A place where free thinking and controversy co-existed for decades has now turned into a debating ground with a majority of students and faculty on the one hand angrily questioning the way the authorities and the police treated three JNU students and charged them with sedition, and on the other only a handful of those owing allegiance to right-wing politics giving sermons on patriotism and nationalism.
While a section of students were seen discussing the fate of JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar, who has been remanded in police custody for a day (from judicial custody), and Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, who are in police custody, many were worried about the fate of three more students who too had been charged with sedition. Many on the campus were of the view that the present hullabaloo was all about gaining political mileage ahead of upcoming elections in a few states.
A university student said: “Ours is a campus where students of opposite ideologies fight against each other on the basis of debates and intellectual deliberation, and not through muscle power. But some elements want to turn our campus into a battleground.”
Though many students and teachers were reluctant to comment on the ongoing situation, a PhD student said: “The university provides a wider world view to its students on every issue and gives them a platform to have their talent, and this will always be there. We need to resist all forces who are harming the reputation of our campus.”
Criticising the police, a former JNU student, Abdul Rehman, said: “I feel Umar and Anirban took the right decision by surrendering before the police as they had no other option. Delhi police seems to be working according to the instructions of the BJP, which is bad for justice. The government does not want Kanhaiya and others to go free and it knows well that there is no proof against them.”
Elaborating, Mr Rehman was of the view that legal action was not at all required in this matter.
An AISA member and councillor of the Social Science Department argued: “The issue is not about supporting them, it is about supporting that decision which they found was appropriate. The police is changing statements every now and then, which simply means they are delaying the procedure unnecessarily. All the other three accused have written a letter to the police mentioning details about their room numbers at their hostel, so they are not scared of anything. We want a new committee, one which is not biased. The main problem of ABVP is that they first say and then think and keep on changing their views.”
SSS convenor Shatrupa said: “When the media trial happened everybody was under pressure, so it was the decision of the students that if the media was portraying them as having absconded to Nepal or somewhere, then the student committee was not ready to accept this and asked them to cooperate with the legal system. I support their decision to surrender because if they have not done anything wrong, they will come out clean. But it’s a strategy to delay the proceedings unnecessarily because they think the more they stretch things, the matter will settle and the government can take its own action. There is hope, but since there are fascist elements in the government it is not easy to get justice. The Central government used JNU as a ploy against the Rohith Vemula incident.”
Supporting the surrender of the two students, Shikha (name changed), an M.Phil student at JNU, said: “If it was only about slogans then the case would have been solved in JNU itself, but the case has been plotted to defame the reputation of JNU. And it is such a pride to see that universities outside Delhi are also connecting with us and I am sure it might pressure the government.”
