Policing Morality at AMU: An Independent Fact Finding Report

[Guest guest]

Policing Morality at AMU: An Independent Fact Finding Report*

*March, 2010 *

*Introduction*

On 09.02.2010, newspapers widely reported the story of Dr. Ramchandra

Shrinivas Siras a 64 year old Reader & Chairman, Department of Modern Indian

Languages, Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) being filmed having consensual

sex with another adult male and subsequently suspended by AMU, a Central

University. The implications of the suspension both in terms of the

perception of homosexuality as immoral despite the judgment of the Delhi

High Court as well as the disturbing nature of the occurrence of the filming

of Dr. Siras in the privacy of his home prompted a nationwide outrage.

It was this seemingly blatant violation of the fundamental rights of privacy

and dignity granted to all citizens of the country which prompted a Fact

Finding Team (referred to as Team in this report) consisting of the

following individuals to visit Aligarh on 3th and 4th March 2010 to probe

this incident. The Team consisted of:

1) Arvind Narrain, Alternative Law Forum (ALF), Bangalore

2) Avantika Srivastava, Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives

(AALI), Lucknow

3) Deepti Sharma, Saheli Women's Resource Centre, New Delhi

4) Ghazala Rizvi, Association for Advocacy and Legal Initiatives (AALI),

Lucknow

5) Sunil Gupta, Activist, New Delhi

The Team visited Aligarh to meet Dr. Siras to know his side of the story,

to meet Aligarh Muslim University (referred to as AMU in this Report)

authorities to try and make sense of what prompted this very harsh and

extreme response and lastly to meet some AMU professors, students and local

activists to get an insight into these troubling developments in AMU.

*Contents*

Meeting with Dr. Siras

Meeting with AMU Authorities

Opinion of AMU Faculty

AMU Students' Opinion

Interaction with the Journalist

The FIR Saga

Conclusion and Findings

Our Demands

Annex 1: Links to various press articles

Annex 2: EPW Editorial

Annex 3: Statement of academics

*1. Meeting with Dr. Siras*

Dr. Siras immediately agreed to meet the Team at the AMU campus. He

apologised for not being able to invite us to his home, his second home in

one week, after he was unceremoniously thrown out of his university

accommodation. Dr. Siras informed us that he has been working in AMU since

March 1988 (22 years) and is due to retire in September 2010.

Narrating the events of that day (08.02.10), Dr. Siras informed the Team

that a friend (a legal adult) with whom he was having an intimate

relationship and who is a rickshaw driver, came to his residence at 6.30 pm.

After the arrival of the friend, Dr. Siras sat in the drawing room and

chatted for some time and then they went into the bedroom.

Unknown to Dr. Siras, three people had already entered his flat (at some

point during the evening) and then proceeded to pounce on both of them with

cameras in their hands and threatened to take pictures of both of them in

that `condition'. According to Dr. Siras, while the intruders permitted his

friend to get dressed and leave, they refused to allow him to even wear his

clothes. These intruders further threatened him, forcing him to remain

undressed and coerced him into standing in various positions and took

pictures. They said, * " Ruko, hum press se hain aur hum tumhe shoot karne

wale hai " * meaning * " Stop, we are from the press and we are going to film

you " .* After some time when they allowed Dr. Siras to wear his clothes, he

asked them why were they doing this? One of the persons said, * " We have

complaints from the people/residents about your homosexual attitude and that

you are indulging in homosexual activities in University colony/premises. We

are now going to print this " . *One of the persons told him that they were

all from the press and they had heard from the residents of that area that

Dr. Siras was gay and hence they were going to publish all the pictures.

Just as Dr. Siras was pleading with the three persons not to publish the

pictures some of the professors from AMU including Dr. Zubair Khan

(Proctor), Dr. Fareed Ahmad Khan (Dy. Proctor), Dr. Rahat Abrar (PRO), Prof.

N.A.K. Durrani (Media Advisor), Dr. Afzal Anees (Reader) entered his flat.

Out of these only Dr. Afzal Anees had came over on the request of Dr. Siras

as he was not feeling well. Dr. Siras was shocked to see his colleagues in

his flat as he had never called for any help or invited any of the

professors to his house that day.

The person claiming to be from the media told Dr. Siras that if he admits in

front of the Proctor that he was having homosexual sex, then they will

delete the recording. Dr. Siras immediately apologised and the Proctor told

him to not to worry and that nothing will happen on this matter. Thereafter

the professors of the University and intruders surreptiously talked for some

time in another room and then they all left the house giving Dr. Siras the

impression that the matter was over.

Dr. Siras was under the impression that the matter would end there, but was

mistaken. The next day, 09.02.10, he was shocked to see the 'incident'

reported in many newspapers. He was also shocked when that very day he was

served with a suspension notice under Section 40 (3) © of the Aligarh

Muslim University Act, 1920 and also ordered not to leave Aligarh without

obtaining the permission of Prof. PK Abdul Azis, the Vice Chancellor of AMU.

On the same day, he was also issued a memo ordering him to vacate the

University Quarters occupied by him within a week. The following day

(10.02.10) Prof. Shaik Mastan was appointed as Chairman, Department of

Modern Indian Languages for the duration of suspension of Dr. Siras. Though

Dr. Siras requested on humanitarian grounds a month's relaxation of the time

period to allow him to search for a new house, the University was

unrelenting. On 13.02.10, the University forced Dr. Siras out of his

University accommodation by instructing its Electrical Engineer to depute

staff to remove the meter and fans and to check the electrical fittings of

the house.

Following this notice, Dr Siras was left with no option but to move out.

