Before JNU Violence, Delhi Police ‘Wrote 4 Letters’ Urging Admin to Hold Talks With Students

“The students are demanding a dialogue with the JNU administration, but no such initiative has yet been taken,” the Vasant Kunj (North) SHO had stated in the letter.

New Delhi: Before the January 5 violence at JNU, the Delhi Police had written to the university authorities at least four times, stressing the need for them to “initiate dialogue with the JNUSU”, a senior official said on Tuesday.

The letters were written between November and December last year, he said.

In one of the letters written to Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU) Registrar Pramod Kumar on November 26, the station house officer (SHO) of Vasant Kunj (North) police station had said “a major law and order issue was created” as students were stopped twice by police during a protest march on November 18 against a hostel fee hike.

The JNU Students’ Union (JNUSU) had given the call for the march towards parliament.

Also read: JNU Attack: Delhi Police Confirm Masked Woman Is ABVP Member Komal Sharma

“The students are demanding a dialogue with the JNU administration, but no such initiative has yet been taken” by the varsity and due to this the “students are very much agitated”, the SHO had stated in the letter.

Referring to another protest by the students on November 9, the letter said, no one from the JNU administration came to meet the students.

“On this, the JNU students were very much agitated and they gave a call to block the administrative office of JNU from 10.11.2019,” the letter said.

The letter by the SHO was written a day before the JNUSU had called for another protest.

“It is therefore suggested that the JNU administration should start a dialogue with the students of JNU so that the issues can be resolved between the students and the JNU administration. There has to be a continuous dialogue with the elected representatives of JNUSU also,” the letter said.

Also read: Why the Fee Hike For JNU Students is Justified, and Why it Isn’t

Details of the other letters are not known.

The JNUSU has been on a strike against the draft hostel manual, which has provisions for the fee hike, for nearly three months now.

It has asked students to boycott all academic activities and said the strike will not end till the hostel manual is withdrawn.

It has also asked the students to boycott registration for the winter semester.

Early this month, the university had witnessed a tussle between student groups over the issue of registration.

Amid the stir, masked men went on a rampage on the JNU campus on January 5, assaulting students and teachers with rods and sledgehammers, leaving over 30 people injured.

RTI Reveals Glaring Loopholes in JNU Admin’s Claims on Campus Violence

RTI activist Saurav Das says reply from the University’s CIS office reveals that data storage facility was not vandalised before January 5 violence.

New Delhi: A Right to Information query filed under the ‘life and liberty’ clause by an activist has now revealed five discrepancies in the claims of the Jawaharlal Nehru University administration and the Delhi police regarding the recording and storage of footage through CCTV cameras during the violence on the campus on January 5.

According to RTI activist Saurav Das, who asked a number of questions, the replies furnished by the Communication and Information Services (CIS) office of JNU have cast doubts on the claims made by the university and the police.

A member of the National Campaign for People’s Right to Information, Das said the replies have proved several assumptions.

Vandalism on January 1

Most importantly, he said, the First Information Report registered by the Delhi police on the complaint of JNU administration had stated that there was vandalism at JNU on the first and fourth of this month. Students of Left-affiliated parties were blamed for this. The replies show that on January 1, at least, there was no violence, said Das.

“The RTI also reveals that JNU does not have CCTV footage of the main gate for January 5. It also says that the footage was not uploaded to the cloud computing system,” he said.

Also read: JNU Attack: Delhi Police Confirm Masked Woman Is ABVP Member Komal Sharma

On the claim that servers were down that day, he said the graph provided in the reply showed that “there was some activity during the day.”

‘Server room remained intact’

Also, he said, the RTI confirmed that “the room which has servers of the CCTVs had not been vandalised by the students. It was a different room. Not the one which was claimed by the VC as having been destroyed.”

Incidentally, VC Mamidala Jagadesh Kumar had also claimed that biometric system was broken. “Nothing of that sort happened,” Das said, citing the RTI report.

These answers assume significance since VC Kumar had claimed that the January 5 violence – in which about 40-50 masked and armed men and women had attacked students – was a fallout of what happened the previous day.

Kumar had claimed that the mob had entered the campus on January 4 itself, about 24 hours before unprecedented violence was unleashed on the campus and Left-affiliated students were attacked.

Claims of January 4 violence questioned

“What happened on 5th has its origins in what happened in the past few days, we have our CIS centre here, which houses the data centre. So one day before [JNU violence], a few students came with their faces completely covered and took control of the data centre. If the students were working for the right cause, why would they cover their faces?” Kumar had told India Today in an interview.

Also read: Alt News Fact Check Shows JNU Student in India Today Sting Had Distinct Links With ABVP

The university administration had also claimed that its data centre was destroyed on January 4. And Kumar had linked the malfunctioning of CCTVs during the January 5 violence to the shutting down of data centre by the group of masked protesters. On the other hand it was suspected that the power supply was deliberately disrupted during the attack so that the violence of January 5 could not be properly captured and recorded.

Incidentally, the JNU administration took the line of ABVP, which was accused as having been behind the January 5 violence, to complain that it was the Left-wing students who had brought the masked protesters in. The main FIR was filed on the basis of this complaint.

Since the video footage is crucial to the investigation, three JNU professors had also approached the Delhi high court to seek directions that the data and other evidence be preserved.

A look at the detailed response of the CIS office to Das’s query reveals several discrepancies in its claims.

No mention of violence on January 1

On “the total number of incidents since December 25, 2019 to January 8, 2020 when the main server of the JNU in Communication and Information Services (CIS) Office have been recorded to go down/not working/shut down,” the CIS states that there have been two such incidents.

It further stated that “the main server of JNU was shut down on 3rd January, 2020 at 1-30 p.m.”

The second instance was when “the main server of JNU gone down on 4th January, 2020 at 1-30 p.m. due to power supply disruption (sic).” Thus there was no mention of the main server being affected on January 1, due to any violence, as claimed by the administration.

Also read: JNU Violence: Delhi HC Asks Whatsapp, Google for Information Sought by Delhi Police

Further, in response to another query on “action taken to fix the problem,” the JNU administration responded by saying that “the main server of JNU (was) fixed through reboots/recycling of services/backup restoration and configurations validation.”

It said five technicians were involved in resuming services. As for register entries, it admitted that they “could not be done due to crisis situation for resuming ICT services of the university on priority and the premises was under full control of security branch.”

‘CCTV servers not in CIS office, but data centre’

To another question on whether the CIS office also contains the servers of the CCTV cameras in and around the campus, the JNU administration clearly responded by saying, “The servers of CCTV cameras are not located in CIS office but located in data centre.” It added that “the details of locations of CCTV cameras cannot be provided due to security reasons and concerns.”

Answering another query, the CIS said “none” of the biometric systems at CIS office were broken or destroyed during the period.

It also answered that a total of 17 fibre optical cables were damaged at around 1 pm on January 4.

