Post UGBM Notice - 22nd September

Today (22^nd Sep) a Joint Struggle Committee meeting was convened by AISA. AISA, AISF, NSUI, SFI and DSU were present in the meeting. The meeting was called to discuss on the process of reopening the’ negotiation’ with amicus curiae seeking maximum possible relaxation from Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations. DSU pointed to the fact that recently concluded UGBM on Tuesday has passed the following resolution unanimously:

This UGBM rejects the draconian Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations in JNU in any form, and upholds the JNUSU constitution. This house mandates that in any future referendum on JNUSU elections Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations will not be an option.

As per the resolution JSC is mandated to reject and fight against the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations in toto and uphold JNUSU constitution. With this resolution, the previous mandate to JSC to conduct negotiations with the amicus curiae has become null and void. DSU has also pointed out that the JSC no longer has the mandate from the student community to continue with the process of ‘negotiation’.

The UGBM of 6th September 2010 mandated the JSC to go for negotiation with the solicitor general seeking ‘maximum possible relaxation’ from Lyngdoh recommendations as an interim measure. The process failed miserably in the last one year as solicitor general showed little interest in negotiating with the members of JSC. He in fact unilaterally called off the process of negotiation after the third meeting. Consequently, Gopal Subramanium, the then solicitor general and amicus curiae resigned from the position of solicitor general. The JSC agreed that the possibility of ‘negotiation’ was exhausted. The UGBM of 20.9.2011, which was requisitioned by 1700 students and submitted to the JSC, was to decide on the future course of action in holding the JNUSU election through the mode of a referendum. DSU firmly believes the resolution passed in this UGBM is binding as per the JNUSU constitution on JSC and all its constituent member organisations.

DSU Delhi University Public Meeting

DSU Delhi University Public Meeting

EXPOSE THE ATTEMPTS TO BRING IN LYNGDOH IN THE NAME OF “RELAXATIONS”! REJECT DRACONIAN LYNGODH IN TO-TO! UPHOLD THE JNUSU CONSTITUTION!!

Gauging the mounting anti-Lyngdoh mood of the students, SFI/AISA/NSUI/ABVP fled from a UGBM held on 20^th September 2011. The UGBM passed a unanimous resolution rejecting the draconian Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations and further mandated that in any referendum held on the JNUSU elections, Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations can not be an option. Completely ignoring the mandate of the students this opportunist alliance went ahead to ‘negotiate’ with the Amicus Curiae to get some ‘relaxations’ from Lyngdoh to hold JNUSU elections. This is nothing but utter disregard to a UGBM mandate and a blatant attempt to sabotage the democratic tradition of JNU to replace it with the draconian anti-student Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations. Their ‘relaxations’ full of sound and fury signifies nothing but is merely an attempt to implement Lyngdoh with some garb.

A closer look at their so-called “relaxations obtained through negotiations”:

·                    While Lyngdoh in entirety is draconian the most dangerous of its clauses is the Grievance Redressal Cell.

In contravention to the JNUSU Constitution that mandates the autonomous student body of the Election Committee as the ultimate authority during the process of elections, the composition of the Grievance Redressal Cell as per Lyngdoh allows for the direct involvement of the university administration in the election process and gives it unlimited powers to nullify even elected representatives. In Aligarh Muslim University, In Kumayun University and many other places this cell is the most potent weapon in the hands of the administration to debilitate students union as it gives sweeping power to the administration to cancel any candidature at their own discretion even way after the elections. The ‘relaxations’ claim that there will be students’ representative in the cell but that provision is already there in the original Lyngdoh Recommendations.

6.8.1 There should be a Grievances Redressal Cell with the Dean (Student Welfare) / teacher in charge of student affairs as its chairman. In addition, one senior faculty member, one senior administrative officer and two final year students – one boy and one girl (till the election results declared, students can be nominated on the basis of merit and/or participation in the co-curricular activities in the previous year). The grievance cell shall be mandated with the redressal of election-related grievances, including, but not limited to breaches of the code of conduct of elections and complaints relating to election-related expenditure. This cell would be the regular unit of the institution. (LCR, P. 52)

6.8.2 In pursuit of its duties, the grievance cell may prosecute violators of any aspect of the code of conduct or the rulings of the grievance cell. The grievance cell shall serve as the court of original jurisdiction. The institutional head shall have appellate jurisdiction over issues of law and fact in all cases or controversies arising out of the conduct of the elections in which the grievance cell has issued a final decision. Upon review, the institutional head may revoke or modify the sanctions imposed by the grievance cell. (LCR, P.52)

What the agents of Lyngdoh – both AISA/SFI – are championing as “major achievements” from the “negotiation” in terms of “relaxations” is evidently bogus for instance on this crucial point which constitute the crux of Lyngdoh Committee that seeks to turn students’ unions in mere puppets in the hands of the administration. 

·                    The next aim of Lyngdoh along with making unions puppets in the hands of administration is to induce depoliticization. Article 6.3 seeks the “Disassociation of Student Elections and Student Representation from Political Parties” (LCR p.44). Students who get admitted in colleges and universities are adult citizens who take part in parliamentary, assembly and local bodies’ elections. Therefore, the idea that the universities are meant for education and not for politicization of the students implicitly argues in favour of depoliticisation of student body.  It keeps students away from the larger issues taking place outside the campuses that directly affect them.

Further 6.3.1 states “During the period of the elections no person, who is not a student on the rolls of the college/university, shall be permitted to take part in the election process in any capacity.” (p.46). This is a clear attempt to make elections devoid of political debates and discussions and reduce them to a mere apolitical bureaucratic affair. Our pro-Lyngdoh ‘comrades’ from AISA-SFI while flaunting the “achievements of negotiation” in their poster, remains criminally silent on this point where there is NO RELAXATION.

·                    On age and repetition, AISA/SFI is celebrating what had been offered ‘three years back’ and what the JNU students have already rejected. The so called ‘relaxations” has merely increased the age limit only for research scholars by two years. While the age restrictions for BA/MA students (22 and 25 years respectively) are as it is. Students often start their education late or are forced to discontinue education owing to sheer material conditions. Rejecting their right to contest is extremely problematic and elitist. By this clause the entire P2 category of students in JNU (those who have gaps in between their courses) and students who were forced to start their education late will be denied of their right to contest. The JNUSU constitution gives right to all who can vote the right to represent students and to replace it with such an elitist clause is dangerous. On repetition too, what is being trumpeted as “grand relaxations” by the lackeys of Lyngdoh in campus, the outcome again restricts the basic right to contest and be elected multiple times, thereby jeopardizing the political accountability of the candidates vis-à-vis the student community.

·                    On disciplinary action and criminal case, the “relaxations” is a vague statement which says ‘can contest unless charged or convicted in for criminal cases”. What constitute a “criminal Case”? More than 20 students were slapped with “criminal cases” in the brutal lathi charge that happened in North Gate in 2009. The JNU students were not at fault at all and were protesting against a few drunken outsiders who had harassed some women students. Often as students take part in protest demonstrations outside against anti-people policies of the state or injustice they are detained, booked and even charge sheeted with FIRs. It is the political conviction of JNU students that they have time and again been part of protests outside and have even faced repression. Even inter-organizational settling of scores can lead to false implications and police chargesheet as was done to a student during a public meeting by the right wing. What right does Gopal Subramaniam have to debar such students from taking part in JNUSU elections. This is yet another strong weapon in the hands of the administration to stop students from participating in political protests and also anti-administration protests. No wonder the administration will henceforth start slapping ‘criminal cases’ against students to debar their participation in elections, like they do in many other universities.

·                    One of the most problematic clause of Lyngdoh Recommendations is 6.5.4 Although, the Committee would refrain from prescribing any particular minimum marks to be attained by the candidate, the candidate should in no event have any academic arrears in the year of contesting the election. (LCR, p.48) This again is a highly meritocratic clause and it is unclear about ‘academic arrear’. Good academic performance does not imply a nuanced political understanding or an effective and strong students’ representative.  All students are equally eligible to contest irrespective of their academic performance, so-called ‘merit’ and arrears. We know how students from particular caste/class background and those who are unable to articulate in English are systematically targeted by the faculty. Students are often graded poorly as a result of discrimination which are neither the real reflection of their intellect nor can be any valid ground to deny them from contesting elections. The “negotiators” did not even talk about this dangerous clause!

So, what our pro-Lyngdoh ‘comrades’ from both AISA and SFI are trying to make us swallow in the name of the sweet extract of “negotiations”, is nothing but the Lyngdoh with all its fangs and claws. Along with their rainbow coalition with all possible shades of the right wing, the agents of Lyngdoh in campus today are attempting to usher in Lyngdoh in the garb of “Relaxations”. But, the progressive students of JNU have always given these lackeys and running dogs a fitting rebuff as was again manifest on the last UGBM from which the dalals were forced to flee. A puppet union with depoliticized and meritocratic elections will never be able to fight for the genuine students’ rights or stop the forces of privatization of education!

Expose and defeat the Indian state’s nefarious designs to implicate Kashmiri youth in the Delhi High Court Blast!!

