JNU Attack: Google Says Court Order Necessary For Police to Access Chat Details

Google said it would only share the information sought after the company received a Letter Rogatory, or a formal request to a foreign court seeking judicial assistance in a probe, under the MLAT.

New Delhi: The Delhi Police’s crime branch, which had sought information about 33 members of two WhatsApp groups following the violence at JNU in January 2020 from Google, has since received a reply from the company that such details can only be shared with the authorities after police send them a Letter Rogatory under the Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty (MLAT), the Indian Express reported.

The Delhi Police had written to WhatsApp and Google and sought details of messages, photos and videos shared by the 33 students and members of the two WhatsApp groups titled ‘Unity Against Left’ and ‘Friends of RSS’.

On January 5, 2020, students at the Jawaharlal Nehru University were attacked by masked persons armed with sticks and rods which left 36 people injured. The students, including the students’ union president, alleged that they were attacked by members and supporters of the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) while the police looked on.

The police registered an FIR in connection with the case and the case was ultimately transferred to the Crime Branch, but no arrests have been made so far. One masked member was identified as an ABVP member, but she has not yet been arrested.

While WhatsApp had refused to share details in response to the Delhi Police’s request, Google had responded by saying the information sought relates to services offered by Google LLC, a company organised and operating in the US and governed by US laws.

Also read: When Universities Become Objects of Counterinsurgency

Google said that while it would preserve the data, it would only share it after the company received a Letter Rogatory, or a formal request to a foreign court seeking judicial assistance in a probe, under the MLAT. “In such cases, Google follows diplomatic processes established between the jurisdiction requesting the data and the government of the United States,” a police source told the Indian Express. A mutual legal assistance treaty or MLAT is an agreement between two or more countries for exchanging information to enforce public or criminal laws.

The police had previously shared the email addresses of the 33 students and members of the two WhatsApp groups with Google. This was done because, as per sources, the police did not find any WhatsApp groups on the phones of students who were questioned, suggesting that the chats had been deleted by the suspects. The police believe that Google would be able to share a backup of the WhatsApp messages to aid the investigation.

Days after the attack on JNU students, the Delhi Police named nine persons, including the then JNUSU president Aishe Ghosh, who had sustained injuries in the attack, as suspects. Seven of the suspects named belong to Left-student groups and two were associated with ABVP.

A Delhi police fact-finding committee also absolved the police officers who were stationed near the gate of Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus and had been accused of inaction while ‘masked goons’ who attacked students, faculty members and staff passed by them.

JNUSU President Aishe Ghosh To Contest West Bengal Elections

She is the Left-Congress-ISF’s candidate from the Jamuria seat and will be supported by the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM).

New Delhi: Aishe Ghosh, the president of the Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU), has been fielded by the Communist Party of India (Marxist) [CPI(M)] to contest the assembly elections in West Bengal.

She is the Left-Congress alliance’s candidate from the Jamuria seat and be supported by the Samyukt Kisan Morcha (SKM), which is spearheading the farmers’ protest against the three Central farm laws.

According to NDTV, she is the first sitting president of JNUSU to contest an assembly election.

Ghosh was one of the targets of the brutal January 5, 2020 attack on students and faculty members at the JNU campus. ‘Masked goons’ had entered the campus and injured several persons, with the image of Ghosh’s bleeding forehead becoming one of the iconic moments of the brutal attack.

JNUSU members Aishe Ghosh with other members. Photo: PTI

Though Ghosh told The Wire that she can identify her attackers, she herself was named as a suspect in the violence by the Delhi police. The police claimed that she had led the mob that attacked students at a hostel. Those who were targets of the violence had blamed the RSS and its student wing ABVP for perpetrating the attack.

Elections to the 294-member West Bengal assembly will be held in eight phases, with the first phase beginning on March 27. The final round of voting will take place on April 29 and the votes will be counted on May 2.

Apart from the Left parties and the Congress, the Indian Secular Front is also part of the alliance.

Listen: Podcast | Women in India Are the Face of Resistance: Aishe Ghosh

Last year, just days after the JNU attack, CPI leader and former JNUSU president Kanhaiya Kumar had thrown his weight behind Ghosh, saying Left parties should make her the face of the fight in Bengal.

The Left parties need to practise what they preach in university agitations and bring in fresh faces in the leadership, he said. “Stagnation is evident when people of a particular age are seen, and those of another generation are not,” he said, according to news agency PTI.

“A girl from Bengal has done very good work in JNU; make her the face of the fight in Bengal,” Kumar said. Kumar himself had contested the 2019 Lok Sabha election from Bihar’s Begusarai, but lost by a significant margin.

Mumbai Police Chargesheets 36 for Gateway of India Protest After JNU Attack

The Mumbai police have also named activist Umar Khalid as being present at the site of the protest but he has not been named as an accused.

New Delhi: The Mumbai police on Monday filed a chargesheet against 36 persons involved in a protest at the Gateway of India after the attack on students at the Jawaharlal Nehru University on January 5, over unlawful assembly.

On Monday, the metropolitan magistrate granted bail to 29 of them, who were present before the court, after furnishing a personal bond, reported the Indian Express. The rest of those who have been named in the chargesheet have been sent notices to remain present.

The Mumbai police have also named activist Umar Khalid as being present at the site of the protest but he has not been named as an accused.

