JNU row: When the pillars of democracy failed India

On February 9, an allegedly seditious event took place at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU). The event in question was supposedly against what the organisers termed as "the judicial killing of Afzal Guru" and "in solidarity with the struggle of the Kashmiri people for their democratic right to self-determination."

Questioning Afzal Guru's trial

As mature citizens of a democratic republic, we need to be mindful of two things. Firstly, questions concerning the fairness of the trial extended to Afzal Guru have been around for a decade now. Besides the much reviled Booker prize winning author Arundhati Roy, even former Supreme Court Justice Markandey Katju has held Afzal Guru's trial to be unfair. Mainstream political parties in Kashmir like National Conference (NC) and People's Democratic Party (PDP) have also echoed reservations in relation to Afzal Guru's trial.

One can disagree with the claims made by the supporters of Afzal Guru and point out to the barrage of evidence against him. It can range from the tens of prosecution witnesses produced in court against Afzal to the recoveries made from the flats where the terrorists stayed before executing the attack on Parliament. The said claims can also be countered and one can move over to the controversy concerning the execution and rights of prisoners. Democracy enables citizens to disagree.

Just because we tend to disagree with a certain thought process doesn't mean that the thought itself is seditious or anti-national. If we'd go by that logic, why should one even spare Justice Katju and others? They (including political leaders) too should be in jail for speaking out in favour of Afzal Guru along with JNU students. The charge doesn't stand. Merely because a person holds the opinion that Afzal Guru wasn't extended a fair trial does not make him anti-national. There are many people who think that way and they haven't initiated any war on India. Therefore, it is preposterous to accuse them of sedition.

Overlooking pro-freedom movement in Kashmir

Another thing which we cannot afford to overlook while sitting in our drawing rooms is the pro-freedom struggle in Kashmir and others parts of North East India. It has thousands of supporters and pro-freedom slogans in Kashmir aren't a new thing. As always, one can engage and question the future of an independent state bordered by three nuclear powers. Will such a state be able to sustain itself?

Secondly, how feasible would it be for Kashmir to merge with Pakistan at a time when Pakistan itself is being portrayed as a failed state? We also have to realise the opposition to the freedom struggle of Kashmir by Jammu and Kashmir's linguistic and religious minorities particularly the Kashmiri Pandits.

Lastly, there can be arguments vis-a-vis the holding of plebiscite and how Pakistan has so far failed to demilitarise the area thereby not creating conducive conditions for the holding of a plebiscite. There are several viewpoints. We can disagree without being in disagreement. We should learn to engage rather than outrage and win people over by means of reason and argument.

But let's say this out loud: thousands of Kashmiri people and others in the Northeast have a right to peacefully talk about secession. You can't be putting people behind bars for shouting pro-freedom slogans. If we do so then a scenario would emerge wherein our prisons would run out of space as pro-freedom sentiment is very much popular among people living in Kashmir and the Northeast.

Simply because they have a viewpoint (right to self determination and secession) which we may disagree with doesn't make them criminals liable to be tried for sedition until and unless they are involved in violent, terroristic activities against the state.

Objectionable slogans were indeed chanted

But there is no denying of the fact that certain objectionable slogans were indeed raised in JNU on February 9. Advocacy of secession or demand of Kashmir's independence has to be done in a peaceful manner. An individual can bat for self determination calmly.

But raising slogans like "Bharat ki barbadi tak jung rahegi, jung rahegi (The war will be on till the destruction of India)," "Bharat tere tukkde honge Insha-Allah, Insha-Allah (God willing, India will be split)" and "Bandook ki dum pe lenge azaadi (Will obtain freedom at gunpoint)" are unintelligent and outside of the ambit of free speech. There is something inherently violent in the vocabulary of such slogans and hence they can't be tolerated.

Freedom of speech guaranteed under Article 19 of the Constitution is not an absolute right and subject to reasonable restrictions pertaining to public order, security of the state and sovereignty and integrity of India. But was it appropriate to invoke sedition charges against the students? "If some student did something offensive, go ahead and haul him up but let the university take action. It has enough disciplinary powers," said former RAW Chief AS Dulat in an interview to Catch News.

He added that "we value plurality as a core value and freedom to dissent is a part of that. One has to evaluate the significance of the provocation. Is there a real threat? Responses should be proportionate, not go overboard. Of course, freedom does not mean complete license. As I said, if some students have crossed the line, they can be suspended or thrown out. But bringing the police into universities is not good. Slapping sedition charges also seems excessive."

Will the ultra-nationalists also brand the former RAW chief as anti-national for saying that sedition charges were an over the top reaction since there was no "real threat" which would have amounted to inciting violence? The university should have been allowed to take disciplinary action. The university could have suspended or rusticated students but the matter was handled so roughly that it snowballed into a major crisis.

Ironically, what became the central talking point was not what was said at JNU on February 9 but the government's unwarranted crackdown afterwards which led to the arrest of JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar.

Kashmiri students should surrender

It is an open secret now that the students who were raising certain provocative statements were from Kashmir and most of them were not even part of JNU. In fact, a television reporter claimed on his Facebook account that most of them were students of Jamia Millia Islamia. If these students truly believe in what they have said, they should come forward and bear the consequences.

Covering faces while sloganeering and running way to Kashmir after doing so (thus using the Valley as a hideout) is an act of cowardice. Why should others bear the consequences of the utterances of pro-freedom Kashmiri students? There is also a theory doing rounds that the government is going soft on the Kashmiri students in question because they don't want the alliance with the PDP to fall apart. This exposes the hypocrisy of the NDA government. They claim to be high on nationalism but secretly care about nothing but their political interests.

