- Abhishek Pratap Singh
Abstract: The language of judgement granting bail to JNUSU president can possibly set the tone in right direction for JNU in future.
The ongoing controversy over the issue of Anti-national protests in Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU), New Delhi on 9 February, 2016 seems to be ending nowhere in future. In addition, the incident which has been a dominant subject of discussion and analysis in public discourse, media, civil society groups and political leadership. It has also raised some ‘relevant questions’ on the issue of understanding nationalism, freedom of expression and academic autonomy at large. All these issues together hold significance to our national development and democratic model.
Meanwhile the grant of bail to Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU) president Kanhaiya Kumar, after being in custody for 18 days in Tihar jail, and the language of judgement delivered holds key significance for the JNU community in future. Interestingly, some sections which hailed the reading as half victory reflect ‘poor sense of judgement’ about things which necessitate serious introspection about our thoughts, actions and its purpose. It clearly states that the matter is at ‘nascent stage of investigation’ and it is a “kind of infection from which such students are suffering which needs to be controlled/cured before it becomes an epidemic”.
Making sense for inculcating the ‘value of nationalism’ judgement begins by quoting some patriotic lines of the song Mere Desh Ki Dharti and noted that, “why this spring colour of peace is eluding the prestigious Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU)” and sought its answer from its students, faculty members and those managing the affairs. Perhaps it was an ‘eyeopening remark’ for those who seem to have been lost and have misunderstood the ‘meaning of nationalism’ in the name of freedom of expression and larger academic autonomy. What purpose our education will serve if we end up breeding our minds with ‘anti India sentiments’ rather motivating them towards ‘solution of problems’ of our very society.
The judgement while granting the bail order expresses concern over, “the nature of serious allegation against him” and makes a point that, “As President of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union (JNUSU), the petitioner was expected to be responsible and accountable for any anti- national event organised in the campus”. The language is simple enough to make an argument for ‘truthful discharge of duties’ for those in administrations and in seeks from them in future not to promote or be part of or a sympathizer of anti-national activities in campus.
Similarly, on the logic of exercising ‘freedom of expression’ as provided by our constitution, it notes very clearly that, “they are enjoying this freedom only because our borders are guarded by our armed and military forces”. It possibly throws a ‘strong lesson’ for those who have been engaged in such activities in JNU campus in the name of freedom of expression. Moreover, the judgement also makes a very critical point of our polity establishing balance between rights and duties. It notes that, “fundamental duties of every citizen have been specified along with the fact that rights and duties are two sides of the same coin” and “can be subjected to reasonable restrictions under Article 19(2) of our Constitution.”. Every right has to be supplemented by duty and this is how our constitutional model based on rule of law and limited government must be build upon.
An educational institution and its atmosphere have much to do with the ideological inclination of its faculty and related staff. It might not be always about quality of teaching rather ‘subject of teaching’ which may possibly alter the basic purpose of education. For example, a reading of Tagore’s ‘critique of nationalism’ will end up identifying it with war, destruction and loss of humanity while the ‘school of multiculturalism’ will seek to promote ‘nation building’ based on celebration of plurality and diversity. Hence, a fine balance between different opinions and subjects must be allowed subject to constitutional obligations.
We need to be careful in our understanding of this ‘false narrative’ based on exercise of absolute freedom and academic autonomy. To be credible is more important than to be just independent. We need to ‘first educate and then empower’ rather than adhering to the vice versa process which has possible backfires. Hence, as the judgement goes on it calls for the ‘guiding role’ and ‘remedial measures’ by the JNU faculty to set the right path in order to avoid resurrection of such incidents in future.
To conclude, in between all this, the larger question which remains unanswered is how the image of university like JNU which has been tarnished be restored and what lesson we can impart for our future. Democracy may not be perfect but it allows constant process of course correction. And every individual needs to understand fundamental of republic unity and must reflect upon it in his thought, action and behavior. Perhaps the judgement of court and its language might set the tone for JNU in right direction in future. Being a part of JNU community I wish for this.
(Author is Doctoral Candidate, Centre for East Asian Studies, Jawaharalal Nehru University, New Delhi)
