SFI Pamphlet dated 1st September, '08

Release on Maoist attack in Bengal

SFI Pamphlet dated 23rd Nov '07

Questions to DSU on Nandigram

DOWN WITH THE MAHAJOT AGAINST THE LEFT FRONT GOVERNMENT!!

UNITE TO ENSURE PEACE IN NANDIGRAM!!

Pamphlet dated 11th Nov, '07

SFI Pamphlet dated 21st Aug '07

21/08/07

AISA’S ALTERNATIVE TO JNU: SHAMELESS BETRAYAL AND WHITE LIES

Friends,

The student community is still waiting for answers as to what are the reasons for the double standards of AISA and DSU and their ever changing positions on the incident of 19th February. In just six months their position has changed diametrically from glorification of the gherao to an abject surrender in front of the administration. What is more shameful is the fact that the inspiration for such betrayal and backstabbing of the student community’s mandate came from the even more radical JNUSU General Secretary from AISA, who was the first among 11 students to get his punishment waived off by secretly submitting an appeal expressing regret which has not been made public till today. Thoroughly demoralized by the abject surrender of its own activists along with the radical than thou revolutionaries of DSU, the AISA has been indulging in baseless slander against the SFI and the JNUSU President.

This audacity reached unacceptable limits when AISA’s pamphlet dated 18/08/07 alleged that the JNUSU President had submitted a letter of appeal on 16/08/07. The pamphlet says, “…so the administration took its precautionary pound of flesh – and got its ‘letter of appeal’ from the JNUSU President on August 16.” The JNUSU President has challenged both the AISA and JNU administration to make any such letter public which was submitted on the 16th of August. He has demanded that if the AISA can not substantiate this baseless slander then it must tender a written apology or else he shall be forced to file a defamation suit against the AISA. If the AISA leadership fail to produce the letter or do not tender an apology for such deliberate attempts to malign the office of JNUSU President, they would have to face the consequences in terms of legal action. However such acts reaffirm the questions that are looming large over the kind of politics which the ultra left especially AISA stands for in our campus in the name of a “radical alternative”.

1.The only defense of AISA offered so far for its baseless slander against the JNUSU President is that it has 'relied' on the statement of the Chief Proctor given to The Hindu. By relying on the Administration to slander the JNUSU President proves beyond doubt that the AISA's
political bankruptcy has reached towering heights where it is meekly surrendering before the Administration, while using the statements of the Administration to attack the democratically elected JNUSU President. So much for their commitment to democracy and the elected
representatives of the students. The baseless attack by the AISA on the JNUSU President is nothing but an attempt to malign the office of JNUSU President in utter desperation to hide their own inherent political contradictions which has resulted in a situation where the
JNUSU General Secretary who in the last semester was crying hoarse not to give regret (in the UGBM) to prove his revolutionary credentials, have now gone overboard to produce regret letters to the Administration, again to prove his so called 'revolutionary' credentials.

2.It is indeed ironic that the AISA is finding so much confidence on the statement of the Chief Proctor. It is the same Chief Proctor’s office who had suspended Rajan Pandey, the Jt Secy of AISA JNU unit for indulging in violence against a YFE activist. AISA had accused the dministration of acting in favour of the right wing and the YFE. But when it comes to a statement against the JNUSU President by the ame Administration, the AISA clings on to it, as if those were the only truths in the world, again proving AISA's political bankruptcy and ontradictions. Moreover, while writing fiery pamphlets defending the criminal act of Rajan Pandey, the AISA as yet has not taken any agitational course of action against the Proctor's office for suspending him. This proves beyond doubt that the AISA has become a tooge of the Administration, where it will meekly give regret letters to them, use every motivated statement of the Administration to attack the JNUSU President, but will not launch an agitation against the Chief Proctor, who according to them is victimizing their own activist. Shame on AISA's hypocrisy and bankruptcy!!

3. How could the JNUSU President fight for revocation of fines on the other rusticated students if they themselves were too willing to submit the fines and get their punishment revoked? And why did the JNUSU General Secretary and the Vice President not do anything about this matter rather than convincing everybody to pay the fines when the JNUSU President and Jt Secy had not got their registrations because of their Principled position of not giving appeals or paying any fine.

4. Acting in the most shameless fashion the AISA has said that the struggle against the denial of registration to the JNUSU President and Jt Secretary was based on a “selfish motive of protecting the skin of SFI leaders”. This completely reveals the ideological bankruptcy and lack of any commitment whatsoever towards the institution of JNUSU by the AISA. It also makes clear as to what was AISA’s real motive ehind not joining the struggle against the unjust punishments imposed on the JNUSU President and the Jt Secretary. Both the AISA and the administration wanted to settle their scores with the SFI by ensuring that registrations were denied to the JNUSU President and the Jt Secretary.

It is more than obvious that in order to hide their utterly contradictory and opportunist positions, the AISA is launching a complete slander campaign against the JNUSU President. But by doing such a baseless campaign against the JNUSU President, the AISA is taking the consciousness of the student community for granted. WE appeal to the members and sympathizers of AISA to see through the disruptive and complete unprincipled politics that their leadership is indulging in. We once again challenge the AISA to produce the so called letter submitted by the JNUSU President and appeal to the student community to give a fitting rebuff to these traitors and saboteurs of the JNU student movement.

Sd/- Roshan, President, SFI-JNU.

Sd/- Rajiv, Secretary SFI-JNU.