The chargesheet, which is nearly 80 pages long and was filed by the Colaba police, claims that people began to assemble holding candles at the Gateway of India around midnight on January 5 after reports of violence against students at JNU emerged late in the evening. The police said that the number of protesters rose to 400.

“The protesters were informed that they did not have permission to assemble and the designated place to protest was at Azad Maidan. This was ignored and the protest was continued at the spot,” the chargesheet said.

The chargesheet also said that the number of protesters increased to over 2,000 after various organisations extended their support to the demonstration. The protesters, according to the chargesheet, also raised slogans against the Citizenship (Amendment) Act, Delhi police, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), Prime Minister Narendra Modi and Home Minister Amit Shah among others. Additionally, the police also cited evidence from 153 banners used in the protest, CCTV footage obtained from the Taj Hotel, photographs and videos taken by policemen and others during the agitation.

Also read: Mumbai Police Withdraw Externment Proceedings Against Activists and Students

The 36 persons have been charged with the same sections as mentioned in the FIR — Section 143 (member of an unlawful assembly), Section 149 (every member of an unlawful assembly guilty of offence committed in prosecution of common object) of the Indian Penal Code, Section 37 (3) of the Bombay Police Act, 1951, which allows the police to “prohibit any assembly or procession whenever and for so long as it considers such prohibition to be necessary for the preservation of the public order” and 135 of the Bombay Police Act, which allows arrest and punishment for violations of Section 37. The maximum punishment under these sections is up to one year imprisonment.

Lawyers Mihir Desai, Susan Abraham, Lara Jesani, Lokshahir Sambhaji Bhagat and students and activists, including Suvarna Salve, Bilal Khan and CPI leader Prakash Reddy have been named in the chargesheet among others.

“There were thousands including sitting ministers who had gathered in this democratic process which was called spontaneously to uphold constitutional values and rights. It is unfortunate that only a handful of students, lawyers and activists have been chosen and named in the chargesheet among all those who participated. We hope that the cases are withdrawn,” said Jesani.

A delegation of citizens, under the banner of ‘Hum Bharat Ke Log’, also met the Maharashtra home minister Anil Deshmukh in connection with the issue a few days back. The minister reportedly assured the delegation that all the criminal cases in connection with the anti-CAA, NPR, NRC protests and those concerning violence at JNU will be withdrawn by the government.

“We trust that all these criminal cases filed in connection with peaceful protest demonstrations held in the city to uphold the constitution will be closed at the earliest,” said activist Feroze Mithiborwala, who was among the 29 accused present at the court.

While the police had registered two FIRs – at Colaba and MRA Marg – for the protests held to condemn violence in JNU, the chargesheet in the second case has not been filed so far. The Mumbai police has also registered several cases across the city on charges of unlawful assembly against those protesting the Citizenship Amendment Act.

The next hearing in the case will be on March 23.

JNU Attack: Delhi Police Fact-Finding Committee Gives ‘Clean Chit’ to the Force

The committee found that the campus “had been on the boil through the day” on January 5 but the situation was brought under control “with police intervention”.

New Delhi: A Delhi police fact-finding committee inquiring into the January 5 violence inside the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus has given a ‘clean chit’ to the force after students alleged that those police officers who were stationed near the gate did not take any action even as the ‘masked goons’ who attacked students, faculty members and staff passed by them.

According to the Indian Express, the committee that was formed to “probe the sequence of events” and “negligence on part of local police” had recorded the statements of police officers and came to the conclusion that the campus “had been on the boil through the day” but the situation was brought under control “with police intervention”.

On the evening of January 5, around 100 masked persons entered the campus and attacked students, faculty members and staff. In the rampage, at least 36 students, teachers and staff were injured. The police registered an FIR and the case was transferred to the Crime Branch, but no arrests have been made so far. One masked member was identified as an ABVP member, but she has not been arrested.

The Delhi police’s refusal to take action against the ‘masked goons’ or indeed enter the university to bring the situation under control was in stark contrast to its conduct merely weeks earlier to storm Jamia Millia Islamia. Though the police claim that they entered the Jamia campus to control ‘rioters’, CCTV footage showed them attacking students in the library. In the case of JNU, the police stated they could not enter the campus without the administration’s permission. This was once again in contrast with the police action in Jamia, with the university’s vice-chancellor placing it on the record that the police entered the campus without permission.

According to the Indian Express, the fact-finding committee was headed by joint commissioner of police (Western Range) Shalini Singh and comprised four inspectors and two ACPs.

During the enquiry, the committee recorded the statements of then deputy commissioner of police (DCP) (south-west) Devender Arya, then assistant commissioner of police (ACP) Ramesh Kakkar, Vasant Kunj (North) station house officer Rituraj and inspector Anand Yadav. Inspector Yadav was stationed at the university’s administrative block on the morning of January 5 after the high court asked the police to ensure that protests do not occur within a 100-metre radius of the block.

All the police officers gave similar statements, according to the Indian Express, saying that the police officers who were stationed at the administrative block were only present to ensure that the high court’s order is complied with.

A woman looks at damaged belongings of students of JNU at Sabarmati hostel after it was attacked by a mob on January 6, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Adnan Abidi

“All those police personnel did not have any weapons or lathis. The PCR [police control room] calls started from 2.30 pm and in total, 23 calls were made from inside the campus to the police,” an officer told the newspaper.

