Yes, from 2009 to early 2012. It was mixed. There are very few students who liked his classes, which were pitched very high for students of that level. He also ▮▮▮ had any time for students outside class, ▮▮▮. His interference in admin policy was not perceived kindly by many either. He is a good scholar but can be an abrasive person to work with and not ▮▮▮. Having said that, some students did like him and benefited from their connection even after law school. ▮▮▮. ▮▮▮

He lacked empathy based on his behaviour to the students during his tenure. Some students reacted to his behaviour in a childish fashion. That action did not lead to his behaviour, rather it was a reaction to such behaviour. NUJS teaches people to actually think and use logic. You clearly did not get such lessons. Further, nobody has ever compared Sudhir with the other person whom you named. There have been and still are several good faculty members who have taught or are teaching here, who have been treated with the respect that they are due. Sudhir does not fall within that category, despite you clearly being his fanboy.

If these are the kinds of students that think its appropriate to put fire crackers in a professors room. It doesnt take a genius to understand what he had to deal with the rest of the semester. Its ridiculous to make these bullies out to be pure as white driven snow and obvious victims. Let me make it clear- IT IS NEVER ACCEPTABLE TO HURT OTHER PEOPLE. not if they give you bad grades, not if they dont teach the way you want, not if they disagree with you about anything. we live in a rule of law society. What the students did is at the very least mischief under the IPC, and at most it is assault/ grevious hurt. Nothing sudhir did is in the same category.

It is funny how Sudhir fanboys are trying here to pass off that one incident as the reason for his behaviour when in reality it was the final burst of reaction to his behaviour. And since when is bursting crackers in an empty room an example of assault? Are you high or have you been taught criminal law by Sudhir himself?

Not saying that. Only one of those things is a criminal offence. And I think everyone in a professional university context should behave professionally. Student and teacher alike. If students want to be treated as adults when it comes to drug use, attendance, all sorts of disciplinary norms. They need to behave like adults when they interact with professors.

I have yet to see any evidence that Sudhir ever attempted to harm any student physically or did anything at all to justify a physical assault on him.

The fact that these students failed to hurt him because he wasn’t in the room doesn’t to my mind morally absolve them from attempting it at all.

What exactly gets defined as a tantrum ? telling students to behave, calling them out for faffing, refusing to accept plagiarism , trying to raise standards and hold students accountable. To me that just sounds like being a professor. If there is evidence that Sudhir threw firecrackers back- I’d love to know. That would explain the self righteousness with which y’all continue to hound the man years after you ran him out of town.

Constant abuse? If anything, that's ▮▮▮. There is no example of any other untoward incident against him in the 3-4 years that he was at the university. Whereas there are plenty of examples of his ▮▮▮. Including ordering a student to leave his room while the latter was trying to explain what problems he had been facing in class, simply because the '300 seconds' that he had been assigned for the matter were over. That's an example of an ▮▮▮ man ▮▮▮ and ▮▮▮, where the moderator allows it or not.

That's definitely crossing a line. And it is cowardly. The same people are dying to go to colleges where white professors will look down on them. So you don't like how a professor talks to you. The civilised way is to tell them politely, tell the Vice Chancellor and so on. Not hooliganism. It is bad enough that someone did it, but appalling that so many people are here justifying it. Is this what you people do to the rude partners you work for?

Have you heard the narcissists prayer ?

“That didn’t happen, if it did - it wasn’t that bad, if it was bad - it’s not a big deal, if it’s a big deal- it’s not my fault, if it is my fault- I didn’t mean it , if I did mean it - you deserved it”.

It’s shocking how many people justify physical abuse and running a professor out of town and bullying him years later online because they cannot own up to their own flaws.

Please. Sudhir didn't leave for that reason. He left because he realized that nobody other than MP Singh will treat him with the favoritism that he had been accustomed to receive by then. By all means condemn the firecracker incident, I have got no problem with that. However, using that to justify ▮▮▮, terming it as an instance of 'physical abuse' and calling it the reason why ▮▮▮ is completely disingenuous and arbitrary on your part. Several people have termed commentators who are talking about the problems that they faced with Sudhir as bullies, whereas they are the ones who are doing a fair bit of bullying here, gaslighting others, discounting their experiences and displaying the ever-popular chant of Sudhir can do no wrong.