JOIN JNUSU’S PROTEST DEMO AT UGC ON 22/08/07 (TOMORROW)

Demanding Immediate Disbursal of Rs 3000 And 5000 Scholarship for M Phil and Ph D Students From July 2005

ASSEMBLE AT AD BLOCK AT 10:30 AM

SFI Pamphlet dated 20th Aug '07

20/08/07

Whatever happened to the radicalism of DSU!!

Friends,

In the last few months this campus has been a witness to the worst kind of opportunism and profound political ideological bankruptcy from the biggest proponents of revolution (the DSU). From their shameful glorification of the Gherao of the registrar on the 19th of February to the abject surrender in front of the administration (a class enemy in DSU’s terminology) things have come a full circle for them. Unable to overcome their frustration and guilty conscience for this surrender and betrayal of the mandate of the student community, which has even robbed them of their petty bourgeois radical rhetorics, they have unleashed a series of baseless and ridiculous attacks on the SFI and the office of JNUSU.

Devoid of any political and moral authority because of their own surrender before the administration by paying the fines (which can only be justified by their extreme eagerness to get the punishments revoked and a strong aversion for any principled struggle) they are increasingly succumbing to the malicious right wing slander against the SFI and the JNUSU. However, contradictions galore heavily if one looks at the positions DSU has been taking in order to hide its infantile petty bourgeois treachery vis-à-vis the JNU student movement. After the incident of 19th February the DSU took no time to brand everyone an agent of the administration who termed the gherao as regrettable. Even when the resolution of the JNUSU council was passed by the UGBM they violated the resolution by expressing regret for inconvenience caused if any in their individual appeal letters. If the SFI, JNUSU and a large part of the teaching community were agents of the administration when they termed the gherao as regrettable why did the DSU express regret at all? Did the fear of punishments make them comfortably abdicate their principled position?

During the whole period of agitation against punishments, the same JNUSU was the most radical body for the comrades of DSU. Has the JNUSU suddenly changed its character in a few days? Or is it the case that now the punishments have been revoked and DSU can once again indulge in sectarian attacks on the SFI and JNUSU?

Why did the activists from DSU not even try and put up a fight against the "unjust" fines imposed by the administration? How is it the case that for the people whose mission is to "reclaim the union from compromise driven political formulations" have completely changed their political position vis-à-vis the punishments in just 6 months? On the 20th of February it was revolutionary to glorify the gherao and any regret was sheer betrayal and treachery. On the 20th of August expressing regret and submitting fines has become the hallmark of revolution for the ultra left in the campus. One wonders if the goalposts of radicalism for these revolutionaries are decided by the mirror image of what the SFI is doing in this campus and not on any principled uncompromising ideological basis.

The hollow logics and self defeating arguments of the DSU by which they are trying to put the blame of everything on the SFI and JNUSU President is aptly captured by Com Stalin’s description of the Mensheviks in Russia. He said,

"There are two groups of Marxists. Both work under the flag of Marxism and consider themselves ‘genuinely’ Marxists. Nevertheless, they are by no means identical. More, a veritable gulf divides them, for their methods of work are diametrically opposed to each other….The first group usually confines itself to an outward acceptance, to a ceremonial avowal of Marxism. Being unable or unwilling to grasp the essence of Marxism, being unable to put it into practice, it converts the living, revolutionary principles of Marxism into lifeless, meaningless formulas….Discrepancy between word and deed is the chief malady of this group.[preaching radicalism to the students and accepting the punishment by the administration by paying fines] Hence the disillusionment and perpetual grudge against fate[it is because of SFI and JNUSU that we can not do anything], which time and again lets it down and makes a ‘dupe’ of it. …Comrade Tyszka described this group very aptly at the London Congress when he said that it does not stand by, but lies down on the point of view of Marxism." (Excerpt from Lenin as the organizer and leader of the Russian Communist Party).

We warn the DSU against indulging in such malicious and unprincipled attacks on the SFI and the office of JNUSU to overcome their own sense of betrayal and treachery to the student community. Rather than preaching radicalism to the SFI and student community they should try and provide an explanation for the extra mile they have gone in placating the administration by paying the fines which they themselves termed as unjust.

From their shameful justification of the Gherao to the unprincipled compromise with the administration by paying fines, DSU’s acts smell of an unprincipled liberalism best described by Comrade Mao, "…To be aware of one’s own mistakes and yet make no attempt to correct them, taking a liberal attitude towards oneself….liberalism is a manifestation of opportunism and conflicts fundamentally with Marxism…"(Excerpt from Combat Liberalism)

We appeal to the student community to politically isolate these forces and maintain a rock solid unity which would carry forward the legacy of JNU student movement.

Sd/- Roshan, President SFI-JNU; Rajiv, Secretary SFI-JNU.

SFI Pamphlet 14th Aug, '07

August 14, 2007

RISE IN DEFENCE OF THE JNUSU!
ISOLATE THE TREACHEROUS ULTRA-LEFT!!

Friends,

The JNU administration has so far refused to revoke the fines imposed upon the President and Joint Secretary of the JNUSU. The last date for registration being over, the fact that the administration has stuck to this patently unjust and outrageous position of imposing fines upon JNUSU office-bearers, proves that the real motive behind the punitive actions taken on the apparent basis of the 19th February incident, was to weaken and browbeat the JNU student movement and its spearhead, the JNUSU.

