Emergency Files 02 - Denial of Admission to Students and the First Class Boycott

While one of the first steps of the JNU administration to clamp down on the democratic rights of the students during the Emergency was to clamp down on the Students Union, the new academic year of 1975-76 saw the JNU administration trying to impose an authoritarian "code of conduct" and striking off the names of students whose political opinions were not liked by those in power. The students of JNU, of course, did not take all these lying down. The SFI, in its bulletin welcoming the new students to JNU, explained why the crackdown on the Union is dangerous, opposed the "code of conduct" and warned the administration against tampering with the admission procedure. The President of the JNU Students Union subsequently brought out a pamphlet informing the students that B. D. Nagchaudhuri, the Vice-Chancellor, had arbitrarily struck off the names of some students from the admission list. Another pamphlet from the Students Union gave out more details of this anti-student action by the administration and urged the students to resist this attack. Finally 'The Resistance', through a secretly circulated pamphlet, called upon students to boycott classes. Here we reproduce the SFI bulletin, the JNUSU President's pamphlet, excerpts from the detailed JNUSU pamphlet, the Class Boycott call by 'The Resistance' and a report on the strike.

It needs to be noted here that the admission policy of JNU, which the SFI-led Unions had fought for and won, was one which enabled students from poorer backgrounds and backward regions to enter JNU. Under this policy, weightages were given for students from deprived socio-economic backgrounds and those hailing from backward regions. Student-Faculty Committees (SFCs) were set up with elected students in each Centre (the departments in JNU are called Centres). The SFCs were empowered to scrutinise the entrance tests and finalise the results. The results of this democratic admission policy was seen in the 1973 admissions, when students from diverse backgrounds were able to enter JNU. Therefore it was no surprise that the administration tried to weaken the SFCs as the bulletin described.

Students’ Federation of India —  Bulletin

“Welcome to JNU”

The new academic session has begun with a series of systematic and obviously planned manoeuvres attacking the democratic movement built over the last few years, and to curb the hard won rights of the student community. The first of these manoeuvres was the arbitrary declaration by the Vice-Chancellor, in the prospectus, that the membership to the Students Union is voluntary. The Students’ Union in our University, unlike those in many other universities, is fully independent of the administration. It was formed and has been sustained by the strong democratic student movement in the campus. The affairs of the Students Union — including elections — are managed entirely by the students, and the Students Union is responsible to the students and students alone. The Students Union membership is automatic to all bonafide students and compulsory (as per the agreement with the VC at the time of its formation) as it is the only independent forum which reflects and caters to the democratic interests of the students. To weaken the Students’ Union by making its membership voluntary is to weaken the democratic movement built up in this campus until now. The SFI condemns this act of the VC and shall strongly resist this move.

This move should not be seen as an isolated one. It is a continuation of the efforts of the VC to disrupt the democratic movement in the university. These attempts began with the so-called ‘Code of Conduct’ proposed by the Vice-Chancellor last year which was unanimously rejected with contempt by the General Body of students. The same ‘Code of Conduct’ we find has been printed and circulated this year titled ‘norms of behaviour’. The SFI shall resist this move which is yet another to weaken the democratic movement in the campus.

These attempts of the Vice-Chancellor have been followed up this year by blatant violations of the admission procedure as laid down by the Academic Council. There has been arbitrary intervention by the Vice-Chancellor in the functioning of the SFCs and we find that some names recommended by the SFCs have been arbitrarily struck off by the Vice-Chancellor. We wish to point out that the VC cannot reverse or nullify the procedure passed by the Academic Council and endorsed by the Executive Council. This we see as an attack on the academic freedom of the University and shall therefore resist it. We greet the stand taken by a considerable section of faculty in opposing this interference by the Vice-Chancellor. We, however, condemn that section which has objectively been playing the ‘rear guard’ of the authorities. It is interesting to note that those who ostensibly declare themselves as “dedicated to the students’ cause” have refrained from mentioning the attacks by the Vice-Chancellor on the democratic movement in the campus.

The SFI calls upon all democratic elements in the University to resist this two pronged attack of the VC, one against all traces of democratic functioning on the campus and the other on the Students’ Union.

