Readers’ comments: Misleading article damages reputation of Delhi University English department

Dear Scroll editors,

This communication is with reference to the article “Why a professor from Belgium was branded ‘anti-India’ after Delhi lecture on 18th-century Dutch text” by Professor Jakob de Roover from Ghent University, published in Scroll on September 7. It is stated that the Department of English, University of Delhi has taken a serious view of this article. We unanimously and vehemently refute all the allegations made by the author against the Department in general and the Head of Department, Professor Anil Aneja, in particular.

The narrative of events, as stated in the article, is not correct. We are appalled at the misrepresentation of “facts” in the article, which runs contrary to the ethos, values and integrity of our esteemed more than 100-year-old department that has always promoted and cultivated highest standards of education and fostered brilliant academic minds over decades, encouraging them to discuss, debate, and express opinions in a rational manner. We are equally saddened by the lack of journalistic ethics of Scroll in publishing anything as the truth without verifying its authenticity.

As far as the factual misrepresentations are concerned, the department unanimously refutes the comments made by Professor Roover in his article and would like to bring into light some “facts”, for your knowledge and consideration:

1. “Ascribing claims from the 1799 text to me, messages were being sent around accusing me of being “anti-India”, I was told.”

The statement is completely false and fabricated and full of misrepresentations. Professor Roover needs to come clean by producing verifiable evidence of his statement through which he has sought to damage established public figures, the Department of English and other bodies of the University of Delhi.

It is vehemently stated that the Head of the Department or any other faculty member, never used the term “anti-India” for him, nor spoke to him ever in any insulting manner. He received optimum respect and courtesy throughout his presence at the Department of English, University of Delhi. As Professor Roover has not presented any evidence for his allegations in the article in reference, it makes us infer that this is nothing more than an elaborate and fabricated narrative to malign the good repute of the Department and its faculty.

2. “The aim was to show students that European representations of India reflect how one culture has experienced another and thus teach them about the nature of European culture itself.”

Professor Roover’s aim might have been as he states in his article but we are informed that as the lecture proceeded, that was certainly not what he chartered. Despite what he has claims in the article, the focus of the workshop was meant to be “digital humanities” and not “European representations of India”. In fact, the title of the workshop was “Digital Humanities & Methodological Tools”. The academic discourse of “digital humanities”, was never addressed, either directly or indirectly, by Professor Roover in either the morning or the post-lunch session on August 24, 2024 – the first day of the workshop, which is the reference point of his article.

3. “The students in my class got disturbed and some began to defend the statement as a truth about their own society. .. I asked ironically and told them to reflect on the problem, which would be tackled in a later workshop.”

The very fact that he had comprehended that students are getting disturbed indicates the intentions of the speaker to ignite such discussions in the workshop, which was on “Digital Humanities”, effectively losing the thread of the workshop.

4. “That workshop never took place. On August 28, the head of the department, Anil Kumar Aneja, told me that a lecture he had invited me to give the next week was cancelled because ‘no venue was available’.”

The reality is other way around, he did take a three-hour session on August 28, the attendance of which has also been maintained and can be verified. In fact, we were informed by the Workshop Coordinator, Professor Ujjwal Jana, that readings for the participants for the next session scheduled on August 31, 2024, were shared on August 29. These readings for the August 31 session, would not have been circulated on August 29, had Professor Roover been termed “anti-India” as he claims in his narrative.

Further, the Coordinator has informed the Department that on Friday, August 30, 2024, Professor Roover told him that as he had another meeting in the morning of August 31, therefore he would be coming directly to the Department for the workshop and did not need to be picked up from the university guest house. If there was any thought or intimation of cancellation of the Workshop, such discussions would not have taken place.