When he moved out to another place, he was asked to vacate the same as the

owners were uncomfortable with the 'reputation' Dr Siras had attained. It

was only when he shifted to another place that Dr Siras was able to solve

his travails with respect to accommodation.

On 24.02.10, the University served Dr. Siras with a chargesheet with the

formal charge against him being that Dr. Siras * " has committed act of

misconduct in as much as he indulged himself into immoral sexual activity

and in contravention of basic moral ethics while residing in Quarter No.

21-C, Medical College, AMU, Aligarh thereby undermined pious image of the

teacher community and as a whole tarnishing the image of the University " .*

It was only when the University served Dr. Siras with a chargesheet

(24.02.10) that he came to know the names of the journalists who were part

of the sting operation: Mr. Syed Adil Murtaza of TV 100 and Mr. Ashu Misam

of Voice of Nation T.V. Channel. Both these journalists are listed as

witnesses in the chargesheet but there is no mention of the third person.

The chargesheet version of the narrative is that, when the Public Relations

Officer and the Proctor were having dinner in the University Guest House No.

1, the Deputy Proctor informed them that * " some media persons are making

some kind of film " * in the quarters occupied by Dr. Siras. On receiving this

'complaint', the three of them rushed to Dr. Siras's premises where they

found him * " wearing pajama and shirt and begging for forgiveness from the

media persons. Since they were not aware of the business which was going on

in that house, the Media persons were taken in another room and they were

informed by them of the incident which took place there " .* The University

authorities then saw the video clipping of Dr. Siras * " who was shown in bare

clothes and was indulged in an act of homosexuality with a rickshaw puller " .

*

*2. Meeting with AMU Authorities*

When the Team met with Dr. Rahat Abrar, Public Relations Officer (PRO), he

reiterated the position of the University. In the opinion of the PRO,

homosexuality even in the privacy of the home is immoral. He said that this

133 year old institution has its moral values and they must uphold them. He

was very proud to inform us that one cannot go in kurta pyjama to classes or

wear chappals and that women dress in a decent manner and that there are

several kilometres separating the boys and the girls hostel. This according

to the PRO was the `culture and tradition' that they are proud to uphold.

The PRO also did not seem to feel that public opinion would adversely affect

the AMU as there were AMU students in 92 countries around the world and

everybody knew that they were standing up for `moral values'. The Team

informed the PRO that there is a statement of academics from all over the

country that condemned the action of AMU but he stated that if there were

petitions to reinstate Dr. Siras, there were also a petition with over 800

signatures asking for Dr. Siras to be punished. However he could not provide

us with more details about the said petition.

He informed us that this is the first time someone has been suspended on

grounds of homosexuality - a moral issue for the university. The PRO also

said that after Dr. Siras responds to the chargesheet and if the University

is satisfied with his response, the matter would be closed. And if not an

inquiry would be set up as per the University procedures. However the PRO

was not able to provide the Team with the procedures under which the inquiry

would be set up despite being requested for the same.

All efforts to meet the Vice Chancellor, PK Abdul Azis failed as he was out

of Aligarh.

The Team also contacted other officials of the University including the

Proctor Dr. Zubair Khan and the Dy. Proctor Dr. Fareed Ahmad Khan. The Team

finally managed to talk to the Dy. Proctor over the phone. He reiterated the

position of the University and said that the 'principles of natural justice

of AMU' will prevail!

*Opinion of AMU Faculty*

While the AMU administration was unrelenting in its desire to take all forms

of action against Dr. Siras, there were voices in the faculty who were

supportive of Dr. Siras. It was clear that a majority of the Faculty did not

wish to take a stand or get involved in the Dr. Siras `incident'. However,

according to media reports, the Secretary of the AMU Teachers Association,

Jamshed Siddiqui has been quoted as saying that, " We are sending a letter to

the vice chancellor highlighting the fact that the entire issue involves a

gross infringement into the private life of a senior university teacher. "

There were however a few faculty members who did come out in his support.

*Summary of meeting with Dr. Tariq Islam, Professor of Philosophy and Dr.

Mohammed Naved Khan, Department of Business Administration, AMU.*

Dr. Islam and Dr. Khan are also Right to Information (RTI) activists.

In their opinion, the silent majority on campus is hostile towards the

action of the VC as it is clearly a violation of Dr. Siras's right to

privacy. Dr. Islam and Dr. Khan were also of the strong opinion that the TV

crew was in cahoots with the University administration as no TV crew would

dare enter the premises of a faculty member if they didn't have a go ahead

from the University Authorities. They also indicated that this is a tactic

of the VC to divert attention from the negative publicity he has been

receiving following the recent inquiry that has been ordered by President of

India, Pratibha Patil, after instances of financial bungling and

mismanagement came to light. The list of charges against the VC include

spending close to two crore in refurbishing the VC's residence, improper

claims of travelling allowances and adoption of improper tendering

practices.

Dr. Islam also noted that the core issue with respect to the incident

involving Dr. Siras was one of privacy. As Dr. Islam put it, if one takes

the argument of privacy seriously, there is no space within Islamic

traditions for intrusion into the private sphere. By way of illustration, he

quoted the example of the Second Caliph who when informed of certain

strange sexual activities decided to intervene and caught the persons red

handed. Once the person said that you have intruded on my privacy, Caliph

apologised and left. The episode demonstrates how key the issue of

privacy is to Islam and that it is wrong to see the Dr. Siras episode as a

debate between homosexuality and Islam.