An officer told the Express that DCP Arya visited the campus at around 5 pm but returned to the main gate as the “situation appeared normal” at the time. The officials also showed JNU vice-chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar’s WhatsApp message, sent at 6:24 pm, asking the police to be stationed at the gates.

“At 7:45 pm, Registrar Pramod Kumar handed over an official letter to Delhi Police, seeking increased presence and deployment on the premises,” an officer said.

After recording the statements of the police officers, the committee concluded that the campus had been on the boil through the day but the situation was brought under control with police intervention.

What witnesses told The Wire

However, witnesses told The Wire on January 5 that between 8 and 8:30 pm, “men with lathis” were seen exiting the JNU campus – most on foot and some in SUVs. The police and campus security did not stop them from leaving. When asked why men with lathis were being allowed out without questioning, a guard said, “Anyone who wants to leave, can leave.”

By midnight, the numbers of people protesting the attack swelled near the main gate. Earlier, there were reports of members of right-wing groups heckling, abusing and assaulting others there, including Yogendra Yadav.

Though the police had blocked off by the main gate by then, students inside the campus and alumni and supporters on the other side stormed the gate open. It was only after the protestors’ march that the police held a “flag march” on campus silently.

‘Attempt to Curtail Dissent’: Mumbai Police Seeks Rs 50 Lakh as Surety From Activist for Protesting

The police is classifying Suvarna Salve as a ‘habitual offender’ – a section which is disproportionately used against marginalised identities.

Mumbai: The cost of exercising one’s constitutional right to protest in Mumbai has been fixed at Rs 50 lakh.

The Mumbai police has issued a notice seeking surety of a whopping Rs 50 lakh from a 24-year-old student and cultural activist Suvarna Salve for participating in an impromptu protest in January, organised in Mumbai in the wake of the attack on students and faculty members inside the Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) campus.

While this is the only FIR ever registered against Salve, the Mumbai police have also decided to classify her as a “habitual offender” and initiate another administrative procedure of “externment” against her.

Salve, a lead singer and activist of the cultural troop Samata Kala Manch, was one of the 31 persons to be booked by the MRA Marg police for participating in a peaceful rally from Hutatma Chowk to Gateway of India in South Mumbai on January 6. Over 300 people from across Mumbai had joined the rally which was organised in protest against the violent attack on students in JNU campus by activists belonging to the Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh’s (RSS’s) students’ wing, Akhil Bhartiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP).

The Mumbai police’s decision to slap FIRs against activists in the city had attracted severe criticism. Rights activists and political leaders had termed the Mumbai police’s action as excessive and also equated it with the Delhi police which had remained a “mute spectator” and done nothing to control the masked mob that roamed around freely for almost three hours in the JNU campus but later had booked the victims instead.

Also read: Police’s Stern Response Fails to Dampen the Spirit of Women in Mumbai Bagh

In Mumbai, the protest was organised at two separate spots, just a few kilometres apart. The police have filed two separate FIRs – one at MRA Marg police station and another at Colaba police station – for those attending the protests. In both places, several prominent figures like former Bombay high court judge B.G. Kolse-Patil, and actor Sushant Singh had participated. When the rally soon transformed into a sit-in protest at Gateway of India and more and more people joined in support, state ministers like Jitendra Awhad visited the spot to negotiate with protestors.

While the initial decision was to not take criminal action against the protestors, the police had eventually changed their stance. In all 31 persons have been named in the FIR and have been booked under section 141, 143 and 149 (unlawful assembly) and 341 (wrongful restraint) of the Indian Penal Code, along with section 37 of the Bombay Police Act, 1951.

All sections are bailable and punishable for less than six months. Prominent persons were excluded from the FIR and only student activists and some lawyers were named. Some of them even claimed that they were not present at the protest site but were still named in the FIR.

Police notice issued to Suvarna Salve under section 100 (e) of CrPC. Photo: Special Arrangement

Despite of filing a case of unserious nature, the police have sought an unusually high surety, and more strangely have demanded it only from Salve. The notice, issued on August 24, has sought an explanation as to why Salve a proceeding should not be initiated against her under Section 110 (e) of the CrPC. The notice also seeks at least one of two persons to appear as a “surety”, pledging an amount of Rs 50 lakh, ensuring her good behaviour for the next two years. If she fails, the amount or the property would be confiscated by the state.

Salve says this is done to discourage her from participating in any political activism in the future. “This is done clearly with an intention to harass,” she said. “There were several influential people who had participated in the protest but they chose to go behind one student activist. They know I will never be able to furnish such surety ever. I belong to a Dalit community, and stay in a slum rehabilitation housing,” she pointed out.

Also read: Photojournalist ‘Beaten up’ by Police at Mumbai Anti-CAA Protest

Since her college days, Salve has been a vocal anti-caste voice, participating in protests and students’ agitation across India. In 2016, when Rohith Vemula, a PhD scholar at University of Hyderabad, was allegedly killed in an “institutional murder”, Salve joined the Joint Action Committee (JAC) formed to fight for justice for Vemula and other Bahujan students facing discrimination in campuses.

