Barbarism to the core: Death of a Medico in Chandigarh and racial charge against Harbajan Singh

The suicide of a Medico in Chandigarh( refer and visit upliftthem.blogspot.com [30th January,2008 at 13.03 IST) is disheartening at the moment where yet another cricketer is cleared of his racial slurring in Australia.The attitude of this kind of racist hidden casteist and racial behaviours with loaded overtones against Dalits and Blacks must be collectively condemned by the global media.Australia will learn a new lesson about India's hidden racist agenda(practiced internally too )only now.
Cricket , a game which promotes untouchability( you can notice that no player will touch yet another player anywhere in the game, so India indirectly promotes brahminism through this game with much fanfare)must be condemned.This game must be banned in India. Football, which is played in the Northern parts of Chennai with international standard in rural set up, must be promoted in India.While football is a game of valor, courage, virility and honesty, cricket is the game of insects, game of the laziest, physically and mentally powerless people.

We must seriously follow up what happens next to our medico brother's suicide case in Chandigarh.We have to create a separate blog like www.atrocitynews.wordpress.com and we must alert our brothers in Punjab to follow up this matter and bring the criminal students for punishment.My request to Punjabi Brothers:Please create a blog to update the booking of case against the students who are behind the suicide.
Dr S Armstrong, University of Madras, Chennai.

Survey of Indian Dalit Literature- An Appeal

I am planning to write a paper touching the important Dalit literary works available in India in different languages.I know that it would be a difficult job.But I would like to venture into this with the kind help of my friends in different states.
I request you too to respond to my request. If you come across any Dalit or Tribal literary works available in regional languages, please do let me know the title and the author of that particular work.It would help me a lot for documentation.

The Conspiracy Behind Reference Letters

Upon an advertisement in the “New Indian Express” of 24th September, 2007 for the post of Professor under open category in the department of English, University of Madras, the author of this article who is working as Lecturer in the same department applied for the post (hereafter applicant). He approached the head of the Department (hereafter referee) for a letter of reference for the post advertised. The readers of this article may know that submission of letter of reference is a fundamental requirement of the application for any posts in Indian and foreign academia. Letters of reference are probably the most important deciding factor for whether one will get accepted by the panel of experts in the selection committee or not.

Naturally, a lecturer-applicant who assumes that he has a healthy working relationship with the head, the support staff, fellow members of faculty and students- research scholars, will have a high expectation in a letter of reference. On the contrary the content of the letter was unprofessional and almost deprecatory. In fact, the applicant was compelled to think of many questions against it: factual, personal, academic, social and communal. Since letters of reference determine the appointment of candidates, the referees, given the caste, class and gender situations in India, either make or mar the selection of a particular candidate. It is only fitting a referee in letter is a subject of serious analysis.

First of all, the letter was given well past the due date (drafted in about ten days with repeated requests from 23^rd October 2007 to 1^st of November, 2007, the letter is dated as 2^nd November 2007 and the deadline for the application was 23^rd October, 2007).

A close reading of this letter led the applicant to think of questions such as; could this letter be written like this? Would this letter really help one in the interview? What could be the hidden meanings of single inverted comas in a single word, of upper cases, of lower cases, of the use of first person pronouns in many places? Why should the self of the referee of this letter be projected more than the ability of the applicant? Are there any embedded meanings in the use of present tense, present perfect tense and future tense in a letter of reference? Could there be any politics behind all these? If at all there is what kind of politics that could there be? How could a person in the responsible position hide the academic capacity of fellow colleague? How could a ‘senior academic’ hide the ability or talent or fact in a colleague who has proved himself? Would this letter play a role in spoiling a healthy academic relationship with fellow colleagues except the head since this letter irrelevantly brings the name of the applicant’s fellow colleague in a reference letter written specially about the applicant? What could be the target in bringing somebody’s name in a serious letter of reference written supposedly to be in serious tone? How could an ‘eminent’ professor indulge in an act of hiding public and academic truths? Could this person have a biased coin in this letter? If so what kind of bias: favoritism to appoint someone of same caste, class and gender? How could the applicant name this act: academic betrayal, academic crime, academic violence, academic terrorism, or is it a neo-saffronization of Indian academia? Is this an act more criminal than the scenes of bloodshed, lynching, violence and feeding human excreta in human mouths in the streets of India? How could one name this invisible academic-fascism? Should I blog this experience or write to a journal/magazine?

