You are on page 1of 2

Of Godliness and Compulsory 100% Attendance

Note: This was written during my days as a student at IIM Bangalore, where we we
re briefly subjected to the rule.
Thought-provoking articles are always a success. Because the reader likes to be
provoked- or it could be because he likes to think that he can ‘think’- there’s
no other way his ‘thoughts’ could be provoked. Anyway, proceeding with the above
assumption, when the compulsions to write became unavoidable, I turned my atten
tion to the issue of compulsory one hundred percent attendance. The more I thoug
ht about the subject, the more it provoked me. In fact, half-way through my ‘thi
nking’ trip, I suddenly realized the rationale behind the 100% attendance rule.
There are people who look upon the rule as an infringement of their Right to Ski
p Classes-as enshrined in the Students’ Constitution. But think deeply (how deep
you go is left to you and your aptitude for delving) and you immediately discov
er the fallacy inherent in the above presumption. The rule cannot be an infringe
ment of the said constitution, simply because it is above all such mundane matte
rs. In fact, it is a sincere attempt by the concerned authorities to elevate ‘th
e cream of Indian student community’ to greater heights- to godliness, to be pre
cise.
Because, who can be so naïve as to imagine that an ordinary average mortal can a
ttend all classes on all working days all round the year? The common reaction is
, “It’s humanly impossible.” But alas, hardly anyone takes the logic a step furt
her and says “It’s ‘Godly’ possible.” Actually, the whole exercise is aimed at b
ringing Man (the species so abundant in the deep woods of Bannerghatta) closer t
o God. And the move to bridge the gulf between Man (the student in this case) an
d God has paid off. This was confirmed recently when one of the professors saw a
n assignment submitted by a student and exclaimed, “Oh, God!” He was closer to t
he truth (and the student, closer to God) than he had imagined.
Some skeptics claim that the rule breeds corrupt practices like proxy signatures
for absentees by their ‘attentive’ brethren on the sheet circulated by professo
rs in class. But this argument does not hold water. Why? Because these playful p
ranks are eventually brought to light thanks to a vigilant MIS (management infor
mation system). The guilty, who then repent (often in writing) and seek forgiven
ess are purged of their sins and are thus drawn closer to the almighty- in the p
rocess, learning one more important fact of life; that CRIME DOES NOT PRAY. This
learning is actually redundant for those of the ‘semi-gods’ that see Hindi film
s.
For the ignoramus who still attributes unholy motives to the rule without realiz
ing the noble intentions of the appropriate authorities, a prescribed dose of so
me slogans like these should be administered-
‘Shortest way to Salvation-Attend Classes’
‘Optimal Path to Heaven- Attend O.R.’
‘For Eternal Bliss in the After-life- 100% Attendance’, or a challenging one lik
e the following-
‘Loneliness in room, or Godliness in Class? The Choice is Yours’.
These and other such slogans (similarly ingenious) are expected to market to mar
ket the concept effectively. Even if the campaign does not immediately generate
enough enthusiasm in habitual shirkers to get them to occupy front rows in class
, no matter. Given long enough to operate it will instill a sense of responsibil
ity among the students, which is a task well-begun, and hence half-done.
Thus unknowingly but definitely, the student community goes on in its quest for
godliness. Even as the attendance rule continues to bug many, some adopt, philos
ophically, the policy of ‘grin and bear it’; yet others take recourse to verse a
nd express themselves thus- ‘Ours not to reason why. Ours but to attend and SIGH
.’

You might also like