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

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.

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.

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

At the first press conference called since the January 5 attack, the DCP Crime, Delhi, did not mention the masked people seen in the widely circulated videos.

New Delhi: Chiefly zeroing in on a video being circulated on social media that was shot before Sunday evening’s brutal attack by a masked mob inside the Jawaharlal Nehru Univesirty campus, the Delhi Police on Friday named nine persons, including the JNU Students Union (JNUSU) president Aishe Ghosh, as suspects.

Ironically, Ghosh had sustained head injuries from the attack by masked persons and had to be rushed to the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) along with several other students and some university teachers.

Media reports said at least 35 persons were injured on Sunday’s attack carried out by masked people, holding sticks and spreading terror on campus. Ghosh and JNUSU office bearers, and also students not associated with it, had blamed the Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad (ABVP) – the youth wing associated with the Bharatiya Janata Party – for unleashing the violence at the campus. Screenshots of WhatsApp groups named ‘Unity Against Left’ and ‘Friends of RSS’ where members were planning the attack were also circulated on social media. 

However, on January 10, flashing photographs taken from the video, which incidentally had also been shared by rightwing Twitter handles and the official handle of the ABVP, DCP (Crime) Joy Tirkey told journalists that Ghosh, “led the mob that attacked the Periyar hostel on the evening of January 5”.

He said, “Three cases have been registered till now and they are being investigated by us.”  


The other names given out at the press meet by Tirkey, who is leading the investigation, were Shiv Pujan Mandal, Pankaj Mishra, Chunchun Kumar (former JNUSU president), Yogendra Bharadwaj, Dolan Samantha, Sucheta Talukdar, Priya Ranjan and Bhaskar Vijay. There are some former students too.

While seven of them belong to Left backed groups, two are associated with ABVP.

Tirkey said while a large number of students wanted to follow the university administration’s registration process, which has been boycotted by JNUSU for over two months demanding that the university roll back the fee hike, Left-backed groups and their supporters didn’t allow the students to do so. “The JNU administration decided to go for online registration of students from January 1-5. JNU Students’ Union including Students Front of India, All India Students Federation, All India Students Association and Democratic Students Federation were against it,” he said.

The officer said, “No suspect has been detained till now, but we will begin to interrogate the suspects soon.”

This was Delhi Police’s first press conference after it began its investigations into the incident. Tirkey said, “This is the first information of our investigation that we are sharing with you. We will come back again.”

Sunday’s incident had also put a question mark on the Delhi Police’s wait till 7.45 pm to enter the campus even though by then at least 23 distress calls were received by its PCR unit and the university administration, informing it about violence at around 3 pm.

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

The police have also received flak for registering an FIR against an injured Ghosh on January 7 while not being able to arrest anyone for the January 5 violence. Videos of attackers with sticks leaving the university in a line while the Delhi Police personnel waited and watched have been doing the rounds on social media.

Tirkey didn’t mention anything about the masked men. All the photos showed at the press meet were of students whose faces had no cover, but were blurred beyond recognition. 

Meanwhile, reacting to the Delhi Police naming her and fellow students, Ghosh denied any involvement in the attack and told reporters that the Delhi Police had acted with bias. “I had gone to the scene to stop the violence. I was not wearing any mask, I have done no wrong…I still have my blood soaked clothes,” she said. 


She added, “JNU representatives were forced to go to stop the violence because Cyclops (the private security group) failed to reach there in spite of several SOS calls made to its office.”

She said the police, instead of questioning Cyclops and the university administration for their inability to protect the students, is going after the students who tried to help out teachers and students being attacked by the masked mob.

After Deepika Padukone JNU Visit, Smriti Irani Sees Actor Backing India’s Destruction

The filing of sedition charges against JNU students in 2016 based on uncorroborated allegations had taken place during Irani’s regime as Union Human Resource Development minister.  

New Delhi: In her earlier avatar as HRD minster, Smriti Irani had put the Modi government on a collision course with the students of Jawaharlal Nehru University. And on Friday she returned to the subject by suggesting Bollywood actor Deepika Padukone and the students she appeared alongside with on campus in support of those recently beaten by masked assailants were out to destroy India.

Irani’s stint as education minister produced the phrase ‘tukde tukde gang’ based on the as-yet-unproven charge that key student leaders like Kanhaiya Kumar – who were arrested and charged with sedition – had called for the break-up of India.

Four years on, Irani recycled the ‘tukde tukde’ phrase to take a swipe at Padukone, whose presence at a solidarity meeting on January 7 that was addressed by Kanhaiya and others has triggered not just praise for the actor but a huge outpouring of support for the university’s students.

At an event in Chennai, Irani, who is now Union textiles minister said that Padukone’s support for the Congress party – which she claimed she had made apparent in 2011 – had been known all along and that “anybody who has read the news” knew who she would support.

