PaRCha - JNU - DSU - 2006 ID-58020
.
.
Against ABVP's com -.
a . . munai-Fasctst POII-11-CS.
The recent serial bomb blasts in different .
as an opportunity by the sangh gJroh for irs ;ts ~F Delhi which have targeted and killed aro .
~II are ~pewing venom against the Muslim co~sost pol~tics. Whether it ISBJP, RSS or VHP ouund. 40 people h~s been used t ha; srngled out and Implicated a whole commmu~lty rn the name of fighting 'Islamic Terron~~,e or ABV~ In the campus, ed that the Muslims are behind the bl t unity for these bomb blasts. In its comm II . In a senes of pamphlets cts! ThPir -:.,..__ ... . as s and that their aim is to nnish off all th una Y c~arged propaganda ABVP .
This ~eans.a clear seat cut,. which JNUSU leadership or the admimstration however dechned to acknowledge. .
.
The Academic Coundl dedded this saapping of the prevailing 'offer' system for the 'waitlist' system 1n May. The JNUSU-AISA now daims that in the AC meeting they took a position in favour of the 'offer' system and against the regressive 'waitJist' system pushed by the administration, which was finally adopted by a majority vote. However from the time the issue of seat cut came to the fore until the UGBM the JNUSU-AISA maintained that the previous progressive offer system was illegal and arbitrary. Why did the JNUSU suddenly decide to reveal their 'actual position' on the day of the UGBM itself instead of mobilizing students against the new waitlist system to ensure that the progressive admissions policy remained? Why did they noteven infonn the student community that the progressive admission policy, i.e., offer system was being scrappedby the administration?The next logical step for JNUSU would have been to initiate a timely and united struggle against the administration's moves to do away with the offer system, in which they failed miserably. .
The role of AISA-Ied JNUSU: In April after the Supreme Court decision to reverse the stay on OBC reservations, JNUSU launched an agitation to ensure the implementation of quota in one-go. After a ten-day hunger strike, the AISA~ led JNUSU came back to the student community with a self-proclaimed "great victory" for sodal justice on campus-the administration had under student pressure agreed to full implementation of 27°/o OBC reservation for the coming year. In May, the administration's empty promises revealed themselves to be, as usual, empty. .
The JNUSU, apart from infonning the student community about the phased reservation through one poster did precious little to defend the "victory" of the student community. Regressive administrative decisions always come in the summer when most students are not on campus, be it the rustication of students in 2007 or this year's flawed admission procedure. Yet during the agitation against student rustication, hundreds of students protested. This time as well, JNUSU's responsibility was to inform the student body of the AC's decision, build a consensus and mobilize students to take forward the struggle for full implementation of OBC reservation. In choosing to remain silent the JNUSU has endorsed the scuttling of reservations this year and the implementation of drastic seat cuts. .
However, JNUSU's role was not just of a silent spectator. Through their campaign AISA-Ied JNUSU has served the administration's purpose of confusing most of the students and convindng some through spurious calculations that there has even been a seat increase. For 1nstance, JNUSU calculated the total number of seats offered this year by adding both the first list of unconditionally offered seats .
e non~M· ,c~,~.. ,. ,..r ..r... _ .
and the waiting list, thus coming up with the figure of 2043 for this year as opposed to last year's 2012. .
Suppose in some center 30 seats are offered this year and from the first list 26 students take admission. Through the waiting list 4 students w:u be offered seats to replace the four who did not take admission, but the seats offered remains still at 30. By JNUSU's calculation not 30 but 34 seats were offered in this particular center! JNUSU deliberately misinformed and spread an inflated offer figure of 2043 seats in the student community. In the CESP MA programme alone, at least 25 students were offered admission on .
the waiting list. So this figure of 2043 includes these 25 .
conditional seats and numerous more to bulk up the .
figure and hide AISA's deceitful JX>Iitics. .
Moreover, the functioning of JNUSU-AISA throughout the agitation was highly undemocratic, oordering on dictatorial as was seen during the UGBM. In fact, neither SA nor AISA attempted to build a broader consensus and mobilize students around the crudal issue of reservation. They instead chose to play a game of one-upmanship and launched sectarian struggles. Despite repeated demands for AII-Qrganizabon and Open Meetings, JNUSU-AISA did not pay heed. They called an Emergency Coundl meeting only after the SFI had begun their sectarian hunger strike. The AISA-Ied JNUSU even made a mC'Ckery of the UGBM, the most democratic platform and highest decision-making body of the students. They turned it into a site for the President to arrogantly display his questionable "discretionary" powers. .
.
What is more dangerous is the thorough Internalization by AISA of the language of the anti-reservationist administration, which was on display during and after the UGBM. One of the resolutions placed by SSS AISA coundlors was that '' This UGBM holds that there should be a united struggle underJNUSU's leadership to ensure the fulfillment ofosqsqsr;PHreservation subject to the availability ofeligible candidates so that the anomalies in the present admission process can be remedied'. It was only after a strong JX>int of order raised from the floor that they were forced to remove the 'eligibility' dause. But from what understanding anrl position did this dause come? It speaks the same language as the meritocratic YFE and the anti-reservationist administration. Which sections was AISA trying to appease? .
Another resolution placed by the AISA SSS Councillors: " The house holds that for fulfilling the increased .
intake in the wake ofOBC reservations, a .
properly defined one shot offermethodshould .
be worked outforJNU admissions in the .
forthcoming year, keeping in view the due share .
ofdifferent categories in the admission list" .
.
.
.
.
.
.