Hours after the bomb blast at the Delhi High Court on 7^th September, the Indian ‘investigative’ agencies began the witch-hunt of Muslims that has become usual after every such bomb blast. Random arrests and illegal detentions were made the next day onwards from different parts of India and Kashmir. A 14-year-old boy from Jharkhand was arrested by the West Bengal police; two people were arrested from Kolkatta by the West Bengal police; the Rajasthan Police detained two Jammu and Kashmir residents from Alwar district; four former district unit chiefs of the Student Islamic Movement of India were picked up from Mumbai. Over 60 people were detained by NIA for different durations in Kishtwar for ‘questioning’, and three of them, 19 year old Aamir Abbas Dev, 16 year old Abid Hussain and 14 year old Shariq Ahmed were finally ‘officially’ arrested after illegal confinement for a couple of days. Aamir’s brother has also been detained by the police.

The people of Kishtwar have erupted in protest against the arbitrary arrests, detentions and torture. Expressing concern specially over the targeting of minors and school going children, the people of Kishtwar lodged strong protests in different parts. As reports of torture poured in, many came out on the streets and gheraoed the police station. Kishtwar also observed a complete shutdown on the 12^th of September against the continuing detentions and harassment. In the face of huge protests against the false arrests and branding, the police and the NIA surreptitiously whisked away the two of them, Aamir and Abid, during night to Jammu from where they were flown to Delhi, while Shariq was left in the police custody of the Kishtwar police. As journalists were not even allowed to be part of the court proceedings, Abid Hussain was remanded to NIA’s custody till 5^th October while Aamir has been sent to judicial custody. 

The entire course of ‘investigations’ have once again brought out the communal fascist character of the Indian state. What else they have once again brought to the fore is the rat race that ensues between different investigative departments to come up with their own versions, each more ‘true’ than the previous. So for one, it is the work of the non-existent Indian Mujahideen to avenge the Batla House ‘encounter’, while for NIA it is the work of the Dhaka based HuJi to avenge the death sentence given to Afzal Guru! In both the cases, by ripping up what it terms as the ‘collective conscience’ of the people, what the Indian state seeks to obscure is how in each of the two cases – be it the fake encounter at Batla House or false implication of Afzal Guru, all the institutions of the state, be it the police, judiciary or the media, worked in collision to manufacture evidence and implicate and execute innocent Muslim youth.

What these agencies will never bring to the fore is the involvement of the Hindu fascists in these attacks. The media’s follow up to the blast has been once again extremely shameful and has remained wilfully silent on the possibility of the Hindu fascist forces behind this attack. One has not forgotten the chilling confessions made by Aseemanand last yearwhich clearly exposed the involvement of the sangh giroh in the Ajemr sharif, mecca Masjid, Malegaon, Samjhauta Express or Nanded blast. What this systematic brutalisation and witch hunt of the Muslims vindicates once again is how it is not just the domain of the Sangh and the ruling class in totality is Hindu fundamentalist in nature. On the other hand, the attack on Kashmiri youth yet again is another attempt on the part of the Indian ruling class to silence the voice for Azadi. But Kashmiris have braved all this and much more valiantly for the past 60 years in their struggle for Azadi. The false cases, arrests, torture, disappearances, fake encounters and all the military might of the Indian state can never suppress the struggle for Azadi of Kashmir.   

Not empty rhetorical slogans of ‘secularism’ or ‘communal peace and harmony’, but a united resilient struggle of the oppressed massesalong with the ongoing revolutionary movement can only challenge and defeat this brahminical communal fascist-expansionist state and it is only by strengthening the ongoing revolutionary movement that we can put an end to this.

In yet another mockery of justice the perpetrators of murder and heinous caste violence in Mirchpur go scot free!

In Mirchpur last year the ghastly incident of caste violence  and murder had taken place. An eighteen year old polio stricken dalit girl and her old father were burnt alive by the dominant jaat community. A mob of around 100-150 jaats ravaged their houses along with many other dalit houses and set them ablaze. The houses of dalits who were relatively economically well off were particularly targeted as those houses were eye sores to the feudal pride of the jaats. The police, a mere puppet in the hands of the Jaats openly granted one hour to them to carry on with the rampage. The crime was committed in broad daylight infront of many witnesses. But feudal powers have always overwhelmed judiciary or administrative investigations in India. Kherlanji is already a burning example of gruesome killing and caste violence in which justice was blatantly denied. In Mirchpur killing too, the Delhi high Court “honorably” acquitted 82 accused while framing minimal charges against the other 15 accused, who were not found guilty of committing murder. A few days ahead of the verdict, the Jaat Mahakhap panchayat had warned Bhoopindar Hooda the CM of Haryana, of dire consequences if their ‘innocent boys’ are harassed any further. The feudal clout of the Jaats clearly yielded results as the judiciary acquitted bulk of the perpetrators. Most crucially, the charges of caste violence have been dropped by the court and minor charges of ‘unlawful assembly and stone throwing’ have been put on the perpetrators. The police officers and constables against whom cases were lodged of indulgence and helping the perpetrators have been acquitted too. The case was shifted to Delhi High court from Haryana to ensure ‘fair trial’ and safety of the witnesses. But in a complete mockery of justice once again, the perpetrators of the heinous crime are moving scot-free.

The incident once again bares the cruel and grotesque feudal power of the dominant castes and their manipulations and control over all ruling class machineries from the police, civil administration, to judiciary. These so-called democratic institutions have always been tools of oppression in the hands of the dominant class/caste in India. The mockery in the name of ‘justice’ in the Mirchpur incident is yet another glaring proof of that. The oppressed sections be it the dalits, adivasis, religious or ethnic minorities are always denied of their basic rights, dignity and justice in this country. The overhauling of this brahminical semi-feudal system can only bring justice to these oppressed yet fighting masses.

Public Meeting on An Elected Joint Struggle Committee (JSC): A model of resistance against Lyngdoh SPEAKERS: K.J. Mukherji Prof, CBT, JNU Raghu Ram Prof, IP College, DU Krishna Dev Rao Prof of Law, National Law School University, Delhi 24th Sept,9:30pm, Kaveri Mess

The students of JNU have been fighting a historical battle against the draconian Lyngdoh Recommendations for the past three years. This fight is not just against a set of draconian guidelines that seek to turn students’ elections into a depoliticized bureaucratic exercise giving sweeping powers to the administration. This fight is also against privatization of education, commercialization of basic facilities and brahminical hegemony over knowledge production. Behind the smokescreen of ‘curbing money and muscle power in students politics’, the real aim of Lyngdoh is to facilitate and fortify all these forces of privatization and casteism in higher education and to scuttle students’ right to unionize and organize in opposition to these forces. It is because JNU students have consistently organized themselves under the guidelines of the progressive JNUSU constitution that our campus is more socially sensitive and inclusive than other central universities, where students from diverse backgrounds can afford quality higher education.  It is the vibrant students’ movements led by the JNUSU over the years that have repeatedly resisted any attempts to privatize education, scuttle social justice or commercialize basic facilities.

It is because of JNU students’ sustained political and legal struggle against Lyngdoh, that the Supreme Court judges have questioned its constitutional validity. The Court observed prima facie that Lyngdoh amounts to judicial legislation and infringes upon the fundamental right i.e. Right to Association of the students. Given the fact that JNU’s petition is the only one against Lyngdoh that has received a consistent hearing, it was a huge step ahead for the entire student movement in the country. At this juncture, any compromise with Lyngdoh, in any form, will be a big setback noy only for the JNU students movement but also for the students movements across the country.

In the name of negotiations with Gopal Subramanium, the reactionary AISA-SFI-NSUI-ABVP gang is trying to bring in Lyngdoh to the campus in another form. Last year, the UGBM mandated the JSC to negotiate with the then Solicitor General, Gopal Subramanium, so as to get some ‘relaxations’ from Lyngdoh as an interim measure to hold elections. Subramaniam was never serious about the ‘negotiations’ and one full year was wasted in our struggle. It was collectively decided in the JSC that the ‘negotiations’ have failed and when the students geared up to explore other possibilities to fight Lyngdoh these organizations ran away from an ongoing UGBM (20 Sep) on the pretext of ‘negotiation’. This UGBM unanimously rejected Lyngdoh in any form in JNU. This mandate is binding on the JSC and all its constituent organizations. The mandate of this UGBM overrules last year’s UGBM’s, which had mandated the JSC to negotiate. The pro-Lyngdoh forces are now undermining the mandate of the UGBM and are trying to bring Lyngdoh through the back-door in the name of negotiations.

At this juncture, we have to reassert our political defiance to Lyngdoh. We have to tell the apologists of Lyngdoh AISA-SFI that we are not going to accept Lyngdoh in any form, not even as charity crumbs which Gopal Subramanium might throw at us in the ‘negotiations’. A puppet students union at the mercy of the administration will never put up a genuine fight for students. Undermining UGBM’s mandate and the JNUSU constitution, these pro-Lyngdoh forces are now trying to subvert JSC itself—the very JSC which has been given the task of fighting Lyngdoh and reinstating JNUSU elections according to JNUSU constitution—in order to bring in LCR.  In this situation, DSU recognizes that the JSC has to be made more accountable to the student community. The way ahead for us is to hold elections for JSC as an interim measure till we win back JNUSU elections according to JNUSU constitution.  

