LIBERALIZATION FROM DOGMATISM

With the inclusion of American based teaching methodology in the form of setting up of independent schools (Dartmouth College v. Woodward, 17 U.S. 518 (1819); where the court affirmed that that state charters establishing private schools and colleges were essentially inviolate. Charters, said the court, were contracts, protected by the Constitution, and could not be unilaterally dissolved by the state. Thus, the independence and freedom of action of non-governmental schools were guaranteed) Teaching law, into a country as India where historically legal education in India was open only to graduates and seen merely as professional training had its own inadequacies. Dismayed at the quality of legal education in conventional universities, several members of the legal fraternity debated for a new system of legal education throughout the 1970s and 1980s, set up as a "pace-setter and a testing ground for bold experiments in legal education". NLSIU, often called the "Harvard of the East" has been rated as the best law school in India (9 out of past 10 years by India Today). Currently modern teaching aids, infrastructural facilities, a well stocked library, a holistic approach to teaching, promise a better tomorrow for the entire legal system. What came as an institutional response to keep abreast with this trend setter is the requirement for autonomy and a renewed demand for a deemed university status. Although I personally agree with the fact that while law is taught in colleges as a discipline the objective ought to be to encourage the student to capitalize his/her ability to think and react originally, in depth and diversity without there being a hint of how he/she would respond to questions posed by the court in the future if he/she were to decide to take up practice of law in courts. Starkly most students in non-NLSIU pathway, keep a marginal view to participate and perform in academic activity. Although workshops, seminars and guest lectures are part of the prescribed methodology, there are hardly few takers on competitive grounds. Discussing this trend amongst law students I get a disappointing response that most believe that law is different from what is practiced in the courts to what is taught in the class. We regularly discuss about privatization, liberalization and globalization without pondering about whether our minds have begun to think and react liberally and competitively, much more, have we been encouraged by our resourceful faculty to take that next step? Facilitating such surge towards excellence is the unsung hero, and the observation of the Apex Court in the case of Avinash Nagra v. Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti etc (CDJ 1996 SC) rings a bell somewhere “...our society has elevated the teacher as `Guru Brahma, Gurur Vishnu Guru Devo Maheswarara'. As Brahma, the teacher creates knowledge, learning, wisdom and also creates out of his students, men and women, equipped with ability and knowledge, discipline and intellectualism to enable them to face the challenges of their lives. As Vishnu, the teacher is preserver of learning. As Maheswara, he destroys ignorance”. We hardly seem to consider whether we are built to handle the responsibility that liberalization, globalization and privatization brings within its fold to an area that would enable us to conquer new heights or perhaps eke out a living. The question ought not to be whether liberalizing professional education for a global requirement provides an answer but whether we are prepared to liberalize our approach in light of a global requirement to bring in competitiveness, creativity and challenge to archaic ideas, teaching methodology and career skills in furtherance of our commitment to achieve new horizons. Perhaps we need to look back at our roots to begin with rather than look forward with no sense of identity or individuality.

Zul Kafeel
mail your comments to zkadvitam@gmail.com