Pamphlet 1 February 2010

AISA’s Panic and Confusion on JNUSU Elections: A Rejoinder

AISA has once again chosen to heap abuses on the SFI and mislead the student community through its pamphlet dated 31^st January. That they are thoroughly confused and unwilling to take any constructive initiative is borne out by the way they have willfully distorted the arguments in favour of holding the elections as per the JNUSU constitution and avoided addressing the core issues.

PRESENT STATUS OF THE COURT CASE

The ongoing case regarding the JNUSU elections had taken a turn on 11^th November, when the matter was referred to a 5 judge constitution bench. The questions posed before the 5 judge bench, inter alia, include the very constitutional validity of the Lyngdoh Committee and its recommendations. Now the 5 judge bench will deliberate on constitutional issues and is likely to take 3 to 5 years to arrive at a judgement. The question before the student community is, how to respond to this new situation? AISA and the JNUSU office bearers have singularly failed to come up with a meaningful response even after 2 months of the 11^th November development. SFI along with some other student organisations have put forward a concrete proposal. It is highly unfortunate that rather than engaging with that proposal, AISA is indulging in cheap slander and mud slinging against the SFI and unnecessarily creating paranoia about contempt of court. Let us cool headedly consider the available options before the student community in the backdrop of the 11^th November development.

OPTIONS BEFORE US

1. Keep on extending the tenure of the incumbent JNUSU for a period which might stretch up to 5 years. This is not a workable option since the JNUSU will get irreparably weakened with such a prolonged ad-hoc status.

2. Hold JNUSU elections by accepting Lyngdoh Committee recommendations. This is what the JSC lawyer has also suggested in a roundabout way by adopting an “internal mechanism” where candidates do not violate the age and repetition criteria. But the choice of having elections as per the Lyngdoh recommendations was available right from November 2008, when the Supreme Court had first stayed the elections. This was not accepted by the student community. Rather, a JSC was formed after a UGBM which challenged the imposition of the Lyngdoh recommendations in JNU in the Court. Two JNUSU elections were sacrificed due to the ongoing case, only because the students were not willing to accept the Lyngdoh recommendations and wanted to defend the JNUSU Constitution. Accepting the Lyngdoh recommendations at this point of time would render this entire struggle irrelevant. Moreover, accepting the Lyngdoh recommendations at a time when the Supreme Court itself is deliberating on its constitutional validity, would amount to missing an opportunity that has opened up before us.

3. In contrast to the above two options, the third option available is to hold the elections in this semester itself in accordance with the JNUSU elections. SFI, along with AIDSO, AISF, DSU and PSU, has held that this is the best option in the given situation.

THE ROADMAP

The forthcoming UGBM can pass a resolution in favour of holding elections as per the JNUSU Constitution. If such a resolution is passed, the election process can begin with the convening of the School GBMs and the election of the Election Committee. If this is challenged in the Supreme Court or if it takes suo motu cognizance, the JNU students would be asked to explain their stand. AISA is unnecessarily creating panic by suggesting that this would amount to contempt and therefore a sudden crackdown on students. This is a gross misreading of the situation (whether deliberate or otherwise). Why should the same Supreme Court, which is now deliberating on the constitutional validity of the Lyngdoh recommendations itself, crackdown on the JNU students for being unwilling to accept the Lyngdoh recommendations! In fact, it is likely that the Supreme Court agrees with the position of the JNU students and restores the JNUSU constitution, at least till the final verdict on Lyngdoh Committee is delivered. It may of course disagree with the JNU students and issue specific directives on JNUSU elections. The question of contempt will arise only if the JNU students willfully defy those specific directives. In sum, AISA is prejudging the stand of the Supreme Court on the matter, getting panicky and spreading that confusion.

The crux of the matter is whether we make a whole hearted attempt to restore the JNUSU constitution in the light of the developments in the Court case on 11^th November 2009. Rather than being evasive on this count and unnecessarily complicating matters by writing abusive and verbose pamphlets, AISA as well as the JNUSU office bearers would do well to spell out their position on this core issue.

Sd/- Lenin, President SFI-JNU                                                     Sd/- P.K.Anand, Secretary SFI-JNU

Pamphlet 25 January 2010

AISA must come out clearly on its position on Restoring JNUSU Election!! Why beat around the bush?

Why such tentativeness, ambiguity and inertia in taking a clear and concrete stand??