Why Joint Struggle Committee (JSC) election? The JSC was formed in 2008. All the organizations in JNU except for the casteist pro-Lyngdoh Y4E have been a part of it. The JSC was mandated by the UGBM to fight a political and legal battle against Lyngdoh to uphold and reinstate the JNUSU constitution. In the absence of JNUSU, the 1700 students requisitioned the JSC for 20 Sep’s UGBM. The JSC is thus entrusted to lead the most crucial battle which is going to determine the character of our university in the days to come. In this juncture, the JSC has to be a more accountable and elected body. Along with fighting the Lyngdoh Recommendations, DSU is of the firm opinion that the JSC representatives should take up other students’ issues in the interim until the reinstating of a JNUSU in accordance to our constitution.

The only question that is being raised against an elected JSC as an elected body is that of its ‘legitimacy’. In other words, the pro-Lyngdoh alliance is now asking us— will the administration recognize it or not? But we must remember that JNUSU is not a registered union either and drew its legitimacy only from the students which forced the administration to recognize it. Our representations to various administrative bodies like the AC/BoS, IHA, CDC were all results of struggle by students. So when students rally behind the JSC, the administration will be forced to recognize it as the legitimate representative body of the students. Moreover, this will not jeopardize the case that we are fighting in the constitutional bench against Lyngdoh.

If established, the JSC can become a model of resistance to all students in other universities who are fighting the assault of draconian Lyngdoh and JNU students have the historic responsibility of playing the role of the torch-bearer. We appeal to all students to come in large numbers in tonight’s public meeting and collectively deliberate on the mode of resistance which is going to determine the nature of fight against the draconian Lyngdoh Committee as well as the character of students’ movement in the days to come.

A resounding victory for JNU students in the battle against Lyngdoh apologists, but the battle is far from over!

The developments leading up to the historic UGBM of 20th September and the events thereafter have thrown up a new alignment of forces in the campus. In 2008 when the assault of Lyngdoh had struck for the first time, the entire student community and all organisations on campus (except the casteist and manuvadi YFE) were publicly opposed to Lyngdoh in JNU. Now there is a sharp polarisation between the forces which have come out openly in support of Lyngdoh and the students of JNU who continue to oppose Lyngdoh in any form upholding the JNUSU Constitution. No surprise that the communal-fascist ABVP now proposes to hold JNUSU elections as per Lyngdoh Fascist forces have always welcomed and used draconian regulations to strengthen themselves. Along with ABVP, another fascist force has been preparing grounds for welcoming Lyngdoh to the campus: the social-fascist SFI. Since the UGBM of 20th September, SFI-AISA ABVP-NSUI have formed a grand alliance to subvert every democratic institution of JNU students – be it the UGBM, JNUSU Constitution or the Joint Struggle Committee (JSC) – with the single-point agenda of facilitating JNUSU elections as per Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations. It has become clear as daylight that the UGBM and the planned referendum were means which SFI-AISA-ABVP-NSUI tried to use for smuggling-in the draconian Lyngdoh. This explains why both SFI and AISA kept Lyngdoh as an ‘option’ in the proposals for the referendum, while their alliance-partner ABVP spilled the bins by openly advocating Lyngdoh for a year on an ‘experimental’ basis!

The common students of JNU came forward once again as the resolute defenders of JNUSU Constitution in the UGBM. Students are the real force in our four year-long struggle against draconian Lyngdoh guidelines, which was proved once again in the last UGBM. Gauging the anti-Lyngdoh mood of the students who turned up in their hundreds, SFI-AISA apprehended a humiliating defeat of their resolutions, and therefore they tried to sabotage the UGBM from the very beginning. They first ganged-up to propose a completely bizarre model of voting which was in direct violation of the procedure laid down by the JNUSU Constitution. When SFI-AISA saw their attempts collectively rebuffed, they soon came back with another mischief. On the floor of the UGBM SFI and AISA started claiming that Roshan Kishore, a SFI member received a miraculously coincidental phone call from Gopal Subramanium at around 7pm expressing his willingness to resume ‘negotiations’. On the basis of a single phone call from a government-appointed lawyer – who is our direct adversary in the ongoing Supreme Court case on Lyngdoh – SFI and AISA decided that the UGBM has to be called off! Once again, their attempt to impose a highly authoritarian, undemocratic and opportunistic demand on the chair and the student community was defeated. AISA-SFI-NSUI-ABVP left the students as well as the debate and walked out! Adding insult to SFI-AISA’s injury, the UGBM culminated with the passing of a unanimous resolution rejecting Lyngdoh in JNU in any form. The resolution also mandated that Lyngdoh cannot be an option in any future referendum related to JNUSU elections. This UGBM mandate is a resounding expression of the anti-Lyngdoh sentiment of the student community, and a decisive defeat of the pro-Lyngdoh alliance. The fresh mandate of this UGBM has made the resolution of 6 September 2010 null and void, which had authorised the JSC to ‘negotiate’ with the amicus curiae to get “the maximum possible relaxations from the Lyngdoh recommendation in keeping with the struggle to uphold the JNUSU Constitution”. After the UGBM of 20.9.2011, which has rejected Lyngdoh in any form, the JSC no longer has the mandate to continue with the negotiation process to have “maximum possible relaxation” from Lyngdoh. We warn SFI and AISA that even with the “maximum possible relaxations”, Lyngdoh is not acceptable to the students of JNU. If SFI-AISA-ABVP-NSUI is still hell-bent on continuing the negotiations, the only way open for them is by seeking a fresh mandate from the student community through another UGBM. AISA surpassed all bounds of illogic and opportunism and openly claimed that the UGBM is “unconstitutional”! We challenge these degenerate spent forces, to prove in which way a UGBM, duly requisitioned by students, after fulfilling the quorum, and with the debates continuing with massive participation of students, becomes ‘unconstitutional’ with one phone call from Gopal Subramaniam! The hundreds of students who stayed till the successful culmination of the UGBM gave a fitting rebuff to these escapist coward forces.

After shamelessly fleeing from the UGBM, the pro-Lyngdoh gang of SFI-AISA-ABVP-NSUI has continued their attempts to undermine the UGBM mandate, the JNUSU Constitution and the collective anti-Lyngdoh voice of the student community. With the arrogance characteristic of fascist forces they have refused to accept the mandate of the UGBM. Instead an appointment has been fixed by SFI with Gopal Subramanium on coming Saturday, while AISA called a JSC meeting yesterday to ‘convince’ DSU and other constituent members of JSC to be part of the negotiations. DSU categorically told AISA and SFI in the meeting that we will not be a part of this so-called ‘negotiation’ which is not mandated by the students, and warned them against entering into any unauthorised negotiation with Gopal Subramanium on behalf of the JSC. These organisations have no right to use the platform of JSC to ‘negotiate’ when there is no consensus among the constituent organisations, and more importantly, when there is no mandate from the students for that. The desperation of SFI-AISA-ABVP-NSUI to ‘negotiate’ with the amicus curiae by blatantly violating the UGBM mandate and undermining the established norms of JSC-functioning is a clear sign of their eagerness to dump JNUSU Constitution in favour of elections as per the draconian Lyngdoh.

The pro-Lyngdoh alliance of AISA-SFI-ABVP-NSUI has accused DSU of subverting the ‘negotiation’ process, whereas the truth is that they are the culprits of violating the mandate of the JNU students. DSU had opposed the joint resolution of SFI-AISA-ABVP-NSUI gang in the UGBM of 6.9.2010 which was a clever move to open the doors of JNU to Lyngdoh in the name of ‘negotiations’ and ‘relaxations’. However, after the resolution was passed by the UGBM, DSU agreed to be a part of JSC’s negotiation process for the last one year respecting the mandate of the students. Since the UGBM of 20.9.2011 has given another unambiguous mandate against accepting Lyngdoh in JNU in any form, there is no valid ground for JSC and its constituent members to consider Lyngdoh with ‘relaxations’. Any further ‘negotiation’ by SFI-AISA-ABVP-NSUI with the amicus curiae will be considered to be the acts of these organisations alone, and not on behalf of the JSC or the students of JNU. These organisations, and not the JSC, will be held directly responsible by the student community for any adverse impact of such unauthorised, irresponsible and underhand ‘negotiations’ with Gopal Subramanium on our ongoing Supreme Court case against Lyngdoh. But as trusted lackeys of Lyngdoh, SFI-AISA bandwagon can hardly be bothered about the impact of their irresponsible acts on our legal struggle against Lyngdoh, which is the only remaining challenge to this draconian regulation in the whole country. The student community will not allow them to jeopardise the last and the most formidable legal-political battle against Lyngdoh, as a result of which the constitutional validity of Lyngdoh guidelines itself stands questioned today.

