The current chairman of the University Grants Commission (UGC), Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar, took over in his previous posting as the Vice Chancellor of the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) on 28 January 2016. Thirteen days later, on 9 February 2016, the sprawling university campus in South Delhi witnessed protests that ended up in unprecedented violence and a consequent political upheaval. 

An event organised by an ultra-left students’ organisation to protest what it termed as the “judicial killing” of one of the prime accused in the Parliament attack case turned out into mayhem as the RSS-affiliated Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) opposed the meeting and the JNU Students Union (JNUSU), controlled by the leftists students groups, coming out in support of the event organisers.

Allegations that anti-India slogans were raised at the venue flew thick and fast as hyper-jingoist television channels thickened the plot by broadcasting videos which later turned out to be either doctored or manipulated. Charges of criminal conspiracy and sedition were instantly filed against the JNUSU president and other leftist student leaders by the Delhi Police even as the student leaders were subjected to attacks in the court premises in the national capital.

While right-wing groups intensified the campaign against the university, including demands to shut it down, rename it, or end student politics and so on, a major section of liberals and opposition political groups came out strongly in favour of the JNU community and its politico-cultural and dialectical traditions.

A resistance movement, on the other hand, came up within the campus where an open-air Teach-in-Lecture series conducted before the JNU Administrative building, popularly known as the Ad-block, hosted an array of prominent academics talking on the topic of ‘nationalism’. The irony of the topic was stark and deliberate as it sought to challenge the nationalism narrative propounded by the ruling regime and its political affiliates. This counter-narrative spread to campuses across the country in what a speaker termed at the lecture series as a solidarity of Left-Feminist-Ambedkarite sensibilities.      

The events of February 2016 thrust the university into national and international limelight in ways that permanently changed its ingrained way of life and its functional character. At the core of this transformation, many believe, remains an ideological battle, evidently backed by the ruling regime, to erase the leftist bastion of its innate political hue and, expectantly, alter the character of what is seen as the cradle of student politics, disparagingly described as the Andolan jeevis.   

As G Pramod Kumar noted in a commentary soon after the February 2016 events, “…the BJP, RSS and other Sangh organisations seemed to have been harbouring a pathological suspicion and patent intolerance towards the liberal and progressive environment of the JNU. Barely a year into the BJP government’s existence, the RSS called the institution home to a “huge anti-national block” that has the aim to disintegrate India…this is exactly the line of argument that the RSS and BJP leaders are parroting now. It certainly sounds like an old plan and the latest episode provided the spark they have been waiting for.”

The question is then moot whether such a political project if indeed being pursued, will seek its fruition through pure politics, violence or depoliticization of the campus.

Ideological to street battles

JNU has been known for a unique political culture – of debates, protests and a presidential election that is conducted and managed by the students through its own election commission. This culture ensured that all political ideologies gained a space in the campus though the leftists dominated, notwithstanding the contestations between the moderate and ultras among them.

The culture of political interrogations and social interventions also resulted in JNU’s student organisations spearheading numerous movements on a national scale, be it the huge protests and arrests following the killing of Chandrasekhar Prasad in Bihar in 1997, the Nirbhaya agitation in 2012/13, the Occupy UGC protests of 2015, the Rohith Vemula agitation of 2016 or the CAA protests that rocked the nation in recent years.

At the core are the embedded ethos of dissent and anti-establishmentarianism that drove the essential leftist political culture, though a considerable section of JNUites who joined the bureaucracy or rose to higher leadership in various parties may not have carried this legacy outside the campus. Certainly, so, ruling dispensations have, over the years, exhibited an extraordinary tolerance for the JNU political culture, other than in rare exceptions like the intra-left violence of 1980-81 when the university was shut down for 46 days, or the protests over Chandrasekhar Prasad’s killing when students and teachers marched to the heart of the national capital.     

The governmental accommodation of JNU’s politics ended during the first full term of the NDA government under Prime Minister Atal Bihari Vajpayee, even as Sangh Parivar affiliates, including the ABVP, made strenuous attempts to make inroads into JNU.

Ashok Tanwar, former national president of the National Students Union of India (NSUI) and later a Congress MP and its Haryana chief, and currently the campaign committee convenor of Aam Aadmi Party (AAP) in Haryana, explains it thus to The Polity: “Because JNU was a left bastion, student leaders who were elected and groomed in JNU largely joined the Congress eco-system. Except for one or two leaders in the recent past, BJP or RSS was never seeing JNU as their talent base. They had a prejudice towards JNU.”

