2017 February | The Companionthecompanion.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/WEb-edition-1.pdfthe history...

2017 February | The Companion2

2017 February | The Companion 3

In this Nov. 9, 2015, file photo, a member of the black student protest group Concerned Student 1950 gestures while addressing a crowd following the an-nouncement that Univer-sity of Missouri System President Tim Wolfe would resign, at the uni-versity in Columbia

05/SMASH TORTUREROOMS INSIDE“PROGRESSIVE” LEFTCAMPUSES THREEOPEN LETTERS TO SFI KERALA STATESECRETARY

07/EDUCATION IN INDIA :ISSUES AND CHALLENGES- SALMAN KHAN

10/REJECTING VICTIMHOODRECLAIMING RESISTANCE

in this issue.February 2017 / Vol 36 : Issue 20 The Companion

Editor :Kashif Mansoor

Assistant Editor :C Ahamed Fayiz

Editorial Board : Azharuddin PilakodanMujahidul Islam Aslah vadakaraNihal Kidiyoor Hishamul WahabSharique Ansar Rashid MasoodUsama Hameed Shakira NomaniAnwarul Huda Ammar MansoorHammad Rifa TariqueSamiha Siddiqua Abdul Mumin.Dr Talha Rabeeha

Manager : Junaid [email protected]: +91 7532 063 797+91 8505 808 886Assistant Manager: Noorul Mubin Nadafcell: +91 8447622919Book Design & Cover : Thwaha APSocial Media Manager: Mohammed Abdul Mumin

Annual Subscription: Rs. 160.00 Each Copy : Rs. 15.00DD/Cheque In the favour of THE COM-PANION, New Delhi-25

D-300 (Old 230) Abul Fazal Enclave,Jamia Nagar Okhla New Delhi-25Tel : 011-26949817. Fax 26946285Mobile : +91 8447622919Email : [email protected]

Write to Editor:[email protected]

total number of pages is 36 with cover pages.

The contents under this magazine are licensed under CC-BY-NC-SA (unless stated otherwise) which means you’re free to copy and share them (but not to sell them)

Habeeb Haris on behalf of Student Islamic Organisation of India A P Zone. Printer Publisher & Editor Mohd Salimullah Khan. Printed at Bharat Ofset 2034/35 Qasim Jan Street, Delhi-110006, Published from D-300 (Old 230) Abul Fazal Enclave, Jamia Nagar, Okhla New Delhi-110 025. The opinions expressed in the columns of THE COMPANION contain positions and viewpoints that are not necessarily those of editorial board or the Students Islamic Organisation of India. These are offered as a means for SIO to stimulate dialogue and discussion in our continuing mission of being a student and youth organisation.

www.thecompanion.in

11/

IN THE NAME OF THE NATION:HISTORICIZING CASTEIN INDIAN UNIVERSITIES- NIDHIN SHOBHANA

21/TRACKING LEFTUNITY IN JNU ONHOW (NOT) TOFIGHT FASCISM- HEBA AHMED

25/ALEPPO- AYESHA MASTOOR

26PROGNOSISFOR THETRUMP-IAN ERA- SHAFA’AT WANI

29/TOWARDS MAKING MOREDEMOCRATIC: THE SYSTEMOF PROPORTIONALREPRESENTATION- ZAMA SHAIKH

31/THE ‘TRANSFORMATIONAL’UNION BUDGET 2017- RISHIKA RAJ

33/DESPITE OBNOXIOUSCAMPAIGNS BYBJP-MEDIA NEXUS, RAHUL GANDHI EMERGINGAS THE PIVOTOF OPPOSITION UNITY- DR JAVED JAMIL


EDITORIAL

Indian campuses have been wit-nessing a grave turmoil since last year. It is nothing but an expression of ac-cumulated frustration born out of the inequitable system of governance in every domain, which has a long histo-ry. Campuses and educational spaces are the most vulnerable places for dis-crimination on a person from an op-pressed community. The proponents of hegemonic ideology always deliber-ately attempted either to discourage or to co-opt students from Dalit, Muslim, Adivasi and other backward sections of society, who are marching towards holistic development and social em-powerment. After the institutional mur-der of Rohith Vemula at HCU triggered nation-wide protests, , we have been hearing the call for Left–Dalit unity and Lal Salaam–Neel Salaam slogans . The very slogan and unity calls have to be analysed in the context of left arro-gance and violence towards Dalit-Mus-lim Bahujan students in general and in particular from Kerala .Here we are analsying the attitude of Students Fed-eration of India(SFI),one of the promi-nent student organizations in Kerala as a specimen copy

Students Federation of India has the history of attacking students from marginalized communities whenever there was an attempt of forming any other alternative political movements in campuses in Kerala.The attack on Dalit students while they tried to start DSM (Dalit Students Movement) some years ago in Maharajas College is a classic example of intolerant and un-democratic politics of SFI .The recent conspiracy of SFI to plot Dalit students against each other and using them to attack other Dalit students to avoid being charged of atrocity cases and to

mask the existence and preservation of caste hierarchies within the party proves how much they fear the upris-ing of Dalit-Muslim Bahujan politics. It was in last January student activists of Inquilab Students Movement of Maha-rajas College, Ernakulam were attacked for raising voice for #JusticeforRohit. The question asked by SFI hooligans while beating the students was “Who are you to raise voice for Rohit”?. The same students were attacked for rais-ing #JusticeForRohit this year too. This author knows many campus activ-ists from SIO, Campus Front and Dalit Movements who are violently attacked and isolated inside the campus by SFI for being a member of another party other than SFI or for participating in student Union election as an inde-pendent candidate.

The auto biographical writings of famous Dalit-Bahujan thinkers and activists like K.K Kochu, K.K Baburaj, A.K Vasu and M.B.Manoj who were students in Maharajas College also ap-prove the anti-Dalit Muslim Bahujan mentality of SFI in Kerala. SFI needs dalits and Muslims stooge soldiers, who obey them and not those who as-sert themselves. SFI which has been perpetuating intellectual and physi-cal violence against the organizations from these oppressed communities are now very keen to take their concerns which should be identified as a move to appropriate assertive politics of op-pressed communities. We cannot see their move as intellectual paradigm shift but mere political tactics to over-come the threat caused to their vote bank politics by Dalit-Muslim Bahujan politics. The students union election of HCU and JNU shows the intellectual victory of Ambedkarite politics over the Left. Therefore they are introducing a new political tactics which is clearly viewed byBahujan activist Rakesh Ram

YES, ANOTHER UNIVERSITY IS POSSIBLES who writes

“SFI has learned from the AISA kind(Kavita Krishnan and all). It is the art of picking up one issue once in a while to keep their claim of progres-sive non fascist credentials. So many issues of institutional violence hap-pened in Kerala. Many of them involved violence by SFI students. Some of them involved violence on Dalit Bahujan stu-dents from teachers affiliated with left unions. After keeping their silence on all these(and even aiding the perpetra-tors in some) one fine day they picks up an issue(like Rajani S Anand and now Jishnu ) with all the institutional sup-port they have(media). And now they are the messiah.The fascist and saviour in one ugly bottle”.

Current SFI Kerala State Secretary, M Vijin had boasted off progressive campuses in Kerala and emphasized on the need to smash the “Torture Corners” inside private colleges while speaking about the institutional mur-der of Jishnu, a student of Pambadi Nehru College. He forgot about the Torture Rooms inside the “progressive red campuses “ all over Kerala. In next pages we can read some of the experi-ences of previous students from “pro-gressive” left campuses like University College Trivandrum, Madappaly Govt College(Vadakkara) and recent experi-ence of Vivek Kumaran who was brutally attacked by SFI hooligans in Mahathma Gandhi University Campus, Kottayam, who have written open letters to the current SFI Kerala State Secretary M .Vijin. Let us smash the Torture Rooms inside “Progressive Left Campuses” too. These open letters and the articles on Caste in JNU ,The problematic posi-tions of left unity in JNU on Rohit and Najeeb issues in this issue Companion is a stimulation to think that,

Yes, Another University is Possible!

C AHAMED FAYIZ


COUNTER PUNCH

First Open Letter :

Muhammed Ali EKñDistrict President, Campus Front of India Calicut North

My Friend Vijin

I came to know about a statement in regard of the suicide death of Jishnu and saw a specific phrase that goes like “ The ‘Torture Corners’ inside Cam-puses”. Igot excited to think about under whose control these Torture Cor-ners and Torture Rooms are running in the campuses across Kerala.

Weren’t you the one who intro-duced these Torture Rooms to the students of the universities and major-ity of colleges in Kerala?How many of your classmates have been bedridden and hospitalized by your mere act of converting Union Offices into Torture Rooms?

I am an eye witness of SFI’s extreme cruelty and beastly torture for three years from 2007-2010, at Vadakara Madapally Government College.

The various forms of facism are clearly and transparently practicing in the Union Offices of SFI ruling cam-puses in Kerala. The students were restrained from freedom to think, raise their voice or perform their activi-ties. Everyone had to survive, silently like slaves under the reign of the Red Beastly Comrades. Meanwhile if any-one had an ounce of courage to speak against the comrades, they would have been silenced by encounter daggers and iron rodes. The torture rooms were

in disguise of Union Offices in the cam-pus.

Many a time members of other student organizations were forcefully dragged into the SFI torture rooms and persecuted to extreme harassment and blackmailing. These students were let spare only if they agreed to keep their voices mute.

A face which the former SFI State Secretary, TP Bineesh can easily rec-ognise is that of Muhammed Ali E.K. Nadapuram, the then Unit President of Campus Front of India, Madapally Col-lege.

It was under your order I was beat-en to bleed and thrown away and had it not been the mercy of an auto driver, who helped me to reach nearby hos-pital, I wouldn’t have been alive after those three unconscious days at the hospital room. Innumerable students have been victims of the Red Torture

Rooms.

I cannot restrain myself from stating that those crocodile tears you wept out in condolence of Jishnu are nothing but your political drama. Before wailing in loud voices and making sympathetic statements with rebellious phrases, shut down and lock those Torture rooms you have created in the campuses.

Second Open Letter :Jazeel Mampad, Former SIO Unit President, University College, Trivandrum

Comrade Vijin,

It was 25 people of your comrade goons who have beaten me to blue, for the mere reason that I distributed SIO’s notices, and you locked me up in the infamous torture rooms so that the police wouldn’t find me, and in order to

SMASH TORTURE ROOMS INSIDE“PROGRESSIVE” LEFT CAMPUSES

THREE OPEN LETTERS TOSFI KERALA STATE SECRETARY

Jazeel MampadVijim


hide me from the police you threw me away from back of the campus walls. I was able to escape because police had reached outside on time.

Lukman, a student from Mathemat-ics Department was a victim of your cruelty because he was courageous enough to speak out his opinion and he voted for SIO during elections. Even after being informed to the principal, you kept shifting him from classroom to classroom continuing with your Red torture techniques. After all you are indulging in these beastly acts like blackmailing other students, by pub-licly announcing that the aftereffects of speaking or acting against you would be that of Lukman.

It was during a class hour, in the presence of a teacher, that you forceful-ly dragged out a student from the Arabic Department, for the simple reason that he didn’t subscribe to your magazine.(The apt title for the magazine would be ‘One with the Most Victims’ rather that ‘One with the Most Subsribers’.)

A gang of comrades circled and blackmailed a student after he submit-ted his nomination form because he was standing as an independent candi-date in the elections.

Reshin, booth agent of SIO was also a victim of the Red Torture Rooms.( Also reminding the fact even today, you are behind him asking to drop the case.)

A close friend of mine, Muhsin of Botany Department, escaped your bashing and beastly torture after you frightened him with your blackmailing tactics. He was saved only because he didn’t vote for SIO. He also has in-formed then that another student was being beaten in the Room.

Your own then District President, Ansaari, who had come to give orders for the Red Goons, was shaken and nakedly embarrased, when one of our own members, Nourin, out of petty asked him ‘Are you the President of a Student Organisation?’, he ignored the question and moved away from there out of embarrassment.

Vijin, these are just handful of my experiences as a university college student for three years. I am pretty sure all around the campuses in Kera-la, there would be many more beastly and torture stories to be listed. I am expecting others to share their experi-ences too.

On one side when you scream your lungs out protesting and fighting for the students treated unjustly and speak against concentration camps, also try to put that your preaching into practice at the MG University too.

Jazeel

Thank You

Third Open Letter :Vivek Kumaran M.Phil studentSchool of Gandhian Thoughts,Mahathma Gandhi University,Kottayam

I am an M.Phil student of Ma-hathma Gandhi University, Kottayam, Kerala. I have been brutally attacked by a gang of four SFI members, includ-ing the SFI Unit Secratary on Tuesday night. I was totally unaware about the reasons for the encounter. You maybe well aware of this incident.

Since then I and my friends includ-ing girls have been blackmailed and

asked to keep silence regarding above incident. They have accused us of run-ning Ganja Mafia in the campus.Is it the only way to answer to the political dissent and ideological differences by attacking and murdering? And even af-ter that it doesn’t quench the thirst for blood and you had to go to the extent of accusing me of using Ganja.

Why are you -who are the so-called patrons of students and their rights- at-tacking a poor Dalit student who has come for higher education? Do you have any idea about the hurdles I had to go through to reach here? When the responsibility of an entire household lies on my shoulder, is my hunger for acquiring higher education a crime?

With all the lies and torture you put me through, you are killing the dreams of my parents who are ordinary daily wage workers.Those Comrades of yours who accuse me for using Ganja has not been able to provide any evidence re-garding that, because in reality I have not even smoke a cigarette.

While India is going through a phase of suppressing the voices of disagree-ment and I know very well how difficult is the survival as a Dalit.The struggle for life and survival is a necessity for me, my family and my community. And that alone is the cause why I haven’t given up on my life.

