20 August
The AISA leaflet dated 18/8/07 had noted that The Hindu of 18/8/07 carried a story quoting the JNU Chief Proctor saying that fines against JNUSU President and Joint Secretary had been revoked on the basis of letters of appeal submitted by them. SFI has denied submitting such letters and challenged both AISA and JNU Administration to produce such letters.
· Defamation Suit: But will SFI tell us why it has threatened AISA with a defamation suit?! AISA was only relying on the Chief Proctor’s statement to a newspaper (incidentally a paper that is very friendly to SFI and CPI(M)). Why not file a defamation suit against the Chief Proctor instead?! The fact is that the student community of JNU has no way of knowing the truth about whether letters of appeal were submitted or not, since the entire transaction happened in private, carefully avoiding any public gathering of student protestors. And JNU Administration and its pet SFI might well collaborate to suppress any evidence of the real facts.
· SFI’s Flimsy Notion of ' Fame' and‘Defamation’: SFI and its JNUSU leadership seem to have an extremely strange notion of prestige and ‘fame’. Their ‘fame’ and pride is hurt if they abide by the same Agreement as other ‘ordinary’ students: an Agreement that they themselves signed with the JNU Administration! But their ‘fame’ remains fine if their JNUSU President leaves other students alone to pay fines or else lose their registration – while himself later using his ‘prestige’ with JNU Administration to get fines against himself revoked!
· For the rest of us ‘ordinary’ students, the JNUSU’s fame and pride lie in defending the dignity of each student. And that fame and pride are badly damaged by a JNUSU President from SFI who backs out from a struggle to revoke fines against all students, only to conduct a sham ‘hunger strike’ to revoke fines against himself and his party colleague the JNUSU Joint Secretary!
· What About the Other Issues of the ‘Hunger Strike’? JNUSU office bearers from SFI had called the ‘Indefinite Hunger Strike’ not just on revocation of fines against its office bearers but, they claimed, to demand ‘implementation of various student issues in the July 12 Agreement’. SFI is yet to tell us: How come the JNUSU President in his letter to the VC has not even bothered to mention these issues? How come the JNUSU President is yet to report to the student community what new developments were achieved on these issues of implementation of the Agreement before he called off the so called ‘hunger strike’? Or were the ‘student issues’ mere camouflage to cover up the fact that the ‘hunger strike’ had a selfish motive: of protecting the skins of SFI leaders?
· Why no Struggle to Revoke Fines for All Students?: The JNUSU President and the SFI are yet to explain to us how come they never called for or conducted any protest against the fines in the crucial last 5 days before the last date of registration of August 14? How come they refused to convene or attend any meeting in which the affected students would be assured of a struggle-roadmap towards registration? How come instead SFI leaflets boasted that their JNUSU leadership’s registration was never at stake since they never had anything to do with the gherao?
· Administration’s Double Standards: The Administration’s one office order displayed by SFI claims that the fines against JNUSU President and Joint Secretary was revoked on the basis of the JNUSU President’s letter dated 10/8/07 and 17/8/07. But the JNUSU President’s letter dated 10/8/07 had argued for revocation of fines for all. If that letter is really the basis for the Administration’s decision – how come they have revoked only the fines of the JNUSU President and Jt. Secretary and not all the other students, who infact honoured the agreement in full spirit? How come SFI and its JNUSU President aren’t uttering a word against these Administrative double standards, rather using this blatant favouratism and administration's blessings to pose as 'radicals'?
Today SFI has indulged in rampant tearing down and tampering of AISA posters issued on abvp's hoolinganism, Dalit killing in Pratapgarh, Questions on the 'Shortest Hunger Strike'etc. in the Academic Complex. Such desperation to silence debates is only reflective of SFI's incresing inability to either raise democratic issues or answer uncomfortable quetions that student community is raising over their all too obvious nexus with the administration. We appeal to the student community to politically isolate and defeat such undemocratic trends.
World’s Shortest ‘Indefinite’ Hunger Strike Comes to an End ….
Because Everything About it Was ‘Definite’ and Pre-scripted from the Start!
The ‘indefinite hunger strike’ declared by the JNUSU office bearers from SFI came to an end in less than 12 hours; the hunger strikers literally missed only breakfast, and comfortably had a late lunch after breaking their fast, after fines against JNUSU office bearers were revoked.
But what about the other issue of the so-called ‘hunger strike’ – of ‘implementation of the students’ issues in the Agreement of 12 July’? How come JNUSU President in his letter to the VC has not even bothered to mention this issue? Will they tell us what new developments they achieved on this issue? Or did they lift their hunger strike as soon as their office bearers’ fines were revoked, proving that their ‘concern’ for students’ issues of the July 12 Agreement was actually a sham?!
How were the fines revoked and registration granted?
This morning’s Hindu (18/8/07) quotes JNU Proctor H. B. Bohidar, “Dhananjay submitted a letter to VC on behalf of both on Thursday morning appealing to him to reconsider the punishment handed out to them. On the basis of this letter, the University decided to waive off their penalties. They can now register.”
The JNUSU President denies having submitted any letter of appeal, and is displaying a letter of Friday (17/8/07) after which, he claims, the fines were revoked.
Haathi ke daant dikhane ke aur aur khane ke aur – the letter of 17 August is to impress the public, while the ‘real’ letter is the appeal letter of August 16.
The JNUSU President must make public the letter of Thursday cited by the JNU Administration to the Press – a letter that will fully expose the fake radical posturing of him and his organisation.
But let us, for a moment, accept SFI’s version of things: that the JNU Administration revoked all the fines against these two JNUSU office bearers from SFI without submission of any letter of appeal, and allowed them to register even after the official last date of registration of August 14, as a result of this ‘heroic’ fast of a few hours! We are expected to brand those other students who paid fines and submitted letters of appeal as ‘saboteurs, traitors and cowards’.
Unfortunately for the SFI, it is pretty obvious that there is more to this story than meets the eye.
The question which the JNUSU President must answer is:
If a mere 12-hour hunger strike was enough to get all fines revoked and registration assured, then WHY did he, (as leader of the JNUSU and elected representative of the entire student community, not just SFI), not launch this hunger strike immediately after the University Strike of August 9?! After all, in the 5 days between August 9 and August 14 (the last date of registration), there was time to do a 12-hour hunger strike ten times over! Yet in those days, the JNUSU President NEVER proposed ANY course of action, and even boycotted an all-organisation meeting on the course of action called by the JNUSU General Secretary!
A Fixed Match
Clearly, the ‘hunger strike’ was a fixed match, scripted in advance. On August 14, while the JNUSU delegation led by the JNUSU Vice President was meeting the Administration, the JNUSU President was seen entering the VC’s chamber, where he stayed for a long time. He NEVER reported to the student community what took place during that meeting. In fact, the script of the Administration-SFI deal, including the last act of the ‘historic hunger strike’ must have been drawn up in such secretive meetings!