Dr. Islam was also of the opinion that a University should be a place of

learning, free thought and dissent. The idea of tolerance that any place of

learning must inculcate means that you tolerate what is not acceptable to

you. He said that it is very problematic that the University has made this

chargesheet on the basis of `morality' and that they are using (and have

been using) the phrase 'morality' to stifle free speech on campus.

Dr. Islam and Dr. Khan informed us that on a specific RTI application asking

the University to state what exactly is covered under `misconduct', the

University refused to lay down anything specific thereby having the latitude

of using the term `misconduct' as and when it pleases them and against

whoever/whatever they find threatening.

*Summary of meeting with Prof. Jaya Menon, Associate Professor in the

Department of History, AMU*

Prof. Menon informed the Team she was against the actions of the VC that

have lead to victimisation of Dr. Siras. She said that whatever has happened

is a violation of his privacy and an attack on his democratic rights.

Prof. Menon was also of the opinion that this is a tactic of the VC to

divert attention from the recent inquiry that President Patil has ordered.

She said that many faculty members and students are not in favour of the

decision taken by the VC but are afraid to speak up for fear of

consequences. Prof. Menon told the Team that she may also face some

consequences for talking to this Team but felt strongly that its important

to speak up and not let someone's democratic rights be trampled upon in this

manner.

The Team also met with two other senior professors of AMU who spoke to us on

condition of anonymity. They were appalled by what Dr. Siras is being put

through. They said that over the last few years there has been a systematic

quelling of voices of dissent and an attempt to curb debate on campus. This

has created a situation where faculty and students have stopped protesting

fearing the reaction of the authorities. They also felt that the University

found an `easy victim' in Dr. Siras and this was a conspiracy of the

University to divert attention from the negative publicity it has been

receiving because of the recent inquiry ordered by President of India.

*4. AMU Students' Opinion*

The Team visited the university campus and had discussions with students of

various departments including political science, history, commerce and

statistics. The general mood of the campus seemed to be that the students

were not in support of homosexuality but they were of the opinion that

privacy of any person was a Constitutional right. Hence they came down quite

heavily on the role that the media played in the case of Dr. Siras.

The Team noticed that when they spoke to students individually, they came

out very vocally against the actions of the VC and felt that Dr. Siras's

privacy had been violated. But when in a group, they defended the decision

of the VC and criticized the conduct of Dr. Siras as they felt that teachers

are role models and should not be involved in such activities and also

correlated the issue of homosexuality with Islam in which according to the

students it is strictly prohibited.

The Team felt that the students, when in a group setting, were supporting

the decision of the VC for (possibly) fear of being singled out by their

peers.

However there were isolated and courageous dissenters from the status quo.

According to one final year law student, who the Team spoke to individually,

AMU is a Central University and is not mandated to be an Islamic university;

and that we did not live in a theocratic but rather in a democratic state.

Hence what Dr. Siras did in the privacy of his home was his business. He

also felt that the given the homophobic atmosphere in the University, it is

no surprise that he has never met anybody who was openly gay on campus.

He said that there are many steps that the authorities have taken that make

this a campus devoid of political expression. He informed the Team that the

students had received a notification from the University authorities

prohibiting distribution of pamphlets and formation of any groups. He felt

that the challenge was on how to talk about various issues without

necessarily linking them to religion but rather discuss them in the

framework of democratic rights. He expressed that the university has been

`using' Islam cynically to clamp down on anything which the authorities find

difficult to tolerate.

*5.Interaction with the Journalist *

The Team made several attempts to talk to Mr. Syed Adil Murtaza, the

journalist from TV 100, who was a part of the sting operation. Mr. Murtaza

was very reluctant to meet the Team but finally did talk to us over the

phone. To the pointed question on how he knew that something was happening

in Dr. Siras's house on that particular night, he replied that he was

informed by a source and that he was not at liberty to disclose. To the

question as to how come, he without authorisation filmed Dr. Siras in his

house, he replied that he did it because he knew that the University would

approve of this action. The phone conversation with Mr. Murtaza had to be

cut short because he certainly didn't like the nature of the questions and

became very aggressive towards the Team.

*6.The FIR Saga*

On 3rd and 4th March, 2009, Dr. Siras went repeatedly to the Civil Lines

police station to try to file an FIR to report about the various offences

which were committed against him including criminal intimidation, assault,

trespass and wrongful confinement. The Sections of the Indian Penal Code

(IPC) under which Dr. Siras made out an offence against him were Secs 347,

352, 355, 452, 454, 455, 457,458, 506, of the IPC read with 34 (common

intention)and 120B (conspiracy ) of the IPC. Prof Siras names three unknown

persons with a physical description and mentions that he would be able to

identify them, if he saw them. He also names four professors of the AMU as

having perpetrated the offences against him. . The four professors who are

named by Prof Siras are

1) Prof. Zubair Khan, Proctor, AMU, Aligarh

2) Dr. Fareed Ahmad Khan, the Dy. Proctor

3)Dr. Rahat Abrar, the PRO

4)Prof. N.A.K. Durrani, Media Advisor

On 3rd March, 2009, he was sent back because the said FIR was in English

language and the police would only register an FIR in Hindi. The next day

when he returned with a Hindi translation of the same, he was sent back

again saying he should personally give it to Mr. Vijay Prakash, Senior

Superintendent of Police (SSP), Aligarh, in the evening. That evening

(04.03.10) he went to meet the SSP and was accompanied by Team members to

provide him with support to file the FIR. Upon reaching the residence/office

of the SSP, the Team noticed that the SSP's staff was busy gearing up for a

Holi function that same evening. The presence of this Team on such an

occasion did seem to dampen their mood.