The applicant with his little ‘knowledge of the world’ of language and literature is ‘incapable’ of understanding the complete linguistic, literal, metaphorical and metonymic meaning of this valued ‘letter’, feels that he has also failed to find all the answers to the questions posed above. But the applicant has enough pointers to pose. Since there are no equivalent phrase in English language to name this kind of act of referees, this applicant is forced to borrow an Italian phrase “Fascio Littorio” which once symbolized power and authority in ancient Rome. This reference letter appears to be a bundle of multi-tipped axes (the Romans used only single tipped axes in Fascio Littorio) with symbolic Indian ‘varna’ meanings. As one tip of the axe cuts the academic abilities of an applicant and the other tips sharpen the ‘varna’ hegemony in Indian academic space. This letter thus becomes yet another development of Indian system’s extended symbolization and reflects the referee’s preservation in a microcosmic way in this letter of reference.

Does the applicant create an academic tempest, in a Calibanized sense, in a tea-pot? The readers of this article will surely decide after cross checking the two letters of reference I and II written in ‘honour’ of the applicant to apply for the said post, one by the head (I) and the other by a member of faculty and researcher from Columbia University, USA (II) who knows the applicant academically well and who is not related to the applicant by birth. The letter of the head (I) follows:

II

(I) LETTER OF REFERENCE

I have known Dr.S.Armstrong for the past four years. He joined the Department of English in 2004 as a Lecturer under the 'backlog' vacancy. Prior to that I had asked him to handle the Elective Course on Canadian Literature for a semester on part-time guest lecturing.Dr Armstrong has specialized in Canadian First Nations Writing and has been the recipient of the Shastri doctoral fellowship while doing his Ph.D. in Bharathidasan University, Trichy.Dr.S.Armstrong has taken the initiative to put up a Core paper on Canadian Studies for 2008.He has been quite active in that field and has enthusiastically helped me in organizing programmes and conferences, both national and international, in my capacity as Director of Centre for Canadian Studies.Dr.Armstrong is a representative of the younger generation of academics who are techno-savvy, enterprising, bold, pragmatic and persevering.Dr Armstrong's presentations in conferences and the sessions he chaired showed his professionalism, his self-assurance and his ability to conduct the proceeding in a compact manner. He has earned the praise of Canadian scholars from abroad.

I wish to acknowledge how as a young colleague in the Department he stood by me in my endeavour to improve the physical infrastructure of the premises in the summer of 2006.He did not confine himself to his closet, but he came out and helped on most occasions when I needed the assistance of some younger colleague.

As a teacher Dr Armstrong motivates the diffident students to come forward and participate in seminars and events not only in the Department but also in those organised by other institutions. In this, I am fortunate to head a Department where not only he, but all the other younger colleagues of mine led by Dr.R.Azhagarasan, feel committed to the development of the students. In most cases, the students have come back winning laurels, shields and prizes.Dr Armstrong familiarises the students with the use of technological academic resources.

How do I, as a senior academic, envision the future of this young man? I am convinced that Dr Armstrong has immense potential to come up to high levels of a modern Indian University in the future when our society will be radically transformed. He has shown leadership qualities: grit, focus, ruthlessness, hard work, knowledge of the world, uncanny ability for crisis management and of course, enlightened self-interest. With a greater openness I am sure he will come to develop an integral, inclusive understanding of sphere of education, role of the Universities and contribute both to academia and society in positive terms. I wish him well.