The JNUSU President and Joint Secretary have taken a principled position of not paying the fines, imposed upon them on the grounds that they were “unable to control the situation” on 19th February. It is highly unfortunate that the General Secretary of the JNUSU has got his fine waived by striking a deal with the administration and submitting an individual appeal expressing regret over the 19th February incident. The JNUSU Council and the UGBM having collectively expressed regret in the last semester, there was absolutely no basis for any of the JNUSU office-bearers submitting regret letters on an individual basis. Neither was this a part of the agreement between the JNUSU and the JNU administration. It is clear that by breaking ranks with the other office-bearers, the General Secretary of the JNUSU has become a party to the nefarious design of the JNU administration to politically victimize the JNUSU President and Joint Secretary. This is yet another instance of a sordid betrayal of the JNU student movement by the ultra-Left.

From glorifying the gherao of the Registrar after 19th February to the abject surrender before the administration by the General Secretary of the JNUSU and the activists of AISA and DSU, who paid their fines yesterday, the ultra-Left has traversed the entire cycle: from an act of sheer adventurism to an unprincipled and pathetic submission before the authorities. This does not surprise the SFI, since all this is typical of the ultra-Left. It fits so well Lenin’s description of the Left-deviation in the Communist movement: “The petty bourgeois ‘driven to frenzy’ by the horrors of capitalism [violation of minimum wages in JNU in the present case] is a social phenomenon which, like anarchism, is characteristic of all capitalist countries. The instability of such revolutionism [the gherao of 19th February], its barrenness [glorifying the gherao initially and denying it later], its liability to become swiftly transformed into submission [JNUSU General Secretary submitting an individual apology letter to the administration and AISA and DSU activists eventually paying fines], apathy, fantasy, and even a ‘frenzied’ infatuation with one or another bourgeois ‘fad’ [leveling false accusations against the SFI and the CPI (M) and blaming them for everything] — all this is a matter of common knowledge.” (Excerpt from Leftwing Communism, An Infantile Disorder).

The cynical attempts by the AISA and DSU to justify their crass surrender before the administration and payment of fines in their pamphlets yesterday also fits well Lenin’s description of “Leftwing Childishness”: “There could not be better confirmation, in political literature [AISA and DSU pamphlets issued yesterday], of the utter naïveté of the defence of petty-bourgeois sloppiness [paying the fines after calling them ‘unjust’] that is sometimes concealed by “Left” slogans [DSU pamphlet had the heading ‘Two Steps Forward, One Step Back’].” Writing on compromises, Lenin had written: “There are compromises and compromises. One must be able to analyze the situation and the concrete conditions of each compromise, or of each variety of compromise. One must learn to distinguish between a man who gave the bandits money and firearms in order to lessen the damage they can do [JNUSU and UGBM expressing regret on the 19th February incident] and facilitate their capture and execution, and a man who gives bandits money and firearms in order to share in the loot [JNUSU General Secretary submitting regret letter to the administration and AISA/DSU paying fines in order to fix the JNUSU President and Joint Secretary]…to reject compromises ‘on principle’ [like AISA and DSU], to reject the admissibility of compromises in general, no matter of what kind, is childishness, which it is difficult even to take seriously. A political leader who desires to be useful to the revolutionary proletariat must know how to single out concrete cases when such compromises are inadmissible, when they are an expression of opportunism and treachery, and direct all the force of criticism, the full edge of merciless exposure and relentless war, against those concrete compromises [the present surrender by the ultra-Left]…that is really tantamount to the worst kind of opportunism, treachery and betrayal.” (Excerpt from Leftwing Communism, An Infantile Disorder) In keeping with this understanding, the SFI hereby declares an ideological-political war against this opportunism, treachery and betrayal by the AISA and DSU.

AISA and DSU, through their actions have once again proved that ‘Left’ and rightwing deviations are two sides of the same coin. Writing in 1937 Comrade Mao Tse Tung had said: “We are opposed to die-hards in the revolutionary ranks whose thinking fails to advance with changing objective circumstances and has manifested itself historically as Right opportunism. These people fail to see that the struggle of opposites has already pushed the objective process forward while their knowledge has stopped at the old stage. [AISA and DSU have failed to realize that the valiant agitation fought under the JNUSU leadership has changed the objective situation] This is characteristic of the thinking of all die-hards. Their thinking is divorced from social practice and they cannot march ahead to guide the chariot of society, they simply trail behind, grumbling that it goes too fast and trying to drag it back or turn it in the opposite direction. [By submitting regret letters, paying fines and surrendering before the administration] We are also opposed to ‘Left’ phrase mongering. The thinking of ‘Leftists’ outstrips a given stage of development of the objective process; some regard their fantasies as truth, while others strain to realize in the present an ideal, which can only be realized in the future. They alienate themselves from the current practice of the majority of the people and from the realities of the day, and show themselves adventurist in their actions [the gherao of 19th February].” (Excerpts from On Practice)

The surrender and betrayal by the ultra-Left should not, however, be allowed to weaken the JNU student movement. SFI calls upon the JNUSU to launch an immediate agitation against the JNU administration demanding the revocation of fines imposed upon the JNUSU President and Joint Secretary and implementation of the agreement signed with the administration, involving enhancement of MCM scholarship, UGC fellowship and other demands. SFI calls upon the student community to rally behind the JNUSU to defend its prestige and sanctity and successful implementation of the agreement between the JNUSU and the JNU administration, which the latter is trying to violate.

Sd/- Roshan Kishore, President , SFI-JNU; Rajiv Kr Ranjan, Secretary, SFI-JNU.

SFI-AISF pamphlet on 9th Aug, '07

9/08/07

Unite against the authoritarian administration!!
Revoke all fines on rusticated students and JNUSU President and Jt Secretary!!
Isolate and defeat the opportunist politics of AISA &DSU!!

