PaRCha - JNU - AISA - 2006 ID-2416
.
15.11.05 .
For 30 Seconds Of Thrill On TV Or An Attempt To Give Voice To The Unheard ??? .
'What was the benefit ofshowmg black flags-just 30 seconds on TV. The protestors are like those who strip themselves nakedwhile intoxicatedby bhang; they were mtoxicated by 30 seconds of adventure ... I congratulate the NSUI andABVP; they were far more restrained than one expected.'-a speaker at last night's public meeting held by JNUSU .
Showing black flags 1s betng compared to stripptng oneself naked. Let's ask ourselves, what was the point when the .
women of Manipur stnpped themselves naked to protest Manorama's rape and murder last year? Was it for publicity, .
adventure' or sensattona 1sm? People of the entire North East suffered and struggled against State repression and a draconian killer law like AFSPA for fifty years. If the mothers of Manipur had not stripped themselves naked to protest against the AFSPA last year, would AFSPA ever havo been forced onto the political consciousness of the nation? .
Fnends, those who rue us nave a habit ofdenying and ignoring 1ssues until forced to face questions in thepublic gaze. If the Government is not quest oned by the pubiJC, 1t will continue to sell out India's sovere1gnty by helping the US to target Iran The show of black flags by students was not for the 'childish thrill' of disrupting a PM's speech-disruption was neverthe intention. Itwas in fact the highest exercise of democracy by a citizen-by holding our highest elected representative accountable to public questioning on questions of supreme national interest .
In those 30 seconds, the slogans and black flags of students told the entire world that in India, a Prime M1mster must .
face questions of students rf the Patent Amendments Act. AFSPA and US arm-twisting are allowed to rule the land. Last n1ght, the JNUSU held a Pubhc Meet1ng 'In Defence ofOur Democratic Culture', addressed by several members of the teaching community_ This could have been a welcome move to allow the JNU commumty to discuss and debate the issues Involved. But how much democracy was followed m this meeting? What were the ways in which democracy was defined? We respect the right ofteachers and students to hold views that are sharply cntical ofours; but we feel the need to point out the disturbmg 1mphcations of some of the views. .
In the Public Meeting, some speakers condemned the students who waved black flags, one teacher sa1d wavmg black flags and shouting slogans was a right of students and an acceptable mode of protest But most speakers were umted m the op1mon that if the JNUSU Council's had taken a decis1on not to protest 1n front of the PM students should not have protested. Let us examine these propositions: .
Myth of Union Decision .
When and w here did the Union 'decide'? It ts a matter of concern that 10 the JNUSU pubhc meettng, the elected Councillor from AISA was not allowed to make a statement but was given barely one minute to ask a question white a former JNUSU President belonging to SF/ was allowed to speak for 20 minutes! The AISA .
Councillor Wished to point out the followtng· The JNUSU VP, in a meetmg w1th the VC, had assured the Admin that there would be no protest, before any Council Meeting was called to drscuss the matter. The Counc11 meeting held the next eventng was also unconstitutional stnce rtwas not convened with the 24-hour min1mum notice required by JNUSU Constitution. In other words. the JNUSU was treated by the VP as an appendage of SFI -and an unconstitutional Council Meeting was used to ratify an assurance that the VP had already given beforehand. .
Even in the unconstitutional Council Meeting, no room was left for rssues ra1sed by the AISA Councrllor to be included in the JNUSU 'memorandum'. As a result, opposition to AFSPA and Patent Act did not figure in the memorandum. .
Are all students bound on ldeo!ogical issues by a majoritydecision in the JNUSU? This is a dtstorted understanding of democracy-whtch silences issues of ideological debate in the name of 'Union decision'. Th1s will mean that all dissent will be gagged and muzzled because the Union is of a particular political persuasion. Consider some examples. .
In 1990, a UGBM 1n JNU passed a resolution opposing Mandai Commission reservations. Yet, radical students continued to defend Mandai whrle facmg phys1cal VIolence by right-w1ng forces Recall 1996 the Un1on with a powerful ABVP presence did not agree to opposrng Advani's v1sit Yet, a thousand students rejected the Union pos1t1on and asserted their right to protest In DU, the DUTA has often been dominated by the right-wing, wh1ch invanably passes resolutions againstreservations Far from being bound by such resolutions, Left teachers boldly assert the1r struggle to rmplement SC/ST quotas Take the example of last year: the majonty m the Un1on Council supported Nestle-yet hundreds ofstudents reJected that position and rnob1lised a counter opm1on to k1ck Nestle out. .
Some speakers yesterday mentioned the fact that in 1981, PM Indira Gandhi was stopped from giving her speech-the JNUSU led by SFI then led the protest against her visit. Why did the JNUSU led by SFI justify this protest then, while vetoing the proposal to protest against Manmohan now? Some speakers sa1d that the JNUSU 1n 1981 took .
PTO .
' .