C.T.INDRA signed on 2nd November, 2007.

III

The applicant wishes to analyse each and every line of the above letter for better understanding of the wider Indian and foreign readership.

The very first line of the first paragraph is a factual error. So this line raises doubts. The referee met this applicant in New Delhi in the month of July, 1999 in a gathering arranged by Shastri Indo-Canadian Institute (SICI), New Delhi, in honour of the Fellows selected by SICI to visit Canada on various categories of Fellowships. The applicant got Doctoral Fellowship and the referee got Faculty Enrichment Award. Thereafter, the referee invited this applicant for a couple of seminars, refresher course and finally for floating a course purely based on the applicant’s research aptitude, academic exposure, specialization, and nothing else. Certainly, the applicant’s gender, class, and caste did not matter then beyond the status that the applicant was one of the few specialists in the field, if not the only one. What could perhaps happen if the referee says, ‘I know him for the past eight years; calculating the span of years between 1999 and 2007’? In the first sentence, what could be the difference between the uses of ‘I know’ and ‘I have known’? It is yet another doubt. Could this be called an act of keeping ‘academic distance’? The readers, of course, will not fail to understand the politics of ‘distance’ maintained in India.

The applicant does not know how to understand the second line of this letter and I leave it to the better understanding of the readers as this is the most ‘colour’ful, most powerful, and learned way of communicating the ‘message’ to the panel of selectors. The referee, at last, uses the last weapon available to her in India as she feels disarmed at the last days of academic ‘service’ to India. Will this line serve as the role of a Promethean harbinger to the selection committee?

Taking the third, fourth and fifth line together, the applicant has a doubt why does the fourth line not appear in the third and vice versa. When the referee knows the applicant only for four years how could she ask the applicant to ‘handle’ a course before four years? Why does the word ‘handle’ appear in teaching a course? Is floating a course an intellectual activity or physical activity? Why does the referee choose the verb used for a physical activity to refer to an intellectual academic exercise? How could you ask someone whom is not known to you academically to ‘handle’ an important course? Was the applicant not invited to float a course only because of his academic exposure and specialization? Or because of the power of the referee? Then why should the fourth line not appear in the third and vice versa? What could the referee like to communicate by using ‘I had asked him’? What would be the meaning behind the use of upper case for ‘Lecturer ‘in the second line and the lower case in ‘guest lecturing’ in the third line? Could there be an invisible linkage between the second and third line? I leave it to the guess of the readers. After the successful communication to the committee in the second line about the applicant, did the referee in a whoop of joyful mood fail to achieve coherence between the third and fourth line and did the referee use her academic and ‘other’ power deliberately in these lines? Did that result in the delivery of or production of an incomplete fifth line? Fifth line goes like this: “Dr.S.Armstrong has taken the initiative to put up a Core paper on Canadian Studies for 2008”. By leaving the line only with year 2008, the referee is not clear in communicating whether it is for an academic year or for students of 2008 batch. Why does this referee indulge in deliberate confusion and incoherence?

The sixth line in the first paragraph is factually erroneous. It projects the referee’s personality more and brings out the emotional quotient of the applicant, and not the skills related to intelligent quotient displayed by the applicant in organizing a big academic event. The referee projects the ‘enthusiasm’ of the applicant but at the same line the referee uses phrases like, ‘helped me’ and ‘in my capacity as Director of Centre for Canadian Studies’. Does the referee deliberately avoid using the phrase Joint Coordinator? The applicant was a Joint Coordinator in a couple of International Conferences hosted by the department. The rest of the first paragraph, namely, seventh, eighth and ninth lines, shows that the applicant appears to be a modern academic magician who with his wand ‘earned the praise of Canadian scholars from abroad’. This raises yet another question, namely, that the praise definitely was not by ‘scholars’ in India?