(All the three open letters were translated from Malayalam into Eng-lish by Hiba Farook. She is final year BA Functional English student at Farook College, Calicut )

Vivek Kumaran


EDUCATION

Superior intelligence is the only human ability that enables us to domi-nate the world. We use our intelligence to gain knowledge of all the living and non-living things in the world around us. As we gain more knowledge we also develop wisdom that guides us to carefully use the power that comes with knowledge. These are the only traits that set humans apart from all the other living beings and allow us to tame the most ferocious beasts and make medicines from snake venom. A very important advantage we humans have is the capability of beliefs and opinions, animals are only capable of emotions and intuitions. As we acquire

wisdom, we understand that our lives are temporary and everything changes with time. Our health and abilities, pos-sessions and power will cease to exist sooner or later. Governments, cultures and civilizations will rise and fall over time just as the great civilizations of Indus and Nile have long disappeared. But the only thing that continues to flourish and pass from one generation to other, from one civilization to other is knowledge. For example, the people who first invented the wheel are now in complete oblivion, but wheels are used every day in bullock carts, the smallest toys as well as the largest power stations.

Knowledge, unlike myths, cannot be fabricated but only acquired after

EDUCATION IN INDIA :ISSUES AND CHALLENGES

careful study. Since the dawn of civi-lization, humans have tried to organ-ize and acquire more knowledge and impart it with discipline. The ancient Sumerians of Mesopotamia had scribal schools about 5,000 years back which trained children during the day. Educa-tion is perhaps the greatest utility in history that mankind has been devel-oping continuously. Peaceful societies cannot exist without good education and a country that patronises scholars and reformers will eventually reach its zenith. The Supreme Court of India had observed in September 2012 that de-mocracy, though cannot be flawless, depends for its very life on a high stand-ard of general, vocational and profes-sional education. “Dissemination of learning with search for new knowledge with discipline must be maintained at all costs”, said the apex bench.

After fighting two devastating world wars, the great powers of the world re-alised that mere political and economic agreements are not enough to build a lasting peace. Peace must be estab-lished on the basis of humanity’s moral and intellectual solidarity. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) was thus created in 1945, to build networks among nations that mobilize educa-tion, build intercultural understanding, pursue scientific cooperation and pro-tect freedom of expression.

Good quality education, however, has mostly remained a privilege of the well-off classes, since it requires well qualified and methodically trained teachers. It is therefore the greatest necessity of mankind to educate the coming generations and foster such

SALMAN KHAN


moral values and intellectual growth in society that will enable better access to good education. The most important uses of education are building a sound intellectual environment, fostering so-cial and cultural values and equipping youngsters with disciplined knowledge to achieve a just and sustainable devel-opment for the society.

Education in schools and colleges is not for memorising certain disjoined pieces of information, concepts and methods. Education is to unleash the best intellect and aptitudes in humans and train those abilities in a manner that can be best utilised for the wel-fare of society simultaneously giving a wholesome satisfaction to the individ-ual. The success of education lies in its ethical energy to coordinate all aspects of human life, instead of compartmen-talizing them, and in the integration and uplift of all sections of the society. Education would remain only an admin-istrative or economic tool if remains a prerogative of the mainstream and well-off classes.

Education in India

Education in the sense of learn-ing is undoubtedly a life-long process, both individually and collectively. Both formal and cultural education in India still have a long way to go. While it’s a well known fact that no Indian citizen has won a Nobel prize in science or literature after 1930, other indicators are quite depressing. The reader might be surprised to learn some bleak reali-ties of education in India. The following passage can be potentially disturbing, reader’s discretion is advised.

The United Nations Development Programme (UNDP) publishes rank-ings of countries based on an indicator called Human Development Index (HDI). It’s a summary measure of three key as-pects of human development: a long and healthy life, being knowledgeable and having a decent standard of living. Unfortunately in this arena, India is be-hind some countries struck by civil wars like Iraq, Palestine, Libya, Sri Lanka and Lebanon. India is a member country of international associations like G20 and BRICS. All developing members of

the two associations except India like China, Brazil, South Africa, Mexico, Ar-gentina, Turkey and Indonesia belong to a different league of High Human Development. India is slightly ahead of Pakistan and Bangladesh, the three neighbours have Medium Human De-velopment.

The Times Higher Education Rank-ings are published every year by an in-dependent audit, in which Indian uni-versities show abysmal performance. In the 2016-17 rankings, 19 out of top 20 universities are British or American. There are 2 Chinese universities in top 35 and 3 from Hong Kong in top 80 (Hong Kong is a Chinese province). But there is not a single Indian university in top 200 ranks. Indian media however projected it as some kind of a victory deserving praise.Domestic statistics perhaps give some insights to under-stand the cause of such an abysmal situation.

- Due to the ever increasing costs of academic education, less than 12% Indians have completed matriculation and about 5.6% have completed

- In September 2015, over 23 lakh candidates, including 2.22 lakh engi-neers and 255 Ph.D. holders besides thousands of M.Com., M.Sc. and M.A. holders had applied for 368 peon posi-tions in the Uttar Pradesh State Secre-tariat.This is in sharp contrast with the fact that the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Council had invited applica-tions to recruit 6,645 Assistant Teach-ers a year before. Over 10 lakh posts of teachers are lying vacant in India today.

- About one-third of faculty posi-tions in central universities are lying vacant. More than 53% positions of as-sociate professors are vacant and most universities are relying on ad-hoc, con-tractual and guest faculty.

- Only 20% of all the engineering graduates in India are employable and

Over 4,400 students had dropped out of the prestigious IITs and NITs between 2012 and 2015.IIT Bombay, Delhi and Kharagpur have over 33% shortage of staff.India registered 8,048 student suicides across the country in

2014, with highest cases in Maharash-tra which also has a lead in farmers’ suicide and wine production.

The purpose of this assessment is not to express a cynical feeling towards the educational system and policy mak-ers but to take an un-romanticised ac-count of it and contemplate some holis-tic solutions and reforms.

Perhaps one of the reasons for such abysmal education standards in India is the budget that the governments al-lot for the education of its people. India is among the few countries that dedi-cate less than 4% of its GDP to educa-tion. Again, India spends the least frac-tion among G20 and BRICS countries on education. Brazil and South Africa, despite lesser populations and smaller economies than India, spend more than 5.5% of their GDP on education. Scan-dinavian countries, known for their ex-cellent education and HDI, spend more than 7% GDP on education.

Eventually, academic education re-mains substandard in India and young-sters are left unemployable. The prob-lems of education are endemic and are entrenched in our socio-economic sys-tem. Dr. Craig Jeffrey, a former Professor at Oxford University is the Director of the Australia India Institute, Melbourne, Australia. In his book titled Time pass: Youth, Class and the Politics of Waiting in India, he calls Indian education as a ‘time pass’ for the idle middle class youth who are unable to get a decent job on the basis of their degrees. They take admission in a variety of courses for ‘killing time’ and look for a jugaad to get a government job.

In a society where teachers, parents and media perpetuate a notion that possessions and influence precede happiness, the primary purpose of the education system seems contradic-tory. Instead of sensitising virtues, cul-tivating intelligence and wisdom, the agenda of education becomes the crea-tion of know-how workers for a ‘service system’ and a citizenry that is socially passive and intellectually mediocre. In this frame, the pedagogic enterprise is to prepare human capital for the labour market and the central thrust of educa-tional policy is to supply labour forces


in the market for industrial develop-ment.

As a result of this approach to edu-cation, hundreds of private schools and colleges have cropped up in the past 15 years which provide better education at exorbitant prices. Educa-tion is becoming privatised which is just the educational aspect of an in-creasing socio-economic segregation in India. It’s a part of an entire privati-sation system which includes housing, healthcare, security, electricity and an ever narrowing journalism.

The neoliberal lobbies propose bet-ter quality of education through free marketing policies. They promote cor-poratisation to evolve elite institutions that mostly serve the upper class. They foster competition amongst students and between institutions. Neocon-servative policies, as if to complement these efforts, attempt to shape the personality of students and teachers so that they become susceptible to the propaganda of the dominant social classes. The result is that mass educa-tion is turned into a commodity akin to fixed deposit or insurance policies, whereby lower classes receive hum-ble packages of education and upper classes receive premium deals. Educa-tion now serves as a sophisticated per-nicious tool to perpetuate social and economic stratification.

No wonder, even with all these educational problems prevailing, privi-leged Indian candidates do exception-ally well in Ivy League universities and multi-national corporations. The pre-sent education system, thus promotes a self-perpetuating class system where the children of the rich mostly go on to rule over the children of the poor. Edu-cation thus defeats its very purpose of fostering social mobility and justice and goes into maintaining inequality in the society.

This is the failure of an education system. The success of education does not consist in the acquisition of a great amount of material knowledge to be used for a life-exhausting career or amassing wealth through complex schemes of consumerism, exploitation and expansionism. Nor does it consist

in the enthusiasts’ indulging in arts, aesthetics and addictions or the elites spending their wealth on luxurious mansions and aesthetical decorations, even as the living conditions of the public are deteriorating and man-made floods and droughts are on the rise.

A great problem of some education systems is that they tend to fit the world to their skewed perceptions based on limited knowledge, instead of being open to new perceptions and under-stand the stupendous world better. As the 18th century German philosopher Immanuel Kant said, “It seems surpris-ing at first, but is nonetheless certain, that our reason does not draw its con-clusions from nature, but prescribes them to it.”

The problems of education seem similar in developed countries, and sooner or later will also affect the privileged classes. Robert Putnam, a Harvard Professor of Public Policy, pub-lished a book titled Our Kids: The Amer-ican Dream in Crisis in March 2015. The book is a groundbreaking research on the decline of social mobility in the United States over the past 50 years. Putnam finds an alarming “opportunity gap” in the American education system and warns that the United States could soon cease to be a “land of opportu-nities”. Independent incidences have also revealed a racial bias in the cur-ricula and examinations of America’s most prestigious schools. The Scho-lastic Aptitude Test (SAT), a commonly used exam for college admissions in USA and many other countries, tends to be biased against Black and Hispan-ic candidates while most universities in USA clearly show racial and economic marginalisation. John Goldthorpe, an eminent sociologist in the United King-dom, warns of a new situation emerg-ing in Britain. He says young people en-tering the labour market today are far unlikely to move up economically than their parents did. He appeals to radical changes in educational policy besides a whole range of economic and social policies.

The first step towards solving a crucial problem is to develop a com-prehensive understanding of the prob-

lem and its various facets. The union government has taken many initiatives like National Curriculum Frameworks by NCERT, National Policy on Educa-tion (1986), Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan (2000), Midday Meal Scheme, Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE), 2009 and many others by state governments. The syl-labi of National Council for Educational Research and Training (NCERT) books are also designed in order to discour-age rote learning or confining studies to the prescribed textbook, erasing compartmentalisation of subjects, and encourage children to reflect on their own learning. There are a few “islands of excellence” where some schools and educational societies are making cer-tain genuine efforts.

All the above efforts, though en-couraging, lack a proper implementa-tion with a wholesome approach. The Indian Republic is still far from achiev-ing the Directive Principles of State Policy under the Constitution which says “to provide, free and compulsory education for all children until they complete the age of fourteen years.” (Art. 45),to avoid the concentration of wealth and means of production to the common detriment (Art. 39(c)) and to promote with special care the educa-tional and economic interests of the weaker sections of the people, and, in particular, of the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes, and shall protect them from social injustice and all forms of exploitation(Art 46)

Good education and opportunity to undergraduate courses is still a privilege of less than 5.6% Indians. It is therefore indispensably urgent to re-think education and revive the system with a comprehensive outlook.

The author has done his B.Com. from Osmania University, Hyderabad. Presently he is working on a website project on Education.

(to be continued)

Authour is pursuing MA in Sociology from Osmania University, Hyderabad. He is a freelancer and blogger.


CAMPUS VOICE

The institutional murder of Ro-hith Vemula and the enforced disap-pearance of #Najeeb Ahmad reveal that agents of Brahmanical Fascism in universities have selected students from marginalized communities as their targets. JNU right now is reeling under a conspiracy of saffronisation engineered by M. Jagdeesh Kumar and his Sanghi bosses. Students in JNU are resisting the attempts at crippling so-cial inclusion in the admission and re-search programmes, but the threats to the life, liberty and dignity of person-hood of students from marginalised communities show that Brahmanism is out to root out the very presence of Dalit and Muslim students from higher education.

Rohith Vemula suffered a sustained period of humiliation, which included eviction from hostel, termination of stipend allowances, exclusion from all public spaces of HCU, before he was forced to end his own life on January 17th, 2016. What was Rohith’s ‘crime’? He refused to accept Brahmanical he-gemony in universities, he stood up to intimidation by the minions of fascism (ABVP), and he protested against the carceral state which sent Yakub Me-mon to the gallows.

Rohith Vemula’s humiliation should remind us that there are en-trenched histories of casteism even in premier universities. These histories of subjugating students hailing from deprived backgrounds include system-atically discriminating against them at the time of entering university, alienat-ing them within the university, or even erasing their existence itself, as is the case of Najeeb Ahmad.

Najeeb was forcibly disappeared from JNU after a near fatal attack upon him on the night of 14th October, 2016. Najeeb was attacked by members of the ABVP on a conspiratorial excuse. It was alleged that Najeeb had attacked an ABVP member for wearing a sacred thread on his wrist when the latter went to his room for a campaign in the upcoming elections in Mahi-Mandavi hostel. This allegation by the ABVP is clearly a fabrication, intended to imply that Najeeb himself caused the attack upon him to happen. Let us not forget, the action-reaction formula for justify-ing the genocide of Muslims has been popularised by Narendra Modi during his tenure as Chief Minister in Gujarat 2002

While the institutional murder of Rohith is intended to intimidate Dalit students into silence and acceptance of Brahmanical dominance in univer-sities, the enforced disappearance of Najeeb is intended to prevent Muslim students from aspiring to study in uni-versities like JNU. Both Radhika Vemu-la and Fatima Nafees have to face the

REJECTING VICTIMHOODRECLAIMING RESISTANCE

double trauma, of witnessing the death and disappearance of Rohith and Na-jeeb while also negotiating for justice with the same state which unleashed violence on them.

The model of ‘progressive politics’ as it exists in university campuses like JNU is based upon a perpetual appro-priation of the struggles of Dalit-Bahu-jan-Adivasi students. This model of ap-propriation is led by parliamentary Left parties, wherein the struggle of mar-ginalised identities for existence and emancipation is always converted into a convenient leftist vocabulary which leaves the existing structures of Brah-manical power unchallenged and does not question how anti-minority, upper caste prejudices are retained herein. But if we are to believe in the power of the resistance of the marginalized com-munities, then we will not let Rohith and Najeeb become mere emblems of victimhood.

