```````What Ails JNU?
It is JNU at its worst. When an educational institution starts
getting deteriorated in an accelerating way, the end result is the product what
is called – Kanhaiya.
Jawaharlal Nehru University
started with good intentions to commemorate the memory of our first Prime
Minister who valued the higher education and research as the very basis of
national foundation for growth and development.
This university was the brain child of Professor Nurul Hasan – a
renowned historian, elder statesman and an academician with abiding faith in
leftism. He developed personal proximity
to Pandit Nehru and Mrs. Indira Gandhi during heyday of these leaders. Both the leaders projected democratic values
with ideologically inclined left to the centre attitude. They visualised
socialist pattern of society with mixed economy and mixed polity as the bases
for their future course of action. These
ideologies are now the relics of time and do not work anymore.
JNU, according to Professor Nurul
Hasan, was established only as a research centre of high order, more than what
we have, the Institute of Advanced Studies, at Shimla. So the university was set up particularly to
cater higher research in humanities with no provision to have post graduate
classes and professional courses to degrade its research standards and
programmes. JNU started with higher aim
of research centre in 1969. A few professors were appointed to start with. But from the very beginning, it could not
justify its existence purely as a research body fully occupied with research
activities. Professors at the university
demanded opening of PG classes because they feared they could lose their jobs
for not being engaged fully in research oriented activities. This was the first stage of deterioration of
JNU.
When JNU was started it was
wrongly supposed that it should harbour communist ideological base since its
originator was inclined to leftist ideology.
But this attitude dominated, somehow, in the recruitment of professors
unofficially. At an early stage most of
the professors were imported from West Bengal.
Good or bad, the university started getting coloured ideologically, day
by day, year after year, so as to develop a centre for communist
propaganda. Although educational institutes
should be, in principle, neutral towards politics, but JNU, nonetheless, became
a hub of communist’s activities – in theory and practice both. This was the second stage of deterioration of
JNU.
Our national governments at the
centre have always been soft on ideological basis as part of democratic
freedom. Mostly it was the Congress
government which ruled over sixty years, mildly and softly, and allowed the
university to become a political centre and a breeding ground of communists of
all variants and varieties. It was nothing wrong till it crossed limits and
became a separatist centre for encouraging Kashmiris separatists and
terrorists. Even Vajpayee and Modi
governments did not interfere in JNU affairs till February 9, 2016. For the last two-three decades, JNU
activities were getting more and more politicised, actively and passively,
through its teachers, students and even vice-chancellors. It was a wrong practice to put up VCs at JNU
with leftist leanings. This was a hidden
practice, but prevailed invariably for the appointments of the top posts. But
why did this happen? Because it was felt
that everybody should get his organisational head according to his choice. Professor Nurul Hasan was made the Governor
of West Bengal only because he was supposed to be leftist in ideology and was
easily acceptable to the State during that time. So many VCs were appointed at JNU who had
leftist leanings. This created an
accumulated impact of bad governance which ruined the university. Most of JNU professors who survived this
ordeal were supposed to be leftists, actively or passively.
JNU thus became consciously a
cauldron of communism. There were
various variants of communism which flourished on the campus. The
Communist Party of India (CPI) was the most wide spread of all. It was revolutionary party which cultivated
communist aspirations grown on Indian soil.
Another party on campus sowed its seeds a bit differently through its
powerful organ i.e. CPM (Marxist). It
developed among students deriving its strength purely on Marxist ideology. It was
ideologically a hard core party which propounded Marxist theory of work and
action and derived inspiration from erstwhile Soviet Union. But the worst of all was the shade of
communism which spread its ideology through revolutionary spirit as adopted by
Maoists. It is CPM (ML & Maoist)
which supports Naxalism, Red Book, Lal Salaam, the Gun through which the power
flows, and suppression of the Nation and Society till the power comes to the
hands of the poor. They work secretively
and combine with separatists and terrorists.
The present upheaval at JNU is the result of this group at large.
Here one must relate to the
changes brought about in the communist world.
With the fall of Berlin Wall and USSR broken into pieces, the relevance
of communism in the present day world is only historical. It has no place in the globalised economy and
democratic free world. JNU is sitting on
the relics of old ideology of communism.