You’re bullying me by saying I’m bullying you eh ? It’s that Spider-Man meme thing. Quit the DARVO thing honey. The only bullies are folks who tried to physically harm a professor. Literally no one has made the claim that Sudhir had physically hurt anyone at all. A professor being short with you or not babying you or not teaching the way you want is not bullying. It a called living in a world with other people.

It is bullying to constantly, repetitively bully someone on the internet. There is no other word for it. These posts never actually allege misbehaviour - they just make accusations like this person doesn’t have empathy, they are rude, high handed whatever. Hard to disprove and made anonymously over and over and over again to smear a guy who - yeah may have made some mistakes but is far from the worst person in academia .
Do you even know what gaslighting is ? Don’t throw words around you don’t understand.

You keep trying to pass the incident off as an attempt to physically harm Sudhir. Do you even understand the meaning of bursting crackers in an empty room? Clearly you don't, so you're not even qualified to have a logical conversation. None of the parties involved on either tried to harm anyone physically. Instead, in course of your arguments, you have shifted the goalpost from Sudhir the teacher per excellence, to Sudhir the teacher who didn't physically harm anyone. Amazing shift of standards, but then, nothing else is expected of Sudhir fanboys here.

It was his office dude. He could have been in the room - it’s just a lucky thing he wasnt. Do you understand the law ? Do you understand why we have attempt offences ? Do you understand that failing to hurt someone doesn’t absolve you of trying to hurt someone ?

How can an adult with a fully functioning brain even argue this ?

We’re having a disagreement right now - you’ve said mean things to me. Shall I come to your house tomorrow and burst crackers in your room ? Would that be an appropriate response ? Obviously not.

It’s also not a harmless prank like “the office” those pranks are essentially affectionate. They still aggravate Dwight but they don’t try to harm him. An adult can see the difference.

I haven’t shifted any goalposts. Sudhir is a great teacher. He changed my life. And that of others I know. But he’s also a teacher who didn’t harm anyone. You guys fail at the latter - you have no credibility to talk about the former.

Nobody is arguing that he didn't change your life for the better. You're contesting everyone saying that he might have done different for other people. As for your hypothetical, that's as far away from rational logic as it gets. He was not inside the room not by accident, it was done when he would not be, based on the account of the people who witnessed the matter. You are deliberately trying to colour that incident into a grave conspiracy to physically harm him. As for Sudhir having harmed students, physically no. Mentally, definitely yes. He is still doing that to many.

He sure did. Was one of MP Singh’s recruits. Was recruited directly at Professor level, when he should have been at Assistant Professor level. That saved him at least 10-15 years and allowed him to get NLSIU VCship quickly. Thus, Sudhir owes a massive debt to NUJS. But gratitude is not one of his qualities, else he would not have argued in the Karnataka HC that only NLSIU deserves national status, not NUJS or NALSAR.

As for Sudhir’s experience at NUJS, he had given an interview to the NUJS student newsletter arrogantly saying that he never heard of NUJS and joined only because of MP Singh. He was also an unpopular teacher for various reasons.

I don't think you should blame Sudhir for the Karnataka HC argument. That was made by some Bengali graduate of NLSIU who was ASG at the time. Sudhir invalidated the High Court's wrong opinion about NLS being a "national" institute and ensured that NLS had domicile reservations, and in effect, brought it back to being on par with all other NLUs that are also similar state universities like NLSIU. So, actually, Sudhir helped other NLUs by bringing down NLSIU and then introducing a massive expansion plan to dilute student quality.

Don’t say “some Bengali graduate”. The ASG who argued is Vikramjeet Banerjee who, in fact, was a prof at NUJS during Madhava Menon’s time. Both he and Sudhir are selfish people who turned their backs on NUJS, Menon and MP Singh by making such arguments. What is especially disgusting is that they argued that NLSIU is national as the CJI is Chancellor. They knew fully well that the same holds true for NUJS. I don’t know if Vikramjeet will ever stand for elections from Bengal for the BJP, but if he does no one should vote for him.