PaRCha - JNU - DSU - 2006 ID-58020
.
.
Against ABVP's com -.
a . . munai-Fasctst POII-11-CS.
The recent serial bomb blasts in different .
as an opportunity by the sangh gJroh for irs ;ts ~F Delhi which have targeted and killed aro .
~II are ~pewing venom against the Muslim co~sost pol~tics. Whether it ISBJP, RSS or VHP ouund. 40 people h~s been used t ha; srngled out and Implicated a whole commmu~lty rn the name of fighting 'Islamic Terron~~,e or ABV~ In the campus, ed that the Muslims are behind the bl t unity for these bomb blasts. In its comm II . In a senes of pamphlets cts! ThPir -:.,..__ ... . as s and that their aim is to nnish off all th una Y c~arged propaganda ABVP .
This ~eans.a clear seat cut,. which JNUSU leadership or the admimstration however dechned to acknowledge. .
.
The Academic Coundl dedded this saapping of the prevailing 'offer' system for the 'waitlist' system 1n May. The JNUSU-AISA now daims that in the AC meeting they took a position in favour of the 'offer' system and against the regressive 'waitJist' system pushed by the administration, which was finally adopted by a majority vote. However from the time the issue of seat cut came to the fore until the UGBM the JNUSU-AISA maintained that the previous progressive offer system was illegal and arbitrary. Why did the JNUSU suddenly decide to reveal their 'actual position' on the day of the UGBM itself instead of mobilizing students against the new waitlist system to ensure that the progressive admissions policy remained? Why did they noteven infonn the student community that the progressive admission policy, i.e., offer system was being scrappedby the administration?The next logical step for JNUSU would have been to initiate a timely and united struggle against the administration's moves to do away with the offer system, in which they failed miserably. .
The role of AISA-Ied JNUSU: In April after the Supreme Court decision to reverse the stay on OBC reservations, JNUSU launched an agitation to ensure the implementation of quota in one-go. After a ten-day hunger strike, the AISA~ led JNUSU came back to the student community with a self-proclaimed "great victory" for sodal justice on campus-the administration had under student pressure agreed to full implementation of 27°/o OBC reservation for the coming year. In May, the administration's empty promises revealed themselves to be, as usual, empty. .
The JNUSU, apart from infonning the student community about the phased reservation through one poster did precious little to defend the "victory" of the student community. Regressive administrative decisions always come in the summer when most students are not on campus, be it the rustication of students in 2007 or this year's flawed admission procedure. Yet during the agitation against student rustication, hundreds of students protested. This time as well, JNUSU's responsibility was to inform the student body of the AC's decision, build a consensus and mobilize students to take forward the struggle for full implementation of OBC reservation. In choosing to remain silent the JNUSU has endorsed the scuttling of reservations this year and the implementation of drastic seat cuts. .
However, JNUSU's role was not just of a silent spectator. Through their campaign AISA-Ied JNUSU has served the administration's purpose of confusing most of the students and convindng some through spurious calculations that there has even been a seat increase. For 1nstance, JNUSU calculated the total number of seats offered this year by adding both the first list of unconditionally offered seats .
e non~M· ,c~,~.. ,. ,..r ..r... _ .
and the waiting list, thus coming up with the figure of 2043 for this year as opposed to last year's 2012. .
Suppose in some center 30 seats are offered this year and from the first list 26 students take admission. Through the waiting list 4 students w:u be offered seats to replace the four who did not take admission, but the seats offered remains still at 30. By JNUSU's calculation not 30 but 34 seats were offered in this particular center! JNUSU deliberately misinformed and spread an inflated offer figure of 2043 seats in the student community. In the CESP MA programme alone, at least 25 students were offered admission on .
the waiting list. So this figure of 2043 includes these 25 .
conditional seats and numerous more to bulk up the .
figure and hide AISA's deceitful JX>Iitics. .
Moreover, the functioning of JNUSU-AISA throughout the agitation was highly undemocratic, oordering on dictatorial as was seen during the UGBM. In fact, neither SA nor AISA attempted to build a broader consensus and mobilize students around the crudal issue of reservation. They instead chose to play a game of one-upmanship and launched sectarian struggles. Despite repeated demands for AII-Qrganizabon and Open Meetings, JNUSU-AISA did not pay heed. They called an Emergency Coundl meeting only after the SFI had begun their sectarian hunger strike. The AISA-Ied JNUSU even made a mC'Ckery of the UGBM, the most democratic platform and highest decision-making body of the students. They turned it into a site for the President to arrogantly display his questionable "discretionary" powers. .
.
What is more dangerous is the thorough Internalization by AISA of the language of the anti-reservationist administration, which was on display during and after the UGBM. One of the resolutions placed by SSS AISA coundlors was that '' This UGBM holds that there should be a united struggle underJNUSU's leadership to ensure the fulfillment ofosqsqsr;PHreservation subject to the availability ofeligible candidates so that the anomalies in the present admission process can be remedied'. It was only after a strong JX>int of order raised from the floor that they were forced to remove the 'eligibility' dause. But from what understanding anrl position did this dause come? It speaks the same language as the meritocratic YFE and the anti-reservationist administration. Which sections was AISA trying to appease? .
Another resolution placed by the AISA SSS Councillors: " The house holds that for fulfilling the increased .
intake in the wake ofOBC reservations, a .
properly defined one shot offermethodshould .
be worked outforJNU admissions in the .
forthcoming year, keeping in view the due share .
ofdifferent categories in the admission list" .
.
.
.
.
.
.