PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2007 ID-46047
.
6 .
Defeat the politics of numbers and rhetoricI .
kthe politics of reaction and comoromiser.
·s .
No Compromise on 21o/o OBC Reservation! .
\\'r-.
lntensitv the Struggle against the Regressive Admission Policv! .
Today the administration dismissed the JNUSU's offer for dialogue, and did not even recognise that th"'re h'l~ .
ail know it very well that the JNU administration Is a anti-student, anti-democratic, casteist and regre551ve .
been violations in the implementation of OBC reservation and reduction of seats In this year's admisc;ir ,... force on the campus. The progressive student movement of JNU has a long history of confronting the education. We are also aware that the tradition of subverting and manipulating the democratic institutions such as the JNUSU, GBMs, UGBMs and All Organisation Meetings to serve partisan organisational interests has .
administration for its democratic rights, to create a democratic space, and to establish a democratic .
most democratic forum of the students where students have a right to speak and be heard by other students. .
It is the highest decision making body, where the student community collectively sets an agenda and .
deliberates on the demands to be taken forward In struggle by the student movement in JNU, irrespective of been well-established by SFI. We notice that it is now being ably carried forward by AISA. The UGBM is the .
WE All KNOW SFI'S 'GLORIOUS HISTORY' OF OPPORTUNISM: SFI's undemocratic functioning, and 'leader's' wishes or interests to the contrary. .
working as the lackeys of administration while in JNUSU leadership, Is well known. In March 2007, the SFI-Ied .
JNUSU leadership Infamously scuttled one UGBM, and then ran away from the second when Its own .
resolutions got rejected by the student community. At that time AISA claimed to be at the forefront against .
such anti-democratic and anti-student functioning of SFI-Ied JNUSU. However, AISA-Ied JNUSU and .
particularly the President have proved themselves to be proud inheritors of this legacy of SFI. The 'radical', .
'democratic' posturing of the JNUSU leadership and AISA was thoroughly exposed before the student .
.
WAS THIS UGBM ANY BETTER? The AISA-Ied JNUSU's undemocratic approach towards the UGBM was very community at the last UGBM. .
clear from even before it began. To start with, the JNUSU leadership questioned the need for an UGBM. The .
poster announcing the UGBM was inexplicably small and invisible, displaying the lack of .
ensured that the day scholars are kept completely out of the UGBM. The similarity of AISA with SFI in .
seriousness. Moreover, ad-block was chosen as a venue to ensure that majority of the students .
would not come and participate in the debate throughout the night. The time of the UGBM also In front of JNUSU Office! Now when AISA claims that 800 students participated in the UGBM, Its lies are for all attempting to limit student partrcipation In the UGBMs is striking. For example, SF! called the UGBM last year to see; the number of students voting in favour, agajnst, and abstained totals not even 600 and we all know .
give to each speaker, how much time each speaker can take etc. are at the president's discretion. In this how students are herded in the last minute during the voting! JNUSU should admit that it was the most ooorly .
attended UGBM In the recent past. In principle, certain technicalities such as deciding on how many calls to .
UGBM, however, the JNUSU president openly MISUSED his "discretion" at several points to serve .
partisan interests, in not allowing students to put forward many resolutions and in forcing a vote .
on resolutions which were placed by his own organization and to which the students sought .
cla,rifications that were never given. He started flaunting his highly biased 'discretionary' power by .
There were two important resolutions forwarded by DSU, which thanks to the 'discretion' of the .
allowing his own organization AISA to distribute pamphlets (containing new sets of false and confusing data) .
In the venue of the UGBM, completely flouting the conventions of UGBM and JNUSU. .
president were not even placed, forget about putting it to vote. One was on the crucial issue of retaining the deprivation points for the OBC students till the 27% reservation quota Is fulfilled, and the second on restoring the 'offer' system next year to ensure that there is no reduction of seats. The JNUSU president similar to resolutions which had been placed earlier. It was a lie, as these resolutions differed fundamentally did not even read the two resolutions, first claiming to have "lost" them, and then when he was given the from the earlier resolution placed by AISA activists. To what extent does the President's discretion go? Does second time, he claimed "ye padhne ke /ayak nahin hal" ("It's not worthy to be read"), and that they were resolution when he was forced to read It In front of the house. This Is an unprecedented misuse of power. he or she have the right to dismiss resolutions on some spurious grounds? He went so far as to tearing a .
Discretion, we might remind the JNUSU office bearers, leads to authoritarianism if it does not respect the Clearly the JNUSU president and his cronies did not want the students to take position on these issues. .
ANP A CLOSE LOOK AT THEIR RESOLUTIONS REVEALS A LOT: It seems that AISA has thoroughly minimum essence of democratic practices. .
internalized the language of the antl-reservatlonist administration, which has been very much on display during and after the UGBM. One of the resolutions placed by SSS AISA councilors was that "This UGBM holds that there should be a united struggle under JNUSU's leadership to ensure the fulfillment of OBC/SC/ST/PH .
.
PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2007 ID-46047
.
6 .
Defeat the politics of numbers and rhetoricI .
kthe politics of reaction and comoromiser.
·s .
No Compromise on 21o/o OBC Reservation! .
\\'r-.
lntensitv the Struggle against the Regressive Admission Policv! .
Today the administration dismissed the JNUSU's offer for dialogue, and did not even recognise that th"'re h'l~ .
ail know it very well that the JNU administration Is a anti-student, anti-democratic, casteist and regre551ve .
been violations in the implementation of OBC reservation and reduction of seats In this year's admisc;ir ,... force on the campus. The progressive student movement of JNU has a long history of confronting the education. We are also aware that the tradition of subverting and manipulating the democratic institutions such as the JNUSU, GBMs, UGBMs and All Organisation Meetings to serve partisan organisational interests has .
administration for its democratic rights, to create a democratic space, and to establish a democratic .
most democratic forum of the students where students have a right to speak and be heard by other students. .
It is the highest decision making body, where the student community collectively sets an agenda and .
deliberates on the demands to be taken forward In struggle by the student movement in JNU, irrespective of been well-established by SFI. We notice that it is now being ably carried forward by AISA. The UGBM is the .
WE All KNOW SFI'S 'GLORIOUS HISTORY' OF OPPORTUNISM: SFI's undemocratic functioning, and 'leader's' wishes or interests to the contrary. .
working as the lackeys of administration while in JNUSU leadership, Is well known. In March 2007, the SFI-Ied .
JNUSU leadership Infamously scuttled one UGBM, and then ran away from the second when Its own .
resolutions got rejected by the student community. At that time AISA claimed to be at the forefront against .
such anti-democratic and anti-student functioning of SFI-Ied JNUSU. However, AISA-Ied JNUSU and .
particularly the President have proved themselves to be proud inheritors of this legacy of SFI. The 'radical', .
'democratic' posturing of the JNUSU leadership and AISA was thoroughly exposed before the student .
.
WAS THIS UGBM ANY BETTER? The AISA-Ied JNUSU's undemocratic approach towards the UGBM was very community at the last UGBM. .
clear from even before it began. To start with, the JNUSU leadership questioned the need for an UGBM. The .
poster announcing the UGBM was inexplicably small and invisible, displaying the lack of .
ensured that the day scholars are kept completely out of the UGBM. The similarity of AISA with SFI in .
seriousness. Moreover, ad-block was chosen as a venue to ensure that majority of the students .
would not come and participate in the debate throughout the night. The time of the UGBM also In front of JNUSU Office! Now when AISA claims that 800 students participated in the UGBM, Its lies are for all attempting to limit student partrcipation In the UGBMs is striking. For example, SF! called the UGBM last year to see; the number of students voting in favour, agajnst, and abstained totals not even 600 and we all know .
give to each speaker, how much time each speaker can take etc. are at the president's discretion. In this how students are herded in the last minute during the voting! JNUSU should admit that it was the most ooorly .
attended UGBM In the recent past. In principle, certain technicalities such as deciding on how many calls to .
UGBM, however, the JNUSU president openly MISUSED his "discretion" at several points to serve .
partisan interests, in not allowing students to put forward many resolutions and in forcing a vote .
on resolutions which were placed by his own organization and to which the students sought .
cla,rifications that were never given. He started flaunting his highly biased 'discretionary' power by .
There were two important resolutions forwarded by DSU, which thanks to the 'discretion' of the .
allowing his own organization AISA to distribute pamphlets (containing new sets of false and confusing data) .
In the venue of the UGBM, completely flouting the conventions of UGBM and JNUSU. .
president were not even placed, forget about putting it to vote. One was on the crucial issue of retaining the deprivation points for the OBC students till the 27% reservation quota Is fulfilled, and the second on restoring the 'offer' system next year to ensure that there is no reduction of seats. The JNUSU president similar to resolutions which had been placed earlier. It was a lie, as these resolutions differed fundamentally did not even read the two resolutions, first claiming to have "lost" them, and then when he was given the from the earlier resolution placed by AISA activists. To what extent does the President's discretion go? Does second time, he claimed "ye padhne ke /ayak nahin hal" ("It's not worthy to be read"), and that they were resolution when he was forced to read It In front of the house. This Is an unprecedented misuse of power. he or she have the right to dismiss resolutions on some spurious grounds? He went so far as to tearing a .
Discretion, we might remind the JNUSU office bearers, leads to authoritarianism if it does not respect the Clearly the JNUSU president and his cronies did not want the students to take position on these issues. .
ANP A CLOSE LOOK AT THEIR RESOLUTIONS REVEALS A LOT: It seems that AISA has thoroughly minimum essence of democratic practices. .
internalized the language of the antl-reservatlonist administration, which has been very much on display during and after the UGBM. One of the resolutions placed by SSS AISA councilors was that "This UGBM holds that there should be a united struggle under JNUSU's leadership to ensure the fulfillment of OBC/SC/ST/PH .
.