I agree with you. That was a very slimy argument to make which intentionally misled the court into wrongly declaring NLS as some "national institute". But, that year was 2020 and 2020 was the same year when NUJS also got their domicile quota and NUJS did not challenge it till the very end before the Calcutta High Court despite the law having been passed over a year ago in 2018. Some alums challenged it after the merit lists were prepared but by then it was too late and the High Court refused a stay.

However, 2020 was also the year when NLUD tried to institute a domicile quota and NLUD alumni got a stay by filing their case earlier. So the domicile quota never came into effect at NLUD since 2020 was the year when entrance exams got postponed due to COVID and there was enough time for the court to consider and stay the quota. Point being, NUJS folks had time to resist the quota and get a stay but they delayed it too late. You can't blame NLS alumni for that, they were so desperate to stop their domicile quota and resorted to any argument possible. Besides, NLS got its "just dessert" just a year later for making such an ill-intentioned argument.

Plenty of better teachers and scholars compared to Sudhir has taught at NUJS. NUJS didn't need or use him, it has always been the other way around. The fact that he's a VC today, he owes to NUJS. Nowhere else would he have got the chance to become a professor at such a young age without the requisite formal credentials. He had his Godfather in MP Singh, that's all. Same thing happened for his VC position at NLSIU.

He was a good student in ST Joseph and an excellent alumni from NLS Bangalore. After Rhodes , he became a name and everyone wanted to hire him. However MP Singh gave him his first break. ▮▮▮. Dude ▮▮▮ unnecessarily set the standards of the class extremely high. Standards which were not really friendly for an undergraduate student. Now this may sound tempting to call him a professor of rigour but trust me half of the students in Nujs use to hate these because well noojies and so as every other good nlu student focus on healthy education not some course which requires donkey hard-work ▮▮▮. He was in loggerheads with almost everyone at the college ▮▮▮. He was an excellent student and a genuinely good scholar. But a ▮▮▮.

Cut to current times , he used to have a knack for top rankers in clat as he believed they would contribute significantly to university’s development but not anymore as he has rightfully realised that there isn’t much difference between the top 20 rankers. I know some students who are dying to get mentorship from sudhir but won’t cause he doesn’t like them. From the batch of 2026-batch of 2029 , he might just listen to you for a bit if you approve of his hustle culture by publishing rigorously or just have been consistently among the top rankers. I don’t approve of his teaching methods. The dude is ▮▮▮. He will only respect if you have a book in your hand in NLSIU campus and meditate. He might be in that Facebook board of powerful leaders but in reality he is not considerate at all.

Oh yay. A Sudhir sucks thread. Haven’t seen one of those in a while eh?

Tell me something folks who think Sudhir is abrasive and hateful and devoid of empathy and rude and mean and arrogant and all that stuff.

How would you behave if someone threw firecrackers in your room and tried to cause you physical harm ? All because they were held to a higher standard ? Why are these people reliable character witnesses when they have admitted to being in a mob that tried to harm a teacher simply because they didn’t get the grades they were used to ? Are students automatically victims who should be believed even when they are being violent ? Can it ever be their fault ? Or are children gods ?

If you look up Sudhir Krishnaswamy on google scholar you know what you see ? You see some stuff he’s written but scroll past it and overwhelmingly you’ll see other scholars - younger scholars - thanking him for mentoring them, thanking him for his support , thanking him for reading drafts and giving comments. Here’s something else - Sudhir works with younger scholars far more than any other person I know his age- but there’s never been a credible allegation of improper behaviour or of plagiarism etc. in fact year or year Sudhir writes many recommendation letters supporting students who want to study further - clearly all those students have managed to be on his right side, they have managed to meet his standards , and think of him as approachable enough to ask him this. What’s more - he’s grown NLSIUs faculty multiple fold in the last few years. Mostly by hiring young people. Surely if Sudhir was this awful person all these young faculty would be reluctant to work with him ? Surely if he was an awful arrogant egotistical person - other scholars his age would hesitate to work with him ? He would be a man with no friends in academia yes ? But look - many scholars his age do like him enormously. They do want to work with him. He has many many friends.