However, on the day of the session, that is, on Saturday, August 31, 2024, the third day of the workshop, many of the participants came (perhaps out of decency and respect), they waited and waited for the speaker to arrive, with Professor Roover nowhere in sight. When the Coordinator, Professor Jana’s attempts to reach him via call/text/WhatsApp were not successful, a volunteer was sent to the university international guest house to find out what the matter was and why Professor Roover had not turned up. To our utter disbelief and shock, we were informed that he had quietly left the university guest house the previous day.

With all due respect, it may be noted that Professor Roover did not have the basic civility to even inform about his departure to the workshop Coordinator Professor Ujjwal Jana, on whose invitation he was here. Such a secret, unprofessional and unheard departure of a guest raises many questions concerning his conduct at the University of Delhi. As the resource person had disappeared and was nowhere to be traced, the Coordinator was left with no option other than not being able to proceed with the Workshop.

As this premature termination of the workshop on the third day was solely caused by the secret, mysterious and unprofessional disappearance of Professor Roover (who would not even take phone calls or respond to WhatsApp messages), we wonder how the esteemed speaker has the audacity to blame the head of department for the cancellation of the workshop three days prior to this incident.

The author of the article seems to have conveniently and deliberately hidden the fact that he was not even invited by the head of the department for the workshop but by the Workshop Coordinator, Professor Jana. However, since the colleague in reference is based in the Department of English and the activities were taking place in the Departmental space, the head of the department offered all possible courtesy to the author of the article by not only welcoming him to his office but also sharing the platform with him during the inaugural session.

5. Professor Roover further goes on to misrepresent the facts by mixing his mysterious disappearance with the cancellation of a talk which had never firmed up and had no relation with the schedule of the “Digital Humanities” workshop. The discussions about a separate talk were only exploratory in nature and no formal invitation/confirmation to deliver the talk was provided to Professor Roover therefore the question of cancellation does not even arise. There were strictly logistical reasons for not proceeding with the other lecture which, as stated earlier, was an exploratory discussion about an independent talk and had no relation with the said workshop whatsoever.

6. In fact, the Head of Department, Professor Anil Aneja, whom he has maligned without context in his article, was clueless regarding the state of affairs and equally worried when he got to know about Professor Roover’s disappearance from the University Guest House. Therefore, this remark is clearly an attempt to attack and tarnish the academic integrity and professional position of Professor Aneja in India and abroad as well as bring the whole institution into disrepute, which is unanimously countered and condemned by the Department of English, University of Delhi.

The selective manner in which the article is written can be seen from the fact that while the author has deliberately and baselessly aimed to malign the integrity and reputation of the Head of Department, Professor Anil K. Aneja, who neither even invited him for the workshop, nor cancelled the workshop, he has deliberately not named the “colleague” who apparently told him all these narratives. This points to a strategy to specifically target the Department of English, University of Delhi as well as the Head of Department, Professor Aneja, without any basis.

We hope Professor Roover realises that making allegations and fabricated and mala fide statements against public authorities and public institutions without evidence and without verification of the same is not just unethical and unprofessional but the author of the article would be solely responsible for any damage caused to the institutions, public authorities or any other.

7. “They simply prohibited me from talking about representations of India. Otherwise, there might be sanctions and protest marches against my presence on campus, he feared.”

This is clearly a figment of his imagination and has no basis in the factual circumstances. Again, the author needs to come clean regarding the authenticity of such statements. The department has a strong academic discourse on post-colonial studies and we encourage more and more researchers to critically explore representations/misrepresentations of India by the West. However, it must be reiterated that this was not the domain of the said Workshop.

8. “Here I was, facing a bunch of academics who could not distinguish between quoting a text (to analyse or criticise it) and endorsing a text, between claims cited and claims made by a speaker.”

This is a blatant, unacceptable and highly condemnable attack on Indian academicians, questioning their ability to understand and argue. As mentioned before, he did “endorse” the text, which can be clearly inferred from him permitting the digressions to take place in the session, actively participating and, at times, defending these digressions, as well as getting offended when being questioned on the relevance of all such digressions to the topic of the workshop “Digital Humanities and Methodological Tools”. It may also be mentioned here that the unintelligibility of discussion can be equally attributed to the lack of communication skill and convincing power of the speaker, and not the participants.