Difference between CIS, university website claim

As for CCTV cameras at the north and main gate of the JNU campus, the University said there were four of them in those locations. It also said that the server room where “all information/ footage captured by CCTV installed at the north/main gate of the JNU campus is stored/uploaded” is located at Hall No. 3 of CIS in SBT Building of JNU.

Further, the CIS clarified that “no CCTV data is stored on JNU cloud computing platform.” It also stated that “no CCTV camera footages are uploaded continuously to the JNU cloud computing platform.”

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

However, Das pointed out that the JNU website states that CCTV data is indeed stored on a cloud computing platform.

No CCTV cameras were vandalised

The university also stated that none of the CCTV cameras were vandalised during the period. It also said there was no server room at the north or main gate.

The university also stated that “no CCTV servers are installed at north or main gate of JNU campus”.

It also said that “since JNU website is critical and a logical public face of the University, thus it was running from alternate backup arrangement during the period.”

Graph shows the server was functioning between January 3 and 9

When asked if continuous and entire footage of CCTVs installed at north or main gate of the JNU campus from 3 pm to 11 pm on January 5, 2020 was available, the administration replied in the negative.

Along with the reply, the university also forwarded a graph indicating the “service disruption” from January 3 to January 9. This, however, showed that the server was indeed functioning during the period in question.

Deepika Padukone’s JNU Visit May Spark Off a Harmful New Trend in Brand-Celeb Contracts

Brands and studios may turn to boilerplate ‘behaviour clauses’ and watertight celebrity contracts to avoid alienating the majority.

Dealing with fame and managing the commercial appropriation thereof has always been a tricky task. It has become even more difficult in today’s hyper charged social media-friendly world, where each and every act of a celebrity goes through scrutiny, and impacts the economic value that her or his reputation carries. 

Deepika Padukone, who saw a ‘meteoric rise’ in 2018 to become the second most powerful celebrity brand with a valuation of $102 million, is the only actor who found a place in the top ten of the Forbes India Celebrity 100 List, 2019, without having had any movie releases that year. She earned a whopping Rs 48 crores, solely from endorsements. These facts and figures indicate that she has been a brand favourite. 

Padukone’s gesture of showing up at the protest site of JNU students has won her praise and appreciation from not just the students themselves but nationwide supporters of the cause, while supporters of the government have trolled her on social media and claimed that they will boycott her movies.

It has to be admitted that she has put her brand value at considerable risk. Marketers, companies and film producers who had been keen to use her star power may now react with caution. Her implied support for the students could make these companies wary when considering her.

Even if they don’t stop signing up Deepika, her step could trigger an overhaul of their contractual strategies. They are now likely to be extra cautious while sealing celebrity deals and this could mean the strict use of  “moral or behaviour clauses” in contracts. 

Deepika Padukone at the JNU campus on January 7, 2020. Photo: PTI

A “moral or behaviour clause” is a contractual term which prohibits a celebrity from conduct deemed objectionable, which is capable of bringing disrepute to the brand or the movie studio investing in their image.

It offers a means of dissociation from the celebrity if she or he fails to uphold certain behavioural standards and tarnishes her or his image in the public eye. Celebrities are made to comply not just with the threat of termination but by sometimes being made to agree on a fixed amount that they are liable to pay upon any ‘breach’. 

Also read: India Has a Long History of Artists Acting as Keepers of Social Conscience

The origin of such clauses can be traced back to 1921 when Roscoe ‘Fatty’ Arbuckle, an American silent film actor, was charged with the rape and murder of an actress, Virginia Rappe, before the release of Paramount Pictures’ movie Leap Year. Although he was later acquitted of all charges, the dilution of his public image caused substantial losses to Paramount Pictures. This incident motivated studios and production houses to incorporate a “moral clause” in talent contracts, as a precautionary measure. 

Product brands and service providers too started including such clauses in endorsement contracts to protect their economic and reputational health.

The last couple of decades have seen predominant use of such provisions. Some examples – the fashion house Chanel terminated its endorsement contract with Kate Moss when some photographs of her snorting cocaine went viral; Nike pulled out of its agreement with Lance Armstrong because of his participation in doping and Manny Paquiao’s statement – gay couples are worse than animals – worked as a deal breaker for Nike.

File image of Lance Armstrong. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Tiger Woods was also dropped by quite a few companies, because of allegations of marital infidelity.

While the inherent concept of behaviour clauses is not flawed – corporations clearly have a legitimate right to safeguard their fiscal health and reputation – it is the ubiquitous nature of social media with a rising social sensitivity, growing level of intolerance and diverse conceptions of morality and nationalism which raise a serious concern.

Today, we have reached a stage where public transgressions are not limited to acts like abusing a journalist, making a libellous comment, using performance enhancing drugs, or molesting a woman. Any kind of conduct whatsoever can be labelled as a “wrongdoing”. Consequently, brands are likely to rely heavily on broadly worded clauses like the one below:

Brand shall have the right to terminate the Agreement if, in the opinion of the Brand, the celebrity commits any act or does anything which might tend to bring him into public disrepute, scandal or ridicule, or which might tend to reflect unfavourably on the Brand

Also, after the recent JNU episode, in India, brands may prefer to be specific.

The prohibited behaviour may expressly include any politically sensitive statement, oral or written, express or implied.

Such all-encompassing moral clauses could be harmful to society because of their chilling effect on free expression. Almost every star would choose silence, in fear of losing work and endorsements. Since celebrities are those select few who are most equipped to lead social transformation because of their mass appeal, their silence will hamper social and political change.

Also read: Actresses Break With Bollywood’s Embrace of Modi Amid Protests

Moreover, looking at the trends so far, we can’t ignore the fact that India is confronting the problem of a distorted concept of nationalism. And we need our celebrities to speak up.

Today it is about participation in a student protest, tomorrow, in view of the paparazzi environment, brands may ban celebrities from eating beef at home. This is because we have actually come down to a level where not just photographs of a celebrity snorting cocaine, but something like eating beef too has the potential to attract troll armies.

Not just this, the future may see brands interfering with movie choices and celebrity portrayals of bold characters which don’t go down well with hardcore political supporters, who are always alert for any criticism, implied or real, of their leaders. 

Given the above, a line needs to be drawn, for reasons of public policy. In the name of ‘freedom to contract’, brands and studios can’t be allowed to disregard freedom of speech and fundamental rights.

A fairer balance needs to be struck between the interest of brands or studios, celebrities and the public. Courts must, therefore, take a realistic view of contract law rather than a formalistic one, to play an important role in this area by invalidating extra broad behaviour clauses, as and when they face judicial scrutiny. 

Simrat Kaur is an intellectual property attorney and founder of the law firm, The Endretta.

Will the Real Arvind Kejriwal Please Stand Up?

There is a deliberate and strategic PR-op going on in at AAP. Not a single AAP leader, minister or MLA has stood up against the unconstitutional actions of the central government.

