PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2009 ID-24218
.
.
An Appeal to JNU Faculty for Support and Solidarity in JNUSUs Ongoing Struggle .
We are issuing this appeal on behalf of the student community to our faculty members at a time when the JNU Administration has rusticated and declared out-of-bounds three Office Bearers of the JNUSU as well as two other student activists who were part of a JNUSU-led protest. .
You must be aware by now that this situation is the outcome of an agitation in which the entire student community has been participating for over a month. We have repeatedly stated that there is a need for open and democratic dialogue on the part of all sections of the university community, as well as coordination between students, karamcharis and teachers. The present impasse is an unfortunate situation that has arisen where protest actions by the student community are met with unqualified repression on the part of the JNU Administration. But even at this juncture, we would reiterate the need for genuine dialogue, which has been a marker of the democratic culture of the university, and we believe that the teaching community has always played a vital role in initiating such dialogue. .
.
We would also appeal to you for support and solidarity in JNUSUs ongoing struggle against commercialisation and the anti-democratic moves of the JNU Administration. .
Who is responsible for the breakdown of dialogue? .
It has been several months now since the Supreme Court stay order on the JNUSU elections for non-compliance with the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations. Since the matter is still proceeding in court, as an interim measure, the students of JNU, in compliance with the provisions of the JNUSU Constitution, in a massive UGBM extended the tenure of the incumbent JNUSU. To all intents and purposes, therefore, this JNUSU continues to represent the legitimate aspirations of the student community and is duty-bound to struggle for them. The JNU Administration, however, has chosen to use the Supreme Court stay order as an opportunity to bypass the student union and the larger student community in all decision-making bodies and procedures. This has led to a tremendous sense of anger among the student community. .
What made it worse was the fact that the administration took several steps and policy decisions, of direct concern to the student community, without consulting the student body or student representatives in any way: .
.
This was seen in the increase in the fee of the JNU Prospectus by 67% (by passing Standing Committee on Admissions), a move which JNUSU has been arguing, would deter students from deprived backgrounds from applying to JNU. .
.
.
A circular issued by the PRO allowed the ecologically-sensitive area of Parthasarathy Rock to be made available for the shooting of films and advertisements on a commercial basis (bypassing the CDC and ETF). Worse, the entire area around PSR has been razed and trees have been cut, and the administration was not able to show any proof that it got this sanctioned by the Environmental Task Force. .
.
.
This administration has also been reneging on its earlier commitments to JNUSU, even agreements in writing! Thus, last year after JNUSU pointed out several anomalies in the admission process, the administration agreed to set up a committee to examine the modalities of implementing OBC reservation, but this committee is said to have met only once and that too without any student participation. Similar is the case with their repeated deviations from their own commitment regarding the deadline of allotment of Koyena Hostel, even when hundreds of students are still waiting after the lapse one and a half semesters. .
.
.
Even greater distress was caused by the fact that the administration unilaterally decided to install individual electric meters for each room in the upcoming Koena Hostel (bypassing IHA etc) with the stated intention of making students pay for the electricity that they consume. .
.
.
On all these issues, JNUSU organized several protest actions which were marked by historic and unprecedented participation by the student community. Following the demonstration of over 1500 students, there was a partial dialogue, which was left inconclusive by the administration. On 11 Feb we were issued open threats of dire consequences if we do not withdraw our agitation. JNU is after all a University: cant the student community expect open, informed, reasoned dialogue based on data and facts and accommodation of our demands? .
Why did the administration shirk this responsibility and instead issue threats? Even when faced with such provocation, JNUSU did not succumb to pressure and allow the movement to spiral out of control. However, the administration alternated between threatening the students, repeated vacillation and back-tracking on its commitments, as well as occasional, inconclusive dialogue. .
The (Il)logic of Punitive Action .
Eventually, the JNU administration conceded that it would withdraw the circular on the commercial use of the PSR area and also stated that it would not levy user charges from students. While these measures represent an advance of the student movement, many issues remain unresolved given the administrations insensitive and piecemeal approach to solving problems. On the issue of rolling back the price of the Prospectus, the JNU Administration, in three long days of negotiations, entirely failed to respond to the logical, rational arguments and issues raised by JNUSU. After more than 15 days of protest, two meetings of the Standing Committee on Admissions were convened on 19-20 Feb., but far from seriously debating or reviewing the hike, these meetings were used only to ratify the increase [which till then had not been discussed in any of JNUs decision-making forum]. Instead, to maintain the pretence of being pro-poor, the VC all of a sudden introduced a clause that applicants from Below Poverty Line [BPL] .
.