AISA-SFI is responsible for stalling the struggle for restoring elections according to the JNUSU Constitution. From the UGBM of 6.9.2010 to that of 20.9.2011, more than a year has been wasted in the name of ‘negotiations’ without any positive outcome. In a total of four meetings with the JSC, Gopal Subramanium had flatly refused to grant any substantial ‘relaxation’ in Lyngdoh guidelines for JNUSU elections, as a result of which the ‘negotiations’ were dragged on continuously. Negotiation became a dead horse even before Gopal Subramanium resigned as Solicitor General. Moreover, negotiations have diverted our attention in the last one year from the urgent task of intensifying political and legal struggle against Lyngdoh, with the result that we have not been able to get a single hearing in the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court. Who is responsible for this state of affairs? It is the organisations like AISA and SFI which portrayed a rosy picture of ‘negotiations’ with the Solicitor General one year back that are responsible for diverting the struggle for restoring JNUSU.

The UGBM provided us with an opportunity to launch the next stage to struggle to restore elections as per the JNUSU Constitution. However, the grand-alliance of opportunists SFI-AISA-ABVP-NSUI who have clearly revealed their pro-Lyngdoh colours wish to flog the dead horse of negotiation even now, with the hope that the amicus curiae will take pity and throw them a few ‘relaxations’ as crumbs! These organisations do not even have the courage to place in front of the student community an honest review of a year wasted in meaningless ‘negotiations’ before suddenly coming up with the absurd logic of ‘reopening’ the failed ‘negotiations’. Students of the campus have had enough of this cat-and-mouse game of ‘negotiations’. They now want to explore ways of intensifying the struggle against Lyngdoh to restore elections as per the JNUSU Constitution instead of chasing the mirage of ‘relaxations’ promised by these discredited pro-Lyngdoh organisations. Right when the pro-Lyngdoh forces sensed the decisive mood of the students against Lyngdoh, they cleverly reverted to ‘negotiation’ drama so that Lyngdoh can be pushed in.

DSU’s anti-Lyngdoh model for the referendum has caught the imagination of the student community. While the option of conducting elections as per the JNUSU Constitution by defying the court’s stay order is still open before the student community, DSU is also enthused and inspired by the overwhelming response of the students to the proposal of conducting elections to the JSC as an interim measure till the JNUSU is restored. DSU firmly believes that the option of election to the JSC, for which the JNUSU Constitution will be the guiding framework, has emerged as a most practicable anti-Lyngdoh model for reintroducing students’ elections in the campus in the interim. Elections to JSC have become an urgent necessity due to the display of utter contempt for democratic opinion of the student community by certain organisations. With no accountability to the student community or the JNUSU Constitution at present, organisations like AISA and SFI have been indulging in acts of subversion and manipulation within the JSC – which was constituted by the students as a platform of struggle against Lyngdoh. It’s high time that the JSC is transformed from a platform representing different organisations, to an elected body which represents the entire the student community. Moreover, the JSC can also intervene in the immediate problems faced by the student community and lead struggles for their resolution in the interim till we win back JNUSU by getting the stay order on the elections revoked. As a symbol of resistance against Lyngdoh and our commitment to the JNUSU Constitution, elections to the JSC will also send a strong message to the powers-that-be who wants to snatch away our collective right to unionise and to struggle for our rights. Beginning a new phase of political and legal struggle against Lyngdoh under the leadership of an elected JSC – this is the concrete roadmap DSU suggests to the student community as a part of the struggle to restore JNUSU as per JNUSU Constitution.

AISA and SFI will of course complain that an elected JSC will not be recognised as an ‘official’ body by the JNU administration. We remind them that the greatest source of strength and legitimacy for JNUSU is the student community, who acknowledges it as the platform of all JNU students for collective representation and struggle. JNU administration did not recognise JNUSU out of their goodwill too. The progressive students’ movement have fought in the past and forced the administration to recognise JNUSU as the collective voice of students. Students have won JNUSU’s right of representation in many administrative bodies like the AC/BoS, CDC, IHA only through bitter struggles. Till the time when JNUSU as per its Constitution is restored by defeating Lyngdoh, nothing will prevent an elected JSC from legitimately representing the students of JNU. Struggles must be waged in the future to wrest JSC’s rights from the administration, because only struggle – and not begging for crumbs – can carry forward JNU’s student movement.

AISA and SFI have replaced YFE to become the new symbols of pro-Lyngdoh politics in JNU. For SFI-AISA who have already accepted Lyngdoh in their thought and action, UGBMs, JNUSU Constitution and even the opinion of students have become irrelevant. While SFI is now flaunting the bogey of ‘reopened’ negotiations that leads straight to Lyngdoh, AISA is playing the unenviable role of SFI’s sidekick in this ‘negotiation’ drama. AISA is notorious for frequently indulging in staged acts of shadow-boxing with SFI in the campus, but both are found to be together when it comes to compromising with students’ struggles. They are under the illusion that by sticking together in an opportunist alliance, and with some help from their fiends ABVP and NSUI, SFI-AISA can finally bring Lyngdoh to the campus. But the student community of JNU, the JNUSU Constitution and DSU have become their biggest hurdles. This explains AISA and SFI’s attack aimed at isolating DSU, which has proven its ‘dishonesty’ to their gang by refusing to tow their line in the UGBM and thereafter. But AISA-SFI’s naked opportunism has led to their own isolation from the student community and the struggle against Lyngdoh. The JNUSU Constitution and the legacy of forty years of progressive students’ movement associated with it is the common heritage of the entire student community, not to be bartered with the draconian Lyngdoh to fulfil the electoral ambitions of the SFI-AISA gang. They have been defeated in the battlefield of the UGBM, but the battle is far from over. Let’s raise the barricades to fight back the next wave of assault by these pro-Lyngdoh elements which will soon place the proposal of accepting Lyngdoh with ‘relaxations’ in another UGBM!