In the past years, when anti-caste organisations and political parties like Vanchit Bahujan Aghadi called for a bandh in the state, Salve like several other activists was served a notice under Section 144 of the CrPC against participating in any public gathering. “There has been a systematic attempt made to curtail dissenting voices. Like me, several other Ambedkarite activists have been served such notices,” she said.

Her lawyer Ishrat Ali Khan says the police’s decision to classify her as an “habitual offender” also stems from the same mentality. “Look at the crime here – organising and participating in a peaceful protest. From no stretch of imagination can an individual exercising their right to expression and protest be termed as a habitual offender,” he said.

Section 110 of the CrPC, also in legal parlance called as “chapter proceedings” is initiated against those who have been booked in multiple crimes. An executive clause, the proceedings under this section is initiated by the Assistant Commissioner of Police (ACP) level officer and if convicted, the person is externed for a stipulated period of time outside the district limit.

Several researchers have pointed to its discriminatory nature and how it gets disproportionately used against marginalised identities like Dalits and Denotified Tribes. In most cases, it is noticed that the executive officials hearing the case convict the person and the individual then has to move the high court to get their name cleared. This is a tedious process, requiring both resources and patience.

Also read: Woman Who Held ‘Free Kashmir’ Poster Booked by Mumbai Police

Khan, in his over a decade of experience handling cases under this section, said he had never seen the section being slapped against someone for protesting. “The subsections cover several crimes like theft, dacoity and extortion. The police claim to use it against “hardened criminals”, something that Salve or any dissenting activists don’t qualify for, he said.

Jamia in Top 10 Universities in HRD’s NIRF Ranking but Loses Battle of ‘Perception’

“JNU’s perception score does not drop despite the anti-national tag,” said Mohammad Sayeed, a researcher and former student of Jamia. “This shows how important certain identity is.”

New Delhi: Despite having a higher overall ranking amongst universities vis-a-vis parameters like graduate outcomes, teaching, learning and resources, outreach and inclusivity, Jamia Millia Islamia (JMI) has scored lower when it comes to the parameter of “perception” in comparison with Delhi University (DU).

According to the latest National Institutional Ranking Framework (NIRF) 2020 released by the Ministry of Human Resource Development (MHRD) on Thursday, Jamia figures in the top ten varsities of the country in the overall ranking of universities, with DU at the eleventh position.

As per an official statement by Jamia, this is the first time that the varsity has secured a position amongst the top ten universities of the country. “JMI has been ranked at the 10th position in the country in universities category, improving its position from 12 last year,” the statement said, further adding that “In ‘overall category’, the university has been placed at 16th position, enhancing it’s ranking from 19th last year. IITs, IIMs, IISc, other top technical institutions and universities are included in the overall category. A total of around 6 thousand institutions took part in NIRF this year.”

“The achievement is all the more significant because of the challenging time the university has faced recently and also in the light of increased competition in the ranking,” said Jamia Vice-Chancellor professor Najma Akhtar. According to the statement, the VC also “attributed the achievement to the improved perception about the university with regard to teaching, placements, research etc.” with the hope of doing better in the coming years.

While it is true that Jamia has scored higher than DU as far as the overall ranking of universities, graduate outcomes, outreach and inclusivity and teaching, learning and resources are concerned, it still falls behind in perception, said Mohammad Sayeed, a researcher, who has analysed the NIRF 2020 report of three central universities of Delhi, namely JNU, Jamia and DU.

Approved by the MHRD and launched in September 2015, the ranking report is broadly based on parameters such as “Teaching, Learning and Resources,” “Research and Professional Practices,” “Graduation Outcomes,” “Outreach and Inclusivity,” and “Perception”.

Also read: ‘I Hide My College ID Card’: Jamia Students Fight Social Stigma

According to Sayeed’s comparative analysis, Jamia scored 71. 35 out of 100 in teaching, learning and resources category this year, while DU scored 50.18 and JNU 74. 98. Similarly, in the graduate outcomes category, Jamia scored 88.52, JNU 100 and DU 88.21. Furthermore, in terms of outreach and inclusivity Jamia (73.05) is way above DU (60.37) and a little below JNU (75.10).

However, it falls far behind when it comes to ‘perception’, with a score of just 31.60 out of 100, while DU scored 53.44 and JNU 67.24 points. Notably, “the ranking methodology gives a significant importance to the perception of the institution” as per the MHRD.

“The Jamia perception number can be compared not only with its own column but every other number in the table to show how exceptionally low it is. How can a university suddenly drop in one specific criterion?,” Sayeed told The Wire. Sayeed, a former student of Jamia, who completed his PhD on Jamia Nagar from the Delhi School of Economics (DSE), DU, further said that “JNU’s perception score does not drop despite the anti-national tag” and added that “this shows how important certain identity is.”

Both Jawaharlal Nehru University and Jamia Millia Islamia have been at the centre of a storm for protests by students against the contentious Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA), the National Register of Citizens (NRC), hostel fee hike, etc. Both the universities have been constantly targeted, termed as dens of ‘anti-national’ activities and there have also been demands by right wing organisations to shut down both the universities.

On December 15 last year, the students of Jamia were violently attacked by the Delhi Police. According to a fact-finding report, the police attacked students with the intent of inflicting maximum damage. Later, a right-wing supporter fired at Jamia student protesters while they were marching towards Mahatma Gandhi’s memorial on January 30.