Born in a privileged, educated, professional family and relatively fresh out of law school, I was the only person in my family who voted for the Aam Aadmi Party in 2013.

They got my attention and consequently, my vote, because unlike the usual dross that flowed from mainstream parties i.e., appeasing to caste, religion and cultural identities, they actually started conversations regarding ways to improve the living conditions in Delhi. The chief minister behaved, walked and talked like one of us.

His words didn’t seem filtered, rehearsed or like they had been drafted by the media cell of a political party. The party did not root itself in any leftist ideology and nor did they propagate right wing discourse.

The simplicity of a Wagon R-driving, muffler-wearing, IIT-educated aam aadmi as a chief minister appealed to a lot of us who were generally living in a state of apathy, as far as the political landscape is concerned. 

In the beginning of the previous decade, when the Congress saw itself reeling from one scam after another and the BJP were still smarting as  Modi was taking charge, the Aam Aadmi Party came as a welcome respite for professionals and unskilled workers alike. A break from the status quo. 2015 saw the Aam Aadmi Party take a giant leap from 28 seats in 2013 to 67 seats.

One can only admire – grudgingly, if you sit in the opposition – the stupendous growth of a political party born as recently as November 2012. In a nation that has found itself obsessed with ‘mandir-masjid’, ‘Hindu-Muslim’ and anti-Pakistan rhetoric over the past few years, Kejriwal and his government have shown that it is possible to fight elections on development and improvements in the standard of living.

Upon reflection over the last five years, there has been significant progress in the fields of health (mohalla clinics), education (schools and sports facilities), free electricity, water and doorstep delivery of public services – basic needs in any civilised society. The controversial odd-even scheme may not be the best or most comprehensive answer to the city’s pollution sorrows, but it is a thought in the right direction, aimed at finding a solution.

Arvind Kejriwal at a recent press conference. Photo: PTI

With free WiFi and upgradation of public transport also on the agenda, it is clear that this government has its priorities at the right place. But for all its good work, the one, fundamental, rampant disease, which remains to be cured for the citizens of our capital city, is violence.

Violence on the road. Violence in our colleges. Violence against women. The list goes on.

As the dates for the 2020 Delhi assembly elections were announced, I wondered how many more instances of violence would this city be subjected to before February 8, when we go to vote. In light of the unprecedented events of the past few months, one may be forgiven for harbouring such macabre thoughts. 

I would stretch it as far back as February 2016, when the then president of JNUSU Kanhaiya Kumar, along with several journalists, students and teachers was assaulted in Patiala House Court premises, by self proclaimed ‘patriots’.

As recently as November 2019, in what was supposedly an ‘altercation over a parking spot’, between officials of Delhi Police and members of the legal fraternity (to which I belong) led to arson, destruction of public property, injuries to persons on both sides as well as a complete shut down of the Trial Courts in Delhi for a period of almost two weeks.

Also read: For the Sake of India, I Believe Arvind Kejriwal Must Be Re-Elected in Delhi

Enough has been written, said, and in the age of social media, witnessed, regarding the shameful incidents at Jamia Millia Islamia University, JNU and Daryaganj. Such has been the immunity granted to the perpetrators by the ruling dispensation, that no one was arrested for the blatant on camera attack in 2016 and no one has been arrested despite clear identification in 2020.

Regardless of whichever side of the political spectrum your loyalties may lie on, regardless of the religion you profess, if that hasn’t shaken your conscience to the core, given you restless, sleepless nights or made you question as to where we are headed as a country, it is perhaps time to take your proverbial ostrich head out of the sand. 

A lot of people ask me, ‘How does it matter to you? How is it affecting your life? Why do you care about these things?

That, my friends, is the literal definition of privilege. It would not be out of place here to remember Pastor Martin Niemöller’s eloquent words on the cravenness of German citizens in the face of the Nazis’ rise to power. As the residents of Defence Colony, a posh neighbourhood in South Delhi, who were not ‘permitted’ to conduct a civilised discourse on the Citizenship Amendment Act in their local park would tell you, ‘…then they came for me’. 

Which brings me to the question that I have been struggling to answer over the last few weeks. Where is our chief minister?

Kejriwal, after casting his vote in 2013. Photo: PTI

And no, I am not talking about weak, feeble and vague tweets or statements. Did any of you see him at Jamia or JNU? Did you hear him protest against the atrocities outside Police HQ at ITO? Did he at least visit the injured students after the attacks and see to their well-being? Did he lead a reading of the preamble of our constitution at India Gate?

He must have instilled confidence in the citizens that they have a right to peacefully protest? Surely the AAP government can tell us as to how and why electricity (under their control) was conveniently switched off at JNU?

Sir, what if it was not Jamia or JNU but your alma mater, IIT? What more will it take for you step out onto the streets to hold a dharna as you did against the LG, who you called a puppet of the central government, a few years ago. I definitely saw you demanding action and accountability in Pakistan over the attacks at Nankana Sahib. What about the citizens of Delhi?

Facta, non verba. Actions speak louder than words. It appears we are not worthy. 

Let’s be absolutely clear on this. There is a deliberate and strategic PR-op going on in the Aam Aadmi Party that not a single AAP leader, minister or MLA has stood up and sought to confront the unconstitutional actions of the central government. There is no doubt in my mind that the Aam Aadmi Party is being advised by the Prashant Kishor led I-PAC in the run up to the elections, and though flexible politics has always been his cup of tea, it reveals far more about where the Aam Aadmi Party and Kejriwal believe the public opinion lies.

Are they playing it safe to prevent disenchantment of their voter base? Is their trust in their voters so weak that they feel they will alienate a large section by opposing what are essentially blatantly unconstitutional actions? Or are they acting in fear of being embroiled in violence, which they think, will jeopardise their chances of success in the upcoming elections?

Also read: An AAP Victory Is a Democratic Imperative

Do they believe their joining the peaceful agitations will lead to imposition of President’s Rule in Delhi and a loss of power for them? Whichever way one looks at it, it paints a sad picture. It is a poor reflection of a person and a party who succeeded on the basis of speaking truth to power.

While I accept that it is not the easiest thing to achieve in the present scenario where all of us are opinionated over what is right and what is wrong, there is, undeniably, a political vacuum at the central level in India. It seems we have come full circle since 2013. Now, instead of the capital city, the country appears to be crying out for a new, dynamic leader.

Someone who believes it possible to have political and ideological differences without physically or verbally attacking and abusing the opposition. A person, a party, whose very presence can inspire and lead these young students who have taken it upon themselves to course correct India’s future. 

Police in riot gear stand guard inside JNU after masked men attacked students within the campus, New Delhi, January 5, 2020. Photo: Reuters/Adnan Abidi

The inaction of the past few weeks from Kejriwal and his party, compounded with politically correct messages, is a stark contrast to the spontaneous, charismatic confrontationist that emerged from the streets a few years ago.

