PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2012 ID-52813
.
Why did SFI's parent party CPI(M) never implement more than 5-7% OBC reservation in West Bengal? .
SFI's Slander Against CPI(ML) .
Shamefully SF! has resorted to deliberately twisting quotes and facts to tarnish the image of CPI(ML) whose tour decades of heroic struggle for land and social dignity has given the dalits, landless and rural poor in Bihar an unparalleled sense of rights, dignity and assertion against the worst forms of feudal oppressions .. .
SFI has quoted one phrase from a message by CPI(ML) Central Committee at the IPF Rally of 1990, claiming it .
expresses anti-reservation sentiment. Why has SFI omitted to mention that the selfsame speech goes on to say, "We are definitely for reservation ofjobs for dallts andbackwardcastes, "while expressing criticism of the ruling class' .
shrewd moves to divide youth on caste lines by cutting back on employment. The same message also clearly states that "the student-youth agitation has taken a negative turn," observing that students "should have spear-headed their movement not against the scheme of27% reservation for the backwards, butfor the recognition .
of their right to employment." Elsewhere, the CPI(ML) elaborated its critique of VP ~~1_ngh's politics, stating that the Qill1y "took VP Singh to task for his advocacy of 10 per cent reservation for econon7Jcally backwards among upper castes. It firmly held that social and educational backwardness alone can be thE' criterion for reservation." .
(www.cpiml.org/archive/vm swork/28antithesis of caste and class.htm) .
In 1990, why did Prakash Karat of the CPI(M) express a "qualification with respect to OBC reservations", saying that "While the CPI(M) has been supporting the demand for the implementation of tfie Mandai Commission report, it has also been asking for aconsensus to be evolved on the sensitive question... That Is why the Party criticised the sudden announcement (adopting Mandai recommendations) witftout proper consultations. '7 We wonder with whom the CPI(M) was seeking a"consensus" at that juncture-with the BJP and Congress?! .
The SFI has quoted from a TOI story onAISA's victory in JNUSU in 2007. Why has SFI relied on a media report rather on the CPI(ML)'s own documented response to that victory (Liberation December 2007), which clearly states: .
"The mandate for A/SA was also a firm rejection of the Youth for Equality's anti-reservation plank ... The election results are a measure of A/SA's success in rallying students around a plank ofgenuine equality to be achieved by thoroughgoing social transformation, challenging social and economic inequalities and demanding an end to policies ofcommercialisation ofeducation in order to guarantee education and employment for all, while defending reservations against the YFE's elitist plank of 'merit'." .
.
As for SFI's attempt to suggest that former AISA President Kavita Krishnan encj9rses an. <!_nti-reservation sentiment, we advise them to read the same comrade's comprehensive defence of 27% OBC reservCitions and polemic against the YFE at www.cpiml.org/liberation/year 2006/July/reserve des~rve.htm. .
.
.
We also advise SFI to read the CPI(ML)'s 'Resolution on National Situation and Our Tasks' adopted at its 8th Congress in 2007 December: "The fresh attempt to stir up a frenzy against OBC reserv·ations in higher education too could not really gain ground this time, with Mandai-recommended reservations for OBCs in jobs and its logical exten-.
.
.
sion to higher education being a long-settled issue... Our student and youth organisations in particular, must continue .
to expose the elitism inherent in the anti-reservationist slogan of 'equality' and must Cippose attempts by Courts to scuttle the Constitutionally guaranteed right to reservation. (www.cpiml.org/Bth_congress/ resolution_national_situation.html) .
If SF! had even a small measure of honesty, they should have appreciated the efforts ol another Left Group to uphold social justice and should have rallied with the struggle to uphold the High Court verdict agains1 the casteist efforts of the JNU Administartion. Instead, it is so obsessed with anti-AISA-ism that for the first 48 hoyrs after the verdict. It failed even to hail the verdict, instead bringing out posters slandering AISA's 'casteism'! .
On the question of grade point criterion in AC/BoS elections, AI SA appreciated ttwse concerns, as is evident in the AISA's UGBM resolution which clearly stated:"This UGBM demands the JNU administration notify and take all neces-sary steps to hold AC/BoS and GSCASH elections immediately...This UGBM holds that the_ Grade as eligibility criteria .
CCGPA of 5.00 for BoS and 6.00 for AC} for contesting AC/BoS elections is restrictive of the democratic rights of the student community to contest elections. UGBM therefore mandates the student representatives who will get elected to AC and 8oS this year as well as the JNUSU and the larger student comnwnity to struggle to remove these criteria through all forums." Hence, SFI's criticism has no basis. .
Today, after the Delhi High Court verdict, students are asking SFI-"what did SFI do throughout the long struggle against the distorted cut-off criterion? Why did SFI never recognize or struggle against this distortion?" It is in a desperate bid to avoid such questions that SFI is indulging in a shrill vilification of AISA. In so doing, they only seek to belittle the painstaking effort made by AISA along with FDIR and many teachers and intellectuuls on variety of forums over the last two years to achieve this landmark verdict. .
The Administration in cahoots with YFE is shamefully planning every trick to s9mehow unc:Jermine the Delhi HC verdict. It is also seeking every possiqle w~y to deny and restrict student representation and derT1Dcratic opinion. We need the broadest possible unity to defeat these devious ploys. We appeal to all student groups to stop the petty game of slander and to unite to defend the struggle for correct implementation of social justice provisions through every forum. .
Abhishek, Vice-President, AJSA, JNU Vishal, .Jt. Secy., AISA, JNU .
.