Friends,

The SFI AISF congratulates the student community for their spirited protest against the breach of agreement on the issue of revocation of punishments to 11 students by the administration. Yesterday’s protest march and a total strike in the university today has sent a strong signal to the administration that the student community would not tolerate such breach of faith by the administration and the completely unjustified and unethical fines imposed on the rusticated students and the JNUSU President and Jt Secy must be removed. We would appeal to the students to remain united behind the JNUSU in any future course of action decided by it. Only a rock solid unity of the student community would ensure that the JNU administration is forced to remove all these fines and implements its own agreement in letter and spirit.

The SFI AISF firmly believes that the JNUSU President and Jt Secy should not tender any kind of appeal to the administration to get their fines revoked. It is highly unfortunate that the Gen Secy of the JNUSU has given yet another appeal expressing regret to the administration in order to get his punishment revoked. As of now he is the only one among the 11 students who is not facing any kind of punishment. Unable to provide any explanation to the student community for this meek surrender in front of the administration the AISA and the DSU is accusing the JNUSU President and Jt Secy of breaking the agreement with the administration.

We would like to repeat some questions to the AISA which they have not answered so far. The AISA had accused that the JNUSU President and Jt Secy are violating the UGBM resolution by not submitting these appeals. We would like to ask the AISA that which UGBM resolution mandated the JNUSU office-bearers to tender another round of appeals to the administration. The UGBM clearly said that there should be an unconditional withdrawal of all punishments against these students. In fact it was the DSU which violated the UGBM mandate. The regret letters submitted by their suspended students after the UGBM said they regretted the inconvenience caused if any, which is a clear violation of the UGBM resolution. This is why the SFI AISF was opposed to submitting any kind of appeals to the administration when the agreement was being discussed in an all organization meeting. It was only when the rusticated students expressed their willingness to submit these appeals that we decided not to come in the resolution of this process. But as far as the JNUSU office-bearers are concerned there is no question of them giving yet another round of appeal. The agreement clearly mentions that all concerned students would be enabled to register on the basis of appeals submitted to the administration. The JNUSU office-bearers have not been denied their registration in the first place. And this is why the Gen Secretary’s act is all the more shameful where he and his organization have gone overboard in order to placate the administration.

We would also like to ask the AISA and the DSU whether or not they sincerely regret the incident which took palce on the 19th of February. Both of them had celebrated the Gherao in their pamphlets after the 19th. The AISA representatives had abstained on the resolution expressing regret moved by the SFI AISF in the council. The DSU also opposed the resolution of the council in the UGBM. In fact charges were leveled both by the AISA and the DSU that by expressing regret over what transpired on the 19th the JNUSU President and the SFI AISF had compromised with the legacy of struggles which the JNUSU has been known for. We would like to ask the AISA and the DSU that if they were so convinced about not expressing regret over the incident of 19th why did they do it at all?

This double speak is all the more interesting with the AISA. Ever since the 19th when in came to accepting within the student community that this incident was a regrettable one and was not in accordance with the democratic traditions of protest, which the JNU student movement is known for the AISA has had a lot of problems. But they did not have any problems in expressing regret in front of the administration at any point of time. Nothing else can explain their fiery revolutionary rhetorics against any kind of regret by individual students in the UGBM when all 3 suspended students form AISA including the JNUSU Gen Secretary had already submitted their individual regret letters.

Such double speak and political bankruptcy clearly reflects the degenerate and unprincipled stance of the ultra left vis-à-vis the JNU student movement in our campus. The SFI AISF and the student community no not need any lessons from them as on what constitutes the sanctity and prestige of the JNUSU. The sheer bankruptcy of their position emerges from the fact that within a span of 5 months they have arrived at a completely opposite stand on the question of regret. After 19th February it was being said that expressing regret would undermine the Sanctity of the JNUSU and now it is being argued that it the JNUSU President and Jt Secy do not give appeals they are undermining the Sanctity of the JNUSU. So much for their alternative model of the JNUSU! It is highly unfortunate that the ultra left is using the language of the administration and in a subtle manner of the right wing in the campus which has been saying that the JNUSU office bearers are the one who were the biggest culprits in the 19th February incident.

Acting in their typical petty bourgeoisie infantile style the DSU has accused the SFI AISF led JNUSU of tokenism in the name of protests. We would like to warn the DSU against such attacks on the JNU student movement which only shows their lack of understanding and commitment towards the JNUSU. We would like to make it clear to these ultra revolutionaries that movements and protests are not won on empty rhetoric but by mobilizing students against the administration. The entire campus had seen the steadfast commitment of the SFI AISF activists when they worked tirelessly during the agitation to ensure that all the unjust punishments against the 11 students were withdrawn. SFI AISF led JNUSU have had a glorious history of struggle against both authoritarian administrations as well as reactionary and right wing political attacks on the secular democratic culture of our campus. As far as tokenism is concerned we would also like to ask the DSU that why did their activists not come in the school (except a couple of them) to help the JNUSU enforce its strike in the morning. Was DSU showing only a token support for the JNUSU strike? The student community of this campus has always shown these ivory tower revolutionaries their due place in JNU and if they continue to indulge in baseless and unjustified attacks against the JNUSU then they would be given a fitting rebuff for this kind of opportunism and sectarian acts.