The life and struggle of Rohith teach us the meaning of radical solidarity and courage even in the face of moribund exclusion, while Najeeb’s brief pres-ence in JNU should encourage other Muslim students to ensure that the vacuum left in JNU by disappearance does not become a permanent one. Let hundreds of Rohith and Najeeb arise to uphold the mantle of emancipation

We need a new imagination of poli-tics which can uphold the fight against Brahmanism, not as a progressive pre-tence, but as a reclamation of dignity and resistance by those who are his-torically marginalized.

( This is a joint statement by BAPSA, SIO JNU and YFDA released on the occa-sion of Rohith Shahdath Din).


COVER STORY

The ‘idea’ of a university and its connections to democracy, nation-building and knowledge production have been historically discussed and debated by several social scientists and policy-makers in great depth1. Such discussions have often avoided perceptive historical analysis of social structures and actions which estab-lished shaped and sustained universi-ties. In other words, the ‘idea’ of the university is often not contextualized

in the specific histories of its place or players.

This essay would think of Universi-ties as a complex system of buildings, committees, senates, courts, councils, financial budgets, affirmative action, student’s unions, teacher appoint-ments; dominated by historically pow-erful groups, endowed and subsidised by the nation-state in various degrees. Such a view is not new2. Nevertheless, this essay also identifies Universities as dynamic places of on-going political struggles by all groups (and not just the

IN THE NAME OF THE NATION:HISTORICIZING CASTE

IN INDIAN UNIVERSITIES

marginalized or excluded). These strug-gles could be inside (university streets, courts, selection panels, staff quarters etc.) or outside the universities, shap-ing its future in many different ways. However, these groups historically embody unequal social, economic and cultural power. Thus, the politics of the historically oppressed to enter various ranks of the university should always be studied along with the politics of the historically powerful to sustain their in-fluence, not concede to opponents or make compromises of varying degrees. Thus this essay understands university

NIDHIN SHOBHANA


as a tangible reality marked by specific, conflicting histories (of social groups, their mobilizations and places) and not simply as an abode of ‘unmarked, ab-stract, priceless knowledge’ suspended in a national scale. Again, the ideational and tangible aspects of a university are not exclusive to each other. They share a reciprocal relationship.

University is visioned as a contested terrain of political, strategic opportuni-ties. S.D.S Chaurasia in his dissent note to the First Backward Classes Commis-sion quotes Dr. Ambedkar3, to clearly underline the connections between higher education, power and politics. Ambedkar was of the opinion that it is important for the Backward Communi-ties to occupy strategic posts or key positions in the Government by creat-ing highly qualified professionals. For Babasaheb, education was a political tool to democratize notions of power at multiple scales (including the individual psyche and knowledge). This could have been done only by establishing strategic influence in the working of the demo-cratic polity (Chaurasia, 1956: 75)

A departure from dreamy notions about Universities or for that matter Higher Educational Institutions (hence-forth HEIs) can be substantiated only through a historical investigation of Modern Higher Education in India. While a thorough investigation is beyond the purview of this essay, I would share a few glimpses for sure. To begin with one can ask questions such as - Who were the main players and ‘collaborators ‘ in the project of stabilizing HEIs in India. What were their social and political affili-ations? How did they shape and organ-ize Higher Education in India? How have they influenced the culture in universi-ties? How did they control processes of knowledge production? How did they imagine, what bell hooks5 would call, a learning community? How did they forge an ‘intra-national community’ of teach-ers and students, especially the former? Who were excluded from these process-es and how did processes of ‘inclusion’ begin?

These questions are both historical and sociological. Philip Abrams6 points out at the sociological value of think-

ing about the present as a product of the past. In other words, one turns to history in search of ‘deeper and more realistic understanding’ of present scenarios. However, such an activ-ity in historical sociology cannot be seen as a mechanical attempt to sense ‘laws of patterns or tendencies’. His-torical sociology is an attempt to un-derstand our reality as historical. The question of higher education is dealt with a sense of history precisely to understand present-day struggles and politics. They are not new questions. In fact they have been oft-repeated by an-ti-caste scholars in various forms, fo-rums, languages and regions. I would refer to at least a few of such scholars in my essay. I would only repeat their questions and possible answers to ar-rive at the curious case of Jawaharlal Nehru University, New Delhi (hereafter JNU) as a ‘National’ University.

Notes from the Past:

Historicizing Universities in India

Syed Nurullah and J.P. Naik7 in their book chronicle the history of Educa-tion in India. They specifically dedicate three chapters on the establishment and growth of Indian Universities. They also tangentially discuss on the sys-tems of learning which existed prior to British intervention. These reflections are based on the enquiries conducted by British officials or missionaries in early 19th century in Madras, Bombay and Calcutta. Such enquiries point out at the processes through which educa-

tion was almost always ‘confined to the Brahmins or the mercantile classes’.

Even before the establishment of Indian Universities in 1857, the first set of ‘modern’ colleges was set up with the help the British in early 19th cen-tury. These colleges were modelled as per the pre-existing systems of learn-ing, specific to Brahmin-Savarna Hin-dus and Muslims. Poona College, es-tablished in 1821 in one such example. Dongerkery in the ‘History of the Univer-sity of Bombay 1857-1957’8 writes -

‘The Poona Sanskrit College, lat-er known as the Deccan College was founded, in 1821, by Mr. Chaplin, Com-missioner of the Deccan, as a Sanskrit College, exclusively for the benefits of Brahmins. It was supported by a fund known as the Dakshina Fund, being a collection of pensions and allowances previously paid by the Maratha State to Brahmins and subsequently devoted by the British Government to encour-age learning among the Brahmins.’ (Dongerkery, 1957:2)

The chief objective of the college was to ‘preserve the attachment of learned Brahmins’ who, according to the British ‘severely suffered by the change in the government’. More im-portantly, such encouragement was important as the British realized that Brahmins had ‘considerable influence over the feelings and conduct of peo-ple at large’. E.A.H. Blunt in his 19319 book calls Brahmins the ‘natural lead-ers of Indian society’.

A portion of the Dakshina Fund

Table 1


(which was exclusively meant for Brah-mins) was set apart for the award of what was called the Dakshina fellow-ship in 1857. In other words, from the beginning of the nineteenth century we find ample evidence which proves that modern education of Brahmins was subsidised and rewarded. Exclusive colleges were built for their ‘preserve’. The study of Sanskrit was deemed es-sential for every ‘Indian’ student. This condition clearly favoured the Brah-mins over the others. Similar colleges, exclusively catering Brahmin-Savarna interests were set up in cities like Cal-cutta and Banaras (Dongerkery, 1957).

The history of Calcutta Sanskrit College is also marked by deliberate at-tempts to maintain caste privileges by denying opportunities to lower castes. A.K. Biswas documents10 how Ishwar Chandra Vidyasagar as the Principal of Calcutta Sanskrit College along with Sir Surendra Nath Banerjea clearly stood against democratization of Higher Edu-cation in Colonial India. A.K. Biswas quotes the letter written by Vidyasagar on September 29, 1859 to John Pe-ter Grant, the Lieutenant Governor of Bengal, opposing the Charles Woods Dispatch of 185411 which proposed ‘mass’ education. Vidyasagar writes -

“An impression appears to have gained ground, both here and in Eng-land, that enough has been done for the education of the higher classes

and that attention should now be di-rected towards the education of the masses... An enquiry into the matter will, however, show a very different state of things. As the best, if not the only practicable means of promoting education in Bengal, the Government should, in my humble opinion, confine itself to the education of the higher classes on a comprehensive scale.”

Vidyasagar, who is revered by many, categorically advocated for con-fining education to ‘higher classes’ (both men and women). In the same essay, A.K. Biswas points out that a wealthy man from the goldsmith com-munity was denied admission in San-skrit College by Vidyasagar due to the ‘low-caste’ status of goldsmiths and in the interest of the ‘upper-castes’ at-tending the colleges. Thus, the idea of a ‘learning community’ was effectively narrow and did not include the major-ity.

Similar instances can be found across India. For example, Dr. Palpu, a pioneer of lower-caste mobilizations in Kerala, in his book ‘Thiruvithamkotte Ezhavar’12 (Ezhavas of Travancore) meticulously documents the demo-cratic struggles carried out by Ezhavas to enter schools, professional colleges and government jobs in Travancore. He records the attitudes of the Savarna bureaucracy who either denied or de-layed jobs to highly educated Ezhavas.

Though modern colleges were also established under the banner of mis-sionaries in Bombay, Madras, Agra, Delhi and Calcutta, they also catered chiefly to the Brahmin-Savarna groups of the country. Commenting on this pe-riod, Dr. Babasaheb Ambedkar, in his essay ‘Christianizing India’ points out that the Missionaries initially aimed at converting Brahmins and other ‘upper castes’. They tried to achieve this aim by setting up Colleges, Schools and Hospitals. The major benefits of Chris-tian institutions were reaped by the ‘high caste Hindus’.

The Charles Wood Despatch of 1854, which is considered the Magna Carta of Modern Education in India also made it clear that it was their intention that every opportunity should be given to the ‘higher classes’ for the acquisi-tion of a higher European education “the effects of which may be expected slowly to pervade the rest of their fellow countrymen and to raise in the end the educational tone of the whole country’ (Dongerkery 1957:10) Such was their belief in the ‘downward filtration the-ory’.

What one finds is a successful mo-bilization of an educated Savarna Pub-lic sphere through modern education in India. Such a mobilization in real, tan-gible terms would not have been pos-sible without the colonial ruler. From the inception of the first set of Univer-sities in 1857 (and even before that), one finds a close collaboration among savarnas across regions. However, it goes without saying that certain regions dominated over the other. For example, the first committee which decided the technicalities of Calcutta, Bombay and Madras Universities had ‘Indian’ mem-bers who mostly resided and worked in Calcutta in close collaboration with the Colonial Government. And all of them belonged to the ‘upper-echelons’ of the caste society, mostly Brahmins. Even the lone ‘Indian Christian’ was a Brah-min Convert – Dr. Kedar Nath Banerjee.

In other words, Calcutta, Bombay and Madras Universities which covered the whole of present-day India (and more) under its jurisdiction, had mem-bers from particular castes and particu-Table 2


lar regions who built close links with the then ruler, deciding its fate and culture.

Similarly, as one goes through the silver jubilee report of Pune Univer-sity, one finds out that the University was established in 1949 after a long standing ‘movement’ of petitions and resolutions by the Maharashtra Univer-sity Committee (formed in the wake of the 1926 Bombay University decision to sanction regional universities in Maharashtra, Karnataka and Gujarat) and Marathi Sahitya Sammelan (which included the resolve to establish a uni-versity for Maharashtra time and again in its conferences). The official history makes mention of several Brahmin in-dividuals who actively vouched for a university in Pune. The formation of an official committee in the early years of the 1940s to look into the specific de-tails of the proposed Pune University was practically an All–Brahmin Com-mittee, with a late addition of a Muslim aristocratic member. Again, the Brah-mins who were part of the committee were mostly from the urban areas of Western Maharashtra. The nexus of already existing colleges (especially Fergusson College under Deccan Edu-cation Society) and the powerful de-cision-makers is evident as one goes through the report. This nexus had direct implications on the culture and economics of appointments and ad-missions in Pune University. For exam-ple, till the silver jubilee celebrations of Pune University in 1974, all the Vice-Chancellors were Brahmins. The Chan-cellors were upper-caste Congressmen – a generous mix across regions. All of them claimed present or past affilia-tions with colleges and universities es-tablished in 19th century and first half of 20th century. The ‘national’ scale was practically a playing ground for mobile upper-caste western educated men facilitated by the technological and industrial progress ushered as a result of western modernity.

Late 19th century and early 20th century witnessed the rise of Savarna nationalists who established colleges across the country with the help of the grant-in-aid provided by the Colonial Government. Banaras Hindu University

(BHU) is a product of these efforts.

Annie Besant who played an impor-tant role in shaping Modern Hinduism through her ‘elementary and advanced textbooks’ on Sanatana Dharma , founded the Central Hindu College, Banaras (along with Bhagwan Das) in 1898. Later, Pandit Madan Mohan Ma-laviya joined hands with Annie Besant and endorsed the idea of a ‘fully resi-dential college for Hindus’. It should be noted that BHU was a product of a newly mobilized Brahmin–supremacist nationalism. It involved long periods of associational activities, journalism and lobbying with Congress through the Madhya Hindu Samaj (which per-ceived promotion of Hindi as its cultural activity) and Hindu Mahasabha in late 19th and early 20th Century, conduct-ing its operations majorly through Alla-habad14.

The network of colleges and uni-versities, prepared the Brahmanical elite (across religion) to readily possess government jobs. The rise of Indian National Congress during the same period consolidated the position of these groups further. For example, S.R. Talukder in his essay titled ‘Indian Civil Service Examination and The Savarna

Merit’15 tells us how ‘upper’ caste Indi-ans consistently underperformed in In-dian Civil Services despite having non-discriminatory schooling in missionary schools and colleges, consolidation of land ownership through Permanent Settlement of Zamindari System, po-litical power through Indian National Congress and cultural supremacy in every walk of life. In order to redress this ‘non-meritocracy’, they made use of Indian National Congress as a pres-sure group. British administration pro-vided several measures , such as ‘res-ervations’, ‘relaxed age limits’, ‘priority in specific appointments’, ‘examination in Indian centers’ and ‘political nomi-nations’ for the Brahmanical elite. Ulti-mately, the numbers tilted in the favour of upper-caste Indians only after Euro-peans persistently backtracked from ICS after World War–I. Bhagwan Das16 notes that the Brahmins in Madras and the Bhadralok in Calcutta colonized the advantages of the new educational policies and captured most of the posts available in the administration. Even the Senates and Syndicates formed as a part of the organization of Universities, were playgrounds for a Savarna educat-ed class to push its politics forward. For example, the appointment and recom-mendations of the Indian Universities Commission in 1902 were strongly op-posed by Ferozshah Mehta and Gopal Krishna Gokhale on the grounds that the commission did not have an ‘Indian’ member from its inception and the sug-gestion to limit the Senate to hundred individuals would make its nature ‘Eu-ropean and official’. (Dongerkery, 1957: 45, 46)

The first century of Indian Universi-ties is strongly marked by the identity politics of the ‘Indian educated classes’, often lead by Brahmins, conveniently divided on religious lines, addressing their demands to the foreign ruler and keeping lower-castes mostly at bay. Their identity-based politics worked ef-fectively by forming pan-Indian organi-zations and collaborations.