Irani was ostensibly referring to the political polarisation which has taken place over the Citizenship (Amendment) Act and the prospect of a nationwide National Register of Citizens which is pitting  students, Muslims, Dalits, people in the North-East and elsewhere and activists of various backgrounds, against the government, the BJP and its supporters.

While the CAA-NRC has triggered protests across the country, the attack by masked rightwing activists at JNU on January 5 took place in reaction to the movement against the hike in the university’s hostel fees. However, protests against the JNU attack have now been subsumed by the larger movement against the CAA-NRC, which received a big fillip when the Bollywood actor visited JNU.

Also read: Skill India Puts Promotional Video Starring Deepika Padukone on ‘Hold’, Says Report

Padukone has since been on the receiving end of severe criticism from BJP eaders, who have even called for a boycott of her new film, ChhapaakA 2011 interview of Padukone’s has also been circulated, where she is reportedly heard saying that her choice for the prime ministerial candidate is Rahul Gandhi.

“She made her political affiliation known in 2011 that she supports the Congress party. If people are surprised by this, it is because they didn’t know. There were a lot of admirers of hers who have just discovered her position,” she was quoted by The New Indian Express as having said. Irani had made the comments at an event organised by the newspaper.

“It’s her right (to) stand next to people who say Bharat tere tukde honge,” the Union minister was quoted by NDTV as having further added.

This was not her only criticism of the JNU ilk.

“She sided with people who hit girls on their private parts with lathis. I can’t deny her that right,” she said, also adding that Padukone had voiced support for people who “celebrate when a CRPF jawan is killed” and who “supported a terrorist.”

By the latter, Irani was ostensibly referring to Afzal Guru, who was hanged in 2013, for his involvement in the 2001 parliament attack. An event held at JNU in 2016 on the anniversary of Afzal Guru’s execution  kickstarted the Centre’s involvement in the university, by pushing youth leaders Kanhaiya Kumar, Umar Khalid and others into a legal quagmire complete with sedition charges based on a doctored video and also opening the narrative of its students being ‘anti-national’. The police attack on JNU had taken place during Irani’s regime as HRD minister.

Irani is not the only politician of the BJP to criticise Deepika, but she is the highest ranking. Environment minister Prakash Javadekar however, struck a different note, saying it was an artiste’s right to join any protest.

In the aftermath of the JNU attack, Irani had said on Monday that she hoped that students would not be used as political tools.

“I had said it earlier and reiterating it now that educational institutions should not be made rajiniti ka akhada (political battlefield) as it affects the life and progress of our students,” Irani told reporters, adding that she would not like to comment on matters undergoing probe.

Skill India Puts Promotional Video Starring Deepika Padukone on ‘Hold’, Says Report

The report comes mere days after the actor joined protests at JNU against violence perpetrated on campus against students and teachers by rightwing groups.

New Delhi: A promotional video featuring actor Deepika Padukone on behalf of the government’s Skill India campaign has been ‘abruptly dropped’, ThePrint reported a senior official in the Ministry of Skill Development and Entrepreneurship as having said.

The news portal also quoted the ministry as having officially said that the video, which has Padukone speaking on acid attack survivors in addition to Skill India, was being ‘evaluated’.

Skill India was launched by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2015 and aims to equip nearly 40 crore people with various skills by 2022.

The report comes mere days after the actor joined protests at Jawaharlal Nehru University against violence perpetrated on campus against students and teachers by rightwing groups.

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

The show of solidarity by Padukone – one of the biggest Bollywood names to join the recent protests – led the rightwing to unleash a volley of abuses at her and call for the boycott of her new release, Chhapaak. Many, purportedly belonging to the BJP ‘IT cell’, shared the same alleged screenshot claiming it showed that their tickets for the film were cancelled.

The film is based on the experiences of an acid attack survivor. The Skill India video would have acted as a promotional for the film; the ministry had also facilitated a meeting between Padukone and acid attack survivors.

To ThePrint, the ministry reportedly said that the video had been sent by Padukone’s ‘team’ and would thus require its evaluation. The unnamed senior official, however, said, it was “being circulated in the Shram Shakti Bhawan too. But after (Tuesday’s) chain of events, the video was abruptly dropped.”

The report also cited the example of actors Varun Dhawan and Anushka Sharma who had done promotional videos for Skill India ahead of the release of their film Sui Dhaaga: Made in India.

Speculation had been rife as to whether Padukone’s appearance at JNU had been motivated by her film’s promotional needs. Several, however, noted on social media that the actor was aware of the possibility of a reduction in ticket sales that taking a political stand would mean at such a time. Social media users were quick to point out that Padukone knew the effects of a multitude baying for an actor’s blood when controversy had raged over her last release Padmavaat.