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - AISA material - 2009 ID-24218
.
.
An Appeal to JNU Faculty for Support and Solidarity in JNUSUs Ongoing Struggle .
We are issuing this appeal on behalf of the student community to our faculty members at a time when the JNU Administration has rusticated and declared out-of-bounds three Office Bearers of the JNUSU as well as two other student activists who were part of a JNUSU-led protest. .
You must be aware by now that this situation is the outcome of an agitation in which the entire student community has been participating for over a month. We have repeatedly stated that there is a need for open and democratic dialogue on the part of all sections of the university community, as well as coordination between students, karamcharis and teachers. The present impasse is an unfortunate situation that has arisen where protest actions by the student community are met with unqualified repression on the part of the JNU Administration. But even at this juncture, we would reiterate the need for genuine dialogue, which has been a marker of the democratic culture of the university, and we believe that the teaching community has always played a vital role in initiating such dialogue. .
.
We would also appeal to you for support and solidarity in JNUSUs ongoing struggle against commercialisation and the anti-democratic moves of the JNU Administration. .
Who is responsible for the breakdown of dialogue? .
It has been several months now since the Supreme Court stay order on the JNUSU elections for non-compliance with the Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations. Since the matter is still proceeding in court, as an interim measure, the students of JNU, in compliance with the provisions of the JNUSU Constitution, in a massive UGBM extended the tenure of the incumbent JNUSU. To all intents and purposes, therefore, this JNUSU continues to represent the legitimate aspirations of the student community and is duty-bound to struggle for them. The JNU Administration, however, has chosen to use the Supreme Court stay order as an opportunity to bypass the student union and the larger student community in all decision-making bodies and procedures. This has led to a tremendous sense of anger among the student community. .
What made it worse was the fact that the administration took several steps and policy decisions, of direct concern to the student community, without consulting the student body or student representatives in any way: .
.
This was seen in the increase in the fee of the JNU Prospectus by 67% (by passing Standing Committee on Admissions), a move which JNUSU has been arguing, would deter students from deprived backgrounds from applying to JNU. .
.
.
A circular issued by the PRO allowed the ecologically-sensitive area of Parthasarathy Rock to be made available for the shooting of films and advertisements on a commercial basis (bypassing the CDC and ETF). Worse, the entire area around PSR has been razed and trees have been cut, and the administration was not able to show any proof that it got this sanctioned by the Environmental Task Force. .
.
.
This administration has also been reneging on its earlier commitments to JNUSU, even agreements in writing! Thus, last year after JNUSU pointed out several anomalies in the admission process, the administration agreed to set up a committee to examine the modalities of implementing OBC reservation, but this committee is said to have met only once and that too without any student participation. Similar is the case with their repeated deviations from their own commitment regarding the deadline of allotment of Koyena Hostel, even when hundreds of students are still waiting after the lapse one and a half semesters. .
.
.
Even greater distress was caused by the fact that the administration unilaterally decided to install individual electric meters for each room in the upcoming Koena Hostel (bypassing IHA etc) with the stated intention of making students pay for the electricity that they consume. .
.
.
On all these issues, JNUSU organized several protest actions which were marked by historic and unprecedented participation by the student community. Following the demonstration of over 1500 students, there was a partial dialogue, which was left inconclusive by the administration. On 11 Feb we were issued open threats of dire consequences if we do not withdraw our agitation. JNU is after all a University: cant the student community expect open, informed, reasoned dialogue based on data and facts and accommodation of our demands? .
Why did the administration shirk this responsibility and instead issue threats? Even when faced with such provocation, JNUSU did not succumb to pressure and allow the movement to spiral out of control. However, the administration alternated between threatening the students, repeated vacillation and back-tracking on its commitments, as well as occasional, inconclusive dialogue. .
The (Il)logic of Punitive Action .
Eventually, the JNU administration conceded that it would withdraw the circular on the commercial use of the PSR area and also stated that it would not levy user charges from students. While these measures represent an advance of the student movement, many issues remain unresolved given the administrations insensitive and piecemeal approach to solving problems. On the issue of rolling back the price of the Prospectus, the JNU Administration, in three long days of negotiations, entirely failed to respond to the logical, rational arguments and issues raised by JNUSU. After more than 15 days of protest, two meetings of the Standing Committee on Admissions were convened on 19-20 Feb., but far from seriously debating or reviewing the hike, these meetings were used only to ratify the increase [which till then had not been discussed in any of JNUs decision-making forum]. Instead, to maintain the pretence of being pro-poor, the VC all of a sudden introduced a clause that applicants from Below Poverty Line [BPL] .
.
.
.