PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2011 ID-51191
.
r: .
Assault on Democratic Space in Campuses: Lyngdoh in fostering privatisation and promoting Brahmanism .
'r .
t .
Once thete Bills become legislations, the aim ofthe Indian ruling classes to let the market have a free hand in .
the field ofeducation will be complete. However it ia equally important for the state to ensure that any dissent and retlttance to euch aggrasive privadsadon and promotion ofcertain ideologies, is strictly m onitored, .
of tht.> 11tatc haa been imposed into campus space~ with the mandate ofweakening protests and aggressively pushing controlled, and ifrequired, punished. Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations (LCR) as part of neoliberal policies through privatiaation. Teachers' a11d st:u?en~' uo~ons have been subject to increasing onslaughts lately. The crushing of .
the two year standoff between the Delhi Uruverstty Tea~her's Association (DUTA) and the administration is particularly .
re .
For two ye~OUT~fo~tagainst th~ forceful imposition of 'semester system'. Teachers of .
Delhi University potnted ?ut how tt would mevttably 1~to highly mechanized processes of teaching and learning in a .
instructive in thiJ c~. univenity as big as D U With ~ep teacher-students ra~o. All ~~~h,the university authorities showed complete disdain toward~ the rtWlJ~epre.sentanons ofthe teachers and unpose~ ~ateral~ecisions through manipulative and coercive .
' .
IN!ans. fhe administration even curbed down on the teachers nght to stoke and p.rotest invoking legality and in this way . .
est:~bhshed the anti-student 'semester system'. . .
LCR which JNU bas been battling since 2008 is an instrument in the hands ofthe state to control and regulate .
case Wlth all anti-people pohdes and laws in this country --be it SEZs under the LPG paradigm or AFPSA for 'national ditaent and protest among students. LCR comes with a mask ofensuring election as pee certain guidelines as is the .
security'. Under the garb ofridding the student politics ofcriminal elements what it actually does is to draw the lines .
beyond which students are not supposed to tread. The criterion ofnot having any 'criminal' record, 'charge-sheet' or .
know 111 th!! country not everybody who is charged or brought under the lawis 'criminal'. Often the voices which dare to .
d i$cipli.nacy action as requirements for contesting elections is a clause that can put any draconian law to shame. We all TI quesuon exploit2tion endemic to this sysr:em and stand in solidarity with people demanding democratisation, inclusive .
ea poucica and JJfe ofdignity are the ones that are criminalised. In campuses like JNU, where historically students have been .
of the state and JNU administration. Ofcourse for the state or any university authority right-wing goons intimidating or d..
ill uphoWing all such dcmo~ratic demands and movements, it is anybody's guess as to who would be a 'criminal' in the eyes .
threatening against .6lm screening for being 'anti-India' will never be considered 'criminal'. LCRgives these forces .
0) .
complete cushion through its observation that students must be 'nationalist' and 'integrationist'. However ifyou protest .
S .
UI .
agaut6t fee hike, non-implementation ofreservations, renting out PSR ordare to question what is unfolding in North-.
Ea5t, KashmU;. Gujarat or Khaidanji, you ace bound to be charged by the administration, and ifnecessary, with 'law'. .
ru .
These arc, as the principal of Symbiosis putit, 'matters ofpassionate political opinions' having nothing to do with .
pc.
E, .
.
educauon and d1e lives ofstudents. And for the students who refuse to comply, LCR gives all forms ofpunitive .
p< measures in the hands ofadministrations. The most dangerous clause ofLCR-the Grievance Redressal Cell to be beaded .
.
by the Dean has the power to cancel anyone's candidature for dections and eve.n dissolve an elected students' union .
S\..1 · .
.
th elected by students. .
LCR is not only here to push privadaatioo but also to safeguard hegemonisation of knowledge production by .
In.
w emall minority ofexploitingcastes-classes. For example, LCRdeclares that a student needs to have a certain .
.
pcrct'ntage of marks and attendance or 'good conduct' report by his/her supervisor or a faculty member to contest in .
re .
fit .
.
heann~. But as ithas been seen time and again that students from socially and educationally deprived backgrounds are clec~J{Jns. P~functorilyit seems there is nothing wrong with this clause as it only argues for students concentrating on .
gc thet~ acadenu.cs along with contesting in elections. 'This has indeed also been the logic ofSupreme Court in recent ' Bi wtllfully poorly graded This bas also been amply reflected in the admission policy followed by theJNU administration 6( wlwn· because ofthe high weightage given to the MPhil interview, students from SC/ST or OBC categories, get ~ any form.
