It's hard to be content in a place like NALSAR. You always want more, often at the expense of others. Sometimes, you feel you deserve better than you are given. Then you ask for what you believe you deserve. Being a law student means that you know the power of a petition to the authorities, you know the power of the collective will. You also know the arbitrariness of a system, you recognise that every act is a power struggle and things often get dirty.
So you can keep clear of all of it and pretend like your life is untouched by the muck around you. You can flash a nice smile and get someone with influence to get you that academic leave you so desperately wanted.
Or you can be as presumptuous as hell and think of changing some part of the system.
Some of the nicest people I know on campus have sworn to stay clear; but I find that it's remarkably unfair to make no effort to change a rotten system but to complain about how deep the rot has set in. Some others, I know, acknowledge that the system is totally rotten but seem to have an inclination towards making it work the way they'd like it to, not standing up against it. Some try to work the system while trying to change it. Some cannot reconcile themselves with the complete arbitrariness of the way this place runs and demand to be heard - they cause all hell to break loose.
The last sort, they're the idiots. The type of people you should exhibit to kids on the first day of college and say, "Hey look! That's what you should aim not to be."
Here's why. Law school is remarkably result oriented. If those who stood up against the system could actually get anything done, then they'd be heroes. But, you see, it's a tiny set of people versus an institution that has the might to squash every word said against it (unless they wish to turn it around and use it against you). And, somehow, the fact that the system doesn't listen, is the fault of that tiny set of frustrated losers. It is not the fault of those who have not the courage or inclination to actually voice what they believe in. It is not the fault of those who've fed a fetid system and moulded it to their liking. It is certainly not the fault of those running the system. It's not even the fault of those who work behind the scenes but refuse to be identified with a certain cause.
"Why were you stupid enough to go antagonise them? I could have got it done for you." Doesn't law school teach one about independent agency? Aren't rules meant to be uniform? Isn't there something inherently contradictory in saying that you're trying to clean up a system while you continue to exploit those aspects of it that you find convenient? Isn't it a problem that if I go to Mr X with a request it is denied but the same request enunciated by you is acceded to? Do you have a right to clean up a system the survival of which you are contributing to? Is morality inherently impractical? Is taking a stance not based on pragmatism sheer foolishness? Why are we so against any moral argument? Granted that it's inherently subjective and, to the average utilitarian, pointless, but can we really discard what we believe is right in the face of overwhelming pressure to be practical. Is the end really that important?
I don't think everyone needs to stick up for the same things. Evidently, each person has her/his own concerns. But it becomes hard to swallow when the end seems like the only thing that's important. If someone's actions are inherently wrong but don't really affect my grades, I shall keep mum. The moment they do, I shall act. Do I have the right to act then? Am I not opportunistic? Shall not the system look me in the face and say, "Oh well, you have a motive and now I have an argument against you, plus the might to sit on you."
I feel like a loser today, like all that I've been wishing for over the course of two semesters was utter rubbish. I assumed that if someone can pick on me through two semesters because I chose to actually listen in his class and question him on what he says based on what he asked me to read, then some day he would be forced to account for all of his actions. I assumed that incompetence to such an extent that it cannot be tolerated would demand action against an individual. I assumed that there would be someone who would listen. Instead, we got blank stares. "He threatened you? Forget about it. No teacher can mean any ill-will against a student. It is just not possible. So what if his previous papers were unfairly judged, apprehensions are always baseless."
Now, I shall revolt/talk/whine/petition/argue into my pillows. At least they don't hit you in the face when you least expect it.
So you can keep clear of all of it and pretend like your life is untouched by the muck around you. You can flash a nice smile and get someone with influence to get you that academic leave you so desperately wanted.
Or you can be as presumptuous as hell and think of changing some part of the system.
Some of the nicest people I know on campus have sworn to stay clear; but I find that it's remarkably unfair to make no effort to change a rotten system but to complain about how deep the rot has set in. Some others, I know, acknowledge that the system is totally rotten but seem to have an inclination towards making it work the way they'd like it to, not standing up against it. Some try to work the system while trying to change it. Some cannot reconcile themselves with the complete arbitrariness of the way this place runs and demand to be heard - they cause all hell to break loose.
The last sort, they're the idiots. The type of people you should exhibit to kids on the first day of college and say, "Hey look! That's what you should aim not to be."
Here's why. Law school is remarkably result oriented. If those who stood up against the system could actually get anything done, then they'd be heroes. But, you see, it's a tiny set of people versus an institution that has the might to squash every word said against it (unless they wish to turn it around and use it against you). And, somehow, the fact that the system doesn't listen, is the fault of that tiny set of frustrated losers. It is not the fault of those who have not the courage or inclination to actually voice what they believe in. It is not the fault of those who've fed a fetid system and moulded it to their liking. It is certainly not the fault of those running the system. It's not even the fault of those who work behind the scenes but refuse to be identified with a certain cause.
"Why were you stupid enough to go antagonise them? I could have got it done for you." Doesn't law school teach one about independent agency? Aren't rules meant to be uniform? Isn't there something inherently contradictory in saying that you're trying to clean up a system while you continue to exploit those aspects of it that you find convenient? Isn't it a problem that if I go to Mr X with a request it is denied but the same request enunciated by you is acceded to? Do you have a right to clean up a system the survival of which you are contributing to? Is morality inherently impractical? Is taking a stance not based on pragmatism sheer foolishness? Why are we so against any moral argument? Granted that it's inherently subjective and, to the average utilitarian, pointless, but can we really discard what we believe is right in the face of overwhelming pressure to be practical. Is the end really that important?
I don't think everyone needs to stick up for the same things. Evidently, each person has her/his own concerns. But it becomes hard to swallow when the end seems like the only thing that's important. If someone's actions are inherently wrong but don't really affect my grades, I shall keep mum. The moment they do, I shall act. Do I have the right to act then? Am I not opportunistic? Shall not the system look me in the face and say, "Oh well, you have a motive and now I have an argument against you, plus the might to sit on you."
I feel like a loser today, like all that I've been wishing for over the course of two semesters was utter rubbish. I assumed that if someone can pick on me through two semesters because I chose to actually listen in his class and question him on what he says based on what he asked me to read, then some day he would be forced to account for all of his actions. I assumed that incompetence to such an extent that it cannot be tolerated would demand action against an individual. I assumed that there would be someone who would listen. Instead, we got blank stares. "He threatened you? Forget about it. No teacher can mean any ill-will against a student. It is just not possible. So what if his previous papers were unfairly judged, apprehensions are always baseless."
Now, I shall revolt/talk/whine/petition/argue into my pillows. At least they don't hit you in the face when you least expect it.