Talukder (1998) points out that 15th August 1947 was a ‘day of mira-cle’ for the Brahmin-Savarnas. It laid bare all the important positions in pub-lic institutions for upper-castes. Newly

(Reproduced from JNU:The Years, pp. 188)


independent India was an open field of public institutions which required to be ‘manned’. This historical oppor-tunity was constructed by graduating socially sanctioned caste supremacy to legal authority in multiple modern spaces, including universities. In this process they forged a ‘national’ ad-dress for themselves.

I think, this preceding note on the history of HEIs in India, their growth, ways of functioning and emergent cul-ture would help one move towards the specific case of Jawaharlal Nehru Uni-versity.

Contextualizing JNU and

its demography

Drawing from the All India Survey on Higher Education (hereafter AISHE) Final Report 2014-15, JNU accom-modates a mere 0.02% of all student enrolments in HEIs. Its demographic share among Central Universities is as low as 0.9%. Again, Central Universi-ties as a whole, with national jurisdic-tion, educate just 4.7% of all students in HEIs. On the other hand, State Public Universities accommodate nearly 85% of all students in HEIs17. Central and State Open Universities accommodate more students (5.06%) than all Central Universities put together.

The demographic insignificance of

JNU or for that matter all Central Uni-versities is a result of how they were historically conceived. They were con-ceptualized as specialized spaces to aid the operations of the nation-state. Satish Chandra in the silver jubilee memoir of JNU18 observes that the ba-sic objective of central universities ‘in the widest sense’ was to promote na-tional integration. I would get back to the idea of ‘national’ universities in a short while.

In spite of their demographic in-significance, Central Universities along with ‘Institutes of National Importance’ (which enrols a mere 0.58% of all stu-dents in HEIs19) capture centre stage in union budgets (irrespective of overall cuts in allocations)20, ‘national’ media reportage, or political economy of an-glophone publications, international projects etc. They are embodiments of ‘national importance’ in their décor and architecture. They are also manned with ‘individuals’ and groups who have occupied or continue to occupy several powerful national positions. Further, many ‘national’ universities claim to have engendered a ‘national’ culture. JNU is often seen as a forerunner in such productions. For example, Rajat Datta21 in his essay describes JNU in the following words –

JNU is precisely that kind of island, a microcosm awash with India. All languages, regions, castes and com-

munities inhabit the built and open spaces of this island. A colleague once remarked, if you want to have a Bharat darshan come to JNU.

[...]JNU epitomises that argumenta-tive India. Freedom of expression and dissent are encoded in this university’s DNA.

The ‘idea of India’ is sustained through a complex network of public in-stitutions which can range from the Par-liament to the police outposts in remot-est areas. It is important to note that all institutions are not invested with equal power. Universities and espe-cially ‘National’ Universities are a part of this complex network, with consider-able gate keeping powers in matters of knowledge production and consequent policy impacts. Again, Universities or HEIs also do not enjoy equal access to power or resources.

The AISHE 2014-15 classifies high-er educational institutions in twelve different categories in India – Central Universities, Central Open Universities, Institutes of National Importance, State Public Universities, State Public Open Universities, State Private Universities, State Private Open Universities, Insti-tutes under State Legislature Acts, Gov-ernment Deemed Universities, Deemed Universities –Government Aided, Deemed Universities-Private, and Other Institutes. Further, these twelve catego-

Table 3


ries are further classified as on-campus and off-campus colleges (they can be government/government aided/ pri-vate management colleges). A growing number of these affiliated colleges of-fer professional courses and are con-trolled by private managements22. The questions of resources, opportunities, access to state power through individ-ual experts or centres is highly uneven with a clear hierarchy.

The social composition of the teachers and students in these hierar-chies of HEIs bring to fore how Universi-ties not only reflect but also reproduce socially-sanctioned structures of caste, class and gender and consequent ac-cess to resources or ‘national’ power. While a lot has been written about the changing student composition in public universities23, there is an in-formed silence about teachers in the Savarna Academy. A startling example is the number of SC, ST, OBC and Mi-nority women in ‘Institutes of National Importance’. All of them put together accounts to a mere 2.3% of the total number of teachers in 74 ‘Institutes of National Importance’. Take a look at the Table 1 below -

The case of Central Universities is only slightly better, where on-campus and off-campus centres and teaching departments of the Central Universi-ties have 6.1% SC, ST and OBC women faculty members. 3.6% of all teachers are Muslim women. However, these numbers are hardly comparable to their populations. The situation looks better in the case of affiliated and Constituent Colleges. However, it should be noted that the job contracts in these colleges are much more precarious than Univer-sity departments. Take a look at the fol-

lowing Table 2 –

One can deliberately reduce the question of numbers of historically ex-ploited groups in Institutes of ‘Nation-al’ Importance as a matter of non- im-plementation or slow implementation of ‘reservation policies’. However, such an answer is ahistorical and narrow in its intention. The process of ‘including’ the oppressed in spaces overpopu-lated and controlled by the privileged typically begins only after consistent struggles by oppressed groups. The time involved in this process of resist-ance by the oppressed, is a time of op-portunities and expansion for histori-cally privileged groups. The time and conditions which enable ‘inclusion’ are crucial in any discussion on the entry and exclusion of oppressed groups into public institutions.

The skewed numbers undeniably tell us about the ‘national importance’ of different social groups. The question of who ‘mans’ national institutions and how do they produce a national culture in the absence of any representational justice in key decision-making bod-ies is very important. This over-repre-sentation is a result of the continuing strength of a historically enabled sa-varna public sphere..

Further, as I have argued else-where24, the notion of achieving a ‘microcosm of India’ through represen-tation justice at the ‘national’ scale is riddled with problems when we grow mindful of the fact that India is made up of 5000 castes and tribes with sev-eral sub-groups, genders, speaking distinct languages, residing in varied geographies, involved in diverse occu-pations.

Having placed JNU within the prob-

lem of ‘national’ universities (in some detail) based on AISHE 2014-15 Re-port, I am now in a position to exclu-sively discuss the case of JNU in order to illustrate the historical processes which explain skewed numbers and cultures.

JNUís History, Culture and Numbers

‘The layout of the new campus, conceived of as the residence of a fam-ily, with interspersed faculty houses and hostels [...] the intellectual milieu of commitment to changing the world and making it better and egalitarian one [...] There was a grandeur in the conceptualization of JNU which bore the mark of Mr. G. Parthasarathy’s vi-sion’ (Harbans Mukhia in JNU: The Years, 1996: 97)

The JNU Bill was passed as a ‘nec-essary’ legislation on 16th November 1966. This passage was preceded by a Joint Selection Committee set up for the purpose of establishing a ‘nation-al’ university inspired by the experi-ence of the Australian National Univer-sity. However, it took three more years to lay the foundation of JNU in 1969. The establishment of JNU was followed by that of North-East Hill University, Hy-derabad and Pondicherry Central Uni-versities in 1970s.

The idea of a ‘national univer-sity’ with an all India jurisdiction is a culmination of several historical pro-cesses. Along with the creation of an Independent India, one of the most im-portant processes has been the intra-national creation of an active savarna public sphere which claims ideologi-cal, regional and linguistic diversity. We tried to catch glimpses of this his-torical formation in an earlier section. It operates as a self-sufficient national community which controls media sys-tems, political, cultural and economic resources. They constantly talk to each other, historically sharing common schools, colleges, universities, public offices, libraries and speak more or less the same language.

If we look at the biographical de-tails of the founding members of JNU one would soon realize that most of them were well-networked second or

Table 4


third generation English educated Sa-varna Men. For example, the founder Vice-Chancellor of JNU was G. Par-thasarathy , a western-educated Tamil Brahmin whose father N. Gopalswami Ayyangar was a civil servant with Ma-dras Presidency. Ayyangar went on to become the Dewan of Kashmir and also a Minister in the first Nehru cabi-net. G. Parthasarathy completed his education from Oxford University. His paternal uncle, A. Rangaswami Iyengar was the editor of The Hindu. Parthasar-athi himself served in the editorial board of The Hindu before venturing into a diplomatic career. He was also the first representative of Press Trust of India in London25 . In short, he was part of a well-oiled system of national infrastructure through his caste kith and kin. He was extremely close to Jawaharlal Nehru and Indira Gandhi. He is remembered as the ‘architect of JNU’ and the author of JNU’s liberal-ism. He also served as the chairman of ICSSR for ten years. The diversity that this group of anglicised savarna individuals could possibly claim is that of region and language. The sectarian, provincial nature of their associations and conversations need to be under-lined. While Universities are imagined as democratic spaces where individu-als (irrespective of where they come from) can participate in the task of knowledge production without intimi-dation and fear, it is ironical to observe that such ideals were imagined and executed from social and geographi-cal locations which stood in conflict with large sections of the society. Very clearly, the subordinated majority were kept aloof of any decision which would have an irrevocable, lasting impact on their educational and social mobility. This ‘lack of democracy’ in the forma-tive years of universities should be taken very seriously in any discussion on ‘exclusion and inclusion’ in Higher education. What is often celebrated as the culture of a university is an un-critical acceptance of its ‘high-handed’ history.

The idea of JNU as a ‘national’ uni-versity was imagined and executed in Delhi. More specifically, it is imagined in brick and mortar in the last ridge of

the Aravalli ranges (Lochan, 1996: 14).

To begin with the last ridge of the Aravalli ranges (likened to an unin-habited stone quarry in the Memoir) was progressively emptied out of its ‘particular social features’ to aid a ‘na-tional’ imagination. In the silver jubilee memoir of the university we find no mention of the local communities, their social, economic and political contexts. There are no answers to questions such as – How did they benefit from the uni-versity? How did they respond to its es-tablishment? How many alumnae were created from the castes and communi-ties in the immediate neighbourhood? How many of them became teaching and non-teaching staff in the univer-sity?

One may argue that none of these ‘local’ (read as parochial) questions are relevant to a university imagined at a ‘national’ scale. For example, N.L. Sharma26 in his essay observes –

But I always wondered why there were no students from the adjoin-ing villages, like Munirka, Ber Sarai, Masoodpur, Mohammedpur, at JNU. I did not find even one student at CSSS during 1972– 2003. There are econom-ically well-off people in these villages, but they hardly have an understanding about JNU.

It is interesting to note that Sharma holds the local ‘wealthy’ communities

responsible for not ‘understanding’ JNU (and not the other way round) and fur-ther in the essay pits them against the ‘rural’ students from remote parts of Ut-tar Pradesh and Bihar. The making of a ‘national university’ clearly requires a clean, ahistorical, non-conflicting can-vas where one can forge the imagined nation, literally. Accountability at a ‘lo-cal level’ would not serve the national purpose.

The process of ‘nationalizing’ a place also features in the naming of canteens, hostels and staff quarters in JNU. Thus, this Aravalli range has Periyar and Nilgiri as ‘places’ within its fortification. This is how the claim of being a ‘microcosm of India’ is forged into the system of naming. The pro-cess involves the symbolic violence (or collateral damage?) of deleting local names, features and histories. Clearly, the ‘local’ is subsumed, invisiblized or held in contempt by the so called ‘national’. Further, this national space (imagined in the national capital) pro-duces professional knowledge which muffles all linkages of power between the ‘national’ analyst (often with inter-national publication contracts) and the ‘regional’ object of analysis. Bourdieu calls this the intellectual division of labour in his book ‘language and sym-bolic power’. For example, in the case of N.L. Sharma’s observation quoted above, we have a ‘national’ analyst per-sonified as N.L. Sharma commenting on the ‘local communities’ around JNU, totally oblivious about his own identity, institutional and linguistic resources which legitimize his study (a non-evi-dence-based gossip!) of the other. This unaccountability and arrogance of so-cially powerful academics is a product of ‘Indian’ nation.

Having said that let me move to-wards the student composition of JNU which is often celebrated for its ‘nation-al character’. Given below is the list of the JNU Student’s Union Presidents in the first 20 years of its existence. –

The fact that most of the Presidents of JNU Students Union in first twenty years are ‘upper-caste’ men from cer-tain regions is symptomatic of how the ‘national character’ of the student

“ But I always wondered why there were no students from the ad-joining villages, like Mu-nirka, Ber Sarai, Masood-pur, Mohammedpur, at JNU. I did not find even one student at CSSS dur-ing 1972– 2003. There are economically well-off peo-ple in these villages, but they hardly have an un-derstanding about JNU.


body was socially hierarchized on the campus. Like the ‘national’ elite which founded the university, the leadership of the student body was also drawn from the same class/castes of indi-viduals.

It is this group of individuals who are revered for the introduction of ‘deprivation points’ for historically marginalized sections in 1974. One finds such reverence in Prakash Kar-at’s essay on JNU27 in 1975. However, young Prakash failed to talk about the composition of teachers or key-deci-sion making powers in JNU neither did he contextualize ‘deprivation points’ in the larger movements for social justice led by backward classes and dalits outside JNU. The seventies are crucial for it marked a series of politi-cal movements led by backward castes and Dalits in many parts of the country. Several such regions stand at a social distance from Delhi. For example, Kar-nataka had seen exemplary efforts by backward classes in organizing a poli-tics of ‘affirmative action’ to topple the power relations in public life. Similar efforts were seen in Tamil Nadu, Maha-rashtra, Gujarat, Bihar etc. Sixties and seventies witnessed the formation of State Backward Classes Commissions across India.

In fact, Siddhartha College in Mumbai made admission of backward classes along with SCs and STs its spe-cific goal in the sixties itself, at a time when University of Bombay still had no ‘specific goal’ for the backward classes . Similar attempts to recognize back-wardness and provide opportunities in one form or the other existed since the beginning of the 20th century in the peninsular southern states. Thus the novelty of JNU’s ‘deprivation points’ cannot be substantiated in the light of lower-caste mobilizations across India.

