48 SOCIAL SCIENTIST
look upon the university as the government's 'Think Tank\
More sinister is the gradual absorption into JNU of defence institutions. In the last two \ears the National Defence Academy, Khadak-vasia and the Army C^det College, Poona have bew ^reco^nized' by JNU for the purpose of awarding degrees. There is still a proposal pending to affiliate Defence Research Laboratories with JNU. The most disturbing aspect of this relationship is that with no worthwhile academic or administrative control it is being u^ed merely as a means of strengthening these establishments without refashioning them on democratic lines. The link-up becomes clearer when we consider the background of the present vice-chancellor who assumed office in July 1974: a former director-general of the Research and Development Organisation of the Ministry of Defence,4 he is head of the Indian Academy of the Indo-US Joint Sub-commission on Science and Technology which was set up as a sequel to the Kissihger visit.5 < 1 f ^
Past Struggles
The SFI unit and the union, taking all tins into^ccount, have in
the past four years worked out an all-embracing strategy which combines , » « , ., i. ^ ^ 4 l(:n ." ^ ^q6"r ^ ^ . ^ the task of building a powerful democratic student, movement on the
. , , ,° . * , . , <, .^..J/g^ ^S' ^j campus with challenging the bourgeois-landlord policies in, mgher education embodied in the whole philosophy underlying the JNU jspwture. It began with the struggle to broaden the social base of the university by getting more studenta admitted from exploited socio-econonuc backgrounds so that the resources are not spent only on a tiny minority drawn from Delhi's bureaucratic-upper classes. In fact, they dominated? the admissions in 1971, but by the struggles of the union in 1972-73, an admission polxcy was worked out (the basic formula having been drawn up by the 8F1 leadership in the union) which ensures wcightages for stjudents from poorer backgrounds andT backward regions. In this connection, the union faced stiff opposition from many members of the faculty on the question ofstu4ent"to-staff ratio which had to be raised.6 The final touch was given 10 this policy in 1974 when the Academic Council approved the union president's resolution for reservation of 20 per cent seats for students from the scheduled castes and tribes.7 It is only the determined and persistent struggle of the SFI through the union which led to an admission policy which docs not Stress on abstract merit as they still do in similar institutions.
The SFI and the union have ^ISQ concerned themselves wUh providing the economic framework to sustain this new pattern of admissions. The union has taken a firm stand that JNU does not require additional financial resources: what is required is a more equitable allocation of resources within the university. For instance, to provide for a student with a parental income below Rs 500, the union demanded reduced room rent, p^onthly mess rate at Rs 100 and abolition of tuition fees for schol^rsjbiipbqlders, All three were accomplished last year $o that on a R^ 1 W monthly scholarship an MA student would have just enough for board and lodging.8