According to the script, SFI’s JNUSU leadership would carefully avoid and sabotage all attempts to intensify the struggle against the fines, in the crucial last days before the August 14 deadline for registration. The result would be that either the non-SFI students would defiantly refuse to pay fines – and be denied registration. Thereby both the Administration and SFI would get rid of their worst enemies.
OR these non-SFI students would pay the fines in order to avoid being thrown out of the University. The Administration would then make a show of refusing registration to the JNUSU office bearers from SFI. The latter would then declare an ‘indefinite hunger strike’. But the Administration would not allow SFI activists to endanger their health or remain hungry for long…after a ‘crash diet’ of 12 hours, they would promptly and obligingly withdraw the fines – leaving it vague whether these two office bearers submitted the letter of appeal that was demanded from each of the other students, or not.
The JNUSU General Secretary Refused To Be A Part Of This Fixed Match
The JNUSU General Secretary from AISA, had he so chosen, could have easily imitated the SFI’s JNUSU leadership and made the drama of “refusing” to give the letter of appeal. Since the Administration was bound to save the JNUSU office bearers from SFI on the basis of their “special status” as JNUSU netas and the fixed deal, they would have no option but to grant the same privileged status, howsoever unwillingly, to JNUSU General Secretary as well and allow him to register after August 14.
But JNUSU General Secretary from AISA chose not to join the exalted ranks of those who cut deals with the Administration. He chose not to pose to be “more radical than thou” in comparison with the other 8 students whose punishments were more severe. He chose to honour the democratic ethos of the student movement and of the JNUSU by upholding the principle of “same standards for all, hierarchical privileges for none”. If JNUSU signed an Agreement and asked students to abide by it by submitting letters of appeal – naturally JNUSU office bearers too must abide by the same Agreement, and do so publicly. To insist on double standards and ask non-JNUSU students to bear a heavier burden is to undermine JNUSU as an institution.
But For SFI This Was Not The First Time…..
But this isn’t the first time SFI and its JNUSU President has undermined the JNUSU and its principle of collective responsibility. When AISA leaders in JNUSU first raised the issue of the violation of workers’ minimum wages on the campus, SFI tried to boycott these initiatives. Later, they maintained a purely token presence in the struggles – in fact, there is not a single leaflet by SFI or its JNUSU office bearers that gives more than a token reference to the issues in the movement of workers’ rights.
On February 19, all SFI’s leading activists were active participants in the gherao of the Registrar, and the JNUSU President from SFI led the gherao, never once expressing the opinion that the gherao be stopped. But as soon as the crackdown took place in the form of suspensions, SFI and the JNUSU President formally “dissociated” from the movement and ‘associated’ with the Administration, demanding a Proctorial Enquiry to punish the leading student activists in the workers’ struggle.
Significantly, apart from the token punishments against the JNUSU President and Secretary from SFI, no other SFI activists were suspended or rusticated. SFI also peddled this fact as a ‘certificate’ of good behaviour from the Administration, falsely claiming that SFI never participated in the gherao! Further they supported the Proctorial enquiry.
But the UGBM of March 8 massively voted in favour of AISA’s resolution that declared the incident of February 19 as a “collective JNUSU-led protest” and opposed Proctorial enquiry and witch-hunt. While 492 students supported this AISA resolution, SFI who supported Proctorial enquiry could garner merely 190 votes against it. Yet, SFI kept insisting that it was ‘ultra left students’ and not SFI’s JNUSU leadership, that was responsible for the gherao. On the basis of this claim, SFI argued that while the other students must give letters of appeal, JNUSU leaders must be spared the “humiliation” of submitting the letters of appeal!
The SFI’s pro-Administration position (and its brazen defence of the Nandigram massacre by its parent party CPI(M)) resulted in its crushing defeat to AISA in the mid-term re-election on two tied Councillor posts in SSS and SIS. In SSS, AISA candidate Sucheta got almost 50% of the total votes polled defeating SFI councillor candidate by a historic margin of 124 votes.
Election Season and Desperation Of Image Makeover
Now, in the new semester, the Administration and SFI together have collaborated in a last-ditch attempt to give SFI’s image a makeover in the election season, and humiliate SFI’s political opponents – who are actually the main enemies and the main targets for the Administration also, who had exposed the Administration as a robber of worker’s bare minimum wages. By allowing JNUSU office bearers from SFI to register after the last date of registration, after they staged an ‘indefinite hunger strike’, the Administration has allowed SFI to create its fiction of being heroic and radical.
Like the emperor who wore no clothes but imagined that his nakedness was hidden by grand magic clothes, SFI is unaware that the entire campus can see through the ‘magic’ smokescreen of its ‘hunger strike’ – that its naked pro-Administration stance stands completely exposed before the students of JNU!
The danger of cutting deals with the Administration, however, is that when the Administration knows you are capable of backstabbing the student movement, it too is quite capable of backstabbing you! SFI forgot that however friendly and faithful the JNU Administration appeared to SFI as an organisation, sparing their activists from rustication, the Administration is actually the enemy of the JNUSU as an institution. The VC would find it dangerous to actually allow a JNUSU leader to violate an Agreement and register without submitting a letter of appeal. Such an act might well be invoked as a precedent to claim immunity from punishment for JNUSU leaders in the future as well. So the Administration took its precautionary pound of flesh – and got its ‘letter of appeal’ from the JNUSU President on August 16. The Administration may have promised the JNUSU President that they would keep mum about his letter of appeal, but they found it safer to leak the fact to the press anyway!
World’s Shortest ‘Indefinite’ Hunger Strike Comes to an End …. But Disturbing Questions Remain...
JNU Proctor H. B. Bohidar claims,
“Dhananjay submitted a letter to VC on behalf of both on Thursday morning appealing to him to reconsider the punishment handed out to them. On the basis of this letter, the University decided to waive off their penalties. They can now register.” (The Hindu and Indian Express of
SFI denies having submitted any letter of appeal and claims
that they got their fines revoked through "struggle" of 10-12 hours of "INDEFINITE" (!!!!!) Hunger Strike ! The JNUSU President is displaying a letter of Friday (17/8/07) after which, he claims, the fines were revoked.
Who Is Speaking The Truth In This "Fixed Match"?
Haathi ke daant dikhane ke aur
aur khane ke aur !!!
The letter of 17 August is to impress the "public", while the ‘real’ letter is the appeal letter of Thursday August 16 ?!!!
The JNUSU President must make public the letter of Thursday 16 Aug cited by the JNU Administration to the Press
The JNUSU President must also report
What NEW progress did he achieve on the other students issues of 12 July Agreement before he called off the the so-called ‘hunger strike’? Or did they lift their hunger strike as soon as their office bearers’ fines were revoked, proving that their "concern" for students’ issues of the July 12 Agreement was actually a sham?!