In 1983, three years after the sub-mission of Mandal Commission Report, the JNU administration set up a New Admission Policy Committee under the chairmanship of Bipan Chandra. Prakash Karat in the same essay foot-notes the opposition of Bipan Chandra against the implementation of 20% reservation for SCs and STs pointing

out reasons of quality and merit in 1974.This committee proposed a 15% and 7.5% reservation for SCs and STs respectively. This proposal was in line with the government policy of 1982. However, filling SC and ST seats were conditional to the marks obtained in the admission test. The Memoir Com-mittee points out that NAP dismissed social and economic deprivation, quite in opposition to the emerging political discourse on backwardness fuelled by the assertion of lower castes across states in India. In other words, JNU’s official policy did not resonate with the concerns of the political moment.

The Memoir Committee observes that national leaders like Chowdhary Charan Singh and Chandra Shekhar condemned the admission policy and ‘hoped that the JNU mandarins would withdraw the so-called merit based policy till the Mandal Commission recommendations were fully imple-mented’ (Lochan, 1996:27). The same report points out that the numbers of Scheduled Castes and Tribes remained below 11% (less than 50% of the sanc-tioned number of seats) of the total en-rolment until 1987.

Thus, the politics of deprivation points and reservations in admis-sion were dormant and crippled with problems until the 1990s (marked by Mandal agitations). In 1982, a group of students wrote a short letter in EPW

pointing out at the limitations of the system of deprivation points for socio-economic backwardness. They point out that teachers can manipulate the scores in VIVA and written exams to di-lute or nullify deprivation scores.

In spite of drawbacks in JNU’s poli-tics of inclusion, the Silver Jubilee Mem-oir does not approach the question of caste with any seriousness or criticality. A good illustration is the following para-graph from the chapter titled ‘Reflec-tions on JNU Culture and Tradition’ – [...] In spite of a slightly caste-based pat-tern of admissions, one can notice that individuals are not addressed by their caste titles but by their first names. One would find more of Prems, Nandans, Firozs, Alpanas than Pandeys, Mishras, Khans or Srivastavas. (pp.201-202)

The choice of surnames are instruc-tive, However, I would not delve deeper into it. The ‘problem’ of caste is seen as an individual choice in the cultural realm. Thus, shedding it off and be-ing ‘national’ and casteless can be achieved by addressing individuals by their first name.

It is also interesting to notice the informed silence in the memoir about the social, caste composition of teach-ers. Even a cursory look at the organi-zation of the university, with its focus on academic autonomy, would make it clear that teachers yield a lot of power on what should enter the classrooms as knowledge. Also, being appointed as a teacher in a ‘national’ university located in Delhi would mean proximity to ‘national’ power and authority. Go-ing back to young Prakash Karat’s essay one finds evidence of the powerful mul-ti-job profiles of the faculty members in JNU in the 1970s. He points out –

Vice- chancellor B D Nag Chaudhuri is too busy to be a full-time employee of the university (he is also foreign Nation-al Science Academy; director, Hindu-stan Aeronautics Ltd., Bangalore; head, Indian delegation, Indo-US Joint Sub-commission on and Technology; and member, Indian team of the Indo-US Joint mission on Education and Culture) [...] Rasheeduddin Khan, professor, Centre of Political Studies, is a member of the following bodies: Rajya Sabha;

“ The choice of surnames are instruc-tive, However, I would not delve deeper into it. The ‘problem’ of caste is seen as an individual choice in the cultural realm. Thus, shedding it off and being ‘national’ and casteless can be achieved by ad-dressing individuals by their first name.


Council of Social Science Research; Indo-US Joint Sub-commission on Edu-cation and Culture; Board of South and West Asian Centre for Friends World In-stitute (of USA) Bangalore since 1967; American Studies Research Centre, Hyderabad; and Executive Committee of the Institute of Asian Studies since 1965. He has additional onerous tasks on the boards of studies, selection commissions and examination com-mittees of 26 Indian universities.

Very clearly, many of the faculty members ‘embody’ the authority of the nation-state in its multiple insti-tutional forms. The economic implica-tion of such embodiment is a matter of serious investigation. The social composition of teachers is important to make better sense of ‘who’ embody positions of national importance and at what point of time.

Cultures of Inclusion through Num-bers of Inclusion: Appointment of teaching and non-teaching staff

On 26th April 2016, the Commit-tee on the Welfare of Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribe under the Chair-manship of Faggan Singh Kulaste sub-mitted a report on the status of SC/ST reservation in teaching and non-teach-ing posts at Jawaharlal Nehru Universi-ty. The report briefly captures the time taken by JNU to actually implement SC/ST reservation in teaching posts. It was in the Executive Council meeting of 1983 that JNU resolved to make pro-visions for SC/ST reservations to the extent of 15% and 7.5% respectively at the level of Assistant Professorship. This decision was a result of the official policy adopted by the Central Govern-ment to provide SC/ST representation (proportionate to their national popu-lation) in 1982. However, this resolu-tion only had a marginal impact.

It took fourteen more years for JNU (i.e. 1997) to adopt rules and guide-lines for implementation of reserva-tion policy. It is interesting to note that the first resolution comes after twelve years of JNU’s inception. This resolu-tion was followed up and made effec-tive only after the silver jubilee of the University.

Again, it was only in the year 2000

that the Executive Council decided to approve and implement reservation (at Assistant Professor Level) on the basis of post based roster. Further, SC/ST reservation for the post of Profes-sor and Associate Professor were ap-plicable only since 2007. However, it was actually implemented after adop-tion of UGC Regulations’ 2010 by the University in 2011 and the 1st Adver-tisement with SC/ST reservations for Professor/Associate Professor was re-leased in November 201130.

68 SC posts and 38 ST posts re-main vacant even after six years of UGC Regulations 2010. The Committee ex-pressed its ‘displeasure on the insou-ciant attitude of JNU with regard to SC/ST recruitment in teaching posts’.

When the Committee enquired about the reasons for not filling up these posts, JNU stated that the main reasons for not filling up the vacant po-sitions was that in some cases no can-didates had applied, particularly at the level of Professor/Associate Professor, and in a few cases candidates had ap-plied but did not fulfil the essential qualifications and specializations ad-vertised. In some cases the candidates had not made up to the prescribed Academic Performance Indicators (API) score. Finally, in some cases the Selec-tion Committees had not recommend-ed the candidate(s) for appointment. (Committee Report, 2016)

The following table, dated 19.01.2016 gives us a better picture of the number of filled and unfilled teaching seats among SC, ST and OBC in JNU –

For me the most hammering detail

in this glimpse of SC/ST reservation is the number of years that lapse in pendency and non-implementation of policy decision. These denials and de-lays characterize every stage in the bu-reaucracy of affirmative action. Starting from policy resolution in the Executive Council to official advertisements and appointments, the time taken should be quantified in economic and social terms incurred by communities. Their struggles of entry were waged outside the universities and forced their way into it through politics. One needs to also account the economic and pro-fessional opportunities and expansion of historically powerful groups in the University during the same time-frame. Drawing from Philip Abrams , this ‘time’ can be simultaneously described as both a continuing moment of ‘lower-caste’ assertions and also as ‘time taken by the powerful to conditionally ‘include’ the opponent’. A combined description brings to fore the power relations in this process of ‘inclusion’. The power vested in the selection com-mittee and officialdom of the university to ‘realize’ the rights of marginalized communities cannot be underestimat-ed.

Santhosh and Joshil Abraham in their essay titled ‘Caste injustice in Jawaharlal Nehru University31’ cat-egorically point out how upper-caste faculty members have consistently lobbied against implementation of res-ervations for marginal sections. They point out that in a note submitted to the Vice-Chancellor of JNU in 2010 the former vice chancellors and emeritus professors such as Y K Alagh, T K Oom-

Table 5


men and Bipin Chandra, argued that if excellence was compromised in the name of ‘inclusion’ the worst victims would be the marginalized sections themselves as the ‘well-off’ would fly to universities abroad.

Santosh and Joshil point out that this argument ‘uncreatively mimics the Gandhian idea of trusteeship’. What seems interesting is the continuing resilience of the savarna academy in conditioning, delaying and denying the rights of oppressed communities in university space.

From the above table one can un-derstand that the percentage of SC, ST and OBC teaching staff in JNU is 9.9%, 2.6% and 4.7% respectively. It should be noted that the percentage of ST and OBC teachers is less than the national average for Central Universities as per the AISHE Report for 2014-15 (An up-dated survey may show an improve-ment in National average). Similarly, it should also be noted that even after 34 years of implementation of reservation for SC and ST at the Assistant Professor level their combined strength (17.8%) or individual strength ( SC : 13.2% ; ST: 4.6%) is less than the prescribed res-ervation among filled posts. Similarly, even after 10 years of OBC reservation less than half of the prescribed quota (11.28%) has been achieved among the filled posts. I think these process-es of tiring denials and delays deeply mark the culture of a university.

To further press this point, the following table which appears in the report proves extremely instructive (pp.9). The table compares advertise-ments for SC/ST non-teaching posts with actual recruitment. Out of 46 posts advertised for SC teaching posi-tions in 10 years only 20 were filled. The number looks comparatively bet-ter in the case of Scheduled Tribes.

The Committee pointed out that reservation were not applicable to certain categories/posts in JNU. They include the posts of - Vice-Chancellor, Registrar, Finance Officer, Controller of examination and Librarian (all ten-ure positions). The Committee pointed out at the need to ensure SC/ST rep-resentation in these posts. In the light

of this observation, it should be noted that the maximum number of SC (24%) non-teaching staff are part of Group C employees. The following table was part of a response filed by JNU to a question raised by P.K. Biju M.P. in the Parliament, dated 14.03.2016 –

It should also be noted that as per the Deputy Registrar’s response32 to the Parliament, between 2009 and 2013, JNU had not appointed a single SC cook. In spite of 10 sanctioned po-sitions. On the other hand, 141 Safai Karamchari positions were exclusively ‘chalked out’ only for SCs. This proves how JNU efficiently reproduces caste in sites of labour like any other institution in India.

In lieu of a Conclusion

In this essay I have only tried to provide certain accounts on history, culture and numbers pertaining Univer-sities in general and JNU in particular. However, even such a primary exer-cise proves that the ‘national culture’ claimed by ‘national’ universities can-not really stand the test of historical scrutiny. Dr. B.R. Ambedkar during his time as the Senate member of Univer-sity of Bombay underlined the need to ensure the participation of all elements of ‘national life’ in the working of a Uni-versity. However, the founding fathers of JNU did not act accordingly is proven beyond doubt. The claims of inclusion are shallow and do not extend to teach-ers and key decision-makers in the University. The picture has been slowly changing only in the Post-Mandal era with serious delay and denials. Howev-er, this does not mean that the Savarna

public sphere has stopped advancing its politics. The need to juxtapose the continuing fights of oppressed groups with stories of continuing manipula-tions by privileged groups is of prime importance.

In a speech delivered by the pre-sent General Secretary of JNU Student’s Union she observes that ‘There is noth-ing more radical than a Brahmin fight-ing Brahminism’33. This declaration captures the culture of JNU. It is not an observation without historical prece-dence. Time and again, political heavy-weights and scholars have revered JNU for the sight of a predominantly upper-caste public sphere in the National Capital fighting against oppression. Prakash Karat’s essay used in this pa-per in an example of the same. National Universities provide a playground for a savarna public sphere to graduate its identities as ‘radical’ and ‘liberative’ and consequentially pat each others back. This activity is a structural cul-mination of historical processes. How-ever, the irony of this cultural politics is also captured in the Brahmin General Secretary’s declaration as the ‘Brah-min’ continues to remain ‘Brahmin’ in every fight.

For Dalit, Bahujan, Adivasi students and teachers entering Universities such cultures would not provide any critical or psychological solace. On the other hand, its rejection would help us build positive identities.

Courtsey : http://roundtableindia.co.in/

Author is a research scholar in Jawa-harlal Nehru University, New Delhi

Table 6


CAMPUS VOICE

Last year, the month of Septem-ber was rife with irony. On one hand, the victory of Left Unity in the polls for Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union1 (JNUSU) was heralded as a push-back to the fascist take-over of the university, as JNU’s redoubtable answer to the forces of fascism, while on the other hand, leftist intellectu-als were at war with each other about the very nature of the BJP regime; this

was sparked off by Prakash Karat on a note of semantic quibble. Karat argued that the BJP government resembles authoritarianism, that it does not by itself “constitute the establishment of a fascist order.” S. Sudhakar Reddy, in tune with Karat, insisted that ‘the pre-sent BJP government is “fascistic but not fascist yet.”’ Another ostrich-like rejoinder came from Vijay Prashad, who said that the RSS is “semi-fascist or fascisant because it can never hope to achieve hegemony over the popular imagination, but has to impose its fa-scistic ideology from above.”

TRACKING LEFT UNITY IN JNU ONHOW (NOT) TO FIGHT FASCISM

Aditya Nigam rightly quipped that the Left’s ‘non-debate’ was “in fact a simple question of whether or not to have an electoral alliance with the Con-gress!” The Left’s terminological skir-mish on the word fascism itself rings hollow in its inability and unwillingness to confront the foundation of fascism in India: namely, Brahmanism. Brahman-ism is the hallmark of Hindutva through which it seeks to unify numerous caste groups of Indian society into a national-ist Hindu entity, with the Muslim Other as its perpetual antithesis. Brahman-ism is the premise of both ‘casteism’

HEBA AHMED


and ‘communalism’ in India; in fact, caste oppression and Hindu majoritari-anism are dovetailed with each other through the hegemony of Brahmanism. The Sangh Parivar has popularised a particularl malevolent form of nation-alism through Brahmanism. But the well-meaning harangues penned by in-tellectuals like Prashad do not see how Brahmanism purports to unite India into Hindutva. Ambedkar’s famous formula-tion of caste as a system of graded in-equalities which provide the anchor for Brahmanical Hindu society is ignored by Prashad; instead, he mentions caste only twice in his essay, bizarrely argu-ing each time that caste is “a fissure that tears through society” and makes India multi-national. Prashad seems to be oblivious to the depredations of casteism and suggests instead that the persistence of caste ensures plurality within the Indian nation and does not “allow the RSS to dig its roots into the Indian popular imagination.”