We also appeal to the AISA to stop spreading confusion and misinformation among the students and maintain a unity against this authoritarian administration. If their Gen Secretary does not have the spine to stand up against this administration in order to get his punishment revoked we would appeal to the AISA not to create any obstacles in this struggle. The students of this campus would not tolerate any breach of agreement by the administration or any attempt to browbeat the office of JNUSU which has been the vanguard of the student movement in this campus since the last 3 decades.

Sd/- Rajiv Kumar Ranjan, Secretary, SFI-JNU.

Sd/- Sanjay Kumar, Secretary, AISF-JNU.

SFI-AISF Pamphlet

RALLY BEHIND THE JNUSU TO UPHOLD ITS SANCTITY AND PRESTIGE!
EXPOSE THE HYPOCRISY AND SURRENDER BY THE ULTRA-LEFT!!
July 25, 2007

Dear Friends,

The pamphlet issued by AISA yesterday was yet another instance of their hypocrisy on the one hand and their failure to uphold the sanctity and prestige of the JNUSU on the other. AISA has made three claims in its pamphlet: (i) The JNUSU office-bearers from the SFI-AISF are violating UGBM resolutions regarding the incident on 19th February; (ii) The refusal of the JNUSU office-bearers from the SFI-AISF to submit letters of regret violates the agreement signed between the JNUSU and the administration and (iii) SFI-AISF is trying to break students’ unity. Each one of these arguments is fallacious and sinister.

Who is violating UGBM Resolutions?

The UGBM held on 8th March 2007 was held in the backdrop of the JNUSU Council meeting expressing regret for the 19th February incident (the AISA representatives abstained on voting in the Council). Following the Council meeting, the JNUSU office-bearers along with some other students who were suspended, had already expressed regret on the lines of the JNUSU Council resolution. It was the DSU which defied the Council Resolution and refused to express regret. The UGBM endorsed the JNUSU Council Resolution expressing regret on the 19th February incident and rejected the DSU line of not expressing regret. It further resolved that upon expression of regret there should be no disciplinary action on any student and therefore no Proctorial enquiry into the matter. The JNUSU President communicated the UGBM resolution to the administration the very next day and the Proctorial Enquiry was boycotted by the JNUSU. Nobody from the SFI-AISF ever went to depose before the Proctorial enquiry. However, the submission of regret letters by the suspended students of DSU following the UGBM, was not in keeping with the JNUSU resolution: they regretted the “inconvenience caused, if any”. That was a violation of the UGBM resolution by the DSU.

It was in keeping with the UGBM resolution that the JNUSU launched an agitation against the rustication of 8 students and fine imposed upon the office-bearers, under the leadership of the JNUSU President from SFI-AISF. When the Administration agreed to reconsider the punishment on the basis of an appeal expressing regret, the JNUSU office-bearers from SFI-AISF categorically refused to submit any appeal once again. It was the AISA and the General Secretary of the JNUSU who were more than willing to submit regret letters, disregarding the letter and spirit of the UGBM resolution. Since SFI-AISF understands the concerns of the rusticated students, whose student life is at stake, it did not oppose an agreement with the administration on this basis. However, submission of any regret letter by the JNUSU office-bearers was categorically opposed by the SFI-AISF because the UGBM never mandated the JNUSU office-bearers to express regret on an individual basis. The minutes of the JNUSU Council and all-organization meetings held at the administrative block before signing the agreement with the administration would clearly show the various positions in that debate. JNUSU office-bearers had already expressed regret on the lines of the JNUSU Council resolution even before the UGBM was held! Therefore, it is the General Secretary of the JNUSU from the AISA who owes an explanation to the student community for submitting another regret letter! Did the General Secretary of the JNUSU seek the opinion of the student community before submitting another regret letter? Afraid of confronting the administration any more, even on legitimate grounds, the General Secretary of the JNUSU has meekly surrendered before the administration. Now, in order to justify his act of cowardice and opportunism, the AISA is leveling baseless charges against the SFI-AISF of violating UGBM resolution. Let the AISA mention one resolution passed in the UGBM which mandates the JNUSU office-bearers to submit another regret letter.

Where is the Breach of the Agreement?

The AISA has correctly pointed out that the agreement with the administration states: “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”. However, that JNUSU office-bearers have to make an appeal for seeking registration by 14th August 2007 is indeed a strange interpretation of the agreement on AISA’s part because the JNUSU office-bearers have not been denied registration in the first place; they have only been fined. This agreement is only meant for those students who have been rusticated and hence denied registration. The SFI-AISF sticks to the position that the fines levied on the JNUSU office-bearers, on the basis of the charge that they were ‘unable to control the situation’, should be revoked unconditionally. The SFI-AISF would have liked to see all the punishments revoked unconditionally in keeping with the UGBM resolution. However, since the rusticated students had agreed to make an appeal to the administration expressing regret once again, the SFI-AISF did not want to stand in the way of the revocation of their rustication. However, if anybody has breached the agreement, in the sense of going overboard in placating the administration, it is the General Secretary of the JNUSU, because the administration has never demanded any regret by the JNUSU office-bearers in the first place. In fact the SFI-AISF is shocked and dismayed by this supine attitude displayed by the General Secretary who is trying to bend backwards to appease the administration. Would he have the backbone to face the administration ever again and fight against anti-student moves? We doubt it strongly. It is indeed shameful for the AISA to have allowed the General Secretary to submit a regret letter and then accusing the SFI-AISF of trying to be “good boys” before the administration. This is a classic case of hypocrisy.

Who is Disrupting Student Unity?