17. 8. 2007
Nk=ksa dh tk;t ekaxksa dks vius pqukoh LokFkZ ds fy, ihNs /kdsyus dh ,l,QvkbZ dh lkft'k dks ukdke djks !
nqfu;k dh lcls NksVh Hkw[k gM+rky lekIr % SFI &iz'kklu xBtksM+ dk inkZQk'k
lkfFk;ks] vkius ns[kk gksxk fd dy vpkud ,l-,Q-vkbZ- ds ts,u;w,l;w inkf/kdkfj;ksa us ,d ipkZ fudkyk vkSj vfuf'prdkyhu Hkw[kgM+rky dh ?kks"k.kk dj nh FkhA vHkh 24 ?kaVs Hkh ugh chrs Fks fd iz'kklu ds lkFk mudh lkaBxkaB dk Nk=leqnk; ds lkeus inkZQk'k gks x;kA iz'kklu us mudh ckr eku yh vkSj Hkw[k gM+rky lekIr gks xbZA mudk dguk Fkk fd ;g Hkw[k gM+rky ;wfu;u esa ,l-,Q-vkbZ ds inkf/kdkfj;ksa ij iz'kklu }kjk yxk, x, tqekZus ds f[kykQ Fkh] tcfd gd+hdr ;g gS fd iz'kklu ds lkFk igys fnu ls gh feydj iwjs Nk= vkanksyu dh ihB esa Nqjk Hkksdus dh lkft'k ls ;s dHkh ckt ugha vk,A brus [kqys rkSj ij iz'kklu dh nykyh vkSj cs'kehZ ds lkFk Nk=ksa ls /kks[kk/kM+h dk uewuk flQZ ,l-,Q-vkbZ- ds ikl gh ns[kus dks fey ldrk gSA njvly bl vfuf'prdkyhu Hkw[k gM+rky esa lc dqN igys ls fuf'pr FkkA vkb, ns[ksa jLVhds'ku] tqekZuk vkSj vkanksyu ds ihNs dh D;k dgkuh gS\
1& rdjhcu 10 eghus igys vkblk vkSj Nk=la?k esa mlds inkf/kdkfj;ksa us Nk= vkanksyu dk ,d u;k O;kdj.k fy[kus dh 'kq#vkr dhA reke nwljs Nk=ksa us bl vkanksyu esa c<+ p<+ dj fgLlsnkjh dhA et+nwjksa dks U;wure et+nwjh u fn, tkus ds loky ij vkanksyu 'kq: gqvkA fiNys uoacj esa 'kq: gqvk ;g vkanksyu reke iM+koksa ls xqtjkA vyx&vyx txgksa ij dke dj jgs etnwjksa dh et+nwjh dk losZ{k.k] Bsdsnkjksa dks ?ksjdj U;wure et+nwjh dk Hkqxrku djkuk] dke ls fudkys x, et+nwjksa ds fy, Nk=ksa vkSj v/;kidkas ds lfEefyr iz;kl ls ^dE;qfuVh fdpu* pykuk oxSjg lc dqN bl vkanksyu ds vyx&vyx iM+koksa ij gksrk jgkA Nk=ksa dk bl rjg ls et+nwjksa dh U;wure et+nwjh ds i{k esa [kM+k gksuk ,d vHkwriwoZ ?kVuk FkhA ysfdu ts-,u-;w- iz'kklu bl loky ij dqN Hkh djus ds fy, rS;kj ugha Fkk] tcfd Nk=ksa us gj laHko yksdrkaf=d rjhds ls vkanksyu dks vkxs c<+k;kA 19 Qjojh dks U;wure et+nwjh dh ekax djrs gq, yxk, x, iksLVjksa dks iz'kklu us QM+ok fn;kA
2& iz'kklu }kjk iksLVj QkM+s tkus ds f[kykQ ts-,u-;w-,l-;w- us mlh fnu ,MfefuLVªsfVo ij ,d izn'kZu dk vk;kstu fd;kA bl izn'kZu ds nkSjku jftLVªkj dk dqN ?kaVksa ds fy, mudh dkj esa ?ksjko gqvkA
3& 20 Qjojh dks iz'kklu us jftLVªkj ds ?ksjko dks cgkuk cukdj fcuk fdlh tkap ds 10 Nk=ksa dks fuyafcr dj fn;kA blh fnu ,l-,Q-vkbZ- us iwjs vkanksyu ls iYyk >kM+rs gq, vius dks vkanksyu ls vyx dj fy;k vkSj bl iwjh ?kVuk ij mlus izkWDVksfj;y tkap dh ekax dhA
4& ,l-,Q-vkbZ- dh reke dksf'k'kksa dks /krk crkrs gq, 8 ekpZ dks Nk=ksa us ;w-th-ch-,e- esa Hkkjh cgqer ls r; fd;k fd izkWDVksfj;y tkap ugha gksuh pkfg,A iz'kklu ds lkFk ,l-,Q-vkbZ- dh feyh Hkxr dks Nk=ksa us igpkuk vkSj muds iwjs ,tsaMs dks udkj fn;kA Nk=ksa us r; fd;k fd 19 Qjojh dks tks dqN Hkh gqvk Nk=la?k lkewfgd rkSj ij bl iwjs ?kVukØe dh ftEesnkjh ysrk gSA lkFk gh Nk=ksa us ;g Hkh eglwl fd;k fd 19 Qjojh dks fdlh dh Hkh ea'kk jftLVªkj dks O;fDrxr :i ls vkgr djus dh ugha Fkh blfy, mUgsa O;fDrxr :i ls tks d"V igqapk mlds fy, iwjk Nk= leqnk; [ksn O;Dr djrk gSA
5& ;w-th-ch-,e- ds bl fu.kZ; ds ckn reke Nk=ksa vkSj ts-,u-;w-,l-;w- inkf/kdkfj;ksa us O;fDrxr :i ls jftLVªkj dks gq, d"V ds fy, [ksn O;Dr fd;k] ftlds lkFk gh Nk=ksa dk fuyacu okil ys fy;k x;kA
6& Nk=ksa }kjk O;Dr fd, x, [ksn dks ut+jankt djrs gq, xehZ dh NqfV~;ksa ds nkSjku iz'kklu us bl izdj.k dks rwy fn;k vkSj 8 Nk=ksa dks jLVhdsV dj fn;k tcfd ts-,u-;w-,l-;w- ds 3 inkf/kdkfj;ksa ij 2000 :i, dk tqekZuk yxk fn;kA
7& jLVhds'ku vkSj tqekZus ds f[kykQ Nk=ksa us ,d O;kid vkanksyu [kM+k fd;kA ts-,u-;w- v/;kid la?k us Hkh bl loky ij [kqydj Nk=ksa dk i{k fy;k vkSj gj dne ij Nk=ksa dh ekaxksa ds i{k esa [kM+k jgkA Nk=la?k dh vfuf'prdkyhu Hkw[k gM+rky 12 fnuksa rd pyh] ftlds ckn iz'kklu dks Nk=ksa ds lkeus >qdrs gq, u flQZ Nk=ksa dks nh xbZ ltk ds loky ij cfYd Nk=ksa dh nwljh egRoiw.kZ ekaxksa ij Hkh Nk=la?k ds lkFk ,d le>kSrk djuk iM+kA Nk=ksa dh ltk ds iz'u ij gqvk le>kSrk bl izdkj gS ^^Nk=ksa }kjk viuh ltk,a lekIr fd, tkus dh vihy ds vk/kkj ij okblpkalyj Nk=ksa dh ltkvksa ij iqufoZpkj djus ds fy, rS;kj gSa vkSj ;g fu.kZ; 14 vxLr ds igys ys fy;k tk,xk rkfd Nk=ksa dks jftLVªs'ku fey ldsA*
