PaRCha - JNU - AISA - 2013 ID-6614

.

time. The DSF lists this as their achievement, remaining silent on the fact that DSF Councillors nominated by the ~SA has also b~en i~strumental in building the campaign against FYUP in Delhi Oniversity, and in 0·,ilno.

r.

JNUSU President as representatives in the EOO never showed up for the job. So, during the admission proce.ss, I have led to achrevements, and some which need to be taken forward in the days tocome. '"""' .

student restrrct.rons 1mposed by the IBPS earlier this year. overall, this has been-an year ofstruggles--·-the EOO had no option but to contact the JNUSU JointSecretary, who then worked as the JNUSU representatrve.

in the EOO. Through his efforts, a significant change in the admission procedure for physically challenged What Kind of Autonomy Does the Student Movement Need?.

students was ensured this year. Till last year, PH students seeking admission in JNU had to first undergo a.

.

verification by a Medical Board in the JNU Health Centre. And since the concerned board in the .Health ~e~tre .

From Ruling Class Politics, NOT from Political Principles and.

are available only after 4pm on set days, PH students had to wait for at least one extra day for takrng admrss1on. The ?SF l:aflet (dt. 30,Aug 2013) sta~es .that ~he student movement needs 'autonomy', and cJalmsJtfc.:ifh'Aii~ 1\t\'1~.

Thus the JNUSU Joint Secretary (from AISA) intervened to ensure that PH students be given admission without genurnely autonomous student organrsatron, gJVen that it has no affiliation to any political party..

dela~ based on their existing PH certificates from any government hospital and their JNU level verification canhappen after admission. This considerable relief fails to find any mention in the DSF's self-claimed list of (Is t~e OS~ re~lly autonomous fr~m any political mentor/group outside the student community? What.

achievements (leaflet dated 30 Aug). except for a general mention of EOO representation. The fact is that the relatronshrp wtth the Left Collectrve, headed by Prasenjit Bose and a set of individuals who left (:PIM.

DSF and JNUSU President are clueless as to the real interventions made by the JNUSU representative from AISA part of any stud~nt movement? Isn't .it true that DSF spoke against CPtM ONLY when Prasenjit Bose.

in the EOO! r. ·-the CPIM .followmg the support to Pranab Mukherjee, and not before? Isn't it well known that the DSF is at SPS Dormitory which started in August 2012 during the tenure of the last AISA-Ied JNUSU, has been steadily group o~rng all:~iance to the same non-campus political group of ex-CPJM individuals? We have no prcPfE!Ol}regularised with mess facilities for 150 residents at a reasonable rate of Rs 1965 per month. Also, to expand DSF havrng polttrcal leaders and mentors outside the campus, but we do have to object to spurious.

'autonomy.').

students' residential facilities, Mahanadi Hostel which earlier used to accommodate other JNU staff, is now .

.

The DSF's understanding of 'autonomy' is rather strange..

being turned into an exclusively married research scholars' hostel. .

-.

ruling class P?litics, from servitude to anti...people Governments. and from corporate funding. Since the.

.

Workers' Rights: The JNUSU's Security, CDC and SSS Convenors (all from AISA) made repeated interventions past two crucral decades of liberalisation, it is AISA that has been the most consistently autonomous from.

.

against violations of workers' rights: exposing and correcting violations in ESI PF documents; non-issuing of pay.

slips; illegal deduction from security guards' salary in the name of uniforms; ensuring compensation to an fetters. The SFI, ~n the other hand, remained. fettered not because of its tack of autonomy from CPIM's politics, but.

because ofCP/M s lack ofautonomyfrom rulmg class parties andpolicies, of whom the CPIM became an agentinjured worker; and payment of mandated wages. This required day-to-day visits to worksites, taking on corruptcontractor-administration nexus by several JNUSU Councillors from AISA and a team of student activists of the This is why ~FI lacked t~e au~onomy to March to Parliament after Com. Chandrashkhar's killing against the UF.

campus as well as concerned faculty members. These consistent struggles fixed the JNU administration's Government rn 1997, whrch enJoyed the vote of the RJD MP who killed ex-JNUSU President Chandrashekhar. ltwas.

institutional responsibility towards workers' rights: this year, 6 committees have been formed, and a NEW post .

lack ~f autonomy from ruling class politics that stopped SFI from restoring deprivation points between 198~93t frpmof labour welfare officer has been created who will be accountable for the functioning of these committees. showrng black fla~s to Manm?ha~ Singh on his JNU visit in 2005, from supporting the workers' struggles in JNU in.

