Silencing whistleblowers and conscientious dissenters

The suspension of a lawyer in Kozhikode, Kerala, and a university professor in Mumbai, Maharashtra, for their frank utterances on different issues has seriously undermined the freedom of dissenters to speak out.

 

The fallout of both suspensions are a study in contrasts – while the lawyer was physically attacked by her colleagues, the suspension of the university professor was ‘grudgingly’ revoked after students and lecturers held huge protests, unprecedented for Mumbai University at least, in recent times.

 

In Kozhikode, Kerala, a young lawyer, Anima Muyarath, was suspended for her Facebook post on gender discrimination and on the behavior of male lawyers in teasing their women colleagues and addressing them in familiar terms. The Bar Association, which held a general body meeting, asked Muyarath to apologise but she refused. She was abused and some members even threw chairs at her for her temerity!

 

In Mumbai, a senior econometrics professor of the Department of Economics, Dr Neeraj Hatekar, was suspended for addressing a press conference about mismanagement in the university and for demanding the resignation of the Vice Chancellor Dr Rajan Welukar. Dr Hatekar, convener of a joint action committee for improvement of higher education, had addressed a press conference on December 12, 2013, and reportedly sought the resignation of the Vice Chancellor of the university Dr Rajan Welukar for the mismanagement in the university.

 

Less than a month later, The Vice Chancellor had utilised his emergency powers to suspend the professor on grounds of ‘violating the code of conduct and moral turpitude’.

 

An emergency Managing Committee meeting of the university, which deliberated on the issue for a marathon 11 hours on Saturday afternoon (the meeting ended at 3a.m., Sunday), decided that, while the committee approved of the action of the Vice Chancellor in suspending the professor, it was revoked keeping in view the public pressure and the interests of the students!

 

The suspensions are, of course, direct punitive actions by those in authority to make their subordinates toe the line. But they also expose the pathological inability of those in the firing line to either deal with the truth or engage with the allegations leveled against them. While those in authority dig out rules and codes of conduct for their members and their employees to defend their action, it still leaves much of the rights of the latter to speak out, unanswered.

 

Clearly, the suspension was highly irregular and did not follow due procedure. He was not issued a show-cause notice, much less asked for an explanation. Press releases from the joint action committee had been circulated much before the press conference and after, but elicited no reaction.

 

The University’s code of conduct for its teaching staff was also clear: that they must not indulge in any activity that was political, commercial or religious in nature. Nowhere does it explicitly prohibit them from talking to the media or interacting with it.

 

In fact, Dr Hatekar said, the code of conduct says teachers will have freedom of expression and beliefs! It defines ‘moral turpitude’ as anything that violates the code of conduct and any conduct ‘unbecoming of a teacher’. It was a teachers’s duty to speak of university mismanagement and irregularities, he felt.

 

The issue of course quickly snowballed into a major controversy with students’ organisations coming out in support of the professor. The latter held classes outside the university’s gates and students, organized under the banner of the University Community for Democracy and Equality (UCDE) have demanded the suspension be lifted.

 

The Governor or Maharashtra and Chancellor of Mumbai University also spoke out seeking an early resolution of the matter.

 

The head of the Shiv Sena’s youth wing, Aditya Thackeray, also batted for free speech and supported the suspended professor. Ironically, the young Shiv Sena leader had twisted the Vice Chancellor’s arm ever so slightly to get him to withdraw Rohinton Mistry’s book ‘Such a long journey’ from the syllabus for Mumbai University’s undergraduate English course in 2010.  But that’s another story!

 

 

But the big question still remains: do members of associations or employees have a duty to remain silent on injustice or on wrongdoings? Are there forums within these organisations or associations that have been set up to address issues members may have? If the forums don’t exist or fail to redress grievances, where do people go for relief?

 

These incidents bring to the fore the vulnerability of whistleblowers and conscientious dissenters. The legislation protecting whistleblowers (The Whistle Blowers Protection Bill, 2011), more than keenly felt with the killings of engineers Satyendra Dubey and Manjunath and the attacks and killings of anti-mining or RTI  activists, is yet to get Parliament’s approval.

 

At least journalists have some recognition of their options as ‘conscientious dissenters’ at the workplace. The Working Journalists Act does have a clause (Sec 5 (1) (c)) protecting the gratuity rights of journalists who resign on grounds of conscience. However, fewer journalists are governed by the act as contract employment increases in this sector.

 

But what of all those who speak out when they are in service or who belong to groups or associations? They are governed by various norms essentially that they must not bring their organisations into disrepute, but this has a chilling effect when dissenters raise important issues.

 

And if they speak up, must they be penalized on grounds of ‘moral’ turpitude? Wouldn’t it be morally wrong to remain silent?