We requested the very hostile Personal Assistant (PA) of the SSP for a

meeting and waited for a while. The PA finally informed us that the SSP is

very busy and we should come the next day. When we insisted, he told us that

we can meet Mr. M.S. Chauhan, SP City, Aligarh, who was going to arrive

soon. We did meet the SP City, who looked at the FIR application and told us

that it cannot be registered at this point because Dr. Siras has named some

very prominent figures in AMU. He offered to accept the application but said

that only after this matter has been further investigated will Dr. Siras be

able to register an FIR. We informed the SP City that every citizen has a

right to register an FIR and to this his response was " *kal tum log District

Magistrate ke khilaf FIR karoge; aisa thodi na hota hai " * meaning * " tomorrow

you people will go do an FIR against the District Magistrate and that will

not be acceptable " .*

As the Team refused to leave, the SSP had no option but to show up. He began

by shouting at us saying * " ahbi isi waqt yeh FIR kyun karni hai, kya aasman

sirr pe gir pada hai? " meaning " has the sky fallen on your head that you

have to do this FIR right now? " *. The SSP too refused to file an FIR and

asked us to come to his office the next day. As soon as he left, we were

surrounded by media people who started hounding us while the staff of the

SSP just looked on. The Team cannot help but think that someone from the

SSP's staff informed the media about our presence, to harass and to chase us

out.

Finally the SP City intervened and assured the Team that the FIR would be

registered immediately. We demanded that someone from the SSP office should

accompany us with clear instructions to ensure that the FIR is registered

immediately, we were assured that this will be the case.

The Team and Dr. Siras soon reached the Civil Lines police station and the

process of registering the FIR started immediately. Mr. Singh, the police

person in charge on duty told us that it will take several hours for this

long FIR (in Hindi) to get typed and we can come next day early in the

morning to collect a copy. He repeatedly assured us that it will be

certainly ready by morning.

That night (04.03.10), the team left Aligarh. Next day (05.03.10), Dr. Siras

informed the Team that the police have refused to file his FIR. A Team

member called Mr. Singh at the Civil Lines police station and was informed

that there is pressure from `the top' to not register this FIR. Attempts

were made to contact both the SSP and the SP City – SSP refused to talk

about this and SP City was apparently too busy to talk.

The update from Dr. Siras as on 09.03.2010 is that the FIR has still not

been registered.

It is shocking that the police have refused to perform their basic

constitutional duty of filing an FIR upon the receipt of a complaint which

discloses the commission of a cognizable offence. This dereliction of duty

has serious implications not just for Dr. Siras but for the notion that the

law applies equally to all. The AMU authorities, cannot be exempt from the

law merely because they occupy a position of power in Aligarh.

*7.Conclusion and Findings*

After speaking to Dr. Siras, University authorities, students and faculty as

well as other concerned persons, the Team came to the following conclusions:

*How did it happen? *

The way Dr. Siras's case has unfolded in the media and the subsequent

harassment that he has faced at the hands of the AMU authorities, points an

unerring finger at the complicity of the University authorities in the

various illegal actions taken against Dr. Siras. It is clear from the

conversation with the journalist that he would never have dared to do a

sting operation in the university premises without a go ahead from the AMU

authorities.

A suspension order has been served on Dr. Siras not on the basis of any

complaint by any party, but rather seems to be a case of *suo motu* action

taken by the University authorities because it * " is unbecoming on the part

of a teacher of the University, thereby, he undermined pious image of the

teacher community and as a whole tarnished the image of the

University. " *However the university authorities have shown a complete

disregard for the

reputation of the university going by their reckless action in being the

first ones to issue a press statement outlining the `offence' of Dr. Siras

as well as stating the `moral action' taken by the University. This action

of converting what should have been an internal affair into a public issue

points to the role of the University authorities in trying to drum up

support for its actions and to silence and shame Dr. Siras.

While the University authorities themselves might have had little skill in

doing the investigative work necessary to actually carry out the operation,

the *modus operandi* points to the role of the Local Intelligence Unit (LIU)

of the AMU: the logistical details would not have been possible without

'intelligence' as well as 'monitoring' of Dr. Siras. And this is possibly

where the Local Intelligence Unit (LIU) of the AMU came into the picture. A

Right to Information application filed by RTI activists had disclosed that

there was a LIU on campus under the direct control of the Proctor. According

to the response to the RTI filed * " LIU is a unit of the proctor office, AMU.

Its aim and objectives are to collect information which helps take

preventive measures in maintaining Law and Order in the University campus.

The reports provided by the LIU Unit are accepted by the AMU authority. No

record or document is available in the Proctor office showing that the

reports of this LIU Unit are accepted or not by the Court of Law " . *The

response further states that neither the University Grants Commission (UGC)

nor the Ministry of Human Resource Development (HRD) have been informed by

the Proctor Office about the existence of these plainclothes sleuths on AMU

campus. It is very clear that that the LIU functions as an extra

constitutional body which monitors all forms of dissent on campus and also

acts as the moral policing wing of the University.

In the opinion of many activists the logistical details of `Operation Siras'

clearly means that the LIU was definitely involved. AMU is possibly the

first University which has so openly taken over the functions of the State

through the constitution of a body to ensure law and order on campus and

gather intelligence. If it does come out that the operation was indeed

carried out by the LIU, then there is a lot that the university will have to

answer for; because this puts a serious question mark over the right to

privacy and dignity of other students and professors residing in the AMU

campus.

AMU authorities should explain how come they `landed up' at Dr. Siras's

house that night? Why didn't they report the journalists to the police?

