Will You Gag This? : Atul Mishra, SIS, JNU

Since last 3-4 years, social and political space of JNU have undergone sever negative changes. The height on intolerance and dictatorship have been taken place since naxalites are in power. Non-left speakers are being bullied and most of the time non-left voices are being gagged. The academic and administration mechanisms were always used to eliminate those voices who were not agreed with the chameleon coloured left agenda.
           It went up to extreme when  a noted academician, world famous economist, once guest faculty of CSRD/SSS and prime minister of India, Dr Manmohan Sigh was not allowed to speak. Recenlty, they hounded at a guest called by a centre of SIS. Since they dont belive in co-existant and democracy (we should not expect these from naxalites), they would do whatever they pleased to do. Though hundreds of  SIS ( School of International Studies) students appealed to these lumpens, not to distrub the talk but their appeal was never heard. On this matter most of us felt very sad of this incident, but since JNUSU central panel and adminstration favoring these goons, most of students were forced  to remain silent spectators.
  However, we have a brave  student who counter this injustice with bold voice and rational argument in defense of the democratic space of JNU, Atul Mishra, a student of CIPOD, SIS wrote the fallowing article, which was again attacked by the offenders of Singur and Nandigram in name of some individuals. Here is the article by Atul Mishra:

Will You Gag This?  : Atul Mishra, SIS, JNU

You probably would not want to read this if you feel elated and victorious over the fact that yet another individual could not speak in JNU; that yet another voice was gagged. 

Principles do not lend themselves to hypocrisy. They backfire if used selectively. Those who see the cancellation of Richard Boucher’s visit to JNU for a lecture as a victory, over anything, could think long and hard about the implications of their actions, for JNU if not for themselves. 

India is a liberal democracy. Yes, it is a LIBERAL DEMOCRACY. JNU is a part of India. The norms of conducting dialogue and opposition that apply to the country are also, inalienably, applicable to JNU. As an academic institution, this is a place where views can and ought to be expressed. And if there is an opposition to views, that too can and ought to be expressed. But both, expression of views and opposition must happen in the same arena. On an equal footing. Hypocrisy does not work. 

It is hypocrisy if Hugo Chavez, who heads a nearly despotic government, is allowed to speak in JNU and Manmohan Singh is not. Dr. Singh has been an academic; not sure if Chavez did something similar after he gave up his military fatigue to dawn Bolivarian rhetoric. It is hypocrisy if the Sudanese Ambassador can address an academic gathering in JNU but an Israeli Ambassador cannot. It is hypocrisy to host Henry Kissinger and rally against Richard Boucher. It is hypocrisy to indulge anti-American rhetoric and apply for US visas and reach Columbia, Chicago, UCLA, Johns Hopkins, Emory or Amherst. The scholarship US universities offer comes either from endowment of the biggest capitalists in history and/or the US state, history’s most successful capitalist country. Why do those who oppose US imperialism thrive and build career on capitalist money, lifestyle and infrastructure. This is selective opposition. This is hypocrisy. These are double standards. And they must be called as such. 

Those who indulge in this selective opposition perhaps do not realise the temper and scale of changes outside JNU. And they do not acknowledge the capitalist sources of their survival within. JNU can offer scholarship to nearly every student here not because the JNUSU or any political outfit struggles for it, but fundamentally because the Indian state has financial resources for education which come from economic reforms, from ¶accumulation and circulation of capital¶, if you will. Hostels are constructed, not because of annual indefinite and relay hunger strikes to impress newcomers at the beginning of Monsoon semester, but because of financial resources provided by the state. Books are bought when there is money to buy them. Those victories JNU is often witness to are created and appropriated by some of the same selective oppositionists for purely selfish reasons. 