There are only two sentences in the second paragraph, very simple and very cordial. Why does the referee allot separate paragraph for these two simple lines? How important these simple lines are in a second paragraph? Why does the referee use, ‘I’, ‘stood by me in my endeavour’, ‘to improve the physical infrastructure of the premises in the summer of 2006’ and ‘when I needed the assistance’? What does the referee try to communicate in this paragraph? While the referee has the ‘ powerful memory’ of recollecting the services rendered by the applicant to ‘improve the physical infrastructure of the premises in the summer of 2006’ , now in November 2007, has the referee no energy or memory to recollect the applicant’s three important paper presentations in International Conferences held in May 2007( summer of 2007 in India as Indians know) in Oklahoma University(World Indigenous Scholars Meeting), USA, in McGill University ( Bi-National Conference on Women and Social Change) , Canada and in Windsor University(Social Justice, Citizenship and Identity Conference), Canada including the award of Shastri Indo-Canadian Visiting Lectureship at McGill University, Canada in the same month, May,2007.The University of Madras issued No Objection Certificates to the applicant and the host Universities in USA and Canada issued attendance and participation certificates to the applicant.

Of course, the applicant is very sure that the referee is not afflicted with senile dementia but sees her very active. But then what could motivate this referee to forget the intellectual exercise of the applicant in the summer of 2007 and recollect the assistance for ‘physical infrastructure’ that too in the ‘summer of 2006’? What could be the hidden agenda of this selective memory and selective forgetting? Why does the referee give more importance to the physical help, physical presence, physical assistance, emotional quotient and not to the intellectual assistance to the department and to the University? Why does the referee give more importance to the tenses of the past and future than to the present? Why does the referee project herself by using personal possessive pronouns more in a letter of reference than projecting the potentiality of the applicant? What would prevent the referee from doing so? What did the referee want to communicate to the selection committee through the second paragraph? The applicant is baffled to decipher but the readers could perhaps guess the genii-like embedded meanings in the letter.

Taking the four lines together in the third paragraph for analysis, the applicant is unable to understand why the fourth line be not followed after the first line. Why does the referee project herself by using ‘I am very fortunate to head the Department’ and drag yet another colleague’s name while talking about the applicant’s teaching ability and motivation of students? The applicant personally trained students, and M.Phil and PhD research scholars, and sent them to Asia Pacific Conference held in Hong Kong in April,2007 (these two research scholars have registered for their PhD programme with the applicant’s guidance), and M.Phil scholars( 2006-07 batch)to Diaspora Conference held at the New College, Chennai, M.A students( present second year M.A English)to Indian Association for Canadian Studies International Conference held in Jammu University in February,2007( here the applicant was also there and trained students to win a debate competition and no colleague from the department accompanied the applicant) and MA( present first year ) students to Gandhigram Rural Deemed University , Dindigul for ‘Symphony’, an Inter-University Drama Festival held in September,2007. Here students won three prizes and the overall shield. The readers can check with the students who trained them personally and how can students simply win ‘laurels’,’ shields’ and ‘prizes’ without any training? Did other colleagues involve in any of these events? Then, why should the referee drag the names of other colleagues who ‘feel committed to the development of the students’? If the referee is so particular about mentioning other colleague’s names in the applicant’s letter of reference, perhaps, the referee would have mentioned two courses that the applicant collaborate with two different colleagues. But the referee could have ‘forgotten’ that ‘interpersonal academic collaboration’ of this applicant. Why does the referee fail to mention the applicant’s proved action but would like to mention the ‘feeling’ of other colleagues? Why should the referee generalize this applicant’s action and indulge in focusing her ‘fortunate headship ‘and other colleagues’ feeling in a letter of reference written to the applicant? Does the referee ‘hierarchize’ the department by belittling the applicant’s ability, especially by doubly pushing not only under her but under another colleague of the applicant who is given the charge of a leader over fellow colleagues? Why does the referee ‘hegemonize’ the department? Does the referee attempt to clone a colleague who would step into her shoes? Does the referee try to create a microcosm of the Indian system in the department by dividing kinds of ‘labour’ or kinds of ‘people’? The applicant depends on the readers and fellow colleagues for a better clarity.