The ABVP, which had made a presence on the campus during the Vajpayee regime, seemingly realising the limits of dialectical politicking in a campus dominated by wannabe intellectuals and idealogues, had reportedly preferred a physical show of strength. Such intentions were made clear when the ABVP cadre went on the rampage against leftist student groups protesting the visit of then HRD minister, Murali Manohar Joshi, to the campus in 2000.

A former JNU unit president of ABVP who did not wish to be named told The Polity that “there is no such thing called a Left bastion in a democratic space. The leftist student groups, with their domination, blacked out other voices and stigmatised ‘nationalist’ voices on the campus. A section of the faculty also supported these practices and ensured that no alternative voices emerged.”

Many instances of violence on the campus coincided with the Vajpayee-led NDA regime, including the conflict over Durga puja, which led to a ‘secular’ puja patronised by the JNUSU and another one by the ABVP, which was branded as ‘communal’. Incidentally, while the ABVP made inroads into the student community, an RSS Shakha functioned in what was termed the B&C Quarters, where administrative staff resided.

“Whenever they were in power, they tried to kill the democratic culture, the debate ethos, and whenever they were stronger in the campus, they always have that different politics – of violence, disruption, non-democratic, communal campaigns,” a Delhi University faculty member who was a JNUSU office-bearer during that era told The Polity on condition of anonymity.

The yesteryear Left and NSUI leaders point to the Progressive Admission Policy (PAP) of the late 1990s and allege that the ABVP had spearheaded the protest by dividing students into caste lines. Strongly refuting these claims is Uma Shankar Singh, who was a general secretary of the JNU ABVP unit and a Vibakh Pramukh in Delhi, and now a senior BJP leader in Bihar.   

Supporters of the ABVP, Singh points out, were limited in numbers at that time. “How can a small group indulge in violence? Instead, it is the dominant leftists who felt intimidated by our presence and ideology,” he insisted. Singh contends that the ABVP had opposed PAP as it sought to divide the students on caste lines.

“The ABVP does not believe in caste,” Singh exclaimed, adding that the organisation demanded that economically backward students should be getting reservation opportunities irrespective of their caste. The numerically superior Students Federation of India, the CPI(M) affiliated student body and then the dominant group at JNU, attacked the ABVP cadre during the PAP agitations, claims Singh.  

ABVP leaders of earlier years The Polity talked to were insistent that the organisation was already a big force in the late 1990s, and that the ABVP marched in solidarity with other student organisations to protest the killing of Chandrasekhar Prasad. Solidarity and unity of student organisations though buzzwords for the ABVP, detest what they feel as anti-national political approaches of the Left organisations. Irrespective of ideologies, ABVP leaders feel, that student organisations should defend national interests and be patriotic.   

JNU in the Modi era

While an ideological turf battle was fully anticipated by the time the Narendra Modi government took charge in 2014, the organisational focus was seemingly on the faculty domain where a sweeping exercise was initiated to populate the teaching cadre with RSS/ABVP choices, particularly at the entry and middle levels.

“To some extent, the kind of recruitment that happened in JNU last 10 years of the Modi government was meant to patronize the culture they intend to create on the campus,” said Tanwar. However, ABVP leaders countered this by saying that the tag of Left bastion happened because of the decades of favouritism towards leftist candidates in the faculty selection.

An Associate Professor at the university, who was also a JNUite, told The Polity that, on faculty recruitments and other matters, the previous VC merely acted on the list given by an ABVP in charge at the campus. This was confirmed by a former unit President of the ABVP as well, both of them speaking on condition of anonymity.

It was alleged in many quarters that the administration since 2016 was functioning under the direct supervision of the Sangh in-charges or nodal officers which, in many ways, became evident following the events of January 2020. On 5 January 2020, at a time when JNU student organisations were supporting the CAA protests, a gang of masked men and women went on the rampage inside the campus, indiscriminately attacking students with rods and sticks, even as a crowd assembled outside the campus gates shouting slogans like “desh ke gadaron ko goli maro.”