I don’t think that all of this would happen if he was this awful person. Surely something must be askew no ? Which version of Sudhir do we believe ? The one anonymous Internet trolls who defend violent mobs repeatedly talk about ? Or the one many many established scholars have thanked and praised under their own name ? One where many people have worked under his mentorship ? One that established professionals in his field see ?

Is it possible that the man isn’t devoid of empathy or arrogant or rude , but that he is simply nice to people who are nice to him. And rude to people who are rude to him ? Could we ask any human being to erase themselves so much so that they were nice to people who were physically harming them ? Is that fair ? Is it fair to criticise him for leaving a place where his safety was at risk ? Is that really loyalty or are we asking for him to humiliate himself ?

This is not just about Sudhir K. Sudhir K is an example of how good scholars are hounded out of academia by entitled violent students who are never told that they could be wrong. Or that they will have to be nice to their professor if they want nice treatment. That basic adulthood stuff we all manage to do.

Once again, you are trying to pass off Sudhir's objectionable behaviour as a teacher as a reaction to that incident, which is laughable. He behaved like that for several years and if anything, the incident was a reaction to his behaviour, though not condonable. Bodily harm? It was done when he was not in the room. This clearly shows how clueless you are about the entire incident. And if Sudhir has been good to some people, that does not excuse his bad behaviour towards others. As for his amazing beneficence, why don't you ask the current NLS students and admin staff who are suffering under his high-handedness? He helps only those whom he likes personally, for the rest there is a different standard. I have attended his classes and he fails to cater to the needs of majority of the students. A class is not meant for the teacher to show off his scholarship, but to help students to understand and like the subject. Above all, I would 100% agree to what others are saying about his lack of empathy. His behaviour occasionally ▮▮▮, albeit under a suave veneer. As for his vaunted scholarship, even that is questionable, since he rarely publishes in any quality peer review journal.

Exactly what objectionable behaviour? That he expected students to do work and read? that he tried to improve the standard of legal education? that he wasnt handing out grades like candy? thats enough to throw firecrackers in his room? he wasnt there- but he could have been. We dont know which way the causation works here. These students dont hesitate from committing violence- I do not trust that they were angels in the classroom.

I know plenty of NLS students who will appreciate the things sudhir has done for them. They might whine about having to work harder- but they understand the value of that. and I'm done with people like you dragging the rest of us down.

Do you need to know the law to practice or not? Do you need to learn how to find and understand and analyse the law or not? Sudhir doesn't do some obscure legal theory stuff- hes a fairly middle-of-the-road doctrinal scholar. I think your problem is that you dont actually want to learn the law at all. You dont want to do the work. You want someone who will put everything on a PPT, tell you what the case says instead of expecting you to read it and helping you to understand the way doctrine has developed. when you say you want to practice- How do students know what they will need to practice? They dont know the law and they dont know the profession. Why should we trust them with curriculum design? Do you really think this lack of interest in the law is gonna play well in the profession? The profession is NOT all hustle- its not all scamming clients- its not all reproducing the same boilerplate drafts. you do at the end of the day need to be able to do the things lawyers do.

And the idea that you think youre the majority is laughable. At least at the best NLUS- people actually want to learn the law. You are dragging the rest of us down. we already like the law. we need our professors to challenge us, hold us to high standards, and meet those standards themselves. Which Sudhir does. Of course he helps students who appreciate the work hes doing. Thats human nature- youre not entitled to special attention . I wouldnt waste time mentoring students who were plain disinterested in the law.

What exactly has sudhir done that has been cruel or lacking in empathy? make a clear provable falsifiable allegation ratheer than just throwing these words around. You clearly just have an ax to grind and the fact that this libelous stuff gets published here every other week is disgusting.

He taught very abstract things in class that had no relation with the reality. Insisted that people should read Lloyd for Jurisprudence, but actually gave one of the highest marks to someone who skimmed through Riddall 3 days before exam after missing his classes, because he couldn't spot the difference in argument. He was abrasive in his behavior, sarcastic towards students facing genuine problems, did not give time to students outside class, acted as if he was superior to all other faculty members, tried to subvert practices like the tutorial system without having a clue of ground reality. One can go on. The fact that you were not there at all and are now trying to defend him without knowing any of the facts is what has ▮▮▮, not anyone else. As has been mentioned here, there are plenty of teachers at NUJS who have taught well and expected academic excellence from students including Prabhash, Shamnad, Anirban Mazumder, Saurabh, Pritam, Chinmayi, and MP Singh himself. All of them are well respected. ▮▮▮. Whatever else you say doesn't matter, because you were not part of the equation.