The fourth and the last paragraph has five lines including a sarcastic opening question. The question goes like this: “how do I, as a senior academic, envision the future of this young man?’. The question posed in a very sarcastic way deliberately puts the selectors in state of expectation about the applicant’s final fate? But the following lines or the answers given by the referee are totally irrelevant to the question she posed and highly scheming. It is because; the referee is ‘convinced’ and not very sure about the potentiality of the applicant and the use of word ‘convinced’ reflects the referee’s most hesitant psyche. These potentialities will be used, not now, but only, in her own words,’ in the future’ and in what context these potentialities will be used? In the words of the referee, these potentialities will be used “when our society will be radically transformed”.

In the five sentences of this last paragraph readers can see the use of ‘I’ in all the sentences except in the third line of this paragraph. The referee seems to be besotted by the use of personal possessive pronouns throughout the letter written for an applicant where the referee should have projected the self of the applicant than the personal self. After using the tenses of past in the first two paragraphs now the referee resorts to use future tense in three of the sentences in the last paragraph. Does the referee mean to say that at present the applicant, for this post, not eligible? But, in her own words, ‘in future when our society will be radically transformed’ will the applicant become eligible? When will the referee ‘envision’ this kind of radical transformation in India? The readers and the applicant have to wait for the prophesy of the referee for the radical transformation in India. Or, is the eternal present only for those who are, in the referee’s view, more “intellectual” than “physical” like the applicant? The referee proves and approves that the present Indian society has seen no transformation so far and the ‘system’ remains the same.

The third line of this paragraph about the applicant’s leadership qualities should have gone with the second line of the third paragraph since the referee dedicates this line to talk about the qualities of a leader in this applicant. But the referee is unable to club this line with the third paragraph .It is because the referee, in a hurry, deliberately put the applicant under the sub leadership of a colleague of the referee’s choice in a planned way to preserve the Indian system in the department. Now, the referee would like to vulgarize the real leadership qualities of the applicant. How could it be done here at the end of this letter, in the crucial part of this letter? For her opening question, the quality of a leader is not the answer here. Then, why should the referee talk about the leadership qualities of the applicant contradictorily here after appointing another leader for this applicant? Could it be for referring to the muscular qualities of this applicant? The choice of the words raises this doubt. The referee uses words such as, ‘grit,’ ‘focus’, ‘ruthlessness’, ‘hard work’ and ‘uncanny’ to refer to leadership and crisis management qualities of this applicant. The word ‘grit’ also means loose particles of stone or sand and it is widely used in Navy for courageousness. The word ‘ruthlessness’ has the following meanings: inhuman, bloodthirsty, brutal, callous, cruel, dangerous, ferocious, heartless, merciless, pitiless, relentless, sadistic, unsympathetic, violent and vicious. Will the members in the selection committee assume the meaning of their own choice? The last word ‘uncanny’ refers to strange or mysterious ability and so does the applicant possess out of-the-world intellectual and physical talents that are not part of the ‘normal’ head (the referee) and collegial leaders? Does hard work become one of the traits of a leader?

The referee consciously projects the personal self in the fourth and fifth lines. Using future tense, the referee gives the highly negative and complex picture of the applicant, the academia and the society. The fourth line goes like this: “With greater openness I am sure he will come to develop an integral, inclusive understanding of sphere of education, role of the Universities and contribute both to academia and society in positive terms”. The referee who was only ‘convinced’ about the potentialities of the applicant in the second line now in the fourth line, the referee has “greater openness” and not only that the referee is “sure” that the applicant “will come to develop”, if the Indian society will radically transform, “an integral, inclusive understanding of sphere of education, role of Universities” and then the applicant will contribute to “academia and society”. How will the applicant come to develop? The referee says, “in positive terms”. Would the referee mean to conclude that the present Indian society and academia are not integral and exclusive and can the Universities transform this scenario? No. Because the use of the phrase “in positive terms” at the end of this line is significant. It is because the present scenario is negative and the referee approves this in this line. If everything becomes alright, then the applicant will contribute both to academia and society in positive terms. To reform this kind of system, the referee wishes the applicant, “I wish him well” (fifth and the last line in this paragraph and letter) and not for the post that applicant applied for.