There is nothing wrong in selfishness. Political outfits in campus have different objectives. Some try to create leadership that can run the Politburo; others try to produce the High Command’s fiddle. Some try to break an existing ¶hegemony¶ while others hope to replace it with misguided fundamentalism. They are all competing and being selfish. But they justify their existence in the name of the students. This too is hypocrisy. This is politics. It is discernible. The problem isn’t in being selfish. The problem is in causing harm to values that govern academic conduct and prospects of students struggling to make a modest future outside the corrupt, hypocritical and opportunistic world of party politics. 

Academic dialogue is a two-way process. Some speak, others listen and question. The selective oppositionists have no right to decide who can come and speak and who cannot. They also cannot decide who should get the opportunity to listen and who should not. Boucher was supposed to speak to students of SIS. Many, so many, students of the School came out pleading for academic freedom on the eve of the scheduled lecture. If the selective oppositionists do not realise this, they must be told that it was the right and the prerogative of the students of SIS to listen and engage with the speaker. NO ONE CAN DECIDE FOR OTHERS WHAT IS GOOD FOR THEM AND WHAT IS NOT. The selective oppositionists had no right – ethical, political or legal – to decide on behalf of those students who wanted to listen to the speaker. They have denied the Fundamental Rights of these students guaranteed by the Constitution of this country. Are they so blind to not be able to distinguish between an academic lecture and an explicitly-political public meeting?
The selective oppositionists perhaps also do not realise the problems confronted by students of International Studies in India, and in JNU. Unlike established disciplines of Social Sciences and Humanities which have numerous departments across universities and colleges in the country, International Studies students have negligible institutional opportunities, for teaching and research. A perpetual crisis marks the discipline and it is a struggle, very real and unlike the phony rhetoric of the selective oppositionists, to find sources of livelihood. We have to network a lot more than others. We have to scout for opportunities a lot more than others. No one has the right to take away from us the few opportunities that come our way.

Perhaps they also do not realise that International Studies is largely a policy oriented discipline. Statelessness is different from comforts of state protection. We need to engage with those who make policies first hand. We may or may not agree with them, but interact we must. The selective oppositionists counter that all that an ¶imperialist agent¶ has to say is already known to everyone. Really? Try selling that to an International Studies student. Denial of such rare opportunities in an already precarious situation is violent. And the selective oppositionists must know that it could have its consequences. SIS does not believe in blind voting. 

The selective oppositionists would perhaps want to rethink the bases of their ridiculous rhetoric and despicable actions. Their hypocrisy and double-standards get noticed. It is one thing to engage in shadow-boxing, it is another to display group authoritarianism. You cannot gag those you dislike simply because it advances the interests of some of your leaders and outfits. You cannot deny students their right to choose who they want to hear. If you wish to protest, you will have to participate. When you do not let someone speak, you show your weakness, your lack to tolerance. When you do not tolerate opposition, and decide what is good for others, you recall the ghosts of men who doomed Soviet Union and the People’s Republic of China. Ironically, when history repeats you too do not notice.  

Do not hammer JNU back to feudal age. Do not help image of a JNU where only some shades of opinion thrive and others are gagged. You will not let new, vigorous minds enter JNU. You will cause an exodus of those who stay, making it even more a heaven for aspiring bureaucrats. You will maroon, yes pun-intended, JNU. 

If you cared to notice, there are real issues that merit attention. Despicable hygiene situation in all the hostels, unclean water filters, illegal occupants living in all the hostels, especially Brahmaputra, revolting food in the mess, drunk mess workers serving food – remove your blinders and tackle these. Do not offer excuses because they sound ridiculous. Revolution in Nicaragua does not impact the life of a student as much as a dirty Narmada hostel gallery. But you probably don’t think so.  

You may know history better because you say that the tide is against you. You could do well to realise that intolerance of different views and breach of established norms of dialogue have quickly turned thriving and necessary movements into fossils. Much of what you stand for is correct and desirable. But please do not become intolerant of any views expressed on the campus. This is an institute of learning first and struggles later. More people feed themselves from what they learn inside the classrooms than what they participate in outside. Realise this fact. You appear to be rushing towards oblivion and harming others.