8& bl le>kSrs ds vk/kkj ij ts-,u-;w-,l-;w- egklfpo o 8 vU; Nk=ksa us ,d vihy okblpkalyj dks nh] tcfd ts-,u-;w-,l-;w- ds v/;{k vkSj lg&lfpo us vius gh }kjk fd, x, le>kSrs dk mYya?ku djrs gq, vihy nsus ls badkj dj fn;kA vihy ds ckn iz'kklu us Nk=kas dk jLVhds'ku rks okil fy;k ysfdu jftLVªs'ku dh iwoZ'krZ ds :i esa jLVhdsV Nk=ksa ij 1000:- vkSj 2000: tqekZuk fd;k x;k] egklfpo ds tqekZus dks lekIr dj fn;k x;kA iz'kklu ds bl dne ds ckn Nk= vkanksyu esa mrjsA 9 vxLr dks fo'ofo|ky; can fd;k x;kA ysfdu mlds ckn ts-,u-;w-,l-;w- v/;{k us Nk=ksa dk usr`Ro djus dh txg pqIih lk/k yhA Nk=ksa }kjk yxkrkj laidZ djus dh dksf'k'kksa ds ckotwn mUgksaus vkxs dksbZ Hkh dne mBkus ls badkj dj fn;kA
9& 14 vxLr] jftLVªs'ku dh vkf[kjh rkjh[k FkhA blds igys Nk=la?k v/;{k }kjk fdlh Hkh rjg ds vkanksyu dh rS;kjh] ;gka rd fd dksbZ ipkZ ;k iksLVj Hkh Nk=ksa dks ugha fn[kkbZ fn;kA vc Nk=ksa ds lkeus loky Fkk fd os U;wure et+nwjh vkSj Nk=ksa dh nwljh ekaxksa ij vkanksyu [kM+k dj ldus ds fy, bl dSail esa jguk Lohdkj djsa ;k fQj ,l-,Q-vkbZ- dks iz'kklu ls feyhHkxr djus ds fy, [kqyk eSnku ns nsaA Nk=ksa us igyk fodYi pquk ysfdu bl ckr dh xkjaVh dh fd dqN Nk=ksa dks pqudj fu'kkuk cukus ds iz'kklu ds ealwcs dks dke;kc ugha gksus nsuk gSA Nk=ksa us v/;kidksa vkSj iwjs Nk= leqnk; ds chp pank bdëk djds tqekZuk pqdk;k vkSj iz'kklu dks crk fn;k fd ,d&,d dj Nk=ksa dks fu'kkuk cukus dh mudh dksf'k'k dHkh dke;kc ugha gks ldsxhA
,l-,Q-vkbZ- us vius dks pkgs ftruk Økafrdkjh fn[kkus dh dksf'k'k dh gks ysfdu iz'kklu ds lkFk mudk xBtksM+ varr% Nk=ksa ds lkeus mtkxj gks gh x;kA tks iz'kklu 12 fnuksa dh Hkw[k gM+rky ds ckn Hkh vfM+;y fn[kus dh dksf'k'k dj jgk Fkk ogh iz'kklu vius pgsrs nykyksa dks 24 ?kaVs Hkh Hkw[kk ugha ns[k ldkA mudk izse meM+ gh vk;kA
Nk=la?k inkf/kdkjh cuke lk/kkj.k Nk=
bl iwjs elys ij ,l-,Q-vkbZ- dk nkseqagkiu ns[krs gh curk gSA vkt os tksj&tksj ls fpYykdj vius dks 'kghn fn[kkus dh dksf'k'k dj jgs gSa tcfd iz'kklu ds lkFk mudh feyhHkxr lky nj lky gekjs lkeus mtkxj gksrh jgh gSA vius gh }kjk fd, x, le>kSrs dks njfdukj djds viuh Nfo pedkus dh vdqykgV ds ek;us le>s tk ldrs gSaA vihy u nsus ds ihNs budk rdZ gS fd vihy rks lk/kkj.k Nk=ksa dks nsuh gksxh ftUgsa jLVhdsV fd;k x;k gS vkSj ftlds pyrs mudk jftLVªs'ku #dk gqvk gSA gekjk jftLVªs'ku rks jksdk gh ugha x;k gSA ge vihy D;ksa nsaA ge dksbZ lk/kkj.k Nk= ugha gSa] gekjh Hkh dqN xfjek gS] ge vkf[kj Nk=la?k ds inkf/kdkjh gSaA
iz'kklu ds lkFk lkB&xkaB djds lk/kkj.k Nk=ksa dks vius ls uhpk fn[kkus dh blls 'keZukd dksf'k'k vkSj D;k gks ldrh gSA gekjs fy, fdlh Hkh lk/kkj.k Nk= dk vkRelEeku vkSj mldh xfjek mruh gh egRoiw.kZ gS ftruh Nk=la?k ds fdlh inkf/kdkjh dhA vkt ,l-,Q-vkbZ- iz'kklu ds lkFk feydj vius fy, fo'ks"k lqfo/kk dh ekax dj jgk gSA
,d vkSj ckr le>h tkuh pkfg,] dy rd ,l-,Q-vkbZ- ds yksxksa dk nkok Fkk fd mudk jftLVªs'ku ugha #dk gS ysfdu 14 vxLr chrrs gh mUgksaus Nk=la?k v/;{k vkSj TokbaV lsØsVjh dk jftLVªs'ku u gks ikus dk jksuk jksus yxsA tkfgj gS ,l-,Q-vkbZ- dks iz'kklu dh rjQ ls lkQ ladsr gS fd FkksM+k vkanksyu djks] ge rqEgsa jftLVªs'ku ns nsaxs vkSj u, Nk=ksa esa rqe viuh best Hkh cuk ikvksxsA
vkt Nk=la?k ds ftu nks inkf/kdkfj;ksa dks jftLVªs'ku u feyus ij gk;rkSck dh tk jgh gS mudk jftLVªs'ku muds fdlh Økafrdkjh dke dh otg ls ugha #dk gS] cfYd ;g vius gh le>kSrs dk mYya?ku djus dk ifj.kke gSA ;g le>kSrk flQZ Nk=ksa dks nh xbZ ltk ds loky ij gh ugha cfYd ,e-lh-,e-] ;wthlh Qsyksf'ki] vkfye&Qkfty dh ekU;rk] th,ldS'k] bDoy vikWP;qZfuVh vkWfQl tSlh Nk=ksa dh reke tsuqbu ekaxksa ij gqvk gSA Nk=la?k ds tks inkf/kdkjh vius fufgr LokFkksaZ ds pyrs bl le>kSrs dks [krjs esa Mky jgs gSa muds vlyh psgjs dks Nk=ksa us ckj&ckj igpkuk gS vkSj csudkc fd;k gSA lk>k vkanksyu ds cwrs gkfly dh xbZ miyfC/k;kas dks myV nsus dh btktr fdlh dks Hkh ugha nh tk ldrhA ge ;g t:j pkgrs gSa fd lHkh Nk=ksa dks jftLVªs'ku feys] nksuksa i{kksa ls le>kSrs dk lEeku fd;k tk, ysfdu vkus okys pquko dks /;ku esa j[kdj >wBs eqnns ij Hkw[kg+rky tSlh LVaVckth dk leFkZu ugha fd;k tk ldrkA
iqjkus Nk= tkurs gSa
1& et+nwjksa dh U;wure et+nwjh ds iz'u ij ,l-,Q-vkbZ- us ges'kk gh iz'kklu dk i{k fy;k vkSj iwjs vkanksyu ds chp ls vius dks vyx dj fy;kA
2& ,l-,Q-vkbZ- us 19 Qjojh dh ?kVuk ds lanHkZ esa Nk=ksa dks ltk fn, tkus dh ekax dh vkSj ;w-th-ch-,e- rd esa izkDVksfj;y tkap dk leFkZu fd;kA
3& Nk=la?k v/;{k us ;w-th-ch-,e- u gksus nsus ds fy, ,sfrgkfld cs'kehZ dk izn'kZu fd;k vkSj dksje 'khV ysdj Hkkx [kM+s gq,A
4& ,l-,Q-vkbZ- us uanhxzke esa lhih,e ljdkj }kjk fdlkuksa dh gR;k ds i{k esa izpkj vfHk;ku pykus dh dksf'k'k dh vkSj bl ccZj gR;kdkaM dks tk;t Bgjk;kA