Lastly, why did they make an internal university matter known publicly by

being the first ones to inform the press?

One should also note the patently illegal action of the AMU authorities in

forcing Dr. Siras out of his official accommodation. This amounts to a

punishment before inquiry and is thereby violative of the principles of

natural justice as well as Dr. Siras's fundamental right to shelter.

*Why did it happen? *

What is apparent from the actions of the university authorities is that for

the first time in the history of AMU the issue of homosexuality has been

widely publicised as a `misconduct' by the authorities. The Authorities by

being the first ones to issue a press statement have deliberately called

attention to an internal university matter thereby fanning a public outcry

and debate. There are two ways in which one can explain the seemingly

inexplicable and vindictive actions of the University authorities.

The immediate provocation might have been the fact that the Vice Chancellor

was coming under enormous pressure due to the inquiry set up by the

President of India after instances of financial bungling and mismanagement

came to light. The Principal Auditor General of UP in a dispatch noted that

* " There is a complete collapse of financial management and the VC and

Registrar. Instead of stopping this frequent financial irregularity, they

themselves became part of it " *. The reason for this operation might be

linked to taking the spotlight away from the VC following negative press

publicity; and Dr. Siras served as a convenient scapegoat to divert

attention.

When one asks the question as to why did this happen, one cannot ignore the

context and history of the AMU. From the Teams interactions it was quite

clear that moral policing at the AMU was not something completely new.

In another shocking incident in January 2010 a research scholar, Irfan Khan

who was in a consensual relationship with Asma Firdous was suspended from

the University on the grounds of `moral turpitude, intimidation and

assault'. The crime of Irfan Khan and Asma Firdous, both legal adults, was

to fall in love and get married without the consent of their parents. Asma

Firdous's parents had filed an FIR of kidnapping against Irfan Khan. Though

Irfan Khan and Asma Firdous had got married a day before the filing of the

FIR, the university authorities choose to go ahead and suspend him. Mr. Khan

and his wife went to the Allahabad High Court who subsequently ruled that

both Irfan Khan and his wife had married out of free will. Despite ample

legal evidence of a valid and consensual relationship, the AMU authorities

have refused to withdraw the suspension of Irfan Khan. The only reason for

his suspension discernible is that as per the AMU authorities marrying

someone out of one's own free will against parental consent amounts to moral

turpitude and violates the moral code set up by the AMU authorities.

Therefore there is nothing surprising in the actions of the AMU authorities

as they have converted the University campus into an unwholesome place which

is not conducive to issues of personal freedom, intellectual thought and

development of student personalities. There is a feeling of terror and

intimidation on the campus which inhibits normal campus life. Institutions

vital to campus life such as student unions as well as any democratic bodies

for the expression of opinion have been prohibited. The constitutional

freedoms of right to expression and association under Article 19 as well as

the right to live with dignity under Article 21 have been given the go by.

By taking action against Dr. Siras, the university authorities seek to

bolster their own conservative credentials as upholders of a certain

morality. By deliberating raking up and fanning the issue of homosexuality,

the AMU authorities refurbish their credentials as `pious teachers' even if

it be at the cost of the basic human rights of its faculty. If there is a

side benefit in diverting attention away from serious allegations of

corruption and mismanagement of funds, its an added bonus, which the AMU

authorities seem happy to reap.

*Is the notion of privacy so hard to get ?*

The debate on the Dr. Siras affair has been sought to be polarized into

those who are in favour of homosexuality and those who are not. However the

underlying issue is really one of various illegal actions perpetrated by the

University Authorities whereby they deprived their own faculty of the basic

right to be free of intrusion in the sphere of his home and nurture his

beliefs, thoughts, emotions and sensations without interference. The Supreme

Court has held in a series of decisions that the right to privacy is

integrally linked to the notion of autonomy and the right to live with

dignity. It is this most fundamental of Constitutional safeguards that the

AMU authorities have colluded in negating by being complicit in the sting

operation and subsequently suspending Dr. Siras. In a press release by the

PRO, the AMU authorities show that they still do not understand the nature

of the constitutional safeguard of privacy. The Press release states that * " the

University respects the privacy of a teacher living in its premises but it

also expects everyone to behave in a respectful manner giving due regard to

its valued cultural ethos and the campus sensitivity including their

neighbours concerns and to the great moral credentials that AMU has been

nurturing since its inception " .*

In July 2009, the Delhi High Court (in Naz Foundation vs. Union of India

judgment) read down Sec 377 of the IPC stating " W*e declare that Section 377

IPC, insofar it criminalises consensual sexual acts of adults in private, is

violative of Articles 21, 14 and 15 of the Constitution " . *The judgment also

emphasised* *this question of moral indignation which the Delhi High Court

has held cannot become an altar at which an individual is expected to

sacrifice his right to privacy and dignity. The Court observed, * " Moral

indignation however strong, is not a valid basis for overriding an

individual's fundamental right to dignity and privacy. In our scheme of

things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public

morality even if it be the majority view " .*

The constitutional guarantees of privacy, autonomy and dignity form part of

what the Delhi High Court described as 'constitutional morality' and these

guarantees are so basic to the very meaning of what it means to be human

that they cannot be violated on grounds of what the AMU calls 'moral

credentials' . The AMU by its actions against Dr. Siras shreds the very

fabric of the Indian constitutional order's promise of equality, dignity and

privacy.

*However, contrary to what the AMU authorities had hoped for, Dr. Siras

refuses to fade into the background. He feels strengthened by the support

and solidarity as well as the positive media coverage he has received in

these last few weeks and is ready to fight for justice. *

*8. Our Demands*

*- To Justice A.M. Ahmadi, Chancellor, and PK Abdul Azis, Vice Chancellor,

Aligarh Muslim University, Aligarh:*

1.

