36 SOCIAL SCIENTIST Alagh of the Planning Commission, who was to speak on 'Education and Development stated that since he was not the education person on the Planning Commission, he did not feel competent to discuss the topic fully. As a result, his lecture explored agriculture and development, but for the rest was a series of truisms about illiteracy as related to underde-velopment. Similarly, the Professor from the Deptt. of Psychology, D.U. was to speak on 'Coming to the University: A way of Life'. He confessed the topic conveyed little to him and did not deliver a lecture at all, inviting questions from participants instead. This led to a totally unstructured and fruitless discussion which certainly 'utilized the time', but did little else. Topics should have been chosen keeping in mind the specialization of the resource people. 4. There was a clearly authoritarian undercurrent beneath the professed democratic facade which 'encouraged dissent'. 4.1 This emerged most clearly with the UGC officials, who spoke to us on Role of Govt. and UGC. They refused to answer some questions on the grounds that they were too general and others on the grounds that they were too specific. Any other anomalies in the system that were neither general nor specific they were willing to resolve, they assured us, but, for the fact that they had 'Other pressing agendas' Evidently then, it was not for the teachers to question the contradictions, compulsions and motivations behind UGC's actions. In fact, the UGC officials said in so many words that we were to function within the system and not question it, as it has been authorized by the Government of India. 4.2 We were to evaluate each lecture using a proforma given to us by CPDHE. There were three given categories - Very Good, Good and Fairly Well.2 When we pointed out that xnany lectures needed to be placed in far less flattering categories, we were told that as the resource people were eminent guests of CPDHE, diplomatic language must be used. We were also expected to write our names and sign on the proforma. If the purpose was to obtain honest appraisals, the normal practice is to ensure anonymity. Furthermore, there was a rumour in the group that we were expected not to note any speaker as 'Fairly Well'. We do not know how this rumour arose, but the fact that it was current at all points to the kind of atmosphere in^which teachers of Delhi University function. 4.3 The rapporteurs for the different sessions were told that their job was to do 'factual reporting', they were not to be critical in their report.