Of course, he is a wiser ‘politician’ now, and he will defend the transformation as a necessary evil, but he must remember what brought him to centrestage in the first place: the people.

The very same people are out on the streets again, waiting to see if he joins them. The very same professionals, human rights activists, teachers and of course students. I am honoured to know some of them, they are starting conversations, writing articles, disseminating information on social media, making sure their elder, conservative family members see what is being done in the name of ‘normalcy’, helping out detainees legally, exposing the misinformation on Whatsapp, changing opinions one person at a time. I truly believe they are going to succeed in reviving the rule of law. 

On June 27, 2013, a few months before his famous victory against her, Kejriwal taunted the then chief minister Shiela Dikshit for expressing that Delhi Police was not under her control and asked us whether we wanted such a helpless CM?

Perhaps its time he asks the question again, the only difference being, this time he will be asking himself.  

Gautam Khazanchi is an independent advocate appearing and advising in criminal matters before the Supreme Court, Delhi high court and the trial courts in Delhi.

The Language of Deepika Padukone

Padukone taught a masterclass in body language when she went out on a limb and visited the JNU campus to express her solidarity with the students and faculty.

In 2007, when Deepika Padukone made her debut in the Hindi film industry, she was already well-versed in multiple languages, but had yet to learn Hindi – or at least learn it well enough to be able to speak it. For what use is a lexicon and competence if one cannot – or upon occasion, will not – use it to prove something to others?

Like I said before, the actress already spoke several languages, one of which is a rather universal tongue: body language.

As a model, an actor, a public personality, as a figure well-known from radiant toothpaste commercials and other endorsements, even a relatively inexperienced Padukone knew how to sit, walk, smile, listen and how to answer questions.

Thirteen years later, in 2020, I would say she taught a masterclass in body language when she went out on a limb and visited the Jawaharlal Nehru University campus in the aftermath of a vicious and unprecedented attack on students and faculty members.

I would say that because I don’t believe the term “body language” should subscribe only to the contextual meaning that is popularly conferred upon it – relegating it to useful tips for a successful interview or checklists to ensure a romantic partner isn’t put off.

The body speaks every single moment of every day, it has its own lexicon and brings with it its own competence, it possesses a separate weaponry whose capabilities we are alternatively unaware and hyperaware of. When Padukone consciously chose to drive out to the JNU campus, she must certainly have been hyperaware of her body’s – and thereby her mind’s – decision.


Also read: Deepika Padukone’s Silent Presence at JNU Protests Will Change the Game


I, as a layperson, cannot fathom appropriately the weight of this cranial – and therefore physical – hyperactivity that must have plagued her person. Could there have been moments in the journey to the campus, several pressing urges, to ask her driver to stop and turn around? A secretary could easily, almost mechanically, have conjured up an excuse.

This is, after all, a notoriously in-demand film star that we are talking about.

In any case, the driver didn’t turn the car around and the secretary did not place a few quick phone calls. Padukone visited the campus, stood amidst the students gathered outside the administration block, silently observed the ongoings, responded appropriately when spotted and greeted, and then left after some time.

What is particularly sad for me as an Indian who follows actors and filmmakers from other countries, is the fact that I – along with other Indians like myself – have to make a hero out of an actor who chooses to do something we’re all expected to do when we know a language masterfully well: speak it, use it.

What Padukone did was not a heroic act, not when I take a step back and approach it with what I can perhaps call a global skepticism. But in India, yes, it was heroic. It was an act deserving of honourable mention at the Ramon Magsasay Awards. It was unbelievable, it made us fear for her life (all over again), and most importantly, it made us look at her industry colleagues and then in turn at ourselves.

In a recent post, a friend of mine stated that she didn’t believe actors and media personalities were obligated in any way to take a stance. I found myself concurring. Nobody should be made to feel obliged to take a stance in situations like the one we currently find ourselves in. It could lead to forced expressions of solidarity among other inauthentic decisions, and as a use of our aforementioned language skills, it would then not have the desired effect.

But what my friend put in words was applicable mostly to those industry colleagues of Padukone, people who were by then being called upon – and called out – by several social media users to speak up, use their voice, express a much-needed, if inauthentic, solidarity.

Their ordinarily resounding voices, now silent, were like pointed forks being dragged across glass crockery. But at the end of the day, I had to look at it as a rather mathematical imbalance: thousands of lay people – students, writers, professors, white-collar workers, homeowners, and others – were struggling to publish their voices and educate as many people as possible. And on the other hand, we had these celebrated media personalities with a billion straining ears glued to their fortified main doors, dying to catch a whisper.

It was simply not to be.

All of these colleagues speak all the same languages as Padukone. They speak Hindi, and they speak English. Sometimes, they speak other languages as well. But this particular competence, of letting your actions do the proverbial speaking, is rare amongst these talented stalwarts. And outside of all idealistic formulations, no one in India would be doing the right thing by criticising these silently twinkling stars for not, let’s say, shining bright (and loud).

These critics would have been ordinarily right – I too would have seen myself and acted as one, but what is unfolding in India is a textbook example of fascist structures razing the landscape of our ‘nation’. I say textbook because I do believe we – like the Germans – are going to make it to the textbooks in another 20 years or so.

And I put nation in quotation marks because I do not believe we are – or have ever successfully been – a nation. A subcontinent, yes. A burgeoning and incredible landmass, most definitely. But one single country? No. And to expect someone – anyone, really, but specifically someone well-known – to take a stance against fascism requires thought and consideration. And reconsideration.

Did Padukone take a stance against fascism? I believe she did. And I believe outside of her visit to the JNU campus, she wasn’t alone in doing so. There has been a meagre sprinkling of others like her, voices we all were quiveringly grateful to hear. But it’s this particular visit of hers that made me think of body language, of the state’s elaborate and lathi-wielding machinery to stifle these speaking bodies and mute their competent language, and of the ways in which we negotiate with silence. How we are constantly arriving at outcome-based decisions, how our consequentialist thinking is depressing but at the same time set firmly in a rationality with which I, at the very least, continue to sympathise.

The comedian Sorabh Pant had this memorable line to say about witnesses in the Nitish Katara murder case backing out faster than sports cars in the Fast and Furious franchise: “You don’t want to be a witness…to your own death.”

Articles in financial newspapers and magazines are already predicting that endorsement deals and other ancillary offers will not be presenting themselves at Padukone’s doorstep anytime in the near future. Some have diagnosed her recently-opened film Chhapaak with disappointing numbers and are attributing it to her JNU visit, which she made only a few days before the film released.


Also read: Who’s Afraid of the University?


The expected onslaught of imbecilic comments has been received by the actress with an expected amount of dignity and composure. But the thing to note is that Deepika Padukone is no newcomer to perceived losses of dignity and composure. She let the whole nation know, a few years ago, how cripplingly unable her clinical depression had made her, how much she had to struggle in this country to even begin to understand why she, as a human, was experiencing what are essentially uniquely human emotions.