AISA has accused the SFI-AISF of disrupting the unity of the students. This is in keeping with their unethical and immoral politics. The JNUSU President is yet to recover from the after-effects of the arduous indefinite hunger strike that he led from the front against the punishment of the students and the students’ charter of demands. The entire university was witness to the steadfast commitment of the SFI-AISF activists to student unity when they worked tirelessly during the difficult agitation in order to make it a success. How easily the AISA glosses over these facts for sectarian ends. We want to ask some simple questions to the AISA. Do they genuinely regret the incident of 19th February? If so, who do they hold responsible for it? As far as the JNUSU office-bearers from the SFI-AISF are concerned, they did not participate in the gherao of the Registrar, but could not prevent it from happening. They have already offered regret for that. But some students did tie a rope around the car of the Registrar, some deflated the tyres, some smeared black paint on the car and one student climbed on the top of the car and shouted slogans. Who were they? Was there a “collective” decision of the JNUSU or the UGBM to indulge in all these acts? AISA should either categorically deny their role on 19th February (which we know they can’t because they issued a pamphlet celebrating the ‘gherao’) or accept responsibility for the same. If the AISA’s parameters for expressing solidarity with workers’ rights or upholding student unity imply lying to the student community or justifying these adventurist acts, we are sorry we cannot pass the test. The Proctorial enquiry has nothing to do with this: the JNUSU has already rejected the punishments based on the Proctorial enquiry and fought to reverse them. However, AISA should not suffer from the illusion that they can obfuscate their adventurist role on 19th February before the student community, riding piggy back upon the successful agitation led by the JNUSU. The students of JNU would expect them not to repeat such stupid feats in future, which discredit the JNU student movement. The sanctity and prestige of the JNUSU is supreme, since it embodies the collective spirit of the JNU student community. The JNUSU office-bearers from the SFI-AISF would not submit any more appeal expressing regret. SFI-AISF demands that their fines be revoked unconditionally. If AISA does not support this position, let them at least not come in the way. Any effort on their part to collude with the administration against the SFI-AISF would not be forgiven by the student community.

Sd/- Rajiv Kumar Ranjan, Secy. , SFI-JNU.

Sd/- Fauzan Abrar, Jt. Secy., AISF-JNU.

SFI-AISF pamphlet on Agitation

STUDENTS’ FEDERATION OF INDIA
ALL INDIA STUDENTS’ FEDERATION
July 21, 2007
On the Successful Struggle led by the JNU Students’ Union!!

Dear Friends,

The JNU Students’ Union, under the leadership of the SFI-AISF, recently led a successful struggle against the rustication of 8 student activists, fines on three office bearers of the JNUSU and the students’ charter of demands including issues like increase in Merit-Cum-Means scholarships etc. The agitation was a prolonged and difficult one, especially because it was fought during the summer vacations when most of the students were not present in the campus. The JNUSU carried this struggle for 18 days including 12 days of indefinite hunger strike by the JNUSU President Dhananjay along with the JNUSU Vice-President and 4 other students. The JNU administration, which had tried to browbeat the student movement by victimizing student activists, had to finally relent and accept the demands of the JNUSU.

Adventurism of the Ultra-Left on 19th February

The present tenure of the JNUSU, the leadership of which is divided between SFI-AISF and the ultra-Left AISA, has seen two starkly different approaches towards the student movement. In the month of November, last year, the JNUSU along with some concerned student activists had raised the issue of violation of minimum wages for contract workers at various construction sites in JNU. A memorandum was submitted to this effect to the administration, which came out with only a halfhearted response and refused to take the matter seriously. A movement was gradually building up when things took an ugly turn because of an adventurist act by the ultra-Left.

On 19th February 2007, a demonstration called by the JNUSU was converted into a sudden gherao of the Registrar inside his car. On the Registrar’s instruction, posters demanding minimum wages for workers had been torn off from the administration block the same morning. The car of the Registrar was tied up with a rope while he was inside it, black paint smeared on it, posters pasted on the car and its tyres deflated. One student even climbed above the car and shouted slogans. Ultra-Left activists from the AISA (ML-Liberation) and the DSU (Maoists) took the lead in the gherao. 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. Following the gherao, teachers from different departments came to appeal to the students to release the Registrar. They talked to the JNU administration and assured dialogue with students on the minimum wage issue. However, in characteristic ultra-Left style, they were called dalals of the administration and humiliated. It was indeed very unfortunate that teachers, who have always been the democratic ally of the JNU students in struggles against anti-student moves by the administration, were treated with such contempt. Ultimately, the gherao was lifted after 6 hours. This incident marked a new low in the politics of JNU.

However, rather than realizing the extent of adventurism that they had indulged in, a hunger strike was started on the same night and a flash strike called the next morning demanding an ‘apology’ from the JNU Administration for tearing off posters. The flash strike saw another round of ugly episodes with the teaching community. Pamphlets celebrating the gherao and calling the teaching community ‘arrogant’ were distributed in the campus. Things were moving in a dangerous direction. The JNU Teacher’s Association came out with an urgent appeal to the administration as well as the students not to precipitate matters. The JNUSU office-bearers and councillors from SFI-AISF demanded an immediate Council Meeting of the JNUSU to consider the appeal issued by the JNUTA. With the General Secretary of the JNUSU from the AISA squarely refusing to call a meeting of the JNUSU Council, the SFI-AISF decided to dissociate from the ongoing agitation. This dissociation was blithely labelled by the ultra-Left as ‘betrayal’ of workers’ rights.