संघर्षों की जली मशाल, भागे दुश्मन और दलाल

कल जब ललिंगदोह के लखलाफ JNU के सिंगलित छात्रों का सिंघषष तेज हुआ तो मुखौटों के पीछे के चेहरे सामने आ गए. परदा हटने पर केवी ग्राउिंड में जमा छात्रों ने देखा लक AISA-SFI-AISF-ABVP-NSUI एक ही पत्तल साझा कर रहे हैं. सूरज डूबते न डूबते छात्रों ने ललिंगदोह पर डिंडे बरसाने शुरू लकए तो ललिंगदोह की कमररया में लछपे सारे पाखिंडी लबललबला कर बाहर लनकले और अपने ही बुलाए UGBM और अपने ही एजेंडे को छोड़ कर भाग लनकले. वे ऐसे भागे जैसे पूिंछ में आग लगने पर कुत्ता भागता है. पूिंछ की यह आग बुझाने के ललए वे पूरे कैंपस में हक्का-बक्का दौड़ते रहे, लेलकन उन्हें चुल्लू भर पानी नसीब नहीं हुआ. जली हुई पूिंछ के टुकड़े एक-दो लदनों तक बदबू देंगे. परेशान न हों और उस पर ध्यान न दें.
वे भगोड़े हैं. मैदान छोड़ कर भागे हुए बेशमष दलालों का लगरोह. भागने का उनका इलतहास रहा है. AISF-SFI उसी जमात से आते हैं जो तेलिंगाना में सिंघषषरत लकसानों को मिंझधार में छोड़ कर फरार हो गई थी. वही जमात तेभागा में जमींदारों से लड़ रहे लकसानों को बीच में छोड़ कर भाग लनकली थी. ये 1946 में बिंबई के नौसेना लवद्रोह में लवद्रोही नौसैलनकों का साथ छोड़ कर भागने वाले लोग हैं. तब से लेकर अब तक भागने का एक अिंतहीन लसललसला है. उड़ीसा में पोस्को के लखलाफ आलदवालसयों के आिंदोलन को भी छोड़ कर वे भाग चले. ये रणछोड़ दास कल हमें लसखा रहे थे लक JNU में प्राइमरी किंट्रालडक्शन चुनाव नहीं होना है. ये भूल गए लक चुनावों पर रोक इसीललए लगी है लक हमने तीन सालों से लगातार ललिंगदोह को नकारा है. प्राइमरी किंट्रालडक्शन ललिंगदोह और छात्रों के लहतों के बीच का है, चुनाव का नहीं. तरस आती है लक लकसने उनकी टैग लाइन Study and Struggle रख दी. साफ जालहर है लक न इन्हें Study करनी आती है और न ये Struggle करते हैं. ये राजनीलत से इतने भागे हुए लोग हैं लक UGBM में इन्होंने Sleeping break की मािंग रखी. जब घर में आग लगी हुई हो तो कोई सो कैसे सकता है? असल में वे तो यही चाहते हैं लक ललिंगदोह लग जाए तो छात्र रोएिं (और सिंघषष करें) और ये चैन की नींद सोएिं. इन्हें परेशान होने की जरूरत नहीं है. जनता ने इन्हें बहुत पहले ही सोने की फुरसत दे रखी है. इनको बिंगाल से जनता ने खदेड़ा तो अपना बोररया-लबस्तर समेटे ये भागे-भागे JNU में आए लक अपनी खाट यहीं लबछा लें. लेलकन कल उनकी खाट छात्रों ने उलट दी.
भागने वालों में AISA आगे-आगे था. AISA और इसकी पैरेंट पाटी भाकपा माले ‘ललबरेशन’ तो भगोड़ों की ही जमात है. ये नक्सलबाड़ी की लाल आग में धधकते खेत-खललहानों में अगली कतारों में लड़ रहे लकसानों और मजदूरों को छोड़ कर भागे और सिंसदीय मािंद में घुस गए. आरक्षण के सिंघषष के दौरान ये ‘नो मिंडल-नो कमिंडल’ के नारे के साथ ब्राह्मणवालदयों के साथ जा लमले. जब कश्मीर और उत्तर-पूवष की जनता आजादी की मािंग करती है तो ये भागते हुए फिंडेड एनजीओ के पास पहुिंचते हैं और ‘अफ्सस्पा हटाओ’ का नारा बुलिंद करते हैं. इनकी असललयत यह है लक ये अफ्सस्पा, ऑपरेशन ग्रीन हिंट, सलवा जुडूम के बारे में बातें तो बहुत करते हैं लेलकन देश भर के कैंपसों में लागू लकए जा रहे ललिंगदोह रूपी अफ्ससपा, ग्रीन हिंट और सलवा जुडूम के फायदे लगनाते पाए जाते हैं. इनकी इन्हीं काली करतूतों के कारण लबहार की सिंघषषरत जनता ने इन्हें मार डिंडों के जो ‘सोझ’ लकया है लक आजकल इनके नेता इलाहाबाद-लदल्ली में भागे-भागे लफर रहे हैं. इनकी ‘लवनोद-बुलि’ देलखए लक ये लबहार से भगाए गए तो सीधे RSS-लवश्व बैंक के अन्ना आिंदोलन में पहुिंचे और उसे साम्राज्यवाद लवरोध का तमगा पहना लदया. इन्हें हर बार अपने भगोड़े सहोदर CPI(M) और SFI की शरण में ‘अपार सिंभावनाएिं’ लदखती हैं. इनकी इसी ‘लवनोद लमलित बुलि’ का कमाल है लक ये दूसरों को ललिंगदोह का ऑप्शन रखने के ललए गररयाते हैं और खुद ललिंगदोह के फायदे लगनाते हैं. इनका कहना है लक चूिंलक कुछ छात्र ललिंगदोह चाहते हैं इसललए आइसा के ललए ललिंगदोह भी एक लवकल्प है. वे जनतिंत्र की दुहाई देते हैं. देलखए लक उनका जनवाद लकसके पक्ष में खड़ा है और लकसको फायदा पहुिंचा रहा है. सवाल यह है लक क्या इस कैंपस और देश में मनुस्मृलत, लनजीकरण, वैश्वीकरण को लागू करने, मुसलमानों को देश से बाहर करने, ग्रीन हिंट और सलवा जुडूम को जारी रखने के लहमायलतयों की भी कोई कमी है? तो क्या AISA उनकी इन मािंगों को भी एक लवकल्प के रूप में देखता है. हमें तो यकीन है लक वे ऐसा ही देखते हैं और हमें यकीन है लक वे एक लदन मनुस्मृलत, ग्रीन हिंट, सलवा जुडूम, वैश्वीकरण, कारपोरेट लूट वगैरह के
फायदों की ताललका भी जारी करेंगे. मेहनतकश जनता का साथ छोड़ चुके ये भगोड़े बेकरार हैं लक उनकी लुलटया लकसी तरह बची रहे. तो क्या हम उनकी लुलटया को डूबने से बचाने के ललए अपने सिंघषों से हालसल अलधकारों और जनतािंलत्रक अलधकारों को दफन कर दें और लनजीकरण, कारपोरेटीकरण की छूट दे दें? आलखर लकस हैलसयत से कल रात को AISA नेता सिंदीप लसिंह JNUSU सिंलवधान को रद्द करने और UGBM को बिंद करने की खुलेआम मािंग कर रहे थे? आलखर उनकी औकात क्या है जो वे हमसे ऐसी कीमत चुकाने की उम्मीद रखते हैं? अपने इस घचपलचया स्टैंड के कारण ही वे छात्रों को फेस करने से इतना भागते हैं लक AISA के बुजुगषवार महारथी भी ‘एक नवागिंतुक छात्र’ की ओट में गरजते हैं (‘अनहद गरजै’).
हालािंलक भगोडों में कुछ और सिंगिन भी थे, लेलकन वे कैंपस में इन दोनों सिंगिनों के पुछल्ले भर हैं. ऊपरवाले दोनों भगोड़े बाकी भगोड़ों के कान में मिंतर पढ़ते हैं और वे रटे हुए तोते की तरह वही रेकाडष बजाते रहते हैं. उनमें से कुछेक बिंदर हैं. लदक्कत यह है लक जेएनयू में पेड़ बहुत हैं, लेलकन ‘शाखा’ नहीं है. चूिंलक ये बिंदर ‘शाखाओिं’ में आया-जाया करते हैं इसीललए वे यहािं शाखा रोपने की भरसक कोलशशें करते रहते हैं. ललिंगदोह उनके काम को आसान कर देता इसललए वे भी रिंगे लसयारों के साथ उछल कूद मचाते रहे. सालथयों, ये वे ताकतें हैं लजन्होंने झूि बोला, छात्रों को बरगलाया, चुनाव का एक उन्माद खड़ा लकया और इस उन्माद की लहरों पर सवार होकर ललिंगदोह को लाने की तैयारी की. उन्माद खड़ा करने का यह तरीका बाबरी मसलजद तोड़नेवालों का तरीका है, यह गुजरात के दिंगाइयों का तरीका है, यह रणवीर सेना, हरमाद वालहनी और सलवा जुडूम का तरीका है. यह अन्ना हजारे के लवश्वबैंक पोलषत फासीवादी आिंदोलन का तरीका है. यह कािंधमाल, झज्झर, गोहाना और खैरलािंजी का तरीका है. लपछले कुछ लदनों में साफ हो गया लक हमारे कैंपस में लकन-लकन सिंगिनों का चेहरा इन अपरालधयों से लमलता-जुलता है. उनके झिंडे के रिंग अलग-अलग हो सकते हैं लेलकन वे भीतर से एक हैं. इन्होंने जनवाद के नाम पर ललिंगदोह को कैंपस पर थोपने की कोलशश की, लेलकन उसी जनवाद ने इनकी कोलशशों को नकार लदया तो वे उसे लात मार कर चले गए. हम पूछना चाहेंगे लक यह कहािं का जनवाद है लक आप यूथ फॉर इक्वललटी, प्रशासन और सरकार की इच्छाओिं को तो एक लवकल्प के रूप में पेश करते हैं लेलकन जब आपके ही द्वारा बुलाए गए छात्र UGBM में अपनी बात कहना चाहते हैं तो आप उनकी बात सुनने को तैयार नहीं हुए और भाग चले? क्या यह आपके जनवाद की असललयत नहीं लदखाता, लजसमें प्रशासन, ब्राह्मणवालदयों और कारपोरेट किंपलनयों और सुप्रीम कोटष में ललिंगदोह का बचाव करने के ललए लनयुक्त सोलललसटर जनरल गोपाल सुब्रमण्यम की राय अहलमयत रखती है, लेलकन अपने ही कैंपस के छात्रों का सिंघषष, उम्मीदें और आकािंक्षाएिं अहलमयत नहीं रखतीं. जब UGBM में आए छात्रों ने इन दलाल-भगोड़ों SFI-AISA की मनमानी को मानने से इनकार कर लदया, जब ललिंगदोह को लाने के ललए लफर से बातचीत शुरू करने के ललए तानाशाही तरीके से प्रस्ताव रखने के उनके प्रयास को JNUSU के सिंलवधान के तहत छात्रों का पयाषप्त समथषन नहीं लमल पाया तो वे भाग खड़े हुए. उन्हें ललिंगदोह को नकारना था और वे JNUSU सिंलवधान को नकार कर चले गए. वे UGBM में छात्रों से चुनाव का मैंडेट लेने आए थे लजसे नकारे जाने पर UGBM से भागते हुए भी वे नारा लगा रहे थे लक वे चुनाव करा कर रहेंगे (भाड़ में जाए दुनिया, अपिा बाजे हरमुनिया). उन्होंने अपनी मिंशा साफ कर दी लक उन्हें छात्रों से लमले मैंडेट और लेलजलटमेसी वाला छात्र सिंघ नहीं चालहए. उन्हें कारपोरेट परस्त, ब्राह्मणवादी प्रशासन और सरकार से लमले मैंडेट और लेलजलटमेसी वाला छात्र सिंघ चालहए. ललिंगदोह ही उन्हें यह दे सकता है. इसीललए छात्र जब कल ललिंगदोह को भगाने का नारा लगा रहे थे तो वो उसकी लहमायत में भाग खड़े हुए. दो हजार छात्रों की मािंग को नकार कर गोपाल सुब्रमण्यम के एक फोन कॉल पर UGBM छोड़ कर जानेवालों ने यह साफ कर लदया लक वे आलखर लकसके पक्ष में खड़े हैं.
ललिंगदोह को लाकर कैंपस और लशक्षा के लनजीकरण, कारपोरेटीकरण, अ-राजनीलतकरण, मनुवादीकरण के लखलाफ इस ऐलतहालसक मौके पर DSU ने एक मजबूत प्रलतरोध खड़ा लकया और सिंघषष में छात्रों का नेतृत्व करते हुए उनको सही लदशा दी. UGBM में ललिंगदोह के लखलाफ प्रस्ताव का सवषसम्मलत से पास होना यह सालबत करता है लक अगर छात्रों को एक क्ािंलतकारी नेतृत्व लमले तो छात्र धमलकयों और प्रलोभनों के आगे झुकते नहीं, सिंघषष से भागते नहीं. वे मोचे पर अड़े रहते हैं. इसके ललए हम सारे सिंघषषशील छात्रों का शुलक्या अदा करना चाहते हैं. - उमर, हेम, शाश्वती, रूबीना, रेयाज, गोगोल, अंजली, मनभंजन

Students of JNU dealt a Crushing blow to the Conspiracy Hatched by the Pro-Lyngdoh Alliance of SFI-AISA-AISF-ABVP-NSUI to Sabotage and Stop the UGBM! The UGBM Reaffirms JNU Student Community’s Rejection of Lyngdoh Recommendations in JNU in Any Form and Upholds the JNUSU Constitution!

