[Continued from Part I posted yesterday. Please see the Introduction there. As usual, coloured portions mark where EPW deleted material, not much in this section. It is EPW after all. Very few journals would have published this piece at all in the Indian partisan climate]
The sketched perspective on the arrests—with
Kashmir at the center—was largely
missing from the very impressive public protests that ensued after the arrest
of the JNU students. Consider for example, an otherwise fluent and
representative recent article in The Hindu on the apparent rise of
Ambedkarite politics in some campuses (‘Appropriating Ambedkar’, April 21). This
is how the author, who appears to be a witness to the protests, describes the student
movement in one rousing sentence:
Anyone who participated in the multiple marches, teach-ins and demonstrations that took place in Hyderabad, Delhi, Calcutta, Bombay and elsewhere throughout January, February and March, following Rohith Vemula’s suicide and the arrest and subsequent release of JNU students Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and Anirban Bhattacharya, will recall immediately the visually arresting sight of red and blue flags raised, waved and carried by thousands of citizens, and the soaring chants of a coming Left-Ambedkarite revolution that rang out on the streets, in the squares and on university campuses for the first three months of 2016.
The point to note is that the author mentions the arrest and release of three JNU students in the context of a “coming Left-Ambedkarite revolution” that apparently started with the dalit student Rohith Vemula’s suicide in
in January. The remark gives a
distinct impression that the JNU students were arrested for their involvement
in widespread protests on Vemula’s suicide. Hyderabad
The author is not alone. Many writers and speakers have so depicted these events. For example, Kanhaiya Kumar, the president of the JNU student’s union who was arrested along with two others, repeatedly asserted after his release that the JNU students were “targeted” by the government for protesting on Vemula’s suicide and for sustained agitation—the occupy UGC movement—on the withdrawal of non-Net fellowships by the UGC. While making fiery speeches in the parliament, Mr. Sitaram Yechury, on more than one occasion, directly linked the arrest of the students with Vemula’s suicide to illustrate the government’s repressive policies towards the student community.
Neither the Hindu piece under discussion nor Kanhaiya Kumar nor Sitaram Yechury in parliament ever mentioned Geelani’s name while commenting on the arrest of JNU students. It was interesting to observe the leader of a communist party, wedded to the ideas of justice and equality, maintaining a deafening silence on the appalling arrest of a university teacher while loudly protesting the arrest of JNU students for exactly the same ‘crime’.
Geelani’s case was also systematically ignored in the dozens of ‘teach-in’ lectures in the JNU campus that continued for many weeks apparently as a form of protest against the arrests of students. The lectures were organized in the evenings in the open area in front of the JNU administration block. The area was temporarily designated ‘freedom square’. The topics discussed in these lectures included concepts of nationalism, theory of Aryan invasion, Gandhi on Swaraj, Tagore on humanism, Ambedkar’s vision of an inclusive India, lessons from Nehru’s Discovery of India, contribution of Bhagat Singh and others in the Indian freedom movement, history of fascism in Europe, linguistic diversity of India, history of the Hindu right, neoliberal world order, political economy of communalism, feminism and the caste system, and much else. There was much fanfare, radical chants, and clarion call from the freedom square to change the world. It reminded us of the legendary sixties, at Berkeley and San Francisco.
issue was mentioned exactly once, and the spirited speaker was hounded for her
‘aberration’ for weeks; the case of Afzal Guru was not mentioned at all to my
crucial line highlighted as a separate para here was merged into the preceding
para by EPW]
It is also pertinent to note that the Delhi University Teacher’s Association (DUTA), which is currently dominated by the Congress-Left forces, promptly issued a strong letter of protest after the arrest of the JNU student, Kanhaiya Kumar. S. A. R Geelani, a DUTA member, was arrested four days after Kumar. DUTA maintained a studied silence on the arrest of its own member for nearly a month before it issued a note of protest following persistent petitions from groups of DU teachers. Significantly, the JNU teacher’s association, JNUTA, and JNU student association, JNUSU, issued statement after statement protesting the arrest of JNU students; they never mentioned the arrest of Geelani.
Except for a small group of students in JNU, a handful of democratic rights activists, and some teachers of
, Geelani’s arrest was
essentially ignored. It is difficult to miss the
elaborate planning and careful management of the protests to keep the case of
Geelani unmentioned and separate from those of JNU students. One report suggested
that, despite demands from a small group of students, the executive body of
JNUSU deliberately decided not to shout slogans for Geelani. The handful of
brave students went on to carry a few posters and shout occasional slogans for
Geelani anyway, especially during the third rally. The main ‘soaring’ chants,
however, maintained systematic silence on Delhi University Kashmir,
Afzal, and Geelani. Interestingly, much of the mainstream media obeyed the
Why did the otherwise strongly motivated left-liberal sections of the intelligentsia in
prefer silence on Delhi Kashmir, Afzal Guru, and
Geelani? Earlier, we asked why did the regime crack down severely on events
commemorating Afzal Guru. We will see that the answer to the two questions is
virtually the same, in effect.
Since the present government assumed power nearly two years ago, it has been clear that, armed with a formal majority in Parliament, its aim is an authoritarian government embedded in a strong state. There is no space here to elaborate on the complex, evolving topic. The basic reason is that this regime has been catapulted to power to serve an inherently unpopular economic agenda. To serve the interests of domestic big business, rich Indians abroad, and imperialist powers, the regime will be compelled to further escalate the existing obscene concentration of wealth and the atrocious inequality thereof. In a formal democratic order, this can only be done by dividing and effectively disenfranchising vast sections of people to prevent popular revolt. Hence the need for a strong state under the supreme command of one chosen individual.
The Home Minister of India, Rajnath Singh, and the president of the ruling Bharatiya Janata Party, Amit Shah, gave rather definitive indication of the intentions of the regime in public remarks around the events of 9th February. In one public address, Singh said,
Anti-national activities and forces won’t be tolerated. Anyone raising anti-India slogan or questioning
integrity won’t be spared. Government will take tough measures.
It is well-known that, in the context of a formal democracy, authoritarian regimes initially introduce their project with the widest available public approval. As this government has already seen, overtly divisive communal and fundamentalist actions have a tendency to backfire.
(To be continued)