LONG LIVE STUDENTS, TEACHERS AND KARAMCHARI UNITY

RESIST THESE ATTEMPTS BY THE VC & HIS COLLABORATORS 
AND UNITE TO DEFEND YOUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS

INDEPENDENCE             DEMOCRACY                SOCIALISM

(August 1975)                                                                                            SFI (JNU UNIT)


A pamphlet by D.P. Tripathi, the President of the JNU Students Union, informed the students about the VC's arbitrary action.

Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union

August 7, 1977

Friends,

The Students’ Union wishes to inform the students of the University of the arbitrary action of the Vice-Chancellor in striking off names from the admission list which were recommended by various centres after evaluation. This is a blatant attack on the democratic rights of both the students and the teachers. The Students Union welcomes the stand taken by a considerable section of the faculty who are opposing this attack on academic freedom. Once again we reiterate that these anti-democratic acts will not be tolerated by the students of this University. As far as the admissions of students is concerned, we do not accept this interference and violation of the democratic procedure laid down by the Academic Council.

We will not allow the Vice-Chancellor to prevent the admissions of Students simply because they do not meet a certain criterion which is completely extra academic and apparently mysterious. We demand that the Vice-Chancellor should at least abide by his own statement that no section of the University community can infringe upon the democratic rights of any other section.

RESIST THIS ATTACK ON DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS

LONG LIVE STUDENT UNITY

— Devi Prasad Tripathi

President, JNUSU

 

The statement by the JNUSU President was confirmed by the declared results of the JNU entrance examination and viva voce. Several students who had excellent academic records found that their names had been struck off the admission lists due to their political opinions. The victimised students included the JNUSU President himself.

A pamphlet issued by the Students Union and signed by Ashok Lata Jain, who chaired the Students' Council meeting held on 19 August 1975, gave out more details.Here is an excerpt from the pamphlet:

The time has come for the students to strike against the measures taken by the Vice Chancellor to curb the democratic rights of teachers and students. Because of their political opinions, and despite their excellent academic performances, students have been victimised and denied, admission. The University authorities launched this attack beginning with the President of the Students' Union, Devi Prasad Tripathi.

Tripathi, a first class student throughout, coming from a backward area, as well as an economically deprived background, was not given admission to the M.Phil. programme. The Chairman of the Board, which interviewed JNU students of the Centre for Political Studies, is said to have stated prior to the written test and interview that Tripathi would be eliminated. The older students will remember that this same Tripathi came first in the list for the MA programme.

Two Student Councillors, Rajaram and Promod Kumar Misra, again both first class students were recommended for admission by their respective faculties, who found them academically competent, but were denied admission by the VC. The reason again was that they hold certain political opinions which differ from those of the Vice-Chancellor.

The pamphlet then listed out 11 students whose names had been struck off the list due to political reasons. It also said that the final admission lists were yet to be declared for M.Phil./Ph.D. programme in various centres of the School of Social Sciences, and that considering the trend, further victimisation can be expected. The pamphlet said that these attacks on academic freedom and anti-democratic acts must be fought.

But given the climate of repression, what form this fight will take, was to be detailed in a secret pamphlet brought out by 'The Resistance', which urged students to boycott classes on 22 August. Very few copies of the pamphlet were made, and the students circulated them so as to keep the plans secret from the authorities. The pamphlet is reproduced below.

Urgent: Read & Circulate

Boycott Classes in Protest: 22 August

Students who have qualified for admissions and approved by the Centres concerned have been struck off the lists by the Vice-Chancellor and the Registrar’s office. They have been passing on the lists to the police and Govt. for screening. By this action they hope to crush the Union and keep students who do not toe the official line, off the campus. The president of the Union, Tripathi has been denied admission in his own centre for M.Phil by giving him ridiculously low marks in the viva and test. Two of the Union Councillors, Rajaram and P.K. Mishra have had their admissions annulled by the VC in their own centres and in the School of International Studies, after they had qualified. Similar cases exist in other centres: History: Sujata Madhok; Social Systems: Rabindra Ray; School of Languages: Ramesh Dixit; School of International Studies: Mohan Ram.

By this the University has struck a blow at the students and teachers on the campus, making a mockery of the admission system so carefully worked out in the past. They have interfered with the rights of the “other components of the University”.