u, Nk= Hkh tku x, fd nqfu;k dh lcls NksVh Hkw[k gM+rky dSail esa vkt [kRe gks xbZ vkSj ;s lc dqN egt+ pqukoh LVaVckth FkhA vc ;g lcds lkeus Li"V gS fd bl Hkw[kgM+rky ds ukVd dh iVdFkk iz'kklu ds funsZ'ku esa fy[kh xbZ Fkh rkfd Nk=la?k pqukoksa ds en~nsutj ,l-,Q-vkbZ- 'kghnh tkek igu dj viuh Nfo dks lq/kkj ldsA Nk=ksa ls gekjh vihy gS fd nykyh dh bl jktuhfr dks /oLr djsaA
13 August leaflet13 Aug
Uphold the Struggling Unity of Students !
Defeat the Culture of Betrayal of Student Movement !!
The JNU Administration has backtracked on the Agreement of July 12 by imposing fines on students as a pre-condition for registration. In a meeting with a JNUSU delegation led by the JNUSU Vice President today, the JNU Administration refused to withdraw the fines.
It is the JNUSU President who must answer for the Administration’s refusal to withdraw the fines. It is his dissociation from the struggle that has emboldened the Administration to continue with the vindictive punishments.
· Ever since the Strike of August 9, the JNUSU President has deliberately avoided all communication with the affected students, refusing to be part of any consultation on the future course of action. As a result, one of the students, faced with a 9-B viva, was left with no option but to pay the fine on August 10.
· The JNUSU President and the entire SFI contingent in JNUSU as well as SFI JNU Unit’s leadership boycotted the all-organisation meeting convened by the JNUSU General Secretary on August 11, thus breaking the unity of the struggle.
· With the deadline of August 14 – the last date of registration – looming large, every minute should have been spent in intensifying the struggle against the fines and forging a united course of action. Instead, the JNUSU President has spent the last two crucial days campaigning for a documentary film defending the Nandigram massacre rather than preparing for any course of struggle on the issue of withdrawal of fines!
· The JNUSU President’s conspicuous absence from the delegation that met the JNU Administration today gave the JNU Administration the idea that they had a tacit green signal from the JNUSU President to go ahead with the fines. Shame!
The students have faced the unjust rustications with exemplary courage and conviction. They have stood by their commitment to workers’ rights. Students of JNU were determined that their comrades who led a struggle for workers rights must not be thrown off campus, but must join the rest of the students in the new semester, ready to join classes and lead further struggles on students’ and workers’ rights with their heads held high. In the situation where the JNUSU President has totally abdicated his responsibility for the common students and has broken the unity of the struggle, the student community must show that they continue to stand united.
JNU as a collective must make sure that every single rupee of the fines is shared collectively, as a mark of students’ solidarity against administrative crackdown. We will show the JNU Administration that the fine that they, in their pettiness, have insisted on retaining is not accepted by the student community as a stigma and an individual punishment – but as a show of students’ solidarity and strength. AISA calls upon students of JNU to contribute to the fine amount as a gesture of solidarity.
The students’ movement must also vigilantly ensure that the Committee on workers’ rights (set up as part of the July 12 Agreement) ensures the implementation of workers’ minimum wages and other legally mandated workers’ rights on the campus.
12 August leaflet
Shame on JNUSU President for Boycotting All-organisation Meeting and Abdicating All Responsibility for Withdrawal of Fines and Ensuring of Registration of Students!
The follow-up of the July 12 Agreement with the JNU Administration has been disturbing. The JNU Administration, while withdrawing the draconian rustications on 8 students, replaced the rustications with fines as a pre-condition to getting registration by August 14. The fines against JNUSU President and Joint Secretary were also continued since they refused to submit letters of appeal in keeping with the Agreement of July 12.
In an all-organisation meeting convened by the JNUSU dated August 7, it was decided to hold a Protest March and a University Strike against the fines – and these programmes took place successfully with the united participation of various organisations on August 8 and 9 respectively.
