Tuesday, 30 October 2007


Hi guys, we received this comment from one of our readers who has identified himself, but we would not like to name him at this stage. We are thankful to him for this input. We found the information he has provided quite up to the mark as we have cross checked facts before uploading his comment. We would also appreciate if the person who mailed us this, could provide us with some more inputs which could help us carry the story forward. Pls mail us at penpricks@gmail.com, if there is some more information on the Vaman Naik story to be shared.


Your article is spot on. Being quite involved personally with the case I should know. However may I just say that while both you and GSCW may be technically correct that the lady lecturer was temporary, I'd like to say that she had been cleared by a full university interview panel, and the Directorate of Higher Education had approved her case "subject to workload". This means that she would have been permanent if Vaman had sent D.H.E. a justification that there was workload. Instead of doing this routine beaureaucratic procedure he connived to first make her temporary, and then sack her. BTW I wonder who is the anonymous making the preceeding comment (as if it needs much imagining to know)? The remark about medical examination and abortion is especially senseless. The GSCW asked Vaman to appear before it on 4 separate occasions. He kept avoiding the interview. And BTW he demanded, and was given copies of all statements made before the commission. I hope that this same anonymous knows that the Supreme Court has laid down that in cases of sexual harassment at the workplace it is the Vishaka Committee that has to investigate and report on the matter, and give recommendations regarding punishment. The GSCW took up the case suo moto because the college did not have a Vishaka committee in place at the time they took up the issue.Now the Vishaka committee has been constituted and its work is underway. The last comment of the above anon is particularly sick. Does s/he not know that it is against jounalistic ethics to reveal the name of the victim? Incidentally Vaman's chamchas have already done this on at least 2 occasions and I'm afraid Herald and Tarun Bharat have been guilty of aiding them in this. penpricks may be interested to know that there is an attempt to gag the teachers by who else. At least one person does not care a hoot.


Blogger Pen Pricks said...

I as a ex-student of Dempo College do know a little bit about this professor who was well known was V. R. Naik alias Kapil Dev.
At that point of time when I was a student way back in 1994, he was the vice principal and was giving special classess to a female student.
I was in S.Y.B.Com and the girl was in F.Y.B.Com. He used to sit with this female student till 2 or beyound 2 giving so called private class to this girl. When I reached T.Y.B. Com I came to know through some colleagues that actually he was s... a.... this female student.
He got this opportunity because the girls parents were working aborad and she was staying with her old grandmother.
I need not name the girl cos she must be pretty happy today somwhere in the world.
A student of 1994 : Joseph Fernandes
(joseph hi... thanks for writing in man... we are really thankful for your response... we slightly edited a couple of explicit words from your comment, as you can see... hope it's fine with you)

31 October 2007 at 21:12  
Blogger Pen Pricks said...

dear joseph, would be great if you deposed before the Vishakha committee, if you are around in Goa. WOuld help take the case forward...

1 November 2007 at 12:39  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Yeah Joseph. Go ahead and depose. Your geograhic location is no loger a hurdle. There is teleconferencing nowadays. Been used in court already. Give us the report when the job gets done.
Job of getting the alleged accused convicted and sentenced.

1 November 2007 at 15:56  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Some days back I had responded to this post.
In a 2 part comment, I had firstly pointed out to flaws in the case and in the second part the validity of comment 1 (namely one of the authors reminiscing about his days in Dempo College) was questioned.

The post contained no foul words or language. It also did not carry any unverifiable facts. Furthermore, all facts are available in public domain. This was done so as to be within the framework of a presentable comment.

Penpricks exercised its right to not post the comment.

It is ironic, that today's papers are reporting of an incicent involving a 10 & 15 yr old.

In any case, penpricks decision to stonewall important facts, is not going to in anyway hamper that person, obtaining justice, in a court of law. Trial by media though effective in tarnishing a persons reputation and fair name in society is ultimately not going to sway a court verdict.

5 November 2007 at 17:40  

Post a Comment

Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]

<< Home