IN PROTEST ALL THE STUDENTS WILL BOYCOTT CLASSES, THE LIBRARY AND ALL ACADEMIC WORK ON THE CAMPUS ON 22 AUGUST, FRIDAY, TO EXPRESS THEIR PROTEST AGAINST THIS HEINOUS ACTION OF THE VC AND THE ADMINSITRATION.

  

We call upon the students to strictly observe the following:

11. All non-residents should stay at home on 22 August.

22. All residents should either stay in their hostels or go out of the campus for the day.

33. Spread the word of the boycott to your friends individually and explain the reasons for this action.

We make an urgent appeal to the faculty to observe this boycott and cooperate by not taking classes in protest against the dictatorial step of the VC. Let this be a joint action.

UNITEDLY GO INTO THIS ACTION BOLDLY;

REBUFF ALL STTEMPTS TO SUPPRESS OUR DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS.

— THE RESISTANCE

The strike was a resounding success, as the report by 'The Resistance' showed:

Report of the 22 August Strike

The students of Nehru University went on a one day total strike on 2 August in protest against the Vice-Chancellor’s lawless and arbitrary action. The strike was a complete success. The students in an organised and disciplined fashion boycotted all classes, the library, the laboratory and other academic programmes on the campus. The censored press has reported that the boycott call was a flop. The magnificent response of the students can be seen from the following facts:

There were no classes in the Centre for Economic Studies, the Centre for Historical Studies, the Centre for Political Studies, the Centre for Science Policy, the Centre for Educational Studies, the Centre for Social Systems. In the Centre for Regional Development only one class was held in which out of a total of 30 only 7 attended. In the School of Languages: No classes in the Centre for French Studies (this is the biggest centre in the School). No classes in Persian, Arabic, Linguistics, Indonesian and Chinese. Only one class in German and Spanish.

 

In the School of International Studies, 3 students out of 27 attended an MA class. In the first year MA only 6 out of 26.

Out of the over 200 classes scheduled for the day only about 10 were held and even in these the attendance was around 10 percent.

The teachers supported the boycott. Most of them did not go to take the classes despite a circular from the Registrar asking heads of Centres to report names of teachers who did not take classes.

Angry over the great success of the boycott, the Registrar has suspended Ashok Lata Jain, prominent Student Councillor and a leader of the Students’ Federation of India on the campus, and ordered her to leave the campus with immediate effect. The students are preparing to resist this blatant attack now.

— THE RESISTANCE

While the class boycott was a success and a sent a strong message, the suspension of Ashok Lata Jain made it clear that the government and the administration were not going to tolerate any challenge to their authoritarianism. But if oppression is the ruling classes' privilege, the students were absolutely clear in their understanding that protest is their right. They were determined to fight on, even as they knew that more repression was awaiting them.

(To be continued)

Emergency Files 01 - Police Raid in JNU and Early Resistance

The Emergency: We Shall Not Forget, We Shall Not Forgive!

25 June 2015 marks the 40th anniversary of the imposition of the Emergency in India by the Congress government led by Indira Gandhi. The Emergency, which lasted from 25 June 1975 to 21 March 1977, was characterised by widespread attacks on human rights and basic democratic rights of the vast majority of people, and was undoubtedly one of the darkest periods in the history of our Republic.

The SFI unit of Jawaharlal Nehru University played a vital role in fighting the Emergency and the attacks on the students’ democratic rights by the Indira regime and the University authorities. Students who fought the Emergency had to face arrests, jail terms, expulsions, and disciplinary actions. (We shall discuss more details regarding these in subsequent posts.) Several pamphlets and documents were brought out illegally by the SFI JNU Unit during the period of the Emergency. The SFI and the JNU Students Union led by SFI brought out many leaflets in the name of “The Resistance” to organise the struggle against authoritarianism in the campus. The SFI also brought out some leaflets in its own name. In the academic year 1976-77, the SFI took the initiative to form the 'Democratic Students Forum' which was used to unite all the students fighting the Emergency, and leaflets were issued in its name along with other JNU-based publications.