JNUSU President’s Strategic Silence Since University Strike
On the day of the Strike of August 9, the JNUSU President refused to take a delegation to seek a meeting with the VC. A full 24 hours passed between the Strike and JNUSU President’s communication with the Administration. And this communication, too, was nothing but a letter to the JNU VC submitted in the closing hours of the last working day of the week, Friday, August 10! Obviously, the JNUSU President’s letter was intended more for the press rather than for the Administration!
There was clearly an urgent need to hold another meeting and decide on further steps in the struggle. But repeated phone calls to the JNUSU President by the concerned students received no response, and repeated demands for a meeting to discuss the course of action were ignored. This deafening silence on part of the JNUSU President towards the urgent issue of ensuring withdrawal of fines and registration for the students is shocking.
Refusal to Hold Meeting to Evolve Common Course of Action for All Fined Students
Kaustav Banerjee, a PhD student, was due to face a 9-B viva that he could do only once registered as a student. The JNUSU President was repeatedly approached to chalk out a united course of action for all the students whose registration was pending due to fines; including one 9-B student and one new admission. In the absence of any directive from the JNUSU President, and refusal of JNUSU President to convene any meeting with all the affected students to decide on a common course of action, Kaustav was left to fend for himself, and was forced to pay the fine on August 10 itself.
Eventually, the JNUSU General Secretary convened an all-organisation meeting on August 11, as a follow-up to the all-organisation meeting on August 7, to discuss the situation and decide on a course of action.
JNUSU President and JNUSU Representatives from SFI Boycott All-Organisation Meeting
Shamefully – the entire JNUSU contingent from SFI-AISF – including the JNUSU President stayed away from the meeting, and were instead seen on the campus mobilising for SFI’s screening of a documentary defending the Nandigram massacre. To compound the irony, SFI’s only representative at the meeting was the director of the film defending the Nandigram massacre – and his only contribution was to declare that no protest action should be fixed for the night of August 12, since this would clash with the screening of his film by the SFI !
He also stipulated that a Council Meeting should be the correct forum to take decisions – not all-organisation meeting. It was pointed out that the major decisions to hold Protest March and University Strike were taken through all-organisation meeting and not through Council Meeting. Further, all-organisation meetings were complementary and not contradictory to Council Meetings, especially since many of the affected students are not members of the JNUSU Council and their opinion could be consulted only in an all-organisation meeting.
Further, the JNUSU President had taken no interest in convening any consultative meeting (be it Council or All-Organisation) since August 9 uptil August 11 – and now, obviously, no Council Meeting could be held on the night of August 12, since it would clash with SFI’s film screening! So, effectively, the entire issue would be left hanging even as the last date for registration (August 14) drew nearer!
Habitual Betrayers Reveal Their True Colours Again
Let us remember that SFI, in the first place, had supported Proctorial Enquiry and punishments for the students – until their position was defeated in the UGBM of March 8. They have never been serious about ensuring registration without punishments for the rusticated students. They have deliberately tried to create a false distinction between the common students and the JNUSU President and Joint Secretary from SFI. SFI’s argument is that the July 12 Agreement applies only to rustications and not all punishments, and therefore JNUSU office bearers are not called upon to submit letters of appeal in order for their fines to be reconsidered. If the SFI-AISF is right, and the Agreement applied only to rusticated students, why was there no separate clause in the Agreement stating that the fines on JNUSU office bearers would be revoked? Is the JNUSU President really claiming that he signed on an Agreement which was silent on the issue of revocation of fines of JNUSU office bearers?!
The JNUSU President’s act of boycotting a crucial all-organisation meeting to discuss the urgent issue of pending fines and registration, and refusal to lead the students in chalking out a common course of action for all the fined students is a condemnable abdication of responsibility. We urge the JNUSU leadership to open negotiations with the JNU Administration without delay on Monday, August 13.
Join Halla Bol Rally at Parliament
Against Non-Fulfilment of Constitutionally Mandated Quota and Systematic Discrimination and Atrocities on SC/ST/OBCs in AIIMS (organised by resident Doctors Of AIIMS ) 13 Aug Monday From Mandi House To Parliament
Assemble At Ganga Bus Stop 12 .30pm
POSTER AGAINST HIERARCHY OF JNUSU LEADERS OVER JNU STUDENTS
Defeat SFI’s Lies! Defeat The Attempt To Create Hierarchy Within Student Community
and Strengthen Administration!
The Agreement between JNUSU and JNU Administration dated 12 July stated:
“The Vice Chancellor has agreed to reconsider the punishment based on the Proctorial decision with regard to the incident that took place on 19th February 2007 on receiving individual letters of regret with an appeal from concerned students to enable them to register by 14th August 2007.”
SFI and the JNUSU President and Joint Secretary from SFI are claiming that this Agreement refers only to “rusticated” students, therefore JNUSU office bearers who were fined, not rusticated, are not called upon to submit letters of appeal in order for their fines to be revoked.
WE ASK :
· If the Agreement refers only to rusticated students, why does the agreement talk of reconsideration of “punishment” and not “rustication”?
· If the SFI is right, and the Agreement applied only to rusticated students, why was there NO SEPARATE CLAUSE in the Agreement stating that the fines on JNUSU office bearers would be revoked?
· Is the JNUSU President really claiming that he signed on an Agreement which was silent on the issue of revocation of fines of JNUSU office bearers?!
· According to the SFI, is the JNUSU President from their organisation ‘spineless’ enough to sign on an Agreement that did not specify in writing any roadmap for revocation of fines imposed on JNUSU office bearers?!
SFI-AISF claim it is ‘shameful and spineless’ for JNUSU General Secretary to submit a letter of appeal in keeping with the July 12 Agreement. By that logic it is also ‘shameful and spineless’ for common students to honour the Agreement of July 12 and submit letters of appeal.
Can the SFI-AISF tell us why did their JNUSU office bearers sign an Agreement, which according to them, makes the common students who obey it ‘shameful and spineless’?
We hold:
In JNU, the honour and dignity of the JNUSU posts lies in the honour and dignity of common students. How can it be ‘shameful and spineless’ for JNUSU office bearers to do what they themselves are asking other common students to do – i.e. submit letters of appeal ?!
SHAME On SFI For Distancing Itself From The Very Agreement They Are Signatories To !
Say NO To Creation Of Hierarchy Within The Student Community !
Defeat The Gameplan Of Strengthening The Administration !!
