The charge sheeting of forty-eight instructors of Jawaharlal Nehru University, many of them senior and distinguished teachers, can scarcely be described as an everyday or recurring event through the college’s administration. The disciplinary proceedings initiated towards a 12th of the entire school energy belonging to diverse disciplines have come as a surprise.
The proceedings envisage the opportunity of ‘predominant penalty’ being imposed, including a variety from dismissal from carrier to reduction in pay scale. What is the fee for these forty-eight teachers? Nothing greater than the fact that they were among several members in a peaceful protest towards the administration’s rules organized through the JNU Teachers’ Association (JNUTA) 12 months in the past, on July 31, 2018.
The remedy of an easy protest as rank misconduct which deserves main penalties, is beyond comprehension. Such protests are never uncommon occurrences in universities across India, and lots of teachers at some point, or the opposite, had been individuals in them. However, the complete importance of what’s going on in JNU goes beyond the institution and the banning of protests on the college campus. To ‘punish’ the 48 instructors, the JNU administration has used the Central Civil Services (CCS) Rules – claiming that through their participation in a nonviolent JNUTA protest, the academics violated provisions inside these rules.
It is simply real that the CCS (Conduct) Rules of 1964 restrict the participation of government servants in protest movements of different kinds, even on their service topics. They additionally disallow the participation of presidency servants in political activities and elections, restrict their proper to publicly touch upon authorities rules in writing or inside the media. CCS (Conduct) Rules mandate prior authorities’ approval for publishing any paintings in addition to modifying any periodical and provide the government numerous different powers to decide what government servants might also or may not do. Are all such regulations on the liberty of expression and moves relevant to instructors, and must they be?
In addition to them taking to the streets to press their needs, aren’t lecturers additionally routinely sought out with the aid of the media and other businesses and forums for their professional opinions on several issues, including government guidelines? Aren’t several of them invited to put in writing articles for newspapers and magazines on extraordinary problems? Don’t teachers mechanically author papers and books that have now not been ‘cleared’ by the government?
Don’t they body the curriculums of the guides they teach and define their personal research agendas? Don’t we also have several ministers, MPs, and MLAs who have been university instructors? How did all of this come to be feasible if CCS (Conduct) Rules applied to teachers? More importantly, what does all this inform us about the horrible loss the country’s public and intellectual lifestyles could suffer if university teachers are introduced within the ambit of these regulations? The truth of the problem is that universities, even public ones, are created as independent bodies, and their instructors aren’t authorities servants. Attempts have, but, frequently been made to obliterate this distinction.
Nationwide protests remaining yr towards tries at several locations, along with JNU, to impose CCS Rules and other such restrictions on teachers had brought about the HRD minister to come out with a guarantee that the government had no intention of curbing freedom of expression in universities. Even as a suggestion to convey Delhi University below ESMA turned into scrap, the JNU administration also retreated from its unique position at the applicability of CCS Rules to its teachers, saying in October 2018 that no CCS Rules had been being integrated within the ordinances at the carrier situations of teachers.
Is there, then, a hidden political timetable behind the JNU management’s revival of a remember on which it sat for such a lot of months doing not anything? Is the JNU case supposed to create the precedent via which instructors in all higher education establishments will be robbed of greater of their freedoms? If this fear is misplaced, it may be easily dispelled by the government, making it clear that it doesn’t recommend the JNU management’s movements. Given the probably long way-reaching outcomes of the JNU management’s actions, a central authority now not backing those steps ought to, in reality, feel a few obligations to clarify its position on the matter.
The proponents of the Simulated Universe argument advocate that if it was is possible for us to simulate a universe. It’s far probably that we truly exist inside a simulated universe. Why do they have this belief? Well, proponents of the Simulated Universe argument suppose that if we can construct such a simulation, then we can in all likelihood accomplish that at a while within the destiny, assuming that our human dreams and sensibilities stay plenty the same as they may be now (Bostrom 2001: pg nine).
They then propose that any species that evolves in the simulation will possibly build their own Simulated Universe. We realize that it’s miles feasible for them to do so because they exist, and they’re inner a simulated universe. It is possible to preserve this nesting of universes indefinitely, each universe spawning sensible species that build their very own simulations. Now, given the close to an infinite range of baby universes, we are much more likely to exist in one of the billions of simulations instead of the one-figure universe. This becomes mainly apparent whilst we do not forget the opportunity that within those universes, there may be many worlds with wise existence, all creating their own simulations.