'A d1~proportionatelylower marks in their interviews as compared to their written paper. In a system where casteist .biases ~ .
ampant, Buch clauses instead ofensuring academic standard precisely aims at restricting representation of students .
frtJm margifl:~groups in student bodies for voicing their grievances. By such silencing, LCR targe~s to ~st.
pt .
of democrattsatton of campus spaces. By~marks and supervisor's good conduct .recommendation a cotena, what .
N art .
that such sttJC!ents. .
L<;R W211ts to subtly bring in is the logic of mentocracy to protect brahmiaical hegemony in education. For students who .
gl ..
nught have joined education late?ue to several constraints, the age-criterion in LCR sees to the fa~t.
C( .
t( .
will ru:vt·r be able to contest elections or join students, politics. Thus LCR ensures that student pqlittcs and the uruverstty r~ 6ite as a sp~oflearning becomes predominantly the domain ofstudents &om dominant castes/ classes, the.re~y ~er .
VI .
strengtherung and perpetuating the highly undemocratic and elitist higher education system that has been established tn ..
N .
tha country..
h domi~ant caste/class.interests and for foreign and domestic business, LCR is an ideal 'guidelin~' as it.stultifies cnocality .
LCR which is inherently anti-democratic and anti-student needs to be completely rejected and d~feat~..Fo~ .
V1 and sufles ~~~t voiCe~. The unfortunate capitulation of the Joint StnJggle Committee, constrtuted m.2D08 to fight. .
legally and poliucally ag;unst Lyo~oh is a setback for the student movement of]NU· But the fi~t ~st Lyngdoh ts I 1he Struggle Committee calls upon the students to inteiVene in all possible spaces and utilize all available means .
anytlung but over and the Struggle Committee against Lyngdoh, Privatisation and Brahmanism 1s c?.mautted ~o carry on ~.
a .
to re11st Lyngdoh and its larger agenda -privatization and brahmanismin education. Struggle Committee Against Lyngdoh, Privatisation and Brahmanism.
the fi~t. .
~I .
.
PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2011 ID-51191
.
r: .
Assault on Democratic Space in Campuses: Lyngdoh in fostering privatisation and promoting Brahmanism .
'r .
t .
Once thete Bills become legislations, the aim ofthe Indian ruling classes to let the market have a free hand in .
the field ofeducation will be complete. However it ia equally important for the state to ensure that any dissent and retlttance to euch aggrasive privadsadon and promotion ofcertain ideologies, is strictly m onitored, .
of tht.> 11tatc haa been imposed into campus space~ with the mandate ofweakening protests and aggressively pushing controlled, and ifrequired, punished. Lyngdoh Committee Recommendations (LCR) as part of neoliberal policies through privatiaation. Teachers' a11d st:u?en~' uo~ons have been subject to increasing onslaughts lately. The crushing of .
the two year standoff between the Delhi Uruverstty Tea~her's Association (DUTA) and the administration is particularly .
re .
For two ye~OUT~fo~tagainst th~ forceful imposition of 'semester system'. Teachers of .
Delhi University potnted ?ut how tt would mevttably 1~to highly mechanized processes of teaching and learning in a .
instructive in thiJ c~. univenity as big as D U With ~ep teacher-students ra~o. All ~~~h,the university authorities showed complete disdain toward~ the rtWlJ~epre.sentanons ofthe teachers and unpose~ ~ateral~ecisions through manipulative and coercive .
' .
IN!ans. fhe administration even curbed down on the teachers nght to stoke and p.rotest invoking legality and in this way . .
est:~bhshed the anti-student 'semester system'. . .
LCR which JNU bas been battling since 2008 is an instrument in the hands ofthe state to control and regulate .
case Wlth all anti-people pohdes and laws in this country --be it SEZs under the LPG paradigm or AFPSA for 'national ditaent and protest among students. LCR comes with a mask ofensuring election as pee certain guidelines as is the .
security'. Under the garb ofridding the student politics ofcriminal elements what it actually does is to draw the lines .
beyond which students are not supposed to tread. The criterion ofnot having any 'criminal' record, 'charge-sheet' or .
know 111 th!! country not everybody who is charged or brought under the lawis 'criminal'. Often the voices which dare to .
d i$cipli.nacy action as requirements for contesting elections is a clause that can put any draconian law to shame. We all TI quesuon exploit2tion endemic to this sysr:em and stand in solidarity with people demanding democratisation, inclusive .
ea poucica and JJfe ofdignity are the ones that are criminalised. In campuses like JNU, where historically students have been .
of the state and JNU administration. Ofcourse for the state or any university authority right-wing goons intimidating or d..
ill uphoWing all such dcmo~ratic demands and movements, it is anybody's guess as to who would be a 'criminal' in the eyes .
threatening against .6lm screening for being 'anti-India' will never be considered 'criminal'. LCRgives these forces .