As far as Kashmiri students who called for "Bharat ki barbadi" are concerned, it is high time for them to own up. The universities at which they study should be allowed to take action. They should face the music because if they hate India so much then they have no business whatsoever to acquire subsidised education in an Indian public university. They simply don't deserve it.

Shutdown JNU?

The ultra-nationalist response to the controversy was also exaggerated. Very much like our country, JNU campus is also quite diverse. What one can be certain about in JNU is to find multiple views concerning Afzal Guru and Kashmir. There is no one ultra-Left viewpoint. And certainly most students do not believe in destroying or harming India.

JNU has produced some of the greatest Indian citizens who have brought immense pride to the country. Such an esteemed, patriotic university cannot be shutdown to please internet trolls and outraged individuals who have hardly had a taste of life at JNU.

All the talk about withdrawing subsidies extended to JNU is laughable. Public universities are entitled to such benefits. The fact that JNU is affordable and has some of the best faculty in India enables it to attract talented students from across the country. It is not a shady private institute which would charge millions of rupees and provide worthless education. JNU has traditionally had a very high academic standard and vibrant culture of dissent.

Those who speak of shutting down JNU and withdrawing subsidies aren't aware of the great disservice they are doing to the nation by invariably calling for the obliteration of the one of the best universities in the country.

Excesses and incompetence of the government

JNU was an extremely sensitive issue. It was supposed to be dealt with great care. But the government made a mess out of it. Based on a fake Twitter handle, Union home minister Rajnath Singh proclaimed that the protest at JNU had the backing of Hafiz Saeed. Without any concrete proof, the home minister allied students with terrorists. It was highly irresponsible of him to have made such a remark.

The arrest of JNUSU President Kanhaiya Kumar, who had very little to do with the event, was another strategy which backfired. The police failed to protect Kanhaiya in custody as he was beaten up by lawyers inside Patiala House Court premises. Even journalists were roughed up and threatened by a bunch of lawyers, one of whom has been photographed with BJP leaders on many occasions.

Role of media

Journalists have an inalienable right to report. This right was violated when journalists were attacked while they were doing their job inside Patiala House Court premises. The police should have never allowed the incident to occur. It was a highly condemnable act and the lawyers who were involved in attacking, threatening and intimidating journalists need to be brought to book.

But there were some problems with media's reportage of JNU row as well. The media has an enormous power when it comes to shaping public opinion. It should strive to be objective and credible. However, some channels compromised on credibility by airing doctored videos and unverified reports. The reputation of Umar Khalid was smeared as he was portrayed as a Jaish sympathiser who frequently visited Pakistan. All this was done on the basis of unverified reports. In reality, Umar does not even possess a passport. He has very little with do with being a Muslim or being involved in Islamist politics.

By airing doctored videos purportedly shot at JNU, some media channels furthered the viewpoint that anti-national activities were rampant at JNU and thus played the role of adding fuel to fire. Shouldn't media houses that have made these blunders render an apology?

Strange bail order of the High Court

Two pillars of democracy, namely executive and media (the fourth pillar), were disappointing in their conduct during the JNU row. Unfortunately, the judiciary has added its name to the list. Law courts are places where we get justice. Courts are not expected to indulge in rhetoric and sound like public opinion polls.

With due respect, the bail order of the Hon'ble Delhi High Court has certain grave problems. On Page 19 of the order, the Hon'ble Justice writes that "while dealing with the bail application of the petitioner (Kanhaiya Kumar), it has to be kept in mind by all concerned that they are enjoying this freedom only because our borders are guarded by our armed and paramilitary forces."

While we respect and honour the sacrifices made by our soldiers on the frontiers, our freedom of speech and right to constitutional remedies are guaranteed to us by the Constitution. There wasn't a need to sound polemical by invoking the role played by our security forces. True, the security forces protect us from external aggression but it is our Constitution which protects us from internal abuses by the government and others.

The Hon'ble Delhi High Court has also sort of assumed Kanhaiya's guilt. It said, "As President of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students Union, the petitioner was expected to be responsible and accountable for any anti-national event organised in the campus."

The president of a student union is not the vice-chancellor or proctor of the university that he or she will be held accountable for discipline within the campus. He is not the one who gives permission for holding of events on campus.

To add to that, the high court drew bizarre parallels from the field of medicine choosing to talk about cures involving usage of antibiotics, surgical intervention and even amputation in the case of gangrene. It granted Kanhaiya bail on the ground that "he might have introspected about the events that had taken place" (another assumption of his involvement) and "to enable him to remain in the mainstream."

This apparently was a "conservative method of treatment" which included a surety to be furnished before the court by "either a member of the faculty or a person related to the petitioner (Kanhaiya)" who can "exercise control on the petitioner not only with respect to appearance before the Court but also to ensure that his thoughts and energy are channelised in a constructive manner."

Doesn't the above statement indicate that Kanhaiya's thoughts and actions weren't being utilised in a constructive manner prior to his arrest? The Hon'ble Delhi High Court's bail order repeatedly assumes Kanhaiya's guilt or association with a supposedly anti-national event without any corresponding evidence. This indeed is a worrying precedent.

The JNU row is a manifestation of everything that could have gone wrong: inappropriate sloganeering by students, excessive and uncalled for response from the government and police, irresponsible reporting by the media and a highly problematic bail order from the Delhi High Court.