An anonymous, concerned father of a CLAT aspirant asks some tough questions

You would have had a better chance of scoring a higher rank in CLAT 2015:

  • If you do not know the difference between “censor” and “censure”
  • If you cannot tell “foreign change” from “foreign exchange”
  • If you have no idea whether “Dulcet : Raucous” are synonyms or antonyms
  • If you have never heard of a Chinese e-commerce giant called Alibaba (and not Amazon), which became the biggest international business current affairs news story of 2014 with its global IPO that ranked it number one e-com company in the world in terms of market capitalization
  • If you have never read the following on Wikipedia about the history of Kathak (and not Mohiniyattam) that: “Gradually, what was essentially a solo-dance, moved towards expression in group performances” (Massey, Reginald (2004). India’s dances: their history, technique, and repertoire. Abhinav Publications. ISBN 81-7017-434-1)
  • And so on and so forth… (for at least 15 to 25 questions)

Where ignorance is bliss, dear CLAT candidates, it is folly to be wise.

Recent Judgment of Mumbai HC

Just a day before the final merit list of MBBS (MH-CET) 2015 was to be announced, the Bombay High Court replaced the state-appointed expert committee with a new court-appointed expert committee, to examine the validity of just one disputed question.

The court-appointed committee has come up with the conclusion that there is ambiguity in the options of the disputed MCQ. Therefore, every examinee who had attempted the question is being awarded one mark.

Duryodhana-like Stubbornness and False ego

When a king becomes stubborn and blinded by false pride and ego, he shall bring destruction for all. This is the grand lesson of the Mahabharata and the Bhagvad Gita.

However, a Duryodhana can bring destruction only in an autocratic society. In a democratic society, there are systems in place to guard against the insanity of those in power. Impeachment proceedings were initiated against President Nixon, forcing him to resign from office.

Common Sense Questions

Following the Duryodhana-like stubbornness of the CLAT organizers, who are hidden behind an opaque wall of non-accountability:

  • Is it possible to file a case of gross negligence, irresponsible conduct, failure to perform duty, and national disservice – risking the careers of thousands of students – against the CLAT 2015 convener, CLAT 2015 paper-setters, CLAT 2015 expert review committee, and the four vice chancellors who approved CLAT 2015 question paper (as mentioned in a TV interview by RMNLU VC Prof. Gurdip Singh)? This question merits legal scrutiny particularly in the face of the steadfast refusal of this holy group of CLAT 2015 organizers to recognize the enormity of their national responsibility and acknowledge the most obvious mistakes in the question paper.
  • Are the vice chancellors of NLUs above the law, or are they too citizens of India, who can be taken to court?
  • Can the Supreme Court of India take suo motu cognizance of this case, and set new standards for those who are bringing disrepute to CLAT year after year, and turning it into a national laughing stock with their Duryodhana-like stubbornness, as against other respectable national competitive examinations?

Stubbornness, false pride and ego are the characteristics of an ignorant person – because he wants to hide his ignorance behind his false veil of arrogance. Persons of true knowledge have no issues with accepting their mistakes, and rectifying them. Humbleness is the hallmark of truly knowledgeable men.

Mark these words from the Bible, for they shall come true very soon, if someone decides to take this case of CLAT 2015 right up to the Supreme Court: “Do you see a person wise in his own eyes? There is more hope for a fool than for him.” (Proverbs 26:12)

Comments

pooja gupta 18 Jun 2015, 04:55
+0 -0
Very true.waiting for justice from higher authorities in clat 2015 .My son future is at stake because of this stupidity. I hope justice will be done this year.Deserving candidates will not suffer.Honourable courts should take some steps against these Vc's of nlus who are playing with future of so many students.This year justice should show that no power,no influential people,nothing can stop them to give right judgement.Its high time to prove that law is same for everybody irrespective of their position.
D K Bhargava 19 Jun 2015, 17:57
+0 -0
Whatever may be the merit of the so-called mistakes in question paper, certainly the meritorious qualified candidates can not be made to pay for this. Commentators have been extremely unkind to the successful candidates as if they have deliberately inserted the mistakes in the papers. After-all, every candidate was equally exposed to the mistakes, if any, and some of them have successfully negotiated the situation. In any such Pan-India test, unsuccessful candidates will always outnumber the successful ones and these lot may crave for a re-test so that they can have another chance. Mistake in a question-paper is not synonymous with leaked question-paper where a section of students get undue advantage. But in the instant case of mistake, no one gets special advantage. However, mistakes in such important exam is a national shame and the group responsible for utter negligence should be taken to task in an exemplary manner.
Anonymous 20 Jun 2015, 08:20
+0 -0
It's not about being unkind to successful candidates. I agree, retest is not an option. I prepared for this test for more than a year. And I lost one of the top NLUs because of 0.5 marks. If the incorrect answers were to be rectified, I would benefit. What's wrong in asking for that? And when it comes to the successful students, if they are really deserving, they need not fret. It's a huge difference of 15 marks. Had it been one or two, the camdidate who got in would still be deserving. Please don't be rude to us, I personally solved the previous year papers, practiced legal reasoning, they can't just accept one answer for one year and a completely different one from later. Recently I read this article, where the court accepted that the Legal reasoning answers should be different from what they are now. And I'm one of those students who knew what Dulcet and Racuous means. I knew that properties are impounded, and not attached. All I want is that only the deserving should get in. No one is blaming the toppers. You must understand that we have invested so much tim and worked hard for this. So please don't come up with such insignificant reasons. All would be forgotten this year, maybe CLAT committee would be set up next year. All might get better from next year. But, what about this year?