From the ‘Concerns’ Desk ... August 2007

Baroda: Don’t Kill Art History

All is not well in Baroda. Sickening pieces of news trickle in when I sit to write this piece.

The Baroda issue, variously called the Chandramohan Issue, the Shivji Panikkar Issue and so on, had ceased to ignite the wounded pride of the artists’ community, when the joint protest of the artists, students, teachers, intellectuals and the social activists was called off without proper explanation on 14th May 2007. The news of the struggle for creative freedom and university autonomy moved from national media to local media soon after.

Whether the mainstream media give due attention to the Baroda issue or not, the art community once again need to wake up and pay attention to the tremors coming out from Baroda. Claiming to have regained normalcy after the appointment of a fact finding committee by the State Governor, the Baroda issue has taken a new turn with the University Syndicate deciding to terminate Shivji Panikkar from service and to take stringent punitive actions against a few protestors namely Santhosh, Jayaram Poduval, Abha Seth, Iftikar Ahmed and Chandramohan. The Syndicate is reported to have formulated a new code of conduct for the annual display in the Fine Arts Faculty.

This move of the University Syndicate clearly tells that it is not going to give in to the demand for University autonomy. Besides, it, in no unclear terms says that, would make use of the prejudiced law enforcing system of the State of Gujarat to wreck revenge upon the persons whom it find not falling in line.

Meanwhile, an applied art student who used to contest as an independent candidate for the post of General Secretary in the university elections was roughed up by the right wing activists as they suspected him of leading the students struggle. Shivji Panikkar and his allies have categorically stated that they still hold faith on the judiciary system of the country and would fight back through all possible legal means.

Many, including myself, have differences with the kind of art history and criticism produced by the Department of Art History under the erstwhile leadership of Shivji Panikkar. Nepotism, cronyism and intellectual bullying had been the hallmarks of this department for a long time. However, punitive actions cannot be a solution for rectifying the problems in an academic department. There should be ways to bring in different voices in a department for its flourishing.

It was Prof. Ratan Parimoo who literally built the Art History department brick by brick. He appointed his people for the simple reason that the ‘Building Project of a Department’ should not be hampered in the midway. Prof.Parimoo considered the department as his home. Those who came later too took it as their ‘home’ but with a difference. They filled the department with their cronies who never wanted to face the world after finishing their studies. Many became permanently ‘temporary’ teachers there and this led to kind of department under siege situation.

Changes are painful but changes are to be brought in. However, the changes should not come through fascist means.

Regards

JohnyML