Today we are witnessing an all-round attack on our cherished constitutional values and on the democratic rights of the working people, students, youth and all marginalised sections by the pro-corporate BJP government led by Narendra Modi and backed by the communal-fascist RSS. In this context it becomes all the more important for us that we keep the memory of the struggle against the Emergency alive and resolve to fight to defend democracy and secularism.

Over the next few days, we shall be publishing a selection of the pamphlets brought out by SFI in JNU in the name of various platforms and by the SFI-led Students Union during the Emergency. We shall also publish some later recollections of the events during the period.

8 July 1975: Police Raid in JNU

On the 8th of July 1975 at 5 in the morning, hundreds of armed police in jeeps and vans raided the hostels in JNU campus. They encircled the 2 boys' hostels, woke up the students from their beds and arrested 60 students. They detained 15 students and one karamchari (non-faculty staff member) and released the rest after interrogation in the police station. Among those arrested, 4 had been associated with the Students Union either in the past or at that time, and included the sitting General Secretary of the Union. Despite all their best efforts, the police could not arrest the President of the Students Union. They also arrested the Secretary of the Karamchari Sangathan (Staff Association). A pamphlet detailing these was brought out in the name of 'The Resistance' on 10 July 1975. Attempts to curtail the democratic rights of students were made by the Vice Chancellor in the subsequent days, prominently by seeking to make Students Union membership "voluntary", and by imposing a "Code of Conduct" which was to become notorious. A pamphlet detailing these was published by 'The Resistance', which is reproduced below.

"Fight this Attack on the Union"
(Undated pamphlet; likely to have been brought out in late July or early August 1975)

IMMEDIATELY after the police raid on the campus on 8 July we had pointed out that this was only the beginning of a deliberate attack on the Students’ Union and the democratic forces on the campus. Nine students and one karamchari arrested in the raid have been charged under section 69 of the D.I.R. (Defence of India Regulations Act) on the totally false pretext that the students had held a meeting at Kaveri hostel on the 7th night. Everybody knows that this is a bogus charge and that no meeting was held or planned.  We had pointed out in our first leaflet that the attack is concentrated on the Union, which the Government and the University authorities are bet on disrupting because they know it is the most powerful forum of the students expressing their united interests. The police action carried out under the Emergency exposes the character of the Indira Gandhi regime today. Who is the Emergency directed at? Is the Students Union right reactionary? Are the nine students falsely charged under D.I.R. right reactionaries?

Now the Vice-Chancellor at the behest of the Prime Minister’s Secretariat has announced in the latest prospectus that Union membership will henceforth be voluntary. It is in order to cripple the Union and destroy its representative and democratic character that this move has been made under the cover of the Emergency. The V.C., willing stooge of the Congress that he is, has further published a brochure for the new students in which the infamous ‘Code of Conduct’ imposing an unacceptable discipline on the student community has been put forth. It is untruthfully claimed that this has been formulated in consultation with students and faculty. The General Body of Students and the students Council not only rejected outright this contemptible code but condemned even the move to discuss it.

Nag Chaudhari and the authorities are playing with fire by adopting this course.  Unable to terrorise us by sending in 1200 armed police, they are now manoeuvring to undermine the Students Union constitution and put shackles on the students movement. The Union derives its legitimacy and sanction not from Nag Chaudhari or the University authorities, but from the democratic will of the students. Any attempt to tamper with the Union on the part of the V.C. is a threat to our democratic rights and will be met with stiff resistance, Emergency or no Emergency.

We call upon the students to prepare for a big struggle even at short notice to force Nag Chaudhari to end his nefarious activities. We warn those elements on the campus who support this emergency and act as paid agents of the Administration to stop their conspiracies or they will also face the anger of the students.

ANY ATTEMPT TO IMPLEMENT THE VOLUNTARY MEMBERSHIP TO THE UNION WILL BE MET BY A FORM OF ACTION THAT THE STUDENTS CONSIDER NECESSARY TO DEFEND THEIR DEMOCRATIC FORUM. 