A number of Jamia’s students and alumni are currently lodged in jail for allegedly instigating violence in north-east Delhi in February this year and being a part of a ‘conspiracy‘.

Similarly, the students and teachers of JNU were brutally attacked in January, allegedly by members of right-wing organisations. In addition, two students from the varsity (JNU) have been arrested under charges similar to those that students from Jamia have been booked under.

JNU Vice-Chancellor ‘Mastermind’ of January 5 Attack, Says Congress Fact-Finding Report

The team identified the attack as “targeted” violence intended to intimidate and instil fear into the students and faculty.

New Delhi: A fact-finding team’s report on the violence at the Jawaharlal Nehru University on January 5 identified the attack as “targeted” violence intended to intimidate and one that was done with the support and encouragement of the institution’s vice-chancellor.

Soon after the January 5 mob attack, Congress decided to form the fact finding committee under All India Mahila Congress president Sushmita Dev. The committee comprised Ernakulam MP Hibi Eden, party leader Amrita Dhawan and Rajya Sabha MP Dr. Sayid Naseer Hussain, in addition to Dev.

The evidence collated by the inquiry committee revealed that the armed attackers were systematically mobilised inside and the campus by the security company (Cyclops P. Ltd) on duty. It also found active involvement of a few faculty members in facilitating the violence. 


The report suggested the involvement of the rightwing in the attack. It said:

“There is every reason to believe that the mob that attacked the students and teachers on campus were from the right-wing factions. The WhatsApp groups like ‘Friends of RSS’ and ‘Unity against Left’ that were used to mobilise and provoke people to attack the students and faculty on campus speak volumes about the ideology of the people involved in the attack.”

It claimed that the attackers did not touch the students and faculty who were in support of the rightwing and aimed attacks on students of a particular religion. 

The report alleged that the vice chancellor of the university, M. Jagadesh Kumar, was the “master mind” behind the incident.

“Since his appointment in 2016, he meticulously infiltrated the University with people in the faculty who did not merit their positions and promoted only those who would be compliant to him and had their inclination to right wing ideology. He deliberately imposed his decision on the university students and teachers without due process and then refused to engage with the duly elected students and teachers of the union which led to the deadlock,” reads the report. 

Dev said that she attempted to speak to the VC several times but he didn’t agree to a talk.


The fact-finding team also found discrepancies in the version of the vice chancellor and the police regarding the time when the police was allowed to enter the campus. 

“The press release of the vice chancellor on 5th January 2020 states the administration called the police at about 4.30 pm but the police has given a statement that they were allowed to enter the Campus at about 7.45 pm by the administration,” mentions the report. 

The report raised some eyebrows on the disconnection of server and electricity on the campus on January 5. “There is no explanation why the server was down on January 5. It is almost as if the VC took advantage of the disconnection of the server to prevent a recording of CCTV footage to protect the attackers and go about their business without any record,” reads the report. 

Also read: JNU Attack: What the Delhi Police Has Done and What it Hasn’t

As per the report, the police stationed on the campus silently watched the attackers move around. Emergency calls to the police by the students went unanswered.

“The complicity of the Delhi police on January 5 clearly brings the Home Ministry into suspicion. The remarks by the Home Minister on the Citizenship Amendment Act-National Register of Citizens (CAA-NRC) agitations and punishing of ‘tukde tukde gang’ had also emboldened the perpetrators of violence in the JNU campus on January 5,” it added. 

Recommendations of the Committee 

The committee has recommended immediate dismissal of the VC and the setting up of an independent inquiry team to look at all appointments made from January 27, 2016 (date of Kumar’s appointment) till date and all other financial and administrative decisions taken during his tenure. 

It demanded criminal investigation against Kumar, the company that provides security service on the campus, and the members of the faculty who conspired with the attackers to unleash the violence. It also sought to fix accountability of the Commissioner of Delhi Police and other police officials who didn’t promptly act on the emergency calls by the students and faculty members from the JNU campus on January 5.

Immediate rollback of the fee hike and recognition of Jawaharlal Nehru University Students’ Union (JNUSU) as an elected body was also demanded by the committee. 

‘He Looked Like a Kashmiri… I Beat Him Up’: India Today ‘Unmasks’ JNU Attackers

Even as the Delhi Police turned its focus on students of the Left despite various recorded evidence of ABVP being behind the JNU violence, a TV channel aired a confession that led to the BJP youth wing disowning two of its activists.

New Delhi: While the Delhi Police has claimed yesterday that Left organisations and students were behind the violence at Jawaharlal Nehru University on January 5, one hour later, a television channel aired a ‘sting operation’ in which a volunteer with the BJP’s student wing, Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) admits to having organised the attack on Sabarmati hostel.

The Delhi Police’s “hurried” press conference on Friday only referred to the January 4 disruption of the server room of the university. There was, however, no reference to the violence a day later, in which the university campus was terrorised by masked men and women armed with lathis and other weapons, which has led to outrage and protests across educational institutes in India.

The ‘sting operation’, aired by India Today channel on Friday, showed two students of BA (French) at JNU, one of whom claimed to be from the ABVP, testifying to their involvement to the violence on January 5. ABVP has disowned both the students as being part of their organisation.

India Today also produced a photograph published on the front page of a national newspaper to prove that Akshat Awasthi was identified to be at the helm of an ABVP rally.

