ON THE HAIRPIN BEND OF HISTORY

*

ON THE HAIRPIN BEND OF HISTORY

• If accepting an outrageously false claim—that this is a CSI institution—is a pre-condition for engaging them at the negotiating table, we, I’m sure, have nothing to negotiate with them.
• The Rt.Rev.Bishop can be retained as a member of the council or better helped out in the larger interest of promoting liberal Christian higher education in this part of the world.

RAJENDRA PANDIAN

Former Governing Council Member

The eerie calm on campus is giving way to anxious speculations on what is next as Dr.Davamani Christober seems waiting for an axe. But it is also bemusing as Dr. Christober claims to have secured the Secretaryship in the mean time. Well, God knows! It’s good that the gross irregularities relating to his appointment as well as his qualification have been taken official cognizance of.  However, if they have given him Secretaryship also, our responsibility to expose and evict him in the interest of the college becomes all the more compelling than ever. The possible exit of Davamani from the principal’s office will have to be seen as a move toward restoring the freedom and sovereignty of the college. But then, there may be another round of fighting to establish that none can be the secretary without being the principal of the college as these positions are contiguous as per our constitution and bye-laws. 

That apart, the greatest danger is from The Most Rev. Moderator who is hell-bent on exploding the constitutional foundation of this college—in the name of amendments—in order to make it a CSI property. The illegal council is very much at it and I can’t rule out their intention yet: to hijack the post of the secretary to the diocese. These worthy men: Davamani or Devakadasham—have primary as well as secondary goals. The primary goal is to take over the college at the earliest through fraudulent means. If it doesn’t materialize they will meticulously work toward realizing the secondary goal: to undo the system; convolute things beyond repair; [re]tire dissenters out and profit from the delay litigations invariably involve. They are truly dangerous on that count and the only way to counter this ‘spoil sport’ is to act: convene the council; move the court on upcoming issues; approach the government and local bodies for justice; replace those who have been ditching the movement and try anything fit and feasible.

Rumors are already rife on who is going to be next ex-Principal! We know there are ‘modest’ Christian aspirants who will be content to be the Principal without being the Secretary—and vice-versa. Beware of them as the disaster they can wreak on the system will be more devastating than all that we have experienced so far. Although it does matter as to who will be the next Principal of the college, let’s keep on mind that having our man as the Principal and Secretary can only be  a means of helping the college; not an end by itself. Dr. Anbudurai said the struggle was to restore the legitimate council that in turn would appoint one—not necessarily him—as the legitimate Principal who could start working toward restoring the college. While taking this opportunity to share the belief that Dr.Anbudurai –of all the available persons—is the most legitimate and deserving candidate for the top job, I would also like to draw your attention to some greater concerns at hand.

 Dr.Anbudurai—thanks to his sobriety and pragmatism—keeps insisting on one thing: “There are two different sets of issues before us: those that can be resolved only in courts and those that can be resolved only across the negotiating table”. He, in good faith, believes in negotiating with anyone without letting our past experiences [with them] prejudice the reasoning. I greatly appreciate and share that view. In principle I’m not against any negotiated settlement. Still, I do believe that a meaningful exchange is possible if only we share ‘bit of a common ground’ with the prospective interlocutor.  On that count, I have always wondered what to negotiate with the Late Bishop, his son in law or this Moderator. If accepting an outrageously false claim—that this is a CSI institution—is a pre-condition for engaging them at the negotiating table, we, I’m sure, have nothing to negotiate with them.

Before the outbreak of the problem when  Bishop Asir  said in one of the council meetings that he would like the college to have closer ties with the Church I was allowed to tell the floor that a secret behind the strength of this college was  the “respectable distance” it had been maintaining with the church. The disenchanted Bishop said: “I only expressed my desire. I have nothing to say if people want the ‘distance’ [with the church] and not the ‘fellowship’ to continue”. Many of the professors and the non-teaching staff endorsed and appreciated this stand taken by the faculty reps [Dr.Navaneetha Kannan and I] on the council and some senior professors reiterated the same on the MUTA floor later. 

But, I’m afraid, the doctrine of ‘respectable distance’ may no longer serve to ward off the danger that the House of Washburn is facing from the rout of wolves in sheep’s clothing. The institution is in a survival crisis and we need to ‘go no holds barred’ to save it.  One probable measure is to contemplate “very limited” amendments to the existing constitution.  I’m not very much in favor of a whole sale revision of the present fabric or a radical shift to something like the Companies Act, etc. The moot-point in the context of amending the bye-laws could be the role of the Bishop in the Governing Council. It needs to be taken up for a judicious review and redefinition—especially when our experiences with the Church have proven “exceptionally unhelpful”. 

One way of meeting this could be by going back, more or less, to the ‘pre-Thangarajean’ practice of electing a Chairman on the council floor—for every meeting afresh. He will be chosen from among the members—excluding the faculty—to chair that particular meeting: nothing more; nothing less; nothing else. The Rt.Rev.Bishop can be retained as a member of the council or better helped out in the larger interest of promoting liberal Christian higher education in this part of the world. By effecting this we only reaffirm that these ecclesiastical worthies “have no right to exercise power over us” and, I hope, such move may fairly be in consonance with the Protestant ideal of the ‘universal priesthood’ or the ‘priesthood of all believers’—not just the Reverends, the Right Reverends and the Most Reverends—and also our secular ethos of vetoing church-interference in the governance, administration and day-to-day affairs of the college.

Indeed, it’s a shame that ‘all roads lead to the Bishop’s House’ once there is notification for selecting the new Principal for the American college. Should that be so?! How come our own friends who harangue on ‘values’ before and after this crazy season—not during that though—vie with each other in canvassing the Bishop’s support for themselves?  Why would they presume their way to power—be it to serve the college—lay through the pleasure of the Bishop or any other individual? As a step toward precluding that, the role of the search committee can be limited to inviting applications and short-listing the same. Given that there is need for any form of election, at some level or other in the selection process—as we have noticed  in the past— in all fairness, it may be entrusted to the faculty to decide. The faculty can vote on the candidates shortlisted by the search committee and the elected will formally be appointed the Principal and Secretary by the council which will ratify the appointment and make it compliant with the guidelines of the government. 

The idea is that we shall go ahead with anything—not necessarily that I rather quixotically instanced—to save the college without waiting for everything in place for us. As such, I’m afraid, various agencies have already started referring to the Rumps as the governing council of the American college: since they, as led by the Machiavellian Moderator, are increasingly in touch the government bodies. We are original; they are familiar—mind you! It may not be advisable for us to be simply waiting for a favorable court verdict—or, still worse—the Moderator’s consent to re-establish our council’s legitimacy and then to act. Things are all the more urgent at this point as Dr. Anbudurai will be retiring in about a year and a half. We expect and appeal to our council, which has been doing a great job even in the thick of turbulence, to do whatever is possible to check the adversary. And it is time that we the legions of honorable lineage marching on the hairpin bend of history— with pits and boulders in the way besides full exposure to the enemy fire at present —drove an onward thrust breaking through the barriers of frustration, procrastination, and ‘unimagination’. 

*