I I .
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - AISA - 2006 ID-2416
.
15.11.05 .
For 30 Seconds Of Thrill On TV Or An Attempt To Give Voice To The Unheard ??? .
'What was the benefit ofshowmg black flags-just 30 seconds on TV. The protestors are like those who strip themselves nakedwhile intoxicatedby bhang; they were mtoxicated by 30 seconds of adventure ... I congratulate the NSUI andABVP; they were far more restrained than one expected.'-a speaker at last night's public meeting held by JNUSU .
Showing black flags 1s betng compared to stripptng oneself naked. Let's ask ourselves, what was the point when the .
women of Manipur stnpped themselves naked to protest Manorama's rape and murder last year? Was it for publicity, .
adventure' or sensattona 1sm? People of the entire North East suffered and struggled against State repression and a draconian killer law like AFSPA for fifty years. If the mothers of Manipur had not stripped themselves naked to protest against the AFSPA last year, would AFSPA ever havo been forced onto the political consciousness of the nation? .
Fnends, those who rue us nave a habit ofdenying and ignoring 1ssues until forced to face questions in thepublic gaze. If the Government is not quest oned by the pubiJC, 1t will continue to sell out India's sovere1gnty by helping the US to target Iran The show of black flags by students was not for the 'childish thrill' of disrupting a PM's speech-disruption was neverthe intention. Itwas in fact the highest exercise of democracy by a citizen-by holding our highest elected representative accountable to public questioning on questions of supreme national interest .
In those 30 seconds, the slogans and black flags of students told the entire world that in India, a Prime M1mster must .
face questions of students rf the Patent Amendments Act. AFSPA and US arm-twisting are allowed to rule the land. Last n1ght, the JNUSU held a Pubhc Meet1ng 'In Defence ofOur Democratic Culture', addressed by several members of the teaching community_ This could have been a welcome move to allow the JNU commumty to discuss and debate the issues Involved. But how much democracy was followed m this meeting? What were the ways in which democracy was defined? We respect the right ofteachers and students to hold views that are sharply cntical ofours; but we feel the need to point out the disturbmg 1mphcations of some of the views. .
In the Public Meeting, some speakers condemned the students who waved black flags, one teacher sa1d wavmg black flags and shouting slogans was a right of students and an acceptable mode of protest But most speakers were umted m the op1mon that if the JNUSU Council's had taken a decis1on not to protest 1n front of the PM students should not have protested. Let us examine these propositions: .
Myth of Union Decision .
When and w here did the Union 'decide'? It ts a matter of concern that 10 the JNUSU pubhc meettng, the elected Councillor from AISA was not allowed to make a statement but was given barely one minute to ask a question white a former JNUSU President belonging to SF/ was allowed to speak for 20 minutes! The AISA .
Councillor Wished to point out the followtng· The JNUSU VP, in a meetmg w1th the VC, had assured the Admin that there would be no protest, before any Council Meeting was called to drscuss the matter. The Counc11 meeting held the next eventng was also unconstitutional stnce rtwas not convened with the 24-hour min1mum notice required by JNUSU Constitution. In other words. the JNUSU was treated by the VP as an appendage of SFI -and an unconstitutional Council Meeting was used to ratify an assurance that the VP had already given beforehand. .
Even in the unconstitutional Council Meeting, no room was left for rssues ra1sed by the AISA Councrllor to be included in the JNUSU 'memorandum'. As a result, opposition to AFSPA and Patent Act did not figure in the memorandum. .
Are all students bound on ldeo!ogical issues by a majoritydecision in the JNUSU? This is a dtstorted understanding of democracy-whtch silences issues of ideological debate in the name of 'Union decision'. Th1s will mean that all dissent will be gagged and muzzled because the Union is of a particular political persuasion. Consider some examples. .
In 1990, a UGBM 1n JNU passed a resolution opposing Mandai Commission reservations. Yet, radical students continued to defend Mandai whrle facmg phys1cal VIolence by right-w1ng forces Recall 1996 the Un1on with a powerful ABVP presence did not agree to opposrng Advani's v1sit Yet, a thousand students rejected the Union pos1t1on and asserted their right to protest In DU, the DUTA has often been dominated by the right-wing, wh1ch invanably passes resolutions againstreservations Far from being bound by such resolutions, Left teachers boldly assert the1r struggle to rmplement SC/ST quotas Take the example of last year: the majonty m the Un1on Council supported Nestle-yet hundreds ofstudents reJected that position and rnob1lised a counter opm1on to k1ck Nestle out. .
Some speakers yesterday mentioned the fact that in 1981, PM Indira Gandhi was stopped from giving her speech-the JNUSU led by SFI then led the protest against her visit. Why did the JNUSU led by SFI justify this protest then, while vetoing the proposal to protest against Manmohan now? Some speakers sa1d that the JNUSU 1n 1981 took .
PTO .
' .
I I .
.
.