Because that is what our society is invested in: it separates us from our bodies and makes them unrecognisable, it obfuscates all possibilities of resolution and leaves us perpetually at the mouth of a black hole, screaming for help. And scream she did. Thankfully, she got the help she needed. She was able to get it.

But for an actress of her fame and ranking (and nationality) to recount how she used to go to her trailer to cry in between scenes is telling. It tells us something about this actor. It tells me that she is unafraid to let people know that she can successfully walk the tightrope, people who form a booing, misogynistic crowd beneath her, threatening not just to let her but make her fall.

Like I said before, I hate to be doing this. I hate to be glorifying an act as simply stated as Padukone’s. But it needs to be done. I’m a student of the German language and I recently assigned myself the task of writing about what’s going on in India right now. Understandably, there were many words and phrases that required careful and head-scratching translation. The peat bog of terminology in which we are trying unsuccessfully to swim is overwhelming in any language – and German – was no exception.

It made me think of a time in the future when this language would no longer be overwhelming, when it would be daily parlance, when it would be policy, when we would have to pat our pockets for our papers like we do for our wallets.

And in the meanwhile, I decided to use my language, just as – but not really in the same way as – Deepika Padukone decided to use hers.

M.S. Palekar is a student of English and German literature at Jawaharlal Nehru University.

Featured image credit: Reuters/Danish Siddiqui

Rethinking Education in the Age of Totalitarian Politics

The time has come to reinvent our classroom transactions and move towards the spirit of liberating education.

In these ruthlessly violent times – particularly, when like many other universities, our own university too is in turmoil – I have realised that as a teacher, I can no longer come back to the classroom and pretend that everything, as the administration wants us to believe, is ‘normal’.

I can longer just accomplish my ‘professional’ duty – covering the syllabus, giving my students all sorts of routinised assignments, and eventually grading and hierarchising them.

With the psychic wound all of us are inflicted with (just think of the traumatic moment – the police firing teargas shells inside the Jamia Milia Islamia library, or goons with rods and weapons breaking the head of a professor inside the Jawaharlal Nehru University campus), the meaning of the transaction of ideas in the classroom has acquired a new dimension.

We can heal ourselves only through the practice of liberating education – the education that opens our eyes to see the rising authoritarianism makes it possible to comprehend the psychology of violence through which it haunts us, and enables us to experience the culture of learning as a reflexive process of self-transformation. This is like relating the ‘texts’ we decipher in the classroom to the politico-ethical practice we engage in to create a better world.

Also read: It’s Time to Tell Amit Shah and Narendra Modi, ‘Hum Sab JNU’

Yes, it is an exceedingly difficult task. With the rise of totalitarian politics, what emerges is some sort of linear thinking: the normalisation of the ‘one-dimensional’ mind. And hence, all liberating ideas are suspected, or castigated as inherently ‘anarchic’ and ‘anti-national’. Yet, if we dare to see education as a therapeutic art of resistance and liberation, it is important to redefine ourselves – the very meaning of being a teacher or a student in these troubled times.

Beyond the fragmentation of specialisation

Yes, as teachers, we sharpen our specialisation, we write research papers and academic books, and we disseminate bodies of academic knowledge in our classrooms. Yet, there is something more we ought to do if we really hear the call of the vocation – it is about seeing ourselves as awakened citizens carrying the lamp of truth. This means that we begin to appreciate the art of teaching as the cultivation of ‘soul force’ or inner conscience.

No, this politico-ethical practice need not diminish the rigour of academics. Ironically, there are teachers who seek to retain some sort of abstracted ‘objectivism’ or ‘value-neutrality’. In the name of ‘specialisation’, quite often they fragment their consciousness. No wonder, it is possible to find, say, professors of molecular biology or nuclear physics who would seldom come out of their insulated labs, take a position, raise their voice even when the storm outside, or societal violence, enters the corridors of the university.

The irony is that even some professors of social sciences prefer to isolate ‘theories’ from the lived reality. It is like saying that you keep teaching Marx, Gandhi and Ambedkar with ‘textual rigour’, but never utter a single word about the rising authoritarianism in our society. In a way, this silence – even though legitimised in the name of ‘neutrality’ – is an escape from one’s engaged responsibility

I am not saying that a teacher has to be necessarily an ‘activist’. But then, beyond the ‘apolitical/professional’ teacher and the ‘ideologically charged /activist’ teacher lies yet another possibility – a dialogic teacher filled with the poetry of inner conscience, and experiencing the pursuit of knowledge or research not merely as a cognitive skill, but also as an act of awakening.

Also read: An Open Letter to Parents Bringing up Children in the Time of the CAA-NRC Protests

We live in an age that has already desensitised us. While the psychology of fear (something implicit in the practice of totalitarian politics) robs us of our voices, the culture of narcissism – yet, another consequence of the phenomenon of neoliberal utilitarianism or consumerism – insulates us from any project of collective struggle. And even as teachers, many of us behave no less differently than an average ‘consumer’: playing our ‘official’ roles with docile bodies and minds, watching toxic television channels, and entertaining a myth that somehow we are ‘safe’. The problem exists only in the distant Kashmir Valley, or among a bunch of ‘urban naxals’!

It cannot go on like this. As teachers, we have to reinvent ourselves. We ought to emerge as inspirers and communicators.  If teachers disappear, a university would be reduced into something like a factory or army barracks for manufacturing either ‘disciplined nationalists’ or ‘ideal consumers’.

Questioning the conventional idea of a ‘good’ student

What does it mean to be a student in our times? Well, it is repeatedly said that they should not engage in politics; they should only study, and think of their careers. While the market-driven discourse seeks to reduce education into a mere technical ‘skill’ dissociated from all politico-ethical and socio-philosophical questions, the aspiring middle class further promotes the commodification of education.

Hence, a ‘good’ student is often seen to be one who sees politics as a ‘diversion’, remains insulated from people’s struggle and resistance, and only ‘studies’ for a lucrative career. A ‘good’ student is linear in thinking, ‘focused’ as far as ambitions are concerned, and loves the ‘system’. Is it what Sunil Gavaskar meant when the other day he urged the students not to come to the streets, and like ‘ideal’ boys and girls enter the sanitised classrooms, and only ‘study’?

Also read: The Attacks on Universities Represent an Agenda to Eliminate Safe Spaces

However, what is promising is that in recent times we are witnessing the arrival of yet another kind of students who defy this ‘goodness’, come out of their comfort zones, see themselves beyond ‘placement and salary package’, raise critical questions, and refuse to be fooled by the state’s ideological apparatus. These students are emerging from JNU and Jamia, Jadavpur University and Aligarh Muslim University, and even from the ‘apolitical’ IITs and IIMs.

The coercive apparatus of the state has not yet succeeded in demoralising them. And they are protesting against the discriminatory character of the Citizenship Amendment Bill; they are reminding us of the intensity of damage the ruling regime has already caused to the spirit of public universities: the philosophy of inclusion and justice, the epistemology of pluralism ,and the logic of persuasion or art of listening.

