NUJS Kolkata 2019 graduate Mihika Poddar has been selected for the prestigious Rhodes scholarship to study in Oxford University.
Poddar commented: “Looking at the profiles of previous Rhodes scholars had made me believe in the scholarship’s potential to equip them with the tools to make tangible social change. I cannot wait to begin my journey and hopefully follow their footsteps.”
She added that she was looking at taking the BCL in Oxford, and would broadly want to work around issues of law and social justice.
NUJS student juridical association (SJA) said in a press release:
In her span of four years at NUJS, Mihika Poddar has served as the Associate Member of the NUJS Law Review. As one of the leading members of the NUJS Legal Aid Society, she has worked extensively on the Policy for Rights of Transgender and Gender Diverse Persons. She has also served as an active member of the NUJS Gender and Sexuality Forum (GSF). In her second year, she was also a semi-finalist at the Willem C. Vis (East) International Commercial Arbitration Moot 2015. Besides, she has authored several papers on law, society and public policy.
Also selected for the Rhodes is former Kings College London University law student Shruti Iyer, though it is understood she is not currently pursuing law.
Note: As far as we’re aware, no other Indian law students have been selected this year. Please update in the comments if you know someone else, however.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first
I would respectfully disagree with you. The very purpose of the Rhodes Scholarship is to find people who meet the 4 criteria that the Scholarship is intended
to reward. At the heart of those criteria lies the belief that the chosen scholar should possess the moral force of character and energy to help empower
marginalized sections of society. That is not to say that those who succeed in big law necessarily do not possess these attributes. But anyone who aspires
for the Scholarship and crafts their application on the premise that they'd like to utilize the opportunities made available by getting the scholarship
to thrive in a law firm fundamentally misunderstands the key purpose of the Scholarship. I do not think that it is fair to belittle someone's accomplishment
by insinuating that they got the Scholarship because they constructed an application around the fact that they have, and would like to, work for the empowerment
of a marginalized section of society. They got the Scholarship because, in their own unique way, they fit the 4 criteria better than their competitors.
Reply
PS: Kian, given that the person who posted comment # 10 thinks you know who he is you might want to approach him to do more of these fact checks. Will help the quality of what is put up on LI.
marginalized sections of society."
But do the marginalised have a chance of getting the Rhodes?
I would respectfully disagree with you. The very purpose of the Rhodes Scholarship is to find people who meet the 4 criteria that the Scholarship is intended to reward. At the heart of those criteria lies the belief that the chosen scholar should possess the moral force of character and energy to help empower marginalized sections of society. That is not to say that those who succeed in big law necessarily do not possess these attributes. But anyone who aspires for the Scholarship and crafts their application on the premise that they'd like to utilize the opportunities made available by getting the scholarship to thrive in a law firm fundamentally misunderstands the key purpose of the Scholarship. I do not think that it is fair to belittle someone's accomplishment by insinuating that they got the Scholarship because they constructed an application around the fact that they have, and would like to, work for the empowerment of a marginalized section of society. They got the Scholarship because, in their own unique way, they fit the 4 criteria better than their competitors.
While I do not personally know a great deal about the career trajectory of the 2014 scholar who now works at Mozilla, I do know that she has made meaningful interventions in the data protection debate in India and has emerged as a key voice in that field. The mere fact that she may have done so while working for a private corporation cannot detract from the significance of her body of work.
1. The parent company of Mozilla is a commercial profit-making entity.
2. A maker of open source software is not the same as a NGO for refugees. Those guys make tons of money from commercially licensing software to large firms.
3. There are a gazillion way to work in cyber laws. Academia, practice, think-tank, etc. [...]
NALSAR = 6 (established 1998)
NUJS = 4 (established 2000)
NLUD = 1 (established 2008)
GNLU = 1 (established 2004)
NUALS = 1 (established 2005)
Is this correct?
NALSAR = 7 in 20 years
NLUD = 1 in 10 years
NUJS = 3 in 18 years
GNLU = 1 in 14 years
Gold: NLSIU or NALSAR
Silver: NLUD/NUJS
Bronze: NLUJ/GNLU
1. NLSIU, Bangalore - co-founders, Vidhi.
2. LSE/Columbia* - Partner, SAM.
2009
1. GLC, Bombay - co-founder, Vidhi.
2. NLSIU, Bangalore - works in New York law firm.
2010
1. NLSIU, Bangalore - now a barrister in London.
2. NALSAR, Hyderabad - now works at Jindal.
2011
1. NALSAR, Hyderabad - now works at Bristol University.
2. NLSIU, Bangalore - now works as a lawyer in Delhi and runs a damn fine blog.
2012
1. NLSIU, Bangalore - now works as a lawyer in Delhi.
2013
1. NALSAR, Hyderabad - currently reading for a PhD in law.
2. NLSIU, Bangalore - I wasn't able to find her whereabouts. Someone help out.
2014
1. NUJS, Kolkata - now a public policy advisor at Mozilla; has previously worked among others with the MoTA.
2. NLSIU, Bangalore - Not sure what he's upto, but pretty sure he did not end up in a law firm.
2015
1. NALSAR, Hyderabad - currently working towards a PhD.
2. NLSIU, Banglore - currently working as a lawyer in Delhi, and has previously worked at Vidhi, but never at a law firm.