That the administration refused to act when the violence was being unleashed, the police refused to decisively intervene and waited outside the main gate and an intimidating crowd assembled outside shouting these slogans, which later echoed against the CAA protestors as well in the 2020 Delhi Assembly elections, led to allegations that a larger political campaign was at work to alter the profile and character of the university.

The administration had over the years imposed many restrictions on student movements including banning protests within 100 meters of the Ad-Block, which used to be the hub of hunger strikes and other protests. Plans were afoot in 2016 to shut down the iconic Ganga Dhaba, where students and student organisations used to assemble for evening gatherings and where eateries functioned well past midnight, though the administration was seen to have withdrawn from the move.

On the other hand, the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations, which had put many restrictions on university polls, also considerably affected how student politics were practiced at the University. “Student politics, as it is, is sidelined. After the Lyngdoh committee recommendations, students are not keen to contest. There is no incentive to work for student rights,” remarked Tanwar, adding that “student movements are no longer strong.”

The university, incidentally, has not held the JNUSU elections since the 2019-2020 academic year, while announcing its resumption in January 2024.

Bans and fines

On 11 December 2023, the JNU administration revised the Chief Proctor Office Manual prohibiting wall posters, dharnas and protests within 100 meters of academic buildings. Stringent action including fines of up to 20,000 or expulsion. Besides fines ranging from Rs 500 to Rs 8000 for general violations, the revised manual talks of up to Rs 10,000 fine for “printing, circulating or pasting posts/pamphlets (text or picture) carrying derogatory religious, communal, casteist or anti-national remarks.”

Furthermore, “any activity that incites intolerance towards a religion, caste or community and/or anti-national in nature that disturbs the peaceful atmosphere on campus” is also listed in this category. So too, the “obstruction of roads leading to faculty/staff quarters, market places, etc; or use of abusive, defamatory, derogatory or intimidatory language against any member of wrongful confinement, gheraos or demonstrations near the house of any members, damaging/defacing property… and any other act which may be considered by the VC or any other competent authority to be an act of violation of discipline and conduct.” 

The revised manual, thus, targets most of the areas that essentially define the core political activities and campaigns of the JNU students’ organisations. For example, JNU walls are rife with graffiti blaring out political slogans, many of which may be unpalatable for political parties not accustomed to the JNU political way of life. It was reported that the JNU administration took offence to what they saw as “anti-national’ posters on the campus whereas some ultra-Left organisations, which do not dogmatically recognise the existence of the ‘State’ may routinely raise and portray such slogans that may not be acceptable in the mainstream.

The banning of gheraos and demonstrations, particularly near the house of any members, is seen as most infringing for the student groups as such form of protests is most common and seen as most potent by the student organisations. Besides the fact that the field is wide open for the Administration to interpret and classify many of the actions and events as either defamatory or derogatory or even ‘anti-national’, the Manual widens this space by allowing the VC or the authorities to determine any act as violative of the rules of conduct.

Through the revised rules, both current and earlier student leaders who spoke to The Polity feel that the Administration seeks to curb and systematically end the very fundamental political activities that defined the JNU political culture.

“JNU always stood for a different culture. Those forces are equally strong, and those who resist them. That is why these new rules have come. Like other universities, the authoritarianism of the administration is destined to prevail. JNU is an important place for student and youth movements, and championed the cause of deprived sections,” Tanwar opined.

JNU officials have reportedly clarified that there is no ban on protests or demonstrations but that it has been earmarked to a new dedicated site though not elaborating what impelled such a decision that uproots decades of tradition in a premier institution. The incumbent Vice Chancellor, Santishree D. Pandit, who also happens to be a JNU alumnus, did not respond to the email from The Polity in this regard.

Is de-politicisation the objective?

Most student organisations, including the ABVP, were unanimous in their belief that the latest decisions of the JNU administration have the potential to significantly diminish the role and space for student politics on campus. However, some of them fear that this is a harbinger of things to come across the country as clamping down on student politics in its cradle will have potent implications for campuses across the country.

Talking to The Polity, Vijoo Krishnan, who donned senior leadership roles in the Students Federation of India (SFI) both at JNU and the national level, and is currently the General Secretary of All India Kisan Sabha and also the youngest Central Committee member of the CPI(M), made a profound statement on this matter:

“One of the first slogans I saw when I joined JNU was ‘When Politics Decides Your Future, Decide What Your Politics Must Be’. Politicisation was a hallmark of the campus that ensured students' rights were guaranteed and all attacks in the form of commercialisation or communalisation were resisted. Organised political resistance transcended the fear of a repressive regime. It is this aspect that has made JNU a thorn in the flesh for Fascist forces,” he remarked.