DSU salutes the student community of JNU for unanimously passing the resolution in the UGBM held on 20 September 2011:

This UGBM rejects the draconian Lyngdoh Committee recommendations in JNU in any form, and upholds the JNUSU constitution. This house mandates that in any future referendum on JNUSU elections, Lyngdoh Committee recommendations will not be an option.

By ensuring the successful completion of the UGBM proceedings that culminated in the passing of this resolution, the students of the campus have resolutely defeated the pre-planned conspiracy hatched by the pro-Lyngdoh alliance of SFI-AISA-AISF-ABVP-NSUI to sabotage, scuttle and forcibly stall the UGBM midway, violating the rules of JNUSU Constitution. This is a resounding victory for the progressive students’ movement of the campus and a crushing defeat for those reactionary forces which tried to undermine the highest decision-making body of JNU students: the UGBM. It was the hundreds of students present at the UGBM who resisted the reactionary agents of Lyngdoh led by SFI-AISA to violate the sanctity of the UGBM and to scuttle it. Noticing the collective resistance of the student community who refused to follow their diktat of unconstitutionally stopping the UGBM, the pro-Lyngdoh bandwagon of SFI, AISA and their allies ABVP-NSUI ran away from the UGBM venue.

SFI and AISA wanted to stall the UGBM after Roshan Kishore, a SFI member, claimed that he received a phone call from former Solicitor General Gopal Subramanium’s office at around 7 pm, inviting the Joint Struggle Committee for negotiations on JNU student’s ongoing case against Lyngdoh in the Supreme Court. SFI and AISA concluded amongst themselves that after receiving the invitation from the former Solicitor General, there was no need to continue with the UGBM to decide on the upcoming referendum. A meeting of Joint Struggle Committee was hurriedly called by SFI and AISA at around 8.30 pm while the UGBM was still going on. SFI-AISA attempted to impose this highly undemocratic and arbitrary proposal on DSU and other constituent organisations of JSC. While NSUI and ABVP readily agreed to this unilateral proposal of SFI-AISA alliance, many other organisations opposed it, and there was no consensus in the JSC meeting, which ended inconclusively and in utter chaos. Thereafter SFI and AISA approached DSU and misled our members in the JSC by saying that there was already a consensus among all the organisations to place a common JSC resolution infront of the students. Misled by this assurance, DSU signed the proposed resolution. SFI-AISA leadership then immediately went to the dais and pressurised the Chairperson to accept the proposed resolution. DSU opposed this resolution because there was no consensus in the JSC regarding this. However, as the chair read it out, DSU immediately and publicly withdrew its signature.

We regret that DSU initially signed this proposed resolution under the impression that all other constituent organisations in JSC had agreed upon it. Nevertheless, DSU tenders its apologies to the student community of JNU for our momentary error of judgment. We immediately realised that as per the JNUSU Constitution, neither the JSC nor other organisations have the right to ask for an adjournment of UGBM proceedings and therefore we withdrew our signature.

We demanded that the calling off of the UGBM will be violation of JNUSU constitution and the UGBM debate should be continued. The pro-Lyngdoh alliance of SFI-AISA continued to put undue pressure on the Chairperson to table their ‘resolution’ for stopping the debate there and then, by flouting the JNUSU Constitution. The Chairperson read out from the JNUSU Constitution which said that any new resolution can be added to the agenda of a UGBM only when it is signed by one-tenth of the students present at the beginning of the UGBM, and will be tabled only after the debate is over. The UGBM debate was then continued, and seeing their conspiracy getting exposed and defeated by the collective assertion of students, the alliance of SFI-AISA-ABVP-NSUI ran away from the UGBM. The UGBM continued with hundreds of students, who were witness to this shameless escape of SFI and AISA from the UGBM floor and the ended in passing the anti-Lyngdoh resolution unanimously. The SFI and AISA hypocrites are going around in the campus spreading the rumour that the UGBM is null and void and that DSU is a part of their effort to scuttle the UGBM! We warn these liars once again not to take the student community for granted. The hundreds of students present in the UGBM ground were witness to their whole drama and their attempts to sabotage the UGBM before they finally and shamelessly fled from the venue. With their opportunist and reactionary acts on the floor of the UGBM, SFI and AISA have demonstrated that they are the most committed lackeys of not only Lyngdoh, but also of Gopal Subramanium, the former Solicitor General representing the Indian state. A single call from his office can prompt these ‘left’ organisations to undermine the UGBM in complete disregard and contempt for the JNUSU Constitution and the students of JNU who came to participate in the UGBM. SFI which was barking to defy the Supreme Court stay order led the exit of the reactionary pro-Lyngdoh block with AISA promptly following suit. The ‘anti-Lyngdoh’ rhetoric of AISA and SFI today stands completely exposed in front of the student community.

Both SFI and AISA were scared of the collective assertion of students against Lyngdoh. They were desperate to scuttle the UGBM and stop the debate because that was increasingly exposing their pro-Lyngdoh stands. Right at the beginning they came up with a proposal of a weird and unprecedented voting system that all the resolutions should be simultaneously voted upon and the people standing in favour of any resolution will be the only determinant of considering that resolution to be passed, thereby completely ruling out the votes in opposition to any resolution. They aggressively pressurised the chair to call off the UGBM arbitrarily without continuing with the debate. After thoroughly failing to sabotage the debates and the UGBM these degenerate forces ran away with their friends in NSUI and ABVP. SFI which was barking with all its radical posturing that they will ‘defy’ Supreme Court order till evening immediately ran away from the venue with AISA-NSUI-ABVP to negotiate with the Solicitor general. The shadow-boxing in the campus cannot hide the fact that both SFI and AISA are equally eager to sell the JNUSU Constitution in the name of ‘negotiations’ with the Solicitor General. Through this negotiation, SFI-AISA wants to conclude an out-of-court settlement with Gopal Subramnium – the lawyer representing the government of India – and conduct JNUSU elections as per Lyngdoh with one or two ‘relaxations’. This drama of ‘negotiation’ is going on for the last one year, without any outcome. He had kept delaying the appointment and in the three brief talks that he had with the JSC he showed no interest in any positive outcome. We warn SFI-AISA that the previous UGBM has mandated the JSC only to ‘negotiate’, not to compromise with the JNUSU Constitution and bring in Lyngdoh with ‘relaxations’. Last year when the proposal of ‘negotiation’ came DSU had opposed it. This principled rejection of Lyngdoh in any form has been once again reaffirmed by yesterday’s historic UGBM. DSU has drawn its lesson from our error of judgment yesterday that the class enemy and anti-people forces take various forms – from the imperialist and feudal forces with their array of direct assault on peoples’ struggles – to the revisionist and renegade ‘left’ forces who are the most opportunist of the reactionary alliance. Whereas we immediately rectified its error, there is no justification for it. On the contrary, our understanding of the range of tools at the hands of renegades like AISA and SFI stands sharpened, and with this our resolve for fighting this opportunist and anti-student alliance to the end! Yesterday’s UGBM has reaffirmed the students’ resoluteness in the struggle for JNUSU elections according to the JNUSU constitution as opposed to the draconian Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations!

We congratulate the erstwhile EC members, Ramya, Suli, Savita and Saurav who not only successfully chaired the UGBM but were also steadfast and extremely principled in upholding the JNUSU constitution till the end of the UGBM. They refused to bow down before any amount of pressure and set an inspiring example before the student community in our struggle to uphold the JNUSU constitution. We condemn in strongest words the lumpen and hostile behaviour of Sandeep Singh the erstwhile JNUSU president who is infamous for his authoritarianism and repeated scuttling of the JNUSU constitution himself while conducting UGBMs in the past. The way he misbehaved and tried to threaten and intimidate the chair was extremely offensive. He was duly supported by SFI goon Roshan Kishore. Such undemocratic and hostile behaviour is never a part of JNU politics and students will always reject such political bankruptcy and lumpenism.