2016
1. NLUD, Delhi - Can't say what she's upto now. It seems she's still at Oxford.
2. CLC, Delhi - who is now at HAQ: Centre for Child Rights in Delhi.
2017
1. NUJS, Kolkata
2. NUALS, Kochi
3. NLSIU, Bangalore.
2018
1. GNLU, Gandhinagar
2. Nagpur University
I haven't gone into the details of the scholars from 2017 and 2018 as they are fairly recent inductees and need to have to graduate and figure out their life paths.
.....................
In all, in the previous 12 years** we have:
9 from NLSIU
4 from NALSAR
3 from NUJS; and
1 each from GLC, NLUD, CLC, NUALS, GNLU & Nagpur University.
The last few years have seen people being selected from a greater variety of places. The NLSIU monopoly was broken in 2016, from that year we have had:
2 from NUJS; and
1 each from NLSIU, NLUD, CLC, NUALS, GNLU & Nagpur University.
Another point to note is that there is no evidence to suggest that Rhodes scholars:
(A) do not return to work in India; and/or
(B) only pick to work in the corporate sector.
...................................................................
* His first law degree was from LSE/Columbia. Before that he went to Stephens.
** I went back 12 years looking for someone who works at a big Indian law firm (given that some were suggesting that the Rhodes scholars are fake and wish to only work for big money).
Research by the same person who did the Indian teams at Jessup research which you never published Kian.
Bow!!!
Yes, I am aware that privacy is a sham, and that a talented and motivated person will be able to find me with ease, but I honestly don't think my comments are important enough to merit such a response.
Further, comments on this site are moderated, and it is unlikely that something truly offensive will get through.
Yes, undermining an achievement of this sort smacks of envy, yes those who have achieved this are tremendously talented, but what critics are probably pointing out to is that many tailor applications for scholarships and prestigious universities. It is not difficult for people with the right resources to so, and many do get in due to the way they have tailored their resume. That's why many admissions officers end up becoming consultants (we had an ex-Harvard admissions director come to our college to give tips).
Could some of the applicants (and the scholarship committees) be hypocrites? Yes! Could they be self-promoters? Yes! But that does not mean that they do not have some very impressive achievements under their belt, and congratulations are still deserved.
Just because you think some criticism is crass doesn't mean it should be silenced -- which is what will happen if you take away the (illusion of?) anonymity.
If taking away anonymity means you choose not to comment, then it simply means you lack the conviction behind your criticism, or as you said before, your comment is simply not important enough. Allowing you that anonymity cannot be at the expense of encouraging malice, which is what is clearly happening here. For instance, what you said in your comment appears to be reasonable enough. However, if you wish to equate that comment with the clearly derogatory ones made before, that's clearly stretching it. This is not a place for no-holds barred policy debate, one needs to consider the impact that one's harsh words would have on other people and be responsible in their choice of words. Your comment qualifies on that respect, the earlier ones don't simply because of lack of civility. Now you can say that my standard of civility may differ from yours or others'. Which is perfectly possible, but surely nobody should use words deliberately here knowing that they are being uncivil, which is what anonymity is offering. I see no reason why you couldn't have made the comment you did in your name. If you feel you cannot, that's your personal choice, but if allowing that means I also have to encourage the very real malice that is very apparent in most of the anonymous comments here, then I do not believe that giving you the scope to criticise anonymously is worth that cost. Let's face it, you yourself believe your comments are not important enough, so what would be the loss to readers/anybody else if you don't comment owing to lack of anonymity? Negligible to nothing. if someone has a really important issue to bring forward, the tip is always there, he can send it to Kian, who will definitely use his same moderation policy and choose to put it up, simple! So nothing of worth will really be lost, the only thing that will be stopped is the malice and the careless manner in which many commentators throw insults here left, right and centre, without intending to contribute anything by way of constructive criticism, feeling invincible in their cloak of anonymity.
While this is not the State that one can expect actions here to be governed under the due process or constitutionalism, yet one can certainly express hope that a discussion forum does not degenerate into mud-slinging, which is what Legally India comments section has become for the most part now. It's Kian's choice, he can do whatever he pleases, but as another reader, I agree with Pillai above. Freedom of speech and freedom of anonymous hatred/lies/derogation are not one and the same. Allowing anonymity is not the same as respecting privacy, unless it is to get a victim justice.
Further, lack of anonymity is not always a guarantee for responsible commentary. ToI (which caters to a wider but possibly less widely read readership) requires a login. It does not moderate comments. It is a cesspool of unpleasantness. Twitter has proud trolls who are happy to broadcast their names along side rape threats. Moderation (though prone to bias) does in fact act as a better filter against malice.
I reiterate, forcing persons to voice only what they will in front of you will deny you an insight into what they actually think. It may be unpleasant, but then you can estimate that that's what x number of people think like.