It is strange rather surprising
to know how separatist activities flourished on JNU campus and no precautionary
step was taken up to curb them by the administration. It is good to provide freedom of speech and
also to allow students to celebrate their cultural programme, but how outsiders
with covered faces entered the campus? In
fact, they were well invited persons, not intruders, and known to JNU students
community. Kanhaiya, the VC, Proctorial
Board and the Disciplinary Committee of JNU are answerable to the citizen of
India as they are paid out of their tax money.
What they were doing when anti-national slogans were raised? Why the proctorial board or any
representative member of the board was not present on the occasion. It is the duty of proctorial board to keep account
of student’s activities on the campus in detail. JNU administration has miserably failed in
performing its duty in this respect.
The other fact which is normally
ignored, and often misunderstood, is the role of police on the campus. The police,
as legally appointed investigating agency, have every authority to enter the
campus if the crime is committed inside the university. It is a myth that it can’t go inside the
campus – a notion that is non-sense. If
the police force does not enter the campus, it is on account of its own good gesture.
In some especial case, it can wait till the accused does not surrender. But normally the police can arrest the person
who commits criminal offence inside the campus.
However, the accused has every right to call his/her lawyer to defend
the case before the police and the court and seek time for the same before
arrest. In the present case of JNU, the
government vis-a-vis the executive council of the university are equally
responsible for not taking precautionary measures to stop student’s menace repeatedly
occurring on the campus.
JNU students are divided in
various groups and factions. These
groups are basically political in nature but they operate as cultural bodies
which go at times out of control and create law and order problem. The role of police becomes imminent here and
no permission of the Vice-Chancellor is needed to control such a situation. No place is out of bounds for the
police. Is there any clause in the
statutes of JNU or any other university in India where it is written that the
police cannot enter the campus? When
students go on rampage, the police force helps the authorities to bring the
situation under control. The students on
the campus act heterogeneously because of their different groups, variants and mind-sets. The students have their own organisational
bodies such as – SFI, AISA, DSU, NUSI, AISF, LPF, DSF, BAPSA, CFI, ABVP
etc. As long as they work separately or
work within their own group, no problem arises.
But the moment a large gathering of various groups is held in the name
of a common cultural programme, the problem crops up. They do not recognise
each other either by face or by name.
And in the event of such slogans as raised by students on campus on 9th
February, 2016, a pandemonium was created; a chaos was generated. It is tragedy to note that the JNU
controlling body remained somnolent to the whole affair on the campus. Of all the variants of student’s bodies at
JNU, it is the total sum of ‘Communist Group’ which dominates the campus. This group is all powerful and remains at
variance with the other bodies. Since
this group has all India and even foreign support, the group is powerful
monetarily, organisationally and ideologically.
Under the unprecedented situation
of chaos and confusion, not only the students, but some teachers remain
involved actively or passively. They
support the right of freedom of speech even at the cost of anti-national
slogans; they issue press notes in favour of students even when they behave
unruly, creating utter confusion and total chaos. They politicise the issue to gain students
favour. But such activities directly
hamper their growth and inversely impact their teaching and research standards.
They let loose students do whatever they like except learning, library and
class work, tutorials, seminars and regular research papers to be prepared and
submitted to the faculty or the guide.
At JNU students get more time for political activities than attending
classes and teachers spend more time in supporting political activities than
delivering lectures in the class or guiding research work. Some teachers become so familiar with
students that they live at their level and even visit their home town to create
regional affiliations. Caste, creed and
sectarianism dominate their relationship and education becomes worst sufferer
in this scenario.
It is pertinent here to
understand how the red forces fully occupied the campus. There are different shades of red found at
JNU. It is a war within – between
different shades of red. When the
students’ union elections are over, they almost become one. It is this fact which makes Kanhaiya more
convenient to attend the function organised by any other sub-group of which he
remains an intrinsic part. When
anti-national slogans were raised at the function, Kanhaiya was very much the
part of the gathering, not that he was passively standing, but he was actively
involved. He has not attained sainthood
to become passive at a place where he has to show his mettle well. He was the part of larger connivance being
organised on the campus.
The early years of JNU did not
witness any political impact. First
two-three years were well engaged in pursuing Ph.D. and M.Phil. courses,
guiding students and managing their research projects. The School of International Studies was
established and the first set of students was mostly research oriented. The general tenor of the school was
apolitical. In case of Russian studies,
the students and teachers were pro Soviet Union but there was no politics
attached to it. These were the formative
years of JNU when it posed to be a serious centre for learning devoid of any
political leanings. The professors at
this centre could in no way be identified as Marxists, communists or socialist.