PaRCha - JNU - All Organisations - 2012 ID-52813
.
Why did SFI's parent party CPI(M) never implement more than 5-7% OBC reservation in West Bengal? .
SFI's Slander Against CPI(ML) .
Shamefully SF! has resorted to deliberately twisting quotes and facts to tarnish the image of CPI(ML) whose tour decades of heroic struggle for land and social dignity has given the dalits, landless and rural poor in Bihar an unparalleled sense of rights, dignity and assertion against the worst forms of feudal oppressions .. .
SFI has quoted one phrase from a message by CPI(ML) Central Committee at the IPF Rally of 1990, claiming it .
expresses anti-reservation sentiment. Why has SFI omitted to mention that the selfsame speech goes on to say, "We are definitely for reservation ofjobs for dallts andbackwardcastes, "while expressing criticism of the ruling class' .
shrewd moves to divide youth on caste lines by cutting back on employment. The same message also clearly states that "the student-youth agitation has taken a negative turn," observing that students "should have spear-headed their movement not against the scheme of27% reservation for the backwards, butfor the recognition .
of their right to employment." Elsewhere, the CPI(ML) elaborated its critique of VP ~~1_ngh's politics, stating that the Qill1y "took VP Singh to task for his advocacy of 10 per cent reservation for econon7Jcally backwards among upper castes. It firmly held that social and educational backwardness alone can be thE' criterion for reservation." .
(www.cpiml.org/archive/vm swork/28antithesis of caste and class.htm) .
In 1990, why did Prakash Karat of the CPI(M) express a "qualification with respect to OBC reservations", saying that "While the CPI(M) has been supporting the demand for the implementation of tfie Mandai Commission report, it has also been asking for aconsensus to be evolved on the sensitive question... That Is why the Party criticised the sudden announcement (adopting Mandai recommendations) witftout proper consultations. '7 We wonder with whom the CPI(M) was seeking a"consensus" at that juncture-with the BJP and Congress?! .
The SFI has quoted from a TOI story onAISA's victory in JNUSU in 2007. Why has SFI relied on a media report rather on the CPI(ML)'s own documented response to that victory (Liberation December 2007), which clearly states: .
"The mandate for A/SA was also a firm rejection of the Youth for Equality's anti-reservation plank ... The election results are a measure of A/SA's success in rallying students around a plank ofgenuine equality to be achieved by thoroughgoing social transformation, challenging social and economic inequalities and demanding an end to policies ofcommercialisation ofeducation in order to guarantee education and employment for all, while defending reservations against the YFE's elitist plank of 'merit'." .
.
As for SFI's attempt to suggest that former AISA President Kavita Krishnan encj9rses an. <!_nti-reservation sentiment, we advise them to read the same comrade's comprehensive defence of 27% OBC reservCitions and polemic against the YFE at www.cpiml.org/liberation/year 2006/July/reserve des~rve.htm. .
.
.
We also advise SFI to read the CPI(ML)'s 'Resolution on National Situation and Our Tasks' adopted at its 8th Congress in 2007 December: "The fresh attempt to stir up a frenzy against OBC reserv·ations in higher education too could not really gain ground this time, with Mandai-recommended reservations for OBCs in jobs and its logical exten-.
.
.
sion to higher education being a long-settled issue... Our student and youth organisations in particular, must continue .
to expose the elitism inherent in the anti-reservationist slogan of 'equality' and must Cippose attempts by Courts to scuttle the Constitutionally guaranteed right to reservation. (www.cpiml.org/Bth_congress/ resolution_national_situation.html) .
If SF! had even a small measure of honesty, they should have appreciated the efforts ol another Left Group to uphold social justice and should have rallied with the struggle to uphold the High Court verdict agains1 the casteist efforts of the JNU Administartion. Instead, it is so obsessed with anti-AISA-ism that for the first 48 hoyrs after the verdict. It failed even to hail the verdict, instead bringing out posters slandering AISA's 'casteism'! .
On the question of grade point criterion in AC/BoS elections, AI SA appreciated ttwse concerns, as is evident in the AISA's UGBM resolution which clearly stated:"This UGBM demands the JNU administration notify and take all neces-sary steps to hold AC/BoS and GSCASH elections immediately...This UGBM holds that the_ Grade as eligibility criteria .
CCGPA of 5.00 for BoS and 6.00 for AC} for contesting AC/BoS elections is restrictive of the democratic rights of the student community to contest elections. UGBM therefore mandates the student representatives who will get elected to AC and 8oS this year as well as the JNUSU and the larger student comnwnity to struggle to remove these criteria through all forums." Hence, SFI's criticism has no basis. .
Today, after the Delhi High Court verdict, students are asking SFI-"what did SFI do throughout the long struggle against the distorted cut-off criterion? Why did SFI never recognize or struggle against this distortion?" It is in a desperate bid to avoid such questions that SFI is indulging in a shrill vilification of AISA. In so doing, they only seek to belittle the painstaking effort made by AISA along with FDIR and many teachers and intellectuuls on variety of forums over the last two years to achieve this landmark verdict. .
The Administration in cahoots with YFE is shamefully planning every trick to s9mehow unc:Jermine the Delhi HC verdict. It is also seeking every possiqle w~y to deny and restrict student representation and derT1Dcratic opinion. We need the broadest possible unity to defeat these devious ploys. We appeal to all student groups to stop the petty game of slander and to unite to defend the struggle for correct implementation of social justice provisions through every forum. .
Abhishek, Vice-President, AJSA, JNU Vishal, .Jt. Secy., AISA, JNU .
.