Dr. Siras's suspension order should be unconditionally withdrawn and he

should be reinstated with full benefits.

2.

Dr. Siras should be permitted to reoccupy the University premises he was

occupying prior to his illegal eviction.

3.

AMU should compensate Dr. Siras for mental distress and damage to his

reputation.

4.

AMU should take measures to ensure that Dr. Siras is not further

harassed.

5.

AMU should ensure that in future `morality' is not used as a ground for

restricting the fundamental right to dignity, privacy and autonomy of any

individual.

*- To **Karamvir Singh, **Director General of Police, Uttar Pradesh *

1.

Ensure that Mr. Singh, Inspector, Civil Lines Police Station, Aligarh,

does register an FIR on the basis of the complaint by Dr. Siras.

2.

Take action against Mr. Vijay Prakash, SSP Aligarh and M.S Chauhan, SP

City Aligarh for not performing their duty of registering the FIR upon

receiving a complaint about the commission of a cognizable offence by Dr.

Siras.

3.

Take action against journalists Mr. Syed Adil Murtaza (TV 100) and Mr.

Ashu Misam (Voice of Nation T.V. Channel) for trespassing, violating privacy

and intimidation of Dr. Siras at his home. The police should also

determine whether they were acting independently or on behalf of their

employers or acting on behalf of AMU authorities.

*Report dated 09.03.10*

*Annex 1: Links to various press articles*

- These Walls Have Ears:

*http://www.outlooki ndia.com/ article.aspx? 264462*(Outlook)

- Class Monitors: *http://www.outlooki ndia.com/ article.aspx? 264463*(Outlook)

- Prof says never hid he was gay: *

http://www.indianex press.com/ news/Prof- says-never- hid-he-was-

gay/584241*(IE)

*- What is more embarrassing for AMU— gay love or violation of human rights?

*: *http://www.tehelka. com/story_ main44.asp? filename= Ne060310proscons

..asp*(Tehelka)

- New panel formed to probe allegations against AMU VC: *

http://timesofindia .indiatimes. com/india/ New-panel- formed-to-

probe-allegation s-against- AMU-VC/articlesh ow/5540361. cms

* (TOI)

*Annex 2: EPW Editorial, **February 27, 2010 vol xlv no 9 EPW*

`*Gross Misconduct' by **A**ligarh Muslim University

**The cynical use of homophobia to protect university maladministration is

condemnable. *

The suspension of a teacher of the Aligarh Muslim University (AMU) for

having consensual sex with a person of the same gender is wrong both on

constitutional and moral grounds. Further, it is an indication of the

regressive petty mindsets, which have come to dominate those very

institutions that are meant to incubate radical and critical ideas in

society.

On 8 February 2010, Shrinivas Ramchandra Siras, head of the department of

modern Indian languages at AMU, was filmed having consensual sex with

another man. Media reports say that a TV crew barged into his house at night

and filmed him while other reports claim that some of his " students " had

entered his house earlier and set up secret video cameras. The video clip

was then given to the university authorities who promptly suspended the

professor. There are two immediate problems with the manner in which the AMU

authorities have reacted. One, there is no criminal or civil wrongdoing by

Siras, even assuming what the university authorities claim about the video

is correct. How can consensual sexual relations between adults be termed

" gross misconduct " ? It is obvious that the AMU authorities are innocent of

the laws of the land. Even if the government of India is yet to make up its

mind on the Delhi High Court's ruling on Section 377 of the criminal

procedure code, this odious provision was unambiguously redefined by the

high court to legalise sexual relations between two adults, irrespective of

gender. Two, there is prima facie evidence of criminal trespass of the

residence of a person (who is also a senior faculty member of the

university) and a wilful invasion of his privacy. It is incumbent on the

university's part to file criminal cases against those who perpetrated this

act.

Unfortunately, from other reports it does appear that the university

authorities were complicit in this act. The reports suggest that some

members of the AMU's executive committe, with the full knowledge of its vice

chancellor, commissioned TV journalists to shoot the video. It would then

appear that the charges of " gross misconduct " would better apply to the very

people who have tried to frame Siras in such an illegal and immoral manner.

The vice chancellor and other authorities of AMU have been accused of

serious charges of financial embezzlement. A report of the principal

accountant general of Uttar Pradesh states, " There is a complete collapse of

financial management in the university and the VC and the Registrar instead

of stopping this frequent financial irregularity themselves became a part of

this " . It lists evidence of financial embezzlement of more than Rs 60 lakh.

The government formed a committee in 2009 to investigate these charges but

its members said they could not submit their report due to " non-cooperation "

from the AMU authorities. On 5 February 2010, President Pratibha Patil, as

Visitor of AMU, reconstituted the inquiry panel with two retired high court

judges. This " sting " on Siras was conducted three days later, on 8 February

2010. According to some faculty members of AMU, the sting is meant to warn

and silence those who have been opposing the university authorities, just as

the new inquiry committee starts its work. The manner in which the AMU

authorities have acted in this matter only goes to support such allegations.

Even if the connection between these two charges is untrue, it is clear that

the AMU administration has a lot to answer for, both on the charges of

financial embezzlement as well as of initiating a criminal act against a

member of its own faculty.