The last line of this letter goes like this: ‘I wish him well’. Normally the word ‘well’ is used to refer to a patient when he or she is sick in the home or the hospital, say, ‘get well soon’ or ‘farewell’. The referee means that the Indian society and academia are sick like the entry of applicant in Indian academia and so the referee wishes the applicant “well”. What could happen if the referee mentions about the name of the post for which the applicant has applied for in the last line? The referee so far , projected the personal self very well but here , like a tortoise, withdraws her self in a cold, most unenthusiastic, unwelcoming way to maintain an ‘academic distance’ in wishing the applicant? So the referee says, “I wish him well”. What could happen if the referee, a ‘ senior academic’ , ‘blesses’ this ‘young’ applicant “all the best” in this applicant’s application for professorship, leave alone, the appendage of ‘recommend’, or ‘strongly recommend’. Nobody knows for which purpose the letter has been written, and there was no hint of any word related to ‘professorship’ for which the letter has been drafted.

What are the missing facts in this letter?: authoring of a book, compilation of a book, national and international publications, applicant’s visits abroad for paper presentations, applicant’s recent Award of Visiting Lectureship at McGill University, Canada, designing of new courses, contribution of a description of a blurb for a book on Hollywood Films written by Dr Mark Anderson and published by Peter Lang publishers, New York in 2007( the description was corrected by the referee herself) and the applicant’s contribution to research. These facts are vital for selection in the interviews for posts like professors. Will the readers know that the writer of this letter of reference has forgotten these facts?

To conclude this analysis, would the referee of letter ( I ) like to reinstate a kind of microcosmic Indian ‘system’ in the department, academia in general, in which the applicants, like the author of this article, must not only serve but also sub serve in the ‘system’ physically and not intellectually? Leaving this to the wild guess of the readers, the applicant appends below the letter of reference (II) written by a faculty and researcher from Columbia University in the next part of this article.

IV

(II) REFERENCE LETTER

I know Dr. S. Armstrong since 1995. His research in the field of Cultural Studies and indigenous peoples across the world brought him into contact with scholars at Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi, when I was a member of faculty in social sciences.

Through my interaction with Armstrong I got to know that he has had a very commendable educational career since his post graduation at St. Joseph’s College (Autonomous), Thiruchirapalli. I have gone through his doctoral dissertation titled, “Voices of the Unheard: A Study of Four Canadian Native Women’s Writers”, which I think is distinctly original for the analytical enunciation of indigeneity and gender questions. The significance of Armstrong’s PhD project was recognized early on through the award of Shastri Indo-Canadian Doctoral Fellowship in 1999.This enabled him to strengthen his understanding of gender theory, indigenous peoples, etc., by auditing courses such as, Native Indian Literature, Women Studies and Marxism offered by Prof. Thomas King and Prof. Terisa E. Turner of the University of Guelph, Canada during his stay for his research. Also, the long exposure he has had at Universities abroad has provided an interdisciplinary orientation to his research and teaching. This commendable experience of Armstrong will provide the much needed exposure to the students from different departments of University of Madras.