                                                                                                                  — The Resistance

Public Meeting on "Discrimination, Racism and State Violence: The Farce of “Different” Laws for the North-East"

The rise of the Modi government has seen a marked aggravation of brutalities carried out by organs of the Indian state – the armed forces and the police in particular - against the people of North East India. Following and amplifying the policy direction of the UPA, the BJP-led dispensation seems hell-bent on using all its might to crush and muzzle voices of democratic dissent. The most recent such onslaught on the right to protest has been the brazen re-arrest of Irom Sharmila, tireless crusader against the draconian and colonial Armed Forces Special Powers Act (AFSPA), barely three days after her release. Sharmila has been on a hunger strike since 2000 demanding the revocation of the AFSPA, and her struggle has consistently foregrounded the manner in which the law has been shamelessly used by the armed forces to unleash a reign of terror in the North-East – employing the dastardly tactics of rape, murder, torture and other varied forms of intimidation. The re-arrest of Sharmila is yet another tactic of the Indian state to quell the ever-strengthening democratic upheaval against such untold human rights violations. The ascendancy of the self-styled “Loh Purush” Narendra Modi has emboldened the ruling classes in their constant crusade against the rights of the people, and increased the pitch of assertion of their feudal, misogynist, casteist and racist attitudes.

While on the one hand the draconian AFSPA is being used to ride roughshod over the rights of the people of the North East, on the other there has been a tremendous increase in incidents of racist violence and other forms of discrimination against them in various parts of the country. The racially motivated killing of Nido Tania, and the rape of a 14-year old Manipuri girl in Munirka are still fresh in public memory. Built on a foundation of racial stereotyping and prejudice, such attacks have rendered the lives and livelihoods of people from the North East extremely vulnerable and insecure. While the left and democratic sections have consistently demanded a comprehensive legislation against racial profiling, stereotyping, discrimination and violence, the ruling classes have turned a deaf year on every occasion. Both the current regime and the previous UPA government made no effort whatsoever to contain, check or prevent such forms of racist discrimination and violence. Despite increasing democratic assertion on the need for an anti-discrimination legislation, both the Congress and the BJP have tried to shove the issue under the carpet.

It must be remembered that question of AFSPA-related brutality, and the systemic racist discrimination and violence faced by the people from the North East, are deeply interlinked. The need of the hour, therefore, is to forge a larger united democratic struggle which battles both draconian legislations like the AFSPA, and systemic and entrenched forms of prejudice. This struggle has to begin with a recognition of the multinational character of our country, and with a re-envisioning of the republic on the basis of the staunch upholding of the equality of the nationalities which constitute India. A democratic churning is required demanding both the immediate repeal of the AFSPA and the setting up of institutional and legal mechanisms to counter deep-seated discrimination. With the firm resolve of strengthening and deepening such a united and democratic struggle, and to discuss the possible directions and forms this struggle should take in the days to come, SFI invites you to tonight’s public meeting at Kaveri Mess.

Speakers:

Kishalay Bhattacharjee, Independent Journalist, Author of Che in Paona Bazaar: Tales of Exile and Belonging from India's North-East
 

Sangeeta Barooah Pisharoty, Journalist, The Hindu
 

Vijoo Krishnan, Former President, JNUSU
 

Date and Time: 26 August 2014, 9.30 pm
Venue: Kaveri Mess
 

SFI’s Initiative Successfully Resists CITD’s Tactics to Deny Admission to Students!

SFI thanks the student community for rallying behind our initiative to ensure that students who were denied admission to the Centre for International Trade and Development (CITD) on absolutely unjust grounds are given admission in MA. The new admission criteria at CITD says that only those students who have a Bachelor’s Degree with Economics (Honours) with Mathematics as subsidiary subject,  Mathematics (Hons.) with Economics as a subsidary subject, or Statistics (Hons.) with Mathematics & Economics as subsidiary subjects would be eligible for admission to its MA programme. Given the fact that very few universities in India have Honours courses at all, this elitist criteria essentially meant the exclusion of the vast majority of students, including even students who completed BA (Economics) from various universities, from applying to CITD. Nevertheless several students from non-Honours backgrounds had written the entrance exam and cleared it, and the Centre had refused to admit them.