In this awakened studentship I see a new possibility. First, I see a promising language of resistance filled with critical thinking, creative consciousness and aesthetic imagination. They are rediscovering the ideals that the emergent authoritarianism seeks to repress: the visions of Paulo Freire and Rabindranath Tagore, and M.K. Gandhi and B.R. Ambedkar. The values of the constitution, the spirit of religious diversity and cultural pluralism, and the aspirations for peace and harmony are rediscovered once again.

Second, I see a new orientation to the pursuit of knowledge. They are conveying a powerful message. There is no ‘sanitised’ classroom; and the ‘texts’ they study have to be examined in the streets through a quest for collective emancipation. In their practice, I have begun to see Gandhi’s satyagrahis hugging Gramsci’s organic intellectuals.

Also read: Why the University and Its Questions Worry the State

Well, given the kind of administrators (or the deputies of the ruling regime) who run our universities, it is quite obvious that the Establishment would abhor the birth of this new studentship. The goons would be allowed to enter our universities and cause terror, the police would move around our campuses, the noisy anchors of the ‘nationalist’ television channels would further spread the idea of the ‘tukde tukde gang’; and all sorts of disciplinary actions would be taken against the ‘handful’ of ‘misdirected’ students.

However, to refer to the specificity of the JNU, we would be bombarded by the ‘circulars’, and the university administration would direct us to give our consent to the ‘normalcy’ it has restored.

The question is whether as teachers we would succeed in debunking this ‘normalcy’, work with these awakened students, walk together, reinvent our classroom transactions, and move towards the spirit of liberating education.

Only then is it possible to have the real rigour in academics.

Avijit Pathak is a Professor of Sociology at JNU.

We Need to Stop the Strongmen Before They Deform Democracy Itself

Universities should be places which promote the life of the mind, excite young people to experiment with the unthinkable and dream the incredible. Instead, the atmosphere there has become tense, apprehensive and insecure..

No matter how hard you try keep the garbage hidden in the closet, the smell eventually seeps into the room and makes breathing difficult.

Young people all over the country can now smell the stink of hatred and communal politics that has accumulated over the past six years.

Commenting on the violence unleashed in Jawaharlal Nehru University over the past few days the external affairs minister made an anodyne statement: “[I] Condemn the violence unequivocally.”

He then followed it with, “When I studied in JNU, we did not see any ‘tukde tukde‘ gang there”.

Well, that should not surprise anyone as those in power those days did not describe law-abiding citizens as members of the ‘tukde-tukde’ and ‘Khan market’ gangs or love-jihad promoters. As a former foreign service officer, Jaishankar must also be aware that in somewhat civilised societies, citizens are not slapped with court cases and charges of sedition when they express their opinion, no matter how unpalatable, despite not actually indulging in criminal activity.

After all, those merely asking for an independent Scotland, Quebec or Catalonia have not been jailed in the UK, Canada or Spain.

In response to recent happenings, other ministers have made comments that certainly violate the canons of sobriety their positions demand. Smriti Irani commenting on Deepika Padukone’s visit to JNU said “the actor was certainly aware that she was sharing the platform with a student group that is opposed to India’s unity and celebrates  every time a CRPF jawan is killed”.

Prakash Javadekar said, the “police has brought reality in light. It is clear that left wing students’ outfits were involved in the attack,” and “there is a calibrated attempt to whip up passions by spreading misinformation”.

It is unlikely that these assertions can be substantiated. 

The fact is that the most powerful sources of fake news are the governments of most countries. Millions have been killed and displaced because the leaders of UK and the US insisted (quite wrongly) that Iraq possessed weapons of mass destruction. Many other national leaders around the world are known to spread falsehoods routinely to cling on to power.

Also read: NRC or No NRC: Who Is Lying, Narendra Modi or Amit Shah?

Ordinary citizens also spread fake news because they are encouraged by their political mentors to do so. It is the responsibility of scholars in universities and media persons to call out the lies governments spread, and in this we have been horribly wanting.

Vice-chancellors of universities, directors of national institutes and leaders of business houses should have considered it their moral responsibility to speak out on happenings over the past few months that are dividing our communities, families and friendships unto ‘tukde-tukde’ because of the policies of divide and rule. But they have not.

They do not seem perturbed that over the past couple of months more than two dozen people have been killed in Delhi and Uttar Pradesh, whereas only one person has died in Hong Kong over a much longer period of violent clashes and enormous amount of public property damage. On the other hand, some professors and authorities in IIT Kanpur thought that it was alright to take issue with the singing of Faiz’s ‘Hum dekhenge and the authorities in IIT Bombay are accusing faculty members who signed a petitition of violating conduct rules – a clear violation of Article 19 of the constitution of India which guarantees freedm of speech.

Other important functionaries in the government have not made things easier either.

Vice president M. Venkaiah Naidu maintains, “There is nothing wrong in discussing ideologies, but that should be kept outside the campus,” HRD minister Ramesh Pokhriyal says, “No educational institute will be allowed to become dens of politics” and the rabble rousing junior minister Giriraj Singh makes an astonishing claim, “Most of the missionary school students qualify for IIT and become engineers, but when they go abroad most of them start eating beef”.

If there is no place for politics on the campus, then why do we have economics, social science, political science and foreign relations departments in educational institutions, and what is the role of Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad?

Also read: JNU Attack: Delhi Police Confirm Masked Woman Is ABVP Member Komal Sharma

The atmosphere in our educational institutions has become apprehensive, tense and insecure. The meaning of education is being confused and vulgarised. Universities should be places which promote the life of the mind, excite young people to experiment with the unthinkable and dream the incredible.

It is not the job of heads of public institutions to toe the government line. Their salaries are being paid by taxes and not all taxpayers support the government in power. In fact, 63% of the voters did not vote for the present government.

Instead, these worthies should be encouraging teachers and students to tell the truth as they understand it to those in authority. What’s happening is not a good way to secure a meaningful future for anyone of us.

So far, these protests have received an encouraging level of support from many sections of society. This must continue. As a scholar of democracies commented, if we cannot stop these nationalist hardmen democratically, then they will deform democracy until it is unrecognisable and illegitimate.

Dinesh Mohan does research on road safety.

Actresses Break With Bollywood’s Embrace of Modi Amid Protests

They’re standing by each other despite boycott calls from Hindu nationalists, demonstrating rare solidarity in a cutthroat industry.

Wearing a black turtleneck and jeans, her hair neatly tied in a bun, Deepika Padukone, India’s highest-paid female actor, stood next to students on a cold night last Tuesday as they protested an attack by masked assailants at New Delhi’s Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

Padukone, who was on Forbes’ list of 10-most paid female actors globally in 2018, had a film called Chhappak — about an acid attack victim — due to be released three days later. Yet she appeared at the protest against right-wing attacks at India’s premier research university, aware of the risks to the film and to her.