Join united PROTEST MARCH against LYNGDOH

In tomorrow’s crucial UGBM, the student community will have to decide not only the modalities of the referendum we will adopt, but also its politics. The politics behind the model of referendum suggested by SFI and AISA is very clear: for the first time in our four-year long struggle against Lyngdoh, a ground is being prepared for surrender by these two organisations. Accepting elections according to the draconian Lyngdoh Committee recommendations will lead into forming a puppet union. Lyngdoh is for depoliticisation and administrative control of students’ politics. Over the last four years, students of this campus have consistently rejected the option of conducting JNUSU elections by implementing Lyngdoh regulations. The historic struggle of JNU students against Lyngdoh still continues. We must push for the final victory over Lyngdoh rather than meekly abandoning the struggle midway. Therefore DSU has strongly maintained that we must collectively oppose all resolutions which say that the upcoming referendum should include elections as per Lyngdoh as an ‘option’. To continue our struggle against imposition of Lyngdoh and to keep alive the legacy of forty years of JNU’s progressive students’ movement, we must defeat SFI and AISA’s pro-Lyngdoh resolutions on the floor of the UGBM. As an alternative, DSU will place a resolution in the UGBM that the referendum should be conducted with the two options:

1. Conduct JNUSU elections as per the JNUSU Constitution ignoring the court’s stay order.

2. Conduct elections for the Joint Struggle Committee as an interim measure till the JNUSU elections according to the JNUSU Constitution is reinstated.

DSU’s proposal firmly upholds our collective commitment to uncompromising fight against Lyngdoh, and opens up the possibility of conducting elections without undermining the JNUSU Constitution. The first option of holding elections as per the JNUSU Constitution by ignoring the court’s stay has always been open for the student community, and we believe that it is still an option in front of the student community. The second option of conducting elections for the Joint Struggle Committee as an interim measure will address the need for an elected students’ body. The elected JSC will not only continue to fight against Lyngdoh, but can also lead the struggles on various other pressing student-related issues. The model of elections and structure of union prescribed by the JNUSU Constitution can be the guiding framework for holding the JSC elections. So far JSC has been a platform of various anti-Lyngdoh students’ organisations in the campus. Through elections, we can now make JSC the legitimate representative body of the entire student community, till the JNUSU as per its constitution is restored. The JSC afterall is the only legitimate body which all organizations (except the casteist brigade of Y4E) recognize so there fore instead of forming any new body this body can be turned into an elected body.

After renegade SFI’s treacherous pro-Lyngdoh plan got thoroughly exposed in the last few days, it has yesterday emerged with a new strategy to smuggle-in Lyngdoh. SFI first thought it will simply fool the students’ community by creating a desperate situation in which elections by Lyngdoh will emerge as the ‘only option’. It criminally and deliberately refrained from talking about the dangers of Lyngdoh, especially to new students. After it’s game plan failed miserably as students are neither fools nor they have forgotten the fight against Lyngdoh,  SFI came up with a ‘new strategy’ which also leads to Lyngdoh, but with two steps instead of one. In the garb of a “clear and categorical” position in favour of holding elections by ignoring the court’s stay, SFI has laid bare its roadmap to Lyngdoh. SFI supports this option not as a political act of defiance to Lyngdoh, but because this “will not involve any further delay” (18.9.2011)! SFI hopes that when the election process for the JNUSU elections as per the JNUSU Constitution starts, the Supreme Court will stop the process. They calculate that students will then become so hopeless and desperate that they will accept elections even with Lyngdoh. In this way SFI expects a smooth transition of JNU student community’s stance from opposing Lyngdoh to accepting Lyngdoh within a matter of one or two days, so that a Lyngdoh-regulated election is held by end-October. SFI will never come out of its hysteric promotion of Lyngdoh to fulfil the wish of “JNUSU elections in this semester by hook or by crook”. But the students of this campus have always exposed, defeated and rejected this renegade force in the past too. When they blatantly supported the monopoly Nestle outlet, when they refused to show blackflag to Manmohan Singh, when they tried to backstab the movement for minimum wages for workers and asked for witch hunting of students by the administration; in all these occasion students have given them a fitting rebuff. It is time once again we reject these renegades.

SFI’s B-team AISA is opting for Lyngdoh too, but with its characteristic convoluted means. AISA is known in this campus for confusing students before they take a reactionary position. Right from the beginning of the semester AISA has not spoken a word against Lyngdoh. All it wants is an ‘informed debate’. This imaginary ‘debate’ they keep referring to is probably happening in moon because in campus, without any debate they have shamelessly included Lyngdoh as an ‘option’ in their proposed referendum. Much like SFI they are also putting the onus back on students saying, since some students want Lyngdoh, they are forced to consider this as an ‘option’. In the past four years through every UGBM haven’t the students of JNU made their steadfast defiance to Lyngdoh amply clear? Moreover, even in this campus there are students who support the implementation of the deathly AFSPA or who believe that the casteist communal manusmriti should be upheld. So should we presume that these are also ‘options’ for AISA’s degenerate politics? Instead of rejecting the draconian Lyngdoh Committee why then AISA is flaunting it as an ‘option’? They have publicly decried the option of defiance but are yet to bring out their critique and condemnation (forget about rejection) of Lyngdoh as an ‘option’. Their pro-Lyngdoh position becomes apparent  not only from their criminal silence on Lyngdoh but also from their proposed resolution for the referendum which is a clear attempt to divide the anti-Lyngdoh votes so that they can smoothly pave way for Lyngdoh!

In tomorrow’s UGBM we need to defeat both SFI and AISA’s resolutions which are keeping Lyngdoh as an ‘option’ and thereby trying to sabotage the entire democratic tradition of the campus which was painstakingly built over the last forty years. These two organizations currently are involving in a meaningless shadow boxing to create a false debate. Both of them are competing to bring Lyngdoh in campus and thereby surrender our history of struggle, and our assertive political students’ movement which had always denied administrative control. We appeal to students to come out in large numbers in tonight’s protest march against Lyngdoh and to participate in tomorrow’s UGBM to ensure that the draconian Lyngdoh gets no place in this campus. Let us show the agents of Lyngdoh, that whenever it mattered historically the students of this campus have never ever failed.

Reject any resolution in the UGBM which keeps the draconian Lyngdoh as an ‘option’! Our JNUSU constitution long live!

Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. AISA has managed to find ‘advantages’ of accepting the draconian Lyngdoh regulations for holding JNUSU elections – something unthinkable for anyone in JNU with even a pretence of progressive politics. Even Lyngdoh’s proven bootlicker SFI has so far avoided citing any ‘positive points’ of Lyngdoh publicly, being scared the overwhelming opposition of the students. SFI has been busy for quite some time in clandestinely laying red carpets to Lyngdoh, first in the name of “negotiation with the Solicitor General” and now through their proposal for a referendum. SFI can now take inspiration from AISA and muster courage to publicly talk of Lyngdoh’s ‘advantages’! AISA, however, is not simply being foolish by giving a positive “assessment” of Lyngdoh. They have taken SFI’s long-standing pro-Lyngdoh position to its logical conclusion – opening the doors to invite Lyngdoh with open arms.

AISA has discovered two “advantages” of holding JNUSU elections as per Lyngdoh “as an interim measure”. But as the students of this campus know, both are bogus claims of ‘advantage’. First, AISA says that if we conduct elections as per Lyngdoh, “we will have an official, elected JNUSU”. What does AISA mean by an “official JNUSU”? That it will be recognised by the administration? AISA should have been ashamed to talk in the language of the administration, which always discriminates between an ‘official’ and ‘unofficial’ union. The greatest source of strength and legitimacy for JNUSU has been the student community, which acknowledges it as the only platform of all JNU students for collective representation and struggle. JNU administration did not recognise JNUSU out of their goodwill. Students have fought in the past and forced the administration to recognise JNUSU. AISA, which has led the JNUSU for many terms in the past, should remember these struggles of the JNU students, before talking about a ‘official’ JNUSU. When a countrywide Emergency was declared during 1975-77 and all students’ union activity was banned, JNUSU did not bow down to the diktat, but continued to function with the support of the students, even though it was not recognised as ‘official’ union by the administration. Even in 2008 when Lyngdoh was imposed and the JNUSU elected according to the JNUSU Constitution was declared ‘illegal’, the student community extended the term of AISA-led JNUSU of 2007-08 for nearly eight months as an act of defiance. A union has to be recognised by the student, and not necessarily by the powers-that-be. Does AISA remember the ongoing struggle of the Maruti workers in Gurgaon, who are fighting for an independent union of their own in place of the ‘official’ union already existing in the factory? With Lyngdoh, we may have an ‘official’ union recognised by the administration, as AISA is wishing for. But it will not have the legitimacy and recognition of the students.

