You are saying contradictory things. If you mark students present despite them not being so, then on pen and paper, that student is fulfilling the attendance requirements. So the institution need not be actually aware of how many students are giving your exam despite not having requisite attendance. The issue is also not about whether or not to fight the attendance requirements. The issue is about you actively indulging in what can only be termed as forgery in a more acceptable and less dangerous form and then coupling it with a sense of entitlement evident from references to your scholarship, activism and academic ability. You are not only therefore teaching your students to break rules everytime it suits them, but also expecting that to be appreciated and as stated in your first comment, taking active pride in it for exhibiting moral bankruptcy. You sidestepped the analogy of a student following in your footsteps and cheating in a close book exam. How do you expect to have the moral ground of criticizing that student given what you are showing them as acceptable? You want to argue strategy, by all means go ahead. Just don't make it equivalent to morality or respect for rule of law.