These are merely symptoms of how badly managed some of the leading

universities of India have become. Further, it is not merely a matter of

maladministration, but the disappearance of the culture of radicalism and

the spirit of enquiry from our centres of higher education. Instead of being

incubators and promoters of radical ideas and the critical spirit,

universities have increasingly become cesspools of regressive ideas. The

Aligarh Muslim University, which had the potential to become the premier

provider of higher education to the Muslim middle classes as well as to help

generate knowledge about India's largest minority, has reduced itself to

being a small-time distributor of patronage and corruption. While government

policies and interference must bear a large part of the blame for this

trend, the culpability of the " university community " cannot be denied

either.

The ease with which homosexuality was equated with " gross misconduct " by the

AMU underlines the continued existence of a large " homophobic " common sense,

which can be put to political use for a variety of unrelated issues,

regardless of the well-publicised judgment on Section 377. Despite Siras'

reluctance to challenge his suspension, there have been many voices raised

against the gross illegality and misconduct of the entire affair. Hopefully,

this will lead to the initiation of legal measures and eventual redressal

for the victim. It is not just enough to quash the AMU suspension order, it

is equally necessary to pursue criminal cases against those " journalists " ,

" students " and the AMU officials who planned and executed this despicable

act. This is not only necessary to protect our civil liberties and

constitutional rights, it should also be a first step to reclaim our

universities from time-seekers and self-servers.

*Annex 3: Statement of Academics*

*Whose Morality is This?*

We, as teachers and academics from Universities across India, read with

outrage and dismay that Dr Shrinivas Ramchandra Siras, reader and chairman

of Modern Indian Languages at AMU was suspended for having consensual sex

with someone of the same sex within the privacy of his home. What made the

press report particularly shocking was that there were either cameras placed

by students within his house or TV Reporters got into the house and made a

video film of the alleged incident which was then passed on to the

University authorities. The University authorities instead of going by the

constitutionally recognized right to privacy within the four corners of

one's house have instead chosen to act against Dr Siras.

The outrage of the university authorities is deeply misdirected. Instead of

suspending Dr Siras, they should have taken stern and serious action against

those who so blatantly took on the role of playing moral police with no

regard whatsoever for Dr. Siras' constitutionally recognized right to

privacy and dignity within his home and the University.

What is the " gross misconduct " for which Dr Siras has been suspended? It is

not a crime for an adult to have consenting intimate sexual relations with

another adult. It is not an offence for a adult to have consensual sex with

another adult in the privacy of his home. Dr. Siras, in line with the

judgment of the Delhi High Court in Naz Foundation, has also committed no

legal offence. On the other hand, Dr. Siras is the victim of multiple

offences - his house has been entered into without his consent and his

intimate life has been filmed without his consent.

The press reports repeatedly allege that Dr Siras was having consensual sex

with a " rickshaw puller. " Is the occupation or implied class status of the

individual involved the reason behind the accusation of " scandal " and

" outrageous " behaviour? If so, then the AMU administration is violating the

tenets both of India's constitution and of the ethics and values of an

institution of higher learning with a history as long and distinguished as

AMU which was built precisely to end discrimination on religion, caste or

class.

One has to remember that it was only last year that Chief Justice Shah and

Justice Muralidhar in holding Section 377 inapplicable to consenting sex

between adults in private came up with the important distinction between

public morality and constitutional morality. As they noted, " Moral

indignation, howsoever strong, is not a valid basis for overriding

individual's fundamental rights of dignity and privacy. In our scheme of

things, constitutional morality must outweigh the argument of public

morality, even if it be the majoritarian view. "

If the Naz judgment with its stress on constitutional morality is taken

seriously, the immoral actions will be not be Dr Siras' conduct but rather

the actions of the University authorities in suspending him for the

expression of his constitutional right, the actions of the media to

blatantly invade his life as well as the possible involvement of students of

the University.

This incident follows a series of events that mark the shrinking of spaces

of freedom and dignity within India's institutions of higher learning. It is

imperative that we protect institutions that should be bastions of building

inclusive and democratic cultures for generations to come from narrow-minded

moral policing of this kind.

1.

*Saleem Kidwai*

2.

*Nivedita Menon*

3.

* (Centre for Women's Development Studies, New Delhi*

4.

*V Geetha (Reseacher and Editor, Tara Publications, Chennai)*

5.

*Shilpa Phadke, Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute of

Social Sciences, Mumbai*

6.

*Aditya Nigam. CSDS, University of Delhi*

7.

*Sunalini Kumar, Lady Sriram College, University of Delhi*

8.

*Arun de Souza SJ , St Xavier's College, Mumbai*

9.

*Shaila Desouza, Centre for Women's Studies, Goa University*

10.

*Farhana Ibrahim, Indian Institute of Technology, Delhi*

11.

*Anjali Monteiro, Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute

of Social Sciences, Mumbai*

12.

*K.P. Jayasankar, Centre for Media and Cultural Studies, Tata Institute

of Social Sciences, Mumbai*

13.

*Amita Bhide, School of Habitat Studies, Tata Institute of Social

Sciences, Mumbai*

14.

*Rekha Pappu, Higher Education Cell, Hyderabad*

15.

*Nandini Manjrekar, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai*

16.

*Ratheesh Radhakrishnan, IIT Bombay*

17.

*Oishik Sircar, Assistant Professor, Jindal Global Law School, Sonipat,

India*

18.

Jaya Menon, Associate Professor, Department of History, Aligarh Muslim

University, Aligarh

19.

*Brinda Bose, University of Delhi, Delhi.*

20.

*Meena Menon, Research Centre for Women's Studies, Mumbai.*

21.

*Sabeena Gadihoke, Associate Professsor, AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia,

New Delhi*

22.