So he wanted you to read good textbooks for the course, he graded based on answers in the exam and not anything else. likely graded blind. he wasnt seen as having good enough bedside manner ? and he told you when his office hours were and protected his research time? Do go on cause none of this sounds to me like something thats very problematic. What is "abrasive"? That he didnt worship at your feet and praise you all constantly? Why do "students with genuine problems" only ask for relaxation of academic requirements and never for additional support? always- give me extention and never- here is what will actually help me succeed like getting a book from a different library or sending drafts early to get comments?

How many of the people you name did leave NUJS? not everyone is gonna be honest enough to tell their students they dont measure up. They will simply talk about it behind closed doors among fellow colleagues.

Try and take feedback better. You are not always the victim because someone told you to be better.

Your comment suggests that you didn’t prepare for your exam at all that time. Skimming riddall doesn’t anyway suggest that the person didn’t consult Lloyd. And maybe he is that good of a student to actually ace the acad. impressing sudhir is very tough. Just because you couldn’t do it and someone else did , doesn’t make his teaching abstract. Buckle up and improve yourself

Bullshit. Sudhir taught us in LLM at NLS. He doesn't do middle of the road doctrinal stuff; he teaches pure theory and its total bullshit from a practical perspective. I've also talked to many students in undergrad and they also say that he taught them ▮▮▮, abstruse doctrinal stuff. The stuff he teaches is most definitely not the ▮▮▮.

Not just that. He added two other mandatory courses in trimester II (Foundations of Private Law and Law and Society). The first one is another of his trademark ▮▮▮ theory courses and the other one has nothing to do with law. Coupled with the removal of specialization and the terrible auction system for electives, Sudhir has absolutely ruined the LLM Programme. All of you people are either lying or misinformed when you say he isn't a purely theory focused guy.

(PS: BTW, I've talked to many people in BA LLB and they all say the courses taught by Sudhir are extremely theory heavy

Not only that, he's guiding certain PhD students himself despite ▮▮▮ , and ▮▮▮ . He even withholds many phd scores even after those have been evaluated by external examiners, simply because he didn't like those. There are people who have submitted their thesis way back in 2021 and are yet to get their degrees.

He absolutely isn’t a theory focused guy. You’re misinformed. Have you considered that courses like foundations of private law and law and society will entail jurisprudential stuff that is theory ? If you go to a Salman khan movie do you complain about action sequences ? It’s not drafting and pleading or evidence law or banking ffs.

If this is your problem - it’s not hard to surmise that you want an LLM ( an optional degree) without having to read too much. That’s a you problem.

Sudhir doesn’t on his own decide to scrap specialisations nor does he approve courses - all of that is done by committees Sudhir isn’t even a part of. Perhaps they realised they couldn’t support all of those electives with the faculty at the university at the time. This isn’t anything to do with him other than you needing a punching bag.

I have been in Sudhir’s classes for three years- he used data, he teaches cases, he does the Socratic method - pretty much middle of the road law professor.

Sudhir introduced these theory focused courses. He got rid rid of specialization. He admitted this to the LLM batch when we confronted him and defended his decision. It's laughable to suggest that the entire course structure of the LLM Course can be changed without the VC's involvement.

Of course it’s done with the VCs consent. It’s just silly to think he’s doing these things unilaterally. There are academic review committees, he has to discuss this stuff with other colleagues and they have to agree with him.

Look the fact of the matter is - nls wasn’t well equipped enough to offer specialisations. No law schools are. To do that you need 5-10 faculty all working on and specialising in one area of the law. When Sudhir came in there were like 30 something professors total. I know you want a specialisation on your CV - you should’ve gone to a place where they offered you that. Foundations of private law - Sudhir doesn’t even teach. I doubt he cares very much about private law. Nigam does though - and he’s very good at teaching it. Sudhir taught legal system reform policy - do you think that’s a course about abstract stuff ? They’re literally reading charts and data tables and figuring out empirical literature - that’s the whole course.