But following the protest on Tuesday (12 August), the administration was forced to give admission to those students who cleared the entrance test after studying economics as one of the core subjects in their under-graduation. This struggle has to be seen in the context where the students were made to run from pillar to post and had to undergo a lot of pain in the process.  Adding to the anti-student approach of the Centre was the apathy shown by JNUSU-SIS Convenor who was informed of this issue on 3 August. But even after coming to know of the issue there was absolute lack of concern from the Convenor. What is equally deplorable is the fact that the JNUSU, which should have taken up the matter, was slack in its approach. When SFI got to know about this injustice being done, we immediately took up the matter with the concerned departments and forced the JNUSU to take up the matter on an urgent basis in the All Organisations meeting called by us on 11 August. A call for protest was suggested to JNUSU in the All-Org meeting. The strength of the united protest by the students against this elitist discrimination ensured that the matter was taken to a logical end. The illogical stand of the Centre to put on hold the registration of students was defeated and four students, who had to face taunts and harassment, were at last allowed to finish their registration process.

This struggle doesn’t end here, as we need to ensure that the anti-student admission criteria which crept into this year’s prospectus are kept out in the next year’s prospectus. After all, the injustice done to all those students who didn’t appear for the entrance exam after seeing the new admission criteria cannot be undone. Let us also not forget that a similar move by the Centre for Economic Studies and Planning (CESP) which made it compulsory for students to have studied mathematics at the Plus Two level or during Bachelor’s in order to be eligible for admission had made it impossible for the vast majority of students in various universities in India to apply to the Centre’s MA programme. It had taken several years of efforts by perceptive students in the Centre to get this regressive move reversed.

SFI would like to thank the JNUSU for taking up the issue though it was late. We would also like to thank progressive teachers and officers who stood with us in this struggle. The democratisation of educational institutions is something that the left student movement has always stood for, and we will struggle to ensure that all students, especially those from deprived backgrounds, have the opportunity and resources to pursue higher education. The student community have to be in constant vigil against elitist machinations inside and outside the campus. We pledge to stand should to shoulder with the student community in such struggles.

Comrade Vijender Sharma Amar Rahe!

Comrade Vijender Sharma, veteran leader of the University and College Teachers’ movement, passed away on 9 August 2014 after bravely battling cancer for over eight months. He was 63. His demise is an irreparable loss to the left and democratic movement and the University and College Teachers’ Movement.

Com. Vijender began his political activity as a student in Delhi University and became a member of the Students’ Federation of India (SFI) in the early 1970s. He was also associated with the Research Scholars Association in Delhi University. He joined the Communist Party of India (Marxist) in 1974 and was member of the Delhi State Committee of the CPI(M) since December 2001 and that of the CPI(M) State Secretariat from November 2004 up until his death.

Com. Vijender did his B.Sc. and M.Sc. from Delhi University and became a lecturer in ARSD College in 1976. He was awarded Ph.D. by the University of Delhi in 1977. He later pursued law and completed his LLB degree in 1985 from the University of Delhi.

Com. Vijender’s name is synonymous with the teachers’ movement in Delhi University. He was one of the Conveners of the Temporary Teachers’ Forum and led a difficult struggle in 1978-79 that resulted in almost 700 temporary teachers being regularized. He was an elected member of the Executive Committee of the Delhi University Teachers’ Association from 1987 to 1989; member of the Academic Council from 1990 to 1994; President of the Delhi University Teachers’ Association from 1995 to 1997 and member of the Delhi University Executive Council from 2002 to 2006. In all these capacities he made a seminal contribution towards advancing the rights of university and college teachers.

An excellent trade-unionist, Com. Vijender was a fearless militant. But he did not thrive on slogans alone. Rather his forte lay in the in-depth study of different issues and challenges facing the education system as a whole in the backdrop of the impact of neo-liberal policies. His incisive analysis of such challenges was of great use not only to the teachers’ movement in Delhi University but outside it as well.  He was in regular touch with the leadership of the All India Federation of University and College Teachers' Organizations (AIFUCTO) and teachers’ associations of different universities and provided them with whatever inputs and help he could without any hesitation.

He was a convinced Marxist-Leninist. This helped him seek truth through concrete study of facts. It also gave him the courage to fight all that is wrong and oppressive not just in education but in life in general. He was associated with the Centre of Indian Trade Unions all-India Centre in the late 1970s and early 1980s and helped in the publication of the CITU’s journal the Working Class. This experience helped steel his resolve and partisanship. His life was a classic example of an intellectual born in a middle class family devoting his entire life to the working class movement. At a time when international finance capital is using commoditized education to create its own foot soldiers, Com. Vijender’s life is a pointer to the importance of organic intellectuals of the people.