For the purposes of this particular forum, I agree that malicious comments should be moderated: one does want a constructive exchange of ideas, but exchange is the key word. Not everyone has the same opinion, and what may be construed as offensive is subjective.
Moreover, I (like other anonymous posters) may not want to publically disagree with my teacher, my colleague, or my boss, or a judge on this forum. You may think that this means I lack conviction, but there could be real reasons for not wanting to do so going beyond cowardice. Besides don't the vulnerable get a voice? Cowardice stems from vulnerability, after all.
However, other than that one, I thought it has been a fairly interesting discussion that I don't think does any harm to the Rhodes or the scholars. But since this is an open forum for discussion, I don't think it hurts to debate the value of the Rhodes, its history, what scholars decide to do in their careers, BigLaw vs social lawyering, etc.
Sad to see you get pressurized into moderating that comment (5.1.something). As someone who publishes a news website is it not your duty to not take sides. Or you can just not publish any comments. By giving in to the Rhodes-is-god lobby youre no better than newspapers that retract headlines when Modi-bhakts make a fuss.
The unfortunate (and ugly) truth about Rhodes law scholarships is that not only a fundamental lack of concept of the award committees as to what are the 'Rhodes' traits, but also a huge number of applicants are faking interest in the "causes" that are trending.
The issue is what are these rhodes scholars doing after rhodes. That comment 5.1 was correct to the extent the [...] winner from [...] ([...]) has not done anything of value when her contemporaries (like [...]) have accomplished so much more without Rhodes. The [...] winner ([...] from [...]) is also the same with no contribution to either society / alma mater / a law firm / anything. I think its is fair to discuss these achievements and nobody whether the Prime Minister or a rhodes scholar is immune from such analysis and criticism. I guess you would be open to publishing a scathing critique of how Modi gave false promises before the election and did not deliver. Why the double standard for Rhodes winners??? Are they some kind of entitled class?
Someone did some "research" about last ten years rhodes scholars. Actually if you see that list only about 4 (max 5) are really doing something to warrant the hype. The rest are doing the same careers that anyone else does. Furthermore a majority are in practice and firms that are anything but close to their rhodes personal statements. This just goes to show how empty the rhodes sound bites are. Why cannot a Rhodes be given to someone who wants to work in corporate law and become a senior partner of a firm?
1. Just because a 21-year-old-or-so wins the Rhodes, doesn't mean that their lives should suddenly become subject to open criticism about whether their achievements down the line are 'worthy' enough or not.
2. Think back to when you were 21 years old. Maybe you wanted to be a human rights lawyer too, or weren't sure yet what to get into? I think it's fair to change your mind, or that the public sector is not for you, or that your interests lie in other fields. For what it's worth, I think one of the careers you mentioned in your post that I'm aware of, is doing a fantastic and much required public service, very much in the spirit of the Rhodes 'soundbites', as you call them.
3. I think the point and reason why we're covering the Rhodes, is that they're a fantastic opportunity in a young lawyer's career, and they are one of the most sought-after and recognised such scholarships available.
4. Would it be nice if the Rhodes was given to people who want to work in corporate law? I don't think a scholarship is necessary for that vertical: you can join an international (or even domestic) law firm, work there for a few or 3 years and have saved enough money to pay for an Oxford post-grad out of pocket yourself.
5. Not enough young students are interested or serious about public service, and the fact the scholarship exists has perhaps focused one or two minds on the career path and has inspired them to do something as 'worthy' as the Rhodes winners?
Pray do tell us at what magic number does this immunity run out?
A second observation - if 21 year old students can't be held responsible for their acts, then how responsible is it for you to let them run amok against the actions/alleged actions of their teachers, or administrators at their institutions?
Is it fair to make teachers/administrators subject to 'open criticism'? Why because they are being paid to do certain things and are not holding up their part of the bargain?
At some place in this narrative your argument is inconsistent and I do hope you are able to see this.
But I don't think any Rhodes applicants are lying, and yes, I agree, when applying to scholarships everyone kinda plays the same game that's expected, and fills in applications they hope will be accepted (just like most lawyers applying to corporate law firm jobs will profess to a deep love of corporate law, which may or may not be the case).
But I do imagine that the Rhodes interview process would weed out the disingenuous applicants who are just doing Rhodes for CV points...
One cannot selectively accept protests by 21 (actually 23) year olds against a so-called 'public body' with presumption of truth but overlook statements made by them when applying for scholarships like the Rhodes. If anything the scholarship application is longer and requires patient deliberation and is not spontaneous like protest.
I fail to understand how you can give credence to a student formally accusing a teacher of having 'conflict-of-interest' but not do that when the student formally tells the Rhodes Committee that he wants the scholarship out of interest in some cool social cause (like transgenders). As someone who has written references for many students I know that 70-90% of such statements are outright lies with the sole intention of projecting the image of a crusader with a noble cause.
This is a serious dichotomy and one you are trying to brush under the carpet. I fully understand if you want LI to be a pro-student website but in that case please be candid and say so explicitly.
threads most popular
thread most upvoted
comment newest
first oldest
first