8 August leaflet
Against Imposition Of Fines and Continuance Of Punishments
Join PROTEST MARCH 8 Aug (Tonight )
Observe University Strike 9 Aug Tomorrow
Since the suspension of 9 students in February, students of JNU have conducted a sustained struggle against the punishment of students struggling against the violation of workers’ minimum wages on the campus. The JNUSU Council as well as University General Body Meeting attended by more than 600 students expressed regret for the incident of gherao of the Registrar, but held that no individual students must be punished for a protest that was collectively led by the JNUSU, and for which regret too had been collectively expressed by the student community. Following the rustication and out-of-bounds orders against 8 students, and fines on 3 JNUSU office bearers in the middle of the summer vacations, the struggle intensified. JNU’s teaching community as well as democratic intelligentsia outside JNU rallied round in support of the students’ struggle to ensure minimum wage payments for workers, and demanded withdrawal of punishments from the students. Finally 13 days of indefinite hunger strike resulted in an agreement on 12 July in which the University Administration agreed to reconsider the punishments on the basis of letters of appeal by the students, in order to allow students to take registration this semester. In continuation with this agreement, the 8 rusticated students and the JNUSU General Secretary submitted letters of appeal; following which rustications have been revoked for all 8 students, and the fine withdrawn from the General Secretary. However, fines of Rs. 1000 each have been imposed on 6 students, while fines of Rs. 2000 each have been imposed on two of the students; and the fines imposed on JNUSU President and Joint Secretary continue.
The withdrawal of rustications from the students is a major moral victory for the student movement in JNU. It vindicated the moral force of the student movement’s logic: that a collective protest (for which JNUSU took collective responsibility and which had been collectively regretted by the JNUSU Council and UGBM) must not be made a pretext for victimization and witch-hunting of individual students.
However, the replacement of rustications with fines is unfortunate and illogical, as is the differential treatment for different students. Any punitive measure, including fines, goes against the principle of “no individual punishment for collective protest, especially in the light of collectively expressed regret.” In keeping with this democratic norm, JNU Administration should withdraw all fines from the students.
The JNUSU President and Joint Secretary also should not give credibility to the JNU Administration’s plank of differential punishments. By refusing to submit letters of appeal they are trying to claim ‘special’ or differential, favoured status for JNUSU office bearers, and are refusing to abide by the Agreement of 12 July according to which all 11 students were called upon to submit letters of appeal. This creates a false sense of hierarchy of JNUSU office bearers as opposed to common students, and gives fodder to the JNU Administration’s attempt to divide the student community by meting out unequal treatment.
To defeat the JNU Administration’s biased approach, students must unitedly demand equal and just treatment for all 11 students. We do not and must not support the JNU Administration’s logic that some students are more ‘guilty’ than others and therefore deserving of more severe punishment. Therefore JNU Administration must withdraw all punishments against all 11 students, and all students must abide by the terms of the July 12 agreement.
AISA calls upon students to join JNUSU’s Protest procession tonight in large numbers; and ensure the success of tomorrow’s University Strike.
2.8.07
Remain United And Vigilant Against Any Administrative Vacillations In Revoking Punishments
After three weeks of determined struggle including 12 days of indefinite hunger strike, JNU administration entered into an agreement with the JNUSU regarding revocations of punishments on 11 students.
Almost three weeks have passed since then, but the punishments remain. It had been part of the understanding that once the process of reconsideration starts, rooms of the evicted students which have been double-locked would be re-opened. But this has not happened as yet. Not just that, the JNUSU General Secretary, who was due to submit his MPhil dissertation, has been stopped from doing so by denying him the necessary pre-submission clearance. Such infringement of the normal academic process in the case of a fine, that too under reconsideration, is unwarranted and defies all reason and logic.
Such moves on the part of the administration even after the concerned students have met the terms of the agreement, does not bode well for the democratic ethos of JNU. The student community has shown utmost patience and reason in the entire process, and has underlined its commitment towards upholding the democratic ethos of JNU and also towards continuing the struggle for minimum wages.
The ball is now in the administration’s court. The administration must now honour their side of the commitment. The students’ struggle will continue until the JNU administration honours the agreement in letter and spirit.
In this context, the decision of the two JNUSU office bearers from SFI to not give their letters of appeal in accordance with the agreement, which they themselves have signed, can only strengthen the hands of the administration. We beg to remind them that the “sanctity and prestige of the JNUSU” is inseparable from the prestige of individual common students. If the agreement (reached after a determined struggle) does not violate the dignity of the student movement, how can it harm the dignity of the JNUSU Office- bearers to abide by the agreement and submit an appeal along with other common students? How can JNUSU office bearers claim to have more prestige and greater sanctity than individual students, who have participated in agitations and movements jointly?! We feel it is extremely unethical and irresponsible for any JNUSU leader to “disassociate” from student movements, whether it is the protest they themselves have led and participated ( as on 19 Feb) or the agreement which they themselves have signed (as on 12 July). The JNUSU’s sanctity and prestige lies in upholding and defending the collective spirit of responsibility for all movements and protests led by them.
24 July Leaflet
24.7.07
Resist Attempts to Divide Student Unity and Violate the Terms of JNUSU Agreement !
The 12-day long indefinite hunger strike recently culminated in a partial success: not only some key issues of the Charter of Demands have been clinched, but also, most importantly, the JNU Administration agreed to reconsider its unjust punishments and allow the 11 students to register this semester based on individually issued appeals by the concerned students.
The exact wording of this clause of the Agreement between JNUSU and JNU Administration is as follows:
“The Vice Chancellor has agreed to reconsider the punishment based on the Proctorial decision with regard to the incident that took place on 19th February 2007 on receiving individual letters of regret with an appeal from concerned students to enable them to register by 14th August 2007.”
Unfortunately, the failure of the JNUSU President and Joint Secretary to abide by this Agreement and a 4-page leaflet being distributed by the SFI recently jeopardise this Agreement. The JNUSU President and Joint Secretary are yet to submit the letter of appeal although each of the other 9 students including the JNUSU General Secretary have done so. The SFI has claimed that JNUSU office bearers are not called upon to submit such letters of appeal, since they are charged only with “failure to control the mob” and not with actual participation or leadership of the gherao.
We would like to point out that the Agreement with the Administration DOES NOT say that JNUSU office bearers are exempt from the obligation to submit letters of appeal – rather it says that ALL CONCERNED STUDENTS (not just rusticated students) must submit the appeals individually. By refusing to do so, the JNUSU President and Joint Secretary are violating the terms of the Agreement which they themselves signed and jeopardising the unity of the student movement.
What Constitutes the Sanctity and Prestige of JNUSU?
The SFI claims that if JNUSU office bearers submit letters of regret and appeal, it would go against the ‘sanctity’ and the prestige of the JNUSU. We beg to remind them that the sanctity and prestige of the JNUSU is inseparable from the prestige of individual ordinary students. If it does not harm ordinary students to submit letters of appeal in keeping with a JNUSU Agreement, why should it hurt the prestige of JNUSU office bearers? How can JNUSU office bearers claim to have more prestige and greater sanctity than individual students, who have participated in agitations and movements jointly?! The JNUSU’s sanctity and prestige lies in upholding and defending the collective spirit of responsibility for all movements and protests led by them.
February 19: “Ultra Mob” vs “Good boy SFI”?