*Shohini Ghosh, Professsor, AJK MCRC, Jamia Millia Islamia, New Delhi*

23.

*Radhika Chopra, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University

of Delhi*

24.

*Bindhulakshmi. P, Centre for Women's Studies, Tata Institute of Social

Sciences, Mumbai*

25.

*Vinita Bhatia, Department of Sociology, St Xaviers College, Mumbai*

26.

*Kaiwan Mehta, NM College of Architecture, Mumbai*

27.

*Ramesh Bairy T S, Assistant Professor, Dept. of Humanities and Social

Sciences, Indian Institute of Technology Bombay*

28.

*J. Devika, Associate Professor, Centre for Development Studies,

Trivandrum, Kerala*

29.

*Disha Nawani, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai*

30.

*Sanjay Srivastava, Professor of Sociology, Institute of Economic Growth,

University of Delhi.*

31.

*G. Arunima, Associate Professor, Women's Studies Programme, School of

Social Sciences, Jawaharlal Nehru University*

32.

*R. Ramakumar, Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai*

33.

*Janaki Abraham, Delhi University*

34.

*Shoba V Ghosh, Dept. of English, University of Mumbai*

35.

*Deepak Mehta, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, University

of Delhi*

36.

*Ratna Raman, Associate Professor, Sri Venkateswara College, Delhi*

37.

*Sujata Patel, Professor, Department of Sociology, University of

Hyderabad*

38.

*Vineeta Bal, Scientist, NII*

39.

*Sundari Ravindran, Secretary, Rural Women's Social Education Centre,

Chengalpattu, Tamil Nadu.*

40.

*Uma Chakravarti, Feminist Historian and Scholar, New Delhi. *

41.

*Lata Mani, Researcher, Bangalore. *

42.

*Bindu Menon, Assistant Professor, Lady Shriram College, Delhi

University, New Delhi. *

43.

*Nikhila H., Dept. of Film Studies and Visual Communication, The EFL

University, Hyderabad*

44.

*Tharakeshwar V.B., Dept. of Translation Studies, The EFL University,

Hyderabad.*

45.

*Padma Velaskar, Professor, Centre for Studies in Sociology of Education,

Tata Institute of Social Sciences, Mumbai*

46.

*Tara Atluri, Research Associate, Department of Sociology, Delhi

University*

47.

*M. Madhava** **Prasad,** **Department of Cultural Studies, The English

and Foreign Languages University, Hyderabad*

48.

*Samita Sen, School of Women's Studies, Jadavpur University, Kolkata*

49.

*Nivedita Sen, Department of English, Hans Raj College, University of

Delhi*

50.

*Mangai Arasu, Professor of English, Chennai.*

51.

*Satyajit Singh, School of Development Studies, Ambedkar University,

Delhi*

52.

*Anshu Malhotra, Dept. of History, Delhi University*

53.

*Nandita Narain, Associate Professor, Department of Mathematics, St.

's College, Delhi University*

54.

*Dr , Associate Professor, Department of English, St

's College, Delhi University.*

55.

*nika Shah, Reader (Retired), Mumbai University*

56.

*Dr Shalini Anant, Guest Faculty, Christ University & Montfort College,

Bangalore.*

57.

*Lakshmi Subramanian, JMI*

58.

*Giti Chandra, Delhi University*

59.

*Tapan Basu, Department of English, University of Delhi.*

60.

*Rekha Basu, Department of Philosophy, Hindu College, University of

Delhi.*

61.

*Rajinder Singh, Ambedkar University, Dwarka.*

62.

*Chitra Panikkar, Bangalore University.*

63.

*Charu Gupta, History dept., Delhi University.*

64.

*Pradip Datta, Dept. of Political Science, Delhi University.*

65.

*Nayanjot Lahiri, Department of History, University of Delhi*

66.

*Sanjay Kumar, Associate professor, Dept. of English, Hansraj College,

Delhi University.*

67.

*Anita Ghai, Associate Professor, Dept of Psychology, Jesus and

College, Delhi.*

68.

*Rajni Palriwala, Prof. and Head, Delhi School of Economics, Dept. of

Sociology, University of Delhi.*

69.

*Kumkum Roy, Centre for Historical Studies, School of Social Science,

Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi*

70.

*Ayesha Kidwai, Centre for Linguistics, School Of Language, Literature &

Culture Studies, Jawaharlal Nehru University*

71.

*Sudha Vasan, Associate Professor, Department of Sociology, Delhi School

of Economics, University of Delhi, Delhi.*

72.

*Amita Baviskar, Institute of Economic Growth, Delhi University Enclave,

Delhi. *

73.

*Indivar Kamtekar, Centre for Historical Studies, Jawahar Lal Nehru

University, Delhi*

*74. Jaya Menon,* *Associate Professor, Department of History, Aligarh

Muslim University, Aligarh*

*Academics outside of India:*

1.

*Ania Loomba, Bryson Professor of English, University of

Pennsylvania*

2.

*Suvir Kaul, A. M. Rosenthal Professor and Chair, Department of English,

University of Pennsylvania*

3.

*Anupama Rao, Associate Professor, South Asian History, Barnard College,

Columbia University.*

4.

*Radhika Mongia, Associate Professor, Sociology, Women's Studies, and

Social and Political Thought, York University.*

5.

*Dilip Menon, Professor of History and Mellon Chair in Indian Studies,

University of the Witwatersrand, Johannesburg. *

6.

*Aparna Sundar, Ryerson University, Toronto, Canada*

7.

Andil Gosine, Associate Professor, Faculty of Liberal Arts and

Professional Studies, York University