Universities as Sites of Nationalism

The suicide of Rohith Vemula, which was to all intents and purposes an in-stitutional murder committed by the authorities in Hyderabad Central Uni-versity (HCU) and the HRD Ministry, pro-vides proof contrary to the idea of the nation espoused by Prashad. Vemula’s humiliation at the hands of the univer-sity arose because he questioned the nation repeatedly through the fulcrum of caste. Rohith’s radical imagination of solidarity included the performance of namaaz for Yakub Memon, a ‘terrorist’ condemned to the gallows. Solidarity for the ‘enemy of the nation’ is always an act of trespassing against the na-tion, and Rohith was accordingly de-clared an anti-national. But the hold of Brahmanism inscribed in universities ensures that such acts of transgression do not go unpunished; the nation must be restored by teaching a lesson to the transgressor.

On 9 February 2016, a cultural evening was observed in JNU to com-memorate Afzal Guru, another ‘terror-ist’ executed by the Indian state. What happened after that is a chronicle often retold. On account of fake videos which

were circulated widely over the inter-net, the students responsible for the event were labelled as seditious anti-nationals; one of them, who happened to bear a Muslim name, was said to have links with LeT chief Hafiz Saeed. Several other students from leftist stu-dent organisations in JNU were simul-taneously targeted by stringent penal-ties imposed by a High Level Enquiry Committee. This was clearly a manifes-tation of a fascist attack on JNU.

As the Sangh Parivar attacked JNU for being ‘anti-national’, the university embarked on a project of enunciating pluralistic meanings of nationalism. In a month-long series of lectures called ‘What the Nation Really Needs to Know’, the site of the university campus was defended as a space for free speech and the right to dissent. ‘#StandWithJNU’ resuscitated the mantle of JNU’s progressivism, with support and solidarity for JNU pouring in from different parts of the world. But the same progressivism, repre-sented as it were by the mainstream Left, had effected a shift in its dis-course. What had been an evening of transgressive speech claiming azaadi for Kashmir, became something that must be hushed up; as one commen-tator has remarked, the debate about Kashmir was “hijacked in the name of free speech and right to dissent and traversed what the event actually was organised for.” Leftists in JNU could not stomach talks about the secession of Kashmir. But at the same time, they defended the virtues of free speech. The climax of this contradiction was seen in Kanhaiya Kumar’s speech after his release: “Humein Bharat se nahi, humein Bharat mein azaadi chahiye.” (We want freedom within India, not from India).The right to dissent was celebrated in the same breath which pronounced Kashmir to be an integral part of India. In effect, JNU had proven itself to be in line with nationalism with respect to Kashmir. This doublespeak on azaadi and Kashmir was reflected in JNU’s inability to express coherent solidarity for the Kashmiri resistance which surged after the martyrdom of Burhan Wani, even as a fascist state occupation intensified its brutal

clampdown on Kashmir. While ‘Stand with JNU’ built solidarity for all those leftist students who had been targeted by the JNU administration, JNU’s ambi-guity about Kashmir invisibilised those Kashmiri students of the campus who had to face the repercussions of the February 9 event.

ëFraming the Minorityí: Further Limits of Progressivism

Be that as it may, the Left Unity in JNU rode on the legacy of the ‘Stand with JNU’ euphoria and emerged as the winner in the Union elections, with the explicit collective mandate to fight fas-cism. But a month after left supporters had arranged a mock funeral for ABVP symbolizing the latter’s defeat, an enforced disappearance of a Muslim student left the campus in shock.

The prima facie “narrative” of the events of 14th October — the night Najeeb Ahmad was attacked — is fun-damentally flawed and rife with con-tradictions. It has been alleged by the members of ABVP that Najeeb was the one who had precipitated the attack; he had apparently slapped Vikrant, an ABVP member, who had visited his room on a campaign for the upcoming elections in Mahi-Mandavi hostel. The reason behind this “attack”, as given by ABVP, seems absurd: that Najeeb had taken offence to a sacred thread on Vikrant’s wrist. No witnesses have testified to this story; it is clearly a fab-rication, designed to play off the trope of the butthurt Muslim. The counter-at-tack on Najeeb which occurred seem-ingly in response to this has been justified by ABVP as a “reaction”. The action-reaction formula for rational-ising attacks on Muslims has been popularised by Narendra Modi during his tenure as the Gujarat Chief Minis-ter. And the counter-attack was vicious. Najeeb was brutally beaten up even in front of the hostel warden.

When the initial account of the events on the night of the 14th of Oc-tober were made known to the larger student body in JNU, it emerged that in the written version of the scuffle, Na-jeeb was framed as the “accused”. The


fact of a near fatal attack perpetrated on him was omitted. This official com-munication bore the signatures of the Senior Warden, the Hostel Warden, the JNUSU President, the hostel president and Najeeb’s roommate. As per the decision of this letter, Najeeb stood guilty of physical violence and was ex-pelled from the hostel forthwith. Later on, there were other communiques which contradicted the initial one. But Najeeb’s intense vulnerability to a near mob attack was completely obscured by those signatures. Even the President of the Students Union was complicit in the fascist victimisation of Najeeb.

In the days following the attack on Najeeb and his subsequent disappear-ance, there was a sustained attempt by the fascist government to stereotype and demonise him. He was said to be a depressed and unsound mind, while the Lt. Governor of Delhi declared that he had been sighted in Darbhanga, a place associated with terror modules of the Indian Mujahideen. Rumours of Najeeb having been sighted in Darb-hanga, or speculation that he has gone astray to join global terror groups, con-stantly impose a “frame”2 upon Na-jeeb and his disappearance. All these frames impinge upon Najeeb’s Muslim identity. Najeeb’s susceptibility to get-ting framed is directly related to the fact that he was a Muslim. As per the fascist narrative of the ABVP, Najeeb was to be blamed for the attack on him. In other words, Najeeb’s ‘guilt’ is framed over and above the fact that he himself had been made the victim of a brutal assault.

And yet, the likes of Kanhaiya Ku-mar and JNUSU office-bearers repeat-edly insisted that the near-fatal attack on Najeeb Ahmad must be seen as one that had occurred on a common student. The vulnerability that Najeeb bore as a result of his identity3 was not acknowledged. No efforts were made to render his targeted identity free from blame and suspicion. .

Reluctance to Confront

a Fascist Administration

While the fascist minions in the JNU administration ranging from the VC,

the Rector and the Proctor continued to make a mockery of justice for Najeeb, the JNUSU was increasingly inept in scripting any coherent struggle within the campus to ensure justice for Na-jeeb. A University General Body Meet-ing (UGBM) failed to pass any resolu-tion calling for a sustained movement inside the campus. Only the Union’s resolution for ‘Chalo Badaun’4 was passed; till date, nothing has come of it.

As the JNUSU kept insisting on non-confrontational modes of agitation, the Vice-Chancellor M. Jagdeesh Kumar demonstrated the effectiveness of fas-cism in shielding its minions. The ABVP members who were found guilty by a much delayed proctorial inquiry were given a mere hostel transfer by way of ‘punishment’. At the same time, the VC capitalised upon the ‘opportuni-ties’ provided by the attack on Najeeb to unleash a fascist onslaught upon the spaces of free speech cherished by JNU students. The Admin-block which had been rechristened as ‘Freedom Square/Azaadi Chowk’ was declared out of bounds for student protests. The installation of iron grills cordoned off the space which had been used by students to hold hunger strikes, house alternate accommodation for students not given hostels, and to gherao the VC for his inaction on Najeeb’s disap-pearance. But despite the all-out fas-cist attack upon the democratic space for students, the Union continues to be undecided upon any active measures to be taken to fight the fascist muscle-flexing of Jagdeesh Kumar. It is rather disconcerting to realise that fascism has succeeded in weakening the re-solve of an elected Student Union to mobilise a campus and fight against the fascist takeover of a university, that the stringency of activism is now meas-ured only through a highly visual simu-lacrum of struggle. Slogans and photo-graphs on social media only visibilise activism; in no way can they replace the need for sincere commitment.

The reason for this alarming lack of gumption on the part of JNUSU is not difficult to find out. Under the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations, sweep-ing changes in student politics have

been effected. These include a stipula-tion that ‘to keep anti-social elements away from the campus politics, any student with a criminal record, which included trial in a case or a conviction, a misdemeanour, or being subjected to any disciplinary action by univer-sity authorities, would not be eligible to contest.’ The LCR is an extremely authoritarian ruling which imposes severe constraints upon student activ-ism in university spaces. This ruling stems from the Brahmanical assump-tion that campus activism is a voca-tion for students, instead of a quest for emancipation from marginalisa-tion. The LCR inserts an artificial divi-sion between students activism and academic pursuits. It is responsible for diluting the force of student protests, since students find themselves under the perpetual apprehension of being inflicted with disciplinary action. At the same time, last year when there came an opportunity to reject the LCR and restore the JNU constitution for hold-ing elections, the ‘Left Unity’ got cold feet. No resolution rejecting the LCR in toto could be passed in the UGBMs that were held.

The Brahmanical Depredations of Higher Education

At the beginning of this essay, there was a contention that the failures of Left Unity in fighting against fascism have stemmed from their inability or unwillingness to confront the Brah-manical nature of fascism. Prashad’s tokenist comments on caste as men-tioned above reveal the Left’s blinkered perspective of Brahmanical hegemony which persists in higher academia and in leadership in student unions. In a recent article on Round Table India, Nidhin Shobhana has historicised the persistence of caste in JNU. The conclu-sion of his thoroughly researched argu-ments is that the ‘politics of deprivation points and reservations in admission were dormant and crippled with prob-lems until the 1990s (marked by Man-dal agitations)’. This flies in the face of leftist nostalgia for JNU as a campus which has always championed social inclusion. The contradiction between


an aspiration for inclusiveness and the continuity of Brahmanical hegemony — a contradiction ignored by the Left — is explained by G. Aloysius in his essay The Brahminical Inscribed in the Body Politic: The Brahmanical…has come to stand for the very embodiment of the discriminatory-exclusivist amongst groups and individuals in the modern context…This is the substantial-deci-sive of contemporary India. The idea-tional basis on the other hand of the institutional-formal is inclusive-egali-tarian as expressed in the prescription of ‘rule of law’…The Brahmanical con-stitutes the dominant human agency, also manning the formal-institutional, the coalescence of the two could only be captured as the substantial being merely constrained by the formal…With the kind of grip that the Brahmanical has over the formal -institutional here, it is no wonder that the latter has been systematically sabotaged, emptied out from within, to end up as a mere legiti-mating device of the dominant.5

If the struggle against fascism is to be translated into the emancipation of those who have been historically mar-ginalised and excluded, then it cannot maintain a conspiratorial silence to-wards the Brahmanical nature of aca-demia. The struggle against Brahmani-cal fascism cannot content itself with compromises on the ideal of social justice. The problem of social exclu-sion cannot be externalized to simply the current BJP regime.

The fascist state in India has a de-tailed blueprint to curtail the access of university spaces by students hail-ing from marginalised communities. A recent notification of the University Grants Commission is a fascist charter of exclusion. It stipulates that for entry into M.Phil/Ph.D. research in universi-ties like JNU, the entrance exam will be merely of a qualifying nature, while 100% weightage will be given to a vi-va-voce. This is a contravention of the recommendations of the Abdul Nafey Committee in JNU, which had investi-gated into the discriminatory nature of viva-voce exams and had recommend-ed viva marks to be reduced to 15-20 from the existing 30. There have been glaring instances of discrimination

against students hailing from socially deprived backgrounds, and any aspira-tion to combat fascism has to take the vulnerability of these students into ac-count.

And yet, the Left Unity’s struggle against fascism has been hollow even in this regard. It has failed to express any sincere solidarity for the nine stu-dents who have been suspended (on 27th December 2016) for protesting against Jagdeesh Kumar’s move to push the UGC notification through the 142nd Academic Council meeting. The suspended students who were protest-ing against the fascist machinations of the VC all belong to socially marginal-ised identities themselves and do not hold membership of any mainstream leftist party6. Their suspension is remi-niscent of the systemic humiliation of students from Dalit-Bahujan-Adivasi social locations. The Left Unity alliance has responded to this victimisation by pretending that these Left parties have never been the mainstay of upper caste activists, that they too abound in stu-dents hailing from marginalised social locations.

Recognition of the marginalised ‘Other’ is the prerequisite of any anti-fascist movement. That ‘Other’ may have a different ideology, a different mode of praxis. But if these differences come in the way of building solidarity,

then the track of the struggle against fascism becomes a nonentity. What is needed, therefore, is a reassessment of how fascism is premised upon Brah-manism; an engagement with students who choose a vocabulary of identity as-sertions in contradistinction to Leftist ideology; and a genuine self-introspec-tion about the Left’s role in acknowl-edging the hold of Brahmanism within the ranks of its parties, and within uni-versity campuses that have a reputa-tion of being red bastions.

Notes:

1. The Left Unity alliance is a com-bination of AISA and SFI; as part of the Central Panel, the former contested posts for President and Joint Secretary, while the latter for Vice President and General Secretary.

2. As Judith Butler writes, ‘If one is “framed,” then a “frame” is construct-ed aroundone’s deed such that one’s guilty status becomes theviewer’s in-evitable conclusion. Some way of or-ganizing andpresenting a deed leads to an interpretive conclusion aboutthe deed itself.’ See 8, Judith Butler, Pre-carious Life: The Power of Mourning and Violence (Verso: London and New York, 2004)

3. I have not used the term ‘Muslim identity’ as a disaggregate identity. In order to show how Muslim lives like Najeeb Ahmad are rendered vulnerable when caught between the fascist right and the progressive left, I have chosen to not disentangle the complexities of caste, gender, language and region among Muslims. Needless to say, the field of my analysis of identities ex-tends to the red bastion of JNU.

4. Badaun is Najeeb’s hometown.

5. 44-45, G. Aloysius, The Brahmini-cal Inscribed in the Body Politic, (Criti-cal Quest: New Delhi, 2010)

6. One of the suspended students belongs to a far-left student organisa-tion which stands outside the Left Unity alliance.

Author is a first year PhD research scholar in Centre for Political Studies in JNU.

“ As the Sangh Parivar attacked JNU for being ‘anti-national’, the university embarked on a project of enunciating plu-ralistic meanings of na-tionalism. In a month-long series of lectures called ‘What the Nation Really Needs to Know’, the site of the university campus was defended as a space for free speech and the right to dissent.


POEM

Let my voice be heard,

Let the pigeons take the message of peace

Let the doves listen to the anthem of love

But then BOOM!!!!