But the scenario did not last
long. Mr. Prakash Karat, who had
returned from UK and got acquainted with the ideological functioning of the
British Marxists, became instrumental in giving a broader structural frame work
to the already existing neutral students body at the School of International
Studies (SIS) at JNU. Karat got into close contact with CPI (M) leaders who
wanted their students’ wing, SFI, opened at JNU as it was believed to be a
clean slate for the party for its entry into JNU without much competition or
fight with other bodies. With the
initiative of Karat, the SIS students’ association got merged with SFI and a
new JNUSU constitution was properly framed to give an institutional structure
to the students-union. This was how ‘the
left’ and JNUSU came to be known as one and the same thing, at least, during
the initial years of development of union activities at JNU in which Karat
played a leading role. Thus ‘Communism’
and students’ ‘Unionism’ were born at the same time at JNU and CPI (M) had an
advantage of being the first organization established on the campus. In 1971, an independent candidate won Presidentship,
but in 1972, SFI candidate captured the seat.
This followed the ‘Communists Activism’ on the campus.
However, the functioning of the
new School of Social Sciences changed the character of JNU. It was CPI which started inroads on the
campus. Thanks to the group of students
and teachers led by Professor Moonis Raza and patronised by the stalwarts like
professor Nurul Hasan and others for giving clear way to the establishment of
the student wing of CPI, AISF, on the campus.
CPI had mass base at the All-India level, while CPI (M) was effectively
located at provinces, especially West Bengal and Kerala. The split of the party was not good for the
left movement, but the leadership never tried to bring out any reconciliation
or compromise for it because of the power they held in their own constituencies
and provinces. In JNU, those responsible
for setting up AISF were active party members who belonged to the groups of
students and teachers. However, both the
communist parties attempted to bring these two wings of students together to
converge and to be called Progressive Democratic Front (PDF). Initially it worked out as proposed, but could
not achieve much success in the long run.
When the School of Social Sciences (SSS) started MA classes, the main
research work for which the university was established got pushed to the
background and the real decay of JNU started.
PG and under graduate students were least engaged in learning process
and they enjoyed spending more time on political discourses and related
activities. Since this time, political
activism became a fashion at JNU, and learning, research, class room work,
lectures and seminars were reduced to pass-time professions and students and
teachers were least bothered about them.
It may be said that with Professor Moonis Raza JNU attained its
perfection and with him started its decay.
The radical left wing students
were least satisfied with the theoretical as well as the practical aspects of
the programmes as spread out by the parties, from time to time, which they felt
were less effective. They wanted sharp,
militant activities, more revolutionary and practical for quick change and
transformation of the society. It was at
this juncture that students’ wing known as AISA was born of the parental body
called the Communist Party of India (Marxist-Leninist) Liberation. This party believed in the ideology of the
revolutionary legacy of Bhagat Singh and Chandrashekhar Azad. They also got linked with the “AZADI”
movement of NE and Kashmir. There
prevailed an utter confusion among leftist and radical revolutionary groups of
students on the campus. Majority of the students
were communists belonging to CPI or CPI (M), but they also accepted the
ideology of militant groups and adopted their slogans of “AZADI” of all varieties. They wanted “AZADI” from and within
India. They made a very thin line between these two
types of “AZADIS”. It was only when
Kanhaiya stepped out of Tihar Jail that he made it clear what type of Azadi he
wanted. It was an afterthought and he
made a U-Turn from what he spoke actually at the gathering on 9th
March, 2016 at JNU.