As per the India Today investigation, Awasthi showed the video to the journalists which depicted him with his face covered and rushing through hostel corridors.

Also read: Rough Edges: Police Double Standards, JNU and a Most Dubious Press Conference

“What did you have in your hand?” an India Today undercover reporter asked Awasthi.

“It was a stick, sir. I pulled it out from a flag lying near [the] Periyar [hostel].”

“Did you hit someone?” the reporter asked.

“There was a man with a flowing beard. He looked like a Kashmiri. I beat him up and then broke the gate with my kicks.”

Awasthi claimed that the attack was in reaction to an assault by Left students on Periyar hostel the same day. “It was a reaction to their action,” he said.

The first-year student recounted that mobs smashed vehicles and furniture on the street facing Sabarmati hostel. “All students and teachers standing there ran away when the attack happened. They had no idea that the ABVP would ever retaliate like this,” he said.

As per the video, Awasthi claimed that he was behind the entire planning. “I can tell you that I did all the mobilisation. They don’t have that much mind. You know you need to act like a superintendent or a commander. Why it’s to be done and where exactly. I guided them about everything – where to hide, where to go. I told them to do everything systematically. I didn’t have any position or a tag. Still they listened to me carefully,” the student claimed.

He added that the not only did he mobilise the mob, but he also channelled their anger in the right direction.

India Today also found another student, Rohit Shah, who stated that he had given his helmet to Awasthi. “It [a helmet] is a must for safety when you smash glass,” Shah said. He also claimed to have identified rooms of ABVP affiliated students. “I told them [the masked persons] it’s an ABVP room and they walked away”.

Also read: JNU Violence: Delhi Police Name JNUSU President, 8 Others as Suspects

Shah added that he was proud of what had happened in JNU on Sunday evening. “If it [the attack] hadn’t been carried out the way it was, they [the Left] would not have realised the ABVP’s strength”.

Akshat Awasthi had also claimed that a police officer encouraged them to retaliate. “They [police] were inside the campus not outside. I had called the police myself after a student was injured at Periyar [hostel during an earlier attack]. He met Manish [a student] and said, ‘hit them, hit them’.”

When asked about street lights being switched off at the time of the attack, Awasthi admitted that it was done to hid the mobilisation by ABVP.

Reporter: Who shut down the street lights? You guys?

Akshat Awasthi: Admin… I think police.

Reporter: Why did the police do that?

Akshat Awasthi: They did not want [anyone] to see that the mobilisation was happening.

Reporter: So, the police helped you, the ABVP?

Akshat Awasthi: Whose police is it, sir?

The Jawaharlal Nehru University has so far only fired a First Information Report (FIR) over university servers being damaged on January 4. The administration has claimed that the violence of January 5 has roots in the destruction of the server room on Saturday.

Meanwhile, India Today also aired another video showing former JNUSU president and AISA member Geeta Kumar admitting to being involved in disrupting the server room.

“None of our demands have been met, he [the JNU VC] didn’t even meet us, so we decided to close the server room,” she said.

Also read: JNU Attack: What the Delhi Police Has Done and What it Hasn’t

“Our VC does everything online, sends love letter [slang] online, sends Happy Near Year online, sends warnings online, so we thought that he has exceeded everything, there are no exams, none of our demands is met, he didn’t even meet us, so we decided to close the server room so that the administration does not function,” she said.

After the ‘JNU Tapes’ went on-air, Geeta Kumari defended her actions and said that she has nothing to hide.

“JNU VC increases our fee a thousand time. He sends punishment letters for demanding the right to education. I myself have received countless such letters. We are fighting for our rights. We are in civil disobedience. That’s what I have said. Nothing to hide,” she said.

Kumari later tweeted justifying her actions.

When the Indian Express contacted Kumari, she said, “How can the reaction to this incident be ABVP’s violence on us? We accept admin work had stopped because of our protest. Then they should have come and talked to us; who is the ABVP to come and hit us?”

ABVP vice president Nidhi Tripathi has denied that either Awasthi or Shah were associated with the student organisation. “They are not holding any position within the ABVP. Anyone participating in ABVP or JNUSU events cannot qualify to become their members automatically. Police are investigating the entire case. Anyone involved in violence at the JNU should be prosecuted. We will fully support the police in their investigation,” she said.

Even BJP spokesperson Amit Malviya has insisted that ABVP has no office-bearer in the first year of any degree program in JNU, as per India Today.

However, the TV channel has never claimed that Akshat Awasthi is an office-bearer, neither did the student in the video. However, Awasthi had claimed in the India Today video to having organised ABVP members towards the end of rampaging through Sabarmati hostel.

The Delhi Police also took notice of India Today’s investigation and said the ongoing probe would cover all angles of the case. “We will include all aspects in our investigation, including the investigation done by India Today,” Delhi Police spokesman M.S. Randhawa said.

The Indian Express reported that the Delhi Police’s press conference that linked nine students showed that the police investigators have “relied heavily on videos and photos circulated by ABVP over the last five days”.

Also read: Investigating the Masked Woman in a Viral Video During JNU Violence

DCP (Crime) Joy Tirkey listed four Left outfits — SFI, AISF, AISA and DSF — and said seven of the nine students belonged to them, but did not mention ABVP, even though the remaining two students belonged to that group.