The war cries fill my ears

And jingles of that once undamaged,

untouched Mela

Spring in my mind,

As these thoughts clash together

I am left reminiscent of the past,

longing for that peaceful place,

Which once I called home,

I try to remember the soft hands of my mother,

and the warmth in her hug and the love in her voice,

And how I played with my brother with the toys,

I had run with my father

With smiles etched on our faces

Hand in hand,

To see the fluttering of pigeons,

Across the horizon,

Carrying the message of love in the legion,

But now,

My mother lay battered to death,

And brother slain in the war,

And my father left paralysed due to the bomb,

All I see is destruction,

Destruction of my soul,

Destruction of my peace,

Destruction of my solace,

Destruction, Destruction, Destruction

ALEPPO

The war has destroyed everything

My soul is broken but hope lives on

My words have no meaning, is what they say

In an era where the media works

To attain its own means,

And corporates run our system

I am told to believe what they show

They belittle all what I know

Bold and irrevocable sense of injustice

And now the future that I see is devoured

Devoured to bits and pieces of happiness,

sadness and anger

My lean body awaits the future,

By travelling down the historical pages of the past

As the soot of the once stood wall,

Is filled in the air

Now all that I Care is that,

Will my voice be heard?

Will this psychological terror end?

Will it ever? Will it ever matter?

AYESHA MASTOOR

has completed her graduation in Mass Communica-tions, Psychology and English Literature, and now she is currently pursuing her masters in English Literature from Osmania University, Hyderabad.



DELIBERATION

In his fifty odd minute’s farewell speech—outgoing US President Ba-rack Obama hailed the ‘institution of Democracy’ and its values for most of the time. Obama passionately pleaded the case that the US wouldn’t abstain from ‘installing democracies abroad’. She can’t afford to “withdraw from big global fights to expand democracy.” No matter it may cost millions of inno-cent lives, humongous refugee crises and mass abuse! Democracy has to be installed. That’s the part of “protecting America”.

This time around, the same ‘De-mocracy’ ditched America back home. And, it gave birth to the most “racist, bigoted, xenophobic, Islamophobic and anti-minority” president in the US history. Donald J. Trump didn’t rise out of phoenix. He represents the sys-tematic malaise, inherent flaws of this institution and deep resentment of American people piled over years of disguised rule.

On 20th January Donald J. Trump was inaugurated as the 45th president of the United States of America. From a billionaire business tycoon to the promotion to most powerful position on earth with nearly ending the politi-cal career of veteran Democrat Hillary Clinton altogether—the rise of Trump is the bigger story than hoax popularity of Obamas and Clintons!

Now, Trump is going to take over a country that has lost almost all its con-fidence in the democratic process and even its elected leaders. He is taking over an America that is more divided than it has ever been united. Be it

wealth, race or ethnicity–he takes over the US that has for the first time faced the challenge of being global hegemo-ny after the post-cold war period.

It’s an obvious truth, neither has Trump ever held a political office nor does he have the experience to run it. He has to gather the people around him who are familiar with policy mak-ing. So, one can expect a volley of con-troversial statements from Trump in coming days while the real work will be left for the people he has managed to gather around him.

A Look at Trumps Cabinet:

Mike Pence: He has been picked as the 48th Vice president of US. An arch Neo-Con who actually believes the US should have never left Iraq. It should have kept its troops there.

Rex Tillerson: Picked up as the Sec-retary of the State. He is the former Chair-man of Exxon Mobile Corporation and a trustee of Centre for Strategic and Interna-tional studies— a neo-con Think Tank which also has its trustees as Henry Kissing-er, Richard Armitage, and Rezenski.

Former Lt. General Michael Flynn: Picked up as the National Se-curity Adviser. He sees the Muslims as the key

PROGNOSIS FOR THE TRUMP-IAN ERA

reason for terrorism around the world. He completely supports Trump’s com-ments on vetting Muslims when they come to the US.

Gen. James Mattes (Retd.): He will be the Secretary of Defense. He is a for-mer military man who believes Iran is the root cause of all evil.

The other appointment is his son-in-law Jared Kushner who historically has financed illegal settlements in Is-

SHAFA’AT WANI


rael. Essentially, he will reward those who came out early to support him. For example, the finance director of the Trump campaign and former Goldman Sachs director Stephen Mnuchin has already been appointed as Secretary of Treasure, billionaire Wilbur Rose has been appointed as Secretary of Com-merce. Appointing key associates and pro-business people to his office is the trend Trump is likely to continue in 2017.

US foreign policy under Trump: A General Overview

Up until now, the foreign policy of US has swung back and forth from overreaching global adventures and then to withering self-criticism and retreat. Trump’s approach could avoid both. It’s possible that Trump’s ap-proach may lead to a much more stable foreign policy.

The US under Trump will squarely focus on America’s vital national inter-ests–narrowly defined especially its economic interest. This doesn’t mean the US will be unwilling to work with friends and allies on shared interests. It will. But, only when such friends and allies are prepared to bring real assets to the table

With over 800 military bases in over 70 countries—the vast US Empire— took a heavy toll on US economy. Rec-ognizing the strain on the economy by the extended empire, Trump adminis-tration can give up the image of a glob-al supercop or big brother attitude. The rationale will be: reshape the economy in the bad patch, homogenize the country along specific cultural lines/ values and come out all guns blazing with another spell of absolute hegem-ony. So, Trump can be expected to pur-sue a more transanctional approach that could be entirely realistic and po-tentially much more predictable. But we should be under no illusion—this is going to take us into the world we have not known in eight decades. The world that can be devoid of one or two domi-nating powers!

Trumpís approach vis-‡-vis Islamic Civilization:

Trump has called Islam as his num-ber one enemy followed by China, Iran and Russia. Trump-ian era marks the beginning of the end of healthy en-gagement between the civilizations.

Unlike his cunning predecessor who judiciously dichotomized Muslims into ‘culturally assimilated’ and other-wise binaries and devised his policies both within and outside the country ac-cordingly; Trump administration views all Muslims as the potential soft power within the country who can’t be assimi-lated but in turn, can shape ‘US values’ within. Trump, however, will face im-mense legal hurdles in launching an all-out war against Muslims in the US that can also sharply polarize the coun-try. Many Muslim analysts believe that Trump can burst the bubble of ‘idea-of-America’ and can help forge much needed Muslim unity but all this has to come at a price. All in all, Trump’s guid-ing principle vis-à-vis Muslims within the country is going to be strategy less. He is going to play tactical rather than at long term strategic level.

Other than that, the US adventures in Muslim lands will not stop despite the regime change. Even if we look at the people he has picked up to work, they all believe in the continuity of the existing US policy.

The Rise of China! Can it be peaceful?

Defensive Realists like Kenneth Waltz and Offensive Realists like John Mearsheimer have debated at length on the rise of China—whether can it be peaceful or otherwise? Mearsheimer’s vision seems to be the driving force for Trump vis-à-vis China.

Under Donald Trump, the US will cease to view the rise of China as es-sentially benign. That has been the ap-proach of American policy to China. It has been a consensus on foreign policy and many corporate interests. Trump’s administration to China extends way beyond the mere trade imbalance (4:1).It has to do with the series of is-sues extending from financing the rise of potential geopolitical adversaries and obviously pointing the issues like the cyber warfare to South China Sea

dispute. Donald Trump’s take on China reflects the public opinion which has viewed it much more as a threat than an opportunity.

Trump on India and Russia:

As the Trump administration moves away from Europe, as it moves towards Asia and confronts China, as it contin-ues to focus on so-called ‘war on terror’, it will be looking for friends, potential partners who share these concerns. India under the hyper-nationalistic re-gime of Modi— Trump administration will see a potential ally.

The Trump administration is at-tempting to wean Russia away from China through engaging over places like Iran especially Syria. The aim is to weaken both Russia and China by cre-ating a divide between them. Trump defended Russia against the allega-tions of hacking. To the unsuspecting eye, he seems to support Russia by appointing Russia-friendly Secretary-of-State Rex Tillerson. Under-Secretary to him is Neo-Con John Kelly who is mostly likely seen behind the wheel driving the policy for Russia. Trump statements for Putin are really as a leader or as a person. We haven’t seen Trump support Russia as a nation. It takes people’s attention away from the Russia which they believe is authoritar-ian, has severe media gag and doesn’t ‘respect rule of law’.

From Globalization to De-globalization:

When the US was thriving economi-cally, they rigorously advocated the doctrines of globalization. Today, with the economic rise of new players like China on the level playing field and west’s economic slowdown, the former out rightly alarms to snub the concept altogether. And, China suddenly finds itself as the new advocate of globaliza-tion thesis.

One of the Trump’s most question-able stand concerns the recent trade treaties. Trump has a protectionist stand on Trade. He believes the current deals are hurting American workers and companies. More specifically he


doesn’t approve of Trans-Pacific Part-nership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment partnership (TTIP) and the North American Free Trade Agree-ment (NAFTA).

The TTP included 12 countries with almost Eight hundred million consum-ers. The members have the combined GDP of about 28 trillion USD. The TTP seeks to link American economy eleven others around the pacific. It’s ambitious but ultimately it’s far too complicated to work. The TTP is only in its infancy and has not been ratified; meaning in 2017 Trump will have no trouble overturning the concept. And without American participation, the concept will be rendered meaningless. In the long term, the failure to imple-ment the TTP will diminish the Ameri-can influence in the pacific.

TTIP seeks to bring about lower trade tariffs, reduce regulatory barri-ers and spread forth cheaper goods and services in the US and EU. The TTIP is one of the biggest agreement of its kind, however, the deal is still years away from the real structure. Like TTP, Trump can also scrap TTIP but it will lit-tle change the state of affairs. In fact, the EU may prefer to ditch the draft either way since the TTIP seeks to get rid of non-tariff barriers. The TTIP would boost the EU’S economy at 120 billion USD. However, in Europe, the treaty has been criticized for reducing the regulatory barriers. This would result in lower quality of commodity and ser-vices.

NAFTA is a trilateral trade bloc in North America. While some Canadi-an may be skeptical that Trump may change the agreement. However, he will be powerless to do so. The trade bloc is an existing treaty. In other words, it’s the American law that a president can’t change laws. Only US Congress can. And regarding NAFTA Congress isn’t expected to adjust its position. In fact, Trump would be iso-lated in his attempt to undermine the NAFTA since it would disturb the trade. For instance, the goods and services trade between US and Canada amount-ed to 662 billion dollars. The Ottawa is the second-largest goods trading

partner and without NAFTA the flow of goods will diminish due to Tariff and non-tariff barriers.

Stand on Immigration:

Trump has stated that he will de-port illegal immigrants from Mexico and other countries. And he will con-struct a wall on Mexican-American border. Yet in 2017, mass deportation legislation will fail to pass. First, there are an estimated 11 million undocu-mented immigrants in the US. However illegal immigration exists in the US be-cause of US citizens who are willing to hire workers without documentation. Trump could focus on fining and arrest-ing citizens rather immigrants them-selves. It would upset the construction and Agriculture lobbies in Washington. For these reasons, it’s unlikely Trump will unlikely do against illegal immi-grants. Trump could do it only after the long legal battle to overturn executive orders of erstwhile US president.

Trump could also block Syrian refu-gees or refugees from war zones from entering the US. With the Right media coverage, the deportation of hundreds of thousands of people and denying Syrian refugee from asylum would be just as dramatic as the 11 million il-

legal immigrants. Trump may view this as a low-risk objective however in pur-suit of such goals; he would find enor-mous opposition in the senate by the Democrats as well as the Republicans. As far as the wall on the Mexican bor-der is concerned, Trump could techni-cally build it but it would be completely meaningless. A wall can’t stop the smuggling of contraband for the same reasons it can’t stop illegal immigrants. The flow of contraband is not a matter of physical security. As long as there is a demand for contraband, Americans will smuggle guns into Mexico and later will smuggle narcotics into the former via checkpoints through ‘systematic smuggling’ and bu exploiting loopholes in security.

Tailpiece:

Trump–whether one likes it or not—is, without a doubt, the biggest game changer of 2017. As president, he would face tremendous bureaucratic challenges. Some would say these bu-reaucrats prevent America from being great yet others will say that the con-stitution limits the harm one president can do. If Trump fails he will be replaced in four years, however the populist, nationalist, Islamophobic and xeno-phobic sentiments that have spread throughout the US are inherently more alarming than any president. In the past, disillusioned societies have often facilitated strong leaders who have har-nessed the populist anger to break the rule of the system yet the populist phe-nomenon is not unique to the US. As America opens the Pandora box for new era— the UK, the Netherlands, France, India, China and Japan and many more will soon follow as we gradually enter into the nationalist-populist era. And, many Muslims will see Trump as the tri-umph card, yet knowing that the cost to pay for this stake is high.

Author is a graduate student of In-ternational Relations and Area Studies in the Academy of International Studies, JMI New Delhi. He has deep interest in Religions, Philosophy, GeoPolitics, Po-lemical Debates and Islamic Revivalist Movements.

“ It’s an ob-vious truth, neither has Trump ever held a politi-cal office nor does he have the experience to run it. He has to gather the people around him who are famil-iar with policy making. So, one can expect a volley of controversial statements from Trump in coming days while the real work will be left for the people he has managed to gather around him.


POLITICS

Every year, 26 January is celebrat-ed by every Indian, as Republic Day. A day to celebrate the fact that head of the state is elected by people, he is not a king or queen. The elected head of state symbolises that real powers of the state vest in its citizens. It is a different thing that we celebrated this year’s Republic day by inviting a king who himself is not elected, but is a ruler because of Monarchical estab-lishment.

There is no doubt that the head of state is elected indirectly. But, in our country i.e. India, do the real powers of state lie in common citizens? To under-stand this, when we look at the powers of the President, he has little discre-tionary powers. Since the Constitution of India has provided for parliamentary form of government, the President has been made only a nominal executive, the real executive being the coun-cil of ministers headed by the Prime Minister. The power exercised by the President is on the advice of the Un-ion Cabinet. In that case, to make sure that real powers of state lie in its citizens, the Prime Minister should be elected in such a way, which en-tertains every citizen equally.