Till reading the Scroll article, we were not even aware that such things were brewing. In fact, by mutual consent and out of respect for an academician, we chose not to publicise the fact that he had disappeared from the University in a mysterious and unceremonious manner without any basic courtesy, expected from all human beings.

9. “None of the people campaigning against me ever confronted me. The people who had invited me to Delhi University succumbed to pressure and allowed me to be censored.”

By admitting that nobody confronted him, overtly confesses that all that he writes is pure imagination. It is a completely baseless and banal argument to belittle the prestige of the University of Delhi, ranked among the top 500 universities in the QS World ranking and attacking the Department of English, which is ranked among the top 150 departments of English in the QS World ranking.

10. “Academics who silence other academics in this way cannot be intellectuals, let alone researchers; they can perhaps serve as sycophants for the powers that be. Yet, they are teachers at one of India’s premier universities, expected to shape its brightest young minds. At best, their students will end up woefully unprepared for today’s world, unable to tackle the harmful claims about India they are going to confront everywhere.,, The goddess of knowledge is revered far and wide in India. But at Delhi University today, some professors are actively undermining Indian culture’s most profound concern. They are anti-knowledge. That is unforgivable.”

This clearly demonstrates Professor Roover’s conservative views of India and his biasedness against the Indian intelligentsia, which the Department of English unanimously condemns. If mere disagreement and dissent is perceived as lack of wisdom and understanding, and warrants making false statements about India and Indians, it says more about the academic credibility of the speaker than the participants.

11. “Unfortunately, things are no better in 2024 than they were in 1799.”

This statement depicts more about the Speaker’s immature understanding of the Indian culture and ethos. Rather than admitting that his lecture was way off the topic of the workshop, he has taken the easier and unprofessional way of blaming others without any basis or substance. Professor Roover’s leaving the guesthouse and leaving the country without informing the authorities and administration of Delhi University and even the Principal Investigator of the project is unprofessional and uncalled for. In spite of several reminders through emails/WhatsApp/voice-call he did not have the courtesy to respond till the publishing of this article.

12. The publishing of this “deceitful” article on Scroll on September 7 is not only shocking but the contents of the article are deeply damaging to the reputation of the Department and the University. We are also both surprised and saddened at your journalistic ethics in publishing someone's narration/perception as the truth/fact without verifying its credibility from other sides. It is not only a matter of courtesy, but a matter of journalistic professionalism to contact the organisation and/or the person whose credibility and bona fides are being questioned.

We respect the journalistic ethics of Scroll but such unverified publishing of anything is completely unacceptable. In our view, it was enjoined upon the Scroll editors to have verified the facts from the other sides before publishing such an article. As no disclaimer has been provided, it appears that you endorse the article as a piece of news, which is unacceptable and disheartening. Even if there was any such disclaimer, under the cover of disclaimers, untrue and fabricated narratives should not be published.

13. The apparent endorsement of this article by Scroll makes us wonder whether we are still living under the “colonial hangover” where the narrative of the western academician gains unverified approval to publish while the other side has not even granted a voice for clarification.

In the light of above-stated facts, all of which can be verified by us, unlike Professor Roover’s article, kindly publish our response along with the said article so that the other side of the picture is known to the readers. It is not simply insulting to us as teachers and researchers, but also disgraces the Indian academia and by extension, our country, which has always been warm and welcoming to everyone. Since your platform has been used to provide baseless and negative publicity to the Department of English and the University of Delhi, we believe it is enjoined upon you to publish our version of the narrative as well, so that the truth can come out in public domain.

We do hope that in an impartial journalistic manner and provide due space and significance to our views.

With best wishes, Professor Anil K Aneja, Head of the Department, on behalf of the Department of English, University of Delhi.