Comrade Vijender’s was a life full of struggle and courage in adversity. He was an extraordinary leader of the University and College Teachers’ movement and the left and democratic movement, and a conscientious human being. He will be remembered and sorely missed by all those who had the good fortune of knowing and working with him. SFI dips its flag in memory of Com. Vijender and resolves to champion the ideals he stood for by fighting to fulfil his unfinished tasks.

Carry Forward the Struggle to Restore the JNUSU Constitution!

Over the past few days, a “joint front” comprising a handful of political organizations has been campaigning towards a referendum asking the students to reject the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations (LCR) in toto. While the objective of rejecting LCR is laudable, the campaign leaves several questions unanswered. But before getting into those questions, let us briefly review the history of the struggle against LCR.

Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations – A look-back

The Lyngdoh recommendations had its genesis in the Sojan Francis case, born out of the attempt by college managements to trample upon the democratic rights of students. The Kerala High Court which heard the case filed by Sojan Francis, an SFI activist who had been debarred from sitting for his examination due to his political activism in St. Thomas College, Pala (Kottayam, Kerala), had given a verdict which effectively allowed the college managements to prohibit political activism in campuses. This draconian order was challenged in the Supreme Court by the Kerala University and the Kerala University Students’ Union led by SFI, and the Supreme Court issued an order on 12 December 2005 directing the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) to constitute a committee to “frame guidelines on students’ union elections in colleges/universities”. The committee thus set up, with J M Lyngdoh as Chair, submitted its report on 23 May 2006. Notwithstanding the recommendations of the committee, which upheld the need for students’ union elections in all colleges and universities in the country, including private colleges and universities, and its praise for JNU and HCU as “models”, the ultimate effect of the LCR has been that these very unions which were held up as models were targeted because the students’ movement in such places have challenged the unbridled march of neoliberal policies in education and in other spheres.

The objective of the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations (LCR), contrary to all pious statements, is to weaken the students’ movement so as to pave the way for fee hikes, commercialisation, privatisation and centralisation of higher education — a process that is already underway. LCR has put in place restrictions that are fundamentally undemocratic and exclusionary (particularly adversely affecting students from deprived sections). For instance, the clause that stipulates an age barrier of 22 years for BA students, 25 years for PG students and 28 years for M.Phil./Ph.D. students (30 years for JNU as per the relaxation granted), militates against students from deprived backgrounds who are often forced to enter higher education at a later age. The clause that prevents candidates from contesting more than once in the central panel and twice for councillor posts defies logic even as it serves to constrain the development of a mature leadership for the union. The eligibility criteria which prevents students who have been “tried/convicted” for any criminal offence and those who have been “subjected to any disciplinary action by the University authorities” only aids the college/university administrations to victimise student activists who have participated or led any kind of protests against unjust measures by the authorities. In short, the overarching framework of Lyngdoh curtails students’ rights and has been damaging to our fight against anti-student college and university administrations and the neoliberal policies of the ruling classes.