India has adopted the territo-rial representation for the election of members to the Lok Sabha and legislative assembly, the members of which are elected directly through first past the post (FPTP) system. In this system, a candidate who se-cures majority of votes is declared

elected. But, the problem is this sys-tem doesn’t represent the whole elec-torate. For example, in the Delhi state assembly election, Aam Admi Party secured 54.3℅ of votes, but got 67 out of 70 seats which is equal to 95.7 ℅ of seats. It means that people who voted for BJP in Delhi are under represented, while those who voted for Congress and other parties are not being rep-resented at all. Similarly in the 2014 general elections, with just 33℅ of votes, BJP got more than 50℅ of seats. Interestingly, with just 3.27 ℅ of total votes, Jayalalita’s AIADMK was the third largest party and won 37 seats in

TOWARDS MAKING MOREDEMOCRATIC: THE SYSTEM OF

PROPORTIONAL REPRESENTATION2014, while BSP with more vote share (4.2℅) couldn’t get a single seat. This hap-pens in almost every election, and there-fore every citizen is not represent-ed equally. Some

ZAMA SHAIKH


are over represented, some under rep-resented, while some others, especial-ly minorities are not represented at all.

The system of proportional repre-sentation aims at removing the defects of territorial representation. Under this system, all sections of the people get representation in proportion to their number. Even the smallest section of the population gets its due share of representation in the legislature. In fact, some members of the Constituent Assembly had advocated for this sys-tem, the Constitution has not adopted it due to two reasons i.e. difficulty for voters to understand this system and tendency of this system to lead to instability. These two arguments are contestable, especially when we look at the arguments behind choos-ing parliamentary system instead of presidential system. On the ques-tion over presidential system, Dr BR Ambedkar pointed out in Constituent Assembly that ‘a democratic executive must satisfy two conditions: stabil-ity and responsibility. Unfortunately, it has not been possible so far to de-vise a system which can ensure both in equal degree. The Draft Constitu-tion in recommending the parliamen-tary system of Executive has preferred more responsibility to more stability.’ As per this statement, the rejection of Proportional Representation on the ba-sis of instability seems unreasonable. Moreover, after 70 years, the people of India have much political awareness and now they should enjoy the best possible form of democracy which they can have.

Nowadays, the voters are confused on who should be the basis of his vote; the Prime Minister/Chief Minister or the leader from his local constituen-cy. This dilemma was more visible in 2014 general election when elections were fought in the name of Mr Modi, currently this dilemma can be seen in UP where people are finding it dif-ficult to decide on Chief Minister and local candidates. The decision of vot-ers will be better if there are less con-fusion among them. The votes can’t be asked on the basis of caste, race, region or language, in that case FPTP can’t ensure that the elected person is

the best possible choice to represent a local constituency. Additionally, it adds dilemma among the voters, who are often misled by false promises at local level. Proportional representa-tion system will reduce the confusion among voters.

Among the other arguments against proportional representation system, the most common one is, it increase significance of party system. It is true, but even without the proportional rep-resentation, the elections in India have revolved around political parties. The anti defection laws have left little or no discretionary power to elected candi-dates. The elected members of assem-blies are bound to follow the direction of their party. It is to be noted that party decisions are rarely taken in democrat-

ic manner, and the elected members have to follow what their boss(es) tell them. Hence, the purpose of proper representation to every constituency is not fulfilled. In fact, the discretionary power to council of ministers, which advise President are limited by the nod of Prime Minister, who is gener-ally the head of party in power. It is the duty of every minister to stand by cabi-net decisions and support them both within and outside the Parliament. If any minister disagrees with a cabinet decision and is not prepared to defend it he must resign. Dr BR Ambedkar, CD Desmukh, Arif Mohammed and others had to resign because of their different position. Hence, it is unreasonable to expect that an elected member from a particular constituency will stand by the cause of its people, if it is against his Party. When political parties have already got that much importance in our system, there is no reason to reject Proportional Representation because it will increase significance of Parties.

Our founding fathers didn’t chose this system because of low literacy, poor economy and challenging situ-ation. But today, India is third largest economy, with enormous political en-thusiasm, and is stable democracy. When FPTP system has failed to ensure what it promises i.e. uniformity in rep-resentation, it is to time bring a system which ensures equal representation for every section of population and make India a republic, where real pow-ers lie in its citizens.

“ The system of pro-portional representation aims at removing the de-fects of territorial repre-sentation. Under this sys-tem, all sections of the people get representation in proportion to their num-ber. Even the smallest sec-tion of the population gets its due share of represen-tation in the legislature.


OPEN SPACE

John F Kennedy , once said , “the government is the people and the budget is the reflection of their needs”. On the first of February 2017 when the current Finance Minister Arun Jaitley announced the budget for 2017. A historic step was taken to merge the railway budget with general budget. Also the government came up with self proclamation of a ‘transformational’,

‘pro farmer’ budget with much relief for ‘aam aadmi’. Without swooping into the numbers and figures, we shall focus on subjective aspects on the budget.

Indeed this budget has brought in a lot of relief for ‘aam admi’ through tax evasion. The finance minister an-nounced a significant tax break for low income groups and a heavy burden on the ‘bigger sharks’. Tax exemption lim-

THE ‘TRANSFORMATIONAL’UNION BUDGET 2017

it has been raised from 2.5 lakhs to 3 lakhs and the tax rate has been brought down to 5% from 10% for income slab of 3 lakh to 5 lakh. An additional sur-charge of 10% and 15% has been lev-ied on the income slabs of 50 lakh to 1 crore and above 1 crore , respectively.

The tax relief can be considered as a considerate effort to bring down the disparity of income and the sufferings of the honest tax payers. The finance

RISHIKA RAJ


minister was proud to announce that this budget is the only budget with the salient feature of no extra tax burden, rather a reduced taxation for common man. But here we can trace that , this decision was much needed as a com-pensation for the unplanned havoc of a not-so-effective demonetization. Though some sort of closure was ex-pected on the activity of demonetiza-tion but the only comfort we were giv-en was that , next year GDP numbers would be normalised, that too without any know-how.

The budget stands in accordance with the ‘kala dhan mukt bharat’ ob-jective of the current government. The finance minister talked of some new laws to be formulated in regard with the confiscation of assets held by eco-nomic offenders fleeing the country. Another very salient feature of this budget is introduction of measures for a transparent poll funding. Maximum amount of cash donation a political party can receive has been brought down from Rs 20,000 to Rs. 2000. Also provisions have been made for digital payments and very soon the RBI will issue electoral bonds. These electoral bonds will not only bring the deposits held by political parties under the ra-dar , but will also preserve the anonym-ity of the donor. The electoral bond is not supposed to fly high as there is no separate authority designated for this purpose nor any accountability. The catch is governments speaks nothing about the expenditure incurred by the political parties but only of the depos-its, and certainly there is enough scope to dig some loopholes.

The government has further tried to liberalise the FDI by abolishing FIPB and over 90% of FDI proposals will be processed through automatic route. It is believed that the small scale indus-tries are better job creators and keep-ing that in mind the government has brought reduction in corporate tax rate for MSME to make it more viable. Also relaxations will be introduced in norms for start ups for tax exemption.

The budget promises of good re-sults in rural areas , poverty alleviation and infrastructure development. The

agriculture credit has been increased to Rs. 10 lakh crore in 2017-18. Sever-al other incentives have been provided to make technical advancements in agriculture. The government has given special attention on making housing affordable for all.

Some efforts have also been made towards a ‘digital India’ and ‘cashless’ economy. Digi gaon shall be launched to promote tele-medicine and educa-tion, for senior citizens Adhaar based health cards shall be issued, web based interactive platform for defence pensioners will be set up and some 300+ online courses will be started by the government. No transaction above Rs 3 lakh in cash will be allowed as suggested by SIT. The environmental concerns have totally been avoided with just 7 solid waste management plants to be set up across the nation. The policy decisions for education sec-tor is a tad disappointing as it talks only about the reforms to be brought in UGC instead of focussing on enlarging the outreach of primary and skill/mar-ket oriented education. On the other hand government has tried to curb the regional disparities by announcing to set up airports in tier 2 cities based on PPP model.

Last year there was little breach from the fiscal deficit of 3.9%, this year the government has pegged the fiscal deficit at 3.2% for 2017-18.

The technicalities of budget are be-yond the assessment of a common man and the figures are enough to confuse him. What an ‘aam admi’ desires of is ‘roti, kapda aur makaan’(bread, clothes and shelter) and this age-old objective has been taken into consideration. Job creation is expected out of a thrust in investment through such expansion-ary monetary policies and incentives to industries. The dark clouds of ‘kala dhan’ are expected to shed away , with brighter days of a transparent financial system. For long the nation awaited rev-olutionary reforms in taxation, defence, FDI and health sector. The GDP number shall be of no use to the unprivileged but only how much ‘sugar’ he has on his way back home, and the govern-ment understands this scenario well. The budget along with taking care of needs of common man, fulfills the po-litical agenda of the government keep-ing in view the elections ahead, with brilliant policy announcements to take back home. Like the finance minister said while concluding “. If the winds are in my favour, I shall fly“, if the given circumstances make room for better im-plementation, the nation can witness a fruitful year ahead”.

Author is pursuing her M.A in Applied Economic at Centre for Development Stud-ies (CDS) in Trivandrum, Kerala.


POLITICS

The coming elections in UP, Pun-jab, Uttarakhand and Goa are almost sure to be a major setback for Prime Minister Modi and his party. If the cur-rent inclinations are any indication, the party is going to suffer heavily in these elections. In UP, SP-Congress al-liance is well set on the path of victory. In Punjab, it seems to be a contest be-tween Congress, AAP and BJP and the chances of BJP forming a Government look bleak. In Uttarakhand though,

Congress has to fight hard to return to power. If the predictions prove right, Rahul Gandhi is set to emerge as the pivot of the Opposition unity. He has already made a considerable headway in that direction. Defeats in Punjab, UP and Uttarakhand will take the steam out of the popularity of Modi and he will face an uphill task in retaining his unchallenged position in the party. His recent much publicised Surgi-cal Strikes on the borders and Black Money have proved a disaster. Both have failed to bring the desired results for the country as well as for the Prime

DESPITE OBNOXIOUS CAMPAIGNSBY BJP-MEDIA NEXUS,

RAHUL GANDHI EMERGING ASTHE PIVOT OF OPPOSITION UNITY

Minister. Chinks are already appearing in the Hindutva lobby with Shiv Sena and VHP showing clear signs of dis-sent. If after Bihar, UP is also lost, BJP will find it hard to ontain the damage.

Rahul Gandhi, on the other hand, is definitely in much better position. When I released my approach paper, “Muslim Vision of Secular India: Destination and Roadmap” about 4 years back and sent its synopsis to various political lead-ers, I got a call from Rahul Gandhi’s office and my appointment was fixed with him two days later. Before meet-ing him, my image of him was no better

DR JAVED JAMIL


ing things that favour them or when he appears to be coming close to power. For me, a true leader has to be sincere, suave and polished rather than one in-dulging in melodramatics. And if he is sincerely concerned for the masses irre-spective of their identities, he is a real asset for the country. I find these quali-ties in plenty in him.

What Rahul Gandhi needs to work on is to translate his people-friendly ap-proach into a socio-political movement. He is already focusing on Economic Disparity and he needs to turn this into an issue that would ultimately unite the nation for a truly genuine cause. If inequalities galore, democracy is of no meaning. A true democracy should bring real changes in the lives of the people and not merely in the lives of one percent. He played an important role in many important achievements of UPA like Food Security Bill, RTI and Land Ordnance Act. He has continued to fo-cus on the issues of farmers and com-mon people. He needs to convert these issues into political assets. The divisive politics of BJP and the theatrics of Modi are sure to give him a chance to cement the people of the country, Regional and other secular parties will not hesitate to support him if the coming elections bring the expected results.

Author is a medical doctor by profes-sion & a renowned thinker, writer, poet & social activist. He is currently based in Delhi.

than what was being projected in the media – an immature and reluctant son of the most powerful political fam-ily of the country. But once I met him, there was a complete metamorphosis of my view of him. I started present-ing him the major points I highlighted in my document, first on the common national issues and then the issues related to Muslim community. He kept asking questions and clarifications in between. After about 35 minutes, he suddenly stopped me and said, “First tell me about your background. I am asking this because whenever some-one comes here, normally I find him very meek having hardly any words to speak. But your confidence has made me think about long term association.” I told him a little about myself telling him that my confidence was born out of my not being associated with any political group and while I would love to keep sending my frank opinion on various issues to him, I have no inten-tion to join politics. I loved his frank-ness, his sobriety and his keenness to understand and analyse things. I hate political leaders who try to over impose their predetermined positions. When I was about to part after about a 45-minute discussion, he asked me, “Tell me one thing which you will like to be focussed on”. I said: “I would love if you pursue a people-friendly rather than corporate-friendly approach and I would like to assert that Indian Mus-lims are part of the people.”

The BJP and its corporate friends in the media had embarked upon a strat-egy to target Rahul Gandhi instead of Manmohan Singh, the Prime Minister of UPA Government, and Sonia Gan-dhi, President of Congress. They knew that the future of the party lay in Ra-hul. It was he rather than the two who was blamed for the loss of Congress despite the fact that the poll is always considered a verdict on the ruling gov-ernment, its Prime Minister and the President of the ruling party. This was a well-calculated move and Congress itself fell to their plan. The senior lead-ers were reluctant about Rahul. When he tore the copy of the Ordinance, instead of projecting him as a young leader who did not even care of his

own party bosses when it came to the question of honesty and justice, he was presented as an immature leader. And since the media has continued to keep the momentum despite the fact that it is none other than him who has been taking Modi head-on on every impor-tant issue and has consciously taken a lead in the issues related to the poor and farmers.

But his people-friendly rather than corporate-friendly approach is what irks the media and the corporate. What I find in him the most important sign of true maturity is the sign of “Immaturity” for the corporate. He will become “ma-ture” for them as soon as he starts say-

“ But his people-friendly rather than cor-porate-friendly approach is what irks the media and the corporate. What I find in him the most important sign of true maturity is the sign of “Immaturity” for the corporate. He will be-come “mature” for them as soon as he starts saying things that favour them or when he appears to be coming close to power.

2017 February | The Companionthecompanion.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/WEb-edition-1.pdfthe history...

Documents

Transcript of 2017 February | The Companionthecompanion.in/wp-content/uploads/2017/02/WEb-edition-1.pdfthe history...