The JNU administration wasted no time in cracking down on the students. Suspension orders were served to 10 students including the JNUSU President and Joint Secretary from the SFI-AISF. Some karamcharis who had participated in the agitation were also suspended. Crass adventurism displayed by the ultra-Left on 19th February in JNU created a tense atmosphere in the campus. It was in this backdrop that the SFI-AISF took the lead in salvaging the situation. At the behest of the SFI-AISF, a formal Council Meeting of the JNUSU held on 23rd February resolved to express regret for the 19th February incident (AISA representatives abstained on the resolution). This was followed by a massive Joint Public Meeting of the JNUSU, JNUTA, JNU Karmachari Association and JNU Officers’ Association to reaffirm the democratic traditions of JNU and demanded the withdrawal of the suspension orders served against the students and karamcharis. The meeting was addressed by several senior faculty members including Profs. Prabhat Patnaik, Jayati Ghosh, CP Chandrashekhar, Kamal Mitra Chenoy, Anuradha Chenoy, Purushottam Agarwal, Arun Kumar, Vivek Kumar, Ranjini Majumdar, Vikas Rawal, K.J.Mukherjee and Chamanlal (who is the JNUTA President). All the faculty members criticized the gherao of the Registrar and urged upon the JNUSU and the students not to precipitate matters. While upholding the legitimacy of the struggle for ensuring minimum wages for workers, the faculty members said that struggles in JNU have to be conducted in keeping with the democratic ethos of the university. Prof. Prabhat Patnaik said that JNU is a premier institution of higher learning in the country which is leading the intellectual battle against neoliberalism and imperialism. Nothing should be done to vitiate the impeccable academic environment in the campus and weaken the institution.

Correcting the Aberration

The JNUSU office-bearers from the SFI-AISF argued that the incident of 19th February was an
unfortunate aberration in the student movement. Numerous movements have been conducted in JNU under the SFI-AISF led JNUSU in the past where democratic forms of protest have, without an exception, led to fulfilment of the demands being raised. Significant struggles were waged over the past few years through democratic means; for building more hostels, constituting the GSCASH, rejection of the X Plan Proposals, enhancing the MCM scholarship etc; all of which were successful in mobilizing large sections of students and other sections of the university community and finally compelling the administration to concede the legitimate demands of the students. Indulging in adventurist acts in the name of protest has never been the tradition of the JNU student movement. Such acts indulged in by handful of students discredit the student movement, undermine its legitimacy, isolate the JNUSU from other sections of the university community and strengthen the hands of the administration. The worst
form of such reckless adventurism was seen in 1983, which led to the eventual sine die closure of the university, for which the JNU student movement had to pay a heavy price.

It was precisely for this reason that the SFI-AISF decided to take the initiative to make a course correction and bring the student movement back on track. The JNU administration initially constituted a three-member committee of Professors to deal with the entire matter. Out of the 10 students who were suspended, 6 expressed regret over the 19th February incident through individual letters, reiterating the JNUSU Council resolution. Based on this, their suspensions were withdrawn on 7th March. The DSU initially defied the JNUSU Council Resolution and took a position that they would not express regret over the incident. A University General Body Meeting (which is the highest decision making body of students as per the JNUSU Constitution) held on 8th March endorsed the JNUSU resolution expressing regret and rejected the DSU position of not expressing regret for the 19th February incident. After the UGBM, the DSU made a volte-face and submitted letters of regret to the administration on 13th March. This opportunistic posturing of the DSU did not go down well within the student community. However, the JNUSU office-bearers from SFI-AISF took the position that no disciplinary action should be taken by the administration after the students have expressed regret. The suspensions of the remaining 4 students were withdrawn on 16th March 2007. The SFI-AISF also took a position that in view of the regret expressed collectively by the JNUSU Council, the UGBM as well as the individual students who were suspended, there was no case for a separate Proctorial enquiry into the matter.

Administration’s high-handedness Meets Resistance

Though the suspension orders were revoked, the JNU administration had not abandoned its intention of coming down heavily on the student movement using the 19th February incident as a pretext. Despite the regret expressed by the JNUSU Council, the UGBM and individually by the students concerned, the administration rusticated 8 students and imposed a fine of Rs. 2000 each on three JNUSU office bearers. This order was served on 22nd June during the summer vacations as part of a well thought out plan by the administration. The ABVP and the Youth For Equality, true to their reactionary and anti-student character, came out in open support of the administration’s action and even went to the extent of demanding harsher punishment for the JNUSU office-bearers. In this backdrop, the JNUSU under the leadership of the SFI-AISF, launched an immediate agitation against the high-handedness of the administration arguing that after the expressions of regret both collectively and individually by students, such harsh punishments were totally unacceptable.

A relay hunger strike was started on 23rd June demanding revocation of punishments as well as the fulfilment of the long pending students’ charter of demands, including workers’ rights. The understanding behind combining these two issues was that the administration had come out with these punishments precisely to scuttle the positive agenda of the JNUSU. The Charter of demands included increasing the amount of MCM scholarship for B.A/M.A./M.Sc/M.C.A students from Rs. 1000 to Rs. 1500, to ensure that the scholarships announced by the UGC for research scholars be given with retrospective effect from July 2005, to bring gender violence under the purview of the GSCASH, to democratise the Equal Opportunity Office, to accept aleemeyat/fazeelat certificates for admissions to B.A 1st year, to build a mechanism to ensure minimum wages for workers and some other demands. After 6 days of relay hunger strike, the administration far from relenting went ahead and implemented the punishments by double-locking the rooms of the rusticated students. The JNUSU decided to intensify the agitation in response and an indefinite hunger strike was started from the night of 30th June led by the President of the JNUSU.