2007, f~om opposrng c~rporatrsat1on of campus spaces by Nestle in 2004, from supporting the struggle against fauiW (The JNUSU President in spite of repeated requests, hardly showed up. He only made a ceremonial appearance.

at a protest demonstration that was called when all the painstaking groundwork had been done by others. Once cut-off m OBC reservatrons between 2008-2010 and for recognition ofmadarsa certificatesin JNU admission In 2007-.

again, the advances in workers' rights won by JNUSU leaders find no mention in DSF's list of achievements.) 08. AISA, on the other hand, was completely autonomous from any compulsion to appease the UF Govt or .

Reviving the Cultural Clubs: After a gap of four years, the cultural clubs in JNU were revived. After the Manmohan Singh, to defend Nestle, or to deny deprivation points or scuttle OBC reservations and Mii~~!i'~intervention ofJNUSU, elections to convenors of various cultural clubs were conducted in March 2013. recognition. And so it was AISA alone that boldly and successfully championed each ofthese issues and struggl~s..

'.

Solidarity Team Against Minority Witch-Hunt: When Khalid Mujahid was killed in police custody in Uttar Today, the DSF is 'free' from CPIM-but even today is it autonomous from ruling class politics and ideology?..

Pradesh in May 2012, JNUSU led a fact-finding team to Lucknow and also participated in the ongoing protests let us ask some simple questions:.

against communal witch-hunting and custodial killings organised by the Rihai Manch in front of the Vidhan .

.

Sabha in Lucknow. Once again, none from DSF in JNUSU ever bothered to join the team. What ensured the silence of the DSF and the JNUSU President from DSF on the arrest of former JNU stui:fent.

Hem Mishra? The DSF in this case has taken a step backwards even from the SFI, which condemned the arrestl.

The above is just a sample of those initiatives and achievements that have found NO MENTION in the list of self-The OSF's silence and JNUSU President's non-participation in the Press Conference in suppor:t of Hem Mishra.

.

claimed achievements by DSF (leaflet dated 30 August). WHY? The DSF does not know of most of these initiatives.

and achievements -because they never worked on these issues! Or is their silence a calculated ploy, on election shows that DSF still isn't 'autonomous' from the ruling class politics of justifying state repression in the name of..

.

curbing 'Maoism.'eve, to accuse AISA of "empty rhetoric'', "sectarianism" and "lack of any constructive initiative to strengthen .

JNUSU"! The DSF sees such hard work for library infrastructure, JNU Press, ensuring workers' rights and relief to PH Why did the DSF and the JNUSU President support the ABVP's campaign of baseless communafframe-up oftheJNUSU General Secretary? Was this the DSF model of 'left unity'? Or was it a sign of their lack of autonomy.

students as non-issues and 'empty rhetoric'! Their attempt to black out these initiatives and achievements for asocially sensitive campus undertaken by AISA and its JNUSU representatives, reflects their sheer lack of social from the politics of minority witch-hunt? Aga-in, in this case, even the SFI did not go to the extent ofsupporting.

commitment. the ABVP's campaign. .

Outside the campus too, we have spearheaded important struggles. In the mass anger·that erupted on the streets of The DSF is 'free' from CPIM today -.yet why is it that it fails to use its autonomy to suppGrt the movements for a ·.

Delhi in December after the gang rape and murder ofa young student, we played an important role in ensuring that separate Telangana and Gorkhaland? Why does DSF continue to toe the CPJM line opposing these movements?freedom for women became a central slogan of the movement -and in the process rebuffing the pervasive rape In fact, it should be noted that while DSF has united with several parties that have broken away from CPIM,Jtculture and victim blaming that promotes sexual violence. In February and March 2013, when the momentum of the has stayed carefully away from the CPRM, which broke from the CPIM on the question of Gorkhaland,! Whereas.

mass outrage against the 161h December incident was petering out, AISA initiated the "Freedom Without Fear" .

the CPRM..

campaign, under which it campaigned extensively in JNU, and also in several colleges in Delhi University to build· the AILC which includes the CPI(Ml), has brought all these parties together on a platform of struggle, incl support against the patriarchal biases and rape culture. Why did DSF and the JNUSU President show complete disinterest and non-engagement in the effortsharassment and exploitation of workers in JNU M .

despite requests from some of the facuJty.

involved in ensuring workers' rights? This time, they cannot blame it on CPIM controt! Why is it .

2 3 .

.

 

Done