Two years ago, Hindu nationalist groups had threatened to chop off her nose because a film, Padmaavat, had a scene that included a dream sequence of a ‘Muslim’ king wanting to be intimate with a ‘Hindu’ queen played by Padukone. Mobs vandalised the film’s sets, setting back its production schedule. Such attacks have left Bollywood feeling “vulnerable,” says actor Swara Bhasker. That, in turn, has meant that unlike Hollywood, where actors and filmmakers have spoken out against governments, A-listers in Bollywood — the world’s second-best paying film industry — have largely remained apolitical public personas. Under the current government, in fact, many have even queued up to click selfies with Prime Minister Narendra Modi.

Also Read: India Has a Long History of Artists Acting as Keepers of Social Conscience

Now, as protests spread across India over a controversial new citizenship law and attacks on students, Bollywood women are breaking with that pattern even as the biggest male actors, such as Shah Rukh Khan, Aamir Khan and Salman Khan, stay quiet. In December, police thrashed students of Jamia Millia Islamia University and Aligarh Muslim University who were protesting the citizenship amendment law, which discriminates against Muslim migrants. Priyanka Chopra, the other female Indian actor on that 2018 Forbes list, spoke out. “In a thriving democracy, to raise one’s voice peacefully and be met with violence is wrong,” she wrote on Twitter. “Every voice counts.”

Alia Bhatt, Tapsee Pannu, Richa Chadha, Sonam Kapoor Ahuja, Konkana Sensharma, Nandita Das, Sayani Gupta and Bhasker are among the other well-known actresses who have — on social media or on the streets — spoken out against the law or the attacks on students. And after supporters of Modi’s ruling BJP party called for a boycott of Padukone’s film because she stood by JNU students, some actors have leapt to her defence — a rarity in the cutthroat industry.

“The JNU attack was the tipping point and that is when the Bollywood women started speaking out,” says Bhasker.

For sure, some male actors — such as Siddharth and Zeeshan Ayyub — have supported the protests, as have a few award-winning directors such as Anurag Kashyap, Vishal Bharadwaj and Anubhav Sinha. But the biggest earners have avoided saying anything. India has a history of banning films deemed provocative. Producers have been forced to apologize for casting Pakistani actors, Bhasker points out. Aamir Khan and Shahrukh Khan faced calls for boycotts of their films when they spoke about growing intolerance in the country.

Swara Bhasker and Mohammed Zeeshan Ayyub. Photo: PTI

India is also witnessing a broader “shift in terms of gender relations, which has meant that there is a certain level of male anxiety,” says Sanjay Srivastava, professor at the New Delhi-based Institute of Economic Growth. But while male actors are often expected to take on roles that pander to machismo and themes of nationalism, he says, “the market that the women stars are catering to is different.”

The organic, citizen-led nature of the protests makes it easier for female actors to join without appearing politically affiliated, says Bhasker. Like Padukone, many of them have also faced vicious threats and abuses for their film choices or for speaking their minds in the past — they’re familiar with what the protesters are facing.

Some like Bhasker have addressed protest rallies against the citizenship law in Mumbai. And on the night the masked assailants went on a rampage at JNU with chants of “shoot the traitors of the country,” she broke down while appealing to her 537,300 Twitter followers to turn up at the university gate to help those stuck inside. The attackers thrashed students protesting a 300% fee hike, and the teachers supporting them. “They are attacking teachers’ houses now. Obviously, this is very personal for me because my parents live on campus.” [Bhasker’s mother Ira Bhaskar is a professor at the university].

Others like Padukone — who has a brand value of $102.5 million — have let their presence do the talking. During the attack at JNU, the students union President Aishe Ghosh was brutally injured — she had to get 16 stitches on her head and a cast for her broken left hand. When Padukone visited the campus, she didn’t speak but met Ghosh with folded hands, evidently trying to fight back tears.

Will her solidarity with the students affect the earnings of her new film? Government ministers and BJP spokespersons have targeted her on Twitter, helping drive #boycottdeepika and #boycottchhappak. But film trade analyst Girish Johar points out that Padmaavat, for which Padukone received threats, eventually became one of Bollywood’s top-10 grossers of all time. “If Chhapaak turns out to be a good film, it will definitely perform well,” says Johar.

Meanwhile, other barriers are being broken. Bollywood actors and directors compete hard against each other for the same screen space and audience adulation. But actors like Chadha have been active on Twitter, defending Padukone, debunking a false rumour that the makers of Chhapaak changed the identity of the Muslim perpetrator of the acid attack to a Hindu name. “Why do ppl [people] come forward to prove their stupidity every day?” she says in a reply to one Twitter user. “Stop lying.”

The rallies across the country are filled with slogans that start with the words “It’s so bad that,” to highlight how people who previously have stayed away from public protests are now joining in. Bhasker smiles and says, “You know what we need …‘It’s so bad that even Bollywood is out on the streets’.”

This article was first published on Ozy.

CAA-NRC Live Updates: Gujarat HC Asks Police to Take ‘Timely Call’ on Protests

Latest updates from the demonstrations across the nation.

New Delhi: Protests against the triple threats of the Citizenship Amendment Act, the proposed National Register of Citizens and the impending National Population Register have continued on a range of magnitude throughout the country.

From candlelight vigils at the gates of Jamia Millia Islamia in New Delhi to protests by Muslim women not just at the capital’s Shaheen Bagh but also at Patna’s Sabzibagh and Kolkata’s Park Circus, what is primarily a youth and women-led women has not shown signs of letting up.

Meanwhile, a spate of FIRs and police action bordering on severe brutality keeps the protests that have taken place in the last month active in collective memories.

From condemnation to intricacies in bail orders, in this page, The Wire brings you the updates from the anti-CAA and NRC protests.

§

Those wanting to protest against the CAA in Ahmedabad on Monday approached the Gujarat high court saying that the police did not grant them permission to protest peacefully. According to the Times of India, Justice A.Y. Kogje said that the police should take a decision on the application in time.

The petitioners, Mudita Vidrohi and Mujahid Nafees, said that while the administration has granted permission to 62 programmes held by the BJP to support the CAA, it has been denying permission to those wanting to protest it. Denial of permission to protest peacefully is in violation of people’s fundamental rights.

The petitioners said they had applied for permission on January 5 to stage a protest on January 19 in Jamalpur area. They said the police have not granted or denied permission and sought the high court’s intervention.

§

ISI students, teachers sign statement in support of JNU

Several hundred students, teachers and research of the Indian Statistical Institutes across India have issued a statement in condemnation of the violence that took place, as rightwing members attacked JNU students and teachers on January 5. The incident, though fuelled by students’ resistance to the hostel fee hike in particular, has now been subsumed in the anti-CAA protests seeing that several other institutions have been on the receiving end of violent action.

The ISI professors’ statement of solidarity makes mention of “incidents in Jamia Millia Islamia, Aligarh Muslim University and Banaras Hindu University”.

