Developments in Jawaharlal Nehru University have raised larger issues of dissent, freedom of speech and basic civil rights. In a wide-ranging interview, former Communist Party of India (Marxist) general secretary Prakash Karat, who himself has been JNU Students’ Union president, spoke to Smita Gupta about the current ferment on university campuses, the Hindutva onslaught, the challenge to Left politics, and the rise of Dalit students’ organisations . Excerpts:
Has the JNU crisis created an opportunity for the Left parties?
The government, the BJP [Bharatiya Janata Party] and the RSS [Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh] are on a drive to establish their political and ideological hegemony over all higher education institutions and campuses using the ABVP [Akhil Bharatiya Vidyarthi Parishad]. It so happens that the Left-led students’ organisations are the most committed and firmest opponents of this Hindutva drive. JNU is the prime target because this campus, despite being in Delhi, has resisted this onslaught most successfully so far. The so-called incidents of anti-national activities are being utilised in a calculated and deliberate way by the government, the BJP and the RSS — to mobilise public opinion and sentiments across the country against so-called anti-national activities. JNU is being branded as a den of anti-nationals. The basic target is the Left… this has become wider than JNU as [it follows] similar incidents in Hyderabad Central University [HCU], in IIT Madras on the question of suppressing the Ambedkar Periyar Study Circle, the effort to establish control over institutions like the FTII [Film and Television Institute of India]. This poses a threat to all democratic values and the autonomy of universities. This is pinpointed against the Left… we see this as an opportunity to rally all democratic and secular forces to fight back this Hindutva offensive.
The BJP projects the entire Left — the organised Left and the Maoists — as an amorphous whole so that there is no distinction in people’s minds.
We will not fall into the trap of the government’s characterisation of the Left as a whole being anti-national. Nor should we fall into the trap of trying to divide and differentiate, saying there are some bad people and some good. As far as JNU is concerned, the charge of sedition is something levelled against a student for activity that we may not agree with, but it does not qualify as sedition or anti-national. Political debates, differences should happen on a campus. Within the Left, there can be arguments also. We don’t have any commonality or platform with the Maoists, we don’t accept their politics and tactics. But in JNU, this was primarily political activity that was not resorting to violence or instigating violence. I may not approve of the slogans or their stance, but I am equally against the police intervening and arresting students on the charge of sedition. We want the sedition clause in the Indian Penal Code scrapped. It is draconian and used widely against anyone who dissents, opposes government policies, conducts protests… we have been charged by the right wing of being anti-national not just now but since the inception of our party in 1964. We will not be cowed down or bullied by such efforts.
Rohith Vemula had moved from the Left to the Ambedkar Students' Association (ASA), a Dalit outfit believed to be even more extreme Left…
In HCU, there are many Dalit organisations and Rohith belonged to one of them. Some of them have worked for or been aligned to Left-oriented students’ organisations to fight elections for the students union. In fact, the present leadership is an alliance of the Students’ Federation of India [SFI] and the Dalit Students’ Union [DSU], not the ASA. There are Dalit students’ organisations that have a common ground with the Left on many issues. They have their own agenda and platform, but on many issues, they come together.
Is the entry of Dalit students into university politics a new phenomenon?
There is definitely a change. A greater number of Dalit students are trying to assert their rights and views inside campuses. Much of it concerns their own educational affairs, not just general, political or other issues. At one stage, the fight was to [make] entry into universities more broad-based, inclusive, but that is not sufficient. When Dalits come into the universities, they find the system is stacked against them. Even what is taught reflects the old order. The struggle has come to a stage where they are asking questions about their curriculum, their research, the treatment meted out to them by their supervisors, the faculty. In the case of Rohith and some other Dalit students and organisations, they are also engaged in struggling to change the educational system, to make the curriculum and research programmes broad-based and inclusive.
So how does a party like the CPI (M) respond to these changes?
Left students’ organisations are alive and conscious of these changes. Over the last two decades, they have oriented themselves differently… I can see the changes in JNU from what it was 30 or 40 years ago. Left students’ organisations are trying to integrate Dalit and gender issues, even ensuring they get reflected in the curriculum and academic discourse. It is a battle not just about getting admissions but what is taught, the books, the content of lectures. Of course, some Dalit and minority students’ organisations feel the need to put forth their issues separately, but there is also a convergence.
Since you were president of the JNU Students’ Union in the early 1970s, the profile of students has changed.
In JNU, we in the students’ union pioneered the fight for a more broad-based, inclusive admissions policy, not the university. After the first year, we did an analysis of admissions and found that students were coming from a very narrow catchment of elite institutions, especially in the social sciences. The majority were from Delhi, from three or four colleges. But we said, no, this is a national university made through an Act of Parliament, it must become more representative in national terms and in the socio-economic background of the students. A new policy was put in place in 1973-1974. By the 1980s, a very diverse range of students started coming in. Now, that process has moved forward with many student leaders emerging from the working class, the subaltern classes, reflected in Rohith and Kanhaiya Kumar. Kanhaiya’s mother is an Anganwadi worker, Rohith’s mother used to earn her livelihood through tailoring and doing other odd jobs. These are the people not just entering universities but becoming student leaders: this is a very significant development.
Are we seeing a new wave of students’ movements in the country?
Definitely, there is a new wave of students’ movements building up in the country. Much has happened since the late 1960s-1970s with neo-liberal policies being implemented in education through large-scale privatisation and commercialisation. You don’t find the same kind of organised students’ movements in all universities but another wave is building up. Macro-issues concerning autonomy of institutions, democratic rights of students, issues of democracy and secularism are dominating the discussions, bringing in students on a larger scale. Just as we saw in Hyderabad and now in JNU, there is a ferment all across the country in educational institutions.
There are overarching issues which were not there in this form earlier. Educational institutions in the 1970s were different: you didn’t have so many high-fee-charging higher education private institutions where, once you get in, the only goal is how to get a degree and a job. The percentage of public-funded educational institutions is much less than earlier. It is much more difficult for students from private institutions to come together and get involved in collective action. But they have started coming out and joining in general protests even though they may not do it on their own campuses.
(email: smita.g@thehindu.co.in)