The newspaper also pointed out that the photo and text released by police had a couple of errors. The photo of ABVP’s Shiv Poojan Mandal was used in place of Vikas Patel – and it was changed only after the error was pointed out.

“Police also stated that Patel was pursuing a course called ‘MS’ Korean, though there is no course in JNU with the abbreviation ‘MS’,” said the Indian Express report.

During the press conference, Delhi Police also called SFI (Students Federation of India) as Student Front of India, multiple times. They also mis-identified Sucheta Talukdar as a member of SFI, even though she is a JNUSU councillor from AISA.

Investigating the Masked Woman in a Viral Video During JNU Violence

Most individuals who were a part of the mob, wielding sticks that had stormed the hostels of JNU on January 5 had their faces covered.

Late in the evening of January 5, a mob wielding sticks and iron rods stormed hostels of Jawaharlal Nehru University, Delhi. Most individuals who were a part of the mob had their faces covered. Soon after, videos and images of the incident began doing the rounds on social media. In the video below, several masked individuals can be seen inside a hostel.

One of the individuals was alleged to be Komal Sharma, a member with RSS-affiliated ABVP’s Delhi chapter. A Facebook user claimed, “The girl who is found on multiple videos vandalising JNU Girls Hostel is Komal Sharma. She is from Delhi University ABVP unit.”

Exposé by a school senior

An Instagram user Anuja Thakur posted a screen recording of an Instagram conversation with a person whose name on the platform reads – ‘komal❤sharma😎 ABVP ❤️’. The corresponding username being ’26_saravashisth’. Thakur claimed that the conversation was with Sharma, the woman alleged to be part of the mob. In the screen recording which has an audio clip, Sharma is confirming her presence in the campus during the incident. Alt News was unable to access the said Instagram account as it may have been deleted or deactivated.

 

View this post on Instagram

 

Komal Sharma Student Activist from ABVP was my junior in college as well as in school. Last night I messaged her just to confirm the fact if she was there at JNU campus or not but I asked her indirectly starting from that ‘I saw you today at Munirka’ and ‘if she was wearing red white checkered shirt’ and her admission to all my questions (which were my urges to confirm her presence there at the campus) with the following audio in which she says ‘Didi, please kisiko matt batana’ is the legal evidence that she is the same person as in the pictures that were leaked yesterday confirming the fact that she was the girl with the iron stick in the “unidentified mobs”. I screen recorded her audio and chat as her Instagram account is no longer found. Share this as much as you can. #goonsofabvp @reallyswara @umar_khalid87 @youthkiawaaz @kanhaiyakumar @ravishndtv @peeinghuman @unbhakt @akashbanerjee.in @mallikadua @anuragkashyap10 @vidushak

A post shared by Anuja Thakur (@anujathakur30) on

In her detailed post, Thakur wrote, “Komal Sharma Student Activist from ABVP was my junior in college as well as in school. Last night I messaged her just to confirm the fact if she was there at JNU campus or not but I asked her indirectly starting from that ‘I saw you today at Munirka’ and ‘if she was wearing red white checkered shirt’ and her admission to all my questions (which were my urges to confirm her presence there at the campus) with the following audio in which she says ‘Didi, please kisiko matt batana’ is the legal evidence that she is the same person as in the pictures that were leaked yesterday confirming the fact that she was the girl with the iron stick in the “unidentified mobs”. I screen recorded her audio and chat as her Instagram account is no longer found.”

The video of the conversation can be seen below.

Speaking with Alt News, Thakur reiterated that she interacted with Sharma from her Instagram account.

Apoorv Thakur, brother of Anuja Thakur, posted the same on Facebook. In his post, he shared an additional screenshot which shows Sharma responding to Anuja Thakur’s question as to why she has become a topic of conversation on social media. In her response, Sharma sent the viral picture alleged to be hers.

Tracking the identity of ’26_saravashisth’

Alt News was able to independently confirm that the Instagram account seen in the video is of ABVP activist Komal Sharma. But ‘@26_Saravashisth’ is either deactivated or deleted at the moment. However, we were able to find an archived version of the profile. Below, we have compared a screenshot of the Instagram handle and profile picture seen in the video with a screenshot of the archived version.

Sharma’s Facebook profile which goes by the name ‘Komal Sharma ABVP’ is also inaccessible at the moment. Although, her old Facebook profile and a barely active Twitter handle (Sara Vashisth) which share the name given on her Instagram account confirm her identity. Both the accounts existed at least a year ago and have an image of Komal Sharma in the profile picture. In the case of her Facebook profile, the profile picture dates back to July 2017.

We located two more accounts of Sharma – Facebook, Twitter – where she refers to herself as ‘Sara Vashisth’.

Komal Sharma had also tweeted in support of ABVP member Bharat Sharma who was caught on camera kicking a person. This tweet was made on December 18, 2019. “I support you bhai. Well done. You are a true brother. I am proud of you. For protecting me that day from those goons of the left,” she wrote.


Based on multiple corroborations, Alt News was able to establish that ABVP activist Komal Sharma was caught on camera in the viral video of masked individuals inside JNU campus.

The article was originally published on Alt News. You can read it here.