The SFI leaflet titled ‘On the Successful Struggle led by the JNU Students Union’ is highly unfortunate since it goes against the spirit of unity of the student movement. Let us examine its main plank:
It claims that the gherao of February 19 was an “adventurist act by the ultra-Left”; and according to them “the JNUSU office bearers and other activists of the SFI-AISF, who did not participate in this action, couldn’t however prevent it from happening.”
This is an outright lie – an endorsement of the Administration’s differential punishment which brands general students as a “mob” that is apart from the JNUSU leadership. All who were present there on February 19 were witness to SFI leaders and JNUSU President and Joint Secretary leading the gherao with slogans and full participation. In every all organisation meeting held during the gherao to decide on course of action, SFI as well as the entire JNUSU leadership never attempted to “prevent the gherao from happening”. We ask the SFI and the JNUSU President: if they wished to “prevent the gherao from happening”, why did they not issue a single poster or leaflet or notice on February 19 itself calling for an end to the gherao? Why did the JNUSU President not issue a public statement or speech on February 19 expressing JNUSU’s opposition to the gherao and calling upon students to end the gherao? In fact, even as late as 20 February, neither SFI nor the JNUSU President issued any condemnation of the gherao! So, what attempt did they make to “prevent” the gherao?
Message of March 8 UGBM
But is this the biased and partial account of a single “ultra-left organisation” AISA? Well, let us see what the UGBM of 8 March had to say about the incident of February 19.
Let us read the following Resolution No. 4 placed by Awadhesh and Rajan:
“This UGBM holds the violations of workers’ minimum wages and rights to be a matter of collective shame for JNU and upholds students’ initiatives to raise this issue. This UGBM demands the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all suspensions of students and karmacharis. This UGBM further demands scrapping of Proctorial enquiry and resolves to resist any attempt to take disciplinary actions for the collective JNUSU led protest of February 19th. This UGBM demands that a mechanism be instituted to ensure legally mandated minimum wages and rights for all workers in JNU.”
Note that this resolution refers to the incident of February 19 as a “collective JNUSU-led protest” – a protest that the JNUSU LED, not one led by a “mob” which the JNUSU tried to “prevent”. And this resolution was passed by a massive, thumping majority – 492 votes in favour, SFI could garner merely 190 votes against it! SFI’s attempt to claim that the JNUSU did not lead the February 19 gherao was soundly DEFEATED in the UGBM – and it is shameful and audacious that they should once again make the same claims!
SFI’s Support for Proctorial Enquiry
Let us also remind ourselves, what was SFI’s position on Proctorial enquiry? SFI’s latest 4-page leaflet claims that they opposed Proctorial enquiry (and punishments) for those students who expressed regret.
But in their leaflet dated March 1, SFI said, “One of the agenda items of the UGBM is a demand for ‘scrapping of Proctorial Enquiry.’ The SFI-AISF does not endorse this demand.”
However, as the UGBM drew nearer and they realised that students were vehemently opposed to this position, they modified their stance, and in the UGBM they placed a resolution (no. 5) saying that no disciplinary action or enquiry should be conducted against students who expressed regret. This resolution was also DEFEATED (495 opposed, 191 in favour, 1 abstention). Students defeated this resolution because it placed a conditionality: it said enquiry would be opposed only against individual students who expressed regret. Instead, the UGBM passed the Resolution No. 4 moved by AISA, that demanded the immediate and unconditional withdrawal of all suspensions and scrapping of Proctorial enquiry.
The UGBM’s opposition to Proctorial enquiry and punishments was not based on who did or did not submit letters of regret – it was based on the principle that individual students should not be penalised for the incident of February 19 because it was an agitation LED by the JNUSU. Suspended students too submitted individual letters that endorsed the collective expression of regret of JNUSU and UGBM.
Back then on March 1, the SFI and its JNUSU leaders clearly were in favour of a Proctorial Enquiry and wanted to participate in this enquiry and give ‘evidence’ against individual students. The UGBM defeated this stance and SFI could not participate in or support Proctorial enquiry. But now again, with their leaflet that blames individual AISA and DSU or independent activists for the gherao, they are trying to do by crook what they could not do by hook – fix blame on individuals for a JNUSU-led protest.
The UGBM, clearly, held the JNUSU to have led the gherao of February 19 and therefore to be collectively responsible for ensuring that no individual students was penalised for it. The UGBM also collectively expressed regret for the gherao. This regret resolution was not a chastisement of some individual students; it was a collective acceptance of responsibility and regret. The JNUSU’s sanctity and prestige lies in upholding and defending this collective spirit of responsibility. Instead the SFI is trying to whitewash its own role in the gherao, and demarcate the JNUSU leadership from the collective student’s movement, which it is branding as a “mob”! The Administration meted out differential punishments to student activists precisely as an act of divide and rule – and the united hunger strike and struggle defeated this ploy. Now by endorsing the Administration’s own differential description of 8 students as a “mob” and 3 JNUSU office bearers as somehow less responsible for the gherao, the SFI is playing into the Administration’s hands.
SFI’s Childish Plea: “I didn’t do it daddy, he did, she did”
In contrast to the collective expression of responsibility and regret by the UGBM, SFI’s latest 4-page leaflet is an infantile attempt to deny responsibility, claim innocence and pin blame on others: “I didn’t do it, daddy, he did, she did!” In the face of an Administrative crackdown that is yet to be fully revoked, this childish behaviour by the organisation that holds the post of the JNUSU President is unfortunate and shameful.
To sum up:
· SFI’s leaflet claiming that it (and the JNUSU office bearers from its organisation) did not participate in the gherao is in violation of the UGBM resolution that held the February 19 incident to be “led by the JNUSU”.
· SFI’s position that JNUSU office bearers must not submit letters of appeal is in violation of the Agreement signed by the JNUSU office bearers themselves with the Administration.
· SFI’s leaflet is an unfortunate attempt to divide the student unity forged on the basis of the UGBM positions of March 8 – and if the unity is divided there is a danger that the Administration might take advantage of it.
It is crucial that unity be maintained at this stage – and all such attempts to violate and jeopardise the Agreement and break this unity be firmly resisted. The UGBM decisions of March 8 can be the best basis for this unity. We appeal to the JNUSU leadership and the SFI and other Left organisations not to break the spirit of this UGBM, and not violate the terms of the JNUSU Agreement with the Administration.
That UGBM of 8 March should be a reminder of how SFI’s pro-Administration positions and support for individual witch-hunting were firmly defeated by the principled stances taken by the highest decision-making body of the students. In future too, any attempt to break the student unity against an unjust Administrative crackdown will be squarely defeated by the democratic collectivity of students.
Strenghten United Student Movement Against Administrative Crackdown and For Fulfillment Of Charter Of Demands!
1 comment:
........the wind of change is here..dire requirement of refinement of our polity..need more honest hearts..to take this fight of justice to long way..
Post a Comment