Just because it’s not your cup of tea doesn’t mean it’s useless.

Why do you want an llm if you want to practice anyway ? Just go practice. An llm is for people curious about the law - maybe they want to research or do academia. It’s not a remedial course for folks who went to worse colleges for undergrads.

That's the problem. He's nice to 'scholars'. But only 'scholars'. Some of us don't want to be 'scholars'

Some of us just want to practice law. Some of us don't want to wax eloquent about the supposedly transformative power of law or have meandering philosophical debates about the abstruse jurisprudential based of the law. It would be real nice if he could be nice to us sometimes too.

Hey- Here is a little-known secret. Your boss will like you more if you like your job. Your professor will like you more if you like to learn. It's not because they're looking for copies of themselves. It's because they got into the profession/ academia because they have these interests. They genuinely like what they do so they will respond to others who like what they do well. This is not discrimination. this is not an immutable characteristic. these are choices you make. if youre in the football club- youll like others who play football. (And btw the man isnt so one dimensional. He plays multiple sports, reads plenty of books fiction and non fiction, and used to be a DJ.) the thing is- he isnt your friend. He shouldnt have to be. just because other professors will blur professional lines and make friends with you and talk to you about nonsense and play your therapist. Doesnt mean that its a requirement of the job. Maybe he has actual adult friends and doesnt need validation from nineteen year olds. Your interaction with him is only limited to student/ teacher- student / VC. those are the terms on which he will evaluate you. that seems fair to me.

Have you even read sudhirs writing? man is as doctrinal as they come. Hes not a natural law person, hes not a postmodern post-colonial intersectional queer theory person. he can talk jurisprudence but more often than not- hes not doing that. Literally, go watch any video of his lectures online, go sit in any of his classes. I have sat in his classes. He's just talking about the law. in a fairly straight forward manner. He won't condescend to you and explain things like you're five. He will expect you to read ahead. But theres nothing there thats too difficult. Most of his questions to the class are just him trying to get them to show theyve read the article. He is talking usually at the level that a high school graduate should understand if they pay attention. the problem is you dont like the law. and thats a you problem. fix your motivation problems.

This is simply not true. He explicitly changed the entire syllabus of LLM at NLS to be extremely theory heavy. When the LLM students confronted him about it, he said that this theory heavy base was apparently the 'core' of the law and he didn't care that the LLM batch were missing out on specializations (or even learning any actual law) because of this focus. Plus, I've personally talked to students he taught in undergrad and they all said that Sudhir's teaching was very theory heavy. The nature of his writings are not a good indicator of either the style or content of his teaching.

Ah. Here come the Sudhir Hating Internet Trolls again ( abbreviate that how you will)

How many times will this website allow a pile on when it comes to this particular prof- while moderating anything negative about any other professor ? Mod - what is your problem with Sudhir ? Why do you think he deserves to be bullied by the internet so ? Why do you automatically assume students complaining about him are righteous where as students complaining about the former VC of nalsar and accusing him of some terrible behaviour get moderated and silenced ? I’m genuinely curious how you justify this to yourself ?

Have you considered for a moment that Sudhir is a real person who might be affected by this - there is no other word for it - bullying ? That he has a child who could look him up to see this stuff ? These unproven anonymous allegations? Do you think that’s allowing this discussion over and over and over - every week - is a nice compassionate thing to do ? You won’t let women on this website name the perpetrators of sexual assault , you won’t let negative rumours about any other professor be written on this site. But the sole exception seems to be - let’s trash talk about Sudhir. Why? Do you think this is building a good community ? Collectively trashing this man every week or so ? Does that make you feel righteous and superior ? Can you imagine there are things you might not know about him ?

And I know plenty who don't like him at all, but are still good students who prefer a teacher and admin with empathy who will try to understand a student's problem instead of behaving in a high handed autocratic manner. What's your point? His actions in public including charging fees for virtual convocation, holding that disastrous NLAT and then retaining half the fees despite the exam being cancelled, increasing batch size like crazy thus diluting the quality all of these go against him. He did recruit a lot of good faculty at NLSIU and that goes in his favour. The problem with fanboys is that they cannot withstand his criticism, but will lap up his praise.