It adds, “We see this as part of systematic attacks in Indian educational institutes which is a disgrace to our nation and a threat to the seats of intellect.”

This comes amidst a clear knowledge of the aftereffects of signing solidarity statements against forces opposed to the government, as was examined in this story.

§

Punjab to defer to ‘will of state assembly’

The Punjab government will go by the will of the state assembly on the CAA, NRC, and NPR, an official statement accessed by PTI said.

This was decided on Tuesday evening by Punjab ministers during an informal discussion after a Cabinet meeting, the statement read. “The ministers also expressed concern over the implications of the blatantly unconstitutional and divisive CAA, NRC and NPR,” the statement said.

They also expressed alarm over the violence that had erupted across the country over the issues, which, according to them, “threatened to rip apart the secular fabric of the nation”.

§

Jamia VC meets Delhi police commissioner over campus violence

Jamia Millia Islamia Vice Chancellor Najma Akhtar on Tuesday met Delhi Police Commissioner Amulya Patnaik and urged him to lodge an FIR in connection with the police action on campus after an anti-CAA protest in the neighbourhood, PTI reported.

Besides Patnaik, Akhtar met Special Commissioner of Police (Intelligence) Praveer Ranjan and Joint Commissioner of Police, Southern Range, Devesh Srivastava.

On Monday, the vice chancellor had said the varsity administration will “explore the possibility” of moving court for registration of an FIR against “police brutality” on the campus after hundreds of angry students gheraoed her office demanding action against the Delhi Police.

On December 15, violence erupted during a protest against the Citizenship Amendment Act (CAA) in south Delhi’s New Friends’ Colony near Jamia Millia Islamia. Protesters torched vehicles and clashed with police.

Why the Fee Hike For JNU Students is Justified, and Why it Isn’t

A fee hike in institutions like JNU is long overdue. However, it should be accompanied, if not preceded, by several other changes in the ‘system’. 

As is well known by now, some hostel fees and charges have been hiked for students at Jawaharlal Nehru University (JNU).

In response, there have been massive protests at JNU (and many other universities). The specifics of the fee hike are familiar. So, I will move on to the main theme. Is the fee hike justified? 

It is true that very many students who come to JNU are from low income backgrounds; they find it difficult to pay high hostel fees or charges. I would like to make two observations.

First, a large subsidy can be for only those who are not well-off and not for everyone (let us not exaggerate the administrative difficulties involved here).

Second, JNU is a premier institution in India. Even if many of its students come from families with low economic background, it is very likely that after their education, the life time stream of income of the current students changes substantially. And they can by and large afford to pay in future even if they cannot afford to pay at present.

This immediately suggests that there can be a student loan to bridge the gap; this obviates the need for a large subsidy from the government of India (GOI). 

JNUSU members Aishe Ghosh with other members. Ghosh was injured after an attack by rightwing groups on those who had been protesting against the fee hike. Photo: PTI

This is not to say that the amount spent by the GOI on education or on poor people should be reduced. It is just to say that the money can be used in a better way on education of others who may be getting left out completely. It may also be used to lift up ‘below poverty line’ (BPL) families. 

The above idea of looking at not just the current economic (and social) background of students but also their future income is related to the well known distinction between current income and permanent income that is due to the Nobel laureate Milton Friedman (let us not get too affected by the fact that he belonged to the Chicago School of Economics).

The current income of students (and their families) of JNU can be low but not their permanent (future) income.  

Also read: Despite 41 Days of Protest in JNU, No Sign of Relief

This is not to say that getting employment for JNU students is a cake-walk once they finish their education. But eventually very many do get placed well – not in the sense that they become rich but in the simple sense that they are in a position to repay a loan over a long period of time. The repayment need not be in the form of a fixed amount every month. Instead, it can be income based

It is true that the US experience with student loans has not been very good. This may suggest that it can be even more difficult here in India. However, an important reason for the difficulties with student loans in the US is that the quality of education is not very good at the low-ranked (and possibly profit-making) educational institutions which may also be admitting somewhat weak students. This is not the situation at institutions like JNU.  

Some studies have shown that student loans act as a burden on people in the sense that it affects their other decisions; for instance, they may get married later. Also, they may not be in a position to buy a house for very long, and so on. All this is indeed true.

However, this is still an incomplete story. The money saved on subsidies in premier institutions can be, as mentioned earlier, used instead on those who are in a much worse position that JNU students are in.

The Department of Biotechnology at JNU. Photo: Wikimedia Commons

Should we then simply shift from a policy regime of low fee and high subsidy to a regime of high fee that may be financed by student loans? Now, this is where we need to be careful. 

Access to student loans is not easy in India. This is particularly true for students in universities like JNU where management, engineering, medicine, and so on are not the focus areas. Moreover, the real interest rates on loans are high in India (it is only the nominal interest rates that have come down in India in recent years).

The real lending rates are high in India for two reasons.

First, there are inefficiencies and fraudulent and corrupt practices in banks; this is particularly true of public sector banks (PSBs).

Second, some private sector banks (and foreign banks) are excessively profitable in India. It is interesting that the two phenomena are related but that is a different issue. The point here is that we need a policy to change the banking situation in India.

What if the students do not get jobs or cannot sustain a good income for long? Then repayment of loans can become very difficult, if not impossible. Now protection under a meaningful and clear bankruptcy law for individual borrowers is somewhat missing (it is only the Insolvency and Bankruptcy Code or IBC for businesses that is reasonably well laid out now).

In this context, student loans are not always a good idea. We need the counterpart of IBC for individual borrowers. 

It is also the case that lenders are not very transparent and ethical at the time of giving student loans. There is need for an improvement here. It will help to have sound and independent financial advice and academic and career counselling for students who may need to take loans, if there is a big hike in fees.   

Also read: The JNU Fee Hike Affects Students with Disabilities More Than We Realise

There is no denying that some JNU students may not get a decent livelihood even after many years of completing their education. This raises another question. Why should this happen at a premier institution? Is there scope for better admission process, a better set of courses, a more meaningful syllabus, a better method of examination, and so on? There is a need for refection here as a part of the broader change in policy.  

There is also a need to systematically carry out an awareness campaign and convince students (and their parents) that a fee hike, as a part of an improved policy regime, is not against the general social interest. It also helps to bring about a fee hike in stages and in a gradual way (as was done in 2013 in the case of reduction of subsidy on diesel by a mere 50 paise per month for several months).

A sudden huge (percentage) change in fees is not a good idea.    

A fee hike for students in institutions like JNU should indeed happen; it is long overdue. However, it should not happen in isolation. It should be accompanied, if not preceded, by several other changes in the ‘system’. 

If no change is made at all in policy, then gradually over time there is a risk of falling quality due to resource constraints in one way or another. 

Gurbachan Singh is visiting faculty, Indian Statistical Institute, Delhi centre.