In an incident that has sent shockwaves through the academic community, NALSAR University of Law, one of India’s premier law schools, is under fire for framing a question in its mid-semester examination that some critics argue crosses the line from academic exercise to outright mockery.
The question, posed in the August 2024 exam for ‘Constitutional Policy and Practice of Election Laws’, presented a hypothetical scenario in the “Republic of Dorkistan,” ruled by a right-wing leader named “Mr. Noddyji” of the “Nationalist Socialist Party of Dorkistan.” The scenario paints a disturbing picture of a government characterized by authoritarianism, religious oppression, and bizarre policy decisions, leading many to question the intent behind the question’s design.
The framed question is “The Republic of Dorkistan is a longstanding, if flawed, democracy. For the last 15 years, it has been ruled by a right-wing President one Mr. Noddyji. Noddyji belongs to the Nationalist Socialist Party of Dorkistan, which believes in Delulu supremacy. The Delulu are a majority of the people of Dorkistan, forming 70% of the population. The Delulu are themselves extremely diverse, both linguistically, geographically and culturally. The rest of the 20% of the population belong to various other religions. Noddy ji has ruled with an iron-fist. Opponents have been jailed, religious structures of indigenous peoples have been demolished, and calls for genocide have been made by leaders of the National Socialist Party. Moreover, Noddyji has used his executive powers to implement extremely hare-brained and harmful schemes such as banning long beards denying citizenship to the indigenous populations.”
“Things went out of hand very quickly. Gyatt’s allies came to its support and the war went from being quick and easy to anything but. Moreover, despite appearances, Dorkistan is not in a great financial state. Due to growing external aggression and internal discontent, the army stepped in and conducted a coup. Members of the Nationalist Socialists were purged and imprisoned, Himanshu ran away to the United States, and opposition parties’ leaders were invited to form an interim government. The Supreme Court, in an urgent hearing, rubber-stamped all of these decisions. A ceasefire with Gyatt was agreed to, and the interim government now has to start the process of democratizing Dorkistan again.
Sources from an alumni of NALSAR, who wished to remain anonymous, have expressed concern over the implications of such a question. “Law students are supposed to be trained to identify constitutional crises and devise solutions, but this question appears to be more of an exercise in political commentary than in legal education,” said. The question, they argue, does not merely test the students’ analytical abilities but seems to subtly endorse a particular viewpoint, raising questions about the academic neutrality of the institution.
Critics have also pointed out that the analogy used in the question, though ostensibly hypothetical, bears an uncanny resemblance to current political developments in certain countries, with some even suggesting it could be an indirect commentary on India’s own political landscape. “Why not frame such a question in the context of developments in Bangladesh or Pakistan?” one student questioned, highlighting the perceived selective bias.
