email subscribers!