The film Chhapaak, meanwhile, has been exempted of taxes in the Congress-ruled states of Chhattisgarh and Madhya Pradesh and the Union Territory of Puducherry.

Watch | ‘I Can Identify My Attackers’: JNUSU President Aishe Ghosh

The Wire’s Avichal Dubey spoke to Ghosh and asked her why the police have not taken any action against her attackers yet.

On Sunday, January 5, masked men and women entered the JNU campus and hit students brutally with iron rods and sledgehammers. The miscreants also vandalised various hostels.

In this violence, more than 35 people, including JNU Students’ Union President Aishe Ghosh, were injured. The Wire‘s Avichal Dubey spoke to JNUSU president Aishi Ghosh on this matter. He asked her why an FIR against her has been lodged and why the police have not taken any action against her attackers so far.

Watch | What Deepika Padukone’s Presence at JNU Means

The Wire’s senior editor Arfa Khanam Sherwani argues that it has become imperative for Bollywood A-Stars to speak on the current political climate in India.

After Deepika Padukone met with JNUSU president Aishe Ghosh, there was a mixed public reaction. While some people are saluting her integrity, some are calling for a boycott of her upcoming film Chhapaak. The Wire‘s senior editor Arfa Khanam Sherwani argues why has it become imperative for Bollywood A-Stars to speak on the current political climate in India.

How Did the State Come to Legitimise Vigilante Action?

Vigilante behaviour and a total disregard for the constitution or the laws are apparently fine as long as they are backed by majoritarian will.

The scenes that came out of JNU, the safest and the most non-violent campus in India, are simply unbelievable and dystopian: masked goons – from outside JNU – roaming around freely and violently attacking professors and students, including female students, vandalising property, mob shouting “shoot the country’s anti-nationals,” and ambulances and medical volunteers being attacked.

We do not have confirmation regarding the identities of the masked mob.

But varied media reports from students and teachers suggest that police, which was already on campus, did nothing to stop the mob. One of the students injured most badly was the president of the JNU students’ union from the Left, the students and teachers targeted were non-ABVP, and anti-administration and the street lights were off while the mob entered (such large numbers cannot enter anyway without collusion from the administration). WhatsApp messages and photographs – all point to the direction of the ABVP-BJP and Hindutva groups being involved in the attack.

Of course, ABVP has instead alleged that it is the Left that has unleashed mob violence. Yet, as every important political leader has tweeted about the unprecedented violence in JNU, the Prime Minister, who had tweeted after the violence at Jamia saying that “never has damage to public property and disturbance of normal life been a part of our ethos” is silent even 24 hours after the incident.

So, is an attack against India’s premier university, and its teachers and students, a part of our ethos? The irony is that the state can be repressive not just by using excessive force, but also by complete silence.

Since 2016, JNU has been prepped by the state and its supporters, as well as by the propagandist media, for vigilante action; after all, it is anti-national and seditious, that too at the expense of taxpayers. The intention is to break this tiny space of dissent at any cost. Thus, even the external affairs minister, a JNU alumnus, after initially condemning the JNU violence, referred to the “Tukde Tukde” gang at JNU.

The fact that the state is repressive, even in the oldest democracy of the Third World, is a given. Thus, India has a long history of extra-judicial killings – euphemistically called “encounter killing”.

But what is more dangerous is the internalisation by the citizens of the state’s vigilante mode. Popular support for vigilantism in a democracy can be catastrophic. Telangana police’s extra-judicial killing of the rape accused, and widespread commendation of the police action, including by film and sports celebrities, political leaders, including sitting chief ministers and so on shows a very scary tendency in India’s polity.

Telangana was just a trailer. But, apparently, Uttar Pradesh is the real deal, for its chief minister, has openly and blatantly declared that he will take “revenge” on the protestors. Now, that is not the language of the state, but that of the vigilantes.

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

Yet, protests against the CAA should not delude us that there is no support for the police action by the Yogi government. A perusal of the readers’ comments on editorials against the police action in liberal newspapers and WhatsApp messages circulated even by non-Hindutva supporters shows the stark reality of internalisation of vigilantism, but this time with the added logic of majoritarian communalism: the need to teach the “violent Muslims” a lesson.

Ironically, lakhs of “violent Muslims,” and others marched peacefully in Mumbai, Bengaluru, Kochi, Pune, Chennai, Hyderabad without a single incident of violence.

As countless news reports indicate, and as tens of videos have shown, police action in UP cannot be termed as anything less than a “reign of terror”. It is one thing for police personnel to defend their bodies and lives (which is not even a point of debate) in front of a mob and an entirely another matter for the police to fire even when not faced with an immediate threat, or to fire in the first instance without exhausting all non-lethal options, to go on the rampage after the event, beat up women and old men, lay homes to waste, detain children and torture them, refuse to hand over bodies for funerals, arrest activists and others who are not involved in the protests, all the while targeting only the Muslims.