Police Double Standards, JNU and a Most Dubious Press Conference

By now we should be used to the novel ways in which the state machinery presided over by the Modi-Shah government has propped itself up with no concern for matters like the truth or the integrity of institutions.

In normal circumstances, the fact that the Delhi police summoned a press conference to name Aishe Ghosh as a prime suspect in instigating violence on the Jawaharlal Nehru University campus last week would seem utterly bizarre. Badly beaten up by masked men who invaded the campus, Ghosh, who is the JNUSU president, received 16 stitches on her head in addition to fracturing her left arm.

But then, the times we are living through are far from normal. Rather than address critical questions arising from last Sunday’s planned outburst of violence that left 36 injured, the Delhi police tried to present a sequence of events for the events that evening, which looks more like an alibi for the force’s incompetence than a true account of what happened.

Joy Tirkey, DCP, Crime Branch, repeatedly took the names of four Left students’ organisations – the Students’ Front of India (SFI), All India Students’ Federation (AISF), Democratic Students’ Front (DSF), and All India Students’ Association (AISA) – without once mentioning the Bharatiya Janata Party-backed Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP), the Left’s main adversary in JNU.

Within hours of the press conference, ABVP took out a protest march on campus, denouncing “Red Terror”. JNU Vice Chancellor M. Jagadesh Kumar, who was missing from his own campus during the crucial days of violence, suddenly began appearing on TV channels. He talked about the vandalisation of server rooms on campus but had nothing to say about injured students.

Minutes after the Delhi police named Left students as suspects, Union minister Prakash Javadekar said: “Today’s police press conference established that for the last five days, the chorus that was created deliberately to blame ABVP, BJP and others, wasn’t true. It is the Left organisations that pre-planned violence, disabled CCTVs and destroyed servers.”

But then soon, India Today‘s revelation left the government and police with red faces. Barely an hour after the police’s press conference, a sting operation was telecast in which two first-year BA (French) students, declaring themselves to be ABVP members, “confessed” to their participation in the violence. The students also acknowledged the police were present on campus, as was a policeman – who, in fact, had egged the mob on.

“The second student said he gave the other student his “helmet as it is a must for safety when you break glass,” according to the report. The mob consisted of 20 ABVP activists from JNU, the student said. The sting showed another JNU student, a member of AISA, who is a PhD student, admitting to her role in disrupting the server room on the campus.

Also read: JNU Violence: Delhi Police Name JNUSU President, 8 Others as Suspects

The customary police sleight of hand is clearly in play in this case, just as it was also in play during other recent incidents of violence, particularly in Uttar Pradesh. The whole purpose of Friday’s press conference seemed to be to point fingers at Left student organisations. To set the tone and tenor of the investigation, which in coming days, is likely to weigh against the Left students. As Delhi Police asked mediapersons to focus on the “sequence” of events, thoughts turned to Union home minister Amit Shah’s by now well-known one liner: “Aap chronology samajh lijiye (understand the chronology): first CAA and then NRC.”

Drawing attention to the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the National Register of Citizens as conjoined policies, Shah said people must understand that the introduction of the CAA will be followed by NRC – the very position his party is now claiming it never took.

Following in the home minister’s footsteps, DCP Tirkey focussed on the sequence of events on JNU campus. Keeping mum about the masked men beating up students with sledgehammers and rods, Tirkey instead accused Left students of destroying the servers at the university. Refusing to talk about the large-scale violence on the JNU campus on January 5, he instead shifted the focus to January 3 and January 4, when the Left students allegedly destroyed the servers in question. Is there any equivalence between pulling out server cables and thrashing students and faculty?

Last month’s aggressive and violent police action against Jamia students and the passive inaction in JNU, underlines the double standards of the police. An internal investigation earlier this month revealed that at least three bullets were fired by Delhi Police personnel during protests against the CAA last month. The revelations contradicted the official version that the police did not fire a single bullet.  In stark contrast to their conduct in Jamia Milia Islamia, Aligarh Muslim University and Uttar Pradesh, the police in JNU stood by and watched the mob beat up students and faculty.

Also read: JNU Attack: What the Delhi Police Has Done and What it Hasn’t

Even before the investigations have concluded, Friday’s premature press conference raised more questions that it answered. Questions raising doubts about the intent of the police and the direction of its investigations. How did the masked men escape despite the police presence outside the university gates? Why were the lights switched off? Who switched them off? What were the police doing in the hours the mob was running amok terrorising people? Why did the police not furnish photos of the masked men wielding rods and sledgehammers at the press conference or initiate any other tangible moves to track those people down?

We have moved into an era where property is constantly elevated above human life, particularly dissident human life. We have repeatedly heard UP chief minister Adityanath vouch that he will take badla against CAA-NRC protesters for destroying public property.

It is, of course, another matter that recently law enforcers have themselves been guilty of destroying property in Aligarh Muslim University and Jamia Milia University. And that the foundations of the contemporary Hindu Right’s corrosive effect on Indian life were built by destroying the Babri Masjid.

By now, we should be used to the novel ways in which the state machinery presided over by the Modi-Shah government has propped itself up with no concern for matters like the truth or the integrity of institutions. Everything can be sacrificed, sold, bartered, disposed off, in the service of their desire for power. The police are a crucial component of this armoury that does little else apart from implementing the wishes of their masters, no matter what the nature of their demands.