AISA’s pamphlet issued yesterday has created some confusion on the issue of the restoration of JNUSU elections. In the first half of the pamphlet, AISA has stated that the elections have to be held at the earliest to ensure due representation of students and that the JNUSU Constitution must be defended against every onslaught. But it complains that there is no roadmap available to carry this agenda forward. Then it goes on to brand all the other organizations who have taken the position that the JNUSU elections should now be held in accordance with the JNUSU Constitution as sectarian and driven by oneupmanship! What does one conclude from this?

AISA has stated: "All suggestions including holding of JNUSU elections according to JNUSU Constitution must be explored with an open mind in consultation with larger campus community and beyond, given the present context of the ongoing case". But what is AISA's position on the issue? That should first be made clear, especilly because all the JNUSU office bearers are from the AISA. They should clarify as to whether “exploring all options with an open mind” also means agreeing to the JSC lawyer’s opinion of holding elections by adhering to the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee? That is the crux of the matter. There is no point beating around the bush.

SFI is of the opinion that given the referral of the very constitutional validity of the Lyngdoh committee to a five judge bench, accepting its recommendations to conduct JNUSU elections at this stage does not make sense, from either a legal or political point of view. In view of the changed nature of the court proceedings, the students of JNU can decide through a University General Body Meeting to conduct the elections according to the JNUSU Constitution and an Election Committee can be subsequently elected through School GBMs as per the Constitution. If the UGBM agrees on having the elections as per the JNUSU Constitution, this can happen smoothly. If this is challenged in the Supreme Court, the case can be eminently argued. The Supreme Court would get to know that the students of JNU want the restoration of the JNUSU Constitution and not the Lyngdoh committee recommendations. Given that the Supreme Court is itself is deliberating on the constitutional validity of the Lyngdoh committee, it may agree with the JNU students at least till the final judgement is delivered on the Lyngdoh committee.

AISA's ambiguous position on the issue can either be interpreted as a do-nothing approach or a meek submission to the Lyngdoh recommendations, which the JSC has fought till date. It is unfortunate that the organisation that is supposed to provide leadership to the JNUSU is so tentative and confused on the issue. To conceal its own indecisiveness and inertia, it is cynically abusing other student organisations of sectarianism. Such defeatism will only harm the collective cause of restoring the JNUSU elections. 

SFI appeals to the JNUSU office bearers to adopt a pro-active approach in this regard. An UGBM should be convened at a suitable date, giving adequate time for consultations within the student community, especially within and between the student organisations, so that a broad based consensus emerges on the issue. SFI is committed to work for a firm and decisive mandate to hold JNUSU elections in this semester according to the JNUSU Constitution.

Lenin, President, SFI-JNU                                                                P.K.Anand, Secretary, SFI-JNU

Pamphlet dated 22nd Nov, '07

Friends,

The Left and democratic movements in our country have always sought to mobilize the people to advance the people’s interests by resisting the anti-people policies through unity of all the progressive sections against imperialism and to maintain secularism and social justice. In this endeavour, the student movement plays a very important role, which has led from the front to thwart the agenda of communalization and commercialization of education along with waging numerous struggles to achieve various pertinent demands of the student community. However, today the student movement in our country is faced with tough challenges. On the one hand, the Lyngdoh Committee recommendations on student union elections has posed serious hurdles in the path of the student movement, thereby impeding the autonomous functioning of student bodies. On the other hand, there is the question of campus violence wherein the role of right-wing organizations like the ABVP and NSUI has been to impede the path of genuine democratic struggles waged by the students by indulging in the politics of money and muscle. As witnessed in the case of the killing of Prof. Sabharwal in Ujjain or the recent killing of ASI Elias in Changanassery in Kerala, the ABVP has tried to use violence as their agenda. Even in our own campus, the ABVP had repeatedly indulged in lumpenism and violence, whether it during the visit of Ashok Singhal in 2002, SAR Geelani in 2004 or the violence during last Presidential Debate. The attack on a minority student in Lohit hostel by the ABVP lumpen Sudhanshu is also part of the gameplan of these lumpen elements to impose their communal agenda in the campus. However, the JNU students have time and again thoroughly defeated these forces. We request the JNUSU to initiate a struggle to ensure that the lumpen elements involved in violence in Lohit as well as during the Presidential Debate are given strict punishments. In the course of the struggles by the student movement, numerous sacrifices have also been made. This is best exemplified by the life of Comrade Simon Britto. Comrade Simon Britto Rodrigues is a veteran SFI leader in Kerala, and is now a nominated member of the Kerala Legislative Assembly. He was a leading face in the student activism of the State, participating in numerous struggles. In 1983, when he was SFI State Vice-President, he was attacked and stabbed by KSU-Congress(I) goons. So bloody was the attack that he had to spend 3 months bed-ridden leaving his body was paralyzed spine down. The doctors had given up hopes on him. But by sheer courage and determination, he got back to life, thereby earning the title of “Living Martyr”. Despite having to move in a wheel chair, he worked tirelessly for the CPI (M) and even campaigned extensively during the Assembly elections in April-May 2006. We appeal to the students to attend the public meeting tonight in large numbers to listen to his experiences and to discuss the larger question of Campus Violence & Democratic Rights.