Armstrong’s research interests and papers have taken him to many conferences, both national and international. I understand that he has presented papers in Colombo (1995),Sydney(1996), Bologna(1999), Pittsburgh(1999), Toronto(2000), Oklahoma(2007), Montreal(2007), Windsor(2007) and Toronto(2007). His extensive research has resulted in the production of two books, of which one is an edited Volume. Since these books grapple with questions of indigenous peoples’ literature, culture and politics they have achieved critical acclaims in India and abroad. In addition, Armstrong, to his credit has published 10 papers in important national journals such as “Interventions”, “Points of View” and “Kakatiya Journal of English Studies”. He has also published papers at international level, of which one is to be published by Oxford University Press, New Delhi and the other is to be published in “Research Review”, an interdisciplinary journal of University College of Fraser Valley, Canada.

Apart from research accomplishments Armstrong has qualified for a Post-Graduate Certificate in Teaching English (PGCTE) from Central Institute of English and Foreign Languages (CIEFL) University, Hyderabad. His participation in the course on “Natural Language Processing” at the Indian Institute of Science (IISc), Bangalore, has enriched his knowledge of teaching with the help of Internet Communication Technology (ICT) and its application in class room teaching. Given Armstrong’s deep interest and commitment for teaching, these additional qualifications have enriched his role as a creative, commendable, and laudable teacher as well. Armstrong’s critical orientations to theory and practice have resulted in offering a course titled “The Discourses of Domination, Resistance and Emancipation: Race, Caste, and Gender”. I gather that almost all M.Phil students of 2007 batch have joined this course. This course is also a result of his long discussions with me on themes touching many disciplines such as history, literature, anthropology and Cultural Studies. I have no doubts that many students stand to benefit from Dr. Armstrong’s erudition and commitment to teaching.

I find Dr. S. Armstrong a competent and devoted scholar with a valuable contribution in his area of research. Dr.S.Armstrong has an amazing networking ability with the Indian and Foreign academicians and an excellent organizational skill to organize big academic events. With this rich background in research and teaching, I am sure he will be not only an asset to the Department of English as a Professor but to the University as such. I strongly recommend his application for Professorship in English at the University of Madras.

GAJENDRAN AYYATHURAI signed on 23^rd October, 2007

V

The second letter of reference written in five paragraphs for the applicant predates the first letter of reference chronologically but the second letter becomes a sort of befitting reply to the first one. The second letter strictly adheres to the CV of the applicant and the academic association with him. For all the facts mentioned in the second letter, evidence is available with the applicant and nothing is overdone or overblown. Unlike the first letter, the second letter appears to be very objective, unbiased and depersonalized. The use of the personal pronouns in the second letter appears to focus more on the abilities, skills and potentialities of the applicant than about the referee unlike the first letter.

Using simple present tense, the second letter is free from the politics of the use of sarcastic language, of the usage of tense and closely records the intellectual abilities of this applicant to describe the organizing, course designing, teaching and research skills and aptitudes. This letter also maintains an academic distance with a balance unlike the pitiless distance maintained in the first letter. The second letter does not seem to give any space for physical or emotional descriptions about the applicant. It also avoids peripheralising the applicant in a condescending way.

The second letter is self-explanatory. The applicant does not see any power hierarchization, hegemonization, patronization, authoritarianism, epistemic violence, and symbolization of attitudes related to labour, monopolization in the use of language, deliberate incoherence, illogical sequence of sentences, uncooperative or unenthusiastic attitudes in recording the skills of an applicant, linguistic and academic conspiracy, and decamping from facts and truths in the drafting of this second letter.

The purpose of unfolding the first letter is that it wears many face packs and provides a lot of space to unveil the hidden spores of information and hidden avalanches of designing. There are also selective facts but collective and convenient forgetting and memory. The second letter does not give any space to unveil the hidden meanings and it has no spew of venom of any kind but the first letter looks like a diabolical glasshouse of silence with a fractured information about an individual. The applicant is afraid that the missing information and the politics behind the letter be brought out to the notice of International academia and of course, about the Indian aca (demonia)’s scenario to the centre stage to avoid any further academic scheming. Who will benefit from this? The applicant does not know. If the applicant does not write about this ‘conspiracy of reference” then who else will write about the applicant’s numbness that he experienced after receiving the letter of reference (I)?