The JNU administration initially adopted a tough posture and the VC held a press conference to justify the punishments on the basis of the 19th February incident, conveniently avoiding any mention of the regret expressed by the JNUSU, the UGBM and the individual students. This created widespread discontent against the administration within the university community. The administration had clearly underestimated the strength of the JNU student movement and the goodwill and support it enjoys both within and outside the campus. The agitation gathered momentum, when a host of former JNUSU office-bearers, including former JNUSU President Sitaram Yechury came to JNU and addressed a massive public meeting in solidarity with the agitation on 7th July. Other former JNUSU office bearers who addressed that meeting were D. P. Tripathi, Prof. Anand Kumar, Prof. Ajay Patnaik, Amit Sengupta, Kavita Krishnan and Albeena Shakil. All the speakers drew instances from their own experiences as office-bearers of the JNUSU and upheld the legitimacy of the present agitation. They argued that the strength and maturity of the student movement of JNU was that it could correct itself on its own if any mistakes were committed in the course of a struggle, without any ‘external’ correctives like disciplinary actions by the administration. In a move that enthused the student community of JNU, Sitaram Yechury while commending the JNUSU for having expressed regret on the unfortunate incident of 19th February, gave a 48-hour ultimatum to the administration to open dialogue with the JNUSU; otherwise he said that the matter will no longer remain within the confines of JNU and would become a national issue. He also said that while at times an eagle may fly lower than a hen; a hen could never attain the towering heights, which an eagle can. “The JNUSU is the eagle and the administration is the hen”, said Com. Yechury amidst thunderous applause. Within 48 hours the JNU administration opened dialogue with the JNUSU.

Struggle Culminates Successfully

On the 12th day of the indefinite hunger strike after three days of prolonged dialogue, the administration was compelled to agree to the just demands of the JNUSU. In the agreement signed with the JNUSU, the administration has agreed that all the rusticated students would be given registration by 14th August (last day of registration for monsoon semester) on the basis of an appeal expressing regret. This agitation also succeeded in making substantial gains vis-à-vis the students’ charter of demands. The JNU administration has agreed in principle to start the M.Phil/PhD scholarship with effect from July 2005 and would pursue the matter with the UGC. The MCM scholarship for B.A/M.A./MCA/M.SC students has been increased to Rs.1500 per month from Rs.1000 per month and the family income cap for eligibility for MCM scholarship has been raised from Rs.75000 per annum to Rs. 1 lakh per annum. The issue of inclusion of gender violence in the purview of the GSCASH in the light of the Domestic Violence Bill has been sent for discussions at the School level. The administration has also agreed to set up a permanent body comprising students, teachers and karamcharis to monitor and ensure minimum wages for all casual workers. The recommendations of the equivalence committee for recognition of madarsa certificates in JNU will be pursued with the HRD Ministry by the administration. The process of democratising the Equal Opportunity Office will also be expedited. All these achievements were registered despite a nefarious attempt by the NSUI to
sabotage the agreement between the JNUSU and the administration at the last moment through backdoor manipulations.

As far as the fines imposed upon the JNUSU office-bearers are concerned, the SFI-AISF has taken the position that they should be revoked unconditionally. The ultra-Left, including the General Secretary of the JNUSU from AISA, insisted that the JNUSU office-bearers should also express regret once again in writing. The SFI-AISF has rejected this position on the basis of three arguments: (i) The JNUSU office-bearers have already communicated to the administration in writing the JNUSU Council resolution expressing regret on the 19th February incident. The UGBM, which is the highest decision making body of the students, have also collectively expressed regret. There is no reason why the JNUSU office-bearers should express regret individually once again. (ii) The fines imposed upon the JNUSU office-bearers are on the grounds that they were ‘unable to control the situation’ while those who were rusticated have been held responsible for specific acts like deflating the tyre of the Registrar’s car, tainting the car with black paint, using abusive language and instigating students for the act. It is clear that the JNUSU office-bearers were not personally involved in any of the adventurist acts on 19th February in any way — they have been fined only because they are JNUSU office-bearers. (iii) The AISA and the DSU had initially celebrated the 19th February gherao as an act of heroism and it was only after the initiative taken by the JNUSU office-bearers from the SFI-AISF and the appeal issued by the JNUTA that they realized their folly. AISA abstained from voting in the JNUSU Council on the resolution expressing regret. While they subsequently changed their position in the UGBM and stood by the Council resolution, the DSU opposed the Council resolution terming it a sell-out to the administration and refused to express any regret. It was only after their line was rejected by the UGBM that they made a volte-face and submitted letters of regret, that too for ‘inconvenience caused, if any’. In contrast, the SFI-AISF has taken a principled position right from the beginning that the 19th February incident was an aberration, argued for expressing regret for the same and held that any disciplinary action following the expression of regret would be unacceptable and fought tooth and nail. After having walked the talk, there is absolutely no question of the JNUSU office-bearers expressing regret once again. In fact SFI-AISF is also opposed to the General Secretary of the JNUSU from AISA submitting a regret letter, which for some strange reason he himself wants to do. The JNUSU officebearers, being elected representatives of the student community, have to defend the sanctity of their office against efforts by the administration to browbeat them.

Sd/-
Rajiv Kumar Ranjan, Secretary, SFI-JNU.

Sanjay Kumar, Secretary, AISF-JNU.