0) .
complete cushion through its observation that students must be 'nationalist' and 'integrationist'. However ifyou protest .
S .
UI .
agaut6t fee hike, non-implementation ofreservations, renting out PSR ordare to question what is unfolding in North-.
Ea5t, KashmU;. Gujarat or Khaidanji, you ace bound to be charged by the administration, and ifnecessary, with 'law'. .
ru .
These arc, as the principal of Symbiosis putit, 'matters ofpassionate political opinions' having nothing to do with .
pc.
E, .
.
educauon and d1e lives ofstudents. And for the students who refuse to comply, LCR gives all forms ofpunitive .
p< measures in the hands ofadministrations. The most dangerous clause ofLCR-the Grievance Redressal Cell to be beaded .
.
by the Dean has the power to cancel anyone's candidature for dections and eve.n dissolve an elected students' union .
S\..1 · .
.
th elected by students. .
LCR is not only here to push privadaatioo but also to safeguard hegemonisation of knowledge production by .
In.
w emall minority ofexploitingcastes-classes. For example, LCRdeclares that a student needs to have a certain .
.
pcrct'ntage of marks and attendance or 'good conduct' report by his/her supervisor or a faculty member to contest in .
re .
fit .
.
heann~. But as ithas been seen time and again that students from socially and educationally deprived backgrounds are clec~J{Jns. P~functorilyit seems there is nothing wrong with this clause as it only argues for students concentrating on .
gc thet~ acadenu.cs along with contesting in elections. 'This has indeed also been the logic ofSupreme Court in recent ' Bi wtllfully poorly graded This bas also been amply reflected in the admission policy followed by theJNU administration 6( wlwn· because ofthe high weightage given to the MPhil interview, students from SC/ST or OBC categories, get ~ any form.
'A d1~proportionatelylower marks in their interviews as compared to their written paper. In a system where casteist .biases ~ .
ampant, Buch clauses instead ofensuring academic standard precisely aims at restricting representation of students .
frtJm margifl:~groups in student bodies for voicing their grievances. By such silencing, LCR targe~s to ~st.
pt .
of democrattsatton of campus spaces. By~marks and supervisor's good conduct .recommendation a cotena, what .
N art .
that such sttJC!ents. .
L<;R W211ts to subtly bring in is the logic of mentocracy to protect brahmiaical hegemony in education. For students who .
gl ..
nught have joined education late?ue to several constraints, the age-criterion in LCR sees to the fa~t.
C( .
t( .
will ru:vt·r be able to contest elections or join students, politics. Thus LCR ensures that student pqlittcs and the uruverstty r~ 6ite as a sp~oflearning becomes predominantly the domain ofstudents &om dominant castes/ classes, the.re~y ~er .
VI .
strengtherung and perpetuating the highly undemocratic and elitist higher education system that has been established tn ..
N .
tha country..
h domi~ant caste/class.interests and for foreign and domestic business, LCR is an ideal 'guidelin~' as it.stultifies cnocality .
LCR which is inherently anti-democratic and anti-student needs to be completely rejected and d~feat~..Fo~ .
V1 and sufles ~~~t voiCe~. The unfortunate capitulation of the Joint StnJggle Committee, constrtuted m.2D08 to fight. .
legally and poliucally ag;unst Lyo~oh is a setback for the student movement of]NU· But the fi~t ~st Lyngdoh ts I 1he Struggle Committee calls upon the students to inteiVene in all possible spaces and utilize all available means .
anytlung but over and the Struggle Committee against Lyngdoh, Privatisation and Brahmanism 1s c?.mautted ~o carry on ~.
a .
to re11st Lyngdoh and its larger agenda -privatization and brahmanismin education. Struggle Committee Against Lyngdoh, Privatisation and Brahmanism.
the fi~t. .
~I .
.