LCR and JNU

The students of JNU, having recognised the perils of the LCR, rejected LCR at the very outset, and held elections for two years (in 2006 and 2007) as per the JNUSU constitution without accepting LCR. But in 2008, the Supreme Court stayed the very JNUSU elections which Lyngdoh had held up as a “model”, thus exposing the real intentions underlying LCR. The students of JNU, however, rejected the LCR and chose to battle it out in the Supreme Court by constituting a Joint Struggle Committee for the purpose. But the Supreme Court referred the case to a constitution bench on 11 November 2009, and the said constitution bench has not been formed till date. When it became clear that the formation of the constitution bench and the final settlement of the case will take several years, the SFI in 2010 took the position that we should go ahead with the JNUSU elections as per the JNUSU constitution. If the election process is challenged in the SC or if it takes suo motu cognizance, the JNU students would be asked to explain their stand. We argued that it is likely that the SC, given the fact that it is deliberating on the constitutional validity of the Lyngdoh recommendations itself, would agree with the position of the JNU students and restore the JNUSU constitution, at least till the final verdict on Lyngdoh Committee is delivered. It might of course disagree with the JNU students and issue specific directives on JNUSU elections, and the question of any “contempt of court” would arise only if the JNU students wilfully defy those specific directives. Many other progressive organisations in the campus agreed with the SFI position and supported holding the elections as per the JNUSU constitution. But the AISA went on a scare-mongering campaign arguing that there would be a crackdown on the JNU student movement if we went ahead with our elections as per JNUSU constitution. Ultimately the UGBM did not accept the proposal to hold elections immediately as per JNUSU constitution, and SFI and the JNU student movement, respecting the verdict of the UGBM, went ahead with other initiatives to take our struggle forward. Negotiations were held with the SC-appointed Amicus Curiae and the students, in a UGBM in 2012, decided to restore JNUSU elections, the election process being governed by a modified LCR. It was agreed that the modified LCR was being accepted as an interim arrangement pending the judgement of the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. It was also decided that the newly elected JNUSU would be mandated to carry forward the legal and political struggle to restore JNUSU elections as per the JNUSU constitution.

Elected Unions Cannot Run Away from Their Responsibility

But the unions which were elected subsequently (two AISA-led, AISA-majority unions and one DSF-led, AISA-majority union) have done precious little in carrying forward this struggle. It is indeed ironic that the DSF, which did nothing to intensify the struggle when it led the Union is now part of the “joint front”. It is also to be noted that the DSF holds the position that the association of student political groups with political parties is the biggest impediment to the student movement in the country (something that the Lyngdoh Committee would gladly endorse).

The restoration of the JNUSU elections as per the modified LCR was definitely not the first choice of the JNU student community, but something that was forced upon it by objective conditions. The student community took this difficult decision recognising the fact that not having an elected Union in JNU was doing immense damage to the student movement, causing depoliticisation among students and making it extremely difficult to wage powerful and united struggles against an emboldened, anti-student administration. In doing so, the students rejected farcical arguments like those put forward by DSU, which essentially holds that almost nothing can be done to advance the student movement when Lyngdoh is in place. It was plain for the students to see that the DSU’s argument against having an elected union at a time when the administration is on a rampage trampling upon hard-won students’ rights was, in the ultimate analysis, a brazenly pro-administration argument — after all, not having an elected union would simply mean handing the decisive upper hand on a platter to the anti-student administration.

Incidentally, the “joint front” has been arguing that episodes like the militant student struggle by the SFI-led JNUSU of 1998-99 when 63 students were arrested and 14 students were sent to the Tihar jail are no longer possible now. We would like to remind them that seven SFI comrades, including two JNU students – Com. Rahul N and Com. Nitheesh Narayanan – were sent to Tihar jail in July 2013 for protesting against the corrupt Congress government of Kerala, and both of them contested as candidates to the JNUSU elections later in September 2013. In spite of Lyngdoh, SFI in the recent past has successfully waged a number of struggles in different parts of the country against fee hikes, for student amenities, for increasing seats in colleges, for restoring union elections in several places where they had been scrapped and so on. Therefore while it is true that the Lyngdoh clampdown is a significant setback for the student movement, it cannot be the case that the LCR, which governs the election process, is the factor that conclusively determines the character of the entire gamut of the student movement. We have seen in the recent past forces like the DSF trying to wash their hands off their failures in the Union by blaming LCR, and we will have to remain guarded against such opportunism. Nothing can justify the unwillingness of recent Unions, whether led by DSF or AISA, to take up and fight for core student demands.

The SFI restates its commitment and resolve to carry forward the struggle to restore the JNUSU constitution and to uproot Lyngdoh from the campus. A democratically elected JNUSU should lead this struggle rather than ad-hoc “fronts” which are not accountable to the larger student community. Further, the struggle against LCR and for campus democracy essentially has to be an all-India struggle. The JNU student movement and the JNUSU have important roles to play in this struggle – what is required is concrete study and sincere struggles that would in all probability be protracted, not opportunist alliances devoid of any politics.

Sd/-

Srabani, Secretary, SFI JNU Unit       

Viswanathan V, President, SFI JNU Unit