Police beat up protesters in Lucknow. Photo: PTI

When the UP Police claims that all the 21 people, except one, who were killed, were killed by the protestors’ bullets, prima facie, it is an incredulous story considering the lack of casualties on the police side. Of course, the truth has to be established, but how do we believe the claims of the state when between 1997 and 2016, there have been 790 custodial deaths in India, with merely eight police personnel convicted?

When the state seeks to extract compensation for destroyed property from citizens on its own without a judicial process, and in violation of Supreme Court orders, you are in the classic territory of vigilantism, and extortion in the name of instant justice. Contrast this with the many videos available of the police itself indulging in wanton destruction of property.

Despite the indescribable cruelties meted upon many innocent Muslims by the police, it would be wrong to focus on the vigilantism of the police in isolation of the political context. The police are only a reflection of society in the first place. The communalisation of the police mirrors the communalisation of society, which has a long history. After all, the brutal killing of 42 Muslims by the Provincial Armed Constabulary of UP took place in 1987 under a Congress regime.

Also read: Must JNU Be ‘Normalised’?

Yet, what is happening under the present dispensation is of a shockingly different magnitude. And the critical difference is that somebody like a Yogi Adityanath is in power in UP. This was a person, who, as an elected member of parliament, routinely made the vilest of hate speeches, including one where he said, “If they take one Hindu girl, we will take 100 Muslim girls. If they kill one Hindu, we will kill 100 Muslims.”

In any democratic and civilised society, Adityanath would have been in jail for this speech alone and would not have been able to run for any public office after that. But instead, he controls the largest police force in the country. He has withdrawn the hate speech cases against himself. Can we expect the police, under Adityanath, to behave any differently than it did with the CAA protests?

Why state or people vigilantism is completely a function of majoritarian support is evident from the varied responses to different mob actions. In December 2018, a mob of around 400 gau rashaks burnt a police post, set vehicles on fire, and killed a conscientious police inspector, Subodh Singh in Bulandshahr district. The chief minister did not attach the properties of the accused. Narendra Modi did not condemn the incident despite the killing of a policeman, an act of sedition. The main accused, a Bajrang Dal leader is on bail now.

While the state and the popular narratives in the aftermath of CAA were entirely based on the destruction of property, and the total illegitimacy of protesting against a law legitimately passed by the parliament, it is shocking that there is nary a concern for human lives lost, even when we know now that at least a few who died, like the 8-year old boy, were not violent protestors.

What kind of a society grieves for burnt buses over the death of the 17-year old boy, Sam Stafford, in Assam who was returning home after the protests, or the 26-year old daily wage-labourer, Noor Mohammad, in UP with a pregnant wife at home, who was shot some distance away from the protests?

Contrast the sanctimonious concern for property with the complete and wilful amnesia over the greatest act of vandalism in independent India, the destruction of the Babri Masjid, which also led to the killing of over 2,000 people, mainly Muslims, in riots which followed. The top leadership of the BJP, facing criminal charges for conspiracy, are yet to be convicted, even after 28 years.

Karsevaks at the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. Credit: Reuters

Karsevaks at the Babri Masjid on December 6, 1992. Photo: Reuters

Or further contrast the new-found belief in legality and the sacredness of parliament with the majoritarian view on the Sabarimala verdict, handed down by the Supreme Court of India. Prime Minister Modi questioned the verdict arguing that Sabarimala was a matter of faith and lambasted the Kerala government for trying to implement the law of the land. Amit Shah said that courts should not pronounce verdicts which could not be implemented and threatened to bring down the Kerala government. In the widespread violence that was unleashed by Hindutva groups for days, 100 public transport buses alone were burnt.

Also read: JNU Violence: When Knowledge Becomes a Signifier of Dissidence

Vigilante behaviour and a total disregard for the constitution or the laws are apparently fine as long as they are backed by majoritarian will. Therefore, we should not be shocked by the Meerut police officer who asked Muslim anti-CAA protestors to go to Pakistan.

Is he any more culpable than the home minister, who in April, referring to Muslims in Wayanad, Kerala, said, “Can’t make out if it’s India or Pakistan”? Or, is he any more culpable than the prime minister, who said recently that rioters can be identified by their clothes?

Similarly, it is Narendra Modi, and Amit Shah who made fashionable the terms, “Urban Naxal” and “Tukde Tukde”, the words most commonly used by the Hindutva supporters to describe JNU.

Make no mistake: whether it is the “Muslim” CAA protestors or the “anti-national” JNU, the legitimacy for vigilante action comes from the highest echelons of the state, amplified by the “people” on their side.

Nissim Mannathukkaren is with Dalhousie University, Canada and tweets @nmannathukkaren.