PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2010 ID-26263
.
The present juncture poses a grave challenge in our struggle to defend the JNUSU Constitution and our unrivalled culture of campus democracy. While all student organisations are welcome to place their opinions and suggestions and debate the issue at length the collective interest of the cause demands that they do so without pointing fingers and name-calling. Whatever circumstances arise in this process, they should be addressed through consensus as a collective responsibility of the student community rather than as fodder for a blame game and divisive posturing. AISA holds that the complex challenges of the current situation can be addressed only in a collective, united and open spirit, and SFIs approach of more-radical-than-thou posturing will do grave damage to the cause. .
SFIs radical posturing is an attempt to divide the united struggle to defend the JNUSU Constitution and such divisive tactics can do grave damage to the entire movement. We need only recall that SFI, which is blaming AISA of surrender to Lyngdoh, has never at any national forum protested against the Lyngdoh Report. Rather the then National President of SFI had hailed the Lyngdoh Report in 2006, writing .
Indisputably, the Lyngdoh committee recommendations will become a well-built weapon to the progressive student movement that consistently fights to ensure democratic rights of the student community. It is also absolutely a set back for all the reactionary forces that try to eliminate the progressive ideology from the campuses by promoting apolitical ideas, destroying creative potentialities and crushing democratic rights of students. .
(pd.cpim.org/2006/1203/12032006_ragesh.htm, Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations And The.
.
resistance to any mechanical interpretation and implementation, the SFI leader had however entirely failed to recognise the political agenda of crackdown on student politics and campus democracy that the Lyngdoh Report represented. Is this not more than meek surrender to Lyngdoh? .
The AISA had, right from the outset, exposed the grave threat to campus democracy posed by the Lyngdoh Committee Report and warned that the Report, far from being used to curb criminal and corrupt forces on campuses, would be deployed to discipline and penalise the student movement. .
(www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2006/November/lyngdoh_commi.... htm, Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations: Divorcing Student Unions from Movements, Kavita Krishnan, Liberation, November 2006). The developments in JNU and other campuses have borne out AISAs view. The SFI, while forced to take an anti-Lyngdoh position in JNU, has not corrected its overall national positive assessment of the politics of Lyngdoh Report nor have they ever spearheaded any struggle anywhere against the deployment of Lyngdoh recommendations against campus democracy. .
.
PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2010 ID-26263
.
The present juncture poses a grave challenge in our struggle to defend the JNUSU Constitution and our unrivalled culture of campus democracy. While all student organisations are welcome to place their opinions and suggestions and debate the issue at length the collective interest of the cause demands that they do so without pointing fingers and name-calling. Whatever circumstances arise in this process, they should be addressed through consensus as a collective responsibility of the student community rather than as fodder for a blame game and divisive posturing. AISA holds that the complex challenges of the current situation can be addressed only in a collective, united and open spirit, and SFIs approach of more-radical-than-thou posturing will do grave damage to the cause. .
SFIs radical posturing is an attempt to divide the united struggle to defend the JNUSU Constitution and such divisive tactics can do grave damage to the entire movement. We need only recall that SFI, which is blaming AISA of surrender to Lyngdoh, has never at any national forum protested against the Lyngdoh Report. Rather the then National President of SFI had hailed the Lyngdoh Report in 2006, writing .
Indisputably, the Lyngdoh committee recommendations will become a well-built weapon to the progressive student movement that consistently fights to ensure democratic rights of the student community. It is also absolutely a set back for all the reactionary forces that try to eliminate the progressive ideology from the campuses by promoting apolitical ideas, destroying creative potentialities and crushing democratic rights of students. .
(pd.cpim.org/2006/1203/12032006_ragesh.htm, Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations And The.
.
resistance to any mechanical interpretation and implementation, the SFI leader had however entirely failed to recognise the political agenda of crackdown on student politics and campus democracy that the Lyngdoh Report represented. Is this not more than meek surrender to Lyngdoh? .
The AISA had, right from the outset, exposed the grave threat to campus democracy posed by the Lyngdoh Committee Report and warned that the Report, far from being used to curb criminal and corrupt forces on campuses, would be deployed to discipline and penalise the student movement. .
(www.cpiml.org/liberation/year_2006/November/lyngdoh_commi.... htm, Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations: Divorcing Student Unions from Movements, Kavita Krishnan, Liberation, November 2006). The developments in JNU and other campuses have borne out AISAs view. The SFI, while forced to take an anti-Lyngdoh position in JNU, has not corrected its overall national positive assessment of the politics of Lyngdoh Report nor have they ever spearheaded any struggle anywhere against the deployment of Lyngdoh recommendations against campus democracy. .
.