Public Talk on

CAMPUS VIOLENCE & DEMOCRATIC RIGHTS

Speaker: Comrade Simon Britto, Former SFI Kerala State Vice-President & Hon'ble Member (Nominated), Kerala Assembly.

22/11/07 (Tonight)

Sutlej Mess

9.15 pm

Sd/- Roshan, President, SFI-JNU.

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

JNUSU Notice on Lyngdoh Committee

28-08-07

Friends,

The HRD Ministry as well as the UGC have sent letters to the JNU Administration urging it to implement the recommendations of the Lyngdoh commission with regard to conduct of the JNUSU elections. The Administration in turn has forwarded the letter to the JNUSU President for a response on behalf of the JNUSU. While the formal response of the JNUSU has to await a consultative process within the student community, certain points should be mentioned at the outset.

• Immediately after the constitution of the Lyngdoh Committee, the JNUSU President who was the Vice-President at that time met the Committee and expressed our views there. In front of the committee the JNUSU opined that the election process in JNU is a unique process where the entire JNUSU as well as the JNUSU Election Committee derives its strength and legitimacy from the student community and not the Administration through a continuous democratic process of debates and discussions. We urged upon the Lyngdoh Committee to consider the JNUSU election process as a model for the entire country. The history of student movement in JNU bears witness to the fact that the JNUSU elections are devoid of the use of money and muscle power which has become a menace in most of the universities of the country.
• In this light, we believe that the JNUSU election process guided by the JNUSU Constitution has no provision for any interference of the JNU Administration. Therefore, the question of any such intervention in our university does not arise.
• It is to the credit of the consciousness of the student community in JNU that any organization using muscle power or money power are democratically rejected by the students, which has ensured that this menace does not infect our campus. The Lyngdoh Committee or the Supreme Court’s concern regarding this becomes irrelevant in the case of our university.
• As per the recommendations of the Lyngdoh Committee, there is an age limit for students’ to contest elections, which is 28 years for research students. JNU is a campus where majority of the students are research scholars. Hence any imposition of age limit will only exclude a large section of the student community from the democratic process of elections in our university. The committee also proposes 75% minimum attendance to be eligible to contest elections. In our university where no attendance record is officially maintained, with a majority of students being research scholars, this recommendation too is irrelevant in the case of JNU.
• The Lyngdoh committee also recommends that candidates will have only one opportunity to contest the elections for office-bearers. This will completely restrict the democratic rights of candidates to contest for the four office-bearers post one at a time.
• The Committee also recommends that students against whom disciplinary action have been taken by the University authorities cannot contest elections. In the last semester itself we witnessed how the JNU Administration took completely unjustified disciplinary actions against student activists. This recommendation in a sense gives the Administration the opportunity to settle political scores with union leaders.

The JNUSU Elections is one of the defining features of our University which gives our university a unique place in student movement of our country. As has been mentioned earlier, without any recommendation of any committee, the JNU student community showed utmost maturity to contest the election in the most democratic and peaceful manner, never giving any opportunity to either the Administration or the police to interfere in the election process. We are confident that this year too, the JNU students will conduct the elections in the most democratic manner, keeping up to the democratic ethos of our campus leaving no scope for the Administration or any other external agency to intervene. In this light we believe that the JNUSU Election should be conducted according to the JNUSU Constitution. The JNUSU will be shortly starting a broader discussion on this issue. The copies of the letter sent to us by the Government as well as the JNU Administration will be available in the JNUSU office from tomorrow to enable all the organizations and concerned individuals to know all the issues involved and frame their positions vis-à-vis this issue.

Sd/- Dhananjay, President, JNUSU; Jyotsna, Jt.Secy, JNUSU.