We all understand criticism. We all know he is a person with the flaws of a person. We just dont like him getting bullied over and over again by a few disgruntled students who didnt do well in his classes. Especially when hes spent a considerable part of his life actually trying to make things better in indian legal education. I am done talking about NLAT and virtual convocation- weve talked about that ad nauseum on this site. Theres plenty of evidence to show that he made those decisions in consultation with others- and that he made those decisions because they were in the best interests of the university at the time. Enough trashing this man. You all have nothing new to say- you just keep beating that same horse over and over again. Its very clear you are the folks actually lacking empathy.

Yes. He’s not your personal butler. He’s the VC of the university. He’s gonna look after the university. Why is that difficult to understand ? Why is that not obvious. He wasn’t going to let the university fall apart under his watch. The university runs on student fees. Seems pretty simple to me.

but i am not writing stuff praising him here every week. I'm just tired of this whole bullying thing. Its disgusting. If you make an allegation that someone is ▮▮▮, ▮▮▮, high handed, whatver- its on you to actually prove it. if a website publishes that stuff again and again with no proof. proof- the thing lawyers know something about. and it does so only about this one person while censoring any kinds of allegation about anyone else- that is obviously libelous and defamatory and just plain unfair. Its bullying. Its cowardly to make these allegations under the cloak of anonymity. No one can tell if youre a reliable witness or not. But given the position that it is ever justified to throw fireworks in to someones room- one can imagine these are not people who understand the law.

That's basically the entire point of LI, where people can talk anonymously. Nobody cares about Sudhir as a person. It was asked how his tenure as a teacher went. They got an answer. In the name of siding with him ▮▮▮ ▮▮▮, you're discounting people's experience. And there are lots of comments praising him in LI posts too. Nobody goes and challenges those.

Exactly. Thank you. Nobody here cares about him as a person. Thank you. For people who are always talking about empathy isnt that a telling response. I am not discounting peoples experiences. All experiences are not valid. Its very soft thinking to believe in that kind of religious thinking. There is only one truth. And we can find it. One of the ways we do is to consider arguments and evidence and consider how reliable that evidence is. We do not ask murderers why they murder. We dont ask bullies why they bully. Its clear to me that the line in the sand is when students try to assault professors and then for years and years after try to keep bullying him online. I wont abide by trying to infantilise and turn them into victims. Like they had no other option no complaint mechanism other than resorting to physical violence. the explosives slipped out of their hands, lit themselves in the air and jumped into the room all on their on accord no?

I have only seen this website treat sudhir this way. it protects all other real people. it protects other VCs accused of physical violence, professors accused of plagiarism, others accused of sexual harassment, even rape, and it protects people in the ed tech space who are clearly running a scam. It does so by moderating. Those posts are anonymised. Its only sudhir that we have made a sport of. And its disgusting. For no other professor do you even see this kind of vitriol posted. Is sudhir evil incarnate that he would be the only one? or are posts against other people moderated while sudhir is seen as fair game?

Every single time ive seen someone praise the man on this website- its someone sticking up for him after he has been attacked.

To everyone commenting here both in favour of and against Sudhir, maybe you should consider the fact that all of your experiences could have been valid to some extent. He should not be portrayed as a person who can do no wrong, nor someone with malicious intent. The incidents at NUJS took place almost 14-15 years back. Sudhir was a much younger person back then with less experience. He is a human being who makes mistakes and learns from those. That's how good professionals evolve into better ones, by taking lessons from their own experience. Maybe that's exactly what he has done too and is a better teacher and administrator now because of that. At the same time, the students who pulled off such a stunt are all professionals now themselves. If you ask them about it today, chances are that they would all feel regret about what was clearly a juvenile and immature prank that has been embellished and exaggerated since. Please give the bickering a rest, since the people who were actually involved have long since done the same.

Its a nice thought to think there are two reasonable sides to this. But clearly people who bullied him back then are bullying him now. They dont feel regret. otherwise they wouldnt keep bringing it up again and again as a moment when they did something revolutionary. Literally no one is posting on here singing his praises without any context. Its only people who are trashing the man literally several times a month and then someone finds the time and patience to stick up for him.