The second ‘advantage’ of inviting Lyngdoh, AISA tells us, is that “our case against Lyngdoh in the Supreme Court will not be adversely affected”. This is a blatant lie. Senior supreme court advocate Sanjay Parekh, who is fighting the legal battle on behalf of JNU students, has categorically stated that accepting Lyngdoh even as an interim measure will seriously jeopardise our case. After electing a JNUSU as per Lyngdoh, we will not have enough grounds to pressurise the court for an early settlement of our case in the Constitution bench. Once we surrender before Lyngdoh, the court will take Lyngdoh as fait accompli in JNU and our fight in the court case will only remain symbolic, bound to be defeated at the end. Advocate Parekh has been advising the JSC against holding elections as per Lyngdoh keeping the adverse affect on our case in mind. Therefore renegade SFI has tried of late to get him removed as our lawyer and appoint another one who will be favourable to Lyngdoh! AISA should not think that it can fool the student community with its bogus “assessment” of “no adverse affect on the case”. Accepting Lyngdoh is going to have disastrous consequences for out four-year old Supreme Court case, and we will lose the historic possibility of scrapping the authoritarian Lyngdoh regulations through our legal and political struggle once and for all.

AISA can choose to become the mouthpiece of Lyngdoh by citing hundreds of ‘advantages’, but the student community will not bow down Lyngdoh. We oppose AISA’s treacherous suggestion for a referendum with three ‘options’, which includes the ‘option’ to “Accept Lyngdoh recommendations as an interim measure and hold JNUSU elections, while continuing to fight our case in the Supreme Court”. It is as good as proposing that we will surrender to Lyngdoh as an interim measure while continuing to fight Lyngdoh in the court. What kind of anti-Lyngdoh battle will a Lyngdoh-regulated JNUSU fight? By proposing Lyngdoh as an ‘option’, AISA too has joined the ranks of traitors YFE and SFI. By shamelessly counting the “advantages” of Lyngdoh, they have even surpassed SFI in their act of betrayal and opportunism.

Lyngdoh (SFI) or Lyngdoh (AISA), the difference is only in the label: While AISA has repeatedly sermonised the student community in their pamphlet about the need for “informed choice”, “informed debates and discussions”, “informed decision” etc., AISA itself has cleverly avoided publicly declaring their own choice among the three ‘options’. Clearly, accepting elections as per Lyngdoh is the ‘option’ for AISA. That is why they have included this as one of the ‘options’ for the proposed referendum, much like SFI. We ask AISA the same question we have asked to SFI: can AISA suggest JNUSU elections as per Lyngdoh while still remaining in the Joint Struggle Committee (JSC), which has been mandated by the student community to struggle for restoring JNUSU Constitution against the incursion of Lyngdoh? Both AISA and SFI have shown their true colours by endorsing Lyngdoh as one of the “available options”. SFI and AISA’s proposals are essentially the same in their pro-Lyngdoh character. Only, AISA’s proposal is much more sinister.

AISA has deliberately brought the proposal of three ‘options’, despite knowing that it is technically flawed for a referendum where the electorate is asked to choose from only two available options. Moreover, at a time when the campus is sharply polarised between anti-Lyngdoh and pro-Lyngdoh positions, AISA has brought its theory of three ‘options’ in order to spread malicious confusion within the anti-Lyngdoh section of the students. If the referendum is allowed to be conducted with AISA’s three options, the anti-Lyngdoh students will be split between the two options: Holding JNUSU elections as per JNUSU Constitution by defying the court’s stay order (option 1) and, Holding elections to a ‘new student body’ (option 3). If AISA’s proposal is accepted, a split among the anti-Lyngdoh students is inevitable, in which case Lyngdoh’s entry to JNU will become much easier. AISA is either too foolish or too clever to ignore this eventuality. We must therefore reject this devious proposal.

AISA, much like SFI, has embraced Lyngdoh in Delhi University (DU) and in many other campuses elsewhere. This is in spite of the claim made in its ‘Basic Programme’ that AISA is “Against the implementation of the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendation in campuses” (www.aisa.in). Have they been participating in Lyngdoh-regulated elections in DU “as an interim measure”? We all know that after the imposition of Lyngdoh regulations in DU students’ union elections, no student beyond 25 years is allowed to contest elections, eligibility of candidates is determined by the administration on the basis of their ‘merit’, every candidate is compelled to submit an affidavit declaring that he or she does not have any previous ‘criminal record’, all candidates are asked to deposit ‘security money’, no campaign is allowed after 10pm, all the candidates are asked to submit ‘audited accounts’ of their election expenditure, the presumed violation of ‘offences related to elections’ leads to registering cases under the IPC, etc. AISA and SFI have been following these draconian rules in DUSU elections diligently for the last few years, without a trace of any ‘struggle’. After abandoning the struggle against Lyngdoh outside JNU, AISA and SFI are preparing to welcome Lyngdoh to JNU as well. AISA’s defection to the pro-Lyngdoh camp is therefore not accidental, but it is their “informed decision”.

AISA is indulging in double-speak. It demands an “informed debate” among the students on all the available options, while AISA keeps a calculated silence their own choice. There are only two ‘options’: either to reject Lyngdoh or to accept Lyngdoh. Where does AISA stand? They must come clean! AISA also appeals to the student community for unity. But can there be a unity between the supporters and opponents of Lyngdoh? It is a contradiction which cannot be resolved by AISA by opportunistically presenting pro-Lyngdoh and anti-Lyngdoh ‘options’ together, much like the renegade SFI.

DSU has consistently argued that accepting Lyngdoh for JNUSU elections is not an option even worth considering, because it goes against the democratic legacy of JNU’s four decades long autonomous and independent students’ movement. This ‘option’ also undermines and weakens our collective struggle against Lyngdoh for the last four years. Moreover, it will jeopardise our case in the supreme court beyond recovery. DSU proposes that the referendum be conducted with the two available options:

1. Conduct JNUSU Elections as per the JNUSU Constitution by ignoring the court’s stay order.

     2. Conduct elections for the Joint Struggle Committee in the interim till the JNUSU elections can be conducted as per JNUSU Constitution.

AISA claims that DSU’s proposal for elections to the Joint Struggle Committee as an option “in this form is technically flawed”. This is a deliberate lie aimed at confusing the student community. First of all, the question here is not technical as AISA is making it, but it is fundamentally political. JSC was formed by the students as a weapon of struggle against Lyngdoh, representing all anti-Lyngdoh students’ organisations on campus. It is a representative body of the students’ organisations, now is the time to make it a representative body of the entire student community. The JSC – elected through a democratic process – will have legitimacy and acceptance among the students which will be at par with JNUSU as an interim measure until elections can be conducted according to the JNUSU Constitution. Of course, the administration will not recognise it as an ‘official’ union or the legitimate body of the students. But as a duly elected students’ body, the JSC will be able to fight and win its right to represent the students in all forums until the JNUSU is restored as per its Constitution. As opposed to DSU’s concrete option of elections to JSC, AISA has floated the idea of elections to an ambiguous “new student body”. AISA must explain what it means by a ‘new student body’ before irresponsibly throwing it up as yet another ‘option’.

In the upcoming UGBM of 20 September (Monday), we are going to decide what model of referendum we will adopt. Do we want a referendum where accepting Lyngdoh is an ‘option’? Or do we want a referendum where we choose between two anti-Lyngdoh options for conducting elections? The choice is clear. Both SFI and AISA have argued for including Lyngdoh as an option in their respective versions of the referendum. This is in clear violation of the pledge the students of JNU have taken through a unanimous UGBM resolution on 25th October 2008:

The JNUSU Constitution expresses the democratic ethos and norms of the JNU students evolved over 37 years of collective struggle. The Supreme Court’s stay on the JNUSU Elections and the attempt to impose Lyngdoh Committee recommendations in JNU is against the letter and spirit of the JNUSU Constitution. This UGBM therefore resolves to reject the implementation of Lyngdoh Committee recommendations in JNU in any form.

DSU remains committed to this resolution, and opposes both AISA and SFI which are acting as lackeys of Lyngdoh. The desperation of these two politically bankrupt organisations is obvious. They are tired of the four-year long struggle, and want to reach to a convenient compromise. AISA and SFI are hoping that by putting the onus of inviting Lyngdoh on the students, they will be able to smuggle into JNU their ‘official’ and ‘technically correct’ Lyngdoh-union, which will enjoy immediate recognition from the administration. But students of JNU will not allow SFI-AISA, or anyone who advocates Lyngdoh, to sell-out the spirit of struggle of the students of this campus. SFI-AISA will not be allowed to barter JNU’s tradition of defiance to authority and authoritarianism in the form of Lyngdoh, UAPA, AFSPA, Death Penalty, Green Hunt, state repression... Students know that it is easy to raise slogans against manifestations of authoritarianism, but when it comes to fighting an uncompromising battle against it, many opportunists back out. Let us be very clear. It is not only the choice we make in the referendum that will decide our campus’ future. The future of the campus depends also on the choice of referendum we make in the UGBM preceding the referendum. We appeal to you to stand resolutely and decisively against Lyngdoh by rejecting any model of referendum that offers Lyngdoh as an ‘option’. We are convinced that the banner of students’ movement in JNU will be carried forward by those who struggle, and not by those who surrender. Long live JNUSU! Long Live JNUSU Constitution!