Kanhaiya suddenly gets a special
status in the minds of the people. He
becomes a precious news item to occupy front page, and at times, the
prestigious head line of the Dailies. In
TV shows, he often gets prime time. His
rating sours high like a celebrity and his name and the events in which he participates
get viral on social media. He floats his
life like available drift wood to be used by anyone who gets it. He is never stable and clear in his thought
process. He is 30 and still a student;
may attain 40, and even then a student! Who knows? He is pursuing Ph.D. without seriously getting
into it. He wants to be a teacher, but
behaves like a politician. JNU provides
him subsidised training of leadership and he has acquired it with
distinction. But his upbringing has not
provided him good language, taste and temperament. His Hindi (the only language which he speaks)
is extremely bad and pronunciation is awfully disgusting. Last year, in June (2015), he misbehaved with
a girl student on the campus, but the matter was hushed up with minor
punishment (fine), (See TOI March 11, 2016, Page 17, Bengaluru Edition). He feels that he has the potential of
becoming a CM or a PM candidate. But he
has no contents, appeal or force in his speeches which usually turn into
farce. His body language speaks more
than what he speaks. He presents the
spectre of a juggler, forcing mob to believe the unbelievable, by playing
tricks, producing rustic humour and mannerism.
He bends his spinal cord convexly, bringing his eyes up toward the sky
to create fake hypnosis presuming that he has won the world by his ‘Azadi’ slogans and wishing to get
round of applause from his less awakened
peers.
It was pre-planned to create
revolutionary uproar on the campus, with fully charged atmosphere, by
celebrating Afzal Guru Day. Students at
the campus along with some JNUSU activists arranged a cultural evening, with
belated disapproval by the university, to protest against Afzal Guru’s hanging,
calling it as a judicial killing, defying the university authorities and
showing contempt for the court. Students
raised slogans against India and showed solidarity with anti-national forces by
demeaning the country. The separatists’ activities
on the campus were at the zenith and the celebration was not just an evening
event, but a consolidated effort, of months and years of preparations, to bring
about such anti-national activities to happen.
Why JNU authorities were not alert to check and control such shameful
events organised on the campus? Such
activities happened last year also but no body took any notice of them. What had happened in JNU on that evening was
unfortunate. The slogans raised were
derogatory for the nation, judiciary and the patriotic tenor of the
people. The police arrived on the campus
and Kanhaiya Kumar was the first to be arrested. The police charge sheeted him for sedition
case. A few other names were also
surfaced, but Kanhaiya was on top of the list.
JNU authorities blinked the next
day. Till then much damage had been
done. As damage control exercise, they
appointed a committee to inquire about the whole incident and take action
according to prescribed rules and regulations.
JNU panel indicted nearly 21 students for wilful defiance in holding and
joining Afzal Guru meet and at least five of them were recommended for
rustication. It is yet to be seen if it
is a paper tiger or really meant for a strict action to be implemented or a way
of creating a rift among students by punishing the weak and sparing and
protecting the strong.
Kanhaiya got a name, fame and got
a life, love and leadership. He was flying on cloud nine. He became famous overnight, nationally and
internationally. He found himself as a
hot selling material instantly and emerged as a brand name. Anything ‘Kanhaiya’ is a derivative of
leadership, ‘Azadi’, defiance of authority, and a force generating instant
revolution – Lal Salam – as he describes it.
Kanhaiya is a brand that enhances TRP for electronic media channels and
an item song that is hot for print media to cover columns. Kaihaiya is a name and a voice of freedom,
opposition, solidarity and undaunted heroism.
But this popularity has been
brought about for wrong reasons.
Kanhaiya has been charged for sedition by the police and it will take
years for him to come out of this ordeal.
JNU is responsible for catapulting him to such heights vis-à-vis
bringing him down to earth. He oscillates
between these two extremes. What is in
store for him in future only God knows, but the real culprit is the university
which provides a camouflaged cage for innocent students to be trapped and get
ruined. They are not 21, but hundreds of
them who receive nothing from JNU – no learning, no education, and no future.
It is for a reference to remember
and go through it deep to ponder over the contents of the following passage
written by an alumnus of JNU, graduated years before, but still the pinch he
feels and perhaps opines for new generation to be alerted from the institute
which once was his Alma Mater. Here is
what SHEKAR writes:
“I am a graduate of JNU from the
1980s, and have hated my affiliation with that institution since that time,
bitterly regretting a decision not to forego a JNU degree for one from a more
prestigious institution where I had the option of studying. This is not a
scholastic institution in the classical sense of the term, but a gateway for
subsidized entry into politics and the government. Every one of my classmates
went into one or the other, the latter by a large margin, with the student
union leaders ending up in the former. I learnt very little here and am glad
the ideologies never appealed to me. This is one institution that needs to be
shut down...we will never see great academic scholarship from here”.
JNU has out lived its utility as
an academic institution in the strict sense of the term.
