I do not know what actually happened, but what I read in the newspaper was absolutely downright baseless. The paper said that K used ‘sexual flavours while teaching in class’. I do not understand how an aspiring designer not able to differentiate between sexual flavours and favours. K talks in metaphors of the inherent needs of human beings and that is what design is. Every design needs to hit this core of every human being and thats what we learnt and practice. The paper doesn’t in any way talk about what sort of enquiry had been done, what were the details of the findings, nothing. No transparency at all. The statement in the paper was that ‘Both the times there was no complaint of physical harassment or one to one harassment’, said Vyas. Then what the hell is this fiasco about?! Plus if someone finds something offensive (even within the realms of design) then they have the freedom to get out of the class.
Sometimes I feel NID needs to have the unity of what happened at FTI and stand up for whats wrong. The right wing management never were fond of K and would definitely be finding opportunities to curb free thought that didn’t align with their ideals. If because of this the faculties start playing by the books, NID is going to lose what is has, and so will the country.