Echoing these sentiments, a former member of the Free Thinkers group and is now a renowned academic, lamented that JNU was once at the forefront of rights, nurtured future leaders and gave a voice to the subjugated people. “The present regime seeks to dismantle that culture of progressive ideas and transform the university into like any other university,” she told The Polity, on condition of anonymity. 

The JNU faculty member and former JNUite who talked to The Polity expressed concern that the umbrella organisations backing the ruling regime are trying to establish a culture of might is right. “Students have no right to dissent. They should study and go, no more leaders” seem to be their principle, he added, also pointing out that this is “a larger design, and JNU is the first target.” 

However, Uma Shankar Singh counters these views by stating that “student politics is essential to develop leadership,” and pointed to the increasing role and positions occupied by leaders with strong ABVP backgrounds in the BJP and the RSS.

Emphatically underlining the fact that the ABVP has also vociferously protested these measures by the JNU administration, Singh said: “The current ABVP protest against the JNU decision to restrict protests shows that ABVP stood with solidarity. Every university should have space for student politics. Unfortunately, many students and groups are publicity seeking and hence go out of the box to indulge in actions including violence that affect student politics as such.”.

Singh, though, sounds a word of caution that student organisations should also understand the limits of political posturing and should not go against the interests of the institution and the country. “Activism that protects and promotes ‘anti-national forces’ should not be pursued by any student organisation,” Singh exhorts, adding that often students cross every limit and misbehave, especially if people disagree with them.

Singh recalls the instance of a lady JNU professor who disagreed with some protesting students being locked up in her room. “Protests cannot be uncontrollable exercise; it has to have a purpose and should not descend into violence,” Singh laments.

He blames the rampant violence and anti-national politics of some student groups as giving the JNU administration an opportunity to put restrictions, “as no administrator currently wants the students to exert influence over their decision-making process.”

This view was repeated by the former ABVP unit president who felt that the JNUSU protested at the drop of a hat, and that too coinciding with the elections. “It has always been every administration’s agenda to restrict students’ movement. Hence, the JNU decisions cannot be blamed as the RSS agenda,” he insisted.

A leftist in every JNUite!

Though The Polity tried to contact senior officials in the JNU administration including the VC and also tried to reach some of the Academic Council and Executive Council members, none of them were available for comments. While the decision to impose hefty fines on student leaders who protested before the VC house has reportedly been withheld, there seems to be no indication that the JNU administration will go back on the stringent provisions.

However, these developments have invariably cast a shadow on the upcoming JNUSU elections that the Administration has undertaken to hold in January. Student leaders expressed their apprehension, in private, to The Polity that the elections, returning after many years, may lose their sheen when conducted in such restrictive and intimidating atmosphere. They feel the need for a larger movement to pressure the JNU administration to withdraw the Manual.

Ashok Tanwar, for his part, also supports the need for a larger ‘Save JNU movement’, which he feels, should be led by the Left parties as they continue to hold a strong standing in the JNU campus. “JNU is swelling with substandard material with which you cannot create an intellectual superstructure. Other parties should, hence, come together for a Save JNU movement. We should not allow these things to continue,” Tanwar opined. 

Many erstwhile student leaders feel that JNU’s identity is essentially tagged to its leftist identity which makes it a unique platform of student politics. Tanwar, for example, proclaims that irrespective of their political affiliations, “every JNUite has a bit of ‘left’ in them.” The good things about the Left - like standing up for the oppressed and giving a voice to the underprivileged and suppressed sections of society – have been imbibed by every JNU student, due to its popular culture, which, hence, should not be quelled. 

Even ABVP leaders who talked to The Polity subtly endorse this point that the “dominant culture will influence everyone.” However, Uma Shankar Singh affirms that this identity did more harm than good to ABVP leaders from JNU in their higher career quests. “Coming from JNU, all our views were seen as “Marxian” in outlook” as the university was irrevocably identified with ‘Marxists’ and ‘Naxals’.

The legacy of JNU stays with students of all political hues irrespective of whether they join left, right or centrist parties or even the bureaucracy and the government.